United copies AA first-bag fee
Jun 12th, 2008, 08:10 AM
#1
United copies AA first-bag fee
Actually, UA's charge starts sooner than AA's. We shall see if others follow.
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,52481,00.html
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,52481,00.html
Jun 12th, 2008, 10:32 AM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United was never near my top-of-list anyway for airlines. Actually charging $15/bag is not at the top of the reasons to worry about flying them. See the other thread below about how United Airlines itself is in really sad shape (except for the executives who seem to be doing great). Those kinds of problems have to trickle down the company to customer service and performance.
Jun 12th, 2008, 12:36 PM
#3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Others will follow. It makes too much sense.
As for executive compensation at United... I think this is pretty unfair to Tilton. Tilton was hired after it was clear that United was to enter bankruptcy. You can't expect someone that you hire specifically to attempt to clean up someone else's mess to "take one for the team." They pay him what they pay him because it is what they had to pay to get someone in the door.
As for executive compensation at United... I think this is pretty unfair to Tilton. Tilton was hired after it was clear that United was to enter bankruptcy. You can't expect someone that you hire specifically to attempt to clean up someone else's mess to "take one for the team." They pay him what they pay him because it is what they had to pay to get someone in the door.
Jun 12th, 2008, 01:56 PM
#6
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, it's not me the airlines need to worry about--I'm not a fumer--but I've witnessed some ugly situations at the desk. I really feel for the attendants on the receiving end because I feel this will just add fuel (no pun intended) to the fire--I hope they're well paid. 'The bag is "lost" and I paid how much to have it shipped???' eye-yeye...
Jun 12th, 2008, 05:36 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Southwest frequent flyer I'm not personally affected if the other airlines add these fees - but of course, since people flying all the other airlines will be trying to save $15 by carrying all their bags through the security lines now, it's going to slow all the rest of us down. I hope at very least that they will start enforcing the bag limits (one carry-on, one personal item through security) more strictly.
Jun 12th, 2008, 08:50 PM
#9
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I fail to understand is that if the charges incurred for checked bags is due to the increase in fuel prices, why don't they just add it on as a fuel surcharge. I doubt if many would have a problem with this additional charge. However, when we are penalized by merely checking our bags, it's easy to become outraged.
The consequence will be more carry on bags stuffed into the already full overhead bins which will not only delay departures but also disembarkment from the plane. In addition the bins will not be able to handle the increased number of carry ons, and the excess will have to be gate-checked causing even further delays and complications.
I can only assume that those implementing these policies are absolutely clueless.
The consequence will be more carry on bags stuffed into the already full overhead bins which will not only delay departures but also disembarkment from the plane. In addition the bins will not be able to handle the increased number of carry ons, and the excess will have to be gate-checked causing even further delays and complications.
I can only assume that those implementing these policies are absolutely clueless.
Jun 12th, 2008, 09:31 PM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the basic idea of this single-bag charge (beyond the need to collect revenue) is to charge the people who bring more weight onto the plane more money. More weight means more cost for fuel. If you bring on two 50-pound suitcases you should pay more than a passenger bringing on a single carry-on. Of course, simply charging by the bag isn't the most fair way to do this.
The only really fair way to handle this in my view is to charge each passenger a surcharge based on the TOTAL WEIGHT the passenger brings on the plane, including him/herself. For example, if I weigh 200 pounds and I bring 50 pounds of luggage/carry-ons/etc. on the plane, I should be charged a surcharge based on 250 pounds. If a 100 pound woman wants to check two 50-pound bags and a 50-pound carry-on, she should also be charged a surcharge based on 250 pounds, since she and I will cost the airline exactly the same amount in fuel costs based on our weight.
The only really fair way to handle this in my view is to charge each passenger a surcharge based on the TOTAL WEIGHT the passenger brings on the plane, including him/herself. For example, if I weigh 200 pounds and I bring 50 pounds of luggage/carry-ons/etc. on the plane, I should be charged a surcharge based on 250 pounds. If a 100 pound woman wants to check two 50-pound bags and a 50-pound carry-on, she should also be charged a surcharge based on 250 pounds, since she and I will cost the airline exactly the same amount in fuel costs based on our weight.
Jun 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM
#11
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>What I fail to understand is that if the charges incurred for checked bags is due to the increase in fuel prices, why don't they just add it on as a fuel surcharge. I doubt if many would have a problem with this additional charge. However, when we are penalized by merely checking our bags, it's easy to become outraged.</i>
But who says this is merely about the weight or solely to generate revenue? Reducing the number and weight of checked bags is a goal in and of itself. A meaningful reduction in checked bags would significantly lower costs. The goal is to eliminate, as much as possible, the baggage handling costs from the equation.
Look at Ryanair. Their baggage fees are so prohibitive that they can't possibly be intended to primarily drive revenue. They are clearly intended to reduce the burden of hauling the bags.
And, importantly, there are significant extra costs to hauling the bags that are incremental to the weight factor. Even a 300 pound person is likely to load and unload themselves. So the "total weight" concept isn't as analogous as many would like to think.
<i>The consequence will be more carry on bags stuffed into the already full overhead bins which will not only delay departures but also disembarkment from the plane.</i>
There are plenty of ways to avoid this from becoming a problem. Many of the Euro carriers enforce carry-on limits rather rigidly without difficulty. As long as the airline is committed to enforcement, I don't see why this should doom the project.
But who says this is merely about the weight or solely to generate revenue? Reducing the number and weight of checked bags is a goal in and of itself. A meaningful reduction in checked bags would significantly lower costs. The goal is to eliminate, as much as possible, the baggage handling costs from the equation.
