Some airlines are charging $25 to check a SECOND bag??

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
I would like to know that it costs $X to travel from point A to point B. My personal definition of unfair includes charging extra because I’m not staying over Saturday night, charging extra because my wife’s medical equipment requires a separate padded case, and charging two people on the same plane dramatically different amounts because of seemingly-random factors.
[/QUOTE]
The airlines would rapidly go out of business if they did something like that.

The reason that they have to use weird price algorithms is that their costs are very non-linear. It costs almost as much to fly an empty 747 as it does to fly a full one, and they’ve got lots of things that they have to try to do to maximize their income. They have to be able to sell tickets at the last minute for high prices to people who really need to get there on time, and they have to be able to sell cheaper tickets to people who want to go, but don’t care that much when they go, or how comfortable they are, and they have to be able to sell expensive tickets to people traveling for business, and cheap tickets at the last second so they don’t have empty seats.

If they tried to establish a single ticket price, it would be well above the price most people are willing to pay. The business travelers who are willing to pay might have to pay even more, because now the 30% of them have to pay for the whole flight, which means fewer flights or smaller (slower and more expensive) planes. If the flights get too infrequent or the planes too small, then the scheduling for business travelers drops out, and they lose even more business. It just can’t work that way.

82

[QUOTE=pulykamell]
If it brings down my ticket cost $15 or so, then I have no problem with charging folks $25 for a second bag.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
It won’t. There is absolutely no chance that they’ll lower your ticket price, because this is about generating extra money for the airline, and if they lowered your price, it wouldn’t generate extra money.
[/QUOTE]

This is not about generating profit. You’re right that it won’t lower your ticket price. The cost of operating a flight is increasing daily, and this is more about keeping your fare more or less the same. It will never decrease as long as costs continue to increase.

There are two options to combat the rising cost of operation: charge fees for ancillary services, or increase fares. It’s a lose-lose situation for the airline because the average consumer isn’t aware of the rising cost of operation. To them, either way, it seems like the airline is just nickel and diming you to death to increase their profits. Yet, time and time again, airlines aren’t showing profits.

Fare increases are bad for everyone, and charging for “extra” services (2nd bag, booking fees, premium seating, etc.) are considered by most to be the “most fair” option. Believe me, neither side is “winning” in this situation.

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]
Their next step is a scale and you have to weigh in. They take the weight and charge a fuel surcharge for your current weight.
[/QUOTE]

See my post #33. I’m not opposed to this idea, in the interest of everyone paying for the extra weight they do bring onboard.

[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate]
My bet? All the legacy airlines are going to jump on this bandwagon. Then in a couple of years, a new start up airlines will come along and start advertising “Remember the good old days, when you could sit on the aisle, have a pillow and check to bags? At Common-Sense Airlines we treat you the way you deserve to be treated.” Lo and behold, they will discover that the weight of the luggage doesn’t double. And happy travelers will flock to them.
[/QUOTE]

The only way Common-Sense Airlines would be able to operate for long would be if its fares were well above market average. And then, happy travelers wouldn’t flock to them. A lot of people will say “I’ll fly the airline that treats me the best, even if I have to pay a premium.” With the kind of premium we’re talking, it would be quite telling when they had to open their wallet.

83

[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]
The only way Common-Sense Airlines would be able to operate for long would be if its fares were well above market average. And then, happy travelers wouldn’t flock to them. A lot of people will say “I’ll fly the airline that treats me the best, even if I have to pay a premium.” With the kind of premium we’re talking, it would be quite telling when they had to open their wallet.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, this worked pretty well for Midwest Express (now Midwest Airlines). Their fares were about $80/seat higher than comparable schedules on other airlines to the same destinations. Midwest offers full-width business-class seating (equivalent to Delta’s first-class seats) from front-to-back on Boeing 717 aircraft – and they serve fresh-baked cookies. They’ve made some changes in the last couple of years, but back when I first started flying them, they were always 2/3 or more full, even with the escalated fares.

84

[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Not necessarily. They’re (presumably) applying a fee based on the average weight of a bag.
[/quote]
Well, if they’re going to do that, why not apply a fee based on the average number of bags, too?

