Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sen. Schumer Says He'll Fight Carry-on Fees  
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13702 posts, RR: 61
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yeah, good luck with that...   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36392217/ns/travel-news/

Fair-use excerpt:

ALBANY, N.Y. - U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday he's trying to get the federal government to prohibit airlines from charging a fee for carry-on baggage, calling it a "slap in the face to travelers."

The New York Democrat is making a personal plea to the Treasury Department to rule that carry-on bags are a necessity for travel, which would make them exempt from a separate fee outside the ticket price.

"Airline passengers have always had the right to bring a carry-on bag without having to worry about getting nickeled and dimed by an airline company," Schumer said. "This latest fee is a slap in the face to travelers."


Necessity my ass. While I don't know that I agree with the idea of charging for carryons, it has merit - and no airline should be mandated by the government to provide anything for free other than safe, reliable transportation from A to B.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8746 times:

You have to admit, Spirit Air is kinda going too far with their carry-on bag fees.

Sure you can personally boycott Spirit and other airlines that do similar, but if simply not flying Spirit Air isn't enough and carry-on charges and similar catches on with other airlines, at what point are they going to stop nickel and diming the flying public?

Where do you draw the line?


User currently offlineacjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 427 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8722 times:

I think he will have a very difficult time passing this as long as there are other airlines for passengers to fly that do not charge for carry on bags.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13436 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
While I don't know that I agree with the idea of charging for carryons, it has merit - and no airline should be mandated by the government to provide anything for free other than safe, reliable transportation from A to B.

  

Well said.

This is political grandstanding. Zero value.

Like your Reagan quote.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13702 posts, RR: 61
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jolau1701 (Reply 1):
You have to admit, Spirit Air is kinda going too far with their carry-on bag fees.

Is it? They're simply changing one of their policies, and customers can ultimately choose to do business with them or NOT do business with them based on it. Besides, they're not charging for personal items or carryons that can fit under the seat. This is clearly a policy change driven by people trying to cram huge carryons in the overheads that should really have been checked instead.

Quoting jolau1701 (Reply 1):
Sure you can personally boycott Spirit and other airlines that do similar, but if simply not flying Spirit Air isn't enough and carry-on charges and similar catches on with other airlines, at what point are they going to stop nickel and diming the flying public?

As consumer behavior has shown, people are generally unwilling to pay a higher all-inclusive fare and would rather have a lower base fare and pay for add-ons. In addition, focus groups of elite frequent fliers have opined that they felt it was unfair for their typically higher-priced tickets to effectively subsidize the free checked bags of the family going to Disney World on very inexpensive tickets.

Quoting jolau1701 (Reply 1):
Where do you draw the line?

You draw the line at charging for things that truly ARE a basic human necessity, like charging for the use of the lavatory, availability of safety equipment like overhead oxygen masks, etc. Anything else is fair game for airlines to charge for and for consumers to vote with their wallets on.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinessublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8608 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
Necessity my ass. While I don't know that I agree with the idea of charging for carryons, it has merit - and no airline should be mandated by the government to provide anything for free other than safe, reliable transportation from A to B.

The safe, reliable price isn't free though, considering most people buy the ticket.

Outside of the issue of legislating the prevention of charging for carryon bags, the nickel & diming really is getting too much. Do people really get on planes without carry-on?   I wonder if this strategy will make it's way to other forms of trannsport. Imagine paying an extra carry-on fee when boarding the subway/metro to work every morning?


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3216 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8590 times:

Typical Washington DC knee-jerk reaction and leading the race to get your name on a bill to score political points.

"Slap in the face".... how laughably ridiculous. I just love how entitled the collective traveling public feels these days, I swear. Today at work, I had a most disgruntled passenger demand I give him a meal voucher because they sat on the ramp "FOR THIRTY MINUTES!!!!!!!" waiting for a gate.  


User currently offlinejlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8575 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not like the new carry-on fees at all. That being said, This is just another example of our government trying to control more of our lives. The government does not seem to give any credit to the American public. It is important for congress to allow private corperations to make there own decisions, good or bad, Also to allow the public to let that company know what they feel by either buying the Spirit product, or going elsewhere.
America has a lot of big problems for congress to handle. They can leave the little things like this for the american citizens to handle.



