I can't stand bin hogs. If they pull your luggage aside they let you check it for free.

They do that at the gate, not before going through security.

offered to check carry-ons for free, if the flight was fully booked there isn't enough room for them in the overheads.

this person was not getting them through the gate, they were being stopped beforehand.

Rhetorical question, right?

Six bucks per passenger per flight. Is that after paying the flight crew, ground crew, fuel, "food" and other amenities? Reservation staff, airport fees, and the hard work of the valuable executives figure in as well? That would be $6 of pure profit. On a 100 passenger flight, they make $600 whether they're on time or not. Airline makes, say, 500 flights a day. That works out to $300,000 a day, averaging 100 passengers per flight (more, if the average is higher). A little more than $100 million a year.

Yep, barely scraping by. I can see why they have to nickel and dime me for every step through the terminal.

had reduced their limits.

That's never happened before. Apparently carry-on was limited to 7 kg in weight. Mine came in at 6.8, so I was OK.

Almost every time I fly there's a new indignity to put up with.

I saw one family near the check-in with all their suitcases unpacked, stuff all over the floor, desperately moving things between bags to make their bags come in under weight. How humiliating, and what's more, how pointless. The same total weight is going on the plane regardless so what difference does it make?

"I saw one family near the check-in with all their suitcases unpacked, stuff all over the floor, desperately moving things between bags to make their bags come in under weight. How humiliating, and what's more, how pointless. The same total weight is going on the plane regardless so what difference does it make?"

This was an international flight and until fairly recently, the weight limit was 70 lbs, not 50. Even if you were a pound or two over at checkin, they'd just not worry about it. In fact, you could check two suitcases for free before that, not just one.

These days, if your suitcase is as little as a 1/2 pound overweight you can either pay a $100 penalty or go through the humiliating repacking that I saw that family have to do or take your heaviest clothes out and wear them on the plane.

Last year, I was still going by the 25 Kilo rule and got my suitcase in at 24 (and believe me, that's isn't all that much for an international trip), when I found they had just changed the rule to 23.8 kilogrammes (which is more exactly 50 lbs). Rather than go through that nonsense of unpacking my perfectly packed case, I just paid the penalty. I kept my dignity at least.

I don't believe for one second that this has anything to do with labour unions or protections. Does the extra $100 fine go them? No, this is nothing but a way for the airline to wring a few more dollars out of their customers.

Additionally, until very recently, airline liability for lost luggage under the Warsaw Convention was based on weight of the item.

it just reinforces my decision to drive everywhere I can. I guess it's good that I live in the middle of the country, because a 1200 mile or so radius covers a lot of ground. It's a lot more relaxing and enjoyable to take off-interstate routes and spend a couple days getting somewhere. Stop at local restaurants & shops, see a sight or two. And no worry about what I take or what to do with anything I might buy along the way.

One time, I drove straight through from Charlotte, NC to Kansas City MO, and still preferred it to spending the day in airports and wedged into child-sized seats with loudspeakers demanding I shut off my iPod 30 minutes before even being close to landing.

Flying has become miserable, and that won't change until more people avoid it whenever possible.

and it was pretty much the most boring drive of my life.

I think the most dull drive I've ever seen is I-27 from Lubbock to Amarillo. Over 120 miles, maybe 3 slight curves, few towns, and completely flat.

There are, unfortunately, some circumstances where flying is unavoidable. If we can avoid it, though, we do.

Here's an article from 2010 that mentions it's 22x14x9. They must just be enforcing their policy. If you're in the market for a new carry on look for one that's an "international" sized carry on.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-MSB-5702

I remember them making the same complaint as in the linked article: bags they had used for years were suddenly no longer acceptable for carry on.

The domestic standard has long been suggested dimensions with the rule being only that the total must be under 45 inches.

I just checked the United page, it now says only maximum individual dimensions rather than the unified inch standard.

Woohoo! More angry passengers at the airports.

To me they're nothing but vultures.

...is printed on the back of every seat:

"FASTEN SEAT BELT WHEN SEATED"

Well, no shit. Was I going to fasten it when standing up?

Southwest is staying the course.

