Csavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1344 posts, RR: 4 Posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
OK SO AA is going to charge 15.00 for checked baggage. I don't begrudge them. The way oil prices are climbing they have to do everything or air travel will be the province of the very wealthy.
But to speed up emplaning and deplaning and to discourage idiots who bring in navy trunks as "carry-on" perhaps they should charge for carry-on. It is more convenient. Laptops and ladies handbags get passes but anything else in the overhead bins. 10 bucks. Even 20 bucks. Just got back from SFO this AM and I would've paid extra not to have to wait around for my luggage.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
CygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3287 times:
I'm with you on the annoyance of people that carry on everything including the kitchen sink. However, controlling carry on is not going to happen. Airlines want you to carry on. That way, they make the customer do all the baggage handling (i.e., they can reduce bag handling costs and associated employees) and sell the extra space for cargo revenue.
I know - it makes it more miserable for the smart packing passenger, but it's good for the airline, even if it screws us.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
Theoden From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
All these little fees combined are not enough to solve the fundamental problem of fuel. They also create far to much bad-will to be worth it. You are right that people are going to try and carry on everything.
The airlines are going to need to dump the planes with the highest fuel consumption per seat (duh) and there will need to be a big change in the way employees work. The employees need to be routing for the company and the so do the unions. I think that if both mngmt and employee are pro profit, an airline will thrive, otherwise, it's going to be a bloodbath. But how can such a thing happen? It has to start at the top, and I don't think the leadership at most airlines know how to create such a culture, nor do they realize its their only hope.
Airnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 250 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3165 times:
How about charging a somewhat lower base fare for the seat and then charging per pound for everything the passenger brings - including the passenger himself?
Base oneway fare: $300
Per pound surcharge: (180lb person + 10 lb carry-on + 20 lb checked bag) x $1/lb = $210
Total fare: $585
Advantages: clear connection between the consumption of fuel and the weight of passenger and baggage. Would allow airlines to have exact aircraft weight data and calibrate fuel needed much more accurately - could reduce costs by reducing excess fuel carried.
Disadvantage: pretty obvious discrimination and questionable constitutionality.
Csavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1344 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3060 times:
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 6): How about just charging a fare that will cover all your costs plus a margin ... let me see, like every other industry!
... I know, I live in a dream world!
Because we live in a world where we are used to well I remember $99.00 from NY to LA.
Ain't gonna happen anymore. We are spoiled. What's gonna happen is that air travel will become more and more geared towards businesspeople who can afford it and luxury. Then the pendulum will swing back - just a bit as fuel-efficient airliners, fewer flights, and a recession will make oil prices drop. But the days of $40.00 a barrell are a sweet memory.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3016 times:
I think this all goes back to the thread about weighing people when they get on the plane. If they're going to do this, I think they ought to just say you're limited to 250 pounds between you and your luggage. If you have more than that you pay a fee for every 20 or 30 pounds over.
All these ideas are crazy, the airline should raise their fares to cover their costs. Of course people bringing crazy amounts of luggage should pay more. The fare should cover the cost of the travel plus the things that are assumed, such as the assumption that people who are traveling will be bring luggage with them.
The way it's going what does the fare cover? It doesn't cover the fuel, that's what the surcharge is for. It doesn't cover a checked bag, that's what the checked bag fee is for. It doesn't cover drinks or meals, you have to pay for them now. What's next, we'll have to pay to use the restroom? We'll have to pay a pilot fee to cover the costs of paying the pilot, a crew fee to pay the crew, take-off and landing fees?
I'm sick of being charged fees for everything, I'd be happy paying a higher fare and at least knowing how much it's going to cost to fly somewhere without needing a calculator to figure out how much the actual cost will be.
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5240 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2954 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 8): Of course people bringing crazy amounts of luggage should pay more. The fare should cover the cost of the travel plus the things that are assumed, such as the assumption that people who are traveling will be bring luggage with them.
Well, for checked baggage you do pay more if it's overweight. One of the problems with carry-on bags is that the airlines rarely enforce their own policies. If everybody brought onboard one carry-on within the airline's limits, and one personal item that fits under the seat ... and airlines enforced this - we'd be far more efficient at boarding and everyone would have space.
