Should Govt. intervene with airline baggage policies?

[bionicarm]

I know most people here hate any type of government intervention with private companies. There's a movement going on to try and get the Federal Govt. to pass a law prohibiting airlines from charging luggage fees for the first checked bag. If this were to happen, I'm sure you would see increases in ticket prices. But would that really matter? It's pretty sad when you go to an airlines web site to look up fares, and you get nailed with all these 'hidden' fees. I was looking for a flight from San Antonio to Ft. Laudedale on American the other day, and they were listing round-trip airfares for $250/ticket. Not too bad, until I went to the final page for confirmation. There were $180 worth of 'fees' added at the end. Then of course they charge $15 for the first bag, and $25 for the second, EACH WAY. So that $250 ticket turns out to be $460 after you include the cost of taking just one bag. Some airlines are also charging another $5 - $10 if you don't check your bags 'online' prior to arriving at the airport.
So would it be a bad thing to get some type of intervention to get airlines from charging these ridiculous hidden fees? Southwest and JetBlue don't charge baggage fees, and they seem to be holding their own. I don't think the airlines should be able to use inventive ways to charge an individual for their services. You want to charge me $400 for a roundtrip flight? Do it upfront. Don't bait me with these low prices on your site, then charge me almost the price of another ticket with all you fees on the backside.

 

[reefraff]

I am not a fan of the airlines but they are a private industry. You gotta be careful what you wish for when asking the government to meddle. I am more concerned about the airline's ability to basically hold you hostage once you board the plane. The idea that they can force you to sit on the plane hours waiting to take off once you board seems to be a civil rights violation to me.
I like the idea of people who find it necessary to take 200 pounds of crap for a overnight trip have to pay more. Perhaps what the airlines should do from a PR point of view the airlines should instead offer a discount to people who don't check a bag.

 

[mantisman51]

No. It costs more money to haul more crap.

 

[kspops]

The only way the Airlines are saving money is by not having to load the luggage. I went north last month and paid the extra to check a bag, but there were people on board that had bags bigger than mine as carry-on bags. I don't see any difference other than you are lugging it instead of some handler on the ground.

 

[stdreb27]

You're going to pay for it one way or the other. Might as well have the choice to pay for it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by kspops
http:///forum/post/3084434
The only way the Airlines are saving money is by not having to load the luggage. I went north last month and paid the extra to check a bag, but there were people on board that had bags bigger than mine as carry-on bags. I don't see any difference other than you are lugging it instead of some handler on the ground.

Problem is, the airlines are looking into charging for carry-ons next.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3084440
You're going to pay for it one way or the other. Might as well have the choice to pay for it.
Exactly.
I'm not happy about the "paygo" style of air travel these days, but at the same time, I do like the idea of choosing whether or not I want to pay for all the extra items, rather than paying for them whether I use them or not.
If you force the airlines to not charge extra for baggage, then they'll just jack up the prices somewhere else to cover it. It's ironic to call these fees "hidden." When you think about it, it's when the prices for bags and all the other little crap was built into your ticket price that it was truly "hidden." Air travelers today should expect the additional items and budget for them. Goverment and laws should not be an excuse for failure to research and properly shop around (read: laziness).

