eng3

Are they trying to increase revenue OR increase boarding efficiency? I highly doubt they will be able to achieve both (or even one)

Kacee

Maybe they're just trying to enforce the rules. That's a benefit in its own. And if the actually do it right, it will enhance both revenue and boarding efficiency. More checked bag fees for UA, fewer oversize carry-ons, fewer pax carrying on more than two bags.

EWR764

I can imagine the policy causing some heated conflicts at the gate between unsuspecting pax forced to check...and now pay.

In theory it sounds good for most of us who know/follow the rules, and is of little impact, but there could be some unintended consequences.

I doubt UA will take this step any time soon, though, as there is likely to be major PR pain to the first (non-ULCC) mover, and cuts against some of the positive momentum UA has been trumpeting lately.

JBord

While I would secretly be happy watching this happen to someone in boarding groups 1 or 2, it won't, because they get a free checked bag benefit.

So what you're left with is one-time-a-year, non-elite vacationers, who will not understand why horrible United ruined their vacation. I can imagine all the Facebook posts, tweets, newspaper articles, and so on. Even when UA does the right thing and a passenger doesn't like it, it causes bad press. There have been many threads here over the last year like that.

IF this is true, I'm all for it. But the more I think about it, I don't see how they could pull it off.

bizzarODog

I'm all for this change. I use a legally sized carry-on and personal item so it wouldn't impact me one bit. I'm routinely shocked by the bags people carry on, sometimes easily 25-30% larger than my bag, which is more or less at the limit. On my TATL flight yesterday on a 763 (aka tiny overheads) there was a woman with an oversized roller, a duffel bag that was roughly similar in size and a purse. Selfish people like this make life more difficult for everyone and should be punished. I'd like to see routine enforcement of the rules across the board, and if the penalties are going to be monetary, so be it.

transportbiz

The inefficiency isn't only about the bag tag printers, which won't be an issue it's the payment process. I can see it now, sorry sir you have to pay for that bag. Well, I don't have any money or a credit card with me...you'd not believe the smokescreen excuses I've seen people come up with.

pgppetch

This planned procedure is for enforcement of carry on rules-strict enforcement of size and number. They really would have no reason to charge a customer who they request to check the larger carry on if overhead bins are full. It is about making everyone adhere to the carry on rules and properly collecting for checked baggage if an item or items must be gate checked-additional revenue and really encourages the excess/oversized carry on set to just check a bag they have packed with the intention of checking rather than attempt to skirt the rules and board with excess or avoid checked baggage fees. I have my doubts that United will effective advise and warn passengers in advance of their flight of their stricter carry on enforcement and there will be angry and frustrated passengers at the departure gate. A proper warning that new at-gate enforcement and an end to free gate check would be wise. The gate agents will be receiving the angst of disgruntled passengers. I do think it is perfectly acceptable and beneficial to all passengers given the high load factor on United flights these days.

Doc Savage

Yeah, all the fanbois are thinkin' they'll be happy 'cause "all them kettles" will get hassled. Wait till you get some officious jerk of a GA who pulls the "it didn't slip into the sizer without barely touching the sides" crap on your redeye when all you want to do is get home without a hassle and chargin' ya a hundred bucks or threatening to leave you off the plane. I can picture the threads about "a change you'll like" already.

But YMMV.

Safe travels.

pgppetch

I doubt the gate agents will want to be that confrontational-not like United will pay a commission on how many get check fees they collect.

I am predominantly an AA flyer. Around 2005 they began aggressively and consistently monitoring carry ons and enforcing the rules. If you checked in landside they scrutinized your carry ons there and put a sticker on your boarding pass that you were in compliance. At the gate most boarded with online boarding passes and possibly oversized carry ons were challenged with a sizing unit and number of carry ons monitored. This was done because the FAA fined AA for failure to enforce their carry on policy. It would have be a great idea to advise passengers who had been ignoring the rules knowing AA's lax enforcement. I never heard a thing from AA about their new enforcement of carry on policy. They have eased up as I saw two Executive Platinum, AA's highest FF elite, with very expensive hard side roll aboards with a height greater than the maximum permitted 22 inches. They would not load straight into the overhead bin as they would then block the door from closing. It ticked me off that these pax can't select a proper size carry on and follow the rules. Their roll aboards required sideways stowage depriving other pax of space for one or two more roll aboards. Well if AA goes back to gate size scrutinizing and enforcement they are gonna have to check these or fly without them.

matrixwalker2012

Wonder if it would be better for UA to publicly state that all punitive fees charged get donated to charity. This way, UA can show that they're only trying to enforce the rules and not lining their pockets...

ctbarron

Agree in theory, but I just can't see UA executing this consistently. Additional GA's, efficient payment processing, people not blocking lines? Not likely.

I do agree it should be easier to cut down on having too many bags. But that doesn't happen right now either.

Honest question: do the ULCC's make this a smooth process that actually speeds up boarding?

Vulcan

The problem with bags not loading lengthwise is not one of only the bag size. As all of us are aware, there are many bins (especially near the front of the plane) that are not as deep as those in the center of the aircraft and will not fit a legal bag lengthwise, NOT TO MENTION the great variety of sizes in different aircraft types. Even among 737s, there are different size bins depending on the age of the aircraft.
Something like this has got to cause delays in boarding as customers argue and fumble (very slooooowly) for credit cards and transferring things like medicines from their rollaboard to their person. Then imagine the scenes when this debacle causes missed connections (especially international). For a company that has a less than sterling public image, what on earth can they be thinking. UA should get their house in order first. Just IMO.

Loren Pechtel

1) The charge for gate-checking should be higher than the cost of checking it when you were supposed to. If it's simply the same charge it encourages people to take a chance.

2) Will they enforce this on the elites??

3) The "personal item" size is simply too small--it certainly looks like they sized it based on the smallest underseat space. They built seats with uneven leg spacing, then stuck electronic boxes in the small spaces.

fireflash

Isn't the bag fee $25?

Kacee

Depends on where you're going. Second checked bag international can cost $100.