Sharpen Your Elbows!
United is next in line after American to charge $15/bag, starting August 18. Dumbshits. No, you'll no longer be getting on a flight, but getting on an airborne fight club, where people with coffin-sized carry-ons push and shove and jockey to get on the flight first to get their vast bags in the overhead.
So...what's the solution? I'd like to see people pay by the pound. And yes, I mean by the total poundage, human weight and all. I travel like Liz Taylor, with cheaper luggage, and minus the entourage, but I'm guessing I still weigh less, with my luggage, than a whole lot of other passengers -- like the enormous man on a commuter plane to some southern city who pressed me so tight into the window that I had an impression of it in the side of my face when we landed.
Other cost-cutting measures here, in this Micheline Maynard story on redOrbit:
Airlines are scrutinizing every step of their operations, from the tarmac to the sky, and from the nose to the tail of their planes, searching for ways to cut their soaring fuel bills.They are power-washing jet engines more often to get rid of grime, carrying less water for the faucets and toilets, and replacing passenger seats with lighter models.
Japan Airlines is suspending beer sales on domestic flights, except in first class, for a savings of 210 pounds, or 94 kilograms. Cathay Pacific in Hong Kong is stripping some of its 747 freighters of paint, removing as much as 440 pounds per plane.
I read elsewhere that one of the airlines is going to start charging $2 for soda. Does this nickel-and-diming really pay? Personally, I'd rather have it built into my ticket. You?
It's just another nail in the coffin of the major airlines. The security theater has already made the airports unpleasant. Add this sort of nickle-and-diming, and there is no reason left to choose the major airlines over the discount airlines.
Who recalls bygone days? In Dallas, I used to drive to the airport, arrive 20 minutes before takeoff, show my ticket and walk onto the plane.
The sheer cost of the security theater, not only in hiring, but in lost time for travelers and - most importantly - as a step towards a police state, is almost unbelievable. The 9/11 terrorists won a larger victory than they could ever have dreamed...
bradley13 at June 13, 2008 12:47 AM
Scuba gear used to travel no charge. But it's getting hard to argue with you about this...
Crid at June 13, 2008 2:01 AM
They've done no such thing, bradley.
The airline industry has been in a state of decline since it was born. That anyone expects to get on a plane and fly cross country for a few hundred dollars is insane. The airlines have been operating below cost for entirely too long.
Cut the subsidies, put ticket prices where they need to be, and deal with the fact that flight volume will drop by more than half.
brian at June 13, 2008 4:05 AM
I don't know if being charged by the pound for body weight is okay.
My brother is skinny as a rail but at 6 feet 5 inches tall is still in the low 180's (he hopes to fill out). I'm a fit person and put in at least 3, usually 4, days at the gym/wk. - plenty of muscle on my body which weighs more than fat.
It might be fair to judge people based on the choices they make; I support charging a person for two seats if they're so obese they actually take up two seats. Why should the airlines absorb that cost (or more likely: why should the extra cost be absorbed by other passengers?)? Also it really sucks to be seated next to a fat person...I realize some body weight issues are genetic but it just requires you to be extra conscious of what you eat and how you exercise. You don't become 300 pounds by accident.
Let's start charging tall people like me or my brother who will weigh more even if I eat less and work out more than you do? Sorry, let me just get rid of my really long femur, I'm a few bucks short for this flight. That changes the whole thing: it isn't a lifestyle thing anymore it's just "your genetics require you to pay more." Seems like crap.
This is also disproportionately affect men who almost always weigh more than women inch for inch. Athletes are equally fucked, even though they have super tight buns that fit into a single seat w/o a problem.
Gretchen at June 13, 2008 5:31 AM
I agree with Brian. Airline prices have been artifically low. Let the market dictate how much an airline needs to charge to be profitable and let the chips fall where they may. My guess is a steep decline in demand - at least initially.
I have been driving a lot more. I live in Michigan. If I need to get to Chicago or Cleveland or Pittsburgh - I usually drive. Sure gas is more expensive now, but if I drive I have more control over when I get there as I don't have to deal with ridiculously long security lines, cancelled or delayed flights, etc. Plus, by driving a few hundred miles I usually save time even if the flight goes smoothly. I can drive from Grand Rapids to Green Bay in six hours. If I fly it usually takes 8-10 with layovers, early check-ins, etc. Plus, driving to GB is cheaper. I usually save about 100 bucks.
However, as I'm not an economist I don't know how much "subsidized" flights help the economy overall...perhaps its a plus. Anyone know?