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084458
Problem is, the airlines are looking into charging for carry-ons next.
Yeah, because people are trying to circumvent the system by carrying on more than they should, and planes are starting to run out of carry on space.
It's inevitable that it goes there, but the capitalist system will prevail... once it gets to a certain point, an airline will come along and start going back the other way, advertising "no extra fees for blah blah blah," causing competition and other airlines to follow suit. You can quote me on that... sooner or later, air airline will start advertising "flat rate fares" that include all the stuff you got before fuel prices started going up but people wouldn't "stand for" higher ticket prices to compensate.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3084461
Exactly.
I'm not happy about the "paygo" style of air travel these days, but at the same time, I do like the idea of choosing whether or not I want to pay for all the extra items, rather than paying for them whether I use them or not.
If you force the airlines to not charge extra for baggage, then they'll just jack up the prices somewhere else to cover it. It's ironic to call these fees "hidden." When you think about it, it's when the prices for bags and all the other little crap was built into your ticket price that it was truly "hidden." Air travelers today should expect the additional items and budget for them. Goverment and laws should not be an excuse for failure to research and properly shop around (read: laziness).
The problem with your logic is that most of the fees they tack on, you have no choice but to pay. You have some kind of 'U.S. Tax', then there's another one called 'PFC', and yet another one called a 'Security Fee'. The only one's you can opt out on are the baggage fees, food and beverage fees, and on some airlines, pillow and blanket fees. There's that one airline iin Europe that wants to start charging to use the bathroom. If they start charging for carry-on's, how do you propose taking any clothes with you, even for an overnight trip, without paying some fee? How about the 'discrimination fee' women have to pay, even if they're flying on a one or two day trip? The great security in place does not allow cosmetics of any kind on the planes. So if a women uses any kind of makeup or other feminine products, the only way to get them from Point A to Point B on an airplane is to check at least one bag.
How is accepting the airfares listed price considered being lazy? When I travel, I look on the airline's website, Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, and Farewatch.com. Airfares aren't but maybe a 1% difference, if that, on any of these sites. The only way you can obtain discounts is if you book hotels or cars with your airfare.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3084407
I am not a fan of the airlines but they are a private industry. You gotta be careful what you wish for when asking the government to meddle. I am more concerned about the airline's ability to basically hold you hostage once you board the plane. The idea that they can force you to sit on the plane hours waiting to take off once you board seems to be a civil rights violation to me.
I like the idea of people who find it necessary to take 200 pounds of crap for a overnight trip have to pay more. Perhaps what the airlines should do from a PR point of view the airlines should instead offer a discount to people who don't check a bag.
People have started carrying 200 pounds of crap onboard because they don't want to have to pay $100 each way to get it to their destination. Ever try going on a ski trip since they enacted these baggage fees? We usually go skiing Spring Break every year. We have two bags that just hold our ski gear for a family of four (jackets, bibs, pants, thermals, gloves, hats, etc.). We have a ski tube to hold our skis, and bags to hold our boots. We have another bag for clothes to wear after skiing. This year, we carried on our boot bags, and the kids put their stuff in small carry-on bags so the 'after ski' bag wouldn't go over the 50 lb. limit. So we checked in four bags at a cost of $120 each way. The airfare for each of us was $225. So we essentially paid for another plane ticket to get our clothes and equipment.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084481
People have started carrying 200 pounds of crap onboard because they don't want to have to pay $100 each way to get it to their destination. Ever try going on a ski trip since they enacted these baggage fees? We usually go skiing Spring Break every year. We have two bags that just hold our ski gear for a family of four (jackets, bibs, pants, thermals, gloves, hats, etc.). We have a ski tube to hold our skis, and bags to hold our boots. We have another bag for clothes to wear after skiing. This year, we carried on our boot bags, and the kids put their stuff in small carry-on bags so the 'after ski' bag wouldn't go over the 50 lb. limit. So we checked in four bags at a cost of $120 each way. The airfare for each of us was $225. So we essentially paid for another plane ticket to get our clothes and equipment.
And it probably cost them that to get your extra ticket worth of stuff to colorado or where ever you went skiing.
I haven't run across this yet. Because just about everything I fly locally is SW and I when I fly international they "wave" ie include it into the price of the ticket. Plus if I need to I can just book the flight through work. Where we fly enough that they wave the fees. But ironically they pay more per flight...
Quite simply that is probably their only profit on your ticket...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084476
The problem with your logic is that most of the fees they tack on, you have no choice but to pay. You have some kind of 'U.S. Tax', then there's another one called 'PFC', and yet another one called a 'Security Fee'. The only one's you can opt out on are the baggage fees, food and beverage fees, and on some airlines, pillow and blanket fees. There's that one airline iin Europe that wants to start charging to use the bathroom. If they start charging for carry-on's, how do you propose taking any clothes with you, even for an overnight trip, without paying some fee? How about the 'discrimination fee' women have to pay, even if they're flying on a one or two day trip? The great security in place does not allow cosmetics of any kind on the planes. So if a women uses any kind of makeup or other feminine products, the only way to get them from Point A to Point B on an airplane is to check at least one bag.
IT isn't a problem. Those are fixed costs. The bag to them is a variable cost...
Taxes the feds charge
PFC is the fee the airport charges to "cover" the cost of the terminal and your chairs.
Security fee is a fee they charge for the additional security.
Per person they are all fixed. The bags, blankets, pillows, flushing, peanuts are variable...

