http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/fl ... /92405580/

I don't personally understand how it would work. What fees need to be bundled? A bag? Economy Plus seat? A pack of Pringles?

I think bag fees are rediculous and I think the airlines should eliminate them, but including the separate fee in the fare seems impractical, since not everyone has to pay it (credit card holders), it might vary depending on the size and weight of your bag, not everyone will check a bag, and not everyone knows when they purchase a ticket whether they will check or not months later.

Fees like Spirit and Allegiant have for using a credit card instead of debit or cash (Ha!) would make more sense, but I think the rest of this is just making noise to try and intimidate airlines into making the changes without a new law.

What do you think?

If it's like here in Canada, it would be things like Security Fee, Airport Improvement fee and so on. In Canada those fees are actually a huge chunk of the fare.

Edit: I see now they ARE referring to things like bag fees. Not sure how that would work since not everyone has a bag.

cosyr wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/10/19/dot-studies-requiring-airline-fees-fares/92405580/

I don't personally understand how it would work. What fees need to be bundled? A bag? Economy Plus seat? A pack of Pringles?

I think bag fees are rediculous and I think the airlines should eliminate them, but including the separate fee in the fare seems impractical, since not everyone has to pay it (credit card holders), it might vary depending on the size and weight of your bag, not everyone will check a bag, and not everyone knows when they purchase a ticket whether they will check or not months later.

Fees like Spirit and Allegiant have for using a credit card instead of debit or cash (Ha!) would make more sense, but I think the rest of this is just making noise to try and intimidate airlines into making the changes without a new law.

What do you think?

I find it interesting that you find the fees "ridiculous", yet you go on to explain why they make sense. Not everyone needs a checked bag, so only those who need it pay for it, and so on.

phlsfo wrote:

I find it interesting that you find the fees "ridiculous", yet you go on to explain why they make sense. Not everyone needs a checked bag, so only those who need it pay for it, and so on.

Not all fees, just bag fees...well and credit card fees. It kind of depends on your definition of what you are buying. In the past we said you are buying a "seat", but that's not as true as you are buying transportation from point A to point B. It used to be taken for granted that it also included the clothes and toothbrush you needed on the other end. Maybe ridiculous isn't the correct word, but bag fees are the most inflammatory fees to most consumers, except for maybe credit card fees.

But again, the question isn't whether you agree with the fee or not, but how do you include it in the fare?

yhu wrote:

If it's like here in Canada, it would be things like Security Fee, Airport Improvement fee and so on. In Canada those fees are actually a huge chunk of the fare.

Edit: I see now they ARE referring to things like bag fees. Not sure how that would work since not everyone has a bag.

My guess is that airlines would have to split their ticket classes into with bag and without bag

The definition of a fare is, you have to be able to get from A to B for that much money, with a small personal item (such as your pills), enough water to be alive, and a bathroom.

So, a fuel surcharge, for example, is not legitimate. Fuel falls under the definition of what an airfare is.

cosyr wrote:

Maybe ridiculous isn't the correct word, but bag fees are the most inflammatory fees to most consumers, except for maybe credit card fees.

I'm a consumer, and I absolutely love bag fees - because I never check a bag. And so for me, any opportunity for the airline to allocate more of the cost of handling bags to those people who actually check bags, rather than me having to shoulder some greater share of that cost burden, is perfectly fine.

Reuters, CNN, and the DOT's own press release today talk about requiring carriers to disclose unbundled fees. That's a very different read from USA Today's assertion that carriers will have to publish an all-in fare, comprising just what. If this is the start of new rule making there will be lots of time for industry comment (and watering down...)

Don't all the carriers already disclose the unbundled fees? I know Allegiant and Spirit have a page on their websites that list out every possible fee.

Flighty wrote:

The definition of a fare is, you have to be able to get from A to B for that much money, with a small personal item (such as your pills), enough water to be alive, and a bathroom.

So, a fuel surcharge, for example, is not legitimate. Fuel falls under the definition of what an airfare is.

