Airlines are going to regret...

If people want to carry on their luggage so be it. But, I resent being asked to take my very small carry on bag out of the luggage bin so some person can put a much larger piece of luggage into it. Why should I give up my leg room (limited as it already is) for somebody who wants to carry on her luggage?
 
Last edited:
...I resent being asked to take my very small carry on bag out of the luggage bin so some person can put a much larger piece of luggage into it. Why should I give up my leg room (limited as it already is) for somebody who wants to carry on her luggage?
Amen to that, especially after I paid to have my similar sized luggage checked.
 
Actually they had something on the news where some airlines are making some very heavy flyers buy two tickets... they interviewed a lady who has had to do that a few times... I think it was Southwest that charged her...
That's probably not about her mass, so much as her girth. I don't want to share a seat with someone who overflows into half of mine. If she were merely heavy while being dense (full of barium, or something), they probably wouldn't worry about the extra fuel to get the plane off the ground.
 
I've got to disagree here. You might get on/off the plane slightly faster, but any time you "win" there will be "lost" in baggage claim, waiting for your luggage.

I was actually thinking of the airlines saving time and therefore money rather than the passengers (so giving the airlines the incentive to let me check my bags for free :)). And people making connections whose bags have been checked through to the final destination (sounds ominous :)) can get off to their next gate more quickly.

Sometimes at O'Hare the gate is so far from baggage claim that by the time we get to the carousel, the bags have been going around a couple of times.

But it's not going to happen anyway. And pretty soon anything carried onto a plane will be charged for.
 
+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.

Tempting to put on every stitch of clothing and "wear" my luggage :)
 
In the morning news, a proposal from Airbus Airbus Pitches Wider Seats for Overweight Passengers in the U.S. - Bloomberg

Airbus SAS, seeking an edge over Boeing Co. (BA) in the contest to supply single-aisle planes to U.S. carriers, has begun pitching a version of its A320s with wider aisle seats that airlines can market for additional revenue.

The planemaker has begun talking to several U.S. carriers about the concept in recent weeks after getting B/E Aerospace Inc. to design a prototype. The A320’s 7 1/2 inch advantage in cabin width over the Boeing 737s would let Toulouse, France- based Airbus offer 20-inch aisle seats by reducing the middle and window seats to 17 inches, equivalent to the 737.

“Airlines are improving their margins by charging for bags, window seats, and food,” said John Leahy, chief operating officer for customers at Airbus. “But what most people really want is space, and that’s what we can offer. Every economy-class aisle seat would be almost as wide as a first class seat on competing aircraft.”

Adding two inches to one third of the seats in an A320 would hand U.S. airlines a marketing tool that they could target at the obese population, which has swelled to more than one- third of U.S. adults, according to Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey. Airbus has sought to win more business with U.S. airlines and ween them off the 737, which remains the world’s most widely flown commercial aircraft.

I would have described the proposal a bit differently.

For every row of three 18 inch wide seats, reduce two to 17 inches each and expand the third to 20 inches. Then charge a premium price for it without reducing the prices for the other seats. Don't worry that most of your passengers won't fit in the new narrow seats or that the new premium seat won't be wide enough for the people that really need it. They really didn't fit before, so this won't be much different but it will make more money.
 
The one thing I wish airlines would charge for is carry-on luggage. This way i could be assured of getting space if needed.

+1

Very much agree. The tension and urgency to try to board early to ensure there is space for your carry on makes me uncomfortable. People just carry on too much crap.

I recently arrived at my aisle seat to find a carry on bag under the seat in front of me belonging to a very tall chap sitting in the middle seat. He claimed he couldn't sit in the middle seat for 2.5 hours with his knees drawn up to his chin which would happen if he put his bag under the seat in front of him. Sigh......... I called the flight attendent who made him move the bag to under the seat in front of him. He fumed the entire flight.
 
If people want to carry on their luggage so be it. But, I resent being asked to take my very small carry on bag out of the luggage bin so some person can put a much larger piece of luggage into it. Why should I give up my leg room (limited as it already is) for somebody who wants to carry on her luggage?

+1
 
This talk of airline loyalty really is hilarious. Maybe when someone else is paying the bill, sure. But when it's your money, every one of you is going to take the most economical choice of airlines for that trip to see your grandkids, assuming you don't just drive.
 
