Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Charge for Carry-Ons, Not Checked Bags

1

I'd back that one up too. I always find it so amazing when people struggle to stuff their full-size luggage into the overhead bin (as traffic stacks up behind them) and act all pissy when the flight attendant tells them they're going to have to check it.

Posted by DanFan | June 18, 2008 9:49 AM
2

I agree totally--I'm traveling to Chicago next week, I'm going for a month, and for the first time in my life I have no idea how to pack. I don't want to pay to check my bag, but I don't want to be stuck for a month with what I can fit in a carry-on. Some people can make do with a cheerful pink thong and 2 ounces of hair gel, but I need costume changes.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | June 18, 2008 9:56 AM
3

part of the problem is how airlines board planes.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 18, 2008 9:58 AM
4

Not to mention the fact that there's so much stuff we're not allowed to bring on board. I know most women wouldn't want to go on vacation without their tweezers- a banned item.

I usually fly when I'm moving between continents, so I'm that girl who is weighted down with as much carry-on luggage as is legally allowed. I'm sorry, so very sorry.

Posted by ams | June 18, 2008 9:59 AM
5

And, to make matters worse, American Airlines has said that they won't charge for bags that end up being gate checked. I'm hoping they realized the stupidity of that move after they said it and changed their mind otherwise people will use that as a way around the fee. Way to make boarding the plane even more chaotic American!

Posted by PopTart | June 18, 2008 10:04 AM
6

it seems pretty lame to give people the choice of playing the checked bag lottery or paying to bring your stuff with you. i see your point, but i don't think this will solve the underlying problems with air travel, it will probably instead make people feel more entittled to their massive carry-ons.

Posted by douglas | June 18, 2008 10:04 AM
7

I went to Brazil for two months with only carry-on luggage. That carry-on luggage would pass today's standards. I used hotel laundries and I did just fine.

Your idea sucks, Dan. People should be encouraged to travel light, and check-in or carry-on should be determined *before* boarding, not after.

Posted by ivan | June 18, 2008 10:07 AM
8

It's funny when you think about it... $25 dollars is really not that much more to pay to fly, and many people would probably pay that much extra for a plane ticket.

This whole thing is just an example of utter and gross ignorance of consumer behavior. Are these airlines being run by trained monkeys?

Posted by demo kid | June 18, 2008 10:08 AM
9

well, i don't think they're charging for customer convenience. i think they're charging so they can do less work checking your bag (it doesn't cause them extra work for you to carry on.)

Posted by sara | June 18, 2008 10:12 AM
10

I would bet that airlines pay the baggage handler companies on a per bag rate.

Charging for checked bags means they have to pay the baggage handlers less.

Posted by AK Rob | June 18, 2008 10:12 AM
11

As a former flight attendant I would have loved a charge to passengers for bringing that roll aboard on the plane. Unfortunately that solution isn't really helpful.

The reason they are charging for bags is weight. More weight equals more fuel. We all know this. There are size (and therefore weight) limitations to anything you bring on the plane already so the extra weight isn't really coming from carry on. The weight comes from those crazy people who pack those giant suitcases (sometimes several of them) full of god knows what that weigh more than they do. I watched a woman in Heathrow once argue with a ticket agent for an hour that her bag was not too heavy. The comedy ensued when they asked her to lift her bag onto a cart. She couldn't. Then a strap broke from the weight while she tried again to lift it. Then a skycap came and barely got it six inches off the floor.

The solution is weight restrictions to luggage. Strict ones. They've been doing it in Europe forever. You are allowed only so many pounds of checked luggage before they start charging you...a lot. That woman in Heathrow? They were going to charge her 300 GBP for her overweight luggage. It was that heavy and the extras are that big. This would teach people to pack more responsibly (I can go for ten days on what I can fit in a tiny roll aboard) and ease a portion of the burden of the cost of fuel.

Oh yeah and how about those damn strollers that are always gate checked. Let's charge for those fuckers to! (waits for the parents to attack)

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | June 18, 2008 10:16 AM
12

Fuck strollers. Especially those gigantic jogging strollers with the big mountain bike wheels. At the airport, the mall, the farmer's market, they're always in everyone's way.