Tom at June 13, 2008 5:46 AM
>>>>However, as I'm not an economist I don't know how much "subsidized" flights help the economy overall...perhaps its a plus. Anyone know?
I'm not an economist, but I play one on the internet...
In general, subsidies transfer money from one segment of the economy to another, so the net gain is zero. It costs a certain amount to fly the planes: the economy pays this cost somewhere.
However, there are some intangibles here that you get when the few pay for the many. If we take some money from a few rich taxpayers, the rich may buy cheaper wine while the less well off get to enjoy cheaper travel, and we have to start valuing the joy of going to a nephews graduation they might not have done otherwise, vs the rich guy slumming with a less elite wine (and the wine farmer suffers also, so it gets non-linear, and you can make all kinds of arguments pro and con.)
doombuggy at June 13, 2008 6:15 AM
I have no problem with the a la carte flying experience. Keeps the airfare down and I only pay for what I need. Travel lighter, folks. Or pay the $15.
snakeman99 at June 13, 2008 7:35 AM
I have kind of mixed emotions about subsidies to airlines.
On one side, I agree that we should let the market dictate the price of a ticket. But that discounts the fact that airlines, like railroads, are a necessity in a country of this size.
Aside from the family visits (which are critical if we want to maintain the idea of family ties), tourism is a huge piece of many local economies. What happens to Las Vegas, Florida, New York, Los Angeles, and other places when tourism drops? The hospitality industry, the tourism taxes, and the money spent by tourists are important to those economies providing many jobs and creating a market for many small businesses.
Another impact of expensive travel will be the reduced migration of retirees. Many will choose to remain where they are, close to their families, instead of moving to places like Arizona or Florida. Real estate sales and the construction industries may feel heavy pressure in those areas.
Right now I have no issue with airlines limiting baggage and eliminating food service. Frankly the food sucked anyway, and I have seen people carrying ridiculous amounts of baggage. If you want to carry 5 bags you should have ot pay to transport them. Grandma Betty can save money and travel easier if she leaves a set of clothing with her family rather than taking her entire wardrobe with her everywhere she goes.
I have to agree with Gretchen about the fees for "larger" people. I also work out regularly and while my butt fits easily into the seat, my chest and shoulders do not. I typically take aisle seats so I can lean into the aisle and avoid overlapping the person sitting next to me - unless it's my very skinny but tall wife (I may overlap her as well, but she's used to it - and I think she kinda likes it anyway). I have seen monstrously oversized people board planes and take center seats - crushing those so unfortunate as to sit next to them. They do need to pay for two seats.
steveda at June 13, 2008 7:37 AM
I'm dreading an upcoming flight on American (we used FF miles) due to the charge for checked bags. We'll grit our teeth and pay it, but it's the rest of the passengers I'm thinking about. Not only will everyone be bringing bigger carry-ons, but more stuff that has to go through the pre-board TSA security checks, making not only the check-in lines, but the screening lines longer and slower. Bah.
I'm in the "raise the ticket prices" camp.
deja pseu at June 13, 2008 9:17 AM
I, too have always wondered how long airlines would be able to keep their prices low.
I'm not sure if charging for checking luggage is a good solution, though. The moment I heard about it, I imagined waiting in exasperation as the lady boarding ahead of me tries to cram her baby elephant-sized 'carry-on' into the overhead compartment.
Personally, I don't care if they charge for food and drinks on most domestic flights, especially the shorter ones. I have long thought that the snack/beverage service is really just for entertainment. With the exception of diabetics, people don't need a meal on a flight that's less than four or five hours. I'd rather pack my own food anyway. Longer flights and international flights are a different story, of course.
Karen at June 13, 2008 9:44 AM
I took a second bag on my recent trip to Philly and didn't mind paying the extra bag fee, but I mind that the fee will cause all the cheapwads to turn boarding into more of an unpleasantry than it already is.
Amy Alkon at June 13, 2008 9:45 AM
I live in St. Louis, my family lives in Milwaukee. If I want a nonstop flight, I have to fly American.
Here are my main concerns:
*Carryons will now be packed denser than NEUTRON STARS. If they run out of overhead space, how will they facilitate gate checking? Will they have a credit card reader at the gate? I, for one, would be irate if I worked to neatly pack a tiny bag and then had to gate check because someone has an unwieldy monstrosity in the overhead bin above my seat. How will they decide who has to gate check? Passengers with larger bags (and, if so, who gets to decide that?) Order of boarding? If that's the case, as Amy says, sharpen your elbows!
