“We must act now to stop overhead baggage fees before they become commonplace”

It was just a matter of time before the government got involved in the carry-on fee fight. You’ll recall that last week, Spirit Airlines announced it would begin charging for carry-ons this summer. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood panned the idea, while Spirit’s president, Ben Baldanza, defended it as being customer-friendly.

Yesterday, five U.S. Senators weighed in by introducing the Block Airlines’ Gratuitous Fees (BAG Fees) Act of 2010. Cute, huh?

Here’s an excerpt from a letter sent to its colleagues, asking for their support:

Last week, an airline announced that they will soon charge passengers up to $45 for stowing carry-on luggage in an airplane’s overhead compartment. This is the latest in a series of fees air travelers have been forced to absorb in recent years — fees that mask the true cost of flying.

History suggests that when one airline starts charging for a service that was previously free, other carriers soon follow suit. That is why we must act now to stop overhead baggage fees before they become commonplace.

The main reason why airlines nickel and dime passengers with fees is that the tax code encourages them to do so. When an airline increases the cost of a ticket by a dollar, they must send 7.5 cents to the federal government. The 7.5% Air Transportation Excise Tax funds air traffic control and other vital aviation expenses. But Treasury Department guidance stipulates that when airlines impose fees on services that are not “reasonably necessary” for air travel, they do not have to pay the excise tax — the airlines can keep the entirety of the fee to pad their bottom line.

A January 2010 I.R.S. revenue ruling, requested by an unnamed major carrier, interpreted this guidance to cover overhead baggage fees.

Charging passengers for pillows and peanuts is one thing, but charging for overhead luggage is a slap in the face to travelers. That is why we have authored legislation to eliminate the preferential tax treatment granted by Treasury to overhead baggage fees. Our bill would render such fees economically unattractive to airlines and greatly decrease the likelihood that other airlines will adopt them.

My colleague Charlie Leocha has a different take on the tax implications.

What do you think? Should government be involved in how airlines price their tickets? Or is this a legitimate move to help continue funding important aviation expenses through taxes?

(Photo: Cityairline/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • Ted

    Chris,

    I think that Spirit’s president, Ben Baldanza is confused. The only customers that this fee is friendly to is Amtrak’s customers. Spirits customers will be fleeing for other airlines or the train or even *gasp* their cars.

    I takes a lot of huzpah to claim a “hidden” fee is good for the customer. Getting there safely, on time should be the priority. Not how much “we” (airlines) can nickel and dime the flying public.

  • http://nodebtworldtravel.com brian

    I loathe government intervention but I am also tired of the constant fees airlines are charging for things I feel should be included in the ticket price.

    Normally I would say let the market figure it out. If Spirit falls flat on its face because travelers chose others airlines I would say let capitalism do its work. But honestly I don’t think Spirit will fail.

    The success of Ryan Air in Europe shows what people are willing to put up with to get that advertised rock bottom low fare, even if they get charged extras later on.

    Expect the carry-on fee to come to the other carriers as soon as they see how much revenue Spirit is picking up.

    I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

  • Kevin

    Spirit has long been known for having a lack of respect for their clients. Yes, they can be cheap, but when something goes wrong, you can count on them not caring to take responsibility for it and offer a total lack of respect for the client. Their CEO even suggested as much in an email he CC’d some customers on accident.

    If it is rude, disrespectful or anti-consumer rights, it is Spirit *less Air.

  • Cassivella

    When the government de-regulated airlines, they gave up the ability to enforce pricing controls. The only reason the government should address this issue is if they feel it is a safety issue.

    Frankly, I am tired of waiting on planes to leave due to people’s over-packed, over-sized carry-on bags. People are carrying on more baggage in order to try to save money.

    If people want to stop being nickled and dimed, then they need to be willing to pay a realistic fare. Air fares are being kept artificially low due to competitive advertising and unbundling of fares.

    I recently flew across the country (DTW – PHX, I think it was) and my fare was $120 round trip. I am betting it cost the legacy carrier more in fuel to haul my butt that far – plus you have to add in the cost to the airport, pay the airline employees, etc.

