NY senator fights airline carry-on bag fee

[tyler811]

I have not flown in 25 years but I think the new carry on fee is bullshit. I understand people try to stuff full size suitcases into the overhead compartment so charge them if it is over a certain size.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday he's trying to get the federal government to prohibit airlines from charging a fee for carry-on baggage, calling it a "slap in the face to travelers."
The New York Democrat is making a personal plea to the Treasury Department to rule that carry-on bags are a necessity for travel, which would make them exempt from a separate fee outside the ticket price.

This is the response from one airline official

Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza has said having fewer carry-on bags will help empty the plane faster, and the fee is intended to get customers to pay for individual things they want, while keeping the base fare low. Charging for checked bags but not carry-ons also means many passengers lug as much as they can onto planes.

Now am I mistaken but do they not already limit a person to one carry-on?

Again I do not fly so I do not know what they mean by what I have in bold.

I think the fee is bullshit but someone set me straight on flying charges and carry-ons if I am wrong.

http://www.charter.net/news/read.ph...ass&action=5&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_USNWU00L5_UNEWS

 

[IAteYourMother]

they can do w/e they want... it's not like it's going to be a hidden fee. Airlines make so little profit per seat as is...

 

[darkxshade]

Charging for checked bags but not carry-ons also means many passengers lug as much as they can onto planes.

If they're going to use that bullshit excuse, then drop checked-baggage fees and implement carry-on fees... then everyone will just check their baggage and the plane will clear out faster when they land. Obviously charging fees for both is not as efficient since it means people will still rather carry baggage's on.

 

[Brainonska511]

they can do w/e they want... it's not like it's going to be a hidden fee. Airlines make so little profit per seat as is...

If they're going to charge these little bs fees to nickle and dime everyone, then it better be fully and clearly disclosed before you purchase the ticket.

 

[IAteYourMother]

If they're going to use that bullshit excuse, then drop checked-baggage fees and implement carry-on fees... then everyone will just check their baggage and the plane will clear out faster when they land. Obviously charging fees for both is not as efficient since it means people will still rather carry baggage's on.

no... there's a balance between weight/size and fee amount.

 

[sjwaste]

I hope they have carry on fees. Have you seen the shit that people try to cram into the overhead? They should allow the one personal item (the one that can be no bigger than what fits under the seat) and charge for the carry on.

The last people on the plane can't even fit anything in the overhead. It's out of control. I don't care if people don't want to travel light, but I have no problem with them paying for the privilege.

 

[darkxshade]

no... there's a balance between weight/size and fee amount.

irrelevant, their excuse is that they want to charge a fee to reduce the amount of carry-ons so that the plane can empty faster and because by having checked-baggage fee only, people opt to force more carry-ons into the plane. So by charging fees for only carry-ons, it forces only those who absolutely must carry-on to pay the fee while every everyone else would be happy to check their baggages free. But they won't do that because they don't want to admit the real reason they want to charge those fees.

 

[Brainonska511]

I hope they have carry on fees. Have you seen the shit that people try to cram into the overhead? They should allow the one personal item (the one that can be no bigger than what fits under the seat) and charge for the carry on.

The last people on the plane can't even fit anything in the overhead. It's out of control. I don't care if people don't want to travel light, but I have no problem with them paying for the privilege.

You don't need to charge to control that. You just need to enforce carry-on size restrictions.

 

[sjwaste]

You don't need to charge to control that. You just need to enforce carry-on size restrictions.

It's more efficient to just charge. Enforcement likely means either slowing down boarding lines or adding staff - meaning I'm either less satisfied by an already tedious process or I'm paying more in the fare to cover the overhead.

I'd rather them just charge $10 per carry on and let that be it. I already check my bags since overhead space is hit or miss, so I'm already paying for the convenience and would likely continue to do that. But I pay for it, and so should the assholes clogging up the overheads with large bags.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Checked in bag fee? Fine.

Carry on bag fee? lol, no.

Go Chucky!! Go Chucky!! Go Chucky!!

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Seriously, the nickel and diming by the airlines has gotten completely out of hand. It's time for the Government to regulate this BS.

 

[SunSamurai]

I hope they have carry on fees. Have you seen the shit that people try to cram into the overhead? They should allow the one personal item (the one that can be no bigger than what fits under the seat) and charge for the carry on.

The last people on the plane can't even fit anything in the overhead. It's out of control. I don't care if people don't want to travel light, but I have no problem with them paying for the privilege.

You don't need to charge to control that. You just need to enforce carry-on size restrictions.

It's more efficient to just charge. Enforcement likely means either slowing down boarding lines or adding staff - meaning I'm either less satisfied by an already tedious process or I'm paying more in the fare to cover the overhead.

I'd rather them just charge $10 per carry on and let that be it. I already check my bags since overhead space is hit or miss, so I'm already paying for the convenience and would likely continue to do that. But I pay for it, and so should the assholes clogging up the overheads with large bags.

sjwaste, you make no fucking sense. How the hell does changing them for their shit that they are going to cram up there anyway a better solution to stopping that than enforcing limitation to actually stop that?

Efficiency? Bullshit. We all know they are being greedy little bastards.

The hell are you talking about man! Its still morning stay off the bourbon.

 

[Crusty]

It's so stupid, if they want more people to check their bags then don't fucking charge for it!!!! There's a reason SWA is more efficient than the airlines that charge for bags in terms of getting planes in the air.

So instead of having machines and a few trained people packing up the plane with the bags you've got a hundred plus idiot travelers packing the plane and now all of the sudden loading/unloading of passengers takes far too long. Makes complete sense....

