Comments on: Charging for carry-ons http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: igiveup http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13302 Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:01:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13302 I totally agree, with a proviso. I recently booked and flew a round trip that was partially on Southwest. I had forgotten their non-cooperation policy. I was forced to carry on an excessively large bag, risking intervention by Southwest, irritating other flyers, slowing boarding and deboarding, and discarding toiletries coming and going, because otherwise Southwest would have dumped my bags outside security in Phoenix, almost guaranteeing a missed connection. I won’t be flying Southwest any more, but my point is that an airline which refuses to cooperate with others in routing checked bags should not encourage checked bags.

]]>
By: JMC1234 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13288 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:43:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13288 Oh and by the way, do you think your bags fly free on Southwest. Nothing in life is free people, nothing. It is built into what Southwest charges you for a ticket, or they would be losing money, not be profitable.

]]>
By: JMC1234 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13287 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:39:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13287 I do love the outrage about the Airlines doing it to make money. The horrer to think a for profit organization is doing something in order to make a profit. And why does it seem to matter whether or not they save money, people are commenting as if saving them money justifies them charging you. Don’t you get it, the not only get the benefit of added revenue but also lower cost. Shouldn’t that garner more outrage and not less.

And by the way, there is another Reuters story posted that mentioned that Spirit has seen their booking rise 50% since the announcement. That came from them lowering the base fare and attracting cost concious travelers who will forgo a carryon to save money.

So as is customary with these fee schemes that lower the base cost of the ticket, people complain and complain that it isn’t right, but then they go buy the tickets. So what is an airline that competes with Spirit to do. If they see their bookings drop 10 or 15 percent as people jump to Spirit’s cheaper base fare. Are they going to stand by idle? They’ll either spend money trying to convince you their better (SouthWest) or they’ll lower their base fare, slap on a baggage fee and compete for the customer.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of fliers care about one thing the BASE FARE. So if an airline can figure a way to lower that base fare, they will. And there is an old saying that goes with that, you get what you pay for. You want a cheap fare, you get cheap service. You want better service you by it ala cart. Or fly business class with one of the major. See you all in the skys. I’ll be the guy on United who paid the $50 for the extra leg room seats in the front.

]]>
By: BB1978 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13277 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:17:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13277 What about business travellers? Last time I checked pissing off your customers is not a smart business strategy for future growth. I travel internationally and I don’t check in bags because of the incompetence of the entire airline industry. If I am going to be nickled and dimed for everything, I will simply not fly that airline OR not fly at all. More people might be inclined to do the same and drive to their vacation if flying becomes such an incredible hassle. With the internet, the need to travel for business is also shrinking, this kind of policy will give businesses more incentive to use teleconferencing technology. I’m sure that would be terrific for business in such a razor thin margin industry. I bet the geniuses who are coming up with these piss-off-the-customer ideas went to the same B-schools as the idiots that nearly brought down the world economy.

]]>
By: terrymj http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13271 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:47:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13271 I don’t agree with your lead-in premise either -> ‘Airlines save money when their customers check bags rather than carry them on board the plane.’ Care to unBlogetize that statement with a link?

I’m not sure, but your post appearing the same day as this NY times article suggests that your post is an analysis of the meme they started? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/busine ss/07bags.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a6

Either way, I think that article clearly identifies the trend – i.e. that airlines are going to continue charging for every service separately, and whatever fees they don’t make in checked baggage (because people check less, whatever) will be replaced by lucrative ‘cargo’ fees.

I find particularly moronic the quote from the Sprint Airlines CEO -> ‘Nobody brings their package to FedEx or U.P.S. and expects them to ship it for free…’ Uh, hello, I (and my bags) are your package, so the comparison is not apt. The appropriate one would be if FedEx charged you for shipping your package AND the materials used to transport it AND the service incidental to that such as registering it in their system, etc. The logical conclusion of this argument is that airlines will start weighing each passenger and pricing by the pound.

In the end, this will only push people to use air travel less – it will become so costly and/or onerous that people will resort to it only in those ‘must do’ situations. Airlines are sacrificing (again) long term business strategy for short term gains. How many years until the next airline bailout and change of business strategy?

]]>
By: scrypton http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13270 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:54:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13270 It sounds okay to me as long as they charge double for sceaming carry-on children.

]]>
By: nossnevs http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13260 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:26:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13260 Build high speed railroads from city to city!
Flying was fine as long as their were not too many passengers. But as mass transit between metro areas a few hundred miles apart, like the Bay Area and LA, it just does not work. With all the security after 9/11 it has become a Soviet style joke.

]]>
By: delmarjohn http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13259 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:57:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13259 the market place will solve this let them charge and don’t fly them ,since it is albout money they will get the message real soon…or just go out of business…if you really wanta story find out who is stopping SWA from flying internationally…can anyone say the old PAN AM …TWA battle from many years ago….felix salmon ,really and who is paying for your trips ….

]]>
By: HBC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13254 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:09:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13254 Any company that argues for (even) more Soviet-style austerity in its travel provisioning than already prevails on most of today’s American airlines needs to get out of the travel industry, and stay out. They’re just not up to the job.

]]>
By: Seabelly http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/06/charging-for-carry-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-13250 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:14:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3256#comment-13250 My checked bags were lost nearly as often as they were damaged, so when the airlines began charging to check bags, I stopped checking them. That was a no brainer for me. Many people must have come to the same decision because the monthly flights I take began to look like third-world, backwoods bus trips, with passengers shoving everything but livestock into the overheads and under their seats. So now we’ll all go back to checking our bags. Great. But all we’ve gained as passengers is a brief reprieve from carry-on claustrophobia. Right away, the increase in the number of checked bags will produce a flurry of abused suitcases, lost lingerie and misdirected evening wear. Complaints will be made and refunds demanded. Measures will be taken, and of course those measures will need to be paid for, so checked baggage fees will rise again, and, once again, passengers will begin cramming the unmentionable necessities of their travelling lives into the now comparatively cheaper onboard overhead compartments. It will end right back where it began, only we’ll all be paying more for it.

]]>