    10 years ago I could buy a gallon of milk for 99 cents. Now, that same gallon costs around $4. 10 years ago airline tickets were more expensive than they are today. Yes, you can add in fuel hedging, more efficient planes, more competition. But, at a certain point, it does cost a minimum amount of money to transport a person, not to mention his/her luggage, to a destination. And, the unbundling and the quarter losses the airlines are showing prove to us that the airlines are not recouping this basic figure.

    So, do I care that Spirit wants to charge for a carry-on bag? Not a bit. I want airfares to rise. There will be some airlines like Spirit and Ryanair that will raise the airfare by unbundling, and there will be some that just incorporate that into the base fare. But the fares need to rise. Airline travel is not a right – if you are a lower middle-class family with 7 children, then maybe you need to drive to take them to Disneyland.

    So, the government needs to butt out of the airline industry. Stop bailing out failing airlines. Stop trying to force pricing controls. Yes, some airlines will fail. Yes, there will be less competition. But there will still be competition. Yes, the airfares will rise, possibly dramatically. But, the airfare will represent the true cost of transporting a passenger from point A to point B. And I have a feeling that the passenger experience will be much better. And you will start seeing baggage fees, fuel charges, and the like magically disappear.

  • http://www.roamingtales.com Caitlin @ Roaming Tales

    Interesting about the tax code but why are they focusing on overhead baggage fees? Shouldn’t they remove the tax incentive for checked baggage fees too?

  • Craig

    Forget the tax aspect, this fee needs to be shot down in general because the airlines have long gone over the line for what they think they can nickel and dime us for.

    A small minority of people can talk all they want about how they never check bags, or never use overhead bins. But for the great majority of people, this is an unavoidable fee.

    And the airlines wonder why they’re in so much trouble.

  • Bez

    Who really cares? If Spirit can show a savings of the carry on cost to someone not carrying on then does it really matter? And if it does matter then maybe I should just fly another airline. And yes, I know that arguement can hold until all other airlines take this action, but by that point the actual costs of flying will be so blurred that we’ll have no idea what the ticket actually costs. Maybe we need some of Obama’s transparency in airfare pricing ;-)

  • Matt

    Time to take Greyhound???

  • John

    I’m split on this one …

    First, I think, in general, business should be free to conduct business as they see fit without regulation. No one is forcing you to fly Spirit. If you don’t like their policies and fees, take your business some where else.

    At the same time, I can see how their fares appear to be abnormally low when comparing them to other airlines. If you are unable to see all their added fees prior to purchasing a ticket, it is misleading.

    So I guess I would be against any legislation that would ban a fee but I am for airlines having to disclose any additional fees a consumer may have to pay (this would include bags, drinks, food, pillows etc) prior to having the T&C imposed (ie paying a non-refundable fee). Most likely prior to having to pay anything.

  • J C

    I agree with Mr Leocha, that this bill will not dissuade Spirit or other Airlines from adopting this fee. They will simply pass on the tax to us. The Govt. would not be blocking the fee, only taxing it. Here we go again. The saga contiues.

  • Steve

    Intervening to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of fees like this one seem like a good idea. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that the government should ban them outright, though.

    “A small minority of people can talk all they want about how they never check bags, or never use overhead bins. But for the great majority of people, this is an unavoidable fee.”

    Absolutely. I do not agree with those who say that it’s appropriate to charge a carry-on fee on the basis that people who bring carry-ons needlessly slow the boarding process, but if an airline wanted to institute a carry-on fee while simultaneously making the first checked bag free, I’d be fine with that. The bottom line is that for 99%+ of travelers, bringing along one bag is an essential piece of their airfare. Very, very few people would ever travel by plane with no luggage at all. As such, I think it’s totally deceptive for an airline to quote a price that does not include one bag.

    “I recently flew across the country (DTW – PHX, I think it was) and my fare was $120 round trip. I am betting it cost the legacy carrier more in fuel to haul my butt that far – plus you have to add in the cost to the airport, pay the airline employees, etc.”