They are big on the: "Please, the flight is full so if your carry-on fits under the seat in front of you please put it there and save the overhead bins for the larger carry-ons." Yeah right - I bring on a small backpack - that's it. It goes in the overhead bin because I need the space under the seat in front of me for my feet. Enforce the bag size limits and number limits and there would be enough space in the bins, even on full flights.

change theirs! Just bought a gorgeous Tom Bihn Aeronaut carry on...

Could you punch a few air holes in the Aeronaut?

My annual Kauai trip in Sept. The one week out of the year that I get some peace and quiet -- well, away from the noise of the city. The sound of the ocean, the frogs...sigh. Can't wait.

probably the only time I will get on a plane is to go to the EU..

Been doing road trip vacations to family and friends and seeing more of the Midwest and southeast...

And still don't. They also don't consistently enforce the "two items" rule - one carry-on bag, one personal item (purse, whatever). Then they have the nerve to ask the people who have only one item such as a small back pack, to please put it under the seat in front of them rather than in the over head bin - which they want to reserve for all of the large roller carry-ons. I am 6'3" and need the space under the seat for my feet. I be danged if I am going to give it up just because the airlines do not enforce the size and number limits. Sorry, but the size limits are printed right on the ticket information. People struggling to get large bags into and out of overhead bins is one of the reasons it takes so long to load and unload airplanes. As far as I am concerned, enforcing the bag limits benefits everyone, including the people who would like to bring a larger bag onto the plane. It is possible to buy reasonably priced carry on bags which meet the size limits. I don't see any real heartache there. Being late for a connection because it took too long to load/unload the plane or getting a blood clot because my legs are all cramped up on a long flight - now that is heartache.

If you have an item that fits under the seat in front of you, then it will fit in the space under your knees, which is where you can put it after reaching cruising altitude. Then, you can put your feet under the seat in front of you.

I completely agree with you on the fact that airlines have not been enforcing the size limits on carry-ons for way too long.

For someone of my height (and I am not all that tall at 6'3&quot one needs to be able to shift the position of the legs around frequently, particularly on a long flight and particularly when stuck in an inside seat, which I try to avoid but it does happen sometimes. Besides, people who bring on one small bag should not have to sacrifice for the bin hogs. They slow down the process loading and unloading as well. A small backpack carries a laptop, change of clothes, hygiene items, and some reading material. What else do you need?

Cry me a river because you were not able to bring your giant carry on bag, I take a backpack as carry on, it has a laptop, book and some snacks and I can't tell you how often I am asked to story my backpack under the seat by my feet because someone brought their I need to survive for 2 weeks on a deserted island size carry on.

If you're going somewhere for 3 or 4 days (a common trip mr. frazzled and I take), why would you want to pay an extra $100 ($25 x 4) to check your itty-bitty bag and then have to spend half your trip, coming and going, to wait for that bag on a carousel, where it frequently does not even show up, causing you to wear stinky underwear for at least 24 hours until they find and deliver it, if they ever do (and yes, we have had them lose bags entirely that never showed up).

So cry me a river about your backpack.

We flew out of Gatwick (London) to Marseille on EasyJet. We saw
scales in the lobby area, near the check in counters, so people could redistribute
stuff in their bags to make weight.

I also ran into, for the first time, a restriction for ONE carry on with EasyJet. Period.
If you are a woman with a large handbag--that's your carry on. I had to stuff
my handbag into my carry on--at the gate--in order to let me board the plane.
In the process my prescription progressive lense sunglasses frames were broken.
Thanks, a$$holes. The rest of the trip I had to switch from sunglasses (not prescription)
to reading glasses to be able to take photos outside and see whether I liked the photo. Major pita.

We decided, after getting to Gatwick from central London (tube and Gatwick express)
plus cost of checking a bag, plus delayed flight, plus time getting from Marseille airport
to our friends' house in Aix en Provence, that we could have taken the Eurostar from
London to Paris, changed to TGV to Aix, and been there in about the same amount of
time for about the same cost with a LOT less stress.

We could have also taken the overnight train from Paris to Berlin (which our son and his friend did)
instead of flying. Although I doubt we're going back to Europe--I am SO sick of flying--it's a suggestion
from me to anyone reading this that you really should think trains for getting around Europe--even
distances that at first thought you figure you need to fly--which would normally take 8 hours or more on
the train.

I wish we had trains as more of a reasonable alternative in the U.S., because the trains--by and large--
in Europe are wonderful.