http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...hecks-too.html

I can't wait until the TSA takes this over and starts to use the "Your luggage is too big, go check it..." excuse as punishment when someone fails to respect their authoritah. I have no doubt that each employee will be empowered to refuse any piece of luggage for any reason he/she sees fit.

Mike

This bill was introduced by Rep. Dan Lipinksi, D-IL.

Chicago voters please remember this name and get rid of this person during the next primaries or, failing that, in the general election.

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA Supports Carry-on Limitation Bill

Washington, DC - The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) today announced support for a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) that seeks to set one enforceable standard for all bags carried onboard U.S. commercial aircraft. The Securing Carry-On Baggage Act, H.R. 2870, would create a universal size requirement for carry-on bags instead of allowing each carrier to determine its own size requirements. The bill also requires that restrictions be enforced at screening locations through use of a template.

"We applaud Representative Lipinski for his strong leadership on this issue and for his responsiveness to our members' pleas for help in fixing this exploding problem. The lack of uniformity in carrier programs and effective enforcement makes carry-on baggage a multi-faceted problem onboard aircraft today," said Patricia Friend, AFA-CWA International President. "Current programs to control the weight, size, number and contents of carry-on bags are inconsistent, inadequate, confusing and outdated. Passengers must navigate a maze of carry-on baggage programs that differ at each airline while flight attendants continue to have to settle overhead bin disputes and are often times injured by items that do not meet current guidelines."

Current standards for carry-on baggage were established more than a decade ago when passengers brought far fewer items on board with them. Checked baggage fees, implemented by airline management recently, have drastically increased the amount of luggage being brought into the aircraft cabin. The revised guidelines will expedite the security screening and boarding processes and ultimately result in fewer delays.

The proposed bill would allow items 22 inches by 18 inches by 10 inches or smaller in the aircraft cabin. The bill also requires that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) install and utilize a template with depth and width limitations that would prevent items that exceed the prescribed dimensions from passing through the conveyor belt.

For over 60 years, the Association of Flight Attendants has been serving as the voice for flight attendants in the workplace, in the aviation industry, in the media and on Capitol Hill. More than 50,000 flight attendants at 20 airlines come together to form AFA-CWA, the world's largest flight attendant union. AFA is part of the 700,000-member strong Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO

I don't think that word means what you think it means. ;)

Giving TSA one more thing to do at the checkpoint (when they're still, for instance, trying to cope with all them tricky IDs) is a guarantee of longer, slower lines at checkpoints.

Inconceivable! ;)

I think the logic behind the argument is as follows. If passengers know that they're really going to have to follow the "one-plus" rule, then the most obnoxious violators of that rule will have to start checking bags, thereby reducing the number of bags brought through security. And having to process fewer bags will, hopefully, allow the screening of bags to proceed faster than it is now.

Having said that, I'm not sure that I want TSA doing this. Enforcing the size and number of carry-on bags seems marginally related, at best, to TSA's core mission of protecting the nation's transportation systems.

Testosterone is the problem.

Double orchidectomies are the solution.

(This smiley deliberately left out)

Well, duh, of course they do. (no offense, Steve).

Keeps the airline and FA from being the bad guys. It's much easier to say it's the government that's making you pay to check that bag. Revenue without repercussion.

I'm not saying I like the crush of carryons -- but the TSA is the last party I want to give more power and scope creep to.

Stupid proposal.

Oh wow. I just puked in my mouth a little. I seem to be doing that more and more in response to civil liberty eroding news lately.

Land of the Free? Are we really at the point where we have a damn law governing the bags we can take on transportation provided by a privately owned firm? This has to be a joke.

Just because you don't like waiting in line at security because some bozo is loading his 18 carry-ons on the belt doesn't mean the government has to get involved. The Founding Fathers did not say, "Hey!!! Let's create a system of government whereby the people can legislate their way to an annoyance free existence!" I get angry when people take more than 10 items in the express line at the grocery store (those 2 times a year I actually enjoy the luxuries of being home long enough to justify groceries), but I sure don't want to see a law passed that express checkout lines are universally limited to 10 items.

Let me say it again clearly for all those out there that seem to have forgotten civics. Government is not here to legislate every single annoyance in or impact on your life. Sure carry-on bags can be a problem at the airport. Get over it or write a letter to the airline. Just like the 1,850 things that annoy and/or impact me everyday, you too can just move on. Do not impact my right to make a deal with American Airlines to bring 15 bag with me on my next flight. They are a privately owned company and I am a private citizen. Government has no part in this equation.

This is like living science fiction. Seriously.

And, well, the rule doesn't apply to them. Just like the war on water.

This kind of crap is why unions have a bad name.

Does anyone know which organizations are trying to combat this bill? I'd like to volunteer some time and effort to help them defeat it.

I'd send an email to this jacka$$ politician, but I'm not in his district, so his office won't care.

There has to be some group out there gearing up to fight this stupidity.

You can still write your Congress-critters and let them know your feelings on the bill.

While sitting in the hotel here in Tampa, found that the Bill is currently in the House Subcommittee for Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection. The members of that Subcommittee are:

1. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas, Chairwoman
2. Peter DeFazio, Oregon
3. Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania (Ranking Member)
4. Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia
5. Daniel E. Lungren, California
6. Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona
7. Pete Olson, Texas
8. Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico
9. Candice S. Miller, Michigan
10. Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
11. Steve Austria, Ohio
12. James A. Himes, Connecticut
13. Peter T. King, New York (Ex Officio)
14. Eric J. J. Massa, New York
15. Dina Titus, Nevada
16. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex Officio)

???
 

It's obvious you don't travel very much cause if you did there is NO way you would endorse the TSA doing anything more. As a matter of fact you be wanting to dis-band the TSA & hand the job over to trained LEO's. NEVER have I seen such incompetence & stupidity as in the TSA.

Think I am kidding? Do a survey of business owners & ask them how many of them would hire anyone they ever encountered that work for the TSA...

I'm tellin' ya, it's coming. Last week in Detroit an apparently new driver managed to blow up a bridge on a major artery. They are probably rapidly clipping the Detriot News articles now so they'll be prepared when they issue the next SD to include the requirement for pre-clearance to the grocery store in the mom-mobile.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...RO02/907170379

I fired off a couple emails tonight, including a scathing one to the moron Lipinksi himself, and yes - I outright accused him of accepting campaign 'bribes' in exchange for this legislation as a tool to boost checked bag fee revenue, the cost of which United just conveniently increased.

I would like to find evidence that he accepted contributions from either United or another major air carrier during the past 1-2 years - and then I would like to petition the House Ethics Committee to review the connection between these contributions and legislation designed to enrich the contributor at the expense of the public to see if any laws were violated.