I was recently interviewed by The New York Times over my pet peeve regarding travel fees imposed by airlines and hotels. Now, Spirit Airlines has announced that it will charge a $100 fee for a carry-on bag. Conversely, other airlines are increasing their charges for checked bags which has generated billions in new revenues. There will be a $70 checked bag fee on international flights at American for some flight, for example. At one time, airlines blamed the new fees on fuel costs but that rationale fell away as the fees continued regardless of fuel costs.
Notably, we discussed these fees in my torts class in discussing the case of Andrews v. United Airlines dealing with the question of negligence by airlines in the design of overhead bins. This case occurred before airlines started charging fees that resulted in many people taking cases on the plane — resulting in delay and an increase in the number of injuries.
As I mentioned to the Times, the strategy is clearly to drop the expectations of the new generation of travelers who do not remember that bags were once considered a basic element of traveling and covered in a ticket. Allegiant Air announced this month that it will be charging up to $35 for bags. Delta will charge $75 for checking a second bag.
JetBlue, which recently shrank legroom in a disappointing reversal, will also start to impose a fee of $40 for a second bag though to it credit the airline does not charge for the first bag.
The fleecing of travelers is now out of control. With the bag fees, boarding has become a contest that makes the Roman games look tame in comparison, People crush each others bags and coats in trying to wedge huge bags into bins. Passengers who check their bags, like me, are now told that they must not use the bins for their jackets or computer bags to make room for bigger bags. You are asked to stuff these bags at your feet while the airlines are continuing to reduce the leg room in standard seats. This leaves you virtually entrapped with no ability to open a lap top or change position if you are average height for a male. After denying you any room, the airline then offers to sell you different seats with varying degrees of space: what I called the “misery index” menu now common on U.S. domestic airlines.
I am only waiting for the baggage fee charges to become uniform so that you are charged on the same airline for carrying one a bag or for checking a bag. The message is clear: put on multiple layers of clothes and go without luggage.
Source: USA Today
The message is clear: put on multiple layers of clothes and go without luggage.
========
Unless you want to pay.
As an aside for those interested:
Alcoholic beverages in the dinning car and delivered as room service to the suites are uniformly “generous”. 😉
Mike,
That’s the law … passenger trains must give way to freight.
That’s why separate high speed trains are the future.
Re: The above let me mention that the Auto Train has to share the tracks with freight traffic, so 18 hours is the time because there are often stoppages or places where the train has to slow down considerably.
MikeS, Once again, and for the last time, I support rail where it is economically feasible. And again, the northeast corridor and a few other urban areas are akin to the Europe and Japan examples your cite. However, this is a huge country and for most of it train is just not feasible. I’m fiercely pro competition and have been derided here for being so. However, as stated previously I do not want to pay for something that is not going to work, and will gladly pay for something that will give airlines competition. I was a road warrior in my earlier years, do you think I like airlines? Finally, let’s be intellectually honest. Dems are the pols pushing trains. I really don’t think we’re far apart here.
A private car and James West would be very nice indeed
“I guess a woman like yourself must have her own private car, ala James West!” (nick)
I wish
Package food can be obtained in the bar and in the vending/lunch car but never in the dining car
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/storysupplement/airline_costs/
I haven’t flown in years….and wouldn’t. (unless I were behind the stick 🙂
I saw a frieends tickets recently and the ‘ticket’ price was less than the add-on charges. She was non-plussed…I was apalled…in an age where thete is talk of colonizing other planets….we really should be doing a better job of it here on terra-firma….
nick,
I could live with a less than 200 mile system. In fact, that would probably be the best way to begin.
(I’m not going to mention that that is exactly the proposal offered by the federal government in several states. Some states accepted and some didn’t. The ones who didn’t saw their $800M go to a state that was willing.)
I stand corrected then. However, between my KC-NYC tain trip w/ good food in the mid 70’s, and my Chicago-KC trip in the early 80’s[both Amtrak], it was packaged food. My wife took a trip from Chicago to Albq. in 2008 and she said it was packaged food also. I guess a woman like yourself must have her own private car, ala James West!
“They went to airline food long ago for economic reasons.” (nick)
You are wrong there. I’ve ridden the train several times this year, last year, 5 years ago, etc … definitely not airline food and much of it is prepared right in the kitchen. On some trains you can even watch the chef at work.
Blouise, Let me say again, in economically feasible corridors less than ~200 miles I would support construction of high speed lines. City to city express. You don’t need a car @ your destination if it’s another city. That’s the only way business people would use it and provide the competition to airlines. If biz people don’t use it then it’s an incredible boondoggle.
rafflaw, That’s right. People will be standing in line to get those NYC-LA train tix. They want that superb comfort of sitting in a train for 2 days rather than on a plane for 5 hours. I would rather hitchhike across the US than take a train. I’ve taken trains from KC to NYC, it wasn’t all that pleasant. The one good thing was the food. This was in the 70’s when they had actual cooks and the breakfasts were superb. They went to airline food long ago for economic reasons. Of course, I’m debating folks who also love the postal service.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/airline-crash-deaths-too-few-to-make-new-safety-rules-pay.html It has been ten years since the last major incident on US soil.
I’d probably never use a high speed rail system much but, unlike nick, I can see the benefit of one to the economy and the future growth of the nation so going along with the social compact, I’d be more than willing to pay my fair share as long as it is the government who runs it.
Elaine, One difference is that airline travel is safer now.
Swarthmore,
not only would high speed rail be beneficial to the economy, it would provide much needed competition to the air bandits.
There’s nothing nostalgic about having a preference for train travel. Air travel ain’t what it used to be. It is no longer a pleasant experience. I’m nostalgic about how traveling by air was a much better experience when I was younger.
nOne of the problems Ike had with the rails was their gauge. England set the gauge when railroads were first being built and everybody followed suit. England based their gauge on the ruts in their old and well used Roman roads. These ruts were initially worn into the roads by Roman chariots.
Now … think tunnels and moving wide tanks and guns on trains through tunnels. Building a highway system was far less expensive than totally redoing railroads.
By the way … the railroad tunnels dictated the size of NASA’s earlier space rockets.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0821/Obama-plan-for-high-speed-rail-after-hitting-a-bump-chugs-forward-again Some money is in the pipeline in California and the northeast.