$4.50 To Check A Bag Under A House Bill

jetfuel · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:04 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...llar450/ar-AAdniu3?ocid=fbmsnmoney

Airlines would be allowed to charge you no more than $4.50 to check a bag under a House bill introduced this week, slashing a fee that averages about $25 at most U.S. carriers.

DocLightning · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:09 pm

Quoting jetfuel (Thread starter):
Airlines would be allowed to charge you no more than $4.50 to check a bag under a House bill introduced this week, slashing a fee that averages about $25 at most U.S. carriers.

It won't pass. The current GOP majority will not allow any significant regulations on businesses to pass during their tenure.

commavia · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:15 pm

Do legislators want to start regulating the price of a hot dog at a baseball game, or the price of 3D glasses at a movie, too? Ridiculous.

adamblang · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:16 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
The current GOP majority will not allow any significant regulations on businesses to pass during their tenure.

Disagree. Republicans only hate regulation when it's a Democratic-backed regulation. If it's a Republican regulation – a Republican proposed this regulation – they love it.

That said, big business has more lobbying money than consumer groups so this proposal is going nowhere.

[Edited 2015-07-23 09:17:14]

LAXintl · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:18 pm

More importantly, the legislative calendar ends next week on July 30th for the summer recess. Things start fresh in September.

The bill is simply PR stunt, not something that is actually expected to become legislation.

WPIAeroGuy · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Yeah that should definitely not pass. I can't even believe it made it into a bill, unless someone is trying to drum up some support for their constituents.

2175301 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:25 pm

I actually think something like this could indeed pass the US Congress. It might not be $4.50, and it would not apply to all bags; but, I would not be surprised to see something like 1st bag is Free, or $10.00; and then let the airlines do what they will with additional baggage.

Have a great day,

jetfuel · Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:30 pm

$10 sounds reasonable

fun2fly · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:04 pm

This is exactly what Larry Kellner cited in a conversation to me when he announced he was going back to private equity vs. airlines. As the CEO of an airline, you have too many external factors (volcanoes, SARS, etc.) that affect your outcome without control over it. Regulating what you can charge for a checked bag is one of those examples. Many carriers do fine charging and many do fine without charging like WN. Let the market forces decide this one, Congress and you go about solving that little debt issue with all your free time.

MrBuzzcut · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:30 pm

The way to make bag fees go away is to pass a bill that taxes ancillary fees at the same rate as the tickets themselves. The main reason the airlines started 'unbundling' in the first place was to avoid as much of the 7.5% federal tax (that goes toward facility and airspace improvements) as possible.

If they did that, the incentive for a bag fee would go away, and it would be simpler to just add that cost in to the ticket price rather than having separate accounting for bag fees vs tickets.

LAXintl · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:36 pm

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 9):
If they did that, the incentive for a bag fee would go away, and it would be simpler to just add that cost in to the ticket price rather than having separate accounting for bag fees vs tickets.

Not at all. Airlines would still need the revenue, but consumers would eat the additional taxes.

ripcordd · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:38 pm

Mr Buzz is right it's all to keep more money in the pockets of the airlines vote with your wallet if your unhappy with the bag fees.

AWACSooner · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:40 pm

How about just taxing the crap out of these ancillary fees?

micstatic · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:40 pm

I personally think bag fees should stay as is. I don't want to subsidize somebody else's ticket who needs to check bags. While I may get them for free as an elite, even if not free I don't think somebody should pay for my bags.

ua900 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:46 pm

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 9):
The main reason the airlines started 'unbundling' in the first place was to avoid as much of the 7.5% federal tax (that goes toward facility and airspace improvements) as possible.

This could very well be it. Just raise the ticket prices across the board to match any lost ancillary revenue, not just for bags, but anything that gets taxed or regulated. And the government response to all that profiteering can be to reintroduce some kind of CAB so we can have regulated fares and routes again.

Hope the government doesn't forget to include a provision on getting everyone 2-2 flat bed seats in dom F in lieu of the recliners, equal rights for all, even on the E75s. Y cabin can get the old dom F 2-2 recliners and 3-3 should be outlawed. And let's mandate that airlines bring back the coach lounges on wide bodies. Enjoy your $800 domestic Y flight, but yeah, government solved the ancillary bag fee problem.