    I doubt your analysis, because if it really cost more in fuel to carry however many pounds you weigh, the airline would have never offered that fare to begin with. (It’s inaccurate to divide the total fuel cost by the number of seats to determine what it cost to transport *you* because the majority of fuel costs are incurred simply by flying the plane at all. Yes, every pound added to the weight of the plane itself and the pilots does increase costs, but I’m almost certain that the reason you were able to get such a low fare is because the airline evaluated the load on that flight and, knowing that they would have to fly it no matter what, they decided that it would be better to offer a low enough fare to fill seats and get something for them rather than take off with them empty).

  • Chris in NC

    I’m also mixed on this one…

    On one hand, if Spirit Airlines can make this business model work, then go for it. On paper it sounds simple, but enforcing this will be a nightmare for gate agents and flight attendents. After all, enforcement of current carry on restrictions is inconsistent to non-existant. So, I am curious as to how Spirit Airlines is going to make this work without creating more problems at the gate.

    On the other hand, from a practical safety and comfort standpoint, there should be a standard as to what an airline ticket includes. To be frank, I am sick and tired of those who claim that unbundling is justified because they shouldn’t pay for what they don’t use. Lets see, I don’t like the inflight magazine, maybe they should take $5 off my ticket price. Where does it end? I can also claim that since I didn’t use the bathroom on my last 5 flights, maybe I shouldn’t be paying for servicing the bathroom. Unbundling can only go so far, and I think they have crossed the line.

    Regarding everyone’s financial reasoning… most of the analysis I have read is flawed. Airlines make substantial revenue on cargo, and on certain routes, cargo revenue exceeds seat revenue. Yes, the cost of a seat-mile has decreased over the last 20 years when adjusted for inflation, but thats because other costs have changed (ie the fact that the newer airlines are much more fuel efficient than the old 707s or 717s). In my opinion, the “yield-management” model is what created this mess. Maybe the old days where the cost of the ticket coorelated to the actual cost of providing the service wasn’t so bad after all!

  • http://rjtalestold.blogspot.com Dick Jordan

    Chris,

    This piece, like all that you writer, always provokes lively discussion and debate, especially on topics like this one which prompted me to sit down and think about what we are paying for (one way or another) when we fly and then write a post to my own blogs (on Blogger, WordPress, and the “Community Blogs” on the San Francisco Chronicle’s SFGate.com and Frommers.com.

    Here’s part of what I said (analogizing to splitting the check in a restaurant) in that post to my blog (your readers can, if they wish, go to my site, read more, and add their thoughts: http://bit.ly/aYi1IW)

    Should the airline add up the cost of fuel, wages for the crew, cost to rent the plane, food and water carried on board, and then add taxes and a percentage for profit and divvy the cost up evenly between the passengers on the flight? Or should the airline figure out what each passenger “consumed”, then tack on something for “tax and tip”, making each passenger pay their own freight?

  • http://www.aswetravel.com Sofia – As We Travel

    I’m getting sick of all these added fees, these air lines are really losing it! They’re starting to charge extra for everything! Ryan Air are even going to start charging for the toilets!! This has to come to and end, so yeah why not invove the government?

  • y_p_w

    Certainly the airlines are taking advantage (Southwest and Hawaiian being notable exceptions) of the loopholes on checked bag fees. Part of it would be that many travelers would need to check in their luggage to travel reasonably given the peroxide bomb scare of 2006 has meant that passengers can no longer take along liquids/gels/lotions on carry-on if they’re more than 100ml. Our trip to Hawaii included big bottles of sunscreen as well as a tube of toothpaste. That Hawaiian Airlines didn’t charge for checked baggage meant that the only checked bag fees we had were for the flights from the mainland on another airline.

    Now charging for carry-on seems to be the a deal breaker, and one that rightly has attracted the attention of Congress. I mean – countless numbers of people have paid a premium for tiny bottles/tubes of toiletries (or I guess brought out their stashes of complimentary hotel items) and/or have carefully poured the same into little bottles – just so they can avoid paying checked baggage fees.