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9): Well, for checked baggage you do pay more if it's overweight. One of the problems with carry-on bags is that the airlines rarely enforce their own policies. If everybody brought onboard one carry-on within the airline's limits, and one personal item that fits under the seat ... and airlines enforced this - we'd be far more efficient at boarding and everyone would have space.
That's what I was trying to get at, rather than enforce the rules that most people follow already, the airlines would add fees to everyone to cover the few who aren't following the rules. The only reason I can see for that is that thye don't have to tell people as they're boarding that they can't bring their bag on, which I'm sure would make a lot of people mad when they've always been able to bring whatever they want onboard.
How about adding a line to the top of the ticket saying ALL RULES REGARDING WEIGHT AND SIZE LIMITS ARE NOW STRICTLY ENFORCED. I know there would still be a few people who would try to carry-on more than is allowed, but who would argue about it after they are instructed to read the top of their ticket.
Bingo. This would last about 2 minutes before the ACLU or another rights group filed a lawsuit
Not to mention (looking at this from an American standpoint, since it seems that this is geared more towards the American airlines then EU/Asia): people who are overweight due to an illness or disability -- asking them to pay extra because of their disability would most likely be a violation of the ADA, asking for more trouble. Ditto with people who require walkers/wheelchairs/etc... they'd be forced to pay more for their device's weight, and that wouldn't fly.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7459 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
Quoting Csavel (Reply 7): Because we live in a world where we are used to well I remember $99.00 from NY to LA.
The consumer is not the problem. We were also used to pay $.90/Gal for gas at the pump and we're now paying $4.00/Gal. We were used to pay $2.00/Gal of milk and it's now nearly $4.00/Gal. Prices go up, people get used to it. What I would not like is having to pay $4 for a Gal of milk and them at the cashier find out I will also have to pay $.30 for the container plus another $.40 for transportation fees.
Skydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 911 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2647 times:
Some excellent comments above...
I have to agree with Max550, I am sick of the nickel and dime bullshit being imposed. If airlines need to charge more just to break even, so be it.
Why not just add 50 to 100 dollars to every fare and remove fees for checked baggage within the existing weight limits, include snacks, drinks and hot meals on longer transcon flights to convince the traveling public they will be getting something in return for the higher fares they will be paying in the near future. Further, the added accounting costs and wasted time of FAs playing the roles of waiters and waitresses collecting cash, providing change and then having to be accountable for every penny and service item at the end of each flight. And then someone else will have to waste time and money to cross-check all of the FAs paperwork later.
While the idea of charging for carry-on bags seems to be a great way to reduce cabin congestion, charging for checked baggage only makes for a worse situation. Also, there are many items prohibited from being carried aboard an aircraft, and other items such as laptop computers and other delicate or expensive electronic items which airlines recommend not to place in checked baggage and will not cover if lost, stolen or damaged.
And for those who believe it is crazy to include services in the base fare to simplify the system and reduce frustration and ultimately wasted resources and expenses, consider the following examples: when you purchase a new car, you pay for the SRS airbags even though you will likely never see them deploy. But you pay for the technology so it is there for those who need it. You do not have the option to state you don't want it, if you don't want to pay for it.
Another: you plan to purchase a new home stereo system, and find all models include AM on the radio tuner, even though you only listen to FM. Are you annoyed you have to pay for something you will never use? Again, companies like Sony and Pioneer have found it is more logical and cost-efficient to charge one price and include features which may not be used by all instead of charging for features a la carte.
Airlines are doing a good job of making something that was once simple into an awkward and frustrating experience for all involved.
Starrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1118 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2484 times:
How about No.
The more nickel and diming the airlines do, the more people are going to stop flying. Charge what the product costs. If it costs $566 to get from point A to point B and back, your lowest ticket price is $570.
I don't know about other people, but when I have to worry about how much my bag weighs, how many bags my wife is carrying, if we are going to want something to eat on the plane ect, it becomes too much of a hassle. Given that security adds an hour or two in some locations, the airlines have made it worthwhile for people to spend twice the actual flightime in the car.
I would not even consider BOS - IAD anymore. New York or New Jersey? I'm absolutely driving.
Every time the airline goes back to the fee well for their profits, the more people rage against the airline. If they run late and have rude service- they just lost another customer.
Airnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 250 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2469 times:
I don't know what the big deal is. It costs more to fly more weight. People should be able to understand that. Does FedEx charge a single rate to ship a box from one place to another? No, they charge you per pound. If you're bringing more weight, you cost the airline more. Why not pay more?