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084476
The problem with your logic is that most of the fees they tack on, you have no choice but to pay. You have some kind of 'U.S. Tax', then there's another one called 'PFC', and yet another one called a 'Security Fee'. The only one's you can opt out on are the baggage fees, food and beverage fees, and on some airlines, pillow and blanket fees. There's that one airline iin Europe that wants to start charging to use the bathroom. If they start charging for carry-on's, how do you propose taking any clothes with you, even for an overnight trip, without paying some fee? How about the 'discrimination fee' women have to pay, even if they're flying on a one or two day trip? The great security in place does not allow cosmetics of any kind on the planes. So if a women uses any kind of makeup or other feminine products, the only way to get them from Point A to Point B on an airplane is to check at least one bag.
How is accepting the airfares listed price considered being lazy? When I travel, I look on the airline's website, Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, and Farewatch.com. Airfares aren't but maybe a 1% difference, if that, on any of these sites. The only way you can obtain discounts is if you book hotels or cars with your airfare.
I'm pretty sure that some of those fees vary by airport. However, it's standard industry practice that government fees and taxes are not shown in the price. It's the same way with phone bills (both land and mobile), and it's common even in retail situation as sales tax is not usually reflected in the price.
Do you also think that the government should force stores to show the price including tax? If not, why is this any different - from the tax perspective?
From a baggage perspective, the bottom line is that fuel prices have skyrocketed. A few airlines - like Southwest to name one - locked into low fuel prices a long time ago. They are able to sell air travel (notice I said air travel, not tickets) at lower prices than other airlines. Other airlines that didn't know that many people aren't going to understand that, and would just see their airfares as higher if they continued as usual - building everything into one cost, the ticket - so they instead shave off other expenses and bill those separately to keep their ticket prices in line with what the other airlines are offering.
How do I expect to go anywhere without paying "extra"? I don't. However, before all this was put in place, everyone was charged for an "average" amount of baggage. As a light packer by my own choice, I like that I don't have to help pay for the person who has to pack 6 bags for a weekend out of town. I am paying for what I use. I don't look at it as paying "extra," I look at it as paying for what I use.
Why do I think it's laziness? Well, take you for example. You know what those fees are, you know what to expect. But you don't want to be bothered to think about those things, you want to use the power of government to force airlines to give you pricing the way you want to see it...
... and don't feed us that "disrimination" horsesqueeze. Cosmetics are not a necessary item, and you can carry them on now anyway in the quart bags. I am a total mountain dew junkie and no airlines serve it, it's very rare to find it in airports. Are they discriminating against me? btw... TSA is looking at easing those restrictions further now that explosive detection tech is catching up...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3084505
I'm pretty sure that some of those fees vary by airport. However, it's standard industry practice that government fees and taxes are not shown in the price. It's the same way with phone bills (both land and mobile), and it's common even in retail situation as sales tax is not usually reflected in the price.
Do you also think that the government should force stores to show the price including tax? If not, why is this any different - from the tax perspective?
From a baggage perspective, the bottom line is that fuel prices have skyrocketed. A few airlines - like Southwest to name one - locked into low fuel prices a long time ago. They are able to sell air travel (notice I said air travel, not tickets) at lower prices than other airlines. Other airlines that didn't know that many people aren't going to understand that, and would just see their airfares as higher if they continued as usual - building everything into one cost, the ticket - so they instead shave off other expenses and bill those separately to keep their ticket prices in line with what the other airlines are offering.
How do I expect to go anywhere without paying "extra"? I don't. However, before all this was put in place, everyone was charged for an "average" amount of baggage. As a light packer by my own choice, I like that I don't have to help pay for the person who has to pack 6 bags for a weekend out of town. I am paying for what I use. I don't look at it as paying "extra," I look at it as paying for what I use.
Why do I think it's laziness? Well, take you for example. You know what those fees are, you know what to expect. But you don't want to be bothered to think about those things, you want to use the power of government to force airlines to give you pricing the way you want to see it...
... and don't feed us that "disrimination" horsesqueeze. Cosmetics are not a necessary item, and you can carry them on now anyway in the quart bags. I am a total mountain dew junkie and no airlines serve it, it's very rare to find it in airports. Are they discriminating against me? btw... TSA is looking at easing those restrictions further now that explosive detection tech is catching up...
They still restrict certain cosmetics, regardless if they fit into the quart bags or not. I know because my daughter had to toss some out when we went to Cancun the first week of July. Yea, and if you're married, tell your wife she can't take her cosmetics with her on a trip.

The gas excuse has come and gone. Look at automotive gas. It's half what it was last year. Aviation fuel isn't 'liquid gold', it goes up and down in price along with the gas we use. As a matter of fact, aviation fuel is around the same rate it was when they weren't charging the luggage fees. If gas were the issue, Southwest would jump on the 'Baggage Fee' bandwagon along with the others. They just use it as a marketing ploy to make you think you're saving money. I do my research, and in most cases I can fly on another commercial airline cheaper than I can fly Southwest to most of my destinations. Not only that, but I don't have to play the 'seating game' like you do with Southwest. No, the airlines use the baggage fee as an excuse now to recoup the costs they lost last year on high fuel prices. Now that it's an industry charge, they'll never get rid of it.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084514
They still restrict certain cosmetics, regardless if they fit into the quart bags or not. I know because my daughter had to toss some out when we went to Cancun the first week of July. Yea, and if you're married, tell your wife she can't take her cosmetics with her on a trip.

