mduell

Did you consult the operating carriers OpSpecs? I think that's the most likely source of the crewmember's instruction.

alchemista

Someone mentioned that earlier, but we don't have access. However, that would not qualify as an FAA mandate unless using circular reasoning as mentioned above too.

Often1

Not only is there another thread on this same topic, but the issue, specifically with respect to UAX carriers and then also with respect to other carriers' express contractors, has arisen on FT repeatedly.

1. To be precise, when an employee tells you that it is an "FAA violation" for you to place your XXX bag in the OH, they are wrong. In fact, as noted above, it is the carrier which issues its safety & security policy and then files it with the FAA. The failure to enforce the policy becomes the "FAA violation." If this were a court, the judge might come down hard on the FA. But, it isn't. It's an air carrier boarding process. So, the perhaps imprecise description which makes the point is perfectly fine.

2. The wheels are a particular issue and it is not necessarily true that all carry-ons (as opposed to personal items) are gate-checked. But, at least all bags with wheels are required to be gate-checked on UAX carriers.

3. It is true that this does not always occur. But, there are people who bring on 3 bags, drink too much, and don't buckle their seatbelts. Careless staff don't catch it and the passenger gets away with it. That doesn't mean it is OK and the same is true here.

For what it is worth, AA has cracked down on carry-on violations as well. Both mainline size issues and AAX issues.

mduell

It's not any more circular than the rest of the FARs. If you choose to be a part 121 carrier, the FAA will hold you to the part 121 FARs; if you choose to be a part 135 carrier, the FAA will hold you to that. Whatever OpSpecs you choose to adopt, the FAA will hold you to. The OpSpecs are your way of choosing how you're going to comply with the regs, in this case 14 CFR 121.589.

I don't have time to look it up at the moment, but take a look at OpSpec A011, OpSpec A098, AC 120-27, and AC 121-29.

LarryJ

An airline, unlike a not-for-hire operations, can only do what the FAA has authorized it to do. The carrier's Operation Specifications (OpSpecs) is the document that authorizes an airline for the types of operations that they intend to do. An airline can only do what its OpSpecs authorizes and it must do whatever the OpSpecs require.

Flight attendants don't really need to know the basis for the requirements that they must accomplish or enforce. It can be a company policy, a regulation, or from the OpSpecs. What's important is that he F/A knows the rule and how to properly comply. The manuals consist of thousands of pages so nobody is going to have it all memorized and mistakes will be made.

A CRJ-200 or E145 operator has a choice. If they include carry-on weights in the standard passenger weight, even though only a few will fit, their average passenger weight will be higher and there will be more weight-restricted flights that can't fill all the seats. If they do, as most do, and exclude carry-on weights from the standard passenger weight then passengers will not be able to bring wheeled bags onboard--even the few that would have fit.

There is a third option but it's worse than either of the other two. The airline could choose a weight and balance program using actual weights. Each passenger and each bag would be weighed and the actual weights used. This is used on much smaller airplanes; usually those with less than ten passenger seats. It would be time consuming and cumbersome to manage on a 50-seat jet and would result in a lot more, IMO, unhappy passengers.

Often1

There is absolutely no reason why FA's need to understand the regulatory underpinnings of the rules their employer imposes. Especially to get into arguments with wannabe passenger-lawyers.

All the FA needs to know is that a specific type of luggage, e.g. one with wheels is not permitted. The employer tells the employee that this is the rule and that is then the rule. It may well be that the employer has made this a part of its policy and filed that with the FAA, but why on earth would anyone be trained in that unless they are a regulatory person in the carrier's office of general counsel?

In many ways, crew who allow passengers to get away with this and that, don't help the situation. They are just kicking the problem child down the road.

alchemista

It's one thing to know their policies, and it's another thing to make up excuses for why the FA is doing something that seems illogical. United's published policy, which is all I can reference, only mentions dimensions and says nothing about wheels (other than they are included in the dimensions). Of course, technically they have an opt out saying their agents can do whatever they want - but that is (should?) be the exception, not described as the official policy as this was.

The issue I had was that I felt I was being given a lame excuse and likely a lie (FAA requirement specifically about wheels - FA could get fired!) instead of a respectful one that just said sorry we don't want to have this bag on the flight from our own discretion. Being lied to, or even making up silly excuses, is very common in bad customer service, and that's what really irks me. However, I'm open-minded and it sounds like the missing key is the OpSpecs, which I don't have access to.

I even gave the FA my card and said if she or the pilot could point me to where this supposed FAA mandate about wheels was, I would give them $50. I haven't heard anything, and don't expect I will lol. There is just no rational reason why there would be a particular restriction on wheels vs. no-wheels, so long as the total dimensions fit. The bag fit so fine into the overhead carrier, and there was plenty of space on the plane, yet she comes over and pulls it off seemingly just to make a point. If there actually is a reason, then there must be some operational or technical issue that I'd be very curious to understand.

LarryJ

If you look on the web page detailing the carry-on bag policy you'll see a section on United Express flights which includes the following additional information which does mention wheels.

I doubt the F/As have access to the OpSpecs nor, in most cases, even know of its existence. The company manuals detail the procedures that they are to follow and those procedures ensure compliance with the regulations and OpSpecs. The F/As don't know the details on what drives each aspect of each policy; be it regulation, OpSpecs, or company policy. They only know the policy.

