No surprise, well telegraphed that it was coming ... now official:

American Airlines Introduces New Basic Economy Fare
http://news.aa.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/American-Airlines-Introduces-New-Basic-Economy-Fare/default.aspx

* On sale 10 Feb in select markets
* Seats auto-assigned at check-in, or paid 48 hrs before departure
* Personal item only
* Last boarding group, except elites who retain priority
* Full award miles and EQD, but half EQM

Sounds look a good deal in some cases, actually.

commavia wrote:

No surprise, well telegraphed that it was coming ... now official:

American Airlines Introduces New Basic Economy Fare
http://news.aa.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/American-Airlines-Introduces-New-Basic-Economy-Fare/default.aspx

* On sale 10 Feb in select markets
* Seats auto-assigned at check-in, or paid 48 hrs before departure
* Personal item only
* Last boarding group, except elites who retain priority
* Full award miles and EQD, but half EQM

Sounds look a good deal in some cases, actually.

So essentially followed UAs lead...

flyguy84 wrote:

So essentially followed UAs lead...

I think it's more accurate to say that both AA and United are following Delta's lead on this one.

commavia wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

So essentially followed UAs lead...

I think it's more accurate to say that both AA and United are following Delta's lead on this one.

Yes and no. Yes on the overall idea, however, UA placed far more restrictions on its BE fare that AA is now following.

Any news on charges for toilet paper?

commavia wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

So essentially followed UAs lead...

I think it's more accurate to say that both AA and United are following Delta's lead on this one.

Don't you still get a carry on with DLs cheap fare? I haven't booked one yet but I thought there only difference was no seat selection between the cheap one and main cabin. I could be wrong though.

I'd like to know which 10 markets AA will start the basic economy fare with. (didn't see it in the AA link above)

What fits under a seat? If the IFE system is there, not even my shoes fit...
Is it getting cheaper to fly in the US? No wonders AA was chosen as the worse airline in the US by the WSJ this week.

Revelation wrote:

Any news on charges for toilet paper?

Toilet paper is supplied free of charge in your seatback pocket. It says American Way on the cover.

CXGabriel wrote:

I'd like to know which 10 markets AA will start the basic economy fare with. (didn't see it in the AA link above)

My guess would be markets in which NK competes directly with AA. IIRC DL only offers its E "Basic Economy" fares in markets in which it competes nonstop against an LCC, such as WN or NK.

Jshank83 wrote:

Don't you still get a carry on with DLs cheap fare?

Yes. Full elite miles and redeemable miles, too. For now.

http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/ ... onomy.html

commavia wrote:

I think it's more accurate to say that both AA and United are following Delta's lead on this one.

No, DL still permits complimentary cabin baggage (although that will likely change soon). This is a huge restriction.

commavia wrote:

[Economy Basic] Sounds look a good deal in some cases, actually.

Yes, because paying more for less is always a good thing! Economy Basic isn't intended to yield lower fares, giving consumers "choices" on which services to pay for; it's intended to restrict the nuymber of the lowest fares being sold / increases auxiliary fees -- UA made it quite clear it expects Economy Basic to raise $1B by 2020.

Definitely a major blow to consumers, in a domestic industry reporting record profits.

F*ck!

I fly regularly (though not often enough for status) for work and am required to book the absolute cheapest base fare. Since AA is one of the two airlines that owns most of my market, I'm going to have to fly that fare. Since most of my travel us between one and two nights, I'm usually just carrying a rules compliant carry on bag for clothes and toiletries and a small case for my laptop and CPAP that fits under the seat in front of me if overhead space is scarce. The IFE boxes have really made underseat iffy, and now I'm going to have to check my small luggage bag and fight for that reimbursement as they disallow all "seat/cabin" upgrades which includes the carry-on charge.

This is not welcome news to many work fliers.

I sometimes feel pity for Americans. Their airlines don't think about passengers at all.. only money.

If Carry-on was allowed I would say that this is a winner but since it isn't I guess I'll just stick with B6. It seems that the BA3 (Big American 3) are following the Spirit model.

anshabhi wrote:

I sometimes feel pity for Americans. Their airlines don't think about passengers at all.. only money.