  • larry

    Let the free market decide. These politicians are on the bandwagon for 2 reasons. 1-Good Press and Media Face time. 2- They don’t want to ever pay this fee. Key word—THEY. I must be flying a different Spirit Air than the other posters. Twice I had flight legs canceled. Both times, they provided transportation, meal vouchers and excellent accommodations. Marriott Suites in FLL and Sheraton in Lima Peru. Both trips were on dirt cheap fares. Just today, I booked round trip from FLL to Guatemala for $18 and round trip to Ft Lauderdale from Atlanta for $39.12. Besides government IMPOSED taxes and fees, the only fee I HAD to pay for was a credit card transaction fee. I declined the checked and overhead bin luggage fee. Mine will fit under the seat. I declined to purchase preassigned seats, and will purchase water past security for $1.95 instead of $3 on the plane. I say GO BEN GO!!!!! Government idiots have no business involving themselves in the marketing departments of ANY business. They provided no risk capital. NONE.

  • Liz

    Larry, you are somehow ok with paying a fee for the privilege of paying for the service?

    I can’t say I understand that at all.

  • ldbradley69@hotmail.com

    Liz,,,What fee am I choosing to Pay? How about NONE. I am choosing to get a rock bottom fare and choosing to not purchase any added services. That’s the choice that everyone has with Spirit. What is there to not understand about that?

  • Steve

    “First, I think, in general, business should be free to conduct business as they see fit without regulation. No one is forcing you to fly Spirit. If you don’t like their policies and fees, take your business some where else.”

    I agree. I’ve defended checked-bag fees on this basis numerous times. Personally, where I draw the line is when a business wants to unbundle a *mandatory* fee and quote a lower base price. For example, I think mandatory resort fees should be illegal – if I am going to be charged for something whether or not I use it, it should be part of the base price.

    I think this new fee from Spirit comes as close to being a mandatory fee as one could be without being literally mandatory. You’ll be charged separately to bring even one bag with you on a trip, whether you check it or carry it on. Virtually no one flies without at least one bag, so it’s ridiculous to unbundle the fee to that point.

    An analogy I thought of would be going to Burger King and ordering a Whopper. The menu says one price, but if I choose to add cheese, I’m charged extra for that. I don’t think that’s deceptive at all – plenty of people want cheese, but plenty don’t. I would liken this to fees for checked bags. Some people check bags on a flight, others make do with a carry-on.

    Charging for every single bag you bring would be like going to Burger King to order a Whopper and being told “the price on the menu is only for the beef – the bun, toppings, and condiments cost extra.” I’m sure they would justify it by saying that some people only want a beef patty, so it’s fair to unbundle the other stuff. I say baloney – the vast, vast majority of people want at least a bun to put it on and probably some toppings/condiments, too. And when you *think* of a Whopper, you don’t think of just a beef patty.

  • larry

    Since the bulk of the most air ticket prices on Spirit are government imposed taxes and fees, I can’t blame them for charging a credit card fee. They are having to pay a transaction fee and a percentage rate on the taxes collected and transferred to government agencies. Allegiant Air based in Vegas does the same thing. It is no different that liquor stores charging more for their products than if you pay in cash. It is done all the time in my area.

  • larry

    Steve, your thoughts are well put. I would like to point out that you can bring a bag on board at no charge if it fits Spirits requirements for fitting under the seat. I just got my roll aboard today that fits those requirements and it will be good for a 1, 2, or 3 day trip for most people. For me, it’s good for a week. I wash underwear in the hotel sink.

  • y_p_w

    Who mentioned a “717″? The only Boeing production plane to carry the 717 name was the plane originally known as the MD-85, which taken over and renamed by Boeing after the merger. I flew in several for Hawaiian Airlines inter-island flights. It’s a pretty modern plane with pretty good fuel efficiency, although many of the smaller passenger jets made for tough competition. I heard that Boeing did have a 717 designation in the 1960s, but that it never made it to the final product.