This is roughly what the UK/EU advertising regulations insist on. Basically any cost that is compulsory for you to make the journey have to be part of the advertised fare, only real complication is airlines which charge a booking fee per transaction as the advertised fare can split this over a number of travellers (it's either 2 or 4 from memory). They have to allow payment by a reasonable method as part of this fare, so usually debit cards are the 'included' payment method. Credit Cards, Checked Bags, Allocated Seating, Food & Drink are all excluded and likely to cost extra.

This doesn't however prevent BA etc breaking down their advertised fare such that it's often 50% surcharge so award tickets are pointless.

It sounds like what this rule means is still to be hashed out. One thing they could say is that the initial fare quoted needs to include things like bag fees and seat selection but you could then offer "discounts" if you choose to forgo things like that. Go with an opt out vs opt in model. I don't mind the bag fees at this point. They really aren't expensive, they can be avoided with co branded credit cards, and if they really bother you that much, fly WN. Other airlines like B6 and F9 also offer great upgraded "bundled" packages and fares where you either get your checked bag included for less than the cost of the bag fee (B6) or you get the checked bag along with a lot of other perks like extra legroom seating, priority boarding, and a changeable ticket at a substantial discount (F9) that still results in a pretty good deal. I know people like my Mom and sister wouldn't like this though. They really get a lot of mileage out of a basic no frills fare on NK, G4, and F9. They wouldn't be happy to see the quoted prices go up.

nws2002 wrote:

Don't all the carriers already disclose the unbundled fees? I know Allegiant and Spirit have a page on their websites that list out every possible fee.

Not very clearly. NK is infamous for not notifying people at the check in counter and hammering people at the gate with carryons.

Silly proposal that's hard and costly to implement. Choking off a sector that lost billions until recently just because they figured out a way to recover is unfair. Ancillary fees at this point make up most of the profits for airlines. They couldn't get fuel prices to rise by trying to restrict U.S. output, now they're trying a costly new rule.

Plus, you don't know who will or won't necessarily check a bag. Daily, I have people check bags at the last minute for countless different reasons: they pack the carry-on too heavy, and now don't want to carry it around; they've got a forbidden article they forgot about; they try to carry too many things and get caught at the checkpoint; that's just a few reasons, not all by any means.

cosyr wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/10/19/dot-studies-requiring-airline-fees-fares/92405580/

I don't personally understand how it would work. What fees need to be bundled? A bag? Economy Plus seat? A pack of Pringles?

I think bag fees are rediculous and I think the airlines should eliminate them, but including the separate fee in the fare seems impractical, since not everyone has to pay it (credit card holders), it might vary depending on the size and weight of your bag, not everyone will check a bag, and not everyone knows when they purchase a ticket whether they will check or not months later.

Fees like Spirit and Allegiant have for using a credit card instead of debit or cash (Ha!) would make more sense, but I think the rest of this is just making noise to try and intimidate airlines into making the changes without a new law.

What do you think?

They should just put a 10% trust fund tax on the fees. Problem solved. I don't think you could apply it to card transactions, but certainly IFE, meals, bags and seat fees would be straight forward.

gatechae wrote:

yhu wrote:

If it's like here in Canada, it would be things like Security Fee, Airport Improvement fee and so on. In Canada those fees are actually a huge chunk of the fare.

Edit: I see now they ARE referring to things like bag fees. Not sure how that would work since not everyone has a bag.

My guess is that airlines would have to split their ticket classes into with bag and without bag

In many ways, that is what some do (like Frontier). They offer 3 classes of tickets that include bundled 'options' like bags, etc.

Frankly, while baggage fees are frustrating, I realize that frustration is from habit. In fact, they make perfect sense to me. I pay for the services I need/get.
About the only fee I don't agree with is a carry on bag fee - but even that is arguable.

