[mars6423]

As I am sure, many have heard or read the new fees that will be in place at Spirit coming in August 2010. I am referring to the $45 carry on bag fee (excludes articles such as purses that fit under the seat)

The big US carriers will be watching this very carefully, so you can expect that if it brings in money then other airlines will follow suit and charge for carry-on bags.

Its another way the US carriers will screw over the passengers, especially busnessmen/women who live out of carry on cases and are the main revenue for many airlines.....i am sure that once an individual reaches a certain level then the fee will be waived

Next up charge per seatbelts, charge per oxygen, $1 per bathroom use, what else will they find ways to create fees that are supposed to help them from going under even though there are numerous reports that the airline industry is picking up to pre-financial crisis levels and back into profits and surpassing income expectations..........granted there are some airlines that are going in the wrong direction and ones that will still encounter large deficits, however the trend shows that levels are getting better

one exception would be BA (british airways) but that would be due to the Union and strikes since their management doesnt seem to have a clue what is going on and are not looking at the human/worker impact rather they are looking at the $$$ figures so they are loosing focus....getting "random" people/ no FA experience to work as the FA's on flights from what i have gathered

[jimworcs]

This charging mechanism is ridiculous... looking forward to seeing other industries follow suit. When you buy a train ticket, it doesn't include platform access, use of the seating, a fee to buy the ticket, etc. When you call a taxi, there is an extra charge for the taxi driver to speak in English. On Spirit, you are now subject to a charge for carry on and for check in bags. However, if you decide not to take any bags, you will be subjected to extra TSA screening. Sooner or later there will be a backlash... lets hope it's sooner.

[Gromit801]

You might want to find another set of analogies Jim. The airlines don't charge you for terminal access or lobby seating either. Some taxi drivers will charge you to take your luggage from the taxi to your door.

However, that being said, I'm not in agreement with Spirit's new policy. There does need to be some sort of enforcement of carry-on policies though. Too many carry-ons that make it on board which really don't fit where they're supposed to go.

Wasn't that long ago that carry-ons were fairly small pieces of luggage, smaller than most carry-ons are now. The public's pushed for lower fares, and larger carry-ons (especially to avoid luggage fees). You might say there already HAS been a backlash, but it's come from the airlines.

Personally, I would be fine with air fares going up $50 (on average) to cover things that used to be free (relatively speaking). It would save a lot of heartburn, but the public won't stand for it. Facts are a mere $10-20 difference in airfares decide the issue for most people, regardless of services rendered or extras.

Hopefully, what Spirit wants to do (and they ARE a no-fills, cut rate airline) will go about as far as the pay toilet idea someone had (Ryanair?)

Mars is correct to a point about airline profits, but only a few airlines are actually posting a profit, and none of those are looking at charging for carry-ons, that I can tell. The good airlines will see this as a breach of faith with their customers, and not look very hard at the idea. The bad airlines, well those would be mostly the cut rate ones, will look at every possible edge to make a few bucks.

[jimworcs]

In fact, I think there will eventually be a swing away from this. Southwest are already marketing quite effectively their baggage charging difference.. and there will develop and "all inclusive" airline product, which promotes it being cheaper than the aggregate charges of the low costs. BA on their website have a comparison calculator which allows a passenger to compare their all in price against Ryanair for example.

In fact, payment for airport services is already underway in Europe. Standby for this to come in the US. In Liverpool at John Lennon Airport you must pay £3 ($5) if you want to bypass the security queue and go through speedily. Many of the airports have frequent flyer lounges which you can pay to get access to, even if you don't have the right "status". Ryanair charge you to check in for your flight, both at the airport and even if you wish to do it online. Some airports in France are discussing experimenting with charging an airport fee to use the airport (under pressure from Ryanair, which wants a reduced landing fees in return).

I find the whole concept ridiculous. It is like a store offering a radio for $20 and then charging extra for the lead, plus a credit card processing fee, a customer service facility charge, etc. It borders on the misleading.

[ChrisH]

The deal with SouthWest is that they are not always cheaper, contrary to popular belief. They know this and that is why they do not advertise their fares on web-sites like Travelocity, Orbitz, etc. That is part of their marketing scheme. They sale very few of the $39 or $69 or whatever fare it is you see in their commercials. They do not charge for luggage, but on more than one occassion when I have priced SouthWest it was actually cheaper to fly one of the other major carriers and pay luggage fees. It isn't always the case but is on more occassions that people would think.

With that being said, I think the airlines do need to start charging more for fares and stop with the extra fees. It gets ridiculous. I do expect other major carriers to adopt the carry on fees especially if Spirit is successful. I know for a fact Continental is already looking at the possibility of charging for carry on luggage.

It seem very simple to charge extra for airfare and stop with the luggage fees. Don't think that the airlines have not already considered that. The problem is that competition is too fierce. If one major carrier decided to stop charging fees and instead raise their airfare by an average of $50 they will have to hope that the other carriers follow. If they other carriers do not follow then they will begin losing customers. The airlines have learned that passengers are very sensitive to airfare changes and will literally choose another airline that is just a few dollars cheaper. A few years ago, before all of the luggage fees, all of the major carriers tried charging an extra $50 to $10 on airfare. One airline, I believe it was Continental, did not follow. This resulted in the others immediately stopping the fare hike. It is a very sensitive market which is why the airlines have resorted to adding extra fees elsewhere instead of raising fares. The only answer is re-regulation or a folding of a couple of major airlines resulting in less competition. OR enough people just stop flying because of all of this and the airlines get the message and put a halt to the fees.