The gas excuse has come and gone. Look at automotive gas. It's half what it was last year. Aviation fuel isn't 'liquid gold', it goes up and down in price along with the gas we use. As a matter of fact, aviation fuel is around the same rate it was when they weren't charging the luggage fees. If gas were the issue, Southwest would jump on the 'Baggage Fee' bandwagon along with the others. They just use it as a marketing ploy to make you think you're saving money. I do my research, and in most cases I can fly on another commercial airline cheaper than I can fly Southwest to most of my destinations. Not only that, but I don't have to play the 'seating game' like you do with Southwest. No, the airlines use the baggage fee as an excuse now to recoup the costs they lost last year on high fuel prices. Now that it's an industry charge, they'll never get rid of it.
Just goes to show that SW bundles that cost in with the ticket...
btw what is wrong with them trying to recoup losses they experienced since basically 9/11...

 

[aquaknight]

One thing to not forget is that air travel is still a 'luxury' item, not 100% necessary, and we be priced accordingly. You could always shove all your crap onto a Greyhound bus or Amtrak train, after all.....

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084481
People have started carrying 200 pounds of crap onboard because they don't want to have to pay $100 each way to get it to their destination. Ever try going on a ski trip since they enacted these baggage fees? We usually go skiing Spring Break every year. We have two bags that just hold our ski gear for a family of four (jackets, bibs, pants, thermals, gloves, hats, etc.). We have a ski tube to hold our skis, and bags to hold our boots. We have another bag for clothes to wear after skiing. This year, we carried on our boot bags, and the kids put their stuff in small carry-on bags so the 'after ski' bag wouldn't go over the 50 lb. limit. So we checked in four bags at a cost of $120 each way. The airfare for each of us was $225. So we essentially paid for another plane ticket to get our clothes and equipment.
With the price of list tickets you're crying about 100 bux for hauling your gear

I think it's fair for people who are hauling extra gear to pay more than someone with just a suitcase and a carry on.

 

[greenreefer]

I'd always opt for keeping the government as hands off as possible.
This is just one of those things you have to get use to, no one likes change, so everyone grumbles. Having choices is a good thing. Not everyone brings stuff with them. If I'm flying from NY to ATL for the day for business why should I help subsidize the costs associated with handling your baggage. I know, I know, it's a spread the wealth thing right. I'm traveling for business and business is bad. They all make too much money. They should maybe just add a new business tax so business just pay it all. Oh wait, that might mean they I can't pay you as much or have to fire someone, but at least you could blame me right?

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3084514
They still restrict certain cosmetics, regardless if they fit into the quart bags or not. I know because my daughter had to toss some out when we went to Cancun the first week of July. Yea, and if you're married, tell your wife she can't take her cosmetics with her on a trip.

My wife understands the rules.
It's worth noting here that regardless of what we call this, it's not the airlines rules, it's the FAA/TSA's rules. Airlines don't have any say in airport security procedures.
The gas excuse has come and gone. Look at automotive gas. It's half what it was last year. Aviation fuel isn't 'liquid gold', it goes up and down in price along with the gas we use.
Perhaps, but you don't exactly see a worker on the tarmac sticking a credit card into the fuel truck. Airlines negotiate and contract prices over long terms, what the airlines pay is not necessarily what the fuel costs that day.
I do my research, and in most cases I can fly on another commercial airline cheaper than I can fly Southwest to most of my destinations.
Then why are you complaining? If you pay less with airlines that charge all these evil fees, where is the argument? I didn't quote this comment, but I've never flown southwest so I don't know what the seating game is.
If gas were the issue, Southwest would jump on the 'Baggage Fee' bandwagon along with the others.
Again, not necessarily, because if they locked in their prices at a lower rate, why wouldn't they charge less to get an edge on the competition? I'll take a guess... because in your mind, airlines are just another bunch big evil corporatations who are all in collusion to shaft the American Public out of their money and keep airfares artificially high. There is no such thing as competition and free market, and the only solution to dealing with this problem is more laws, more government, more regulation, more nationalization, more hope, and more change there I said it!

 

[mantisman51]

When we flew to Puerto Rico last year, my wife just put the cosmetics in the luggage. Heck, we fit 8 days of clothes in one large garment back. We were over the 50# rule, so I took out a pair of shoes and put them in our 1 small carryon. 49.8#.