It's not so bad. I'd say the major American carriers have stepped up their game in terms of the actual product on board. Plus, unlike a certain British carrier, you can still get free drinks and snacks.

lesfalls wrote:

If Carry-on was allowed I would say that this is a winner but since it isn't I guess I'll just stick with B6. It seems that the BA3 (Big American 3) are following the Spirit model.

They're not. DL's Economy Basic fares are considerably more than NK's fare on the same dates. NK allows me to purchase a seat assignment (and if you book in advance, is trialing offering a limited number of complimentary seats), DL does not. Generally, by the time I add cabin baggage, seat assignments & purchase a drink/snack onboard, NK's is still cheaper than DL.

commavia wrote:

No surprise, well telegraphed that it was coming ... now official:

American Airlines Introduces New Basic Economy Fare
http://news.aa.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/American-Airlines-Introduces-New-Basic-Economy-Fare/default.aspx

* On sale 10 Feb in select markets
* Seats auto-assigned at check-in, or paid 48 hrs before departure
* Personal item only
* Last boarding group, except elites who retain priority
* Full award miles and EQD, but half EQM

Sounds look a good deal in some cases, actually.

Agreed.
I'd much rather fly a basic economy fare like this than fly with NK or G4

Should help AA compete better with the ULCCs and give customers more options. Glad to finally see this rolled out.

and I fully expect DL to follow UA and AA add some of the restrictions to its basic economy that it doesn't have.

lesfalls wrote:

If Carry-on was allowed I would say that this is a winner but since it isn't I guess I'll just stick with B6. It seems that the BA3 (Big American 3) are following the Spirit model.

This was the way BE fares were originally pitched. It's not how they generally have materialized however.

I wonder if you could get away with bringing a bag and then gate checking it for free, can't remember the last flight I was on where they weren't asking for volunteers to gate check bags

aaflyer777 wrote:

I wonder if you could get away with bringing a bag and then gate checking it for free, can't remember the last flight I was on where they weren't asking for volunteers to gate check bags

From the AA press release: "Basic Economy customers who bring more than an under-seat personal item to the gate will incur regular checked baggage charges plus a $25 gate service charge per bag."

EMB170 wrote:

CXGabriel wrote:

I'd like to know which 10 markets AA will start the basic economy fare with. (didn't see it in the AA link above)

My guess would be markets in which NK competes directly with AA. IIRC DL only offers its E "Basic Economy" fares in markets in which it competes nonstop against an LCC, such as WN or NK.

DL plans to offer Basic Economy fares in all markets.

So, it seems like Spirit is the leader of the industry. AA is a mere follower. Correct?

EMB170 wrote:

CXGabriel wrote:

I'd like to know which 10 markets AA will start the basic economy fare with. (didn't see it in the AA link above)

My guess would be markets in which NK competes directly with AA. IIRC DL only offers its E "Basic Economy" fares in markets in which it competes nonstop against an LCC, such as WN or NK.

It has expanded quite a bit beyond that at least from PHX... IMO, it makes no sense to offer E fares in competition with WN, as WN provides more on their lowest fare than DL did on the normal V fares. Not to mention that DL's E fares in my experience are regularly more expensive than WN so the value proposition doesn't even really exist.

deltal1011man wrote:

commavia wrote:

No surprise, well telegraphed that it was coming ... now official:

American Airlines Introduces New Basic Economy Fare
http://news.aa.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/American-Airlines-Introduces-New-Basic-Economy-Fare/default.aspx

* On sale 10 Feb in select markets
* Seats auto-assigned at check-in, or paid 48 hrs before departure
* Personal item only
* Last boarding group, except elites who retain priority
* Full award miles and EQD, but half EQM

Sounds look a good deal in some cases, actually.

Agreed.
I'd much rather fly a basic economy fare like this than fly with NK or G4

Should help AA compete better with the ULCCs and give customers more options. Glad to finally see this rolled out.

and I fully expect DL to follow UA and AA add some of the restrictions to its basic economy that it doesn't have.

Monkey See Monkey Do with the "Big 3"

You're missing the point. This new fare will not lower prices all it will do is make the current economy fare have less options, forcing people who care about carry on bags or seat selection to pay more for the flight. This is basically a hidden fee. Pay more for what you used to get. The airlines are making money, even with NK and Frontier challenging them, this is just a way to make more money, not give people more options. You are not giving me more options when you are taking away options I had for the same price.

