millionsofmiles wrote:

AA’s agents have become very good at counting bags and determining at what point bags need to be checked.

This eliminates the “salmon swimming upstream bag drag” all the way up the Coach aisle against traffic when all be bins are full. It makes for a much more pleasant boarding process, and no more of the last minute frenzy trying to redo the Rubik’s cube of bags to try to make space at the end.

Kudos to AA.

This is an area where AA does better than DL (actually, US did a good job with this pre-merger, so it may just be the US system). DL frequently checks bags when the bins are still quite empty. That's what leads to the customer dissatisfaction. I have no problem with bag checking to avoid the "salmon run," but I don't like being asked to check when there is plenty of room left onboard. Heck, on some aircraft (319) DL can take close to a full load without checking bags on many flights.

Very simple.
Agents have an algorithm that shows that on a full aircraft (x), they must check (y) number of bags.
Voluntary check in prior to boarding is free, and, for those customers who have chosen to avail themselves of this option, they also get to board the aircraft earlier. 95% of the time problem solved/avoided.
As a back up, the flight attendants notify the gate agent electronically when 75% of the overhead bin space is full. At that point agents start checking remaining roll aboard. This ensures that there will be space for the customers who are already in the jetway will have a space for their bags. Further, should a bag be tagged at the gate and upon reaching the door overhead space is still available, the customer can request to bring the bag onboard. We merely remove the tag from the handle. You can also track your bag real time on the Delta app.
Works like a charm. I haven’t experienced a delay due to excessive or oversized bags in quite some time. This is reflected in on-time stats.
To recap, all ticket classes, including basic economy, are allowed a roll aboard and a personal item free of charge.
If you volunteer to check your bag you can board earlier.
You can track your bag in real time and , if upon reaching the aircraft door, overhead space is still available we will accommodate you by merely removing the tag from your bag.
You can also add that Delta tops on time performance and luggage handling stats for the major US carriers.

UA772IAD wrote:

I tend to agree. AA reported collecting a record $350M in baggage fees last spring. That's $100M a month! It's really not surprising to me that customers are not willing to fork over more money willingly to check their bags.

Checked baggage loads are up YOY from everything I've seen (more than LF in the markets I've spot checked) so more pax are feeling 'okay' parting with their baggage. There are plenty of folks who have figured out that they get pretty similar seats when purchasing basic economy and the fare difference is usually enough to justify checking a bag or two and still coming out cheaper than regular Y.

global1 wrote:

Very simple.
Agents have an algorithm that shows that on a full aircraft (x), they must check (y) number of bags.
Voluntary check in prior to boarding is free, and, for those customers who have chosen to avail themselves of this option, they also get to board the aircraft earlier. 95% of the time problem solved/avoided.
As a back up, the flight attendants notify the gate agent electronically when 75% of the overhead bin space is full. At that point agents start checking remaining roll aboard. This ensures that there will be space for the customers who are already in the jetway will have a space for their bags. Further, should a bag be tagged at the gate and upon reaching the door overhead space is still available, the customer can request to bring the bag onboard. We merely remove the tag from the handle. You can also track your bag real time on the Delta app.
Works like a charm. I haven’t experienced a delay due to excessive or oversized bags in quite some time. This is reflected in on-time stats.

Looks good and paper. Sounds good in theory. Yes, when the stars align and everyone is doing their jobs correctly, this method works perfectly. Reality, as we know, is often times an altogether different story.

MIflyer12 wrote:

enilria wrote:

The pilots also frequently say “we can’t pull into our gate because the airport employees haven’t staffed the gate”. Those employees are Delta employees or subcontractors paid by Delta and the pilot knows they aren’t employees of the airport.

They are Delta or contract employees... working at the airport. Think on that syntax for a minute.

I get the wording, but the statement is intended to divert blame from Delta. Otherwise why word it that way or even say it?

I live it every day.
Works great 99.5% of the time.
Nothing in life is perfect, buts it’s hard to argue that Delta is not a well run and efficient operation.

OB1504 wrote:

enilria wrote:

On a recent flight the agent said “passengers are allowed one carry on in the overhead bin and one smaller item that fits beneath your seat. This is not a Delta rule, but is required by the FAA.” Show me where it says in the FARs that two bags only and their placement of one in an overhead bin and one under your seat is “required”.

You’re correct that there is no such FAA requirement specifically outlining two carry-on items and their stowage locations, but when an airline submits a carry-on baggage policy to the FAA, FAR 121.589 requires the airline to enforce their own requirements.

§121.589 Carry-on baggage.

(a) No certificate holder may allow the boarding of carry-on baggage on an airplane unless each passenger's baggage has been scanned to control the size and amount carried on board in accordance with an approved carry-on baggage program in its operations specifications. In addition, no passenger may board an airplane if his/her carry-on baggage exceeds the baggage allowance prescribed in the carry-on baggage program in the certificate holder's operations specifications.

So if Delta says 2 items and someone tries to board with 3, then yes, that is against FAA rules.