    If they want to make up for gate delays, they would consider perhaps tacking on an extra fee for passengers with mobility problems who require aid and perhaps a wheelchair. Of course they might just run into Americans with Disabilities Act restrictions.

  • Scott

    As much as I loath government regulation, I feel it is high time that the government step in and re-regulate the airline industry. This is not a case where the free market can decide what is right. If all the airlines adopt these fees, then the average citizen cannot just stop flying and allow free market to decide.

    When gas hit $4.00 per gallon, the airline industry begged the government for help, begged their unions for concessions, and started doubling the ticket price with fees “Just so we can not suffer such hugh losses due to the cost of the fuel.” The one exception was Southwest Airlines, who wisely hedged their bets and bought their fuel on the futures market and was the ONLY airline to make a profit.

    When gas came down to under $2.00 per gallon, think those poor, underpaid airline executives decided to give the customer a break… heck no… did they decide to give back the concessions given to them by their unions, heaven forbid, corporate greed wins again. The airline industry is just like the banking industry. The greedy few at the top could care less about their customers and employees, except as cash cows.

    The government needs to step in and protect the consumer. Let’s level the playing field, and THEN let the market decide who loses and who wins.

  • Bill

    They just need to fully disclose the fees – whether they charge for bags, or for drinks, or for seats, etc..disclose it up front, and allow for people to pay for it all in one shot.

  • Bill

    “Customer Friendly” reminds me when my Canadian Cell phone company said they had revised roaming fees for within the United States.
    Formerly, they charged 95 cents per minute for local calls and $1.45 for calls that had both airtime and a long distance component. Since this could cause confusion, “for our convenience” they made both local and long distance calls $1.45 per minute. Yes, it is definitely convenient for me to have the local calls increased in price by about 50 per cent. Thank you Telus Mobility. I wonder if some of their executives now work in the airline business.

  • cam

    To be honest, I love this idea. I am happy to pay extra (I don’t choose on lowest prices anyway) if it means that all these ridiculous tourists who carry their entire closet onto the plane and expect to shove it all in the overheads will check bags now because they save a few quid! Leave me and my shoulder pack more room, and load up the plane faster. I know, I’m selling out to the man, but anything to get these people to check their crap!

    Now if we can only teach them to get through security quickly…

  • Carver

    @Steve

    Your Burger King analysis is well reasoned and excellent.

    @Scott

    You may not remember the “good old days” of regulation where air travel may have been more fun but was far more expensive. It was outside of the reach of most Americans. Only business travelers flew much more than once a year.

    Southwest made a good decision to buy fuel futures. Of course had fuel gone down those futures would have been worthless.

  • thomas white

    Personnaly, I agree with those who state that at least one bag should be included in the price of a flight. Whether it is checked (faster boarding) or carryon, the vast majority of people need at least one bag. Setting up a pricing model that confuses most people for the convenience of the small percentage is an obvious obsfucation. They really just want to confuse people and increase their per passenger revenue.

    However, more important to me is that this is decreasing the funds that the US Government is taking in to provide the services necessary to run an aviation system. If all airlines went with the RyanAir/Spirit model and moved their base cost toward zero the funding necessary for the aviation system would disappear. The separate government fees currently charged don’t pay for the whole thing. That’s why the chargeback to the airlines has existed. With the RyanAir/Spirit model this cost for flying is shifted away from some and to those on other airlines. This is patently wrong. And, the government will need to invoke some other fee across the board or your tax dollars will need to cover the expense.

  • Tinkerbell

    Dear Cassivella,

    I bet your company is paying your fare. If you were paying for it, you would not be so arrogant.

  • Aaron

    I don’t think this is about taxes so much as getting one’s prices to rank higher on travel sites like Expedia. Regardless, it’s deceptive advertising. It’s reasonable to expect that an advertised airline fee will get you and your baggage to your chosen destination, and Spirit isn’t supplying that. And personally, I don’t think it’s fair that the airlines are using this loophole to dodge taxes — not when they rely so heavily on government-(under)funded services like ATC. So yes, it’s time for the government to get involved.