No folks, more regulation isn't the right approach. The right approach is to let innovation move ahead and carve out a path.

Example: http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...ree-lounge-for-transit-passengers/

[Edited 2015-07-23 10:50:32]

RL757PVD · Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:13 pm

Something needs to give one way or another...Airlines collected more in bag fees last year than The FAA had available fund airport improvements.

1) Tax fees and put money into the Airprt and Airways Trust Fund

OR (preferably AND)

2) Increase PFC to allow airports to fund improvements themselves

Lets be honest, the $4.50 PFC when adjusted for inflation should be $9 today anyway. Its like the stupid minimum wage argument, we need to start pegging these things to inflation or CPI.

[Edited 2015-07-23 11:13:36]

DCA-ROCguy · Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:16 pm

Government micro-management of airline fees is a bad idea. As was noted above, this bill is likely a PR stunt that doesn't have a chance of passing.

The reason such bills get introduced at all is that people have caught on that airlines are abusing their public trust. Oil prices dropped a lot, and fares didn't. And fees didn't. Now the airlines have extremely high profits. So people recognize that consolidation was about gouging people. The DOJ investigation into possible illegal collusion is the government action that might accomplish something, but I'm not holding my breath.

Jim

airbazar · Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:33 pm

If they want to do something useful to stimulate air travel, put forth a bill banning fuel surcharges.

usairways85 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:41 pm

I am not sure this one would pass, but these fees and surcharges are getting a little crazy. We are still paying exorbitant fuel surcharges even though oil has plummeted from the highs of a few years ago. It's like paying an extra $5 for a Big Mac today because of a mad cow outbreak 5 years ago.

N776AU · Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:48 pm

In the chance it goes through the price of tickets will just go up accordingly.

ua900 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:06 pm

Quoting incitatus (Reply 15):
Where is the bill for $99 iphones? I want that one.

If that bill passes, the cost of it will simply be paid in annual installments, added onto the bill you get every year around April 15th.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 16):
Lets be honest, the $4.50 PFC when adjusted for inflation should be $9 today anyway. Its like the stupid minimum wage argument, we need to start pegging these things to inflation or CPI.

Maybe the PFC can be tied to minimum wages then. NY airports, SEA and SFO can be the test bed for that theory. Let's see if they turn out nicer five years from now than they are today. No more buckets inside the terminal to catch the rain can be one measure of success, fewer delays can be another, and, lastly, *facility* quality since it's a *facility* fee.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 17):
The reason such bills get introduced at all is that people have caught on that airlines are abusing their public trust. Oil prices dropped a lot, and fares didn't. And fees didn't. Now the airlines have extremely high profits.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 19):
these fees and surcharges are getting a little crazy. We are still paying exorbitant fuel surcharges even though oil has plummeted from the highs of a few years ago. It's like paying an extra $5 for a Big Mac today because of a mad cow outbreak 5 years ago.

Airlines have joined the banking sector when it comes to getting love from the government. In large part because of people's perceptions/pressure. When they lost billions, it was their problem, now that they're making money, let's tax them until they go back to normal profit.

Why anyone would join an airline or invest in an airline in the current climate is a mystery to me. Better off joining McDonalds flipping burgers for $15 an hour. And btw, if that Big Mac costs more, it's likely because of regulation. Airlines had to make up for years of steep losses, and having more than 10 major airlines around as opposed to 4-5 was part of why this industry was unable to turn a profit. No offense to people who work in either airlines, banking or fast food.

Tugger · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:13 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 12):
How about just taxing the crap out of these ancillary fees?

This.

Do this and the fees end. Simply make the tax 15% on "fees" (or "outside of ticket charges", whatever) and the extra charges would end in a few weeks. Ticket prices would increase probably but it would end the less-visible fee charges that many airlines now utilize.

Tugg

AWACSooner · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:15 pm

Quoting micstatic (Reply 13):
don't want to subsidize somebody else's ticket who needs to check bags

Then why should my 135 pound frame subsidize someone's 250 pound frame on the airplane? It obviously costs more to fly them than I.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 18):
If they want to do something useful to stimulate air travel, put forth a bill banning fuel surcharges.

