I hope this isn't a start of a new trend for others
 

Spirit Airlines to charge up to $45 for carry-ons - Yahoo! News

I'm glad SouthWest goes to most places that I visit.

I'm perfectly happy with it because of this


I hate how every single flight I get on has full overheads before half the plane has boarded because every single flier brings an overstuffed rollerboard that takes up half the overhead bin that is supposed to be for 2 rows.

Or, the easier option would just be to actually enforce overhead size rules. If it doesn't legitimately fit under the seat, it gets gate checked. End of story.

SI

It's like the airlines don't want anyone to actually fly anymore...

At the end of the day, if you think about it, flying is still ridiculously cheap. Oil costs can really change things in a hurry but planes cost a lot as do pilots and crew. But somehow, I can get a flight from Richmond to Atlanta and back for $150 right now. Or, hell, our roundtrip flight in January to Bogota, Colombia from DC cost $270 (+$100 in taxes that the airlines don't get).

In most cases, it's cheaper to fly now than in the 70s and that doesn't adjust for inflation ($100 in 1975 is worth almost $400 today, FYI).

SI

There was a fantastic article a couple of weeks ago about Southwest and how their Bags Fly Free campaign is actually a campaign to get people to check bags and avoid carry-ons. They can load planes so much faster with checked baggage than they can with people trying to shove things in carry-on bins. And because all of their planes are the same model, they can consistently calculate load amounts and load times. All in all, by getting most bags checked, they think they can turn around planes more quickly, have more on-time flights and run a more efficient airline.

Here was the blog-icle.

SWA Bag Strategy

At least those of us who are on a budget.

Charging for anything too large to fit under a seat makes it pretty much cost-ineffective to fly with children. They simply require too much stuff.

Which may be what the airline wants. Our trips home to see Grandma are trips that we plan in advance, so we buy our tickets ahead, aggressively shop for prices, look for deals, etc. We are not where the airline makes its money.

I imagine that once you start charging folks for travelling with stuff, your airline starts to select for guys travelling for business. One briefcase, no checked bag, bought the ticket two days ago and paid way too much for it b/c the company is picking up the tab, etc. In other words, the cash cow.

And, to be clear, I think that the airlines can and should charge as much as they want. It's a free market. But I am exercising my rights as a consumer not to use them. We have already turned our trips from North Carolina to New Orleans into a two-day road trip b/c of the cost/horror of flying. And our vacation this summer was planned close to home, in no small part to avoid having to fly.

Basically, if it is not for work and/or over a two day drive away, I try not to fly. I might be in the minority here, but that's my experience.

Let me be clear: this is only part of the issue with flying. It's not just about price, it's also getting extremely inconvenient, between security issues, overbooking, getting stuck on the plane for extended periods, being forced to fly puddle-jumpers for part of the flight, etc. Some of this, as albion points out, makes it near impossible to fly with kids anymore (try flying with a kid when you can't bring a bottle of water on board for them to drink from when they get thirsty).

We don't fly anywhere if we can avoid it. Driving is so much easier these days, aside from the occasional traffic jam. Or we even took the Amtrak train to New England last November, and that was better than flying (and had its advantages over driving).

This made me laugh:


Yeah, I guess that's one way to spin it. You now have a choice on which way you want to spend extra money to fly, when one of those choices used to be free.

I guess I understand the rationale (between this and Southwest), but the explanation is bit difficult to swallow - especially since Southwest is not charging for either option.

You can bring something to drink on the plane. You just have to buy it after you go through security.

What I do for a living we have a team of us...10 people in total that travel together. We all have status with Delta airlines so our luggage is free, even our extra 4 tubs of gear we carry with us.

Our company went the try and fly cheaper route, so we were paying for our luggage and gear at every other airline except Southwest.

It lasted two months due to the increased costs with paying for luggage and gear it was actually more expensive for this.

With my status on Delta and United, I check my bags for free don't worry about my carry on (which is my backpack with laptop) and I am happy. I think it's ridiculous to pay for luggage but if they want to charge for it, then they have to be prepared for the people who do not want to pay the $25 - $35 for it and use a carry on.

Yeah, I grab food/drink on connecting flights all the time.

I definitely enjoy driving long trips when possible, but sometimes flying is the only option. We're staying on the east coast for vacation this year, though, solely because we didn't want to pay for airfare.

This

And I don't think the thread has even mentioned the lost luggage, the damaged luggage, the slower than slow arrival of luggage to baggage claim, the hellish nightmare that is baggage claim by it's very nature in many airports, etc.