JLB54061
User currently offlinepapatango From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8528 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday he's trying to get the federal government to prohibit airlines from charging a fee for carry-on baggage, calling it a "slap in the face to travelers."

I think what is a slap in the face to the American public is all the free beenies and exemptions that Congress votes itself!


User currently offlineheathrow From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8512 times:

If all the airlines started doing this, then yes, I could agree, but as of now, This will just deffer people from flying Spirit if they don't want to pay for carry on. Simple as that.

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13702 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8496 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ssublyme (Reply 5):
Do people really get on planes without carry-on?

You mean without carryons that can't fit underneath the seat in front of them? Yes, all the time! Keep in mind, the charge only applies to large carryons that should really have been checked bags to begin with - not small personal items or small carryons that can fit in the customer's personal space beneath the seat in front of them.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8477 times:

I don't understand why Spirit is getting so much bad press over this. They are strictly a "white shoes" airline that makes most of its business flying passengers to FLL, so they can link up to the Port Everglades cruise terminals.

If they want to charge for using the bathroom, or even for on-board air use, let the free market decide if they should succeed or fail.


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3143 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8477 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):

This is the guy who promised that he would get another low fare airline to ALB after Indy-Air collapsed. I don't trust him. Although, it seems he is really caught up in the aviation industry.

There is never any good news coming out of the 518...the only happy news was that we had a safe ski season with no avalanches. Last day for whiteface!



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8438 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting papatango (Reply 8):

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday he's trying to get the federal government to prohibit airlines from charging a fee for carry-on baggage, calling it a "slap in the face to travelers."

I think what is a slap in the face to the American public is all the free beenies and exemptions that Congress votes itself!

Amen. The LAST think I want is Schumer sticking his oar in here. Essentially everything congress touches these days goes down the toilet....



rcair1
User currently offlinejolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
You draw the line at charging for things that truly ARE a basic human necessity, like charging for the use of the lavatory, availability of safety equipment like overhead oxygen masks, etc. Anything else is fair game for airlines to charge for and for consumers to vote with their wallets on.

Is nothing sacred asides what is mentioned above?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21796 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8367 times:

Quoting jolau1701 (Reply 14):
Is nothing sacred asides what is mentioned above?

If airlines charged for any bags at all in the cabin, then I'd say it was excessive. But what Spirit is really doing is charging for overhead space - you can take carry-ons on for free if they fit under your seat. And while I don't care for the policy, and won't be flying Spirit because of it, there is no need for the government to step in in such a matter.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 12):
Although, it seems he is really caught up in the aviation industry.

He loves it, because it gives him so much PR. Not that he gives a crap about the industry - it's all about making himself look good, even if his ideas are completely asinine.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecvg2lga From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 635 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8346 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):

This is the guy who promised that he would get another low fare airline to ALB

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
Is it? They're simply changing one of their policies, and customers can ultimately choose to do business with them or NOT do business with them based on it. Besides, they're not charging for personal items or carryons that can fit under the seat. This is clearly a policy change driven by people trying to cram huge carryons in the overheads that should really have been checked instead.

It seems that if Spirit or any other airline wants to enforce the original policy they should do so at check-in. I come across many "carry-on" bags every day that are obviously too large and should be a checked bag. But if agents aren't willing to step up and say "Hey, you need to check that" because it does not adhere to the carry-on dimension regulations, then it is the airlines fault that they are missing out on that revenue.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
You mean without carryons that can't fit underneath the seat in front of them? Yes, all the time! Keep in mind, the charge only applies to large carryons that should really have been checked bags to begin with - not small personal items or small carryons that can fit in the customer's personal space beneath the seat in front of them.

People seem to believe that the space under the seat in front of them is exclusively for the luxury of legroom. Well it isn't. It is a space to store your carry-on items. I've flown many flights where I've had both a carry-on in that space and ample leg room. Sometimes after takeoff I'll move the carry-on agains the front of my seat and have more leg room in front of me. Stowing a bag onboard an aircraft is not rocket science.

I think it would be great if airlines also started charging passengers for being over the limit of carry-on bags. My particular story wouldn't make much difference but proves a point. I was flying to Atlanta one afternoon and there was a fellow non-rev in front of me who had 2 large carry-on bag and a personal item along with a pillow. We were boarding and MD88 which as everyone knows is narrow as hell, she nearly beat every aisle passenger as she made way towards the back.

