Flight By The Pound: Your Bags Aren't All They Should Be Weighing Before You Fly
I get a little irritated having to pay a bunch of bucks for my luggage while some ginormous person seated next to me weighs more than my bags and me collectively, but doesn't get dinged for that in the slightest.
There was this piece at The Economist on checked bags on planes:
According to figures from the Department of Transportation, from 2007 through the first quarter of 2016, domestic airlines have collected a total of $26.2 billion in checked-bag fees. That is just shy of the $27.8 billion market capitalisation of Delta Air Lines, as of earlier this week. It is safe to assume that the money splurged in the meantime will have more than made up this shortfall.Of course, baggage fees are not just an additional charge that airlines skim off the top. If they are functioning as they should, they are an incentive to stop people flying with more luggage than they need, and a way of ensuring people pay their fair share, since each extra bag means more weight and higher fuel costs. It is a better system than the free-for-all in which the man with 100 pounds of luggage was charged the same for a flight as the woman who carried only her handbag and took a fraction of the space and weight. And they have helped airfares to drop their fares to the lowest rates in seven years (although lower fuel costs are the main cause of this).
But it feels annoying to have to go through the extra step of either shedding luggage or shelling out more to fly. And the cost is not insignificant. Most American airlines charge $25 per checked bag; it is as much as $100 per bag on Spirit Airlines, if not purchased in advance.
I liked this suggestion in a comment from "CanadaAW" at The Economist -- better than the article itself:
If -- IF -- the real concern is that more bags cause higher fuel usage, then the proper pricing policy would be to weigh a person and all bags, packages, etc. together on a large, 1000-lb scale right at the check-in counter. Everyone would be allowed some pre-defined weight (eg 225 lbs). Beyond that allowance, you would pay some set fee (eg. $1 or $1.50/lb).If you're travelling alone, you're stuck with that. If you're travelling as a couple, you could be weighed together for a total of 450 lbs. A family of 4 could share a limit of 900 lbs.
Even before the baggage fees were introduced, individual bags were limited to 50 lbs (23 kg). When I thought I was close to the limit, I would simply pack 30 lbs of books or whatever into my carry-on which was NOT weighed, and lightened my checked luggage... which I always thought was stupid oversight by the airlines.
Fly Southwest. It doesnt play those silly games. The major airlines with their stupid pricing games have dome more to drive their customers away than McDonalds with shitty food.
We flew United to Tokyo a few weeks ago. A pretty miserable expereince without a couple of hundred dollars of upgrades, which we were unwilling to pay for.
If Southwest had a route from Denver to Tokyo, I would be on it.
However that said, I want to leave these poor marketing decisions to the companies that fly the planes. The only thing worse, is someone like the government with no skin in the game dictating how the airline prices tickets, and baggage fees. Im sure once the ADA was applied to your fixed weight idea, it would be worse than the current methods. Wait till someone kicks up a fuss about a hundred bucks to tranport grandpa's wheelchair.
Isab at September 24, 2016 1:02 AM
I want to leave these poor marketing decisions to the companies that fly the planes.
They're doing such a good job of it already.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2016 6:36 AM
Charging flyers by weight has been discussed before. But every airline knows they will be in court if they try to implement it. You already have the lawsuits where really large people who physically can't sit in one seat demand that airlines price things per person and they can't be forced to pay for two seats even though they have to sit in them.
Ben at September 24, 2016 6:40 AM
I have not flown since 9/11 -- not because of the trivial threat of terrorism, but the real threats that TSA poses to your person, your baggage, and your right to complete your flight.
But if I were going to fly somewhere, I would certainly not bring anything important along as baggage. It could easily get stolen by TSA, even if they don't blow up my laptop's power supply because they're too stupid to tell it from a bomb. I'd mail it instead.
As far as the fatties -- good luck with that idea. Canada has already banned airlines such as Southwest from making them pay for two seats.
jdgalt at September 24, 2016 2:27 PM
Jdgalt,
The TSA wasn't that bad last time I flew (two weeks ago). You still had the line to get your ID and ticket checked. But no nudie scanner. Just walk through a metal detector. No taking your shoes off either (unless you have steel toes like me). It was almost back to where things were pre-9/11.
Ben at September 24, 2016 8:29 PM
Very roughly speaking, each additional pound of payload requires about 4 additional ounces of fuel. (Less for shorter flights, more for longer.)
So someone who weighs in at 250 will mean the airplane would burn about 25 more pounds of fuel than if that same person weighed 150.
Fuel weighs roughly 6.7 pounds per gallon. Jet-A runs about $5.20 per gallon.
Therefore, 100 pounds of avoirdupois costs around $21 in additional fuel on an average length flight.
Jeff Guinn at September 25, 2016 4:43 AM
I saw a TV news investigations (so take the source for what it is worth) that concluded the baggage fees were mostly pure profit. On a cross country flight they estimated a little less than $5 was needed for the average bag...that is for additional fuel, handling, screening etc.
I believe volume is the more costly item.
The weight charge for passenger currently screws with the current system for selling tickets. In a discussion I saw somewhere else on the topic there were some claimed knowledgeable individuals saying out it potentially could really mess up things for the airlines legally. It potentially would invalid some of their arguments against things like better seating. i.e. they would need to reasonable accommodate a lot more situations.
The former banker at September 25, 2016 9:35 AM
Leave a comment