Posted by Lobot | June 18, 2008 10:30 AM
13

You're absolutely right. How could the airlines not see that coming? It's made yet worse by employees' reluctance to really crack down on violation of the carry-on volume limits. I know that plenty of bags people bring on don't fit into that little metal container by the check-in line.

Posted by tsm | June 18, 2008 10:30 AM
14

If charging for bags is a way to offset the cost of fuel (more weight = more fuel), then the simplest solution is to charge for all bags, no matter where they go on the plane. Just base cost on the weight of the bag. Problem solved.

Posted by thankshappy | June 18, 2008 10:31 AM
15

I am flying to Chicago next month and am totally NOT looking forward to my flight. Not only paying to check luggage but the fact my flight is $175 more than it was 6 months ago....

Fuck the Airlines, I hope a few go under!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | June 18, 2008 10:33 AM
16

I think they just need to strictly enforce the carry-on size limits. With force, if need be. The only reason those people are a problem is that no one stops them from getting on the plane with a full-sized suitcase.

Posted by Levislade | June 18, 2008 10:33 AM
17

If you pack more than three changes of clothes, you're probably overdoing it. Most trips I go on I take my backpack and a small rolling carry-on, and that's it.

I agree with #11 that strict weight restrictions - with a heavy penalty for going over the weight limit - would do more good than just charging for any and all checked bags, or carry-ons, or whatever.

Posted by Greg | June 18, 2008 10:36 AM
18

@14

That would be a sneaky way for the airlines to make more money to be sure, but they already do charge for luggage. It's calculated into the cost of your ticket. Who doesn't bring luggage when flying? That is why weight limits exist, because they charge you for the weight above what they have already charged you for.

What pisses me off to no end are the extra charges for exit row seats. Though the chance may be low that you will need to evacuate the plane, there is still an inherent responsibility one has sitting there to at least open the fucking exit, if not help people out. The compensation for that responsibility is the extra leg room. (ok yeah the extra leg room is an FAA regulation to ensure safe exit of the plane...but I like my way of thinking about it better)

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | June 18, 2008 10:39 AM
19

I don't think there is a single roller bag that actually meets the size restriction for a carry-on. Yet, overhead compartments are regularly filled with those bags.

I was on a flight in winter where they requested that everyone remove their jackets from the overhead bins so as to make room for the larger bags.

@10 - You think so? I would guess that baggage handlers are paid an hourly wage.

Posted by Mahtli69 | June 18, 2008 10:39 AM
20

I agree @11 completely. When taking a low-cost flight with Ryanair, I don't feel entitled to some enormous carryon. Why not? A: I paid next to nothing for the ticket.
B: The carryon size and weight is predetermined. Everyone is on the same page. If I want to wallow in my baggage and carryon, I would buy a ticket with a more expensive carrier or cough up for the extra baggage fee.

This is absolutely a fair system. I pay only the cost of my flight/baggage, instead of carrying other passangers' weight (aka feul costs) in the cost of my ticket.

Once again, the US feels the need to reinvent the wheel, ignoring the examples of functioning solutions in other countries.

Posted by SwissMiss | June 18, 2008 10:40 AM
21

This is genius. It could make deplaning about a thousand times faster.

I know it would never happen, but standardized cargo bin sizes would also be amazing. No more guessing if your fairly reasonably sized roller bag is going to fit.

Posted by Dawgson | June 18, 2008 10:40 AM
22

Having spent the first four months of the year flying back and forth to California every single week -- and being an Alaska MVP Gold member for the past four years -- I know from travel, and especially bags.

Based on that, I completely agree with Dan. @11 -- You are, of course, correct about the fact that weight is the controlling factor in these new bag-check pricing schemes.

But the problem Dan outlines -- the new scheme driving a diminution in the boarding experience -- is going to be real because, @11, some of your fellow flight attendants (and gate agents) refuse to enforce the carry-on rule regarding size and number of allowed bags, AND they do not enforce the "one bag above, one bag under the seat" rule.

Unless and until the business road warrior with the three bags -- and/or the one that takes up an entire overhead is denied boarding -- this new pricing scheme is only going to make boarding worse. At least, that's my fear.