It’s still a cop out. I wonder if Spirit or others changes their filing to say passengers were only allowed a carry on that fits in the overhead bin if they pay a fee or if it more broadly says passengers are “allowed” a bag that fits there? Hmm

I find the uproar a bit exaggerated. It's not like they forced the people to pay for the checked bag. Some may not like the answer by DL (which I don't know if it can be true, but according somem members here, it's possible) but DL wouldn't go through the hassle of checking so many bags for nothing. Who wants the extra work?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

alasizon wrote:

The statement of the the cabin being too heavy for W&B makes no sense. However, it's not uncommon to see some routes require additional bags to be checked to help with adding more weight down below to fix the CG. Full load of pax plus light number of bags either requires ballast or additional bags on certain routes.

Exactly this. Unfortunately, ual763 isn't fully informed and doesn't understand that is a possibility.

You don't take passengers bags from the cabin to fix a CG problem, if there is a CG problem it is because the load planner didn't do their job correctly and either didn't clear minimum tail or exceeded max tail weight. There are a lot of moving pieces on the board that a load planner must keep up with to keep a flight in balance, however the more passengers there are on the flight the easier it is to balance because there are less open seats. A light passenger load is more difficult to balance than a fully loaded aircraft, and even those situation you balance the aircraft with the available bags and cargo first before you ever request any assistance from customer service.

Because airlines have added more seats on their aircraft and most of those seats were added behind the wings do to economy plus sections most short haul and mid range domestic flights with a full load of just passengers and bags has already cleared min tail with just the weight of the passengers behind the wings. Transcons and West Coast to Hawaii flights have a higher min tail requirement because they have a higher fuel load which results in a lot more fuel in the center tank. But even in this situation it is still the job of the load planner to balance the flight before sending out the load plan with the commodities planned which does not include taking passengers bags from them at the gate.

alasizon wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

I've heard that the lowest tier tickets at AA and UA do not include carry-on bags, is this the same for Delta? I don't even know what percentage of Delta pax are buying the basic economy experience, and it obviously varies by market, but many flights hub-hub I've been on have dozens of actual revenue customers waiting for seat assignments, which lead me to believe they are probably the lowest tier fares.

Only UA places those restrictions on the basic economy tickets. DL and AA allow carry-on bags.

IIRC one of the reasons AA dropped the carry-on bag restriction from their basic economy fares was because arguments about it at the gate were starting to hurt on time performance.

United makes you check in with an agent if you’re flying basic economy with no checked baggage so the argument happens at the counter and not the gate.

enilria wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

enilria wrote:

The pilots also frequently say “we can’t pull into our gate because the airport employees haven’t staffed the gate”. Those employees are Delta employees or subcontractors paid by Delta and the pilot knows they aren’t employees of the airport.

They are Delta or contract employees... working at the airport. Think on that syntax for a minute.

I get the wording, but the statement is intended to divert blame from Delta. Otherwise why word it that way or even say it?

A lot of airline employees who work onboard an aircraft, whether flying it or serving drinks consider themselves a completely separate class of employee from ground staff, in an elitist way. This pilot likely wasn’t trying to trick people into thinking Delta isn’t to blame but rather passing blame to Delta’s “airport people.”

Blame their own checked bag fees. Stupid move imho, but they must make enough on fees since no one seems to reverse that approach.

jayunited wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

alasizon wrote:

The statement of the the cabin being too heavy for W&B makes no sense. However, it's not uncommon to see some routes require additional bags to be checked to help with adding more weight down below to fix the CG. Full load of pax plus light number of bags either requires ballast or additional bags on certain routes.

Exactly this. Unfortunately, ual763 isn't fully informed and doesn't understand that is a possibility.

You don't take passengers bags from the cabin to fix a CG problem, if there is a CG problem it is because the load planner didn't do their job correctly and either didn't clear minimum tail or exceeded max tail weight. There are a lot of moving pieces on the board that a load planner must keep up with to keep a flight in balance, however the more passengers there are on the flight the easier it is to balance because there are less open seats. A light passenger load is more difficult to balance than a fully loaded aircraft, and even those situation you balance the aircraft with the available bags and cargo first before you ever request any assistance from customer service.

Because airlines have added more seats on their aircraft and most of those seats were added behind the wings do to economy plus sections most short haul and mid range domestic flights with a full load of just passengers and bags has already cleared min tail with just the weight of the passengers behind the wings. Transcons and West Coast to Hawaii flights have a higher min tail requirement because they have a higher fuel load which results in a lot more fuel in the center tank. But even in this situation it is still the job of the load planner to balance the flight before sending out the load plan with the commodities planned which does not include taking passengers bags from them at the gate.

Yet it happens each and every day in the industry. You know as well as I do that there are not load planners for CRJs; the E175 has to have at least 250-300 lbs in the aft bin on most routes for CG purposes. I provided the example upthread of WN requiring bags to be checking due to a low checked bag weight and a full boat of passengers and that happens probably at least 3-4 times a day throughout their system.

