bgiery

I flew United 2/9/18 from IAD to STL on an RJ-145 and was blindsided at the gate when they announced I was only allowed 1 personal item on board. First of all, they didn't mention anything about this at check in when clearly I was carrying two small bags. I am a long-time Premier Gold frequent flyer so I was shocked and surprised. They were not going to let ANYONE have two bags on board the plan. When I asked the gate agent about this, he said it's a "new rule" that went into effect two weeks ago for 50-seater aircraft for weight and balance issues. He also said that some were not strictly enforcing it, which makes it worse since you won't know until you arrive at the gate. What kind of rule is that? I found it hilarious that the line waiting for gate-checked bags when we landed was 4 times as long as it usually is because although everyone only had one bag in the cabin, all those bags were still on the plane; they were just underneath in cargo. Doesn't make sense. I specifically carry a laptop bag which fits into the overhead of every plane without fail and a tote with the rest of my travel stuff in it and I was made to check my laptop bag. I asked some other fellow road warriors and they've never heard of this rule either (and they've all traveled on small planes the last two weeks), so they were doubting this was a thing. Has anyone been caught unawares at the gate recently with this "one bag, period" rule on smaller aircraft? Was United just flexing their muscles?

WorldLux

Yes, it does. Other airlines routinely gate check carry-on on smaller aircrafts in the fleet.

bgiery

I get that. I'm not saying that I don't understand why they gate check carry-ons. I was just surprised that this is an enforceable regulation now and was questioning whether it was true that the FAA said you could only have one carry-on personal item on 50 seater aircraft because no one I've talked to has heard about it. I wanted to see if anyone else has heard of this so-called FAA regulation.

MSPeconomist

Did the GA claim that it was a new FAA rule or a new UA rule?

zitsky

Does this apply to a CRJ-700?

bgiery

They specifically said FAA regulation.

And they specifically said 50 seater aircraft in the announcement. I think the CRJs are about 75-100 so I don't think so. But you never know...

fumje

A lot of bags don't fit in the overhead of ERJ145, so it sounds like the agent was trying to simplify the judgement call of OK/not by saying everyone has to gate check something. Sort of silly, but not totally irrational.

And FAA is the standard boogeyman for agents' whims.

But will wait for any additional reports.

chermorg

On the smaller ERJs (35, 40, 45) and the CRJ200, gate agents will routinely go around "green tagging" all bags that appear to not fit under the seat. Even though these aircraft have overhead bins, most bags don't fit in them and it is more hassle to deal with that during boarding.

I presume that the FAA regulation you heard is that which requires ecigs, spare lithium batteries, and a couple other things to be removed from gate checked bags before they are sent under the plane.

Often1

There must be 100 of these threads on FT and the bottom line is simple. Larger carry-ons don't fit the OH in the CRJ-200 (50-seater). Even bags which are slightly larger than the "personal item" take up way more than their "share". Thus, some UAX carriers have prohinited roll-a-boards for the past 7 years and the UA website has had specific warnings about "some UAX flights...."

Now, after all the rants, there is an explicit binary size test. Makes it simple for everyone and the limited OH space on the -200 is fairly made available to the bulk of passengers.

The "FAA rule" argument is also old and tired and ought to be retired. Carriers are required to have a safety & security policy. They are also required to file that policy with FAA which, after review, accepts the policy and the carrier is required to enforce the policy. The failure to enforce the policy is a violation of FAA rules.

If you want to have a legal argument with the GA, here is what they should say, "Sir, UA has determined that your bag must be gate-checked and it has filed that policy with FAA. UA is now required to enforce that policy and its failure to do so is a violation of FAA rules." Or the GA could say, "Sir, FAA rules requires us to gate check our bag."

bgiery

interesting...good info. thanks.

UAzip

My smallish but not too small rollaboard has specifically been noted by gate agents as fine to take aboard a CRJ-700, even when sitting in the exit row (possibly the best exit row legroom around, although the curvature of the plane really encroaches on you in a window seat). The same bag has never once been taken aboard a CO or UA Express ERJ-145 (or 135) and was pretty much always green-tagged beforehand, if not at boarding. (Interestingly, the same bag once was allowed on the early ERJ-145s on US Airways Express back in 2000--yes, the bag is old--but that may have been before they came up with a policy. It fit under the seat, but didn't leave a lot of room. Better to planeside check it anyway, except for the wait when you have a tight connection and your carry-on is last off.

Rollaboards being gate-checked and returned at deplaning has been SOP on 145s on UA Express, CO Express, American Eagle, and Delta Connection as long as I can remember. Whether airline policy or FAA rule, it's been the rule.

dulciusexasperis

You know, everyone has expectations and when those expectations are not met, people get upset. The problem with expectations and flying however is that often the expectations are based on some past experience rather than the realities of flying today.

I got upset a few years back when I was asked to remove my belt at security. What the heck did they need me to remove my belt for? Well, it turns out some nut job had tried to board with a belt he claimed held explosives. I just happened to be flying a day or two after that when all the airports had started asking everyone to remove their belts to go through the X-ray machine. On another occassion, it was remove your shoes and on another it was laptops, I was once asked in Miami airport to remove the batteries from a camera. Everyone was asked to do so at check-in, even if the cameras were in a bag they were checking, not carrying on. They promised the batteries would be returned on arrival at our destination. Yeah right.

Then there are all the constant changes to carry-on size, weight and number of pieces with the airline's rules varying from one to another. You ran into one of those but your expectation was that you would not. I call that an unrealistic expectation. Any rule can change at any time for any reason when it comes to flying today and to expect just about anything is unrealistic. That's just the way it is.

So you have two choices. You can expect things to be as they have been before and then get upset when they are not, or you can expect nothing and never be disappointed or upset. Up to you. I personally try to have no expectations about anything when I fly nowadays. Tomorrow you could check in for a flight and be told you will be required to check your shoes and fly in your socks and oh yeah, no belts to be worn on your pants on board either.

mahasamatman

I'm not convinced. I think the OP ran into a power-tripping GA.

LarryJ

It is not a new rule. The 50-seaters, E145 and CRJ-200 are handled differently than larger airplanes.

Small bins on the E145, of course, so the airlines that operate them will take that into account when developing the carry-on and weight and balance programs for those airplanes.

On larger airplanes, the weight of the carry-on bags are included in the "average" passenger weight used to calculate the airplane's weight and balance. The smaller airplanes can't fit nearly as much carry-on baggage on board so they use a lower average passenger weight and each valet gate-checked bag in counted as additional weight. Since the weight and balance program is not allowing for that extra weight in the cabin, they have to restrict the amount of baggage each passenger brings on board or their lower average passenger weight will result in under-estimating the weight of the airplane which has safety implications.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

This nothing new and United isn't just "flexing it's muscle" - United doesn't really want to handle your bag for free. At a lot of airports and with a lot of commuter carriers (hardly just United), one hands their larger carry-on to a ramp worker just before boarding a small regional jet or turbo-prop plane and it's available right after disembarking. At United.com, the baggage situation for some small planes is clearly articulated. Sounds like you don't have much experience flying these pocket gems...:

Carry-on baggage on United Express® flights