[cortney]

i find the charging for carryons dumb. HOWEVER, airlines need to start forcing the policy of 1 carry on and 1 personal item. i flew on AA a couple weeks ago to DFW and 1 person...had 2 rollerboards and a backpack!! they were traveling alone and on top they decided they needed to preboard...thankfully the agent wouldnt let them, then another pax had a bag so large, there was no way it could fit in the bin. i can see why spirit is deciding this although its dumb. some people pack a carry on and in reality it really should be a checked bag....im sorry but a carry on shouldnt weigh 50 lbs but some people think it should, then they want the airline attendants to put it up for them.....im not hurting myself on the job...i know i should help,but im not going to get hurt. i wont be surprised if majors start doing this within the next year or 2 as well.

southwest isn't always the cheapest. im trying to book a flight to FLL and AA was cheaper (even checking 2 bags) than southwest

[jimworcs]

The market clearly is sensitive to pricing, although the level at which the prices have now been de-constructed is just ridiculous.

It is certainly not the case that the "lower cost" airlines are always cheaper on individual fares. However, if you aggregate the numbers, you will find that Southwest's revenue per passenger is lower. This is achieved by having lower average fares. The revenue per passenger stats cover all income, so the baggage costs etc are included. (Just on a side note: the reason Southwest is not on online travels sites like Orbitz and Travelocity is that they will not pay commission, as part of their low cost strategy. It also significantly improves the cash flow position of the airline, as the fares are paid at the time of booking to the airline and not retained by the agents).

However, my preference for Southwest is not solely based on price. When I have used them, I think there is a significant difference in the staff attitudes towards their customers... it has a positive culture towards their passengers which is in stark contrast to the likes of Delta, Spirit and in Europe Ryanair.

[cortney]

now it looks like it wont be happening

[Gromit801]

Schumer, NY is talking about putting a ban on carry on fees through Congress.

Government getting involved always makes me nervous.

[jimworcs]

Gromit, Government getting involved in Airline Regulation is absolutely essential.. the Airlines are controlled by managers who are soley concerned with returns and their bonuses and the days when aviators ran the industry are long gone.

As a result, they are losing their connection to the industry and its vital safety culture. If you need proof take a look at what happened in the Colgan Air crash. The Captain lived in Florida and the First Officer lived in Seattle. Neither could afford to live in the NY area, due to the very low wages paid by Pinnacle (the company which owns Colgan). As a result, they faced very long commutes just to get to work. The Captain slept on the floor of the crew room at EWR before taking the flight, and the First Officer hitched a lift on a cargo aircraft via Memphis. (I assume it was FedEx). This meant that neither was fully rested prior to the flight. On the CVR transcript the First Officer said "this is one of those times that if I felt like this when I was at home, there's no way I would have come all the way out here, but now I am out here"... to which the Captain replied "you might as well". The First Office replied "I mean, if I call in sick now, I've got to put myself in a hotel room until I feel better, so we will see how it feel flying. If the pressure is too much, I can can always call in sick tomorrow. At least then I'm in a hotel on the company's buck". When the First Officer, Rebecca Shaw got on that plane she was earning less than $23,500 per year, for a full time job. Almost 50% of all the Captains (Captains, not First Officers) at Pinnacle earned less than $30,000 per year in 2008. These wages are the kind of wages paid to people working as bell hops and in restaurants. Delivery drivers for UPS earn more than this. Yet, they are charged with responsibilities which are far beyond their "pay grade".

The regional's are fully aware of the safety implications of this, but resist any attempt to regulate. They have objected to rules related to their employees working second jobs and have rejected any link between the safety of the airline and pay. They know that many of their pilots are doing second jobs, commuting huge distances (Seattle to EWR for example) and living is squalid "crash pads". How these pilots are supposed to arrive at work rested and fully prepared to take responsibility for people's lives is not addressed. Instead, people like Phil Trenary, Pinnacles CEO told the Senate "I urge you, please do not ever equate professionalism and competence with pay... some pilots make over $100,000 some make less than that. They are all professionals". This cynical disregard for the safety culture of the airline is what happens when costs are cut so low that they jeopardise safety.

In some US airlines, the First Officer is not actually paid, and is in fact paying the airline for the priviledge of building their "hours" and is presented as "training". Do the public really want the person in the right hand seat to be there because he can pay, rather than because he is the most qualified for the job? If this is not seen as a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

The US airline industry is out of control. Idealogues who claim that regulation is an attack on free enterprise will create a situation akin to the robber barons of the late 1800's and early 1900's. It is not just about money, it is about morality and it is INDEFENSIBLE.

[Gromit801]

You don't cure incompetency by introducing more incompetency.

There are areas in everyday life I wish there was more government oversite, but not in this case.

The only airlines that might consider charging for carry-ons are the no-frills, and financially struggling ones. Spirit Air talks about it, and now everyone thinks all airlines are thinking about it.

No one is forced to use any particular airline, unlike say being forced to use the local phone company, electrical utility, etc.

[jimworcs]

Regulation in relation to the mechanical safety of the airlines has raised the standards of aircraft safety in the west to incredibly high standards... beyond anything which could have been predicted. The new challenge is now to ensure that the less tangible areas.. in particular, pilot error, is now addressed. This is much harder to achieve, because factors such as fatigue, training and culture come into play. How many burning wrecks do you require before you realise that the cost cutting at airlines has to stop?

[jimworcs]

As if by magic, the NTSB released their report into another accident, by Shuttle America flying as Delta. Some of the findings are:

(3) the captain's fatigue, which affected his ability to effectively plan for and monitor the approach and landing; and
(4) Shuttle America's failure to administer an attendance policy that permitted flight crewmembers to call in as fatigued without fear of reprisals

Gromit, you really don't think regulation is required here?