Yes, in most cases the load planner alleviates those needs and requirements but not always. Checking cabin baggage does solve a CG issue in some situations, just as not checking cabin baggage and moving valet/planeside baggage back into the cabin solves the issue in other situations.

MIflyer12 wrote:

enilria wrote:

The pilots also frequently say “we can’t pull into our gate because the airport employees haven’t staffed the gate”. Those employees are Delta employees or subcontractors paid by Delta and the pilot knows they aren’t employees of the airport.

They are Delta or contract employees... working at the airport. Think on that syntax for a minute.

This occurred in New York...Let that sink in for a minute.

A couple of years ago I was boarding a DL 757 and the agent took a look at my standard roller and printed a luggage tag and made me check it. The flight wasn't full and I was an earlier boarding group. I would have had enough overhead space no problem. It kind of pissed me off.

That same year I literally had flown 50 WN segments with the same roller bag and not once did I ever have to gate check my bag. On my only DL flight of the year, they made me check it.

Hearing an employee tell customers flat out lies definitely makes my blood boil. Now it appears that there are some situations where what was said is possible but for what appears to be a 767 flying out of JFK, it doesn't seem likely.

It is little things like this that make airlines untrustworthy which is what causes more problems when they say things like "the overhead bins are full" and no one believes them because they have been lied to before, gate agents try to make up more convincing reasons to gate check bags and the process just gets worse and worse.

While charging for checked bags certainly isn't helping the matter, what I think is really causing the carry on bag problem is the lost bags policies. If the lost bag policy was something ridiculous like $250 cash if the bag doesn't come off the carousel in 60min and an additional $1000 cash if the bag is never found or something like that, some people would be hoping their bag gets lost. But what we have is policies where when you are flying to NYC for a business trip and your bag is delayed by 24hrs and shipped to your hotel, and you have to buy a $300 suit for your meeting and the airlines says tough, people decide that carrying on is better.

Now if airlines prefer to have you carry on, why not gate check the bags from the back of the aircraft? I never understood how when someone gets on the plane and they can't find a place for it they HAVE to go forward. Surely it would be faster to off load the bag from the rear. Airlines could even have "gate check" truck that is like a catering truck. Perhaps that is not worth the extra expense but with all the fancy equipment they have at some airports for Valet Bag Check for the RJs it seems like they could do something

To get even crazier, I always loved Valet Bag Check, I wish that was a thing on all flights and not just RJs. I have my backpack with my computer and stuff, and my carry on could easily go in the cargo hold vs the overhead bin, but with the risk of loosing it and the time to wait for a bag, it is just easier to carry-on, but I would valet check it every flight if I could.

The new A321 at Delta can only accommodate 2 bags per overhead because they must lay flat. Therefore, the agent must be diligent and gate check the last 50 passengers carry on bags if the flight is more than 80% full. Creates a mess because some fool did not spec the correct overhead bin when the aircraft was ordered from Airbus. Fortunately, I have status on DL and get to watch the boarding show, never ceases to amaze me what people bring on the aircraft. Poor flight attendants !

jayunited wrote:

You don't take passengers bags from the cabin to fix a CG problem, if there is a CG problem it is because the load planner didn't do their job correctly and either didn't clear minimum tail or exceeded max tail weight. There are a lot of moving pieces on the board that a load planner must keep up with to keep a flight in balance, however the more passengers there are on the flight the easier it is to balance because there are less open seats. A light passenger load is more difficult to balance than a fully loaded aircraft, and even those situation you balance the aircraft with the available bags and cargo first before you ever request any assistance from customer service.

Without sounding condescending or rude, you do realise that many aircraft types have different characteristics when it comes to CofG? Some are naturally 'nose heavy' and others are the opposite. I've worked as a load planner/controller and flight dispatcher for many years (mostly on CofG sensitive aircraft types), and whilst good planning does usually save the day, or in worst case moving a few passengers onboard can help, I've had many flights to deal with that despite best possible planning, are often still way out of the envelope due to being fully booked and with few or zero bags checked due to high airline baggage fees or ill-thought out airline policies (not allowed to gate check etc.). In probably less than 5 cases (out of 15000 or so flights I've planned and dispatched) I have had to take cabin bags to correct the CofG as I couldn't add any more weight to the aircraft in the form of ballast, fuel ballast or by putting the catering in the hold. These issues are more prevalent on smaller aircraft types.. Try load planning a fully booked Embraer 145 (49 passengers) or Dash 8-400 (76+) with only 100lbs of bags in the tail, and you'll know what I mean, then add fuel constraints and significant takeoff and landing weight restrictions for STOL runways (thus limiting the use of ballast), and voila, you have a fun day in the office! Sadly despite raising these issues with airline management in the hope they might start to gate-check, they aren't load planners so they often don't understand the issue.

