Narrative:

As we neared our departure time; I knew we would be under but close to ATOG (landing limited) for our -300 with winglets. To give us an extra margin; child weights were computed. When the operations agent requested the 'loading schedule' on the computer; it would not allow an acceptable load sheet (loading schedule) to be printed because of a loading rule problem. We were under ATOG by approximately 800 lbs. The numbers were recomputed to account for luggage movement in the cargo holds; but to no avail. Our passenger count was 125. Everyone; including dispatch and the operations agent supervisor; had never seen this before. Our dispatcher thought that maybe this problem is related to a -300 with winglets. By this time (30 minutes late) we were faced with taking loaded checked passenger bags off the plane. This; of course; causes much inconvenience and the undue expense of transporting late bags to various passengers; not to mention the lost goodwill for many customers. After reworking the load sheet problem by operations; an idea to bring the bags up to the cabin to be strapped into the empty seats was suggested. This did allow for an in-trim load schedule. An action such as this is mentioned in the fom for charter operations. This is what we did and we continued on to our destination. During the flight and upon reflection; I was not sure if there was not a better course of action we could have taken. This is the purpose of my filing. The combination of factors: late night; eager passengers; and a quick idea using the prior experience of the ramp and operations personnel on the scene; made me ok with moving the 12 bags up to the cabin. I was thankful that no passengers would be inconvenienced by us failing to have their bags delivered to baggage claim upon arrival at their destination. In hindsight; I wish I would have made one last call to dispatch or the chief pilot on call. Thoughts that ran through my mind while enroute were: how do you handle the bags brought up to the cabin from the cargo holds below? It would seem to me that we should get those bags brought to the baggage claim carousels in our destination for normal pick-up. In my honest opinion; the decision I made will cause the least lost goodwill with our customers; but at the same time could cause me problems for making such a decision. For the record; I take full responsibility and want to point out that my first officer and flight attendant crew are blameless in this event. Upon arrival (I had called in-range to advise) I spoke with the ground operations supervisor and he was surprised that we took this course of action. Not because it didn't take position into account; but because of tsa concerns. I agree and will now know forever more. Every bag moved 'up' was taken out of the passenger cabin and moved down below to the ramp for transport to baggage claim or its connecting flight. I would like to say I am the only one who could ever fall for this; but I believe that I am not. Hindsight is 20/20. I want to reiterate once again -- operations may have come up with this idea; but I (as captain) went along with it. My intentions were good; but flawed here. I wonder if this problem has been addressed. Using a -300 on long haul flight such as this means that this prob can happen again; if we don't look at a solution. A -700 may not have this problem. Additionally; when the load schedule program in the operation agent's computer initially shows a load rule problem; there is no apparent way to rectify the problem. I am hopeful that this won't happen again. If it does; we will more than likely have many unhappy passengers. And we all don't want that. I should have known not to move bags up from the cargo hold to the cabin. The opportunity presented itself and I mistakenly took it. Learning this the hard way; I can easily say it won't happen again.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 flight crew reports accepting checked luggage in the passenger cabin due to weight and balance considerations.

Narrative: As we neared our departure time; I knew we would be under but close to ATOG (landing limited) for our -300 with winglets. To give us an extra margin; child weights were computed. When the Operations Agent requested the 'Loading Schedule' on the computer; it would not allow an acceptable load sheet (Loading Schedule) to be printed because of a loading rule problem. We were under ATOG by approximately 800 lbs. The numbers were recomputed to account for luggage movement in the cargo holds; but to no avail. Our passenger count was 125. Everyone; including Dispatch and the Operations Agent Supervisor; had never seen this before. Our Dispatcher thought that maybe this problem is related to a -300 with winglets. By this time (30 minutes late) we were faced with taking loaded checked passenger bags off the plane. This; of course; causes much inconvenience and the undue expense of transporting late bags to various passengers; not to mention the lost goodwill for many customers. After reworking the load sheet problem by Operations; an idea to bring the bags up to the cabin to be strapped into the empty seats was suggested. This did allow for an In-trim Load Schedule. An action such as this is mentioned in the FOM for Charter Operations. This is what we did and we continued on to our destination. During the flight and upon reflection; I was not sure if there was not a better course of action we could have taken. This is the purpose of my filing. The combination of factors: Late night; eager passengers; and a quick idea using the prior experience of the Ramp and Operations personnel on the scene; made me OK with moving the 12 bags up to the cabin. I was thankful that no passengers would be inconvenienced by us failing to have their bags delivered to Baggage Claim upon arrival at their destination. In hindsight; I wish I would have made one last call to Dispatch or the Chief Pilot on call. Thoughts that ran through my mind while enroute were: How do you handle the bags brought up to the cabin from the cargo holds below? It would seem to me that we should get those bags brought to the baggage claim carousels in our destination for normal pick-up. In my honest opinion; the decision I made will cause the least lost goodwill with our customers; but at the same time could cause me problems for making such a decision. For the record; I take full responsibility and want to point out that my First Officer and Flight Attendant Crew are blameless in this event. Upon arrival (I had called in-range to advise) I spoke with the Ground Operations Supervisor and he was surprised that we took this course of action. Not because it didn't take position into account; but because of TSA concerns. I agree and will now know forever more. Every bag moved 'up' was taken out of the passenger cabin and moved down below to the Ramp for transport to baggage claim or its connecting flight. I would like to say I am the only one who could ever fall for this; but I believe that I am not. Hindsight is 20/20. I want to reiterate once again -- Operations may have come up with this idea; but I (as Captain) went along with it. My intentions were good; but flawed here. I wonder if this problem has been addressed. Using a -300 on long haul flight such as this means that this prob can happen again; if we don't look at a solution. A -700 may not have this problem. Additionally; when the load schedule program in the Operation Agent's computer initially shows a load rule problem; there is no apparent way to rectify the problem. I am hopeful that this won't happen again. If it does; we will more than likely have many unhappy passengers. And we all don't want that. I should have known not to move bags up from the cargo hold to the cabin. The opportunity presented itself and I mistakenly took it. Learning this the hard way; I can easily say it won't happen again.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.