  • Kimberly

    One thing I don’t get…Spirit is going to charge you for your carry on. BUT…they’re going to “lower” their prices. Uhhh…how is this going to be a “money maker”?? Obviously it HAS to be a lie.

    Airlines really need to go back to being “simple” again. 2 bags per person no charge…All these stupid added “fees” are calculated into the original cost of the ticket. And really…if you need to cancel you get credit for a year no penalty fee. If they really want to fill up the flight…simply add “waiting list”. People on the “waiting list” will be emailed if the flight is full and a seat becomes available due to cancellation. It’s getting so complicated to fly.

  • Scott

    @ Carver

    I do remember the fares back in the 70′s before they airlines were deregulated in 1978…(Granted my folks were paying my fare at that time) You are probably correct in your view of higher airfares, however I believe that was also before the Sabre system allowed airlines to book fairs much more efficiently. There have also been other advancements in the airline industry over the years, much of it in automation which would have driven down costs even without deregulation. If folks can’t afford to fly, then regulation or not, airlines would go broke.

    Maybe what I am looking for is not so much regulation, as fair oversight. If the consumer doesn’t have someone with a big stick to keep a level playing field, then the actual fees that the airline charge (disclosed and undisclosed) will be back to what they were when they were regulated.

    It is amazing to me that a company like Southwest can make a fair profit, overall have happy employees, very satisfied customers, AND not have to nickel and dime their customers to death. Sure they got lucky with fuel futures, but I don’t think it was actually “luck”. Does anyone think that the price of fuel is going to go DOWN over the next several years. I don’t think so. If they can do it, so can the rest of the industry. American Airlines is the exact opposite, and are the first ones to beg for a handout, bailout or concession when times get tough.

  • http://www.cockam.com ajaynejr

    It might be noted that there are circumstances today where one might not be able to carry on a bag at all, paymenr or no payment.

    Currently the demand for carry on space often exceeds the supply.

    By imposing a fee for carry on baggage (granted I consider the example given to be outrageously expensive) we reduce the demand and this almost guarantees that anyone having a genuine need to carry something on will be able to do so.

  • Jeanne (in NE)

    Just a comment for those saying that a fee for overhead baggage will change behavior to checking baggage instead:

    If there is a fee for either overhead or checked baggage, I will go with paying for the overhead baggage. I can’t lose my baggage if I take it on the plane with me. No one goes through my baggage if I take it on the plane with me. I don’t have to wait 1/2 hour for the baggage carousel to deposit my baggage, in however many pieces, after I finally deplane. Finally, by restricting what I pack to what can fit in an overhead bin, I don’t pack as much and I have a smaller bag, which makes it easier to use mass transit outside the terminal.

    I don’t think it takes me anymore time to stand up and grab my bag out of the bin than it does for me to stand up, wait behind the other passengers as they slide out from their cramped seats and head out the plane, baggage or no. Frankly, I never timed the process before checked baggage fees were instituted or the way it is now. Perhaps there are studies to show how much more time it takes to deplane with checked baggage fees in force??? If it is taking that much longer, I do apologize to those whose lives I’ve inconvenienced in order to make my own life easier.

  • Ituri

    The simple truth of the matter is that we live in a country where corporations and airlines are treated better than any individual. The airlines can do ANYTHING they want, and its fine. Its taken how many years to pass a simple “Bill of Rights” for basic passenger rights (not being held on the tarmac for 8 hours, etc)? The only way to protect individuals from corporate abuse is by targetting their wallet, and only the government has the wallet to match theirs. Any surprise there?

    So long as we value corporate rights over individual and human rights, we’ve no right to complain about either the airline fee OR the government getting involved.

  • Carver

    @Scott

    We have to be careful about putting too much stock on the Southwest model. Southwest has been a niche player for most of its existence. Its like comparing Fedex with the post office. One of the reasons is that fedex is profitable is that it cherry picks the routes it serves. Southwest does the same thing.