I would personally argue that the fewer passengers you have on a flight, the easier it is to balance, through effective seat blocking, and a good understanding of how the aircraft reacts to weight. Balancing everything out with bags and cargo is fine when the aircraft has forward and aft holds, but not all do have that luxury (again, regional aircraft etc.). If a load planner manages to get a 757 or E195 out of the envelope he or she is doing something spectacularly wrong, IMO

alasizon wrote:

jayunited wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Exactly this. Unfortunately, ual763 isn't fully informed and doesn't understand that is a possibility.

You don't take passengers bags from the cabin to fix a CG problem, if there is a CG problem it is because the load planner didn't do their job correctly and either didn't clear minimum tail or exceeded max tail weight. There are a lot of moving pieces on the board that a load planner must keep up with to keep a flight in balance, however the more passengers there are on the flight the easier it is to balance because there are less open seats. A light passenger load is more difficult to balance than a fully loaded aircraft, and even those situation you balance the aircraft with the available bags and cargo first before you ever request any assistance from customer service.

Because airlines have added more seats on their aircraft and most of those seats were added behind the wings do to economy plus sections most short haul and mid range domestic flights with a full load of just passengers and bags has already cleared min tail with just the weight of the passengers behind the wings. Transcons and West Coast to Hawaii flights have a higher min tail requirement because they have a higher fuel load which results in a lot more fuel in the center tank. But even in this situation it is still the job of the load planner to balance the flight before sending out the load plan with the commodities planned which does not include taking passengers bags from them at the gate.

Yet it happens each and every day in the industry. You know as well as I do that there are not load planners for CRJs; the E175 has to have at least 250-300 lbs in the aft bin on most routes for CG purposes. I provided the example upthread of WN requiring bags to be checking due to a low checked bag weight and a full boat of passengers and that happens probably at least 3-4 times a day throughout their system.

Yes, in most cases the load planner alleviates those needs and requirements but not always. Checking cabin baggage does solve a CG issue in some situations, just as not checking cabin baggage and moving valet/planeside baggage back into the cabin solves the issue in other situations.

On a regional maybe. But you’re telling me a wide body can’t accommodate carryons in the overhead to a W/B issue? I’ve never seen it happen.

Rather than make up what is arguably an implausible excuse, the DL person should have just been honest and said that they started checking bags to make an ontime departure. That’s the only reason they did it.

alasizon wrote:

Yet it happens each and every day in the industry. You know as well as I do that there are not load planners for CRJs; the E175 has to have at least 250-300 lbs in the aft bin on most routes for CG purposes. I provided the example upthread of WN requiring bags to be checking due to a low checked bag weight and a full boat of passengers and that happens probably at least 3-4 times a day throughout their system.

Yes, in most cases the load planner alleviates those needs and requirements but not always. Checking cabin baggage does solve a CG issue in some situations, just as not checking cabin baggage and moving valet/planeside baggage back into the cabin solves the issue in other situations.

There are load planners for CRJ's and E175s they are called pilots the do their own weight and balance.

This thread isn't about Delta connection and if passengers are on a CRJ they already know their roller boards will be gate checked so there would be no need for an announcement taking bags to balance the aircraft. AlthoughE175s have larger overhead bins the captain would call for ballast and not take cabin luggage from passengers to balance the aircraft.

On a mainline flights whether narrowbody or widebody you do not force people to check-in their bags at the gate to balance an aircraft, even in WN's situation where they have an a single cabin layout on their 738NGs they have 69 seats forward of the wing box and 90 seats aft of the wing box. The seats on top of the wing box dont count against your nose or tail weight.
If the flight is full on a short haul flight and the fuel load is 17,200 pounds or less all the fuel is in the wings (each wing tank on 737-7/8/9NGs have a max wing tank capacity between 8,400 - 8,600 pounds depending on fuel density). With no fuel in the center tank the bags can be loaded up front down the hold. On a mid-range domestic flight with a fuel load up to 32,000 pounds the load planner on a full flight may want to split the commodities because 14,800 pounds of fuel is now in the center tank. The 737-7/8/9NGs have a max fuel capacity between 46,100 -46,500 depending on density meaning once your fuel load exceeds 35,000 pounds you have to load commodities in the rear cargo hold because you now have between 17,800 up to 28,000 pounds at max tanks in the center tank.

Before a load planner sends out a load plan to the ramp they should know the required fuel load, they should know the booked revenue count, they should know how many bags to expect based off the history of the specific flight or the destination, they should know the weight of the cargo expected. By keeping up with the operation in the field the load planner should then be able to take the booked revenue information they have and extrapolate based on each individual stations operation (weather, ATC flow control, ETC) how many potential misconnecting passenger there could be and how many bags might fail to show up. Most airlines have a lot of tools at load planners disposal that they can use to garner all the information needed to put together a correct load plan. In my 18 years on the ramp with UA I never had a load planner call me or call C.S. to say we need to take customers gate carry-on bags to balance a flight. Now that I'm here at Willis Tower and I've been here for 6 years I've never read a single report where a load planner requested either the ramp or C.S. take passengers carry-ons to balance an aircraft. If this is happening at WN or at DL (and I doubt that it is ) it is because the load planner failed to do their job correctly.