*Lost luggage. Last time I was in Ohare airport (not willingly, I might add--my flight was rerouted there), I saw piles upon piles of luggage lying around and had to wait more than 2 days for my luggage to arrive in Milwaukee (and they never called me to tell me it had arrived. My dad went to the airport, found nobody working at the baggage claim desk, so he hopped over it and searched the storage room--and found it and took it. We never did hear from American). Now, I'm willing to accept that, but, if I paid $15 to check my damn bag, it better be on the damn carousel when I arrive at my damn destination. If not, I want a damn refund, and I'm guessing many people feel the same way. How will the airline go about processing hundreds more refunds when it already takes 6 months (after calling and writing and spending hours on hold) for them to process refunds for flight-related stuff?
sofar at June 13, 2008 10:40 AM
My complaint with it is that I usually have to check my bag because I'm carrying tools/ components that aren't allowed as carry in luggage because of 9/11.
Any kind of techie is going to be hosed by this.
Jim P. at June 13, 2008 10:41 AM
I'm an economical traveler and packer. I can get by on nearly any length trip with my backpack/laptop bag and a roll aboard that fits easy in any overhead. I've gone to checking that bag recently so I don't have to deal with the TSA toiletry/liquids stupidity. At $15 it still might be worth it to check.
I'm OK with the a-la-carte payments for stuff. Although I don't enjoy watching a bunch more money flow out of my pockets, I'm pretty sure that these are the sorts of pressures that are going to encourage all sorts of positive innovations. The era of cheap petroleum is officially over and we better adjust.
justin case at June 13, 2008 11:09 AM
I love the "by the pound" idea, but "by the seat" is probably more practical, as is "you pay for however many seats you spill over into", not one seat per person. I was at Sea World last weekend, and I swear I didn't see a single adult that wasn't overweight-most of them EXTREMELY so. Now, I am not a matchstick, nor am I saying people should be. But there is a huge difference between a few extra pounds and actual obesity. It IS your fault if you're obese, unless someone tied you down and force-fed you for years. Suck it up and pay for it.
I LOVE a la cart everything. Restaurants, airplanes, cable service, you name it. I want to pay for what I use ONLY!!
I am undecided on airline subsidies. I really like free markets in general, but I would never ever be able to fly my family anywhere without them, and damnit I want to take my kids to Disney, so.....
momof3 at June 13, 2008 11:34 AM
"But that discounts the fact that airlines, like railroads, are a necessity in a country of this size." I'd have to say this statement needs a really large asterisk with it.
The first time I flew was in the early '70's with my grandmother... I was 8 at the time, but I remember that everyone dressed up to fly because it was a really big deal. It was expensive so you only did it if you truly needed to...
Commercial air travel only really started in ernest in the 50's, and last I checked the country hasn't changed much in size...
What has changed is our perception, and that was purely fueled by cheap gas. Jets are not flying busses, but we have treated them that way because that is how they have been marketed. Ultimately like many other aspects of 20th century world this was unsutainable.
Would your family scatter to the 4 winds if it was likely that you wouldn't see them for years? Maybe yes, but likely no. Our ability to move long distances for very little money allowed a great deal of expansion, but it doesn't make expansion a birthright. It is unlilkely that fuel will get less expensive over time, so a correction is needed, and that correction is likely to be back to a time when people didn't fly all over hell and back just because they had frequent flyer miles. The correction like most isn't going to be painless. Places that rely on tourons flying in from afar, are going to see firsthand that things DON'T last forever.
But, I think there are 2 little glimmers of silver lining. I can't think of a bigger direct contributer to global warming than a jetliner. You fly up to the high atmosphere and spew a great deal of CO2 directly into it. Person for person FAR more than they would produce driving a car the same distance, AND the CO2 doesn't have to migrate from ground. Add in the contrails that become their own clouds, and Jets might be doing some damage. So less of them might be better than more, ne?
The other thing our ancestors didn't have was the squwak box I'm using right now, the 'Net. People can communicate far more efficiently via the net than ever they were able to before, and this makes some of that flying around unecessary. Corporate business can be conducted via collaboration tools and video-con, with only a slight degradation to what a meeting would be in person. Once generations grown up on electronic communication get into the boardrooms, the differences between face time, and 'Net time will be acedemic. Staying in touch with family and friends is also much easier, even when it isn't a good substitute.
Air travel wil change, certainly. Everything does. But let's not forget that it is just a blip in time...