 

[Hacp]

We need less government not more. Right now the federal government has a monopoly on air space, that is why these air lines can charge whatever the hell they want. They are not afraid of a cheap competitor because the federal government has already allocated all air space for the commercial air lines. They have a monopoly! Get rid of regulations and watch air lines cringe as cheaper alternative pop up left and right.

 

[sjwaste]

sjwaste, you make no fucking sense. How the hell does changing them for their shit that they are going to cram up there anyway a better solution to stopping that than enforcing limitation to actually stop that?

Efficiency? Bullshit. We all know they are being greedy little bastards.

The hell are you talking about man! Its still morning stay off the bourbon.

It takes manpower to enforce the size regulations. That will cost you. The airline is not going to pay additional (well-compensated, union) employees without passing the cost along to you. It is more efficient for them to charge for carry-on baggage beyond the "personal item" (brief case, purse, backpack, etc).

Not sure how that makes "no fucking sense" to you. Enforcement costs money. Every passenger will then subsidize those who choose to carry on, whereas a fee makes it an optional service.

Since I either check my bags (and pay for it) or travel very light (backpack), I'd prefer not to subsidize someone else's flight. I don't know about you, but fares to the places I regularly go have held pretty steady over the past year or two. If that's because the airlines are able to make their revenue by charging for bags, that's fine by me. I can choose to either pay for the service or just not use it.

EDIT: Not denying they aren't greedy bastards. Our fares will rise either way, but I think they'll rise faster if they have to enforce size restrictions. If they charge for carry ons and checked bags, hopefully people will bring less with them, which might make a real dent in fuel costs.

Also, I haven't started drinking yet today, but I do plan on it. Thanks for the reminder! (where the hell is the beer emoticon?)

 

[her209]

Remember the months after 9/11 when the airline industry was going bankrupt and needed the American taxpayers to bail them out?

 

[Brainonska511]

We need less government not more. Right now the federal government has a monopoly on air space, that is why these air lines can charge whatever the hell they want. They are not afraid of a cheap competitor because the federal government has already allocated all air space for the commercial air lines. They have a monopoly! Get rid of regulations and watch air lines cringe as cheaper alternative pop up left and right.

Why are you so dumb!?

 

[her209]

Why are you so dumb!?

He's trolling.

 

[alkemyst]

The problem I think is the carry on rule. It really allows you two bags (due to women with purses).

In the past women used to keep their purses with them...what this ended up as though is people pushing the rules getting two full-sized carry-ons that they intended to place in the overheads (it's assumed only one will be put overhead).

Now you have passengers and the stewards trying to figure out where to place all these bags. Many times one's bag is going to be through the crowd on those trying to get off the plane. This would be fine if those people just waited, but instead they block the traffic lanes.

IMHO a solution would be to unboard planes opposite the the boarding pattern. However, someone would sue over imprisonment rules.

 

[Crusty]

The problem I think is the carry on rule. It really allows you two bags (due to women with purses).

In the past women used to keep their purses with them...what this ended up as though is people pushing the rules getting two full-sized carry-ons that they intended to place in the overheads (it's assumed only one will be put overhead).

Now you have passengers and the stewards trying to figure out where to place all these bags. Many times one's bag is going to be through the crowd on those trying to get off the plane. This would be fine if those people just waited, but instead they block the traffic lanes.

IMHO a solution would be to unboard planes opposite the the boarding pattern. However, someone would sue over imprisonment rules.

The inefficiencies in boarding/deboarding the plane stem from the fact that while there might be 50 overhead bins only a small fraction of them are being used at any one time. The solution is to send on person from each row on the plane at a time so that they can all stand in the aisle and put their bags in their bins and get seated. Once they are all in, next set of people for each row.

You can do the same for getting off the plane too, one person from each row stands up at a time and gets their bags and walks off then the next set. They key is to have as many people doing 'something' that advances them getting on/off the plan at a time as possible, and standing in a line is not one of them!

 

[Red Squirrel]

lol don't they already make enough cash? They keep tacking on all these weird fees. Pretty soon they'll give everyone a breathing tube and charge per cubic meter of oxygen too!

Though I've never understood why people bring so much freaken luggage on a plane. a 1 week vacation for a family of 5 should not take up 10 large suitcases. My mom is the worse for this, she actually had a suitcase with ALL SHOES once. The trip was 7 days, she had about 30 pairs of shoes in there. wtf? lol

 

[HendrixFan]

Remember the months after 9/11 when the airline industry was going bankrupt and needed the American taxpayers to bail them out?

It was relatively tiny to begin with, and I doubt it did anything to offset the lost travelers as a result of the stupid "safety" measures that are in place now.

 

[HendrixFan]

lol don't they already make enough cash? They keep tacking on all these weird fees. Pretty soon they'll give everyone a breathing tube and charge per cubic meter of oxygen too!

Though I've never understood why people bring so much freaken luggage on a plane. a 1 week vacation for a family of 5 should not take up 10 large suitcases. My mom is the worse for this, she actually had a suitcase with ALL SHOES once. The trip was 7 days, she had about 30 pairs of shoes in there. wtf? lol

The top 9 airlines lost a combined $3.4 billion in 2009 after losing $19.5 billion the year before. It does sound to me like a good way to bring themselves into profitability while taking care of travelers who are easier customers.

 

[Jumpem]

Comrade Schumer... Chuck the Schmuk...

 

[Red Squirrel]

The top 9 airlines lost a combined $3.4 billion in 2009 after losing $19.5 billion the year before. It does sound to me like a good way to bring themselves into profitability while taking care of travelers who are easier customers.

Holy crap how do these companies manage to lose so much? I realize there are high operating costs, but still. Airports and planes are always packed. Tickets aren't exactly cheap either.