Airlines are going to regret...

[Koogie]

For closed markets like Canada and NZ, this is just another argument for Open Skies so that "legacy" carriers can't continue on with this monopolistic BS.
I for one think the whole world should be on an Open Skies basis (subject to safety oversight). I wouldn't mind flying Singapore Airlines from Toronto to Vancouver for instance or Emirates from Detroit to Frankfurt.

[Accidental Retiree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy I should have said I would rather they charge for carry-on and not for checked luggage.

+1

[Amethyst]

I avoid flying, but last time I flew I ended up in the middle seat, flanked by two very large ladies who were "together," and proceeded to talk loudly back & forth as if I didn't exist. I spoke up and said, "I hope you don't mind if I join your conversation," and proceeded to do just that. They seemed a little shocked at first, but they weren't about to change seats, and meanwhile, I refused to shut up and be their quiet little human arm rest. So, we all had a chat until the window seat lady decided to take a nap, and I finally got to read my book.

Babies - Like anybody else, I hate having to listen to crying babies on airplanes, but I also feel bad for the babies. Everybody knows babies and flying don't mix. Unless there's a real need [I almost said a crying need!] to go somewhere by plane, I wish families would wait till the infants are a little older before subjecting them to air travel. Let Grandpa and Grandma do the visiting.

Amethyst

[mickj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy The one thing I wish airlines would charge for is carry-on luggage. This way i could be assured of getting space if needed.

Spirit Airlines....

Spirit Airlines will charge $100 for carry-on baggage purchased at the gate, starting Nov. 6.


Spirit Airlines to charge $100 for carry-on baggage - May. 3, 2012

[TromboneAl]

Notice the standard news manipulation of this story, as per this video at 1:04:

The Shipping News - Trailer - YouTube

Instead of the story being "Airlines charge more for window seats," which is just another surcharge story, they made the story: "Airlines prevent families from sitting together."

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy The one thing I wish airlines would charge for is carry-on luggage. This way i could be assured of getting space if needed.

They made this worse with their checked baggage fees. I think it would be good enough if they enforced the carry-on size limits, and maybe made those limits smaller.

[W2R]

One of the best aspects of being retired, is that finally I am not required to fly for work any more. I am so thankful that I can choose not to fly, especially now that things are so rapidly getting worse and worse for air travelers.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 They made this worse with their checked baggage fees. I think it would be good enough if they enforced the carry-on size limits, and maybe made those limits smaller.

+1

[JSadler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst I avoid flying, but last time I flew I ended up in the middle seat, flanked by two very large ladies who were "together," and proceeded to talk loudly back & forth as if I didn't exist. I spoke up and said, "I hope you don't mind if I join your conversation," and proceeded to do just that. They seemed a little shocked at first, but they weren't about to change seats, and meanwhile, I refused to shut up and be their quiet little human arm rest. So, we all had a chat until the window seat lady decided to take a nap, and I finally got to read my book.

Good for you!

---
J. Sadler

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zero I fly quite a bit, and every flight, irrespective of airline, is full but they can't seem to make a profit.

Not surprisingly, it would appear fluctuations in fuel (though I assume they hedge which helps/hurts at times) and little (downward) flexibility in labor costs make it difficult for major commercial carriers to be profitable. I would have guessed their capital costs (planes mostly) would be much higher, but I know they get a very long life on those purchases...

[kombat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst Babies - Like anybody else, I hate having to listen to crying babies on airplanes, but I also feel bad for the babies. Everybody knows babies and flying don't mix. Unless there's a real need [I almost said a crying need!] to go somewhere by plane, I wish families would wait till the infants are a little older before subjecting them to air travel. Let Grandpa and Grandma do the visiting.

+1

The one "perk" I would gladly pay extra for would be to be guaranteed to be on a plane with no children (under, say 8 years old) on it. AT ALL. I'd gladly pay an extra $100 for that.