Yeah, I know, they don’t need to, because they can count the number of bags. But you know that thing you put your bags on while you’re checking your luggage? It’s a scale. Either that, or some airlines have got psychics working their counters, because they’re able to tell me how much my bags weigh. So why rely on an average?

While they’re at it, they could ask that you put your carry-on and ‘personal item’ on the scale, too, and weigh (and charge on the basis of) the whole kit and caboodle. They could tag the carry-on and personal item to indicate that they’d been weighed, and you couldn’t bring them on the plane unless they had the tags.

Seems simple enough.

But charging for the number of bags is silly. The amount of space in their cargo hold hasn’t changed; it’s still what it’s always been. If there used to be enough room for two bags per passenger, then there still is enough room now.

They say weight’s the problem, and I’ve got no reason to doubt that. Yet they’ve got the means to charge for excess weight, and they don’t. Instead, they simply create an incentive to check one motherfucking huge suitcase, and bring on huge-ass carry-ons. The former doesn’t bother me, but the latter can be a damned nuisance when one carry-on takes up enough of an overhead bin that a second carry-on won’t fit.

I rest my case. (So to speak.)

85

What do you expect? You’ve been underpaying for airline service due to subsidization. Airlines need to stay afloat.

86

[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate]
I was checking out some flight info on Travelocity today, and ran across this message behind Continental and Delta flights.

These airlines are now charging an additional $25 to check a second bag, for some economy (looks like the cheap ones) tickets. This extra fee isn’t included in the ticket price. You have to pay it seperately at check in. I’m waiting for them to announce that they are also reducting/enforcing the size and number of bags you can take on the airplane.

What the hell? You’ve already minimized my seat size, reducted the number of flights, over booked the ones you have, taken away even my bag of peanuts. You’ve cut the number of ticketing agents until the lines are now crazy long. I hope this comes back to bit you in the ass. I know I’ll be going out of my way to avoid these 2 airlines.
[/QUOTE]

I never understand why people need to check so much shit. You’re getting onto a plane, with limited onboard storage, fuel prices are through the roof, airlines are running near bankruptcy…check a small fucking bag and put the rest in stow. It’s really that simple. You don’t need to carry on anything more than some bare essentials/valuables in the event the airline loses your checked luggage.
I don’t get the outrage here.
Whoops, I was confused. So this is an extra charge for “checked” luggage, not carry on. Ah well, added weight and fuel surcharges and all. Like **Giraffe ** said, I’d rather just pay a little more up-front money and be done with it rather than hassle with extra charges at the ticket counter.

Reading comprehension was NOT my friend today.

87

[QUOTE=mswas]
Airlines need to stay afloat.
[/QUOTE]
At least, in the event of an emergency water landing. After all, that’s what the seat cushions are for. :slight_smile:

Personally, I’d rather they stay aloft.

88

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]

They say weight’s the problem, and I’ve got no reason to doubt that. Yet they’ve got the means to charge for excess weight, and they don’t.
[/QUOTE]

They don’t? What airlines do you fly? My checked bag is weighed every single time, and if it’s over weight I am charged. Is this not the case where you are?

89

[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
My checked bag is weighed every single time, and if it’s over weight I am charged.
[/QUOTE]
As are mine. Last time I moved across country, I filled a large military duffel bag with clothing compacted in space bags. That bag must have weighed over a hundred pounds. They told me it would cost cost another $75 to check it, and would I prefer to repack it so it was lighter? I declined and gave them the money, as it was still cheaper than shipping by any other means. They seemed surprised, and a little miffed that they had to deal with a hundred pound duffel bag.

90

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
While they’re at it, they could ask that you put your carry-on and ‘personal item’ on the scale, too, and weigh (and charge on the basis of) the whole kit and caboodle. They could tag the carry-on and personal item to indicate that they’d been weighed, and you couldn’t bring them on the plane unless they had the tags.

Seems simple enough.
[/QUOTE]
People could easily switch the tags, or repack the bags after they had been weighed.