On the side note of weight... eventually the airlines left are going to realize that the consumer ISN'T a cashcow, they are a customer. When the customer doens't need wht you are selling, you go out of business. The amount of moeny saved by reducing weight is going to be dwarfed by the amount of money lost by losing paying customers. It is also worth remembering that they have been cremming more and more people into less space for years on jets. Those of us athletic types like Steveda, have always had problems. I too always take the aisle, because I need someplace to stuff my legs, and my shoulders are a foot wider than my hips, so I need a place to lean out to avoid crowding my row-mates. This isn't as much about weight as maximization. Ideally you could make money if you could stack passengers like cord-wood, but it doesn't work that way. If you started charging by weight/size, then you would make it so inconvenient that people that were larger sized, simply wouldn't fly. That would be OK until the overall number of flyers dcreased to the point where the airlines weren't solvent, and you are right back here.
Also? look to the airlines to start getting nasty about making carryons fit into that sizer thing at checkin, and also that women's purses COUNT as one of their carryons. Heretofore airlines have been letting people get away with stuff often. It wont last...
SwissArmyD at June 13, 2008 11:45 AM
"How will the airline go about processing hundreds more refunds when it already takes 6 months (after calling and writing and spending hours on hold) for them to process refunds for flight-related stuff?"
Sofar, you got a refund from American?? I once needed to contact them about a flight that was cancelled (after sitting in the airport for four hours watching the delay signs creep up and up...). I wrote several letters and tried my best to get a person on the phone to no avail. I seriously spent a year trying to deal with this and finally gave up. I will never fly American again.
As to the per bag fee, I would much rather they just raise their ticket price by $10 or $20 or whatever they feel gets them the revenue they're looking for. People having to pay for the bag at check in, having to relinquish their too-big "carry-ons" at the gate and having to pay for them at that point, additional security for more and overstuffed carry-ons, the mess of boarding with all that extra baggage... just adding more headache onto an already migraine inducing experience.
If they're attempting to get us to pack lighter, they could just initiate a baggage weight limit. I agree that measuring total weight would be a bit overboard. People come in different sizes and that would be discriminatory to include their weight in the equation. However, by all means, make the real fatties buy two seats. The type of fat we're talking about here doesn't come about because of a hormone problem, it comes about because of a midnight twinkie and haagen das problem. This isn't a weight issue as far as the seat is concerned. It's a girth issue.
I sort of like the pay for your food idea, and paying for soda doesn't bother me either. If I don't want it, I don't have to buy it. I agree with the poster who says it's for entertainment. They think we expect them to keep us occupied with their trips down the aisle. Heck, maybe without them they could unload about 200 lbs of sourpuss flight attendant.
Laurie at June 13, 2008 11:50 AM
Do some math. You have to drive a Prius with 5 people in it to beat the 'liner's economy across country.
You want your luggage to get where you're going, guaranteed? Ship it! FedEx et al will even e-mail you where it is. Ship your souvenirs back, too.
Criminy. Figure out what you need. Don't just bumble along.
And for those of you who are overweight: you're a better target for some thug, more likely to be seriously injured in an auto crash, and more likely to suffer from diabetes and cancer. Get a clue.
Radwaste at June 13, 2008 9:10 PM
I know this has been covered here before, but let's review the economics of shipping your luggage. A full-sized suitcase can't be a cheap overnight delivery, and if you miss a connection in Atlanta....
?
Crid at June 13, 2008 10:48 PM
I still think airline travel is pretty damn great.
Amy Alkon at June 14, 2008 1:55 AM
We've all got our air travel horror stories, but I have to admit that I've only suffered two misplaced check-through bags in decades of air travel, and both were delivered to me at my hotel within a day of my arrival.
What I WOULD like to see is a frame for people-sizing, like the chrome metal frame currently used to check if your carry-on luggage is small enough to be a carry-on.
Waddling behemoths who can't fit into the people-sizing frame without a dollop of Crisco would be forced to buy two seats. I'm sick of sharing my space with the overflowing blubber of my inconsiderate neighbor.
Noto bene: I have as yet to suffer this on a flight inside Europe, South America, or the Pacific Rim. It seems to be a domestic American problem. Go figure.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 14, 2008 11:15 AM
What Gog said.
Crid at June 14, 2008 10:08 PM
I have also only experienced sharing my seat when I was flying from the Carolinas (can't remember which one) on United to Vegas. Grossed me out and pissed me off immensely-thank the flying spagetti monster that it was a short flight.
I've never had it happen again, but that's because I've flown in Canada and Europe, and to the Caribbean.
Chrissy at June 17, 2008 3:46 PM
Leave a comment