This comes up every year. Nothing to see. The problem isn't the fees themselves but the fact that 1) some LCCs have variable fees (so the bag fee changes over time and where you are at the airport) and 2) some fees run counter to previously standard business practices (like fees for carry-ons)

The reality is that the airline world had a single bundled fare until relatively recently. Hell the original design of ticketing assumed that there wouldn't be additional fees beyond the fare and taxes. But they wont get rid of fees at this point. I could see some restrictions on how fees are applied but that's about it. For example, in Australia they placed rules on how fees can be calculated;. They didn't outright prohibit them but they did place some restrictions. That type of stuff could happen in the US or Europe. Although in the US, the odds are almost zero. Nothing's going to change. Every airline will submit filings on how the price of travel (including fees) has been decreasing over time and life will go on.

I'd be curious to know what the DOT is actually considering. I just returned from a trip where the airfare was listed as $1310, but there were $897 in "taxes and airline imposed fees". That sort of thing is bogus and is very likely just an artifice to get the listing to the top of the page. (I don't know exactly, since this one was booked by my company's travel agency.) I'd love to see the DOT clamp down on artificial breakdowns which are just used as list positioners. Bag fees are down in the noise as far as that sort of thing goes.

(The desirability, or not, of bag fees is a completely different issue. I personally think that anyone who imagines that they are paying a lower price because a bag fee is broken out, is fooling themselves; but lacking hard data I'm not going to argue the point.)

Varsity1 wrote:

nws2002 wrote:

Don't all the carriers already disclose the unbundled fees? I know Allegiant and Spirit have a page on their websites that list out every possible fee.

Not very clearly. NK is infamous for not notifying people at the check in counter and hammering people at the gate with carryons.

Passengers were also infamous for trying to hide them from me...and having to pay the $100 gate fee... it for the most part is very well know that NK charges for those items

Better watch out, NK might up their pathetic "unintended consequences of DOT" fee if this legislation passes...so they can milk more money from folks for doing nada.

ua900 wrote:

Silly proposal that's hard and costly to implement. Choking off a sector that lost billions until recently just because they figured out a way to recover is unfair. Ancillary fees at this point make up most of the profits for airlines. They couldn't get fuel prices to rise by trying to restrict U.S. output, now they're trying a costly new rule.

Who told you life is fair?

Governments love money. If you have it, they will come knocking.

If I'm honest, I would have presumed my airfare included fuel. A surcharge for that is insulting.

Re: bag fees specifically, I am 100% in favor of going back to the old days when no one charged these ridiculously high baggage fees. After 9/11 the excuse was "Oh, we need that extra $50 to keep us out of bankruptcy!" Now this practice has turned flying into such an unpleasant ordeal as Grandma, Grandpa, and Uncle Marvin try to cram everything but the kitchen sink into the overhead bins, lengthening turn times and increasing hassle for everyone. That stuff is going to be somewhere on the airplane anyway (whether it's in the cargo bins or the overhead bins). Make it faster and more pleasant for everyone by rolling the cost of transporting baggage back into the fare the way it used to be 15 years ago.

All that is needed is a system similar to that in the EU. The price must include the minimum that is needed to go from A to B, including all unavoidable costs like fuel, security fees, etc. And require all airlines to do it, so that all play by the same rules and there is a tiny little bit of price transparency (though still far from what would be desirable). Baggage fees, meals etc are never quoted as part of the fare in the EU - claiming that the DOT would do otherwise is just a red herring.

r2rho wrote:

All that is needed is a system similar to that in the EU. The price must include the minimum that is needed to go from A to B, including all unavoidable costs like fuel, security fees, etc. And require all airlines to do it, so that all play by the same rules and there is a tiny little bit of price transparency (though still far from what would be desirable). Baggage fees, meals etc are never quoted as part of the fare in the EU - claiming that the DOT would do otherwise is just a red herring.

That's how it works. Airlines are one of the only industries in the US that are required to include taxes when advertising fares. The airlines are also required to include all mandatory fees. Things like credit cards fees can be avoided if people use a debit card and are not included in the advertised fare.

qcpilotxf wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Not very clearly. NK is infamous for not notifying people at the check in counter and hammering people at the gate with carryons.

