I think the point is that the rules allow checked baggage to be heavier than carry-on baggage.
That’s funny. Every article you read about this issue reagarding Schumer appears that he’s targeting Spirit. Even the Spirit CEO, feels targeted. Why is he the one having to defend his company’s actions in the press. Why isn’t Geithner feeling attacked?
Yes, I expect that Spirit will continue to keep charging a separate fee even if the tax loophole is closed, as I don’t believe the loophole is what incentivized the unbundling of fees. It is the ability to advertise a lower base fare, which is still a competitive advantage.
The airline doesn’t have to collect a cent from you. They do have to pay it. If you go to your corner bodega and they don’t charge you sales tax, the tax man can come around and make them pay all that sales tax, even if they didn’t collect it. The airline is accountable for that excise tax, the tax man is never going to come after YOU for the excise tax. The tax is just another line item that companies break out so that they can make their product appear cheaqper than they really are.
A 45 pound suitcase interacts slightly differently with gravity than a 15 pound backpack.
Of course it appears that he’s targeting Spirit; they’re the only ones charging for carry-on luggage. However, his own statement makes it clear that he’s trying to ensure that other airlines don’t try to take advantage of this loophole.
If you recognize that Spirit can continue to charge separately for carry-ons even when the loophole is closed, what the hell are you complaining about?
I think the point is that the rules allow checked baggage to be heavier than carry-on baggage.
What you said. Um, twice.
I’ve flown more flights than I care to remember over the years and I have never seen a weight limit applied to anyone’s carry-on bag. As long as it can be crammed into the overhead bin was the only rule, and even that wasn’t always followed (which required tagging and sending below for storage)
There isn’t a weight limit, but there is a size limit. If you filled your carry-on with lead ingots, you’d be over the weight limit for checked baggage, but I suspect that most passengers don’t do that.
What does this even mean? Obviously not, otherwise I would be against the checked in baggage fees as well. It is a matter of degree, and personally I feel charging for all baggage not under the seat crosses the line into territory where practically no-one will be able to pay your advertised price. If there is a reasonable expectation that if a week return flight is offered at $250 you can pay $250 then that is fine - if it is practically impossible to pay this price without additional fees then the offer is dishonest.
So no, you cannot make the assumption that I support regulating all prices because I have an issue with this specific circumstance, any more than I can make the assumption that since you are against some restrictions you are against all restrictions, including disallowing Spirit to feed their passengers into a giant furnace to cut down on heating bills.
Assuming you are in fact against allowing airlines to feed their passengers into giant furnaces, I believe we both understand the concept of judging things on a case by case basis. Added to the fact that I never mentioned legislating anything, only that I thought Spirit was wrong and dishonest, I am puzzled why you responded the way you did.
Your definition of accurate should be looked at.
Equating a massive fraud (that was not discovered by politicians) to the manner in which an airline sells its services is a bit mismatched, don’t you think?
I’m sure there are lots of legitimate reasons when the government should step in and question the practices of companies doing business in the US, but this is not one of them.
The FAA doesn’t seem to limit the weight of carry-on bags but airlines do.
Sorry, misunderstood your intentions of your statement.
If a consumer doesn’t like how a certain company does business (as long as the company isn’t breaking any laws) they should take their business elsewhere, not expect the government to come fix it for them.
Why can’t you answer this question directly? Why isn’t this one of those cases? What are the legitimate cases, in your view?
I’m starting to wonder if you just don’t like Senator Schumer, therefore you use this case to criticize him. It’s worth noting that other politicians have introduced legislation more radical than his proposal… but you haven’t really mentioned them.
WRT to the checked baggage fees, these were introduced when fuel costs were at an all time high. As opposed to tacking on a fuel surcharge, as some airlines did during this time, the checked baggage fee was introduced, to differentiate between customers checking baggage (traveling with more weight thus requiring more fuel) and those who traveled light.
As the bread and butter of the airline business are business travelers, the leisure customers picked up most of this tab, as most business travelers use carry-on baggage (see Up in the Air Movie for modern reference.) Even though jet fuel prices have declined, the customer base has become accustomed to the fee and it still is in place among most carriers.
Both fall at 9.8 M/s2
I don’t believe this is a legitimate situation, because no laws have been broken. There does not appear to be fraud involved. The taxpayers don’t have an investment interest in Spirit. Customer’s civil rights don’t appear to have been violated or even appear to be in question.
Why, in your opinion, does this situation with Spirit’s customers warrant government intervention as opposed to Wal-Mart’s return policies? The latter certainly affects more Americans.
WRT Schumer, he’s the one that is mentioned in every article about this issue. Besides, I only know of the man what is out there in the media. I have no idea what he’s like as a person, so how could I like or dislike him?
For the majority of major US based airlines, if there is a limit it’s between 40-50 pounds which is virtually the same as for checked bags.
IMHO, Spirit’s incentive was to (1 ) reduce the number of carry-on bags and the boarding clusterf**k they create and (2 ) pad their revenue on the passengers that still insist on utilizing the overhead bins.
Bottom line: If they want to be able to apply those rules in the free market and risk driving away their paying customers, so be it. For Schumer to attempt to circumvent the free market results with a tax ploy is yet another example of why we need new leadership in Washington.
Is excise tax charged on the inflight snack boxes and sandwiches that many airlines now sell?
So companies should only be subject to congressional or regulatory scrutiny when no laws have been broken? That makes it rather hard for the government to decide whether there is a need for a new law.
First, I’m not aware of any controversy about Wal-mart’s return policies. Second, as a frequent air passenger I would be concerned if Spirit’s policy started off an industry-wide adoption of the policy (which we learn today isn’t likely to happen). Third, the fact that some in Congress are holding up an issue to public examination is a good thing – as Woodrow Wilson wrote, “The informing function of Congress is to be preferred even to its legislative function.” Holding up matters of public policy to the scrutiny of the public can have benefits even if laws are not passed – in this case, several major airlines vowed not to follow Spirit’s lead, which is a good thing. Fourth, there is an issue of taxation at stake here. Finally, there is no government intervention at this point. Talking about something is not intervention in my book. Intervening to level the fairness of the tax system would be good, in my book; but I wouldn’t support a law that would prohibit fees on carry-on bags. ETA: also, this is a matter of interstate commerce, for which Congress has explicit constitutional authority to regulate.
Generally speaking, when a person calls someone else a “loon” (see thread title) it is often considered a clever and very subtle way of indirectly implying that one does not like the subject in question.