91

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
The airlines would rapidly go out of business if they did something like that.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Your argument applies just the same to cabs, busses, trains, ships, and every other mode of transportation, and they’ve all been able to post straight fares for a long time. It also works for plumbers, electricians, retail stores, museums, theaters, tour busses, and most other industries in the world. If a taxi ride to the airport costs me $50, it’ll cost the guy behind me $50, the guy in front of me $50, and the guy that’s catching the taxi tomorrow $50. It’ll cost $50 if I’ve been planning the trip for a year or if I just decided to go this morning.

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
The reason that they have to use weird price algorithms is that their costs are very non-linear. It costs almost as much to fly an empty 747 as it does to fly a full one, and they’ve got lots of things that they have to try to do to maximize their income.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see. You’re agreeing that charging for the extra bag isn’t related to their costs, because it costs the same to fly the plane either way. Thank you for making my point.

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
If they tried to establish a single ticket price, it would be well above the price most people are willing to pay. The business travelers who are willing to pay might have to pay even more, because now the 30% of them have to pay for the whole flight, which means fewer flights or smaller (slower and more expensive) planes. If the flights get too infrequent or the planes too small, then the scheduling for business travelers drops out, and they lose even more business. It just can’t work that way.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that airlines have had a “screw the business traveler” philosophy for a very long time. Well, it’s actually a “screw the person who needs to fly and make them subsidize the ones who don’t” philosophy. That doesn’t mean it’s necessary (it isn’t) or that I have to like it (I don’t).

When my father died, I didn’t have advance notice. I needed a flight right now to get out there. The airline kindly offered a bereavement fare, since I needed to book a flight on such short notice. The bereavement fare was 50% of the standard full fare for the flight, which was almost double what that ticket cost me through Yahoo travel. In other words, the airline was trying to trick me into paying double the going rate while pretending they were doing me a favor. This is not the way to keep happy customers.

If there was a standard fare from, say, San Francisco to New York, travelers would be able to budget and plan, and when they could afford it, they’d go. It’s a very straightforward model, and it works for most businesses (excepting special occasions when they put something on sale, of course).

[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]
Fare increases are bad for everyone, and charging for “extra” services (2nd bag, booking fees, premium seating, etc.) are considered by most to be the “most fair” option.
[/QUOTE]
Charging for “extra” items is a fare increase. They’re just hanging Groucho glasses and a fake mustache on it to try to disguise it.

92

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Charging for “extra” items is a fare increase. They’re just hanging Groucho glasses and a fake mustache on it to try to disguise it.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a fare increase to those who are bringing added weight onboard, as opposed to distributing the cost amongst all paying customers.

93

[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]
It’s a fare increase to those who are bringing added weight onboard, as opposed to distributing the cost amongst all paying customers.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. It’s a fare increase to those who are bringing the exact same amount of weight they’ve always brought. And, in fact, it has nothing to do with weight. If you have a 50-pound suitcase, you get it on for free. If I have two small 20-pound suitcases, I get charged extra.

It’s a sneaky little rate hike. There will be more. Since there are no more freebies to take away, and they won’t show some honesty and call them rate hikes, they will just implement more surcharges, fees, and other euphemisms.

94

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Nope. It’s a fare increase to those who are bringing the exact same amount of weight they’ve always brought. And, in fact, it has nothing to do with weight. If you have a 50-pound suitcase, you get it on for free. If I have two small 20-pound suitcases, I get charged extra.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a fare increase to those who are bringing more than the average passenger. Quite often, the case is not someone checking two small 20-pound suitcases. More often, it’s someone checking two heavy suitcases.

shrug Call it what you will. But it is what it is. And it’s the state of the industry right now. Like it or leave it.

95

[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]

The only way Common-Sense Airlines would be able to operate for long would be if its fares were well above market average. And then, happy travelers wouldn’t flock to them. A lot of people will say “I’ll fly the airline that treats me the best, even if I have to pay a premium.” With the kind of premium we’re talking, it would be quite telling when they had to open their wallet.
[/QUOTE]

Gee, I wonder how Southwest is making money, then. They have three fare classes, with very well defined rules for choosing them. (And a few web discounts.) They can’t charge for aisles based on their seating policy. I don’t believe they are charging for two bags. And in my experience the flight experience is as good or better than the regular airlines.

