alchemista

I have a mini carry-on that I intentionally purchased to fit the full fleet of regional planes. Tonight I brought it on-board and was told it wouldn't fit - I assured the attendant it would and it fit fine inside the EMB-145 overhead. I thought all was fine but then she later came by and said the bag cannot stay on-board. I asked to explain why, since it fit fine and was the same size as many other people's carry-on bag. She told me that it was an FAA restriction because the bag had wheels.

Clearly not believing this, I read the FAA advisories on carry-on bags (which mostly direct you to the airline policy), and then the United bag policy. None of them exclude wheeled bags, but only refer to the maximum size of bags. United's policy on regional jets say typical carry-on bags "may" not fit because they are smaller planes, but mine clearly fit and the United policy has no exclusions.

This seems to be a clear made-up excuse by the attendant just to make me check the bag. After the fight, I even gave my contact info and offered to pay money if they could show me where a bag with wheels on it is excluded, even if it fits. I doubt I will receive anything, because I don't think it exists.

This is not the first time United has made up excuses on carry-on bags and did not follow their policy, and then wasting my time waiting for checked bags. What irks me is being lied to - it's one thing to just say "I'm not going to let you bring that on-board for any reason", it's another to make up excuses and lies.

If I'm wrong and there really is an FAA statement discerning bags that fit the dimensions and carry-on, but are excluded just because they have wheels vs. no-wheels, please correct me and I will restore a little faith in humanity!

Again, the bag fit perfectly fine within the overhead and the bin easily shut, but I was told no just because it had wheels.

mahasamatman

You would need to read the op spec for the operating carrier (which I assume is one of the United Express carriers). I'm not sure if those are publicly available - at least I've never been able to find them. Maybe in the Federal Register?

alchemista

If that's where it was, then it wouldn't be an FAA mandated restriction right? That's what I was told and therefore they simply could not let me have it on, and the attendant could even lose her job.

kale73

I once overheard a gate agent tell a Group 1 passenger who tried to skip ahead with the “pre-boarders” that the FAA would fine the airline if they failed to let handicapped, families with small children, and uniformed military board first. I’m fairly certain it was BS, but the guy was a real DYKWIA, so I inwardly applauded the GA.

itsallgood

United Express, not United. The FA made it up or was repeating a made up story she heard from someone else.

mahasamatman

Yes, it is. An airline's op spec is effectively part of the FARs that airline is operating under.

WineCountryUA

Yes some of the UX carriers have this in their FARs. There have been other threads on this but having trouble finding them.
such as https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/22565794-post1604.html

But not just UA, AA forum no rollaboards allowed in overhead on CRJ-900?

sexykitten7

There is an extensive thread detailing this problem but I can't seem to find it. This new policy seems to have started a few months ago.

IMO the FA was wrong to cite the FAA but right to check your bag.

Rules are rules.

aacharya

As noted above, the op spec, once filed, is enforceble by FAA. So it is a bit circular yet technically accurate.

jsloan

And there is a method to the madness here.

By specifying that no carry-on bags are to be allowed in the main cabin, the operating carrier is then allowed to reduce the mean weight* calculated per passenger, as carry-on bags are normally included in that calculation. This changes the fuel requirements; by ignoring this rule, the FA would be risking an accident, which is why the FAA cares. (If the FA doesn't enforce it for the OP, it's impossible to enforce it for the next 10 passengers either).

* I assume it's technically mass, but that really depends upon whether the calculations are used for balance / center or mass calculations or if they're used for the physics of flight, which may well require weight.

username

Is it this one: Forced to gate check rollerboard on ERJ-145 or this FA Claims FAA dictates what carry on are allowed on ERJ 145

tarheelnj

I used to be annoyed by random FA's not allowing in the overheard my wheeled bag that is smaller than some duffel bags that were allowed. Then on one flight a passenger (not me) claiming to have a bag that would fit broke the overhead door trying to fit his bag in, causing a MX delay, possible missed connections, and a passenger wondering if the other passengers were going to escort him off the plane in mid-flight.

Since then, I don't mind so much....

alchemista

Yes, if people would actually honor the carry-on baggage sizes, it would help the overall anti-carryon stance United seems to have. Airlines don't enforce the size limits, leading to many examples of people trying to jam in large bags. Then those of us who actually bring on bags by the rules have to pay for it.

Wayside

Every United Express EMB-145 operator operates that aircraft as a “no carry on bag” plane. That means anything other than a personal item MUST BE GATE CHECKED FOR WEIGHT AND BALANCE PURPOSES. As mentioned earlier, this is part of each carriers “Operations Specifications” and is regulation, not ambiguous policy. I don’t think a lot of people understand the full reasoning behind the policy unfortunately.

Its not a matter of wheels or not. It’s the size of the item. “The maximum dimensions for your personal item that fits under the seat in front of you, such as a shoulder bag, purse, laptop bag or other small item, are 9 inches x 10 inches x 17 inches (22 cm x 25 cm x 43 cm).“

alchemista

Ah, but I was told the wheels WERE the problem. There were carry-ons much larger than mine, but without wheels, which they were fine having on. It was specifically the wheels that were mentioned. So, it should be based on size (and of course include the wheels as part of the size) regardless of what's causing the size (handle, wheel, etc). That's what the FAA & United policies say, they say nothing about wheels vs. no-wheels.