Not only that. But the flight attendants fill up half the first class section with their stuff�

All animals are equal, but some more than others?

The best cure is to eliminate the zones like it used to be. Don't remember any problems then

And because it does happen that you get stuck spending the night when your flight gets cancelled, clothes and toiletries for an overnight.

It is as long as the airlines refuse to accept liability for it if it is checked. Checking camera equipment or electronic items is NOT currently an option, as it WILL be stolen.

Now, the airlines could change that situation if they wished. I can think of one high-value item that not only is frequently checked but in fact MUST be checked: firearms. Funny how those rarely go missing, even though they are quite desirable to thieves. But then the government gets a bit upset when an airline passenger reports his guns were stolen from his checked baggage...

I'd have two sizers: one for the personal item (free) and one for the paid carryon ($50). Any item brought on board would have to fit in one or the other sizer (with the possible exception of thin, flat items such as a picture - that could be exempt from the sizer rule provided it was small enough that it could be laid flat in the overhead bin). Anything that didn't fit would need to be checked. No more than two items allowed per passenger, and only one of those could be carryon size. Medical devices would be exempt, and so would assistive devices such as canes or crutches. Waiver of the carryon fee could be one of the elite benefits.

Infrequent flyers would be delighted to have their free checked bag back, and they'd be unlikely to take a carryon onto the plane if it's costing them money. Folks who really need or want a carryon would be happy, too; even if they were in the last boarding group, there would be room in the overhead bins for their bags. The airlines would have faster boarding and more timely departures, as fewer people would holding things up by struggling to find a place for their stuff. What's not to like?

This is my bottom line - As long as the airline will not bear liability for my valuable photography gear while it is in THEIR control, I will refuse to allow it to ever be in their control. As I said previously, insuring that I get a bin to put my photo gear (my photographic travel kit is typically worth on the order of $2500-3000 or so) is the only rationale that I would ever justify seeking an advantaged boarding position - because the airlines leave me no other way to insure that this gear is protected from theft during a flight.

If the airline wants to make me observe their boarding rules, they owe me either a guaranteed bin space in the cabin for a significant value item, or the acceptance of full financial liability for these items if my gear must travel in the baggage hold. And sorry, I can't fit all of this gear - as well as other necessities, in my personal item.

I'm willing to pay a reasonable adder for that liability insurance - say a few $ per $1000 of over-value vs. the standard liability on a ticket. But to my knowledge, the airlines do not offer this - because they know full well that the path to and from the baggage hold is far from secure for valuable items. Hence, I need to make sure I get a bin in the cabin for my photo gear.

I've downsized from a DSLR to a mirrorless system in order to reduce the volume of my camera gear for travel, and my camera kit now fits nicely under the seat. But I still need a second carryon for my wallet, keys, medications, change of clothes, etc., even if I am checking a bag (which I usually don't - I know how to pack light).

Am I willing to pay for my second bag? Of course! In fact, I already am - I have both the United and American cobranded credit cards, and the card feature I most value is the guaranteed group 1 boarding each card offers. I pay $190/year to insure I'll always get on the plane before the overhead bins are stuffed full. I'm sure there are plenty of other folks who need or want to travel with valuables that should never be checked, but who aren't willing to restrict themselves to a single airline, who'd happily pay a sizable fee to ensure their valuable items are never forcably gate-checked.

I'm married to a camera guy with the big DSLR and lens collection that he will never ever check for theft concerns. And downsizing for a trip doesn't work because even our vacation photos end up getting used in his teaching materials, so he needs to bring the darn macro because he just might get something for classroom use or that he can sell.

I use just about exclusively Mirrorless gear nowadays. Depending upon what I'm shooting, I either travel with a Nikon 1 V2 outfit - mainly for shooting birds and wildlife, or Micro 4/3 (either an E-M1 or E-PL5) for shooting just about everything else. But my Nikon 1 outfit still involves bringing a long telephoto (a 70-300mm DSLR lens - which becomes a 190-810mm FF equivalent on Nikon 1), as well as 4 much smaller lenses, and my Micro 4/3 outfit generally involves 5 lenses, which even though they are small, still would fill a bag that could fit under my seat and preclude any other carry-on gear. And that doesn't even address if I am bringing a tripod with me (although I would be willing to check that).

If airlines enforced that personal items go under the seat then there would be more overhead space for later boarding zones and less incentive to cheat.

Agree with that! A big part of the problem is that the airlines publish rules, but don't want to make the effort to actually enforce them.

I like it. So far it's 2-0 in favor of your suggestion.

Except for those who cheat because that's who they are. Some people get a feeling of victory if they cheat the system. Others feel that they are being insulted if a passenger with status boards before them.

I was checking a bag the other day and the agent told me that the bag was 3 pounds over. I promptly removed a couple of items and she checked the bag without further questions.

I added the 3 pounds to my carry-on bag which was about 57 pounds, according to my digital bathroom scale. (thanks to all the books I was carrying)

I also weigh about 100 pounds more than my seatmate. (6'6" 230 pounds vs 5'3 130 pounds) Does that mean the airline had to spend extra fuel to fly my fat [backside]? (and overweight carry-on?)

How does this relate to the topic at hand (people who board before their zone is called)?

The only personal items that there's room for under the seat in front of me are my feet and legs. My bag goes in the overhead.

As a 1K on United and a longtime MVPG75K on Alaska, I've logged and continue to log a lot of miles in First Class (see my flight memory). From my experience, the above statement - as issued in a general sense - isn't even close to true.

I know there have been many incidents of property stolen from checked baggage but just out of curiosity - how often are there incidents of items having been stolen from the overhead bins during a flight? Has this ever happened to anyone here?

What airline are you flying? Spirit?

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, wilma one, but I've seen many instances on full flights where smaller items such as purses or small laptop cases have been placed in the overhead bins when there would have been plenty of room for them (plus feet) under the seat in front of the passenger - this despite the flight attendants' having continually implored people to not use the overhead bins for those smaller items. I understand when someone is well over six feet tall but more often than not it appears that the person doing so simply wants the space beneath the seat in front of them free.

In this day and age of carry on bags, it just seems like common courtesy on full flights to help out your fellow passengers by placing smaller items under the seat in front of you.