Passengers were also infamous for trying to hide them from me...and having to pay the $100 gate fee... it for the most part is very well know that NK charges for those items

Varsity1, I flew on NK for the first time two weeks ago, and during the booking/ check-in process, I was informed at least three times what I'd be allowed as part of the airfare (a small personal item with dimensions specified), and how much I'd have to pay if I wanted to buy a checked bag (during the time of booking, at check-in, at the gate). So, I don't agree at all that NK does not notify people at check-in. I agree with qcpilotxf that it is well known that NK charges for those items.

NeBaNi wrote:

qcpilotxf wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Not very clearly. NK is infamous for not notifying people at the check in counter and hammering people at the gate with carryons.

Passengers were also infamous for trying to hide them from me...and having to pay the $100 gate fee... it for the most part is very well know that NK charges for those items

Varsity1, I flew on NK for the first time two weeks ago, and during the booking/ check-in process, I was informed at least three times what I'd be allowed as part of the airfare (a small personal item with dimensions specified), and how much I'd have to pay if I wanted to buy a checked bag (during the time of booking, at check-in, at the gate). So, I don't agree at all that NK does not notify people at check-in. I agree with qcpilotxf that it is well known that NK charges for those items.

anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

yhu wrote:

If it's like here in Canada, it would be things like Security Fee, Airport Improvement fee and so on. In Canada those fees are actually a huge chunk of the fare.

Edit: I see now they ARE referring to things like bag fees. Not sure how that would work since not everyone has a bag.

Already exists here in the US. Mandatory fees, whether government-imposed or airline-imposed, have to be included in the advertised fare. NK and G4 for example actually charge a fee for booking on their websites...but that fee is included in all quoted and advertised fares on their sites and elsewhere.

nws2002 wrote:

r2rho wrote:

All that is needed is a system similar to that in the EU. The price must include the minimum that is needed to go from A to B, including all unavoidable costs like fuel, security fees, etc. And require all airlines to do it, so that all play by the same rules and there is a tiny little bit of price transparency (though still far from what would be desirable). Baggage fees, meals etc are never quoted as part of the fare in the EU - claiming that the DOT would do otherwise is just a red herring.

That's how it works. Airlines are one of the only industries in the US that are required to include taxes when advertising fares. The airlines are also required to include all mandatory fees. Things like credit cards fees can be avoided if people use a debit card and are not included in the advertised fare.

Exactly.

PITingres wrote:

I'd be curious to know what the DOT is actually considering. I just returned from a trip where the airfare was listed as $1310, but there were $897 in "taxes and airline imposed fees". That sort of thing is bogus and is very likely just an artifice to get the listing to the top of the page.

Current regulations state that that $897 would need to be included in the advertised or quoted fare selected by your company.

coolian2 wrote:

If I'm honest, I would have presumed my airfare included fuel. A surcharge for that is insulting.

Who cares? It's included in the advertised fare you select when you're searching, so it's not like fuel surcharges are bait and switch 'gotchas'. I couldn't care less how they decide to break down the fare.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

Re: bag fees specifically, I am 100% in favor of going back to the old days when no one charged these ridiculously high baggage fees.

Back to the days of higher fares and fewer people being able to afford to fly, too, right? Even with bag fees, people are paying less today to fly more than ever before.

Varsity1 wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

qcpilotxf wrote:

Passengers were also infamous for trying to hide them from me...and having to pay the $100 gate fee... it for the most part is very well know that NK charges for those items

Varsity1, I flew on NK for the first time two weeks ago, and during the booking/ check-in process, I was informed at least three times what I'd be allowed as part of the airfare (a small personal item with dimensions specified), and how much I'd have to pay if I wanted to buy a checked bag (during the time of booking, at check-in, at the gate). So, I don't agree at all that NK does not notify people at check-in. I agree with qcpilotxf that it is well known that NK charges for those items.

anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

That's not anecdotal. Go through the booking process with NK, F9, or G4 and see for yourself. The bag fee structure and restrictions are all laid out prior to purchase.