**Note since you brought up WN I decided to use the 737NGs as an example both A319/320s and 757s have larger wing tanks.**

Discuss the topic or don't post. It isn't up to users to decide which topics are "stupid". If you think it's stupid, then move on so others can discuss. Childish comments don't belong here.

✈️ atcsundevil

This situation is another example of why I do not trust social media post. Its so easy to post your own narrative before knowing the full story. There is no tangible evidence to support the Tweet in this post. This is nothing but a Red Meat Post to rile up a certain base.

And this thread is exactly why F9 made it cheaper to check a bag than carry it on. No hassle to the customers or FAs

atcsundevil wrote:

Discuss the topic or don't post. It isn't up to users to decide which topics are "stupid". If you think it's stupid, then move on so others can discuss. Childish comments don't belong here.

✈️ atcsundevil

Thanks.
Lately, I have been seeing posts like that in nearly every thread.

smithbs wrote:

I agree that more people should check their bags, but airlines contribute to the problem by charging baggage fees - probably because there is a permanent market for it because TSA forces pax to check bags due to carry-on restrictions. The baggage check fee was an add-on that should have died already but hasn't. AS gives me a pass because I have their cc, and I've found that I can get a pass on other airlines with a smile and some kind compliments to the check-in agent.

This also comes from Y pax just looking for the cheapest ticket out there. I think to level the playing field and have more bags go to the holds, the airlines should be mandated to always allow at least one standard bag per pax checked. This will also reduce the amount of time it takes to board and deplane, causing less delays.

catiii wrote:

On a regional maybe. But you’re telling me a wide body can’t accommodate carryons in the overhead to a W/B issue? I’ve never seen it happen.

Rather than make up what is arguably an implausible excuse, the DL person should have just been honest and said that they started checking bags to make an ontime departure. That’s the only reason they did it.

In my earlier posts I definitely questioned it since a 767 should never need to move bags into the bins for W&B. Likely it was simply for an OT departure and the folks in social media either didn't know that the CG work is mostly with RJs or they don't know what a 767 looks like on the inside (hopefully the former).

jayunited wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Yet it happens each and every day in the industry. You know as well as I do that there are not load planners for CRJs; the E175 has to have at least 250-300 lbs in the aft bin on most routes for CG purposes. I provided the example upthread of WN requiring bags to be checking due to a low checked bag weight and a full boat of passengers and that happens probably at least 3-4 times a day throughout their system.

Yes, in most cases the load planner alleviates those needs and requirements but not always. Checking cabin baggage does solve a CG issue in some situations, just as not checking cabin baggage and moving valet/planeside baggage back into the cabin solves the issue in other situations.

There are load planners for CRJ's and E175s they are called pilots the do their own weight and balance.

This thread isn't about Delta connection and if passengers are on a CRJ they already know their roller boards will be gate checked so there would be no need for an announcement taking bags to balance the aircraft. AlthoughE175s have larger overhead bins the captain would call for ballast and not take cabin luggage from passengers to balance the aircraft.

Most pilots don't do any pre-planned W&B on RJs unless asked. Yes, once they get the cargo load report they actually do the W&B portion of their job but unless asked or unless they are aware of a weight restriction, they don't do any load planning.

jayunited wrote:

On a mainline flights whether narrowbody or widebody you do not force people to check-in their bags at the gate to balance an aircraft, even in WN's situation where they have an a single cabin layout on their 738NGs they have 69 seats forward of the wing box and 90 seats aft of the wing box. The seats on top of the wing box dont count against your nose or tail weight.
If the flight is full on a short haul flight and the fuel load is 17,200 pounds or less all the fuel is in the wings (each wing tank on 737-7/8/9NGs have a max wing tank capacity between 8,400 - 8,600 pounds depending on fuel density). With no fuel in the center tank the bags can be loaded up front down the hold. On a mid-range domestic flight with a fuel load up to 32,000 pounds the load planner on a full flight may want to split the commodities because 14,800 pounds of fuel is now in the center tank. The 737-7/8/9NGs have a max fuel capacity between 46,100 -46,500 depending on density meaning once your fuel load exceeds 35,000 pounds you have to load commodities in the rear cargo hold because you now have between 17,800 up to 28,000 pounds at max tanks in the center tank.

Before a load planner sends out a load plan to the ramp they should know the required fuel load, they should know the booked revenue count, they should know how many bags to expect based off the history of the specific flight or the destination, they should know the weight of the cargo expected. By keeping up with the operation in the field the load planner should then be able to take the booked revenue information they have and extrapolate based on each individual stations operation (weather, ATC flow control, ETC) how many potential misconnecting passenger there could be and how many bags might fail to show up. Most airlines have a lot of tools at load planners disposal that they can use to garner all the information needed to put together a correct load plan. In my 18 years on the ramp with UA I never had a load planner call me or call C.S. to say we need to take customers gate carry-on bags to balance a flight. Now that I'm here at Willis Tower and I've been here for 6 years I've never read a single report where a load planner requested either the ramp or C.S. take passengers carry-ons to balance an aircraft. If this is happening at WN or at DL (and I doubt that it is ) it is because the load planner failed to do their job correctly.