By the time I had made it to the seat she had stowed her personal item underneath the space in front of her, 1 carry-on in the space in front of my seat and was trying unsucessfully to jam the second and over stuffed carry-on into the overhead. When it wouldn't fit she had the nerve to ask a deadhead in the row in front of us if she could place it in the space in front of his seat! He declined. The flight attendant had to take the bag to the front of the aircraft to be checked. Disgusting if you ask me. First off as non-rev's for our particular airline we pay almost no baggage fees, second she was in violation of the 1+ rule, then she had the nerve to violate and/or attempt so, the personal space of others seated around her. Fortunately all I was carrying was my laptop so I found a small spot more than a few rows ahead of my seat to stow it during the flight. We were the last ones on and crew & gate were anxious to get it out on time.
My 2 cents.

Tchau

DA-



They don't call em' emergencies anymore. They call em' Patronies.
User currently onlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11458 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8264 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Lets see: Airlines begin to charge for check bags and people begin to come into planes with big carry on and one personal item as allowed. Of course overhead are not designed for all passengers carrying two items and airlines begin to face problems to dispatch flights on time and in the end begin the need to place the employees closer to the airline for a free gate check.
In the end, planes remain more time on the ground, using APU many times.

Wouldn't be better to charge for carry on and turn free again to check one bag ?



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8082 times:

Sen. Schumer's represents New York State. The airline and related travel/tourism market in NY State is quite signicant with NY City among the world's biggest international destination of tourists and business persons. Anything that could hurt the revenues and employment in the travel trade in NY State and NY City area, including the expansion of fees like those of Sprint's for larger carry on's, may discourage travel to the NY City area. I also suspect that many downstate New Yorkers have been complaining to him over these new and other already created fees, especially those that frequently travel between NY City area and seasonal residences in Florida.

User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2151 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7864 times:

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 17):
Lets see: Airlines begin to charge for check bags and people begin to come into planes with big carry on and one personal item as allowed. Of course overhead are not designed for all passengers carrying two items and airlines begin to face problems to dispatch flights on time and in the end begin the need to place the employees closer to the airline for a free gate check.
In the end, planes remain more time on the ground, using APU many times.

Wouldn't be better to charge for carry on and turn free again to check one bag ?

One carry on and personal item? I watched a woman carry four items from the terminal to an RJ tonight and not a single one of those "carry on" bags would fit in the overhead or under the seat. With the increase of kiosks, online check-in and printing tickets at home, the only person that can stop the nonsense is the gate agent and they just want to get the people out of their hair without someone yelling at them.

Make it a free checked bag and carry on and you'll still have people with one checked bag and four carry on bags. Some people just take absurd amounts of things with them and don't want to pay for it. Until employees can enforce policies without being abused by customers, policies will be violated every flight.

I still think the government should mandate fuel fees and required costs should be added into advertised ticket prices though. If the regulation required one checked bag for that price, I don't think it would put anyone out of business.


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is it really that hard to understand, it is an election year: that law would never get passed, but when he goes
campainig he will say that he fought this carry-on fee to his darndest.

The laws that should apply to airline fees are ones that maintain saftey and sanitary conditions for all. I.e. Not charging for oxygen or bathrooms.



Boiler Up!
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7583 times:

Yay for big government!!
And retarded politicians trying to score political points!
This is the government trying to tell a private industry what they can and cannot charge for....



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineJBAirwaysFan From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1034 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7508 times:

I don't think he can pass the necessity issue with carry-ons because personal items are still free. The medication argument is gone right there because travelers can just put any medical necessities in their free personal item. I personally don't agree with Spirit's new policy, I think it is a rip off. But if you think about it, there are similar fees in other businesses. When you carry-on your own bags, you are basically handling your own belongings and they charge you a fee. In many regions in the deep south, there are many restaurants that don't sell alcoholic beverages though you may bring your own and they charge you a set up fee. So IMHO, this is not a new type of fee (maybe a little more steep than a restaurant fee) but nonetheless, it has been around in other businesses and it is just new to the airlines.