Varsity1 wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

qcpilotxf wrote:

Passengers were also infamous for trying to hide them from me...and having to pay the $100 gate fee... it for the most part is very well know that NK charges for those items

Varsity1, I flew on NK for the first time two weeks ago, and during the booking/ check-in process, I was informed at least three times what I'd be allowed as part of the airfare (a small personal item with dimensions specified), and how much I'd have to pay if I wanted to buy a checked bag (during the time of booking, at check-in, at the gate). So, I don't agree at all that NK does not notify people at check-in. I agree with qcpilotxf that it is well known that NK charges for those items.

anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

You sound like you have never flown on NK or F9 before

This is just ridicules these fees have been around long enough now that most people know what they are up against as far as fees go. Buyer beware it's not like the old days where every fares class included the same amenities the cheaper the fare the less you get now. The government should spend more time in preventing these huge companies from controlling airports and artificially inflating the price of tickets by choking capacity.

In this potential LAW about fees will have some side effects. For instance The Minnesota Governor wants to tag on that ALL airlines passagers of any age to have a ticket/seat A.K.A lap children will become a thing of the past. California,Nevada and Arizona Governors want to tag on that all restrictions be lifted from LGA and DCA.
This is an election year with these add ons to a proposed DOT law for fees included in tickets price will Fall dead again once the new year arrives.
Been brought up and proposed many times and fails to make it off the floor!
Flyguy

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

I think more importantly something needs to be done about the monopolies that created this kind of environment in the airlines industry. With so few competitors in some markets it makes the airlines can get away with this. Lets face it the only people that consolidation benefited are the airlines and the people who live in large markets where all the airlines flock to and competition is stimulated and airlines are kept more honest. Medium sized and small communities need more cost effective competition so that airlines can not keep pricing tickets at an artificially inflated price.

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

That's actually not correct. You can look at NK and F9's financials and they break down the average fare paid by their passengers and the average amount paid in ancillary fees. Add them together and both are far less expensive than the legacies and WN, so fortunately unbundling has benefitted consumers immensely. Even legacy fares by comparison are less expensive than they were 15-20 years ago. The "after all the nickel and diming you end up paying the same fare or more than other carriers" idea is a myth. The numbers show us that consumers know how to and are getting a deal to their benefit with unbundling.

klm617 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

I think more importantly something needs to be done about the monopolies that created this kind of environment in the airlines industry. With so few competitors in some markets it makes the airlines can get away with this. Lets face it the only people that consolidation benefited are the airlines and the people who live in large markets where all the airlines flock to and competition is stimulated and airlines are kept more honest. Medium sized and small communities need more cost effective competition so that airlines can not keep pricing tickets at an artificially inflated price.

Artificially inflated? I guess that's why fares are down historically and have actually been on the decline for a number of quarters now then.

Why do people throw this type of claptrap out there with no facts to back it up?

flyguy89 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

That's actually not correct. You can look at NK and F9's financials and they break down the average fare paid by their passengers and the average amount paid in ancillary fees. Add them together and both are far less expensive than the legacies and WN, so fortunately unbundling has benefitted consumers immensely. Even legacy fares by comparison are less expensive than they were 15-20 years ago. The "after all the nickel and diming you end up paying the same fare or more than other carriers" idea is a myth. The numbers show us that consumers know how to and are getting a deal to their benefit with unbundling.

klm617 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

I think more importantly something needs to be done about the monopolies that created this kind of environment in the airlines industry. With so few competitors in some markets it makes the airlines can get away with this. Lets face it the only people that consolidation benefited are the airlines and the people who live in large markets where all the airlines flock to and competition is stimulated and airlines are kept more honest. Medium sized and small communities need more cost effective competition so that airlines can not keep pricing tickets at an artificially inflated price.

Artificially inflated? I guess that's why fares are down historically and have actually been on the decline for a number of quarters now then.

Why do people throw this type of claptrap out there with no facts to back it up?

Because it's true look at the markets that are dominate by one airline and tell me those segments are not more expense than similar stage lengths between other cities where the is more competition and you will clearly see the upward trend in airfare. Yes while tickets might be cheaper in markets like New York Chicago Orlando and the like check fares out of CLE, CVG, IND, DTW, OMA and tell me the difference.