We’re not talking frills, but I think the airlines have now sunk below rock bottom.
And, btw, there is no charge for flight changes, and if you cancel they give you a credit for another SW flight with no fee.

96

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I never understand why people need to check so much shit. You’re getting onto a plane, with limited onboard storage, fuel prices are through the roof, airlines are running near bankruptcy…check a small fucking bag and put the rest in stow. It’s really that simple. You don’t need to carry on anything more than some bare essentials/valuables in the event the airline loses your checked luggage.
I don’t get the outrage here.

[/QUOTE]

Regardless of the cost of checked bags, the reason people want to carry everything on is to get out of the airport faster. You can easily wait 20 minutes or more for a bag. I’ve been checking everything since the liquid restrictions went in, but on my last trip I did the bag thing and carried everything on, and could hardly believe how fast I got home. I still prefer to check bags, especially when I am changing planes and need to get something to eat during the delay.

97

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Gee, I wonder how Southwest is making money, then. They have three fare classes, with very well defined rules for choosing them. (And a few web discounts.) They can’t charge for aisles based on their seating policy. I don’t believe they are charging for two bags. And in my experience the flight experience is as good or better than the regular airlines.

We’re not talking frills, but I think the airlines have now sunk below rock bottom.
And, btw, there is no charge for flight changes, and if you cancel they give you a credit for another SW flight with no fee.
[/QUOTE]

Southwest 1Q profit slides; airline reducing expansion plans

Even Southwest isn’t immune from the rising costs of operation. Their business model, though good and one of the best in the industry, can’t last forever.

Their fuel hedges have been great for them so far, but as you’ll see in that article (which may be dated, but the numbers are still good), they don’t look so great for the future. What to do, then?

98

JetStar have started offering “Carry On Luggage Only” fares here that are $10 cheaper than the regular fare with full baggage allowance- they’re mainly pitched at business travellers who are carrying an overnight bag or a laptop or something like that.

I think it’s a good idea, but only because it doesn’t penalise people who travel with “Normal” baggage allowances- if you only need to bring a laptop onto the plane, then we’ll cut you a deal on the fare (and use the empty space in the hold for cargo or mail, which earns them more money).

I couldn’t believe how disorganised flying in the US is, though- When my wife and I were flying from San Francisco to Las Vegas, the airline was apparently having delays due to bad weather somewhere and that was causing a whole heap of other connections to fall over, and they were apparently very close to putting us on a plane to Tulsa or Denver or somewhere that was several hundred kilometres from Las Vegas in the wrong direction, then getting us on a flight to LV from there.

Even the actual flight was disturbingly chaotic, with people shouting conversations across the plane at each other, sending text messages off their cellphones(!), and generally not sitting down and shutting the fuck up. It was definitely an eye-opener, and the next time my wife and I visit the US we plan to drive from one destination to another, rather than fly, if possible.

99

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
People could easily switch the tags, or repack the bags after they had been weighed.
[/QUOTE]
I guess, but how? As I see it, you’d be asked to put anything you were carrying onto the scale when you checked your bags. Once you got your tags, the checked luggage would already be on its way to the plane. I suppose you could leave a bag unattended somewhere, or backtrack to your car and retrieve some extra stuff to pack in your tagged carry-on, or you could put heavy stuff in your pockets while you checked your bags. But all of those scenarios would either be of limited use or carry some heavy disincentives.

100

[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
They don’t? What airlines do you fly? My checked bag is weighed every single time, and if it’s over weight I am charged. Is this not the case where you are?
[/QUOTE]
Let’s just say that I’ve had a couple of instances where my bag’s been a few pounds over the limit, but they decided not to charge me. In both cases, my suitcase was very far from being an average suitcase, weight-wise; it was tough to lug around, even with wheels.

So while it’s true that penalizing directly for weight has been going on, it’s only at a much more rarefied level than what we’re talking about here with the charging-for-second-bag rule.