NY senator fights airline carry-on bag fee

[txrandom]

Why does he work on fighting the ticket fee as well? He should just make all flights free. It's our right! /dumbass

The main thing I think needs to be regulated by the government is all inclusive pricing. That means everything like actual ticket, taxes, fees, etc must be one total price. Also, for anything that is technically optional like checked and carry-on fees, the fees must be included if half the travelers pay for that service anywyas.

For example, the all inclusive ticket price for a flight is $500. Now the traveler has the option of not bringing a carry on and reducing the price of the ticket by $20. The $20 is included in the regular price since 99% of travelers bring carry-ons.

On the other hand, lets assume 10% of travelers buy alcohol on board. This means the $5 charge for alcohol isn't included in the ticket price.

While we are at it, everything must be advertised in whole cents, so no more of the gas station $2.599 nonsense. And tax must be already included in any prices.

 

[Gibsons]

As long as the fees are up front, I don't see a problem. If you don't like it, don't fly, find an airline that doesn't charge or figure out a way to pack lighter. You could even ship your luggage UPS if it's cheaper.

 

[Hector13]

Quote:

Why are you so dumb!?

What part, specifically, do you not agree with? Government deregulation is the reason flights are as cheap as they are now (if you think they are expensive now, they were twice as much before deregulation). We need less interference, not more.

If you don't like using an airline that charges for carry-on bags, then don't. That's your decision. I'd like to have that choice as well -- I don't need the government to decide what's in my best interest.

 

[mugs]

Like I said in a previous thread, I don't care what they charge fees for, but it'd really be great if the price search engines added the ability to enter the information that would be necessary to calculate a final cost for your tickets, so you can easily compare prices without having to know which airlines have which fees (and how much they are).

Given two tickets with similar total costs, I'd pick the airline with the carry-on fee any day. A carry-on fee would all but guarantee that I get my spot in the overhead compartment.

 

[rockyct]

A carry on fee is really bullshit and $40 is very excessive. It's not like they weigh a whole lot (maybe 30 pounds at the high end) and they don't sort or handle them. Heck, a bathroom requires cleaning which costs the airlines more than the occasional trash left in the overhead bin. They should have a $5 fee to use the bathroom if they want to charge $40 for you to carry a purse on.

 

[Hector13]

A carry on fee is really bullshit and $40 is very excessive. It's not like they weigh a whole lot (maybe 30 pounds at the high end) and they don't sort or handle them. Heck, a bathroom requires cleaning which costs the airlines more than the occasional trash left in the overhead bin. They should have a $5 fee to use the bathroom if they want to charge $40 for you to carry a purse on.

You're late to the game... http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2009/02/how_much_is_ryanairs_bathroom.html.

At some point airlines will figure out what customers are willing to pay for and what they are not. Enough customers will likely tolerate fees for carry on bags will likely (IMO) that at least a few airlines will implement this. Fees for the bathroom, on the other hand, will probably backfire (again, IMO).

 

[lupi]

here's a situation where the FAA or whoever has final regulation control just needs to make it so all the fees are covered in the final "ticket price". Then the market will determine who'se got the stupid fees and who doesn't. Being allowed to buy a $100 ticket only to then pay $170 is butt ass retarded and gives ticketmaster a run for the money.

 

[Brainonska511]

What part, specifically, do you not agree with? Government deregulation is the reason flights are as cheap as they are now (if you think they are expensive now, they were twice as much before deregulation). We need less interference, not more.

If you don't like using an airline that charges for carry-on bags, then don't. That's your decision. I'd like to have that choice as well -- I don't need the government to decide what's in my best interest.

Swing and a miss! Try reading Hacp's troll post once more.

 

[TruePaige]

here's a situation where the FAA or whoever has final regulation control just needs to make it so all the fees are covered in the final "ticket price". Then the market will determine who'se got the stupid fees and who doesn't. Being allowed to buy a $100 ticket only to then pay $170 is butt ass retarded and gives ticketmaster a run for the money.

Since a lot of them are optional the best way would be on a ticket search to show under the price a (+$XX Optional Fees). Then you could click it for a popup with the fee structure.

Or in the search box you could type in your number of carryons and checked bags and have it factored into the ticket price for you.

Simple and effective.

 

[Hector13]

Swing and a miss! Try reading Hacp's troll post once more.

I did read his post and thought it was correct in general (ie, less government intervention would help). That's why I asked what specifically you disagreed with. Specific arguments help foster constructive debate a heck of a lot more than generic statements like "you're wrong" or "you're dumb."