[Edited 2010-04-12 05:56:36]


In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
User currently offlineIADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7590 times:

[

Quoting Ltbewr (Reply 19):
Sen. Schumer's represents New York State. The airline and related travel/tourism market in NY State is quite signicant with NY City among the world's biggest international destination of tourists and business persons. Anything that could hurt the revenues and employment in the travel trade in NY State and NY City area, including the expansion of fees like those of Sprint's for larger carry on's, may discourage travel to the NY City area. I also suspect that many downstate New Yorkers have been complaining to him over these new and other already created fees, especially those that frequently travel between NY City area and seasonal residences in Florida.

You are absolutely correct, right on. After health care and jobs, this is number 3 on the list that constituens, of various senators, and congressman and congresswomen have been writing, emailing and phoning about.It is my understanding that since Spirit announced the fee that it might have even become number 2 on the list and many of them travel to, and from. Florida.

In time there will be more politicians speak out against this lame brain fee. Peoploe dont realize that if the proposed fee isnt dropped, there are all kiinds of procedures that Congress could use to stop the fee. They could withold funding for airport projects etc. etc. etc.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3598 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7557 times:

"This is the guy who promised that he would get another low fare airline to ALB after Indy-Air collapsed. I don't trust him. Although, it seems he is really caught up in the aviation industry.

There is never any good news coming out of the 518...the only happy news was that we had a safe ski season with no avalanches. Last day for whiteface!"

He did work with B6 to get service to BUF, ROC, SYR and BTV. 75 slots at JFK for service to those cities. So let's be fair here. ALB is a bit close to JFK for service . . . doesn't mean it can't one day get service to Florida though.

BTW . . . Whiteface is nothing short of awesome! If they would only open up that third trail on Lookout Mountain . . . just once already!


