[stevicus]

I notice a lot of complaints here seem to revolve around baggage issues, mainly the surprise fees and other unexpected maladies that come with trying to load one's baggage on a plane. It seems that airlines are adding new fees to baggage, presumably because the cost of the service exceeds whatever benefit it may provide.

Also, I could be wrong, but I get the impression that airlines are required to transport baggage on the exact same plane the passenger is traveling on.

Would it be cheaper and more efficient if the airlines contracted that service out? Or, better still, is it possible for passengers to choose to have their luggage shipped some other way, via FedEx or UPS or some other overnight carrier? I'm not sure that FedEx or UPS even wants that kind of business, but it might be a way for them to pick up an extra few bucks, since they have those big cargo planes going all over the place anyway.

[BKK_FLYER]

Hi,

Interesting idea.. Do know that a very few airlines have actually gone down this road already.. for example, United did, until Oct 2011, offered 3rd party baggage delivery..

As to the notion that airlines are required to send bags on the same plane.. that's tricky.. for the most part yes.. but it's not always a government mandate, it depends on the airline and route.

This issue, like all airline security issues, are laid out in painstaking detail in a massive document, what is essentially the airlines security manual, formally called the AOSSP, or Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program.

The AOSSP is drafted by the airline, but must be approved by numerous agencies before it can be implemented.. agencies like the TSA, DHS, FAA, CBP, etc all have a 'say' in the manual relative to the sections that each agency has primary jurisdiction.

The actual contents of the AOSSP itself is restricted information as outlined under 49CFR parts 15 & 1520 so we can't really say what is the actual rule per se.

However, the practicality is that keeping bags and passengers together, on the same flight does have a distinct advantage of making on-time delivery more viable.

There's also the issue of hazmat.. The rules that cover the transport of hazmat is different on commercial passenger carriers than it is when carried by a cargo-only carrier.

Last issue is logistics.. Most cargo carriers are single-service only, so there's only one chance to get the bag there today. if that chance is missed, then for the most part it's going to be the next business day (as most express carriers make only limited Sat service, and even less Sun service)

but overall, I do think it's an idea that's worth exploration in some cases where the logistics and timeline support it.

[jimworcs]

It says a lot about the current standards of service in airlines that this idea even has to be considered. If I went to a restaurant and they repeatedly gave me food poisoning, I would not be encouraged if the solution was to outsource the cooking. If they can't cook, they should go out of business.

Airlines are in the business of getting passengers and their bags to a given destination. That is the service they sell. If they can't do it, perhaps they should get out of the business and hand over the reigns to someone who can do it.

[BKK_FLYER]

Hi,

As I read the Nov11 dated DOT reports, the *average* for mishandled baggage- which does include late, damaged and lost (so it's all encompassing) is 2.81 per 1,000 carried passenger.

That to me also says, conversely the success rate was 997.19 per every 1000 carried passenger.... If my math is correct, this to me at least seems like a very enviable rate considering all the logistics in play.

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/repor...vemberATCR.PDF
(page 32)

While that may be of little solace to you if you're one of that 2.81, I would note that according to the DOT, the overall odds you'd be impacted is in fact very, very small... again to the tune of 2.81 per 1,000

If that's the "current standards of service" I see no shame there, but of course always room for improvement.

[stevicus]

I took a look at the report in the link you posted. The 2.81 per 1000 figure was only for the month of September, 2011. The next table showed the same data for the year starting from January, 2011 up to and including September, 2011. The figure for that nine-month period is slightly higher, at 3.49 per 1000 passengers (nearly 1.5 million pieces of mishandled luggage),

What might be more helpful is if they showed this data and compared it with the actual number of people who checked their baggage, since a lot of passengers just do carry-on and don't bother to check their baggage anymore. Or, it might even be more telling if they just compared the actual number of checked bags versus reports of mishandled bags.