Its like Burger King saying they are offering more options on their menu, a whopper meal will be the same price but not come with a soda, if you want a soda you have to pay a dollar more. Its the same exact thing. The state of legacy carrier is pathetic for the average customer.

More JetBlue flights for me!

LightningZ71 wrote:

F*ck!

I fly regularly (though not often enough for status) for work and am required to book the absolute cheapest base fare. Since AA is one of the two airlines that owns most of my market, I'm going to have to fly that fare. Since most of my travel us between one and two nights, I'm usually just carrying a rules compliant carry on bag for clothes and toiletries and a small case for my laptop and CPAP that fits under the seat in front of me if overhead space is scarce. The IFE boxes have really made underseat iffy, and now I'm going to have to check my small luggage bag and fight for that reimbursement as they disallow all "seat/cabin" upgrades which includes the carry-on charge.

This is not welcome news to many work fliers.

This is something that companies that send large number of employees on trips need to review. My wife worked for a company that had UA as its primary carrier for Chicago-area employees (Employees in D.C. and Pittsburgh were supposed to fly US. Employees in Scottsdale were supposed to fly AA. It was crazy). But, if another carrier was cheaper than UA, she could book that carrier. Since she had become AAdvantage Gold at her prior employer and managed enough travel to retain status, she tried to book AA.

Now, here was the head scratcher. If UA was $15 cheaper, she had to book UA. But, by the time you added in the checked bag fees, UA became $25 more expensive. Yet, the corporate travel department wouldn't include checked bag fees in calculating fares. The argument was that if you simply booked UA for every trip, you would have elite status and not have to charge the checked-bag fee back to the company.

But, if AA was cheaper than UA about 75% of the time, then booking UA, even as an elite, would still cost the company more money.

My suggestion would be to compare the basic economy fare with the checked bag fee against the cheapest fare that allows a carry-on that goes in the overhead.

flymia wrote:

You're missing the point. This new fare will not lower prices all it will do is make the current economy fare have less options, forcing people who care about carry on bags or seat selection to pay more for the flight. This is basically a hidden fee. Pay more for what you used to get. The airlines are making money, even with NK and Frontier challenging them, this is just a way to make more money, not give people more options. You are not giving me more options when you are taking away options I had for the same price.

Its like Burger King saying they are offering more options on their menu, a whopper meal will be the same price but not come with a soda, if you want a soda you have to pay a dollar more. Its the same exact thing. The state of legacy carrier is pathetic for the average customer.

More JetBlue flights for me!

The a.net fan boys just want to see their favorite airlines grow and thrive; nearly are all disconnected from the process of regularly purchasing air transportation at "the rate of the day" so cost is essentially a meaningless argument to them. They would rather you or me pay more so they can see mainline jets on former regional jet routes at their home airport, even though they'll never actually travel the route.

flymia wrote:

This new fare will not lower prices all it will do is make the current economy fare have less options, forcing people who care about carry on bags or seat selection to pay more for the flight.

I'm not missing the point at all. Why in the world do you want me to want lower prices? This isn't Flyertalk.
I like that the US airlines are actually trying to make money and unbundle fares.

And before anyone says it, yes margins are somewhat good now but this industry is very up and down. It looks like we are starting on a downward cycle which will cause even more margin pressure than we have seen. I would much rather see the flying public pick up the price tag than another round of employees and investors paying for it.

flymia wrote:

Monkey See Monkey Do with the "Big 3"

You're missing the point. This new fare will not lower prices all it will do is make the current economy fare have less options, forcing people who care about carry on bags or seat selection to pay more for the flight. This is basically a hidden fee. Pay more for what you used to get. The airlines are making money, even with NK and Frontier challenging them, this is just a way to make more money, not give people more options. You are not giving me more options when you are taking away options I had for the same price.

Its like Burger King saying they are offering more options on their menu, a whopper meal will be the same price but not come with a soda, if you want a soda you have to pay a dollar more. Its the same exact thing. The state of legacy carrier is pathetic for the average customer.

More JetBlue flights for me!

What I see is airlines trying to cut down on the amount of baggage that gets stowed in the overhead bins. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard the gate announcement that the flight is full, and that all passengers are limited to one item in the overhead bin. Then, the agent offers to gate check bags for free.

What this plan does is gets passengers flying basic economy to check their larger bags. so that they don't have to gate check so many bags, for free.

