I don't know what companies are thinking when it comes to flying. But now I guess we are supposed to fly without luggage now? Don't they realize the carry-on bag is now going to weigh 50lbs instead and is stuffed into the overhead bin and will take forever to get through security? WTF?
If they are going to do that -- I have a better idea at least. Let's just weigh every single person with their luggage as they board the plane. You get charged "fuel allocation" on your combined weight. I know -- I know -- they'd be sued for discrimination with minutes for proposing such a unique idea. But it would be fair! And then hopefully I wouldn't be penalized in sitting in seat "B" between two family members who are in seats "A" and "C"...
It is what it is.
i always carried my luggage so i didn't have to dig through all the bags in baggage claim.
i guess there will be less bags to dig through now. might be worth the $15. ;D
I think it's a good idea to charge airfare based on weight. Package shipping is based on size and weight. :-\
Most people pack wayyyy too much sh!t anyway.
mitt
here's whats going to happen.
Theres going to be lots of passengers with oversized carry-ons that wont fit in the overhead compartments. Those carry-ons are going to get tagged at the jetway and thrown down the slide to the belly of the plane where they'll be thrown in with the regular checked bags. Meanwhile, the cabin overheads are going to be bulging full and loading/unloading time will increase by a good 10 minutes per plane.
Everyone will be pissed and the planes will all be late.
The airlines' fuel cost is directly related to the aircraft's gross weight, so economically it makes sense that the more you and your luggage weigh (combined), the more you pay. But, we live in a society where penalizing people for their weight is taboo.
I can understand this... to a point.
For example, your average white male college quarterback is around 6'4" and 240 lbs (I'm 6'4" 224#, and not in quite that good shape). Now, that weight is largely genetic, as said avg quarterback doesn't have a lot of excess mass. He might be able to pound fewer weights and drop some muscle mass, but to remain healthy looking (not anorexic) he realistically needs to maintain a weight north of 200. For example, my target weight is 6'4" and 225 lbs (as an aside, I've heard this listed as Superman's height/weight ;) ).
Then we have your average European (I suppose... the one who the Duc is designed for), at around 5'8" and 150 lbs. Equally healthy and trim looking, he weighs 25% less than our 6'4" 200 lb skinny friend. Now they're both maintaining healthy lifestyles... but one is being financially penalized for his genetics. Keep in mind he probably already has to budget more for food (this body size requires plenty of fuel), shoes (size 14 & 15 are hard to come by and almost never on sale), clothing (ever try to find pants as a tall, skinny guy? Custom orders), and so forth. Naturally it doesn't seem "fair" (to some people) to financially penalize our tall friend any more by making him pay more for his airline seat.
I'm not even going into applying financial penalties to people who are considered "overweight" or "obese". That gets messy quick... changing societal definitions, lack of scientific evidence whether it's genetic or not, and other arguments mean I'd just as soon stay out of that sticky wicket.
At the end of the day, I personally don't care. As both a tall guy and an engineer in the aerospace industry, I am acutely aware of the arguments on both sides. My pocketbook prefers no weight penalties for heavier people, but hey, whatever.
As far as AA charging for checked baggage... that's bogus. TSA screws you at security, and now the airline wants to screw you if you avoid security by checking luggage. Fahdge... do they want the whole airline industry to go belly-up?
And let's not forget about people with medical conditions which require traveling with things which can't be carried on the plane and must be checked.
Doesn't exactly seem fair to charge them extra does it?
If they would have throught about it for a second, the better solution would be to lower the max free bag weight from 50 lbs to something like 35 lbs. checked bags under 35 lbs would be free, anything over would be 20 bucks or whatever the heavy baggage fee is.
Quote from: deweey on May 21, 2008, 01:54:13 PM
Theres going to be lots of passengers with oversized carry-ons that wont fit in the overhead compartments. Those carry-ons are going to get tagged at the jetway and thrown down the slide to the belly of the plane where they'll be thrown in with the regular checked bags.
Hmmm ... a workaround from the fee at check-in? [evil]
Quote from: gojira on May 21, 2008, 02:20:05 PM
Hmmm ... a workaround from the fee at check-in? [evil]
Bingo!
This is not the only measure we will see in response to fuel prices. I just booked my annual trip back East for four people. United was showing normal fares, but then they tacked on these ridiculous fees. Roundtrip fares were ~four hundred dollars with an additional Four hundred tacked on in fees :o
Quote from: deweey on May 21, 2008, 01:54:13 PM
here's whats going to happen.