Since they started charging fees for baggage, I take that as an indication that handling baggage is something that's either too much trouble for the airlines or that it's no longer cost-effective to handle both passengers and baggage at the same time. The fees compel people to cram as much into their carry-on baggage as possible, which just causes longer lines at the security checkpoints, not to mention the extra time it takes for boarding and deplaning mainly because of all this carry-on baggage.

[BKK_FLYER]

Originally Posted by stevicus

The figure for that nine-month period is slightly higher, at 3.49 per 1000 passengers (nearly 1.5 million pieces of mishandled luggage)

Very true.. 1.5 million is a lot as a stand-alone number, but again extrapolate that, it's 1.5 million out of how many?______ millionS

Originally Posted by stevicus

What might be more helpful is if they showed this data and compared it with the actual number of people who checked their baggage

I'd agree with this. It would give a more accurate picture. But I suspect that it would be a somewhat logistical nightmare to drill-down to this data level.

Sure the majority of people would be easy to tally-- those who checked a bag at the main counters at their origins.. but to fair and accurate, you should also include those who checked (or were forced to) a bag plane-side. Many of these bags use manually written 'tags' issued plane-side may not ever get entered into the passengers reservations data...

My only issue here is if we're going to change how the data is collected, I think that the data needs to be collected in a manner that's fair, unbiased and actually shows the complete picture, whatever it may be.

Originally Posted by stevicus

Since they started charging fees for baggage, I take that as an indication that handling baggage is something that's either too much trouble for the airlines or that it's no longer cost-effective to handle both passengers and baggage at the same time.

Maybe.. maybe not.. To me, to make this claim on an objective level, you'd need to go back and take a reasonable data sampling from time periods before bag fees were introduced and an equal data sampling from time periods after the fees were introduced and compare like-to-like data.

[stevicus]

Originally Posted by BKK_FLYER

Very true.. 1.5 million is a lot as a stand-alone number, but again extrapolate that, it's 1.5 million out of how many?______ millionS

That's what I'm wondering about. According to the figures, the airlines served 424 million passengers during the period in question. Since that's a number far exceeding the entire population of the United States, I wonder if they're just counting up the number of passengers on every single flight.

So, if I'm flying from New York to Tucson with 1 or more connecting flights, then I would conceivably be listed as a passenger on 2 or more different planes in the same one-way trip. If they lose my baggage, I assume that they only count it once and not reflect that it was on a trip involving two or more flights.

To illustrate what I mean, let's say you have 1000 passengers all going from LGA to TUS with a connection in ORD. Let's say, of that number, only 3 passengers lose their luggage (reflected in the provided stats). But each passenger is taking two separate planes in the same trip, so the stats would also reflect 2000 passengers, since the stats obviously encompass all passengers on all flights counted.

So, this might have the effect of misleadingly make the airlines service record look better than it really is. In the above example, it would be more accurate to state that 6 "enplaned passengers" lost their luggage instead of just 3, since they were on two separate flights which would have been both counted in tallying up the number of "enplaned passengers."

I'd agree with this. It would give a more accurate picture. But I suspect that it would be a somewhat logistical nightmare to drill-down to this data level.

Sure the majority of people would be easy to tally-- those who checked a bag at the main counters at their origins.. but to fair and accurate, you should also include those who checked (or were forced to) a bag plane-side. Many of these bags use manually written 'tags' issued plane-side may not ever get entered into the passengers reservations data...

My only issue here is if we're going to change how the data is collected, I think that the data needs to be collected in a manner that's fair, unbiased and actually shows the complete picture, whatever it may be.

Well, it could be done by just tallying the actual number of bags they actually check and compare that with the reports of mishandled luggage. Rather than comparing it to the total number of passengers (which can be slightly misleading), just tally up how many bags they check versus the number of bags reported as mishandled.

Since the checked baggage is tagged with their own code numbers and entered into their computer system, surely the airlines would know how many pieces of luggage they're carrying. Compare the total number of bags carried versus number of bags reported as mishandled, and I think you'd end up with a more accurate representation of how well they're doing.