Yeah. Anytime I fly for business I expressly try to avoid checking anything, just because of the generally tight nature of the timing on those trips. So yes, I do pack everything in a roll-aboard, but it fits perfectly lengthwise (narrow-width) into the overhead of any non-puddle-jumper.

Hell, when I just went to Texas for 5 days I took a SMALL dufflebag and my laptop bag. Not excessive at all. And you're telling me that one way or another I'd have to pay to bring a dufflebag? The same price as somebody bringing a gigantic, fully-stuffed suitcase. That's insane. Way for that airline to lose my business.

Whenever possible I take Amtrak.

Then again, I'm sure this is how this is going to go down just like everything else. Status flyers will get it for free and fill up the bins while the rest of us will have to pay.

SI

Another point. With our toddler, one of our carry-on bags was dedicated to things to keep him entertained during the flight. We did this, in large part, out of respect for the other people on the plane. We didn't want him crying and making everyone's flight suck any more than flying already does. I imagine that a lot of parents have the same situations with their carry-on bags.

If people have to start paying $35 extra in order to bring stuff to make flying more plesant for the other folks on the plane, then some people will choose not to do that.

Spirit should be careful with this policy.

don't bring a diaper bag and just let your baby shit her pants and stink up the whole plane!!!!

(Or, uh, don't bring a toddler on a plane)

SI

Or eat one of those terrible hamburgers they give you and unleash your own gas.

Heh. This is one of those issues about which people get very militant on both sides. Of course, most things involving kids fall into that category.

My take is that the airline has the right (I assume) to ban kids under X from flying, but they choose not to. And kids past their second birthday pay for a ticket. So, why should parents not have the right to do it? Especially since they are paying for the right to do it. The airline clearly wants their money.

There may be a market for an airline that does not allow kids under X on the plane. Before I had a kid, I would have certainly preferred that. And, now that I do, I would just choose another airline.

But, as long as flying with kids is the norm, and the airlines don't provide us all with a way to segregate those of us with kids from those of you trying to get some sleep, we are left without any real choices.

I am dreading the inevitable cross country trips with a child that will be my new life in a few weeks.

I think there's a classic thread here somewhere on the flying/kids issue.

Ya, if the service is provided, parents have every right to take advantage of it. Parents just shouldn't expect people to feel sorry for them, or to not be annoyed by them.

If you're going to let the drunks, loud talkers, larger-than-a-single-seaters, heavy perfume wearers, non-bathers, and the like on board, why wouldn't you allow kids? Some kids are great on planes, some aren't.

Or you could be me on the horrible flight I took on my latest trip from San Antonio (windy as hell takeoff) to Houston (windy as hell landing) where I ate SOMETHING right before takeoff that didn't agree with my stomach, and for the first time ever, I tossed on an airplane.

Humiliating. I fly all the time and I don't do that. On smaller planes than that. It had to have been something I ate combined with the insanely short + bouncy flight. And the fact the cabin was angled like we were ascending for the whole trip. Fortunately I didn't toss until we were literally like...30 seconds from landing so i didn't have to wait long with it.

But man that sucked.

Yes to both of these. I get really annoyed when I check my bag & pay the baggage fee, only to get on the plane and not have room in the overhead bin for my laptop. And the reason there is no room is because there is everybody else's f'n luggage in the overhead bin...not carry-on items.

I had some tool of a steward (is that what you call the male version?) say ...sir, it will fit under your seat...as I'm trying to find a spot for it. I'm like...yeah, there are a couple of spots I could put this thing right now that would make both of us uncomfortable.

/rant

Yeah...I dont like flying at all.

That's the most annoying thing to me. I've seen a couple of people be asked to put their only bag, usually a smaller backpack or laptop bag, under their seat so that someone could put their second bag, a large rollerboard, in the overhead after they already put their giant stuffed laptop bag up above.

SI

My favorite part is when they are asked/told before boarding that they have to gate check the bag because it is to big for the CRJ overhead and they get pissed...I have seen many arguments lately about this.

See- I find that gate checking of large carryons would be ok. The gate check process is pretty quick, compared with regularly checking, and if I ever have something extra that I brought on to avoid paying fees (which amounts to maybe once or twice ever), I wouldn't mind giving it up for that.

SI

well i'm about to get on a plane with 2 kids for an airline that charges for checked luggage and you can be sure that i am going to abuse the carry-on limits as much as i can. my 2 year old is going to be rolling on a carry-on luggage bigger than she is. plus, i intentionally checked in early and got seats in the back of the plane so i am sure we will board first and take up all the overhead space. :devil:

don't hate the player, hate the game.

Southwest's positive incentive mechanism will have a lot more impact than the negative penalty this airline is trying to impose (as long as they keep checked bag processing efficient). I'm convinced most airline execs aren't worth a pile of poo, so I'm not surprised that they keep failing.