**Note since you brought up WN I decided to use the 737NGs as an example both A319/320s and 757s have larger wing tanks.**

Trust me, I get the math behind it and certainly understand it shouldn't be required but it has happened. I've both watched it happen (where WN CSAs and Ops agents force most of Group C to check their bags) and been told of it happening (having a wife @ WN). Sure, its possible the Ops agent that did the load planning messed up but from what I've gathered it sounds more like WN has a required amount of weight they expect/plan in the aft bin for CG purposes as it has only ever happened (to my knowledge) when there is a full load of pax and light on checked bags.

Back on topic, how a 767 would ever reach a CG issue requiring more weight is beyond me. From everything I've seen, it is a very forgiving performance envelope.

alasizon wrote:

jayunited wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Exactly this. Unfortunately, ual763 isn't fully informed and doesn't understand that is a possibility.

You don't take passengers bags from the cabin to fix a CG problem, if there is a CG problem it is because the load planner didn't do their job correctly and either didn't clear minimum tail or exceeded max tail weight. There are a lot of moving pieces on the board that a load planner must keep up with to keep a flight in balance, however the more passengers there are on the flight the easier it is to balance because there are less open seats. A light passenger load is more difficult to balance than a fully loaded aircraft, and even those situation you balance the aircraft with the available bags and cargo first before you ever request any assistance from customer service.

Because airlines have added more seats on their aircraft and most of those seats were added behind the wings do to economy plus sections most short haul and mid range domestic flights with a full load of just passengers and bags has already cleared min tail with just the weight of the passengers behind the wings. Transcons and West Coast to Hawaii flights have a higher min tail requirement because they have a higher fuel load which results in a lot more fuel in the center tank. But even in this situation it is still the job of the load planner to balance the flight before sending out the load plan with the commodities planned which does not include taking passengers bags from them at the gate.

Yet it happens each and every day in the industry. You know as well as I do that there are not load planners for CRJs; the E175 has to have at least 250-300 lbs in the aft bin on most routes for CG purposes. I provided the example upthread of WN requiring bags to be checking due to a low checked bag weight and a full boat of passengers and that happens probably at least 3-4 times a day throughout their system.

Yes, in most cases the load planner alleviates those needs and requirements but not always. Checking cabin baggage does solve a CG issue in some situations, just as not checking cabin baggage and moving valet/planeside baggage back into the cabin solves the issue in other situations.

This isn’t a regional jet that has a variable CG scale in the cockpit. On those aircraft, yes, you may have to move some stuff around until the Indicator is within limits. This is a 767. It’s not something that ever happens on a 767, unless ‘maybe’ it was operating empty, which this one clearly wasn’t. Even still, move some cargo or some of the few checked bags around then. There should never be a need to move carryons below when the bins are empty.

Some DL flights are what they call "payload optimized." I'm not sure what that means exactly, other than the plane can go out with empty seats and leave standbys behind. Narrow- and wide-body planes.

I was on a flight once that the gate agent said was payload optimized and as such, they could only check (or had to check, I don't remember which) a specific number of carry-on bags.

M564038 wrote:

There should be severe criminal charges filed against airlines trying to hide bad customer treatment behind invented and wrongful safety, security or technical reasons.
It completely undermines the trust and seriouness behind true air safety issues.

The medical profession lies to you to “protect” you all the time. And it absolutely undermines my trust in what they tell me. As a parent, the lies they tell piss me off.

oosnowrat wrote:

Some DL flights are what they call "payload optimized." I'm not sure what that means exactly, other than the plane can go out with empty seats and leave standbys behind. Narrow- and wide-body planes.

I was on a flight once that the gate agent said was payload optimized and as such, they could only check (or had to check, I don't remember which) a specific number of carry-on bags.

Their bottom line means your computer gets broken?

If they try to pull that just say your lithium batteries are only allowed in carry ons...

enilria wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

enilria wrote:

On a recent flight the agent said “passengers are allowed one carry on in the overhead bin and one smaller item that fits beneath your seat. This is not a Delta rule, but is required by the FAA.” Show me where it says in the FARs that two bags only and their placement of one in an overhead bin and one under your seat is “required”.

You’re correct that there is no such FAA requirement specifically outlining two carry-on items and their stowage locations, but when an airline submits a carry-on baggage policy to the FAA, FAR 121.589 requires the airline to enforce their own requirements.

§121.589 Carry-on baggage.

(a) No certificate holder may allow the boarding of carry-on baggage on an airplane unless each passenger's baggage has been scanned to control the size and amount carried on board in accordance with an approved carry-on baggage program in its operations specifications. In addition, no passenger may board an airplane if his/her carry-on baggage exceeds the baggage allowance prescribed in the carry-on baggage program in the certificate holder's operations specifications.