So, perhaps the best way to do it would be to just compare total number of bags handled versus number of bags mishandled, and take the number of passengers completely out of the equation. Just count the bags.

Maybe.. maybe not.. To me, to make this claim on an objective level, you'd need to go back and take a reasonable data sampling from time periods before bag fees were introduced and an equal data sampling from time periods after the fees were introduced and compare like-to-like data.

My guess is that they're doing it just because they can. Realizing that they're facing higher fuel costs and other economic pressures, they introduce fees to compensate for that, whether it's charging for bags, meal service, earphones, etc. I remember one airline even considered charging people to use the restrooms, but there was such an outcry that they backed off from that.

But the underlying message they're sending is still clear: The only thing your "airfare" will buy you is a seat on a plane going to the destination you paid for. Whatever extras might have been part of the package before are falling by the wayside. They're saying "These are the things we don't really want to do and don't really consider part of our basic service, but we will do it for an extra fee."

I think they already contract out for food service, since it's cheaper to have another company do it than to hire their own employees to do it. They could do that with baggage handling as well if it's really that much trouble for them.

[BKK_FLYER]

Originally Posted by stevicus

That's what I'm wondering about. According to the figures, the airlines served 424 million passengers during the period in question. Since that's a number far exceeding the entire population of the United States, I wonder if they're just counting up the number of passengers on every single flight.

As I know the data, and I am by no means an expert in the DOT's data collection nor reporting practices, it's enplaned passenger, so as I know that, this would include those making connections as more than one.. but again, I'm not sure exactly how that data is collected and tabulated. I'd need to see-- from the DOT-- exactly what that definition is and therefore the collection method.

Originally Posted by stevicus

My guess is that they're doing it just because they can. Realizing that they're facing higher fuel costs and other economic pressures, they introduce fees to compensate for that, whether it's charging for bags, meal service, earphones, etc.

Could be.. we just don't know.. Unless you or I, or others are actually on the 'inside' or hear from the airline in question directly on the matter, we're speculating.. I tend to agree with you that's all about costs and revenue; which is what most all businesses, airlines or not, align their pricing models to.

Originally Posted by stevicus

But the underlying message they're sending is still clear: The only thing your "airfare" will buy you is a seat on a plane going to the destination you paid for. Whatever extras might have been part of the package before are falling by the wayside. They're saying "These are the things we don't really want to do and don't really consider part of our basic service, but we will do it for an extra fee."

I think that this time period has out forth a question that never been answered before.. that is what exactly does your ticket buy? Is that just transportation for yourself, a person, from X to Y, or does it also include things like baggage or the like.. I don't know the answer.. As I know it, this industry has never really 'crossed that bridge' before.. and the DOT or any other regulator (on the US side) has never directly addressed it either.

While I'm generally not a fan of more Federal regulation over private commerce matters, in this case given the size of the issue and it's costs, I would like the DOT to eventually speak up and say exactly what is and is not a part of the ticket.. and once that's been done we can all adjust to this reality-- whatever it may or may not be.

If they (DOT) decides a bag is a part of a base ticket, the passengers can now plan accordingly and airlines can adjust their fares across the board to reflect these costs and regulatory environment. Conversely, if they say no, a bag is not a part of the base ticket, then from a regulatory perspective, the issue would now have a final answer (barring some legislative intervention) and the passengers and airlines could move forward as such.

Originally Posted by stevicus

I think they already contract out for food service, since it's cheaper to have another company do it than to hire their own employees to do it. They could do that with baggage handling as well if it's really that much trouble for them.

To some point many airlines do that-- outsource the ground handling of their aircraft.. It's common at smaller "line stations" but not as common at the carriers hubs where more aircraft, thus work, is present. In the end, I do think it's about costs..

I do think that it boils down principally to costs but also to the most effective use of or deployment of the businesses capital.. Is it more cost-effective to use XXX of our budget to do YYY work in-house or not? and if not, is there a better return on equity to use that same XXX budget on this ___ that might give us a better return on that same equity.