...
No,
here's what's going to happen:
- Oil will go close to $200 a barrel
- Lots more airlines will merge and/or go out of business
- Prices will go up to where only the rich can afford to fly
- These stupid airline tricks won't matter anymore.
Sorry...I'm a bit of a pessimist today [evil]
Quote from: derby on May 21, 2008, 01:35:42 PM
i always carried my luggage so i didn't have to dig through all the bags in baggage claim.
i guess there will be less bags to dig through now. might be worth the $15. ;D
+1
People that travel a lot rarely check bags. My wife can go away for a week with just her carry on...work clothes and all...fairly impressive!
I'd rather they charge people for their bags rather than charge everyone a little extra. That way the people adding the weight foot the bill, and light packer are rewarded. [thumbsup]
Quote from: desmoquattro on May 21, 2008, 02:36:29 PM
No, here's what's going to happen:
- Oil will go close to $200 a barrel
- Lots more airlines will merge and/or go out of business
- Prices will go up to where only the rich can afford to fly
- These stupid airline tricks won't matter anymore.
Sorry...I'm a bit of a pessimist today [evil]
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Can I still dream of crossing the Atlantic in a solar powered dirigible though?
Quote from: BibleBoy on May 21, 2008, 02:01:23 PM
I'd just as soon stay out of that sticky wicket.
I'm not entirely sure what a "sticky wicket" is, but it sounds kinda kinky.
Quote from: BibleBoy on May 21, 2008, 02:01:23 PM
I'm not even going into applying financial penalties to people who are considered "overweight" or "obese". That gets messy quick... changing societal definitions, lack of scientific evidence whether it's genetic or not, and other arguments mean I'd just as soon stay out of that sticky wicket.
At the end of the day, I personally don't care. As both a tall guy and an engineer in the aerospace industry, I am acutely aware of the arguments on both sides. My pocketbook prefers no weight penalties for heavier people, but hey, whatever.
As far as AA charging for checked baggage... that's bogus. TSA screws you at security, and now the airline wants to screw you if you avoid security by checking luggage. Fahdge... do they want the whole airline industry to go belly-up?
Charging a passenger more because of their weight? I can see the problems with that. But when some fat slob ends up taking 1 1/2 seats, they should have to pay for both of them.
As for the bags, they have those "boxes" at the gate check in to see if your carry on fits inside or they don't let it on the plane. And they keep making that smaller.
Let's face it, the entire airline industry is make the beast with two backsed.
Someday, I want to have just enough money, so that whenever (or if) I fly, I can overnight my luggage ahead, & just walk on the plane with my iPhone & wallet... ;D
Quote from: Ducatania on May 21, 2008, 04:01:31 PM
As for the bags, they have those "boxes" at the gate check in to see if your carry on fits inside or they don't let it on the plane. And they keep making that smaller.
Really? Carry on roller bags have been the same size for years. I was a baggage handler in the mid 90s and carry ons were allowed to be the same size as now. In fact, the overhead bins in newer planes are larger than older ones. ???
I can understand some of the concerns with this new policy...luckily, I rarely (if ever) fly American and am a Premier Executive member with United, so I can check three bags free!
But if you look at airfares over the last ten years (at least), you'll note that they haven't changed much.
Certainly, the airlines can do a lot of things to get their houses in order, but we've become very accustomed to flying on the cheap.
Consolidation will continue to take place, reducing capacity and naturally causing prices to increase.
As cyrus said, it is what it is.
The airline industry is just one of many american industries to be in shitty condition right now. Yes, this is ridiculous in that we see it as 15/bag, but in reality, all the airlines need to make up for the increase in oil, some will do it with higher fares, others with hidden fees and American has chosen the 15/bag policy. Does it sounds dumb? Yes. But, I guarantee you corporations that book tons of flights will swallow this pill a lot easier than a 10% (or whatever) fare increase.
HOW TO SAVE THE AIRLINES
Dump the male flight attendants. No one wanted them in the first place.
Replace all the female flight attendants with good-looking strippers! What the hell -- They don't even serve food anymore, so what's the loss?
The strippers would at least triple the alcohol sales and get a 'party atmosphere' going in the cabin. And, of course, every businessman in
this country would start flying again, hoping to see naked women.