So if Delta says 2 items and someone tries to board with 3, then yes, that is against FAA rules.

It’s still a cop out. I wonder if Spirit or others changes their filing to say passengers were only allowed a carry on that fits in the overhead bin if they pay a fee or if it more broadly says passengers are “allowed” a bag that fits there? Hmm

I don't know about NK, but G4's carry on baggage program does require the passenger to have paid for a carry-on bag or be in a situation where the fee is waived (military, non-rev, etc).

LAXBUR wrote:

enilria wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

They are Delta or contract employees... working at the airport. Think on that syntax for a minute.

I get the wording, but the statement is intended to divert blame from Delta. Otherwise why word it that way or even say it?

A lot of airline employees who work onboard an aircraft, whether flying it or serving drinks consider themselves a completely separate class of employee from ground staff, in an elitist way. This pilot likely wasn’t trying to trick people into thinking Delta isn’t to blame but rather passing blame to Delta’s “airport people.”

That's a different type of petty slam, but passengers would take that to mean employees of the airport. I've sat near them that have started crapping on the airport following the remark. They also frequently blame the airport for ATC. "The airport had us land on 21R for some reason, so we are going to be late by the time we taxi around the whole airport." I've heard that also numerous times. The airport has nothing to do with runway allocation.

[url][/url]

wjcandee wrote:

Weight and balance is a possible issue. Maybe not, but maybe. Not completely-implausible. Let's not be a bunch of know-it-alls.

After all the higher seat count from tighter pitch & the new SpaceFlex rear galley lavatory weight seems to be the issue as to why they need to block the last seat row on BA/LH A320ceo/neo.

Hand luggage situation has gone out of control some time ago. What we see now is full sized luggage in the cabin. If it doesn't fit under the seat, it is not hand luggage, period. There is sufficient space for (properly sized) hand luggage under every seat except emergency exit and bulkhead seats.

I have noticed that the Center of Gravity excuse is becoming more common. IMHO, it defuses the situation by just giving a "technical" reason which the passengers can't argue against.

I saw a family sneak into business class once. They were told to take their seats in the far rear due to "CG" issues.
In another instance, I moved one row aft to get an empty row, while the passenger on the opposite row aft of me moved one row forwards for the same reason. Both of us were asked to return to our assigned seats for "CG reasons". BS of course, since the way we moved gave no change in CG, but I didn't complain.

There are legitimate CG issues from time to time, and flying the ATR, I have ordered passengers moved about tons of times. It is not hard to spot the CG excuse instances though.

Friend of mine in Facebook group had this same problem today in fact on the CRJ. They needed 500lbs of ballast but had none available so they had to check carry ons to be the ballast.

ikramerica wrote:

.
Their bottom line means your computer gets broken?

If they try to pull that just say your lithium batteries are only allowed in carry ons...

That is true, but if a passenger tries to pull that, their bag could then be denied travel when the cabin is bulked out. I regularly work on regional flights where people rock up to the gate with a guitar and want to take it onboard, despite there being no overheads or lockers for anything that big, they don't keep them into hard cases and are unwilling to pay for a seat for the instrument. Playing that game with airport staff can easily backfire.

Dufo wrote:

Hand luggage situation has gone out of control some time ago. What we see now is full sized luggage in the cabin. If it doesn't fit under the seat, it is not hand luggage, period. There is sufficient space for (properly sized) hand luggage under every seat except emergency exit and bulkhead seats.

I completely agree with this. I wonder could more airlines tackle this from another direction. Charge a fee if they want to take a full size case onboard, and perhaps a smaller fee for bags to be checked in? More of an incentive to check everything in before you get to the gate.

AEROFAN wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Check the bag. Really, just check the bag. The few $ you save on carrying it on is balalnced out by the stupid levels of stress, and angst that comes later. Imagine paying $25 to lose that worry.

It's all in the mindset.

Why would wheeling my bag around the airport cause stress? At least I know where it is. I will keep my $60, thank you very much.

IKR. I have always operated on the policy of there are only two types of baggage: Lost and carry on...

I have flown sense 1975 and never had a lost bag. Before you say I do not fly enough I used to fly 1-3 times a week for over 7 years for a job.

737MAX7 wrote:

Friend of mine in Facebook group had this same problem today in fact on the CRJ. They needed 500lbs of ballast but had none available so they had to check carry ons to be the ballast.

Depending on the operator and type of CRJ, it's a very common occurrence, especially on a full flight with a jumpseater. Usually, you don't see it happen, because there's ballast available. Sometimes, you'll see it go the other direction, in which flight crew may go out and look at the valet checked bags, and move what they can inside, for W&B purposes, to carry more checked luggage, as the bags in the cabin don't count for additional weight.

ikramerica wrote:

M564038 wrote:

There should be severe criminal charges filed against airlines trying to hide bad customer treatment behind invented and wrongful safety, security or technical reasons.
It completely undermines the trust and seriouness behind true air safety issues.