25 Revelation : How safe will it be if people can't carry prescriptions with them? There has to be a happy medium here.
26 davescj : While I wouldn't fly Spirit, and this is one reason why, I can't see carry on as "necessary". Airline travel is basically a contract between the pax a
27 Boeing747_600 : Rubbish - Its is the government's job to ensure that the public is not fleeced by a carrier's capricious approach to revenue enhancement.
28 indolikaa : I didn't realize carry-on was a right. I thought it was a privilege...
29 Transpac787 : No it is not It is your job to not fly Spirit.
30 avek00 : For those who actually inform themselves beyond news articles, the deeper point of the controversy here is a salient one -- at what point are the unbu
31 PPVRA : I say Spirit should ban Mr. Schumer from their flights. Who are they fleecing? Nobody. Absolutely nodoby. You don't like their policies, don't fly the
32 fghtngsiouxATC : I personally don't care if Spirit or any other low-notch airline charges for carry-ons. While I don't agree, I just won't fly them. BUT, once the airl
33 Boeing747_600 : Again, sheer nonsense. Being able to operate an airline is a privilege. That privilege comes with certain responsibilities. Its is the duty of any re
34 Post contains images PHLBOS : Bold emphasis added: Although, I think you meant to say checked-bag fees as opposed to check-in fees. Not that I'm a fan of Sen. Schumer nor governmen
35 Post contains images Transpac787 : No it is not. It is the duty of the consumer to choose an alternate supplier. Since you do not fly Spirit, YOU are not affected by them in any way -
36 Boeing747_600 : Not all people are as free to choose as I am. Thanks to many markets being cornered, some pax simply have no alternative. The Govt must step in to en
37 Transpac787 : They won't be charged to carry a personal item on board. And pray-tell, what markets do you speak of that Spirit dominates with no other alternative
38 Kappel : Not worse than Ryanair charging for checking in. If anything is vital to a flight, it's being able to check in. Agreed. No chance this will get anywh
39 DAL763ER : You must be joking, right? Why should I pay money to carry my laptop with me, for example? I pay for the ticket, regardless of how much it cost $1 or
40 Post contains images Transpac787 : Let's do the math on this so you can figure it out on your own. Ticket cost: $55 + Carry-On Bag: $45 = Total: $100 Ticket cost inclusive of carry-on
41 CharlieNoble : THIS IS A RED HERRING. Spirit's new fee applies to ONLY to luggage that doesn't fit under the seat in front of you. So if Grandma's medicine is in he
42 CharlieNoble : This, in effect, is what they have done. A "personal item"...ie a handbag/laptop case/"Manbag" that fits under the seat in front of you is not charge
43 Revelation : Thanks for clearing that up. I knew there had to be some middle ground out there somewhere. I couldn't find it amid the strident posts about capitali
44 NIKV69 : Well then your fares will have to go up. Airlines can't make money anymore. Not with gas prices spiking every summer. The ultimate elitist as well, h
45 Post contains images lightsaber : Will the senator force the TSA to let us bring water onto flights? I consider that a *far* bigger issues that Spirit charging for carryons. As already
46 ANITIX87 : Exactly. That's why I think carry-on fees are a great idea. Maybe next, airlines will decide to charge us, when we land, a fee based on how long the
47 Post contains images PPVRA : And to legislate every possible exception, inclusions, etc, (have to make everyone happy) it's going to take another one of these in terms of complex
48 flanker : Certainly not with a Federal mandate. That is absurd, and it needs to stop. If an Airline(s) feel the need to charge then so be it, but you as a pass
49 Prinair : I believe that if the government wants to help it should have the TSA install those templates (that they had installed briefly in the past) on the x-r
50 Post contains images EA772LR : I love that Reagan quote...dang we need a guy like him right now. Back on topic: Yep. I know ole' Chuck thinks he's above the law being an elitist se
51 Tango-Bravo : So can it then be said that carry-on fees can be interpreted to apply only to the use of overhead bin space for carry-on luggage? ...and that the spa
52 falstaff : So lets say a lot of people decide not to bring carry on items and the overhead space goes mostly empty. Then why in the hell should have have to put
53 indolikaa : It is not nonsense. It is a fact. Seems your "inalienable rights" glasses are foggy this fine day. Where in the law books does it say, "All Americans
54 atct : This is why I wont fly Spirit. I travel with my stealth NG roll-aboard from when I was a flight attendant and I will never check a bag. Enough said. C
55 crosswinds21 : This is absolutely idiotic yet sad at the same time. I'm glad to see that a Senator is devoting his resources towards things that REALLY matter - like
56 EA CO AS : As has been pointed out already, this applies to carryons in the overhead only - I'm sure most people's prescriptions will fit nicely in their person
57 osubuckeyes : Mr. Schumer is mostly blowing smoke here just to get political attention. Nothing should be done and nothing will be done to prohibit carry ons. I hat
58 AirStairs : Why do we need a senator to fight carry-on fees when we are perfectly capable of fighting them with our wallets and not flying Spirit? Obviously, ther
59 Post contains images lightsaber : Oh wait, we're already stuck with the tax code... Anyone else think that all the noise Spirit is getting over this charge is worth a fortune in adver
60 oswegobag : My suggestion is to charge a per pound fee for all bags, whether they are checked or carry on. The airline is providing a service to transport those b
61 Post contains images Transpac787 : Noooo..... A standard 50# bag would be $125. Even I'll admit that's a bit excessive
62 wn676 : The infrastructure and personnel associated with checked baggage far exceeds that which is associated with carry-ons. In other words, there's a lot m