Just searched MKE-LAX and per Google it suggested I could save $167 by using ORD. So how much more proof do you need it is a known fact that people flying out of secondary markets are getting gouged.

klm617 wrote:

Just searched MKE-LAX and per Google it suggested I could save $167 by using ORD. So how much more proof do you need it is a known fact that people flying out of secondary markets are getting gouged.

Are the costs (taking yield into account) for the airline the same out of MKE as they are out of ORD?

klm617 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I'm on board with making changes that work. For example, it would be nice to look at Google Flights and have an apples to apples comparison among all airlines. But sadly that can't be done. Unbundling of fares was not for the benefit of the consumer. It was to muddy the waters and earn more revenue for the airline. I'd like to see the scales tip back.

That's actually not correct. You can look at NK and F9's financials and they break down the average fare paid by their passengers and the average amount paid in ancillary fees. Add them together and both are far less expensive than the legacies and WN, so fortunately unbundling has benefitted consumers immensely. Even legacy fares by comparison are less expensive than they were 15-20 years ago. The "after all the nickel and diming you end up paying the same fare or more than other carriers" idea is a myth. The numbers show us that consumers know how to and are getting a deal to their benefit with unbundling.

klm617 wrote:

I think more importantly something needs to be done about the monopolies that created this kind of environment in the airlines industry. With so few competitors in some markets it makes the airlines can get away with this. Lets face it the only people that consolidation benefited are the airlines and the people who live in large markets where all the airlines flock to and competition is stimulated and airlines are kept more honest. Medium sized and small communities need more cost effective competition so that airlines can not keep pricing tickets at an artificially inflated price.

Artificially inflated? I guess that's why fares are down historically and have actually been on the decline for a number of quarters now then.

Why do people throw this type of claptrap out there with no facts to back it up?

Because it's true look at the markets that are dominate by one airline and tell me those segments are not more expense than similar stage lengths between other cities where the is more competition and you will clearly see the upward trend in airfare. Yes while tickets might be cheaper in markets like New York Chicago Orlando and the like check fares out of CLE, CVG, IND, DTW, OMA and tell me the difference.

All anecdotal with no connection to the whole of the data set. Looking at data historically and in context, they're down across the board...especially in places like CLE and CVG who have seen their average fares plummet.

klm617 wrote:

Just searched MKE-LAX and per Google it suggested I could save $167 by using ORD. So how much more proof do you need it is a known fact that people flying out of secondary markets are getting gouged.

Showing me the trailing 20 year data set for average fares at MKE would be start to proving your argument, but I suspect you're going to disappointed. Just as a taste, the average fare at MKE in Q1 2016 was $353.28, in the same quarter in 1993 it was $602.28 when corrected for inflation.

Varsity1 wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

qcpilotxf wrote:

Passengers were also infamous for trying to hide them from me...and having to pay the $100 gate fee... it for the most part is very well know that NK charges for those items

Varsity1, I flew on NK for the first time two weeks ago, and during the booking/ check-in process, I was informed at least three times what I'd be allowed as part of the airfare (a small personal item with dimensions specified), and how much I'd have to pay if I wanted to buy a checked bag (during the time of booking, at check-in, at the gate). So, I don't agree at all that NK does not notify people at check-in. I agree with qcpilotxf that it is well known that NK charges for those items.

anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

Anecdotal evidence *is* evidence - it has the word "evidence" in it. Also, like a few others have pointed out, go through the booking process. You'll see the information at least twice before you get a confirmation email, and at least once again during check-in. I think the problem is that even after all that in-your-face information (the bag fee info shows up as a pop-up box - for lack of a better word), it's on you as a paying customer if you get charged.

flyguy89 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

That's actually not correct. You can look at NK and F9's financials and they break down the average fare paid by their passengers and the average amount paid in ancillary fees. Add them together and both are far less expensive than the legacies and WN, so fortunately unbundling has benefitted consumers immensely. Even legacy fares by comparison are less expensive than they were 15-20 years ago. The "after all the nickel and diming you end up paying the same fare or more than other carriers" idea is a myth. The numbers show us that consumers know how to and are getting a deal to their benefit with unbundling.


