And it begins: Airline to start charging for carry-ons

[mkrishnan]

Hot on the heels of Sprit, Ryanair announces: Airline considers fee for lavatory use. American travelers on a web poll so far are poo-pooing this, but the Ryanair CEO refuses to wash his hands of the idea, and he notes that wiping the extra toilets from the plane will allow for 6 extra seats to be dumped in.

 

[leekohler]

Maybe I am clueless but does Amtrack run all the way cross country?

I may look into that if they do for my next trip as opposed to plane

Can you bring luggage?

Edit: google is helping me find these answers lol

Of course you can bring luggage, Dukey. Sometimes I swear that you should have been a blond.

Amtrak is great if you're in the Northeast Corridor. Elsewhere...not so much (imo).

Not true. I live in Chicago and it's great.

Your right about factoring in travel times to and from airports, plus you have to add the security check time in as well. I travel to see my family in MD from my home in Wilmington, NC quite often. It's a 400 mile, 6 1/2 hour trip by car. It's actually quicker to drive there then it is to fly... And it's only an 1 1/2 hour flight! Ridiculous. Plus for me and my wife to fly it's at the very least (without luggage) $300. Add on baggage fees and it's closer to $375. I can do it for $150 in gas and I drive a big 'ol gas guzzler.

Yep- I usually take Amtrak to my parents' place in Ohio. The total travel time is actually shorter.

My area is "studying the feasibility" of building out a high speed rail project and I just hope it gets done within the next ten years or so. It would link to Raleigh then could head North or South on the 95 corridor, or continue on to Charlotte and start a western trip. High speed rail would be the game changer in the travel industry. It wouldn't kill the airline business, it would just weed out a lot of the players and give travelers a respectable choice for getting from A to B. Some trips just don't make financial sense and aren't timely enough to be driveable.

Yep. Not to mention that Amtrak is much cheaper than flying in most instances. Plus, it's social. I always meet cool people on the train. At airports, everyone is just pissed off.

 

[aethelbert]

Don't buy that.

What don't you believe? If it's the statement that they're looking into luggage fees, I'll find a link for you.

Also, note how other airlines who are nickel'n'diming for bags (UAL, COA, DAL, FFT, AAL, etc.) are all in a world of hurt.

The complete opposite, actually. The luggage fees have been a huge revenue booster. Continental is close to profitability and United got there quite a while ago. I haven't really been following the others, though their stocks have all performed extremely well as of late. Yeah, it's not the best indicator considering that they were undervalued for some time, but outlooks are pretty good right now.

As for Frontier and Midwest, they failed for other reasons. Midwest has been struggling for a long time, probably since around 2005 before fuel prices spiked to $150 and these new fees came into play. YX was more or less a virtual airline once they started dropping the 717s as they didn't have their own aircraft or crews. Republic was doing all of their flying, so it was a natural fit for RJET to purchase YX. F9 went under after a recent history of poor management and the inability to garner people traveling on full fares. Again, problems that started long before the fees.

Skybus failed due to complete idiocy. They didn't really have the time to build up a frequent flyer base, and also had to pay for a brand-new airbus fleet, which is ridiculously expensive for a start-up. People that flew with them knew what they were getting into, and the group to which they catered tended to like their pricing structure. And, to make matters worse, they started right as oil prices began the rise up to their peak in 2008. They couldn't sustain operations with increasing variable costs when their fixed costs were set way to high for a new carrier with little investment funding. If I understand correctly, Hodge just thought that it would be a neat experiment and didn't have full confidence in the endeavor himself.

Not true. I live in Chicago and it's great.

While I do agree that service in Chicago and hub cities is pretty good with schedule options and whatnot, elsewhere the schedules are terrible. We only have a single rail line in Indianapolis so I don't use it much as the eastbound comes in at midnight and the westbound is at about 4:45 in the morning. 5.5 hours for a 175 mile trip to Chicago, no thanks.

High-speed rail, if it develops in Chicago, could potentially work very well. But there are many spots in the network that could have a large marketshare were they to offer reasonable timing right now. Granted, it's not too easy to reschedule times that trains arrive at a given spoke, but improvement is needed to get people to use it. Hopefully it's coming soon.

 

[macbookairman]

I'd rather the airlines actually charge the ticket price they need to and allow 1 bag/1 carry-on per person. However, to look good on the comparison sites, they play the "lower fare" game and tack on extra charges later.

This is squarely aimed at the non-business traveller who tries to not check baggage and carries the huge bag on that must be crammed into the overhad bin.

Somewhat unrelated, but I read this and immediately thought about how the app store is the exact same way. Developers sell their apps for free or for $0.99 to get in the top app charts, but then require a bunch of in app purchases to get the app fully functioning.

 

[11800506]

It seems inevitable that more airlines will start following a similar policy. I only hope that that doesn't turn out to be true. I think that the atmosphere on flights on some of the major airlines such as United have really started to decrease as a result of the excessive nickel and diming. While I understand that often times a lower fare will grab the discount customer, it's still very annoying that 1st checked bags are no longer included.

I just recently flew on JetBlue and it was a much nicer experience than my recent flights on United. Unfortunately, United operates its east-coast hub at Dulles and therefore, we fly most often on them and are part of MileagePlus.

 

[bradl]

What don't you believe? If it's the statement that they're looking into luggage fees, I'll find a link for you.

Please do. I'd be interested in seeing it.