But, how long before JetBlue buys into the program of the Big ? JetBlue now charges a fee to sit in the front of the cabin with more leg room. I see that B6 has 3 different discounted fares with 0,1, and 2 checked bags included. About the only airline that seems to buck any trends, whether started by AA, DL, UA, B6, or NK, is WN.
.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently, hand luggage's surcharge exists only in the USA. Would such a surchage be possible in other markets? What would European regulations say about it, for example?

I am curious how the carry on policy is enforced on these fares. It says boarding passes will be issued at check-in or paid 48 hours prior to departure. Does the fare require seeing an agent prior to clearing security? How is a busy gate agent going to know the person cannot bring on a rollerboard? Thanks for any info.

flymia wrote:

You're missing the point. This new fare will not lower prices all it will do is make the current economy fare have less options, forcing people who care about carry on bags or seat selection to pay more for the flight. This is basically a hidden fee. Pay more for what you used to get. The airlines are making money, even with NK and Frontier challenging them, this is just a way to make more money, not give people more options. You are not giving me more options when you are taking away options I had for the same price.

compensateme wrote:

The a.net fan boys just want to see their favorite airlines grow and thrive; nearly are all disconnected from the process of regularly purchasing air transportation at "the rate of the day" so cost is essentially a meaningless argument to them. They would rather you or me pay more so they can see mainline jets on former regional jet routes at their home airport, even though they'll never actually travel the route.

With respect, no, I'm not missing the point, and no, I'm not "disconnected" from purchasing air transportation. I buy airline tickets all the time - for business and leisure - and I'm well aware of how airline tickets are priced. I have absolutely no problem with the profit margins that U.S. airlines today are producing - in the context of the broader economy and other similar, publicly-traded companies, I consider airlines' returns entirely reasonable and risk-appropriate. As said - the other major financial stakeholders in the airline industry, employees and shareholders, bore nearly 100% of the burden of economic self-destruction in the airline industry for the first three decades of deregulation. So forgive me for not being all that agitated if now, finally, airlines are charging a lower price for a lower-end product, and charging a higher price for a higher-end product. That is 100% fine with me.

And, after all, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any of these fares. Air travel isn't a constitutional right. And for the vast majority of U.S. air travelers today, there is competition among at least 3-4 airlines on the city pair they are traveling. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are extremely few markets where one airline truly has a monopoly. If you don't like the product that AA, Delta or United is offering - or the price at which said product is being offered - then fly another airline. "Bags fly free" on Southwest, for instance.

commavia wrote:

[And, after all, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any of these fares. Air travel isn't a constitutional right. And for the vast majority of U.S. air travelers today, there is competition among at least 3-4 airlines on the city pair they are traveling. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are extremely few markets where one airline truly has a monopoly. If you don't like the product that AA, Delta or United is offering - or the price at which said product is being offered - then fly another airline. "Bags fly free" on Southwest, for instance.

Sadly, for many people who fly for work, none of this is true.

Cubsrule wrote:

commavia wrote:

[And, after all, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any of these fares. Air travel isn't a constitutional right. And for the vast majority of U.S. air travelers today, there is competition among at least 3-4 airlines on the city pair they are traveling. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are extremely few markets where one airline truly has a monopoly. If you don't like the product that AA, Delta or United is offering - or the price at which said product is being offered - then fly another airline. "Bags fly free" on Southwest, for instance.

Sadly, for many people who fly for work, none of this is true.

Business travelers have competition from multiple airlines on virtually every route they fly - possibly to an even greater extent then leisure travelers. They can also avail themselves of multiple choices among different products and services available from these competitors. If they are unable to do so, that is driven not by the airlines or the market - but by the corporate policy of their employer. If a company insists on driving its employees to use a more narrow list of competing options when they fly, that's the company's choice, not the airlines'. And, to this point, I actually expect that some of the dynamics we're seeing in the airline industry today are going to necessitate, and drive, changes in the way that many companies handle corporate travel - for exactly some of the reasons discussed here. In short, I suspect that for many companies, given what is happening in the air travel market, the benefits of locking themselves into, say, 1 or 2 airlines is going to increasingly not be worth it.

compensateme wrote:

The a.net fan boys just want to see their favorite airlines grow and thrive; nearly are all disconnected from the process of regularly purchasing air transportation at "the rate of the day" so cost is essentially a meaningless argument to them. They would rather you or me pay more so they can see mainline jets on former regional jet routes at their home airport, even though they'll never actually travel the route.