    For example, in the Bay are where I live, Southwest doesn’t have a presence at SFO airport whereas most of the legacies do.

    Southwest also has a lower cost structure, i.e. they pay less than others having a younger, non-union workforce

    Also, I’m not certain about automation driving prices down. The price of fuel, cost of airplanes, and salaries seem to be the driving forces behind higher prices, none of which is subject to price reduction due to automation. But that’s sheer speculation on my part.

  • Mona

    Spirit’s president Baldanza says the fee is to expedite passenger loading and unloading. How gullible does he think the American flying public is? The easy answer to expediting getting on and off the plane would be to ENFORCE the rules already in place – ONE carry-on and ONE personal item. To me this means that if it fits under the seat (purse, laptop, coat, etc.), that’s where it should go unless there is an abundance of overhead space remaining after all passengers have boarded. I have seen one passenger take up the whole overhead bin with his briefcase, his laptop and his neatly folded jacket. That’s when I want to just throw my tote bag right on top of that coat and hope that my candy bar melts all over it!

    Last week I boarded a plane behind a gal who was carrying five – count them FIVE – carryon items, one of which was a case the size and shape of a quiver full of arrows, and not one crew member from gate counter to seat said a word to her about having more than is allowed. She started stashing stuff several rows before she got to her seat and finally got it all stowed a couple of rows behind her seat. SHE’S the one who should be paying those carry-on fees, not those of us who abide by the rules. And these are always the people who are pushing to get ahead of everyone else to board and then knocking everyone else down to retrive their stuff at the end of the flight.

    How do we go about getting these people to follow the rules? Do we insist that the cabin crew make them gate check their excess carry-ons? Do they there and then get charged for excessive checked baggage? All this might teach them a lesson, but it would also delay the flight ever more. Seems to me that if the crew at the ticket counter, the gate counter, the jetway entrance and the plane door were doing their job, there wouldn’t be a problem with carry-on luggage delaying movement on and off the plane.

  • CJ

    How about if they dropped the fee for checked bags and only charged for carry-ons that don’t fit under the seat? Maybe this would alleviate all the morons who bring their trunks on board and try to stuff them into the overhead bins, holding up everyone behind them in the process. I watched one guy jam the cover down on the bin so many times that he eventually broke it and we all had to sit on the tarmac while an engineer came in and fixed it. Or . . . how about everyone has to pay by total weight – their body weight plus all their baggage times mileage flown. Wouldn’t that be the fairest way of all?

  • B

    I think that Spirit will fail miserably. Once people realize the actual cost of ticket they will take their business to other carriers. Spirit, at least in my area, serves primarily, if not exclusively, vacation destinations. They appeal to the traveller that flies once in a blue moon and is ignorant to the fact that there are literally hundreds of fees imposed by Spirit. As far as I’m concerned they should change their name to Gotcha! because there is NO spirit in nickel and diming people.

    Carver

    Southwest is actually over 80% unionized and actually has a very senior work force. With a senior and unionized workforce, it is amazing that Southwest can turn a profit year after year. Southwest maintains a low cost structure (appx. 7 cents per available seat mile) without reducing their service.

  • Lisa S

    I am not quite sure how airlines can claim that “unbundling” saves people money. I just priced tickets on American Airlines and Southwest. Southwest will let me check in two bags. Neither airline provides any meals and I think AA no longer has pillows or blankets (wouldn’t need them anyway). The flight on AA was ORD-TUL and the flight on SWA was MDW-TUL. So, yes, they originate out of different airports which might account for a small difference in fees because Midway is usually a little cheaper. That doesn’t explain the $75 difference however–which would surpass $100 once I added in checked bags on AA.

    It looks like the government might be using a tax loophole to HELP consumers. Odd twist, but at least it is something.

    The government should also prevent the fuel surcharge. I can’t believe the accountants at airlines are so stupid that they can’t figure out the cost of a ticket that includes the cost of fuel. It would be like a hotel in Florida not including the cost of air conditioning in July. Airlines know how to figure out the cost of the flight, including the cost of fuel. If not, then they shouldn’t be in business.