This

LAXintl · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 23):
Then why should my 135 pound frame subsidize someone's 250 pound frame on the airplane? It obviously costs more to fly them than I.

That a great idea, charge by weight just like freight, but unfortunately the courts would find this to be discriminatory.

However I fully support airlines being able to slice and dice their pricing down more accurately and weight would be a great measure and differentor.

spacecadet · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:23 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 2):
Do legislators want to start regulating the price of a hot dog at a baseball game, or the price of 3D glasses at a movie, too?

I'd be in favor of both of those proposals.

RL757PVD · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:23 pm

Quoting ua900 (Reply 21):
Maybe the PFC can be tied to minimum wages then.

Thats too convoluted, however, airports chose their own PFC level, so if an airport wishes to stay at $4.50 they can, ir one wants to charge $6 they could (with a raise cap) most will probably want to do the max because in the past 10 years, project costs have doubled and FAA funding and PFC levels have remained the same.

Something needs to be done.

mayor · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:24 pm

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 16):
1) Tax fees and put money into the Airprt and Airways Trust Fund

Why? Politicians just dip in to the fund like Clinton did to balance the budget.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 22):
Ticket prices would increase probably but it would end the less-visible fee charges that many airlines now utilize.

I thought those fees had to be displayed when booking. Are they not?

Sooner787 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:24 pm

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 9):
The way to make bag fees go away is to pass a bill that taxes ancillary fees at the same rate as the tickets themselves. The main reason the airlines started 'unbundling' in the first place was to avoid as much of the 7.5% federal tax (that goes toward facility and airspace improvements) as possible.

If they did that, the incentive for a bag fee would go away, and it would be simpler to just add that cost in to the ticket price rather than having separate accounting for bag fees vs tickets.

Ding...ding....ding.... we have a winner.

RL757PVD · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:27 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 27):
Why? Politicians just dip in to the fund like Clinton did to balance the budget.

Then raise the PFC and let the money go directly to airports.

toltommy · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:33 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 23):
Then why should my 135 pound frame subsidize someone's 250 pound frame on the airplane? It obviously costs more to fly them than I.

Because unlike charging for a bag, charging a "person of size" would be considered discriminatory. I totally get your point, but the government has actually gotten in the way of this fee already.

VAM8789 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:38 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 2):
Do legislators want to start regulating the price of a hot dog at a baseball game, or the price of 3D glasses at a movie, too? Ridiculous.

Do you have to eat a hot dog at a baseball game? Or see a movie in 3D? It's pretty necessary for people to bring a suitcase with them during air travel.

Do airlines refund the bag fees if they lose your luggage? I have been fortunate to never have this happen to me since the fees started.

rotating14 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:57 pm

Baggage fees at this current stage, is unnecessary. AA started charging baggage fees in '08 to combat fuel costs but now that fuel is cheap, the baggage fees have risen from $15 to $25. Not surprising is the fact that foreign carriers, for the most part, allow you up to 50 pounds for free.

Wingtips56 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:06 pm

People keep clinging to the position of taxing the ancillary fees, like air fares. Well that only impacts the consumer, as the tax would be added onto the price of the ticket/fee, with the airline remitting that amount to the Government, . As an example, Canada taxes the ancillary fees today .... they even tax the service of collecting the tax. The customer is charged the total of the fee plus tax.

So the airline would still get their $25 fee, while the customer pays $26.88 (tax of $1.88 collected by the airline and remitted to the IRS).

Yes, the airlines do pay income taxes, so they are today paying taxes on the fee income.

flyingclrs727 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting toltommy (Reply 30):
Because unlike charging for a bag, charging a "person of size" would be considered discriminatory. I totally get your point, but the government has actually gotten in the way of this fee already.

Unless the "person of size" can't fit into one seat. In that case it is legal to charge that person for an additional seat.

flyingclrs727 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:19 pm

I don't mind bag fees. What I do mind is United wanting to charge double the fare I would pay flying on Turkish Airlines just to be able to start my trip from my home town airport rather than IAH.