I'mOffOne

The ERJ FAs aren't lying when they say "everything with wheels must be gate checked per the FAA". Some FAA official overseeing this ERJ operator decided to "simplify" the gate check question by adding into the carrier's Ops Specs that all wheeled bags must be gate checked. It's a bad metric because it technically requires ERJ FAs at the company in question to ensure that everything with wheels, even wheeled briefcases and laptop bags, are gate checked. Nevertheless, it's in their Ops Specs which others have pointed out are FAA-enforced. Since all the FAs know it's a bad metric many of them will let smaller wheeled bags on board even though they're technically not supposed to. Unfortunately, that leads to inconsistency even within the same company. But they're not lying when they said the FAA requires them to gate check all wheeled bags. It's frustrating for passengers who feel they're being forced to comply with a silly and inconsistent requirement, and it's also frustrating for the FAs who are following what they've been told they must do.

Tip: ERJ FAs hear "it fit on the last flight" all the time, and they'll assume you're talking about the 777 you just connected in on. (They're usually right - many non-Flyertalk passengers don't realize there's a difference in overhead bin size.) You will have much, much better luck if you say "this fits in a 145 overhead".

mduell

I think your sentiments toward the statements by the flight crew are misplaced, and do not reflect how regulations are applied and implemented in aviation. This is not a position I would start an argument from.

While you may not be able to view the exact OpSpec for the carrier you were on, there's a lot of material out there on FSIMS to avail yourself of to expand your understanding of the regulatory and oversight approaches.

I think this behavior toward the flight crew is inappropriate. The flight crew are not regulatory experts in the office of certificate management; you're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think it's a bad criteria: it's easy to implement in the field (no scales needed), and on average it works out (likely with periodic monitoring for verification).

alchemista

I did see this and it is one of the reasons why I disputed the claim. I think this actually is against what the FAs are saying, and give a strong reason why we should be allowed small roller bags on-board if they fit:
"in most cases roller bags and other larger carry-on items will not fit in United Express overhead bins. As a result, you may need to gate-check these items before boarding."
It says most will not fit - it doesn't say they aren't allowed - I showed mine fit fine.
So the policy says:
1. "most cases" will not fit - however, that leaves open that in some cases they will fit (mine does fit)
2. combines "roller bags AND other larger carry-on items" - it applies this equally to wheeled bags AND non-wheeled carry-ons, the issue is size not wheels.
3. "as a result" gives the reasoning why you "may need" to gate-check. So "as a result" is tied to the "most will not fit" statement in the first sentence. So, if they do fit, then the "result" isn't necessary.
Given those above statements from the policy, this is a good indication of a policy that passengers can see, and there is no difference between wheels and non-wheels, and that as long as the baggage will indeed fit on small planes, then there should be no reason to have to gate-check them! If this "FAA rules!" statement was true, then the policy could easily say "no roller bags are allowed on these flights" - but it specifically does not.

I can understand that many people do not carry on small bags and then ruin it for the few of us who actually do follow size restrictions and make sure to bring on only bags that will fit on regional jets. That is a different issue imho.

You are assuming this all, but didn't actually provide anything to back up your statement that "some FAA official" decided to simplify the gate check right? Or are you saying that you have seen the Op Specs for the EMB-145 and it is written there? If you don't know for sure, then please don't reply as if you know this to be true. If you do know for sure, can you please provide more pointers on how you have seen the specific Op Specs and where if any we can see them?

I will be the first to admit and defend them if they are telling me the truth, but I have seen no indication that this is true (and as shown above, the United Express policy actually does NOT distinguish between wheeled/nonwheeled), and so I feel lied to.

Sykes

The no-wheels rule is in the flight attendant manual for the EMB-145 on some (perhaps all?) carriers. I've personally seen it because I was curious about the context of the rule (since wheels vs. no-wheels seems like a pretty arbitrary designation). Unfortunately, because it is not public information you're not going to see anything substantial to back it up. Perhaps if you asked a FA nicely out of curiosity they'd show it to you too?

Given the frequency with which this tends to come up (albeit perhaps only in communities filled with over-entitled frequent fliers), it seems like United could easily address it with a small tweak to the wording on their website to say something like "some United Express carriers may have policies for carry-on bags that are more restrictive than those described on this page".

jsloan

This seems strange to me. It seems that the traveling public should have a right to know the opspecs for the carrier operating their flights, since they are modifications of the various flight regulations -- all of which are public.

However, I just spent some time perusing the FAA site, and I agree with you; they don't seem to public the opspecs, nor to require that a carrier publish their own. There are a couple of different web portals where it seems that certificate holders can log in and submit them -- and presumably can read them as well -- but nothing for the general public.

Sykes

I'm not sure that I agree with your characterization of OpSpecs as modifications of flight regulations. While I am merely a (not-airline) pilot and not an expert in airline certification, I would argue that the OpSpec describes the procedures the airline will use to ensure that it complies with the publicly-available regulations rather than describing modifications to the regulations themselves.

You may be able to file a FOIA request to get some (and perhaps all) of that data, but since an OpSpec is developed by the carrier, I think it is likely that the FAA may consider an OpSpec to be an air carrier's proprietary data and not subject to FOIA. More likely, you'd be able to get documents issued by the FAA related to the carrier's certificate, which may also enumerate some of these restrictions. (I ran into roadblock on a FAA FOIA request I filed last year related to some instrument procedures that an air carrier developed privately, but were then approved by the FAA. I feel you'd likely hit a similar roadblock requesting an OpSpec.)

mduell

I'm wholly unsurprised that some marketing material doesn't cover every variation of policy on specific operating carriers and equipment types.

The public being able to see every last detail of a carriers w&b or fuel management program, is just going to invite more back-seat dispatching. Should you be able to see the exact average weight assumptions they're using for the Guam-China flights?

But in the alternative, has anyone actually contacted the relevant FAA office to request these? Just because you can't find it conveniently on the internet doesn't mean it's not public.