63 txagkuwait : Not sure if it has been mentioned, but one thing Schumer and his cronies in Congress need to do: They need to tax all of this "ancillary" revenue as i
64 YULWinterSkies : In the current security-everything climate, one (me) can also add that checked luggage is also a necessity for travel. Therefore, if one wants to fig
65 falstaff : why? if the overhead has room it should go there. I would rather have my expensive cameras and laptop stowed overhead than on the floor where I know
66 wdleiser : Fee's will go away when the consumer realizes that whether they pay 400 dollars a ticket or 300 a ticket, the total cost is still going to be 400 afte
67 Mir : Yeah, being able to take an airplane 35,000 feet in the sky and cross a continent in six hours safely and reliably is a pretty expensive proposition.
68 Post contains images lightsaber : So we will have airlines for the math enabled and math challenged? But like it or not, Americans have been programed for really cheap fares. A cowork
69 contrails67 : I guess I will be in the minority and applaud Schumer. However, he doesn't go far enough. As someone who likes all inclusive fares, it should be: 1. E
70 thegreatRDU : This is just another example of the fleecing of America... No they won't....
71 Post contains images Transpac787 : You use the word "entitled" an awful lot. Again, pray-tell, why do you feel you are entitled to all these things?? Your ticket only pays for your tra
72 TSS : Or better yet, why not enforce the existing restrictions on the size and number of carry-on items allowed per passenger? A recent poll of AA's, CO's,
73 JA : Is Schumer really that bored? With an aluminum bat. I can see it now. Can't afford to fly? Take an airline loan to go visit family, friends...
74 flybynight : Luxury of legroom. I wouldn't really consider being able to put my feet under the seat in front of me a luxury.
75 CharlieNoble : Someone who flies Spirit will have to let us know, but I'm not sure that they are actually forcing people to put "personal items" under the seat. I t
76 Glom : Ah so that's what's going on. In that case, yeah this makes perfect sense, especially for an LCC. After all, there is much whining here about pax who
77 757luver : What about passengers that already paid to check two bags that have a roll aboard that fits in the overhead with room to spare? My roll aboard will fi
78 Glom : From the sounds of it, you're arguing over the quantitative aspects: what is the threshold for a bag that requires charging?
79 par13del : How did consumers get the airlines to agree to this, when did first class and business travellers demand that airlines lower their prices? Legacy air
80 I380North : Sir, what airline do you work for? With an attitude like this, I'll make sure I never fly that airline again. Does ir occur to you that even poor McD
81 Post contains images Transpac787 : I see. So the airlines should begin handing out vouchers for being a few minutes late?? Bravo to you, sir, for conjuring up a policy that is so cripp
82 I380North : You still dont get it. It is not about vouchers. It is about providing a superior customer experience that will lead to repeat service. If you kept t
83 Seatback : As much as I hate to admit it, I think Spirit has every right to charge for using the storage space over your head. I don't like it and it I make the
84 crosswinds21 : That's good. No offense, but if I had an airline, I probably wouldn't want someone like you flying my airline again. An airline is not the same as a
85 TSS : Any carry-on beyond the first one, and/or any carry-on of more than 45 linear inches (22" x 14" x 9"), and/or any carry-on weighing more than 40 poun
86 osubuckeyes : Most airlines dont have the luxury of picking and choosing their customers... Also why would one expect to be delayed when they purchase a ticket 2 m
87 JBAirwaysFan : Who really knows? If no one matches this fee (and I can't imagine many, if any airlines matching this), Spirit might get rid of it. That is also how t
88 nonrevman : I would still like to know what happens if you board with a carry on item that was intended to go under the seat only to discover that you have a bulk
89 757luver : I'm not arguing about anything, like I said I get reimbursed for my baggage. If they want to charge 100 for it then I will pay the 100 and go about m
90 Post contains images Transpac787 : I see. So, should we then inconvenience several hundred passengers on another flight by allowing that other one to pull into the gate earlier?? What
91 FlyDeltaJets87 : Thanks Chuck. One more reason to vote Republican this November, even if not against you directly. Democrats once again thinking they can legislate the
92 rcair1 : I would say "Senator Schumer is ONLY an expert at political grandstanding." Pretty much useless for anything else" What socialist country do you live
93 LoneStarMike : I agree. No airline should be forced to provide anything for free, but I also agree with TxAgKuwait Quite frankly, he's right Suppose you have two ai
94 FLALEFTY : Wow! I think you might have broken the code! I don't think Schumer is worried about passengers having to pay bag fees. It is the fact that the lower
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Spirit Goes There: Charge For Carry-on posted Mon Apr 5 2010 21:49:59 by mah4546
FA: Carry-On Baggage Endangers Crew And Passengers posted Mon Mar 15 2010 18:49:19 by yazoo
JNB Cracks Down On Carry On posted Thu Jan 21 2010 06:59:52 by Andz
US Federal Bill To Limit Carry On Size posted Thu Jun 25 2009 07:19:35 by Joeljack
Carry-on Luggage Returned For US Airways 1549 Pax posted Mon May 18 2009 08:54:56 by Eghansen
Why Don't Credit Card Companies Crack Down On Fees posted Thu May 14 2009 10:36:10 by Vfw614
Sully Says He Can Barely Make Ends Meet With Pay posted Tue Feb 24 2009 09:31:24 by Deltaflyertoo
Carry On A Cake? posted Sun Dec 7 2008 17:48:08 by Njxc500
Allegiant Is Thinking About Charging For Carry On posted Wed Oct 22 2008 15:56:54 by AWACSooner
CO Reducing Carry On Bag Size 11/1 posted Wed Oct 22 2008 08:30:10 by ADXMatt