Look at Ryanair. Their baggage fees are so prohibitive that they can't possibly be intended to primarily drive revenue. They are clearly intended to reduce the burden of hauling the bags.
And, importantly, there are significant extra costs to hauling the bags that are incremental to the weight factor. Even a 300 pound person is likely to load and unload themselves. So the "total weight" concept isn't as analogous as many would like to think.
<i>The consequence will be more carry on bags stuffed into the already full overhead bins which will not only delay departures but also disembarkment from the plane.</i>
There are plenty of ways to avoid this from becoming a problem. Many of the Euro carriers enforce carry-on limits rather rigidly without difficulty. As long as the airline is committed to enforcement, I don't see why this should doom the project.
Jun 13th, 2008, 03:40 PM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that American (USA) airlines have never been seriously committed to enforcing carry on limits.
If they want to limit the amount of weight they haul, charge extra after a reasonable (total) limit. Many will simply shift their checked luggage to carry on.
I agree that with the cost of flights an extra $25 is hardly worth considering.
Fuel costs are only one aspect of efficiently running an airline.
If they want to limit the amount of weight they haul, charge extra after a reasonable (total) limit. Many will simply shift their checked luggage to carry on.
I agree that with the cost of flights an extra $25 is hardly worth considering.
Fuel costs are only one aspect of efficiently running an airline.
Jun 13th, 2008, 05:46 PM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that airlines are adding these extra charges instead of raising fares so that their fares appear low in the internet air fare search sites. I guess this makes sense, although I'd rather see the total price than wonder about how many extra fees there are.
I would choose USAir or UA over Southwest so my family could be assured of sitting together and not all be stuck in middle seats.
I would choose USAir or UA over Southwest so my family could be assured of sitting together and not all be stuck in middle seats.
Jun 13th, 2008, 05:55 PM
#15
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You'll be surprised how many Americans will actually buy that UA/US/AA fare even though it's clear they have to check a bag each way."
Count me as one of them. As karens states, I'll take paying a legacy $15 for checking a bag over the chaotic cattle car that is WN any day of the week, thank you.
Still, I agree that the legacies have made yet another boneheaded move. Just add a fuel surcharge that can be easily adjusted to adapt to changing fuel prices and be done with it!
Count me as one of them. As karens states, I'll take paying a legacy $15 for checking a bag over the chaotic cattle car that is WN any day of the week, thank you.
Still, I agree that the legacies have made yet another boneheaded move. Just add a fuel surcharge that can be easily adjusted to adapt to changing fuel prices and be done with it!
Jun 13th, 2008, 09:26 PM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LT: <i>Count me as one of them. As karens states, I'll take paying a legacy $15 for checking a bag over the chaotic cattle car that is WN any day of the week, thank you.</i>
Well, I'll take the "cattle call" that for some reason never seems to get me a bad seat over airlines constantly nickel-and-diming me for every new fee they can dream up. And I like the extra leg room in coach on Southwest planes; AA's seat pitch was smaller when they were actually making a profit, can't imagine what it will be now. Maybe they'll soon start charging extra for a "normal" coach seat instead of an extra-small one.
Well, I'll take the "cattle call" that for some reason never seems to get me a bad seat over airlines constantly nickel-and-diming me for every new fee they can dream up. And I like the extra leg room in coach on Southwest planes; AA's seat pitch was smaller when they were actually making a profit, can't imagine what it will be now. Maybe they'll soon start charging extra for a "normal" coach seat instead of an extra-small one.
Jun 14th, 2008, 08:59 AM
#18
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got the feeling that the baggage fee had to do with the practice of "selling" space in the cargo hold for shipping.
The more checked luggage on a plane, the less space the airlines can sell. With more limitations on carry on items (liquids, etc.), more people have been checking luggage reducing the airline's profit margin. By charging passengers for their checked luggage, they are making up some of that lost revenue.
The more checked luggage on a plane, the less space the airlines can sell. With more limitations on carry on items (liquids, etc.), more people have been checking luggage reducing the airline's profit margin. By charging passengers for their checked luggage, they are making up some of that lost revenue.
Jun 14th, 2008, 02:03 PM
#20
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Air has just announced similar fees, and the rest will soon follow. The people who have suggested that this problem should be handled with ticket surcharges are absolutely right.
Imposing this fee is going to cause chaos in aircraft cabins, making us even more miserable than we already are. To avoid paying the fee, people will try to carry on their bags. The airlines do not enforce carry on size restrictions, but even if they did there would not be enough room for every passenger to carry on a bag. So you know what's going to happen. There will be conflict over storage space. Passengers will get mad and argue with flight attendants when they are forced to gate check bags and pay the fee. The airlines will pressure us to cram bags in under-seat storage. Flights will be delayed.
I urge everyone to write members of Congress and the FAA with your concerns. Here are contact links for the relevant subcommittees and the FAA:
House Subcommittee on Aviation
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...trans_aviation
Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations Safety and Security
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...e=scommerce_av
Federal Aviation Administration
http://www.faa.gov/contact/
Imposing this fee is going to cause chaos in aircraft cabins, making us even more miserable than we already are. To avoid paying the fee, people will try to carry on their bags. The airlines do not enforce carry on size restrictions, but even if they did there would not be enough room for every passenger to carry on a bag. So you know what's going to happen. There will be conflict over storage space. Passengers will get mad and argue with flight attendants when they are forced to gate check bags and pay the fee. The airlines will pressure us to cram bags in under-seat storage. Flights will be delayed.
I urge everyone to write members of Congress and the FAA with your concerns. Here are contact links for the relevant subcommittees and the FAA:
House Subcommittee on Aviation
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...trans_aviation
Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations Safety and Security
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...e=scommerce_av
Federal Aviation Administration
http://www.faa.gov/contact/