Because of the tips, female flight attendants wouldn't need a salary, thus saving even more money. I suspect tips would be so good that we
could charge the women for working the plane and have them kickback 20% of the tips, including lap dances and 'special services.'
Muslims would be afraid to get on the planes for fear of seeing naked women. Hijackings would come to a screeching halt, and the airline
industry would see record revenues.
This is definitely a win-win situation if we handle it right -- a golden opportunity to turn a liability into an asset.
Why didn't Bush think of this? Why do I still have to do everything myself?
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
As someone who flies constantly on business right now, I find this whole thing ridiculous. Although 95% of the time, I am carry on only, I find it ridiculous to be charging for the first bag. I would not be opposed to a small fare hike across the board instead. They're conditioning people to overpack and overstuff the overhead bins, which they already are at that point. This will just delay flights and add to more passenger frustration, as overhiead bin anxiety is already high enough. I am now avoiding American Airlines at all cost, even if I have to pick a fare with another airline that is several hundred dollars more, just out of principle.
There was a woman who wrote into USA Today that said that she felt that the airlines should charge fares based on weight, that because she only weighed 125 lbs, that it was not fair that she subsidized people who are heavier. I don't think that'd ever fly. I'm not opposed to charging the folks for an additional seat if they cannot fit in the one they are in. I've been in the situation sitting next to someone like that before ... where they took 1 1/2 seats (they spilled well over the arm rest), and I was only in 1/2 of mine.
last time i flew (spirit) it was 20 for the first bag.
problem is, my wife brings lotions/shampoo/etc, which cannot be carried on if greater than 3 oz... so in effect, there is no way to carry more than 3oz of a liquid for free
this is the biggest "theatre of security" ever devised....absolutely worthless
Looks like US Airways and United followed suit. Now US Airways is also charging $2 for sodas now. They call this their "'pay-for-what-you-use' model." What next, a $25 surcharge for a seat to sit in?
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on May 21, 2008, 05:10:24 PM
But if you look at airfares over the last ten years (at least), you'll note that they haven't changed much.
Hmmm, I've got some records here for 11 years worth of return flights from Sydney to San Francisco in late Aug/early Sept... In 1998 I paid $1440 - last friday I paid $2610 (last year I paid $2221).
Addmittedly, a few hundred dollars worth of that is in new "airport taxes" imposed by the Australian government, but I'm seeing an 80% price increase there... (which, over 11 years is only 5.4%/year, which I guess I shouldn't complain too much about...)
big
The cost for luggage is directly related to the cargo space available and the weight that goes with it as others have stated.
But what I did not see was the part of the business model that the airlines employ in taking paid freight/cargo on commercial flights as a means of additional income. The less amount of checked baggage directly relates to more cargo space and available weight to be used to transport cargo they are charging companies to transport from place A to place B.
I disagree in the charge for one checked bag, If they want to go that way allow one bag for free, and an under seat bag ie purse computer bag etc. If you chose to check the bag then ok, if you chose to carry on to avaoid the baggage line OK, But I sometimes must check and don't have a carry-on because I am transporting things that can't meet TSA's requirements for in cabin travel. But whatever, It's not like I'm gonna take the train to avoid airlines!
I think what this does is encourage people to drive if they can now. With all the TSA restrictions, it was already pushing people to drive if the trip was less than 5 hours. For myself, I would much rather drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles than fly. When I figure out door to door times, it is about 4 hours or so for me to fly. I can drive it in about 5.
I think many of our problems with the airlines would be fixed if they were allowed to go belly up and disappear entirely. Everyone pregnant doges about airline service, pricing, etc. But the airlines have no real reason to give a rats ass. If they screw everything up, the CEO and board memebers get rich, the rest of the company takes a pay cut and then the airline just hits the reset button. At that point in time they get to renegotiate all their contracts and gain an advantage over their competitors. Whereas if they just went tits up, the other airline (the one doing a better job of running a business) would be able to expand profitably.
By the way, last year Douglas Steenland CEO of Northwest Airlines Corp. got paid 6 and half million. The 18th highest salary in Minnesota. Since they excited bankruptcy, NWA stock has done nothing but go down. Who helped bail out Northwest Airlines? We did. Taxpayers. They changed all the agreements they've made with the state, forced changes on the employees and took good care of the board in the process. Congraulations are due to Douglas Steenland. The ultimate Welfare Queen.