  • Lynn

    The airlines do not need more rules (or fees) that apply to baggage. They just need to enforce the ones they have. On nearly every flight I have taken for the past 5 years, some fool brings on either luggage that is too big and should have been checked (by current rules) or too many pieces (again, number clearly stated in the rules). I appreciate the difficult position flight attendants are put in having to handle these large heavy) pieces and/or large number of pieces but why is it allowed to happen time and time again, and by (just about) all airlines??

  • Rob

    One word: Southwest

  • Mona

    I have seen flight attendants refuse to assist passengers trying to lift their carryon into the overhead bin. Don’t blame them – some of those carryon bags weigh more than the checked baggage! If the airlines want to add a fee, let them charge for those overweight bags just like they do the ones that get checked. Our carryon bags had to be tagged last week – let the tag show whether an overweight fee has been paid; if not, do a gate check and make the passenger wait on the jetway to retrieve the bag at the end of the flight. Or better yet, send it to the carousel with all the rest of the baggage on the plane. Inconvenience these yahoos enough and maybe they’ll start playing by the rules!

  • crzybread

    Any company should be free to price their services the way they want to. If a steakhouse wants you to pay extra for the tomatoes, mushroom, etc., then we as conusmer will pay for it or go to McDonald, where those are included. If you own your business, you, I hope will price it so you will make money off it, otherwise, you may not be in business for long. If we cannot afford the price, then by golly no one will force us to buy it. Look around you, do all of you know who has wide screen TVs or the latest IPad or some techno toys? Only those that can afford it or wants/need it has one. Pay up or don’t use it. What’s wrong with that? It’s a business. They either collapse or make money but of their own choosing.

  • Jake

    @ Steve
    Love the whopper analogy! I think this is the best comparison I’ve seen yet, and think that any yahoo’s that continue to argue against it are simply extremely anti-government, regardless of the common sense of the situation.

    @Larry
    “I would like to point out that you can bring a bag on board at no charge if it fits Spirits requirements for fitting under the seat.”

    I think that should be rephrased to “*TODAY* you can bring a bag on board at no charge if it fits Spirits requirements for fitting under the seat” – what was it, two years ago you could check two bags at no charge if it fit the airlines’ requirements for weight? This is a clear case of give an inch and they’ll take a mile.

    @crzybread (and the rest of the “free marketers”)
    The reason that the free market scenario doesn’t work is because airlines are basically an oligopoly, with what I would call competitive collusion. For the most part (Southwest being the notable exception), once one airline “unbundles” a fee, the other 5(ish) do. This immediate reciprocity, coupled with the small number of players and simple fact of life that air travel is often a necessity in today’s world, simply does not allow free market principles to work in the same manner as they would for most other businesses.

  • Crzybread

    As much as I would like to agree with @Jake’s persuasive and learned comment, I still believe that we do not have to fly if we don’t want to. Simply put, once an item is priced out of reach of the consumer, then we will not buy it unless we have to. The operative words are “unless we have to”. Putting it in a real case scenario, if the price of an airline tickets, unbundled or not, is beyond the reach of the comsumer, then, they will not fly, there being no money to pay for it. In a large case scenario, airlines will lose money, will go bankrupt, until a better pricing model appears, acceptable to all. I realize this is being simplistic, but I really do not want to crowd the board with a lengthy response.

  • David

    I don’t know about anyone else but the best way for consumers ti win against any airline is very simple. Don’t fly and try to enjoy what your local communities have to offer or a few hour drive to a nice resort. I use to travel to Aruba, Maui, Florida and so forth but I find that when my family has decided to enjoy my vacation closer to our home and it was actually much more enjoyable. I bet if ticket sales decline airlines will reduce and or remove baggage fees without any government interference. The will of the people will will always outweigh what corporations try to force us to pay.

    By the way is Steve and Larry want to pay overhead baggage and enjoy given their money away then would you be willing to pay for mine as well? I mean since you are so happy to give the airline your money why not share the wealth lol.