The complete opposite, actually. The luggage fees have been a huge revenue booster. Continental is close to profitability and United got there quite a while ago. I haven't really been following the others, though their stocks have all performed extremely well as of late. Yeah, it's not the best indicator considering that they were undervalued for some time, but outlooks are pretty good right now.

Then why are both USA and UAL rumoured to be in merger talks? This isn't the first time they had talked about it, as UAL and USA were talking about it before AWE bought USA. Both are hurting right now, especially USA, as they shut down their hubs in CMH, PIT, and PHL, and just shut down LAS (though they still fly to all 4 destinations). SWA is now the biggest carrier at 3 of the 4 airports, and are doing well in UAL's hub at DEN. SWA has a knack for moving in when they smell blood, as they have with MSP (NWA being bought by DAL), MKE (MEP being bought by RPA), SFO (UAL in a bit of hurt), PIT (USA in a world of hurt before being bought by AWE), and LGA (SWA's codeshare with ATA helped here, though FFT being in a world of hurt was their target).

As for Frontier and Midwest, they failed for other reasons. Midwest has been struggling for a long time, probably since around 2005 before fuel prices spiked to $150 and these new fees came into play. YX was more or less a virtual airline once they started dropping the 717s as they didn't have their own aircraft or crews. Republic was doing all of their flying, so it was a natural fit for RJET to purchase YX. F9 went under after a recent history of poor management and the inability to garner people traveling on full fares. Again, problems that started long before the fees.

Keep in mind that SWA had the competing bid, though I'm glad RPA bought FFT. their E170s were a perfect compliment to FFT's A319s and a great replacement for MEP's B717s/MD90s.

Skybus failed due to complete idiocy. They didn't really have the time to build up a frequent flyer base, and also had to pay for a brand-new airbus fleet, which is ridiculously expensive for a start-up. People that flew with them knew what they were getting into, and the group to which they catered tended to like their pricing structure. And, to make matters worse, they started right as oil prices began the rise up to their peak in 2008. They couldn't sustain operations with increasing variable costs when their fixed costs were set way to high for a new carrier with little investment funding. If I understand correctly, Hodge just thought that it would be a neat experiment and didn't have full confidence in the endeavor himself.

Nevertheless, it is the same model that NKS appears to be going towards, and seeing that it didn't work out well (oil prices notwithstanding), they could learn from that lesson.

While I do agree that service in Chicago and hub cities is pretty good with schedule options and whatnot, elsewhere the schedules are terrible. We only have a single rail line in Indianapolis so I don't use it much as the eastbound comes in at midnight and the westbound is at about 4:45 in the morning. 5.5 hours for a 175 mile trip to Chicago, no thanks.

High-speed rail, if it develops in Chicago, could potentially work very well. But there are many spots in the network that could have a large marketshare were they to offer reasonable timing right now. Granted, it's not too easy to reschedule times that trains arrive at a given spoke, but improvement is needed to get people to use it. Hopefully it's coming soon.

They're talking about that again this side of the Rockies as well. Whether it comes to fruition in California is a good guess. There is talk of it between Los Angeles, the Central Valley (Fresno/Bakersfield/Visalia), and San Francisco, but nothing up towards the Sacramento area. (Sacramento already has the Capital Corridor, service between the Bay and Sacramento).

They are talking about a high speed rail line (read: bullet) between Los Angeles and Vegas as well. But other than that, there isn't much for rail between California and Omaha.

BL.

 

[Rockin' Kat]

Not a big fan of seeing the world, or even the country, eh?

I'd say it's more of an "I'm a student who doesn't make enough money or get any real time off to do anything other than spur of the moment trips either to Vancouver B.C. or Lincoln City, OR" kind of thing than a traveling the world sucks kind of thing.

If I had time, friends, and enough money saved up I'd consider doing what my sister did.... she and her friends drove South to California, then East to Louisiana, North to New York and then West back to Washington. A lot of the time they slept in the car to avoid spending money on lodging as well as staying with online friends. They brought back a lot of stories, photos, and shot glasses from every state they drove through... They were gone for three months.

 

[(L)]

You missed the big part here. The airlines created that problem with the clog bins the second they started charging fees for the first check bag. They are the ones who screwed themselves over.

I would rather they raise ticket prices and screw the fees. Fees cause more problems and hell I voted with my wallet and fly southwest when ever possible. Cheaper tickets, no fees and hell of a lot better customer service.

Nah, they should quit screwing travelers like me. I'm what doctors would say is a 'healthy' weight, pack minimally, and rarely have to use the overhead bins.

Airlines lose money because they don't place a surcharge on the now all-too-common too-fat-to-fly people. If everyone who flies would quit packing their homes into their bags and quit taking up 1.5 seats, it would be better for everyone. You may think it harsh for me to say this, but surely you'd admit that if I have to pay for my first checked bag, and the fellow next to me weighs more than me and all my bags combined, they should just nail him with the extra fees (incentive for self-disciplined eating!) and leave harmless travelers like me alone.

Or maybe one airline can just be the 'good' airline for appropriate weight, light-packing, well-behaved people. I would actually pay extra for that kind of discrimination.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't fly much (maybe 3 times a year at most), so maybe I'm missing something, but I recently felw up to Alaska with Delta and did not have to pay for my checked luggage. In fact, Delta told me that I got two free checked bags up to 70lbs.

At any rate, I think that paying fees for carry-ons, checked bags, and the bathrooms is a travesty. I'm willing to pay more for a ticket if it means not being nickled and dimed to death for "services" that should be included as part of the flight.