Considering there is a thread here that is basically you, the klm guy and a few other Detroit fanboys complaining and being butt hurt about the "lack of service" from DTW (and some weirdo jealously you and him share about Atlanta) that is hilarious.


Once again you swing and completely miss.

commavia wrote:

With respect, no, I'm not missing the point, and no, I'm not "disconnected" from purchasing air transportation. I buy airline tickets all the time - for business and leisure - and I'm well aware of how airline tickets are priced. I have absolutely no problem with the profit margins that U.S. airlines today are producing - in the context of the broader economy and other similar, publicly-traded companies, I consider airlines' returns entirely reasonable and risk-appropriate. As said - the other major financial stakeholders in the airline industry, employees and shareholders, bore nearly 100% of the burden of economic self-destruction in the airline industry for the first three decades of deregulation. So forgive me for not being all that agitated if now, finally, airlines are charging a lower price for a lower-end product, and charging a higher price for a higher-end product. That is 100% fine with me.

And, after all, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any of these fares. Air travel isn't a constitutional right. And for the vast majority of U.S. air travelers today, there is competition among at least 3-4 airlines on the city pair they are traveling. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are extremely few markets where one airline truly has a monopoly. If you don't like the product that AA, Delta or United is offering - or the price at which said product is being offered - then fly another airline. "Bags fly free" on Southwest, for instance.

exactly this.

ckfred wrote:

About the only airline that seems to buck any trends, whether started by AA, DL, UA, B6, or NK, is WN.
.

And WN's issue is more IT based than doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. IMO once the new res system is up and running and WN can do more, they will slowly start adding fees in too. Too much money on the table to ignore.

Say I carry a thick coat. Inside the plane, is warm, so i put it in the overhead bins. Will that be against the rules? So you can carry a thick coat, but not a carry on bag, that was built exactly to the airline specifications???
I believe the system is each day worse. I had never used the option of buy in advance the seat, so I don't really care. I'm always able to exchange to someone for getting a window seat, or if not, i get what i have.
Coats are ok? How many things can I put in my coat pockets? I have a thick Russian coat, and I could stuff the pockets with lots of clothes (say 20 pairs of socks) just to see how far you can go without breaking the rules.
I believe is a stupid policy, one more. And they said 2016 was a record year on profits for the airlines on the US...

commavia wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

commavia wrote:

[And, after all, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any of these fares. Air travel isn't a constitutional right. And for the vast majority of U.S. air travelers today, there is competition among at least 3-4 airlines on the city pair they are traveling. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are extremely few markets where one airline truly has a monopoly. If you don't like the product that AA, Delta or United is offering - or the price at which said product is being offered - then fly another airline. "Bags fly free" on Southwest, for instance.

Sadly, for many people who fly for work, none of this is true.

Business travelers have competition from multiple airlines on virtually every route they fly - possibly to an even greater extent then leisure travelers. They can also avail themselves of multiple choices among different products and services available from these competitors. If they are unable to do so, that is driven not by the airlines or the market - but by the corporate policy of their employer. If a company insists on driving its employees to use a more narrow list of competing options when they fly, that's the company's choice, not the airlines'.

That's a little idealistic Commavia. In my experience, it's not the company that decides the travel policy per se but rather an appointed delegate like a travel department. Their performance is usually measured strictly on how successfully they manage travel cost from year to year. Inevitably this person sits at the corporate HQ and has no real reason to travel themselves. The result is a travel policy that becomes progressively tighter to control cost at the expense of flexibility and service. And why not? The person setting the policy isn't impacted by those compromises. It's a classic agency problem.

In my case, I haven't booked a fully policy-compliant trip at my company in probably two year. Fortunately, the "punishment" is just a finger wag. But, new for 2017 I've observed that we started restricting more field options in our booking engine so it's harder to even search out-of-policy options. Fun times!

eielef wrote:

Say I carry a thick coat. Inside the plane, is warm, so i put it in the overhead bins. Will that be against the rules? So you can carry a thick coat, but not a carry on bag, that was built exactly to the airline specifications???
I believe the system is each day worse. I had never used the option of buy in advance the seat, so I don't really care. I'm always able to exchange to someone for getting a window seat, or if not, i get what i have.
Coats are ok? How many things can I put in my coat pockets? I have a thick Russian coat, and I could stuff the pockets with lots of clothes (say 20 pairs of socks) just to see how far you can go without breaking the rules.
I believe is a stupid policy, one more. And they said 2016 was a record year on profits for the airlines on the US...

