[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
This is an excellent example of where simple mathematics aren’t going to explain things. Infants under 2 will, before long, become children requiring their own seat, while still being a minute payload. So, treat them as precious cargo, and cultivate a loyalty among the grateful parents. Expensive in the short term, but very rewarding later on.
[/QUOTE]
I imagine this was the idea behind our company holding out on the second bag fee as long as we could, as well.
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
This is an excellent example of where simple mathematics aren’t going to explain things. Infants under 2 will, before long, become children requiring their own seat, while still being a minute payload. So, treat them as precious cargo, and cultivate a loyalty among the grateful parents. Expensive in the short term, but very rewarding later on.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not, really. They fly for free because they aren’t in a seat- they are in mom’s lap. I can’t think of a major carrier that doesn’t charge at least a half-fare for an under-2 child in a seat, and I doubt many even do that anymore.
So no, it isn’t cultivating any loyalty from me at all- I’d rather pay 1/2 for a seat that I can put a baby seat on, just so I can be somewhat comfortable on a flight. But instead I pay full price if I don’t want the baby in my lap the whole flight. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
It’s not, really. They fly for free because they aren’t in a seat
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t I acknowlege exactly that? “Infants under 2 will, before long, become children requiring their own seat”
But I thought you were saying that not charging me for a kid on my lap was some kind of favor that should make me feel great- is that right? I guess, in a way, it could be, but I frankly don’t see anything the airlines are doing (or have done in the last few years) that is engendering any kind of warm fuzzy feelings from me.
Sorry if I misunderstood. 
[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
But I thought you were saying that not charging me for a kid on my lap was some kind of favor that should make me feel great- is that right? I guess, in a way, it could be, but I frankly don’t see anything the airlines are doing (or have done in the last few years) that is engendering any kind of warm fuzzy feelings from me.
[/QUOTE]
Look at what I was originally responding to, the implication that you could/should be paying extra for the weight of your child.
Ah. Well, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me to be reading that Pit thread next! 
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Look at what I was originally responding to, the implication that you could/should be paying extra for the weight of your child.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see why you shouldn’t. Although, personally, I’d prefer it if children were shipped in carriers in baggage like other pets.
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
On second thought, why should everybody pay for those amenities if they don’t need them? I know it looks better from a customer perceptual standpoint (nickel and diming never looks good), but I almost never travel with 2 checked-in bags. If it brings down my ticket cost $15 or so, then I have no problem with charging folks $25 for a second bag.
[/QUOTE]
And when, precisely, have you ever seen a cost saving measure like this bring your ticket price down?
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
I don’t see why you shouldn’t. Although, personally, I’d prefer it if children were shipped in carriers in baggage like other pets.
[/QUOTE]
Ad absurdum? Weigh each passenger and charge accordingly? :rolleyes:
I suggested no such thing. That’s your own fevered imagination at work.
[QUOTE=Zsofia]
And when, precisely, have you ever seen a cost saving measure like this bring your ticket price down?
[/QUOTE]
Given that I often pay £0.01 plus tax for a flight, I expect any saving would be elsewhere 
Seriously, a cost saving can be about keeping things at the current level, or keeping them lower then the competitor, even if that means rising average prices.
[QUOTE=Zsofia]
And when, precisely, have you ever seen a cost saving measure like this bring your ticket price down?
[/QUOTE]
Heh, yeah, that would defeat the entire purpose of a cost-saving measure, wouldn’t it?
[QUOTE=Zsofia]
And when, precisely, have you ever seen a cost saving measure like this bring your ticket price down?
[/QUOTE]
You won’t ever see a cost saving measure like this bring your ticket price down. Fuel is a huge cost for airlines, and the price of fuel is steadily increasing. By increasing charges for ancillary services (phone booking fees, second bag fees), it’s hard to see the cost savings if you’re looking for your fare to decrease. What you’re looking for, instead, is the average fare not increasing.
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Ad absurdum? Weigh each passenger and charge accordingly?
[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I wouldn’t be opposed to a system that allots for a certain weight, and charges for anything over. Say your fare covers up to 250lbs of passenger weight. $25 for 250-300lbs. $50 for 300-350lbs. Etc. If you weigh three extra bags worth than the average guy who has to pay to check his second bag, then right now, you’re distributing the extra cost in fuel to carry your portly ass amongst all of the other passengers.
[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]
Honestly, I wouldn’t be opposed to a system that allots for a certain weight, and charges for anything over.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I have to agree with GM that this would border on the absurd because, among other reasons, the weigh-in process would add both time and expense to the process. Fortunately, we don’t have to do this; that’s what averages are for.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
I don’t know about that. A lot of stuff happens at the gate at the same time; refueling, loading baggage, stocking meals, preflight inspections. I don’t see a bag or two difference between passengers affecting the gate time much, if at all.
[/QUOTE]
The biggest boarding issue I’ve seen is the problem of too much stuff in the overheads. With this rule, people are going to carry on even more. Now, if a bag won’t fit and gets checked, does it get charged? That will cause a ruckus. I expect that this rule won’t be neutral for on-time departures, and make stuff worse.
Things are even worse than the OP says. First, I’ve read that a lot of airlines are charging $50, not $25. Second, one is going to charge extra for window and aisle seats.
I’m actually canceling a trip we were going to take in June because I’m so fed up. I’m not sure I’m going anyplace Southwest doesn’t fly in the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Second, one is going to charge extra for window and aisle seats.
[/QUOTE]
Aren’t those the majority of seats in most passenger aircraft seating configurations? I can’t imagine that will go over well with the flying public. Which airline is it, so that I may avoid them (or alternatively purchase one of these “premium” seats and pee in it right before disembarking?)
[QUOTE=Voyager]
The biggest boarding issue I’ve seen is the problem of too much stuff in the overheads. With this rule, people are going to carry on even more. Now, if a bag won’t fit and gets checked, does it get charged? That will cause a ruckus. I expect that this rule won’t be neutral for on-time departures, and make stuff worse.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. In Britain, there’s emerged a strict one-bag carry-on rule, which has helped cut down on such issues, because the big wheely-thing gets checked in to start with, and the laptop carried on. (Why do I stereotype this as a business traveller issue? 
)
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
(or alternatively purchase one of these “premium” seats and pee in it right before disembarking?)
[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah. That’ll show 'em. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Second, one is going to charge extra for window and aisle seats.
[/QUOTE]
I missed that one - if not allocating seats allows you to board faster, then why bother?
[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]
Oh, yeah. That’ll show 'em. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of a “joke”. I know, it’s a new thing; you probably haven’t heard of it before.