Tugger · Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:41 pm

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 33):
the tax would be added onto the price of the ticket/fee, with the airline remitting that amount to the Government, .

Sure, and I am OK with that.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 33):
Yes, the airlines do pay income taxes, so they are today paying taxes on the fee income.

Actually for a long time airlines did not pay or paid very little in taxes. Of course that was because they were usually loss generating machines!

Tugg

LH707330 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:44 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 23):
Then why should my 135 pound frame subsidize someone's 250 pound frame on the airplane? It obviously costs more to fly them than I.

That a great idea, charge by weight just like freight, but unfortunately the courts would find this to be discriminatory.

This seems like a good idea at first pass, but the fare difference would be trivial. Let's run some ballpark numbers on an A380 on a medium-haul flight:

TOW: ~500 t
Pax: 500 @ 100kg=50 t

Let's say the average ticket is $1000, and the airline has fuel as ~40% of total costs. Thus, I'm paying $400 for fuel and $600 for all the other things that are not passenger-weight dependent. Now, if we go back to that A380 example, the payload fraction is 10% of TOW, so I'm paying $400 in fuel to fly my 100 kg plus 900 kg of other weight (plane, fuel) around. If we divide this out, we get a marginal cost per kilogram of 40 cents. If a standard passenger weighs 100 kg, and you weigh ~70 kg, you just saved yourself $12, or 1.2% of the total ticket price. You can play a bit with those payload fraction and fuel assumptions, but I doubt you'll come up with a much better number.

MrBuzzcut · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:06 pm

Quoting micstatic (Reply 13):
I personally think bag fees should stay as is. I don't want to subsidize somebody else's ticket who needs to check bags. While I may get them for free as an elite, even if not free I don't think somebody should pay for my bags.

And I might not want to subsidize airport improvements or an ILS replacement at an airport that I'll never visit, but that's the way it works and why the airlines avoiding paying for it by adding bag fees and selling it to you as 'paying for only what you use' is fundamentally wrong.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 33):
So the airline would still get their $25 fee, while the customer pays $26.88 (tax of $1.88 collected by the airline and remitted to the IRS).

Yes, the airlines do pay income taxes, so they are today paying taxes on the fee income.

I don't have any problem with that. The $1.88 goes to the FAA for airport, ATC, and navigation improvements, all of which are sorely needed and used by everybody. Under the system in place now, they -might- pay business income taxes on the $25, however that is going to the general fund and not necessarily going to help the aviation industry at all.

The airlines want it both ways. They want the government to fund the ATC system and airfield improvements so that they can make a profit by flying more direct routes on better runways with less congestion, but they seem to want to avoid any taxes that would help pay for it. Taking the cost of checking bags out of the price of the ticket is just one way they're doing that.

ua900 · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:06 pm

Quoting VAM8789 (Reply 31):
Do you have to eat a hot dog at a baseball game? Or see a movie in 3D? It's pretty necessary for people to bring a suitcase with them during air travel.

Does one *have to* fly instead of taking a car, train or ship?

Tell that to all the people who stuffed overhead bins to the point where airlines literally had to install larger bins or have their F/As assaulted on a regular basis. The point where boarding group 1 all of a sudden became relevant to a large number of people. All of a sudden you had to board early if you wanted to stow something, because people came on much with more than an amenity kit, a coat and an iPad.

There are many ways to get around paying a bag fee: 1. fly a WN type carrier, 2. Status, 3. Credit Card, 4. Carry on, 5. buy a regular fare ticket on select carriers, 6. buy a premium cabin ticket

Quoting toltommy (Reply 30):
Because unlike charging for a bag, charging a "person of size" would be considered discriminatory. I totally get your point, but the government has actually gotten in the way of this fee already.

Luckily for some of us, FAA regulations already mandate that passengers must be able to lower their armrests and sufficiently buckle and fasten their seat belts and DOT states that airlines are not required by law to provide additional seating or an upgrade in the event additional space is required for a passenger. Helps drive middle seat purchases in extreme cases.

Quoting VAM8789 (Reply 31):
Do airlines refund the bag fees if they lose your luggage? I have been fortunate to never have this happen to me since the fees started.