The medical profession lies to you to “protect” you all the time. And it absolutely undermines my trust in what they tell me. As a parent, the lies they tell piss me off.

Everyone lies... all the time.

Do you think your employer, regardless of industry, is telling you the truth?

Do you think food marketing companies are telling you the truth?

The only person you can trust is yourself.

richierich wrote:

$25 paid and the slim but very real chance that my bag will not come down the carousel? Never mind that sometimes it can take an eternity for bags to arrive on the belt. No thanks. I pack carry-on whenever I can but sometimes I have to check.

The chance is basically zero. Happened to me in an extremely unusual circumstance (bag checked in under the wrong person; be careful, check those tags and hold onto them). Delta paid for everything I bought to make do, more than $200 worth of stuff for the 24 hours my bag was MIA. They also have a program called "Bags on Time", which gives you 2500 miles if your bag isn't on the carousel in 20 minutes. I have gotten that probably most frequently at SFO and EWR. More recently, I got a $100 credit when my bag was sent on a following flight after a what was already a couple of hours delay. $100 for 40 minutes; I'll take it.

Mind you, that's 3-4 times in well over 100 flights at this point (I should count), and only a couple of those were more than tens of minutes delayed.

It's mostly people who never fly that give me the old "oh, you never check a bag" saw. Thanks for the expert advice.

Does this issue relate to luggage in overhead bins only.

I frequently put stuff under the seat. Not clear if this would also be affected.

rbavfan wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Why would wheeling my bag around the airport cause stress? At least I know where it is. I will keep my $60, thank you very much.

IKR. I have always operated on the policy of there are only two types of baggage: Lost and carry on...

I have flown sense 1975 and never had a lost bag. Before you say I do not fly enough I used to fly 1-3 times a week for over 7 years for a job.

I worked for an airline for 16 years. I have checked bags twice. Once when I moved to a different location to live and once when I took EK to New Zealand on a holiday jaunt. First situation, bags arrived perfectly fine. Second, bags turned up 4 days into my 10 day New Zealand trip.

Well,

I am sorry you feel this way, but I do believe you are wrong. I do believe my government, my employers and most serious conpanies tell me the truth most of the time.
In fact, the degree of trust in a company and/or country is a very important factor and strongly correlqted with happiness and wealth. For that reason alone most business and world leaders aim for being truthfull.
Trusting your fellow humans makes for a profitable society.

Incompetent power trips and utter stupidity like this from an airline destroys hard earned trust in seconds.
I am not surprised it happens in the current US, though.

questions wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

M564038 wrote:

There should be severe criminal charges filed against airlines trying to hide bad customer treatment behind invented and wrongful safety, security or technical reasons.
It completely undermines the trust and seriouness behind true air safety issues.

The medical profession lies to you to “protect” you all the time. And it absolutely undermines my trust in what they tell me. As a parent, the lies they tell piss me off.

Everyone lies... all the time.

Do you think your employer, regardless of industry, is telling you the truth?

Do you think food marketing companies are telling you the truth?

The only person you can trust is yourself.

skipness1E wrote:

Check the bag. Really, just check the bag. The few $ you save on carrying it on is balalnced out by the stupid levels of stress, and angst that comes later. Imagine paying $25 to lose that worry.

It's all in the mindset.

Or I can just bring my luggage on the plane have it with me whenever I want it, not waste more time at check in, not worry about a stranger touching it or losing it, not risk it missing a connecting flight and not risk having to wait an extra 30-60 minutes after a long day of traveling in a crowded baggage area.

Worst case scenario the bins are full and a gate agent checks my bag conveniently and for free saving me $25, still better then checking in advance and less stressful.

In what world does it make sense to check a bag unless you NEED to bring a certain liquid, a large bag, or several bags?

MSPNWA wrote:

That is a laughable explanation. In my experience DL is in contention for the worst with forcing people to check bags long before the bins will be full. I'm a little surprised the airlines haven't gotten in trouble with this practice of checking bags for departure time purposes. They boldly advertise that the fare you bought includes a carry-on bag and personal item, but in reality a third of the plane won't be allowed to. It's deceptive at best.

You sure do fly DL a lot for having a disdain for them.

skipness1E wrote:

Check the bag. Really, just check the bag. The few $ you save on carrying it on is balalnced out by the stupid levels of stress, and angst that comes later. Imagine paying $25 to lose that worry.

It's all in the mindset.

Sometimes I have half an hour to wait on the back end, but not usually. Checking bags is wonderful until you have to wait at the bag claim to get them back.

777Mech wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

That is a laughable explanation. In my experience DL is in contention for the worst with forcing people to check bags long before the bins will be full. I'm a little surprised the airlines haven't gotten in trouble with this practice of checking bags for departure time purposes. They boldly advertise that the fare you bought includes a carry-on bag and personal item, but in reality a third of the plane won't be allowed to. It's deceptive at best.

You sure do fly DL a lot for having a disdain for them.

With that name, it sound more like he's an ex-NWA employee out of MSP who never accepted the NW-DL merger and still lives in the past.