The other thing that irks me is that if my luggage weighs too much, I pay extra. But the 350 lb couch potato seated (inevitably) next to me pays the same fare as I do. How is that fair? They charge me more for a heavy bag because it costs more fuel to fly more weight. But if I weigh 170 lbs, and Joe Six-pack weighs literally twice as much, how come he doesn't have to pay any extra? My luggage weighs 2 lbs more than his (51 lbs vs. 49 lbs), I pay an extra $45. But he weighs 180 lbs more than me, and doesn't pay any extra at all. Absurd.

[kombat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I would have guessed their capital costs (planes mostly) would be much higher

It's because they don't actually own the planes. They lease them. Often times, while boarding, you can even see the logo/placard on a plate in the door frame, indicating who the actual owner of the plane is (usually some investment capital firm or something), and who it is leased to.

[Chuckanut]

I guess I am a weirdo. I enjoy flying, and put up with the security and crowding as part of the price I pay. To wake up and think "Here I am, approching the Western edges of Europe at sunrise when ten hours ago I was in my hometown." Wow, I really find that remarkable.

[dtbach]

I haven't flown for about 5 years and don't miss it a bit. I'll be able to fly "Space A" next year when my Navy retirement comes in, I hope they don't charge more for aisle seats!

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kombat It's because they don't actually own the planes. They lease them. Often times, while boarding, you can even see the logo/placard on a plate in the door frame, indicating who the actual owner of the plane is (usually some investment capital firm or something), and who it is leased to.

True enough, though leasing doesn't change costs considerably, just a difference in accounting. They show a leased cost or an amortized payment, not unlike an individual buying a car, you either have a lease payment or a (purchased) car payment (minus "trade in" eventually) FWIW.

[EveryLady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst I avoid flying, but last time I flew I ended up in the middle seat, flanked by two very large ladies who were "together," and proceeded to talk loudly back & forth as if I didn't exist. I spoke up and said, "I hope you don't mind if I join your conversation," and proceeded to do just that. They seemed a little shocked at first, but they weren't about to change seats, and meanwhile, I refused to shut up and be their quiet little human arm rest. So, we all had a chat until the window seat lady decided to take a nap, and I finally got to read my book.

You made my day with this one ...

[soupcxan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack True enough, though leasing doesn't change costs considerably, just a difference in accounting. They show a leased cost or an amortized payment, not unlike an individual buying a car, you either have a lease payment or a (purchased) car payment (minus "trade in" eventually) FWIW.

That game is largely over due to accounting rules for capital leases (e.g. debt).

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan That game is largely over due to accounting rules for capital leases (e.g. debt).

I'm simply talking about accounting for expenses. The costs for leasing and buying are comparable in the long run, just as they are for individuals. The cost difference between leasing and buying isn't orders of magnitude for a business (or individual), one is certainly not 2X the other in the long run, that's why companies often do lease/buy analysis and it often comes down to cost of capital at the time. The difference between lease vs buy was almost a push for much of my 35 year career, and I only retired last summer. Have things changed that much in 11 months?

Now back to the debate about %#*?^ carry on bags and &$%#* added fees!

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kombat They charge me more for a heavy bag because it costs more fuel to fly more weight they can get away with it. But if I weigh 170 lbs, and Joe Six-pack weighs literally twice as much, how come he doesn't have to pay any extra? My luggage weighs 2 lbs more than his (51 lbs vs. 49 lbs), I pay an extra $45. But he weighs 180 lbs more than me, and doesn't pay any extra at all. Absurd.

I fixed it for you. The "costs more fuel" is mostly a way of justifying the extra charge. I'm sure they'll add a surcharge for heavy flyers as soon as they can get past the political correctness thing.

They would charge you more for wearing a yellow shirt if they could get away with it.

[TromboneAl]

I've never liked the practice of adding on fees, whether it's shipping and handling, extra baggage, blanket, etc., but once these things are implemented they don't go away, partly due to competition.

When I was selling my software product, I told a marketing consultant that I didn't want to include a Shipping and Handling fee. He convinced me that I had no choice, it was too profitable.