For example, you could disagree with his point that the government has a "monopoly" over airspace. This may be technically inaccurate, but as far as I know, the government does regulate how air traffic is allocated. Note, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea per se. I'm just giving an example of a specific issue you may have had.

On the other hand you could disagree with the statement that "all the airspace has already been allocated." Here, I'd agree with you -- I find it unlikely that it's impossible for a new airline to enter the market. I do agree with the general point, though, that the barriers to entry are higher than they should be (eg, restrictions on foreign ownership of domestic airlines, non-competitve allocation of landing rights, etc.).

 

[spunkz]

People will sacrifice comfort and travel lighter when they see that Spirit has the lowest fare, which is certainly true around here. The overhead bins always filled up, too, so this will definitely help with loading times. I would expect like $10 tho, not $40, although I think it's lower if you pay online.

 

[Bateluer]

Guess we'll be watching Southwest and Jet Blue's number increase?

 

[Brainonska511]

I did read his post and thought it was correct in general (ie, less government intervention would help). That's why I asked what specifically you disagreed with. Specific arguments help foster constructive debate a heck of a lot more than generic statements like "you're wrong" or "you're dumb."

For example, you could disagree with his point that the government has a "monopoly" over airspace. This may be technically inaccurate, but as far as I know, the government does regulate how air traffic is allocated. Note, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea per se. I'm just giving an example of a specific issue you may have had.

On the other hand you could disagree with the statement that "all the airspace has already been allocated." Here, I'd agree with you -- I find it unlikely that it's impossible for a new airline to enter the market. I do agree with the general point, though, that the barriers to entry are higher than they should be (eg, restrictions on foreign ownership of domestic airlines, non-competitve allocation of landing rights, etc.).

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.

Monopoly on airspace is screwing stuff up? Right... let's have a hodgepodge of systems and nothing centrally controlled for airtraffic. Hell, maybe I should be able to make an airport in my backyard. If only the government wasn't keeping me down

Making blanket statements like "regulation drives up costs" is absolutely moronic. Some regulations are important -we cannot all be expected to be experts in everything. Without regulations, you're putting an unreasonable burden on the consumer to understand all facets of their purchase.

Hacp's dream is to have the absurd become reality. Get rid of all airline regulations for maintenance - that just drives up costs. Sure, some people might die due to aircraft problems, but then the almighty free market will save the rest of us and teach us to not fly on those shoddy airlines.

Obviously, some regulations are stupid and over the top and could probably be cut back to lower costs, but that doesn't make all regulations stupid.

Less government regulation is what brought us this lovely financial pickle. The loosening of regulations in the last 20 years and the lax oversight by regulatory agencies allowed businesses to be pigs at the troth and fuck everyone over.

 

[Bignate603]

I can understand the checked baggage fees, I could even understand a reasonable fee for a carryon, but they're charging up to $45 for one. If the fee was to cover the actual cost of providing the service (more weight in the plane = more fuel burnt) I'd say that was reasonable, but this is just a ploy. It lets them advertise a very low price, knowing that a large amount of people will buy it without realizing that this fee exists. As was mentioned earlier, most flight search engines don't allow you to add in things that might cause you to incur extra fees so unless you know the fee structure of every airline you've got no idea what your final price will be.

 

[JulesMaximus]

WHAAAA!!! I had to pay an extra $20 to carry 30lbs of shit with me on my cross country flight...whaaaaa. I flew from San Diego to NY recently and it cost me less than $400 for coach round trip, and I booked it 3 days in advance of the departure date. If you can think of a cheaper way to get from San Diego to NY in 6 hours then you be sure to let me know.

 

[Hector13]

Monopoly on airspace is screwing stuff up? Right... let's have a hodgepodge of systems and nothing centrally controlled for airtraffic. Hell, maybe I should be able to make an airport in my backyard. If only the government wasn't keeping me down

I know you're being facetious and I wouldn't suggest following this route, but why shouldn't you be able to build an airport?

Say you or some other person or corporation bought enough land to build an airport (just in case your backyard isn't big enough already). Now let's say you invested enough to build runways, a terminal, or whatever else you wanted and that you spent money to pay off your neighbors (or bought their land) to clear enough room for planes to take off and land.

After having spent all that money, how are you going to lure airlines (and passengers) to actually use your airport? You do, after all, want to make some profit from all this investment, right? Is it going to be in your interest to have an unreasonably unsafe airport? How will it affect your sales (and your chance to recoup your investment) if you have a higher percent of crashes than other airports?