This is where the spiral starts. Airline A charges XX; LCC B charges XX-10% but charges extra for bags. A lowers their price to meet B, but doesn't charge for the bags. B forgives the bag charge. A puts some of the seats at X-15%. B matches all seats at X-15%. A ... well you get the picture.
There are two beliefs: (1) the airplane flies anyway so charge something hoping to recoup some of the variable costs. (2) the lowest cost airline will end up winning.
If you cannot fly the route and make money on the base fare and anticipated load, you have no business flying the route. There is a very low probably that fees will ever make up the negative revenue. You are seeing some of this now. Withdraw supply until an appropriate amount of revenue can be obtained.
Airlines are killed by the lack of revenue, not an absence of expense.
Dougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 390 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
The problem here is not the airlines or the baggage, its fuel costs.
This boils down to speculators making quick bucks and not caring what happens to the rest of us.
Its about time the world governments stepped in on oil pricing and the speculative trading thats going on, perhaps oil prices should be frozen and only allowed to be changed by a central body. I know OPEC exists but thats more to do with production, not pricing. We need to take out the speculators making fast bucks, oil prices never go down once at a certain level experience has showed us that. Governments need to get prices back down, the price now is completely false, oil should never have been allowed to go over USD 80 a barrel. Even at that price the producers are making a killing.
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 18): You can charge more for the same route, but you'd better have a reason why the pax would choose you over the competition ...e.g. better/different level of service. If not, get out.
Yes, and don't tell me that you have a lower fare, then tell me I have to pay $15 to bring a bag with me, $25 if I want to check a bag, $40 to pay for the fuel your plane requires. Fee's used to be charged for something extra, not something that is required. I have no problem paying a drink fee or a meal fee because I can choose not to eat or drink something. I do have a problem with fee's for fuel and luggage (of course if it weighs more than a certain amount you should be expected to pay more) when flying on planes requires fuel and nearly always some sort of luggage.
I suggest coin (bill) operated locks on the overhead bins, similar to the baggage lockers found in some airports. That way if you want to bring on board all yours goods and chattel, you have to pay for it.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Well, milk is price controlled here in CA, to keep costs down. That of course means our milk is nearly $5 a gallon. Because, well, big government can't do anything right...
One of the reasons I no longer live in California, way to much government.
It's years of airline mis-management and poor ticket pricing.
Let's stop blaming 'big oil' and the government.
The airlines have been in trouble for years ... before 9/11, and when oil was well below $100 barrel. They used 9/11 as an excuse, now it's oil. When oil goes back down to below $100, and IMO it will, unless airline make drastic changes, they will still be in trouble.
The only reason half the US airlines are around today is because of US bankruptcy laws and government help in one way or another.
[Edited 2008-06-02 13:12:31]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 19): Its about time the world governments stepped in on oil pricing and the speculative trading thats going on, perhaps oil prices should be frozen and only allowed to be changed by a central body
I find it hard to believe this would ever happen.
Oil prices aren't the problem, the problem is not charging customers what it costs to get from point A to point B. If I offered a service to you at a price lower than my competitors but take a loss on it, it's not the fault of oil or the government, it's my fault because I'm not charging you what it costs me to provide that service.
Should I charge a price lower than what it costs for the service and then add on a "profit fee?" That's basically what we've come to. I'm supposed to feel bad for airlines because I'm not paying them enough money to use their services?
I have trouble believing that big government has hurt aviation more than it's helped it. However, I do think the subsidies and allowing money losing airlines to continue operations indefinitely hasn't helped.
Quoting BWilliams (Reply 11): Bingo. This would last about 2 minutes before the ACLU or another rights group filed a lawsuit
I don't really think so. You pay for the services rendered. It costs more for passenger X, so their fare is higher. A system could be worked out to exclude those without self-inflicted medical weight problems. So long as an exclusion was present, I don't see any grounds for a suit.
25 474218: How about that wonderful "big government" agency called the TSA, has it hurt the airline business? Many people have stopped flying because of the has
26 Bond007: Cmon guys! There is no way that airlines will ever charge for the weight of the passenger! You pay for one seat, and it will always be that way. If t
27 Max550: I didn't say big government is wonderful, all I said is it has helped more than it has hurt. Nor do I believe that everytime the government has gotte