More Airlines to Charge for Carry-On Bags?

Article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/b...-fee-for-oversized-carry-ons-on-the-road.html

It seems almost inevitable that the airlines will be charging for carry-on bags. Maybe they will start by charging for bags that don't fit sizers, than for ones that have to be gate checked, then for all second bags... But the quotes from the airlines in this article make it clear that it's on the way.

I hope that the legacies will at least exempt the elite frequent flyers.

Existing thread:

http://milepoint.com/forums/threads/would-fees-discourage-oversized-carry-on-bags.37440/

Are they expecting pax to fly without luggage ?

They are copying the Spirit model - you will pay for luggage whether it is in the belly or in the bins.

.....then have a surcharge for overweight pax....

Cargo pants and jackets will become very popular.

I'm getting one of these - http://www.scottevest.com/v3_store/Travel_Vest.shtml

I have a different one (from Eddie Bauer) as I was able to test-drive the Scott eVest at a local travel store and didn't like how it fit me.

I do have this one from Scott and love it: http://www.scottevest.com/v3_store/Fleece_Jacket.shtml?zoom=1. (mine's probably the 1.0 or 2.0 model as I have had it for many years)

LOVE the fleece jacket, been wanting to get one of those for a few years.

I'm getting the other Scott eVest one since it's a "gift."

How heavy is this jacket? Spring/Fall? Under or over a separate coat?

Cheers

Don't elites on the various legacy airlines already have exemptions from a lot of baggae fees?

they expect us to fly naked........ the optional clothing will save them $$$$$$$!

Yes.

Yes, but elites generally aren't exempt from change fees and the carry-on fee could get rules different than baggage fees. Also, the airlines have been starting to cut the bag fee exemption - for example Silvers only get 1 free bag now. Luckily *A Gold specifies 3 free bags, and I would expect that to apply for Gold and above.

If I believed that they'd leave it at oversized bags (which should have been checked in the first place) then I wouldn't have a problem with this, but I don't. Other than AA every major U.S. airline made a profit last year so this is just greed at it's finest. A lot of the congestion of boarding could be avoided if people would simply follow the other rule of putting their bags in wheels first instead of horizontally like I see folks doing over and over again. They could probably get another 3 or 4 regular sized bags on if people would use common sense (which isn't common), have courtesy for the guy on the bridge and put their bags in right.

Look at the airline industry over the long term. It's not a very profitable industry.

Airlines aren't charities, they're businesses - they're supposed to make profits.

My concern with this article is that it represents another attempt by the airlines to extract more fees from customers. It is not reasonable to expect passengers to travel without luggage. I could forsee a situation where bags that easily fit in the overhead bin will be denied being carried onto the plane as they do fit the sizers, even though their measurments do meet the airline definition of allowed carry ons. Bags always get bigger once items are placed inside them.

But it's also not reasonable to expect airlines (or rather, their shareholders) to accept a negative bottom line just because we want cheap travel.

I agree, though, that a reasonable amount of carry-on space should be provided for each traveler as part of the ticket.

Very much depends on how you pack them (and how much you pack into them). The regulations aren't for an empty bag, they are for the bag as packed by the traveler.

With regards to the size of a bag with contents, I am referring to the bag NOT being expanded, just filled with items. I also have heard some unpleasant stories of how sizers often do not account for wheels, which tends to be the case in Europe.

I'm quite aware of that. My point is thay they can now make profits without trying to nickel and dime passengers on everything they can. When all of these fee's came into place it was because they were losing money hand over foot and they needed to find new sources of income, but now it's not the case. If they want to make more money and are too lazy to find in house ways to do then they should just raise the fares. I'd rather pay a higher base fare than get hustled around every corner during my trip. Car companies need profits too, but we don't see them charging extra for spare tires do we? (Granted I never understood that destination fee they charge)

Any day in the black is a good day. Once AA comes out on the other side these numbers will be even better.

http://atwonline.com/airline-financ...earned-390-million-2011-03-profit-margin-0228

I've said all along that, in my view, the airlines blew it by charging for checked bags but allowing carry-on free. That lead to everyone cramming as much as they could into the bins, airlines hiring staff to size bags before security (so they get checked as normal instead of for free at gate or on plane), slow boarding and replacing, and general hassle for frequent flyers.

What they should have done, and still could, is allow one checked bag free but charge for all carry-ons. No question of sizer or not (that just slows things down and leads to arguments). Planes would board and deplane quicker, allowing for faster turns and more duty cycles per day.

A "Classic" fare package could offer, for say $25, free two checked and carry-on bags, and seat selection. A "Good-old-Days" package for maybe $100 could offer two free checked and carry-on bags, seat selection, any seat in coach, no change fee (but fare difference), and a free meal.

I'm still looking foe the person that travels without luggage. Spirit had some nice fares to FL, but after factoring in luggage (carrty-on or checked) the price became goofy.
I see free fares coming with fees to board the plane, seatbelt use and a tray access fee.