Tempting to put on every stitch of clothing and "wear" my luggage :)

The TSA would have a field day! You would slowly peel out of 6 sets of clothing doing the barumba...as they undress you with their scanner...then they finally get to grope you...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This talk of airline loyalty really is hilarious. Maybe when someone else is paying the bill, sure. But when it's your money, every one of you is going to take the most economical choice of airlines for that trip to see your grandkids, assuming you don't just drive.

Not necessarilly true. I often pay more to get a direct flight, or a seat with more legroom. This summer I am paying about 40% more for a ticket that is non-stop and a seat with extra leg room. I cannot afford 1st class or business class, but, thanks to my frugality in other things and the wise investment advice I have acquired from the brilliant folks here, I can afford that.

Oh, I often pay a bit more to fly an airline that alows me to reserve a seat in advance.
 
In the morning news, a proposal from Airbus Airbus Pitches Wider Seats for Overweight Passengers in the U.S. - Bloomberg



I would have described the proposal a bit differently.

For every row of three 18 inch wide seats, reduce two to 17 inches each and expand the third to 20 inches. Then charge a premium price for it without reducing the prices for the other seats. Don't worry that most of your passengers won't fit in the new narrow seats or that the new premium seat won't be wide enough for the people that really need it. They really didn't fit before, so this won't be much different but it will make more money.

The way I read this is that 737's already have 17" seats (I checked with seatguru, and that seems true for UAL). The new AirBus with an extra 7.5" cabin width would let them go up to 18" for all six seats. Instead, they could do four at 17" and two at 20".

I'm fine with that. Again, just show me the cost differential when I buy my ticket and let me reserve the more expensive 20" or the less expensive 17", depending on my preference.
 
This talk of airline loyalty really is hilarious. Maybe when someone else is paying the bill, sure. But when it's your money, every one of you is going to take the most economical choice of airlines for that trip to see your grandkids, assuming you don't just drive.
I assume the reference is aimed at frequent flier mile programs (that benefit employees while costing employers a small fortune), and I certainly saw some horrible abuses by co-workers (who did not report to me) along those lines. I suspect those habits don't die immediately after retirement, but they probably fade in time.
 
This talk of airline loyalty really is hilarious. Maybe when someone else is paying the bill, sure. But when it's your money, every one of you is going to take the most economical choice of airlines for that trip to see your grandkids, assuming you don't just drive.

Not at all true. We do not make our decisions based solely on price even though we are picking up the tab for all our travels. We are members of multiple alliances and usually can find a flight that fits into our plans. I would certainly pay more to fly and airline I trust rather than something that is cheap. I would never fly Spirit Airlines the same as I would never fly Ryanair in Europe.
 
We had a long discussion about airlines last night with friends. Pretty much everyone is willing to drive up to 8 hours rather than fly, then it's 50/50 after that..........
 
travelover said:
Slightly off topic, but I just don't get how numb fliers are with respect to placing and removing carry on luggage. Given how much down time there is in airport terminals they should have endless loop videos everywhere demonstrating such basic skills as stepping out of the aisle while pushing and tugging on your oversize bag to get it into the overhead compartment.

And how about taking your bag out of the compartment when everyone is standing there doing nothing but shouting into their cell phone to announce their arrival? Can't reach it? Ask someone to hand it to you - they aren't going anywhere anyway.

Rant over. :ROFLMAO:

+1
Yes Yes YES! Please airlines please educate my fellow passengers on efficient deplaning technique. Either be ready to go, or sit down and wait. There is no reason that a smooth steady stream of passengers should not flow out of the plane once the door opens.
When I run the world (including planes) this is how my planes will be emptied. FIRST I will ask that all those who are either needing to make connecting flights or those service men and women flying be allowed off the plane first. Everyone who can, please get your self ready to go as SOON AS YOU CAN or if not able to, please keep out of the aisle. IF YOU are getting off the plane and there are more than a few feet between you and the person walking in front of you, you are delaying every single other person on that plane. Now take that delay of maybe 15 -30 seconds per dawdler and multiply it by the 5 people per row and 20-30 rows between the front and back and see how much wasted time was added in getting people off the plane?!?! For the poor connecting flight person those few minutes could be the difference between making or missing the next flight. FOR our men and women in uniform, any time they spend waiting is too much on top of all they give up for us.
The airlines could improve the deplaning procedure IF THEY GAVE A DARN about the flight experience quality....they do not.
 