Yeah they all have policies to compensate you for lost baggage (based on weight and/or contents up to a certain limit, e.g. $3,400 for UA domestic flights, interim spend (e.g. you have to buy clothes because they lost yours) and more.

http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf...ge/ua_customerpropertyclaim_en.pdf

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 29):
Then raise the PFC and let the money go directly to airports.

Would be nice, but in reality much of the money goes to government overhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCf8J8UXG6s

[Edited 2015-07-23 14:06:41]

par13del · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:14 pm

Well if we look at the big picture, the FAA re-authorization is up and it is usually a hum dinger of a fight, let's see how much actually get's done / changed, moving the FAA to a separate body sounds interesting. FATCA is being used to ensure US citizens who live out-side of the USA are properly documented for tax purposes, so let's see what is done about all the fee's that are not taxed, avoiding taxes is the new political fight.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
The current GOP majority will not allow any significant regulations on businesses

Regular Republicans or Tea Party affiliates

micstatic · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 23):
Then why should my 135 pound frame subsidize someone's 250 pound frame on the airplane? It obviously costs more to fly them than I.

I don't quite take the libertarian argument out that far. Much different though. A bag requires more work from the airline hence reducing the yield on that passenger.

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 38):
And I might not want to subsidize airport improvements or an ILS replacement at an airport that I'll never visit, but that's the way it works and why the airlines avoiding paying for it by adding bag fees and selling it to you as 'paying for only what you use' is fundamentally wrong.

Never said I was against things like funding our airports and infrastructure. For the record I'm not against the government taxing these fees. A passenger however not checking a bag arguably deserves to pay less for the ride.

ckfred · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:25 pm

First, it would be interesting to see how many Members of Congress deal with checked bag fees. Some Members might not fly often enough to achieve elite status, or they don't fly one airline regularly. So, they might be paying for checked bags.

Second, I bet TSA would prefer if more passengers checked their bags. My understanding is that the screening devices in airport baggage rooms are more thorough than the x-ray machines at security checkpoints. Further, if more bags are checked, that means better scrutiny of carry-on items as well as people at the checkpoints.

Third, while the airlines will certainly fight this, a lot of businesses that pay for airline tickets for employee travel would probably love to see the checked bag fees reduced. My wife doesn't fly a lot, so she doesn't have elite status with UA, the preferred carrier of her current and last employers. So, when she flies, she has to pay for a checked bag.

For a company that has a lot of employees who fly regularly, but not enough to earn elite status, cheaper bag fees would be noticeable in the travel budget.

Fourth, the F/A unions would probably support lower bag fees, since their members are the ones stuck trying to find overhead space, helping jam bags in, and having to deal with passengers who don't want to gate check a bag.

aklrno · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:32 pm

Quoting micstatic (Reply 13):

I personally think bag fees should stay as is. I don't want to subsidize somebody else's ticket who needs to check bags. While I may get them for free as an elite, even if not free I don't think somebody should pay for my bags.

I didn't see some kind of irony emoji so I think this is hypocrisy. You don't want to subsidize someone else's bags, but you have no problem with others subsidizing yours. Yes, the airline wants to encourage you to keep using their services, but the reward is partially paid for by all those other people in the back of the plane. The airline is transferring money from those who fly less to those who fly more.

Through careful selection of airlines and elite programs and premium tickets I have never paid a bag fee, but I still don't like them. I agree with the many others who say the airlines should be taxed for the total fare, including all bag fees as long as the collected taxes are used for airways systems and improvements. We certainly need them.

I see the allure of charging everyone by weight (I weigh about 135 pounds). I don't expect that to ever happen, but perhaps we could have some minimum free baggage allowance (say 20kg or 44 pounds like it used to be) and then extra fees for anything above that, including carry on?

Pyrex · Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:57 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
It won't pass. The current GOP majority will not allow any significant regulations on businesses to pass during their tenure.

This is not regulation. Regulation is making sure planes are safe to fly, which nobody has any issues with. This is about pure old-fashioned government price-fixing.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 23):
Then why should my 135 pound frame subsidize someone's 250 pound frame on the airplane? It obviously costs more to fly them than I.

You are using the same seat as someone who weighs 250 pounds.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 26):
most will probably want to do the max because in the past 10 years, project costs have doubled and FAA funding and PFC levels have remained the same.

No, most will want to do the max because in the U.S. airports are government-owned and government-sanctioned monopolies, with inherent efficiency and customer service.

Quoting VAM8789 (Reply 31):
Do you have to eat a hot dog at a baseball game? Or see a movie in 3D? It's pretty necessary for people to bring a suitcase with them during air travel.

You should have told me that this morning when I left to the airport to catch a flight for my meeting, only to return 4 hours after landing. I would have tried to pack something (perhaps just a change of underwear).

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 32):
Not surprising is the fact that foreign carriers, for the most part, allow you up to 50 pounds for free.

In long-distance international flights out of the U.S. you generally get one 50-pound bag free too.

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 38):
I don't have any problem with that. The $1.88 goes to the FAA for airport, ATC, and navigation improvements, all of which are sorely needed and used by everybody.

If there was any direct correlation between government revenue and quality of infrastructure, the NYC/NJ area, with its exorbitant tax rates, would have efficient, reliable public transportation and roads that do not require a vehicle prepared for the Dakar rally, instead of the current state of infrastructure that would embarrass most third-world countries.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
FATCA is being used to ensure US citizens who live out-side of the USA are properly documented for tax purposes

No, FATCA is being used to enact a financial Berlin Wall for U.S. citizens, but that is a topic for another thread...

micstatic · Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:17 pm

Quoting aklrno (Reply 43):
I didn't see some kind of irony emoji so I think this is hypocrisy. You don't want to subsidize someone else's bags, but you have no problem with others subsidizing yours. Yes, the airline wants to encourage you to keep using their services, but the reward is partially paid for by all those other people in the back of the plane. The airline is transferring money from those who fly less to those who fly more.

I personally seldom ever check bags. But I don't see anything wrong with somebody who sends many thousands of dollars to an airline to get those kind of perks.

N1120A · Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:12 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):

It won't pass. The current GOP majority will not allow any significant regulations on businesses to pass during their tenure.

On this issue, they might. It is very bipartisan.

Quoting commavia (Reply 2):
Do legislators want to start regulating the price of a hot dog at a baseball game, or the price of 3D glasses at a movie, too? Ridiculous.

Airlines are a highly regulated industry. They are common carriers and use public airways and are highly regulated.

ODwyerPW · Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:14 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
That a great idea, charge by weight just like freight, but unfortunately the courts would find this to be discriminatory.

Might get me to drop that extra 10 kilos I've been wanting to lose.

arffguy · Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:16 am

You folks talk of raising the PFC. Airlines are complaining that the PFC is too high at my local airport. Airlines want it reduced. This got to the point where management wants to downsize the number of airport department employees.

delta88 · Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:23 am

First everyone complains of the fees, now everyone complains something(albeit maybe not the most effective method) is being done about it. While As long as I fly delta, my Gold Card Membership allows me a checked bag free(and for reasons other than loyalty i fly primarily delta), it would be nice to fly something else while looking for tickets if everyones bags are the same price.***

DISCLAIMER***- THIS ISNT MEANT TO START FIGHTS, ITS A POINT, VALID NOT NESSECARILY ON A.NET***

[Edited 2015-07-23 17:25:45]

ltbewr · Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:29 am

When PeoplesExpress existed 30 years ago, they charged $3 for each checked bag, about $10-11 in today's money, a very reasonable rate. If the checked bag fee was more about that amount in today's value, or the real costs to airlines to handle checked bags, it might discourage some carrying on massive duffle bags as occurs now.
Let us not forget certain frequent flyers, holders of airline affiliated credit cards, or those with higher fare tiers, don't pay some or all of the checked bag fees. These fees were mainly targeted at the lowest fee tiers to make up some losses.
Beyond regulation on checked bag fees, better would be to better regulate various fees like for reservation change fees, phone/life person service fees, seat by seat pricing that means family members are separated and the like. Perhaps adopt penalties the EC has as to delayed, overbooked and other issues.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net