(CNN) -- Fresh on the heels of one budget airline announcing that it will ask passengers to pay extra to bring carry-on bags on board, another is considering charging them for using the lavatory.

Ryanair, which is based in Dublin, Ireland, and bills itself as "Europe's first and largest low fares airline," is mulling a plan that would require travelers to pay either 1 euro or 1 British pound (about $1.33 or $1.52) for using the bathroom on flights lasting one hour or less.

The plan, titled "Ryanair Cost Saving Proposal," was published in the airline's inflight magazine.

The carrier said it is working with Boeing to develop a coin-operated door release so that when nature calls, passengers would need to deposit the change before being able to use the facilities.

As part of the plan, the airline is also considering removing two of the three lavatories on some of its planes so it could squeeze in up to six extra seats. The move would help reduce fares by at least 5 percent, Ryanair said.

It's not the first time the airline has broached the subject of a toilet fee. CEO Michael O'Leary told the BBC in February 2009 that he was considering the charge.

Meanwhile, Ryanair announced Tuesday that it's raising its checked luggage fee from 15 euros to 20 euros per bag for the peak vacation months of July and August.

"Ryanair is determined to incentivise passengers to travel light this summer," spokesman Stephen McNamara said in a statement. The airline urged its passengers to avoid the fees by bringing carry-on bags only.

Ryanair is already well-known for its fees and is up-front about them on its Web site, which details charges for everything from online check-in to traveling with infants. Customers haven't balked; in fact, Ryanair's passenger traffic grew 13 percent last month compared to the same time last year, the airline reported.

Low-cost carriers have embraced the concept of a la carte pricing, or keeping base fares at rock bottom levels while charging passengers for any extra services.

On Tuesday, Florida-based Spirit Airlines announced that it will charge its customers $20 to $45 for items they place in the overhead bins.

since when is a bathroom an extra?

if they do this, how long till someone just unzips and pisses on the floor?

I don't need the hamburger to achieve that effect. Last time I farted on a plane, I was surprised they didn't force an immediate landing.

I don't have an opinion about the bag thing, but the washroom thing is ridiculous. Why don't restaurants start charging for the washroom too. And sporting venues. And what's to prevent me from paying once, then sitting in there the entire flight.

Not so sure about boarding first. I think it may have been this way before, but I know US Air lets first class and then the dividend mile members, and then the people who have a US Air credit card and then the rest of the people. Maybe they board the back of the plane first, but only after the frequent fliers and credit card members get on.

if you've got little kids you get to go on totally first though

It is ridiculous but other places in the world already have a similar system of paying for the "water closet". Not usually in first world countries, tho.

SI

Yeah, I was thinking of that scene in Slumdog Millionaire.

It's like that in Canada, too, right? Where you have to pay the guy to thaw out the toilet, even in June? ;)

SI

:rant:

That was kindof unprovoked, wasn't it?

SI

I've traveled a few times with my daughter (<1) and she is light years better than most adults, even if she cries or yells a little. See Jon's rule.

Assuming legitimate competition exists between the airlines, it's hard to see how it's unfair for people who use the extra space/services to pay more than a single person who sits there, doesn't bring any bags, doesn't bring kids, doesn't take up any space, doesn't use the bathroom, doesn't want any movies or sodas or peanuts, or anything.

It's like this. If the other airlines follow suit, they've just made it more cost effective for me to drive to Milwaukee to fly back to California on Southwest than to fly directly out of Green Bay. Given a 200 mile round trip drive, I didn't think that was possible, but here we are.

Another thing that is unspoken here is how the newfound ease of comparing prices among airlines is forcing them to put more and more fees into "extras" that don't show up on the Expedia bottom line.

I imagine that the psychological impact of being the "cheapest" ticket on the list is pretty huge--even if everyone knows that you will nickle and dime your way to being more expensive at the end of the day.

A couple of years ago, I read an article with an interestingly honest take from executives at hotel chains about how the internet had really cut into their bottom line. Basically, hotels made their money, in large part, by charging more than the market rate for rooms. They relied on the fact that consumers either had to call around for rates (too lazy to do) or go through travel agents (easy for hotels to control) to get people paying more for a, say, Holiday Inn room, when they could have had the same room for $100 less at the Hilton two block away.

Because the internet had taken that away from them, they had to be more creative in making a profit.

I am sure that it is the same for the airlines. Increasing the spread between your "Expedia price" and what you will actually make from the seat has to be one of their top goals.

I just wish airlines would strictly enforce the posted size restrictions for carry-on bags.