To be fair, they should charge for every bag, checked or carry on. I'm not being provocative here -- I truly believe every ounce of added weight should be accounted for. And yes, that means I would be in favor of pricing against personal weight.

Flying has long ago lost much of its glamor. It might as well be run completely as the commodity it has become -- so, just like the gas meter, every bit of weight you take up should be charged for, as effectively as possible.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 18, 2008 10:42 AM
23

Christ! you people! Get your heads out of your asses and look around! The rest of the world has been charging for baggage and enforcing their strict carry on policies for years! No long brainstorming sessions are needed here to find an elusive solution to this problem. The answers are already there.

Where is the indignation on the part of the light packers? You are all paying for the heavy packers' bags. Where is the outrage?!

Posted by SwissMiss | June 18, 2008 10:48 AM
24

Here are a few options to consider when bitching about the cost of flying.
1. You could drive.
2. You could take the bus.
3. You could take a train.
4. You could take a boat.
5. You could take a combination of all the above.
6. You could pay the fare for your seat to travel at top speeds to your destination.

I do not understand why we should assume that we are entitled to have an all inclusive travel package every time we hop on a plane. Do taxi cabs offer in travel meals? No so why should planes. All other means of transportation limit the number of items you can bring so why should planes be any different. So I do not understand why people feel that because they buy a ticket they are entitled to anything other than a mode of transportation. Multiple bags, in flight meals, movies and hand jobs by Air Hostess are all options and should be paid for as such. You buy a movie ticket, you buy popcorn, you buy the soda so do you expect them to throw in the Junior Mints just because you already bought the other stuff. I want I want I want. Get over it, pay the fare check your damn 7 suitcases for a two night stay and shut up or spend the extra 7 hours you would save by loading the family up into the car and see how convient flying actually is.

Posted by Flier of the friendly skies | June 18, 2008 10:56 AM
25

@22

You're absolutely right. Gate agents & flight attendants don't police those things as strictly as would be ideal. In fact they usually don't at all unless it inhibits safety. (bin won't close, bag won't fit under seat) But like with any abusive relationship the person suffering the beatings, the flight crew and gate agents, have to pick their battles to keep from verbally getting the shit beaten out of them all the time by the passengers.

You're also right that this new policy will only make a bad problem worse. The only reason that I don't think going all the way towards charging for each and every pound (including of people) is that the airlines would lose more money to litigation than they would save with that pricing scheme. And it wouldn't be just fat people who would sue either. Is it fair that a 6'4" person should be charged more than a 5'0" person because they are born taller?

The other disaster waiting to happen is if you charge for carry on it will flood the baggage handlers and we know how reliable they are getting luggage where it needs to go already.

How about if we go back to government regulated airlines? The worst thing to happen to the airline industry was the deregulation that happened under Carter in my opinion...but then I'm no economist.

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | June 18, 2008 11:00 AM
26

Expanding on 14:

The logical conclusion is to charge for every kilo of mass - passenger plus luggage. Bags that fail the volume restrictions shouldn't be let past ticketing.

Posted by opticsdoug | June 18, 2008 11:03 AM
27

Airlines should base their fares on passenger weight.

Posted by DOUG. | June 18, 2008 11:03 AM
28

@22 - You nailed it. Everyone should have to pay for every last pound they're responsible for, even their own fat asses.

Posted by T | June 18, 2008 11:09 AM
29
Posted by hyperlinker | June 18, 2008 11:11 AM
30

Nothing worse than trying to get to your seat and having to wait for some moron to overstuff his life into the overhead bin. Taking his sweet-ass time adjusting his bag just so, knowing he's loving every minute that you stand there and wait. He'll do it again when you try to get off, too.

And yes - heavier planes use more fuel. Charge passengers by their weight. They should have to get on a scale right at the check-in counter that displays the amount of their weight PLUS whatever carry-on baggage they have and the number would be visible for all in the terminal to see. Also if the passenger insists on carrying his little plastic bottle of Kirkland water, that has to go on the scale, too.

Posted by Control | June 18, 2008 11:17 AM
31

They always charged you to check bags in the past--now you just have the option of not being charged if you don't check any bags. On the bright side, you spend a lot less time waiting at the baggage carousel these days.