Artificially inflated? I guess that's why fares are down historically and have actually been on the decline for a number of quarters now then.

Why do people throw this type of claptrap out there with no facts to back it up?

Because it's true look at the markets that are dominate by one airline and tell me those segments are not more expense than similar stage lengths between other cities where the is more competition and you will clearly see the upward trend in airfare. Yes while tickets might be cheaper in markets like New York Chicago Orlando and the like check fares out of CLE, CVG, IND, DTW, OMA and tell me the difference.

All anecdotal with no connection to the whole of the data set. Looking at data historically and in context, they're down across the board...especially in places like CLE and CVG who have seen their average fares plummet.

klm617 wrote:

Just searched MKE-LAX and per Google it suggested I could save $167 by using ORD. So how much more proof do you need it is a known fact that people flying out of secondary markets are getting gouged.

Showing me the trailing 20 year data set for average fares at MKE would be start to proving your argument, but I suspect you're going to disappointed. Just as a taste, the average fare at MKE in Q1 2016 was $353.28, in the same quarter in 1993 it was $602.28 when corrected for inflation.

Funny how everyone wants to pull this inflation thing out of their hats when it comes to stuff like this. How about we adjust wages the same way according to inflation. I would say the earning power of ever dollar earned today is less than what it was in 1993. I can tell you this airfares have in creased 4 fold since I started working but I assure you not many people's wages in this country increased 4 fold. So let's call it what it is and stop using phony adjust for inflation numbers you also might want to add the $200 bag fees as I got 2 pieces of luggage for free that would cost you that much round trip.

Instead of making airfares like shopping for concerts on Ticketmaster, we should be tamping down on businesses that practice bait and switch. Airlines can (and do) itemize the total fare by each taxing authority before purchase the consumer is aware of how much tax they are paying.

Maybe in a few years airlines can roll out the Flight Attendant and Pilot Training Fee--if fuel surcharges are fair game surely the increasing cost of labor makes this OK.

klm617 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Because it's true look at the markets that are dominate by one airline and tell me those segments are not more expense than similar stage lengths between other cities where the is more competition and you will clearly see the upward trend in airfare. Yes while tickets might be cheaper in markets like New York Chicago Orlando and the like check fares out of CLE, CVG, IND, DTW, OMA and tell me the difference.

All anecdotal with no connection to the whole of the data set. Looking at data historically and in context, they're down across the board...especially in places like CLE and CVG who have seen their average fares plummet.

klm617 wrote:

Just searched MKE-LAX and per Google it suggested I could save $167 by using ORD. So how much more proof do you need it is a known fact that people flying out of secondary markets are getting gouged.

Showing me the trailing 20 year data set for average fares at MKE would be start to proving your argument, but I suspect you're going to disappointed. Just as a taste, the average fare at MKE in Q1 2016 was $353.28, in the same quarter in 1993 it was $602.28 when corrected for inflation.

Funny how everyone wants to pull this inflation thing out of their hats when it comes to stuff like this. How about we adjust wages the same way according to inflation. I would say the earning power of ever dollar earned today is less than what it was in 1993. I can tell you this airfares have in creased 4 fold since I started working but I assure you not many people's wages in this country increased 4 fold. So let's call it what it is and stop using phony adjust for inflation numbers you also might want to add the $200 bag fees as I got 2 pieces of luggage for free that would cost you that much round trip.

Uh that is THE ENTIRE POINT of adjusting for inflation. There's a reason "everyone" uses inflation-adjusted figures. I don't much feel like playing professor and explaining what inflation adjustment is, look it up for yourself, but you're still completely incorrect, airfares have not increased 4 fold...I would challenge you to find any kind of data that even remotely suggests airfares have increased 4 fold. If you want to continue believing otherwise, you're more than welcome to, just don't kid yourself into thinking its grounded in reality.