I think based on self-interest alone (the only thing we can really count on of others), if you spend the money to build your own airport, you are going to do everything in your power to make sure it is safe, comfortable, etc. so that you can bring in customers. Otherwise you'll go out of business.

So, yes, in a perfect world, I think you should be free to go out there and buy enough land and build your own airline if that's what you want.

 

[mugs]

I can understand the checked baggage fees, I could even understand a reasonable fee for a carryon, but they're charging up to $45 for one. If the fee was to cover the actual cost of providing the service (more weight in the plane = more fuel burnt) I'd say that was reasonable, but this is just a ploy. It lets them advertise a very low price, knowing that a large amount of people will buy it without realizing that this fee exists. As was mentioned earlier, most flight search engines don't allow you to add in things that might cause you to incur extra fees so unless you know the fee structure of every airline you've got no idea what your final price will be.

They did claim that dealing with carry-on luggage adds 30 minutes to the time that the plane is tied up for a flight. It adds time in the beginning because the aisles are blocked by people putting their stuff up. They try to make it more orderly by boarding by group, but a lot of people just ignore that and board as early as possible to ensure they get their carry-on in. Then at the end of the flight it takes a few extra minutes to deplane because of carry-on luggage. Essentially they're passing on the cost of those extra 30 minutes to the people who bring luggage. They say they've lowered most of their rates by about $40 (and the fee is only $30 if you pay it when you check in; you'd know whether you have a carry-on at that point). I have no idea how many of their fares actually changed, and by how much.

There's also the issue of taxes - the ticket is taxed, the fees are not. Shifting money from fares to fees makes the price lower for the customer without costing the airline any profit (or gives the airline a bit more profit without increasing the price for the customer)

 

[obamanation]

If these airlines were serious about reducing loading and unloading time of passengers, then they'd allow people to board from all the exits of the plane instead of just the front. It takes to long to shove 200+ people through a single exit, but get 200 people into a plan with 4+ exits and one could see a plane get filled up relatively quickly..

 

[Bignate603]

If these airlines were serious about reducing loading and unloading time of passengers, then they'd allow people to board from all the exits of the plane instead of just the front. It takes to long to shove 200+ people through a single exit, but get 200 people into a plan with 4+ exits and one could see a plane get filled up relatively quickly..

So, how exactly would you design an airport to get jetways to 4 entrances on every single plane?

 

[Rumpltzer]

I do hope that these stupid American airlines all go out of business and we either get high speed rail or sensible foreign airlines.

It use to be that food was included in an airline ticket. Now they sell $10 sandwiches. Fine, I either eat before I board, pay the $10 or bring my own. I swear that the "no liquids through security" thing is also an airline or concessions conspiracy, but whatever.

Charge to check bags?? That was harsh, and it only created a problem where people started bringing way too much into the cabin.

Now they want to charge for the overhead space??? Seriously? How about the bathroom? How about the seat belt? The window/aisle seat? Why not take up a collection while in-flight to give the pilot more incentive to land safely?

It's out of hand. I really hate flying domestic.

 

[Kaido]

I think they should charge for bathroom usage. And peanuts. I mean, why not? You have to pay $15 for your first bag now. Maybe an extra $11 for an oxygen mask so you don't have to breath that baby's stinky diaper in the row ahead of you for the duration of your flight?

 

[BreastInspector]

Do you know what profit margins are on charging someone $40 for a CARRY ON?

If you guessed $40 you are right. Its a retarded concept that will not last long.

 

[Phoenix86]

Like I said in a previous thread, I don't care what they charge fees for, but it'd really be great if the price search engines added the ability to enter the information that would be necessary to calculate a final cost for your tickets, so you can easily compare prices without having to know which airlines have which fees (and how much they are).

Given two tickets with similar total costs, I'd pick the airline with the carry-on fee any day. A carry-on fee would all but guarantee that I get my spot in the overhead compartment.

I don't care what the ticket price is. I don't care what the additional fees are.

I only care about the end price, search engines will -eventually- catch on...

Your last statement is funny though, isn't that what people though before they were charged for the carry on baggage?

 

[SandEagle]

you are a fool if you think that senator gives a shit about helping the average person to save money from these fees. he is getting his free publicity and that is all that matters.

 

[TruePaige]

So, how exactly would you design an airport to get jetways to 4 entrances on every single plane?

Well that wouldn't be hard if you really wanted to do it.

You simply the thing they roll over to the plane door be longer and have 2 on each side of the plane.

Doesn't seem like a big enough benefit for the retooling costs though, I wouldn't do it.