No they can't enforce anything once you're on the plane. This is the same deal with LCCs like Spirit today. Once you're on the plane you can put your item(s) wherever you want. They can only regulate what you bring onto the plane. After that its fair game as far as where your bag is placed.

DfwRevolution wrote:

In my experience, it's not the company that decides the travel policy per se but rather an appointed delegate like a travel department. Their performance is usually measured strictly on how successfully they manage travel cost from year to year. Inevitably this person sits at the corporate HQ and has no real reason to travel themselves. The result is a travel policy that becomes progressively tighter to control cost at the expense of flexibility and service. And why not? The person setting the policy isn't impacted by those compromises. It's a classic agency problem.

So, again - it's the company, not the airlines. Whether it's a travel department, a single travel management, people strictly adhering to a corporate travel policy, etc. - ultimately it's all the company's decision. If a company wants to adjust its travel policy, it can and will do so - entirely independent of what an airline does or wants. And, as said, I fully expect that some of the changes going on in the industry will drive, and likely already are driving, changes in precisely these corporate travel policies and behaviors.

lesfalls wrote:

If Carry-on was allowed I would say that this is a winner but since it isn't I guess I'll just stick with B6. It seems that the BA3 (Big American 3) are following the Spirit model.

Spirit (competing on a lot of trunk routes against the majors) is averaging a load factor of about 81 percent, forcing the legacies to compete. They and Frontier are what are keeping fares down, as customers do care about price.

deltal1011man wrote:

And WN's issue is more IT based than doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. IMO once the new res system is up and running and WN can do more, they will slowly start adding fees in too. Too much money on the table to ignore.

As an AUS resident who naturally uses WN most of the time given their large nonstop flight offerings, I'm resigned to this eventual reality, so I'm enjoying "the good old times" while they last.

commavia wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

In my experience, it's not the company that decides the travel policy per se but rather an appointed delegate like a travel department. Their performance is usually measured strictly on how successfully they manage travel cost from year to year. Inevitably this person sits at the corporate HQ and has no real reason to travel themselves. The result is a travel policy that becomes progressively tighter to control cost at the expense of flexibility and service. And why not? The person setting the policy isn't impacted by those compromises. It's a classic agency problem.

So, again - it's the company, not the airlines. Whether it's a travel department, a single travel management, people strictly adhering to a corporate travel policy, etc. - ultimately it's all the company's decision. If a company wants to adjust its travel policy, it can and will do so - entirely independent of what an airline does or wants. And, as said, I fully expect that some of the changes going on in the industry will drive, and likely already are driving, changes in precisely these corporate travel policies and behaviors.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but one thing that you should consider is that many of us who book our own travel value ease, and for those of us who do not live in fortress hubs that value is driving more and more folks to WN. Why? If I'm somewhere with sketchy internet, my assistant can book exactly what I want on WN every time. Increasingly, that is not true on the legacies.

If you're not going to match NK/F9 pricing on the same routes, I don't see how this will appeal to anyone. If current AA/UA pricing is $40-50 more than NK/F9, but included carry on, it makes sense to take them. If AA/UA pricing is $40-50 more + you have to pay for carry on, what's my incentive to fly AA/UA?

commavia wrote:

And, after all, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any of these fares. Air travel isn't a constitutional right. And for the vast majority of U.S. air travelers today, there is competition among at least 3-4 airlines on the city pair they are traveling. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are extremely few markets where one airline truly has a monopoly. If you don't like the product that AA, Delta or United is offering - or the price at which said product is being offered - then fly another airline. "Bags fly free" on Southwest, for instance.

The domestic airline industry is very much an oligopoly; the Big 3 dominate gates and (if applicable) slots at key airports and create oodles of barriers for new entrants.

