JOdy

Check out this article in todays London times for further incentive to travel light. I'm starting to practice now if this catches on I may be in big trouble! <BR> <BR>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...181263,00.html

janice

I hope this catches on - if I can fly cheaper, then I can fly more!

Art

Yet another case of discrimination against us 6'4" folks with size 15 triple wide shoes and who must alternate shoes every day. I SAY RISE UP AGAINST THE AIRLINES. WE HAVE RIGHTS ALSO. <BR> <BR> <BR>

janice

It's not discrimination - it's paying appropriately for the service you receive. It costs less for an airline to move a 5'3" 120 pound person with 20 pounds of luggage than it costs to move a 350 lb. 5'3" person with 65 lbs. of suitcases. <BR>Imagine, it would not only be an incentive to pack lightly, it would also be a reason to diet! And maybe fly naked! (okay, I get carried away again...)

elvira

Hoo Yah! Yippee ki oh ki yay! The line about the cost of reuniting passengers with their lost luggage is priceless; if I could get a discount everytime I had just a carryon, I would be willing to pay extra for the occasional big bag (like the one at Christmas). So if the cargo hold is now mostly empty, can the airlines reconfigure and add more seats? Would that contribute to fewer flights and therefore less congestion in the skies? <BR>

janice

How about a little more leg room?

xxx

Seems like we have debated this subject to death before. <BR> <BR>Those who weigh 120 pounds salivate at the prospect of paying one-half as much as a 240-pounder - - until they realize that the family with two forty-pounders will be filling up planes and paying still less! <BR>

topper

TTT

SO

Leave those little 40 pounders at home, or put them in your carry-on. You don't want to spoil the ratios!!! <BR>Leg room , what is that???

Claudia

Thanks for posting that link. It is an interesting concept, so long as the airlines are STRICT about that 7 kg weight limit on carry-on luggage. <BR> <BR>Can you imagine what will happen when checking luggage costs people money if the airlines are as whimsical about enforcing carry-on rules as they are now? People will struggle onboard with inappropriate "hand luggage" in the interest of saving some dough ... I shudder to think what it will be like trying to board a plane.

elvira

"Those who weigh 120 pounds salivate at the prospect of paying one-half as much as a 240-pounder - - until they realize that the family with two forty-pounders will be filling up planes and paying still less!" Nowhere in the article did it mention charging passengers based on *their* weight. The emphasis seems to be, instead, on reducing baggage handling and weight costs. It is cheaper for the airline to haul a 7 kg bag that the PASSENGER handles, than the same weight bag that's checked (and, subsequently, lost). Think about the home improvement stores that offer cheaper prices because the CUSTOMER hauls the stuff. A couple of years ago I bought bookcases from such a place, and paid the store extra to have them delivered - and glad to do it. If I want to ship a package, whether via a delivery service or the USPS, the first thing they do is **weigh** it - and charge accordingly. If I'm using the USPS, and keep my package under one pound, I get to ship it Priority for less than if I sent it first class mail - a benny for keeping the weight low. <BR> <BR>And, sorry, Art, as much as I love you, I can't agree with you on this one. If you want to have a pair of shoes sent via the USPS, try convincing them they shouldn't charge you so much because it's not your fault your feet are so big. <BR> <BR>

xxxxxxx

What a moronic idea! *Encourage* people not to check their luggage?! It's bad enough the way it is!

James

Not much of an incentive. What was it--10 pounds at the most? Remember, that's less than US$15 at the moment.