|
"Fee for 2nd checked bag causes overhead bin congestion." Duh.
Headline:
<b>Airline fees for checked bags are contributing to overhead-bin congestion</b> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...carryon20.html |
Spammer. This is the third time you've posted that link.
|
I posted the link in theads about the fee.
This is the only thread about the congestion itself. Complain to your favorite airline; the "policy" can be avoided or reversed. |
Furthermore, Gekko is a regular contributor here, hardly a spammer.
|
Posting the link in 5 different threads is spamming and overkill. Whether Gekko is a regular contributor or not is completely irrelevant.
|
What's funny about the OP's crusade is that he has been told by many, many frequent flyers that,
1. we really don't care about this policy 2. it's a done deal most airlines joined in already, including JetBlue (yes, starting 6/1), yet the OP persists with starting new threads with the same link. The few airlines that didn't will, in a very short time. It's the new reality of flying. Higher and more realistic fares. The airlines are still trying to save some cash for passengers that pack smart, but the ones that don't, will not be subsidized anymore by others on their flight. And please stop telling me that boarding will take longer. I have been on full flights with just about everybody having 2 pcs of allowed carry on luggage and boarding never took longer than 20-25 minutes for a single aisle planes and 30-40 minutes for a wide body. Airlines do start boarding 30 minutes before for narrow body and 45 minutes before for a widebody, so how come the boarding process never went beyond that? OP, it's getting old......:-( |
Charging for extra bags is not just a matter of revenue for airlines, all of whom are losing money, but also a measure to discourage extra weight. With fuel costs at all time highs, any way to reduce the use of fuel helps. I don't want to pay extra either, but I can appreciate that in order to stay in business, airlines have to get expenses under control any way they can.
|
Fees should be based on total weight, i.e., the weight of the bags PLUS the passenger him/herself.
Why pick on a skinny guy with 2 bags vs. a 300 pounder with only a laptop? |
Who checks bags ?!
|
How many times do anyone check a second bag? ((*))
|
Well, then, they need to strictly enforce the size of carry-ons!
|
They charge for the food, and $100 to make a change on a ticket, and they don't have bereavement fares anymore. They lay off half of the flight attendants and take away the pilot pensions. They don't inspect the planes, they charge to check a bag, and it costs $15 to book by phone.
(Even though when you book by phone,you don't talk to a real person because the real person got laid off.) They don't have bereavement fares anymore because like the mortuaries, they realize that death-in-the-family is a great time to gauge your family for a few grand. Also, using a "free" frequent flier ticket ends up costing you $75 unless you book it a year ahead, fly at 5am on a Tuesday, and sit between Totie Fields and Fatty Arbuckle. All this and they still lose $10 billion dollars last year? Who's in charge of this nonsense, anyway? |
Why should the airlines offer bereavement fares? They are not charitable institutions. It may be a nice thing to do from a customer relations point of view when times are flush, but it certainly seems an area for cutback during a rescession.
|
Why should my tax dollars subsidize airlines? When times are tight, I can't decide to withhold that portion of my tax bill.
(Airlines receive a wide range of subsidies, tax preferences, and other forms of special treatment from Federal, state, and local governments in the USA.) |
The checking of the 2nd bag is really going to hit leisure travelers, not the business traveler. I get the feeling that the airlines are catering more and more to business clientele. Good for me, because I am a frequent business flyer.
It will, however, affect me for ski vacations--checking clothing, boots, and ski's, and scuba trips (check the gear, carry on the regulator). But these types of trips are already so expensive that the extra $25 does not even make a dent in those vacation budgets. But, we did invest in a double ski bag so we only have to check one of those. |
Because, Gekko, financial instability in the airline industry would cause far more negative economic consequences than your own individual financial instability.
|
<i>But, we did invest in a double ski bag so we only have to check one of those.</i>
y'kow, that's a good point. People who might otherwise check two bags should just get bigger bags! (Won't help those people who carry all their worldly possessions with them on vacation, of course). |
<i>Posting the link in 5 different threads is spamming and overkill</i>
Your definition of spam is different then mine. Overkill, yes; spam, no. |
The problem with "bigger bags" is the weight limit. On JetBlue, for example, if a checked bag weighs more than 50 pounds, you pay a fee.
The "solution" is encouraging people to check bags and not carry-on everything but the kitchen sink. Or, if that's not possible, strictly enforce the carry-on rules. (But we know few gate agents have the time or the inclination to do so.) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:37 AM. |