Air transportation is very much a commodity and an essential service. It's quite sad that our domestic system is dominated by three carriers who all rely on a legacy structure that might provide somebody in Gators Creek, GA access to Los Angeles, but heavily subsidized by the persons traveling from Atlanta.

klakzky123 wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

I sometimes feel pity for Americans. Their airlines don't think about passengers at all.. only money.

It's not so bad. I'd say the major American carriers have stepped up their game in terms of the actual product on board. Plus, unlike a certain British carrier, you can still get free drinks and snacks.

You mean like a certain British airline with the bait-and-switch scam of frequent flier mile awards where they charge like a $600 fuel surcharge? What's the price of fuel these days? That's how non-US airlines care more for the customer.

Actually I have pretty good luck with AA and AS.

flymia wrote:

You're missing the point. This new fare will not lower prices all it will do is make the current economy fare have less options, forcing people who care about carry on bags or seat selection to pay more for the flight. This is basically a hidden fee. Pay more for what you used to get. The airlines are making money, even with NK and Frontier challenging them, this is just a way to make more money, not give people more options. You are not giving me more options when you are taking away options I had for the same price.

Its like Burger King saying they are offering more options on their menu, a whopper meal will be the same price but not come with a soda, if you want a soda you have to pay a dollar more. Its the same exact thing. The state of legacy carrier is pathetic for the average customer.

More JetBlue flights for me!

Interesting analogy. But I actually think of it quite differently.

Before BE fares, the Big 3 only offered Whopper meals (a burger that includes fries and a drink, or in this case, a seat that includes a seat assignment and some baggage allowances). Now BE fares are giving a new opportunity for people who buy Whopper meals to only get a burger, and not pay the additional cost of the meal. Or only buy a seat, and not pay the full amount that secured you a seat, etc.

I don't see any hidden fees or inability for people who fly currently with standard economy fares to continue doing so. The availability of BE fares does not (or should not) increase the cost of standard economy fares. Instead all that is happening is that standard economy is not the least expensive option.

Because of this, the employer policy note is absolutely valid. Some employers require lowest fare options. I hope that most employers with such policies will revisit them. To change them to lowest standard economy fare may will not result in any additional cost to them. However, BE may open up an opportunity for employers to cut costs and by keeping their policies as is the cost absolutely would be passed to their employees/individual consumers. I hope that doesn't happen but we will see.

commavia wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

In my experience, it's not the company that decides the travel policy per se but rather an appointed delegate like a travel department. Their performance is usually measured strictly on how successfully they manage travel cost from year to year. Inevitably this person sits at the corporate HQ and has no real reason to travel themselves. The result is a travel policy that becomes progressively tighter to control cost at the expense of flexibility and service. And why not? The person setting the policy isn't impacted by those compromises. It's a classic agency problem.

So, again - it's the company, not the airlines. Whether it's a travel department, a single travel management, people strictly adhering to a corporate travel policy, etc. - ultimately it's all the company's decision. If a company wants to adjust its travel policy, it can and will do so - entirely independent of what an airline does or wants. And, as said, I fully expect that some of the changes going on in the industry will drive, and likely already are driving, changes in precisely these corporate travel policies and behaviors.

My point is that corporate travel policies could not specify a cheaper fare class until the airlines offered one. The policy is dependent on airline offerings.

And again, to say that corporate travel policies are a "company decision" is an idealistic statement. If that's a point of contention, then fine, it's a company decision. It just happens to be a company decision that acutely suffers from principal-agency conflict.

So, lets recognize is not going to be cheaper for anyone to travel, even those having no luggage at all. They will not have, say a 10% discount as they have not even a carry on. They will charge more to the regular passenger. Isn't it wrong?

ozark1 wrote:

I am curious how the carry on policy is enforced on these fares. It says boarding passes will be issued at check-in or paid 48 hours prior to departure. Does the fare require seeing an agent prior to clearing security? How is a busy gate agent going to know the person cannot bring on a rollerboard? Thanks for any info.

When I worked for G4, it stated it on the ticket what they paid for. It would would have an acronym next to the passenger name, i.e. C/O for Carry-On, C/K for Checked Bag, P/B for Priority Boarding, etc. If they showed up at the boarding door with a carry-on and it wasn't on their boarding pass, they would be taken out of line and charged at the counter. If they paid for a carry-on and it was too large, it would be gate checked and charged at the counter. It might differ from each airline, but that was how G4 played the game.