I flew AA this past weekend, and was reminded of how roll-on baggage used to be designed to fit in wheels first, and you could get three or four in an overhead bin, but people have now started using bigger roll-ons which have to be stowed sideways, taking up more room.

Personally, I always request a seat in the back of the plane so that I board in the first group (after first class, children, etc.) so I face an empty overhead bin to put my non-rolling shoulderbag (my rule is to never travel with more than four days clothing) and travel guitar. Never a problem.

Posted by Tiktok | June 18, 2008 11:23 AM
32

@24 - have you ever actually rode a train any reasonable distance in America?

48 hours to get from Seattle to LA is not fast.

In Europe, Japan, Australia, etc you can travel faster than by airplane on trains - but instead we refuse to wake up and choose a far more energy efficient method and build high-speed passenger rail in the US.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 11:53 AM
33
I don't think there is a single roller bag that actually meets the size restriction for a carry-on.
Rubbish. There are many that meet even the slightly-more-stringent international limits. Rick Steves sells one. I don't like 'em, because all that rollie hardware takes up half of your interior space (yes, really), but they make them that fit.
The deal is, it has to fit end-in in the overhead, otherwise you can only get one bag in each bin, which is mental. That's why that last inch matters so much.
My favorite scene was the woman flying home from Vegas or someplace with this GIGANTIC straw basket -- it weighed nothing, but with its handle didn't come close to fitting in the overheads, and the woman put on a spectacular fireworks display when they tried to take it from her to check. She wanted to carry it on her lap. You could hear her from every row, and maybe from the terminal.
Posted by Fnarf | June 18, 2008 11:53 AM
34

Dan, I just flew American this past weekend to Texas and back. I only had one carry-on because I was going to be there for just a few days, but everything seemed to go smoothly both ways. We boarded and unboarded just as quickly as I had with any other flight.

Posted by Kurt | June 18, 2008 12:04 PM
35

@19: Victorinox (Swiss Army) makes a bunch of fantastic roller bags that are thinner at the top so they fit nicely in overhead compartments the right way, while still using every inch of space. I love mine.

Posted by also | June 18, 2008 12:09 PM
36

Will in Seattle, I did take the train once it was pretty kinda but not fun and long and more expensive in the long run. That bar at the back of the train gets expensive, that is why I say people should stop bitching. When considering the alternatives to paying for excess does not seem so bad now does it.

Posted by Flier of the friendly skies | June 18, 2008 12:15 PM
37

@36: People are complaining because costs are going up and services are going down. It's a logical result of high gas prices but it goes against human nature to pay more for less.

Posted by Dawgson | June 18, 2008 12:31 PM
38

Airlines should charge more. For everything. This will encourage biking.

Posted by umvue | June 18, 2008 12:49 PM
39

@37 so it is human nature to pay less and get more?
Prices are increasing and airlines have to adjust for the changes as well. I just do not understand why people feel they are entitled an all inclusive package but then again I just do not agree with your version of human nature being the more for less attitude.

Posted by Flier of the friendly skies | June 18, 2008 12:54 PM
40

@39: Consumer are losing what they were previously getting when they flew and paying more for it. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. It's like reducing the amount of chips in the package and increasing the price tag. Obviously people are going to be upset.

You're either a corporate apologist or troll, but either way, there's no reason arguing.

No sane person is going to be happy about spending more to get less.

Posted by Dawgson | June 18, 2008 1:02 PM
41

I am neither an apologist or a troll and I completly agree that it is no fun paying more for anything but if Airlines kept the same services every one thinks they are entitled to and then they increased the prices accordingly those ticket prices would be through the roof with all the factors considered in. So airlines have chosen to limit the services with attempts of keeping the prices lower for the customer. So is it fair to blame them, they are still providing the main service of transportation. They are not restaurants, Movie theaters, bars or shipping containers for the oversized excess of luggage some think is necessary for travel (actually some are but that is UPS and Fedex). They are a means of transportation. Also consider the cost of flying 15 -20 years ago those prices were alot higher even by todays standards.

Posted by Flier of the friendly skies | June 18, 2008 1:31 PM
42

Maybe it would be cheaper to just mail some clothes Fed Ex ahead of you. Think inside the box.

Posted by Vince | June 18, 2008 1:58 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.