............The airlines could improve the deplaning procedure IF THEY GAVE A DARN about the flight experience quality....they do not.

It seems like it surely costs them money and lateness demerits from the FAA. :confused:
 
It seems like it surely costs them money and lateness demerits from the FAA. :confused:

Doubtful-at that point they are at the gate, so they are not late...and if they are leaving again soon, they just build in extra cushion for the gate push off time in the schedule...actually in those situations they do sometimes say a word about getting everyone on and off quickly...but again, it is easier for them to set a later departure time than to train staff in how to move people efficiently.
 
It's easier to herd cats than get passengers to board and exit planes in an orderly way. When air travel is replaced by Star Trek type transporter beaming there will still be unnecessary delays. Some people are easily confused, others just can't follow directions...
 
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.

+1
Yesterday I was in Seattle. Today I'm in Philadelphia. In June I'll be in Halifax. In July--Chicago. In August--Orlando. I'm willing to put up with too much humanity for a few hours for this priviledge.
 
I just got fleeced by usairways, in checkout process only a few center seats offered and many aisle seats ... with a $45 bump in price. It leaves a bad taste.
 
When I run the world (including planes) this is how my planes will be emptied. FIRST I will ask that all those who are either needing to make connecting flights or those service men and women flying be allowed off the plane first.

I don't think that would be very efficient.

Putting aside the ridiculous emotional patriotic pandering bit about "service men and women" getting preferential treatment, it completely ignores the likelihood that many of these soldiers and "connecting" passengers are not sitting in aisle seats. Thus, people will have to stand up and get out of the way, to let them out, then somehow manoeuvre themselves back into their seats while their seatmates jostle around the contents of the overhead bin, retrieving their own bag (which, again, is not necessarily right in front, but could very well be buried beneath bags belonging to second-class citizens like those without connecting flights), causing further delay and disruption.
 
it is easier for them to set a later departure time than to train staff in how to move people efficiently.

It may be easier, but it's certainly far more costly, too.

Your comments belie a strong lack of understanding with respect to commercial aviation. There's a common axiom in the commercial aviation industry that says a plane on the ground is a plane that is not making any money. Every airline's goal is to keep as many of their planes as possible in the air, as much as possible. Planes sitting in a maintenance hanger, or at a gate loading/unloading passengers aren't making money. Their goal is to get that plane back in the air as fast as humanly possible.

If they thought they could herd us onto/off of those planes any faster, without being so pushy as to turn us off from flying with them in the future, they'd do it.
 
Sometimes on bigger aircraft things are set up to allow folks to disenbark through the "main" cabin door and also a door at the back of the cabin. It happens most often on overseas flights, but I saw t once in Miami, too. There's typically no airbridge, so it's a walk down the long stairs, but it does speed things up considerably. Then you usually have to wait on the ramp for the big buses to take everyone away, so no time is saved for the passengers (but the plane is empty so the cleaning crew/lav servicing crew, etc can begin work, which is what matters to the airlines).

I was amazed and heartened to see that when US Air Flight 1549 landed in the Hudson that the evacuation went very quickly and, just as amazing, the passengers left their carryon stuff behind. I always imagined passengers would be slowing things down while they struggled to grab their laptops and YSL purses. I doesn't look like that happened.
 
kombat said:
It may be easier, but it's certainly far more costly, too.

Your comments belie a strong lack of understanding with respect to commercial aviation. There's a common axiom in the commercial aviation industry that says a plane on the ground is a plane that is not making any money. Every airline's goal is to keep as many of their planes as possible in the air, as much as possible. Planes sitting in a maintenance hanger, or at a gate loading/unloading passengers aren't making money. Their goal is to get that plane back in the air as fast as humanly possible.

If they thought they could herd us onto/off of those planes any faster, without being so pushy as to turn us off from flying with them in the future, they'd do it.

Well what I understand is airlines are terribly run, routinely getting horrible reviews for their customer service and still going into bankruptcy or out of business or merged out of existence that maybe they have not impressed me that THEY understand commercial aviation.

As for patriotic pandering, I call it respecting the sacrifice others are making and willing to give them this sort of perk at little cost to the rest of us. But thanks to their sacrifice, some of us are free to salute their service and some people are free to cynically dismiss any gestures of respect for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom