 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / May 2008American to begin charging for first checked bag
Oh boy - I can see oversized carry-ons trying to get squeezed into bins! link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmYw2BQoOdP6awY7XQq_YMhgyBywD90Q3DH00 snip: ======= American to begin charging for first checked bag By DAVID KOENIG – 33 minutes ago FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — American Airlines said Wednesday it will start charging $15 for the first checked bag, cut domestic flights and lay off workers as it grapples with record-high fuel prices. The nation's largest carrier said the fee for the first checked bag starts June 15 and that it would raise other fees for services ranging from reservation help to oversized bags. The other fees will mostly range from $5 to $50 per service, the airline said. Last month American announced it would join other carriers in charging $25 for second bags checked for some passengers, but it wasn't immediately clear how Wednesday's announcement would affect that. > Oh boy - I can see oversized carry-ons trying to get squeezed into > bins! Even with proper size carry-ons you can't accommodate every passenger having one. I guess what will happen is that when there is no more room for carry-ons the flight attendant will require that the bag be checked, but at no fee. The people that are really screwed are those that bring items that are okay for checked luggage, but banned from carry-on luggage. The TSA rules for carry-ons really helped uncrowd the cabin, as people began having to check luggage to be able to take certain items. That cost the airlines a lot of money because it reduced the amount of space they had available for other cargo, as well as increasing other labor costs. While the flight attendants didn't like an excessive amount of carry-on luggage, the airline loved it because it freed up cargo hold space that they could use for revenue air freight. Personally, I think American may have gone too far this time. $5 or $10 would probably have been matched by other airlines, but given the fact that many people that used to get by with a carry-on now have to check luggage because of the TSA rules, this is a fee that applies to a lot more people than the common "talk to a human" fees. >> Oh boy - I can see oversized carry-ons trying to get squeezed into >> bins! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for carry-ons the flight attendant will require that the bag be checked, > but at no fee. The fee won't be charged if you have elite status, or if you pay full fare. It's the bargain hunters who will have to cough up the extra. I happened to see a CNBC interview of Herb Kelleher, the recemtly retired of Chaiman of Southwest, this morning,who, when told of AA's new $15 fee for first checked bag was rather startled and surprised: "Is that right! Wow!" He recovered by saying he was sympathetic to AA 'cuz they were not hedged against the price of oil they way that Southwest was, and that SWA had the best finances in the industry. >I happened to see a CNBC interview of Herb Kelleher, the recemtly > retired of Chaiman of Southwest, this morning,who, when told of AA's > new $15 fee for first checked bag was rather startled and surprised: > "Is that right! Wow!" He recovered by saying he was sympathetic to > AA 'cuz they were not hedged against the price of oil they way that > Southwest was, and that SWA had the best finances in the industry. Looks like we're slowly returning to the "olden" days, when air travel was for the well to do, and business travelers. Jim Davis wrote, > Looks like we're slowly returning to the "olden" days, when air travel was > for the well to do, and business travelers. Adding $$$$ for the second bag was bad enough but the first bag? What a way for American Airlines to say, "We'll screw the passengers one better. We'll charge for the first bag!". With oil moving to $200/barrel, how soon before business class travelers stop traveling? Sure glad I don't own any airline stock. I wonder if any carriers locked in oil futures at $100/barrel or less? rg > Jim Davis wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > With oil moving to $200/barrel, how soon before business class travelers > stop traveling? Business class doesn't pay the fees. mrtravel wrote, > Business class doesn't pay the fees. You're right; they took care of that years ago with their bus and first class pricing structure. When they start charging for fat a.ses flying coach, I suspect there will be no additional fee if you pay bus class or better as well. rg Have you ever sat next to a man who told me he weighed 550 lbs.? I did once on a flight from east coast to west. Not very pleasant, however I got the last seat! Fortunately he never left his seat, which was good because I doubt he could have fit thru the lavatory door. Carol Eskra > Have you ever sat next to a man who told me he weighed 550 lbs.? I suppose my point was that it would make just as much sense to charge extra for a 550 lb flyer, hanging halfway into your space as it does charging extra for a single, checked 40 lb bag. After all, a 550 lb flyer probably represents 8-10 extra 40 lb bags they could charge for another $25 each. Bingo! There's another airfare! Why do fat a.ses get a pass these days? Why is American Airlines being so politically correct over fat people? You weigh more - you pay more. Say it like it is. Extra baggage around your belt is no different than a bag in your hand. How difficult will it be for the airlines to weigh you in after they weigh your baggage? No investment on their side except for another 15 seconds to weigh you. How does a $1 a lb sound for men over 180 and women over 120 (pounds - not kilos)? This should be interesting; let's see where this goes as oil approaches $200 a barrel. rg >Carol Eskra > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >(pounds - not kilos)? This should be interesting; let's see where this goes >as oil approaches $200 a barrel. $1/lb oil supplement? That sounds like profiteering to me - and why draw the line at 180lb? Why not for all passenger weights? OTOH, if you're using weight as a surrogate for obesity, you're way off the mark. At 6'2", I'm within my ideal weight up 194lb - and therein lies the problem - how do you define obesity without having to waist/ height & weight measure everyone? DaveM >$1/lb oil supplement? That sounds like profiteering to me - and why draw the >line at 180lb? Why not for all passenger weights? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >DaveM The person who posted it is probably 4'10". Brian wrote, > The person who posted it is probably 4'10". Irrelevant. If he or she is under 180, 194 or 120 or whatever reasonable guideline is established for men or women so be it. Even midgets (I'm sorry - little people) pay full fare unless they can sit in the lap of their mother or fellow traveler for the full flight with the seat belt strapped around both just like for infants. rg >Irrelevant. If he or she is under 180, 194 or 120 or whatever reasonable >guideline is established for men or women so be it. Even midgets (I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >rg Hardly irrelevant. Why should someone be penalized for being tall? Someone's weight is obviously going to be different depending on that person's height and it's ridiculous to say someone who is 6'3" should be the same weight as another who is 4'10". How would you do this? Judge by BMI? Check people's fat index? How long would that take? Should Ray Lewis with a body fat of 9% pay more because he has more muscle? >>Irrelevant. If he or she is under 180, 194 or 120 or whatever reasonable >>guideline is established for men or women so be it. Even midgets (I'm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >long would that take? Should Ray Lewis with a body fat of 9% pay more >because he has more muscle? No because he has so much money. This whole thread is completely irrelevant and silly for two reasons: 1. they already charge for an extra seat if someone's fat a.s takes up more than one and 2. nobody is going to do this anyway. They have plenty of other choices to make up for it. Like raising fares. > OTOH, if you're using weight as a surrogate for obesity, you're way off > the > mark. At 6'2", I'm within my ideal weight up 194lb - and therein lies the > problem - how do you define obesity without having to waist/ height & > weight > measure everyone? You missed the point. American Airlines, perhaps like others, is scared to death to put people on a scale at check-in. So the extra bag is a convenient way of charging everyone to make up the loss on fuel costs without penalizing the 550 pounders the other poster complained about. Their philosophy is that it's a big sh.t sandwich and everyone needs to take a bite. I'm sorry if you weigh 194 lbs. I weigh 175 lbs. Let the TSA come up with up with the guidelines. They're about as competent as the airlines but don't charge a person who is within reasonable guidelines a fee for the first bag. Reasonable doesn't mean 550 lbs. Further, if the airlines want to play the politically polite game of not charging fatso's to make up for the cost of fuel, they could go a long way by weighing carry-ons just before people board the aircraft. If your carry on weighs more than that allowed by the airline, you pay another $25 before boarding or don't board at all. I see some travelers carrying what appears to be 50 lbs of so-called carry on baggage. This alone could produce a windfall of cash for the airlines. Some of these folks take up the entire overhead storage area meant for three people or more in coach class. Look for carry-ons to be scrutinized more carefully in the future. I can tell you they were doing this in Asia more than a year ago and making people shed the weight before taking the carry-on through the gate to enter security. Tough if you miss your flight due to your own stupidity or if you fail to read the terms of carriage and baggage limitations. rg >> OTOH, if you're using weight as a surrogate for obesity, you're way off >> the mark. At 6'2", I'm within my ideal weight up 194lb - and therein lies the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Their philosophy is that it's a big sh.t sandwich and everyone needs to take >a bite. >I'm sorry if you weigh 194 lbs. I weigh 175 lbs. I wouldn't be sorry if I weighed 194lb - I'd be distraught. I'd be "sorry" if I weighed 180lb, but that's not the point. If you're going to all the trouble of weighing everyone, why have a cut-off weight? Actually, I'll tell you - it's because the idea only has merit if it applies to other people. Which is why you plucked a cut-off weight 5lb heavier than you are, of course. >Further, if the airlines want to play the politically polite game of not >charging fatso's to make up for the cost of fuel, they could go a long way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to be 50 lbs of so-called carry on baggage. This alone could produce a >windfall of cash for the airlines. Weight is weight, so that has more merit. Put passenger, carry-on and check-in luggage on one scale and charge on that basis. I wouldn't have a problem with that, provided there was some method to transfer weight allowances for, say, a family, who might pack in one or two cases rather than one for each person. >Some of these folks take up the entire overhead storage area meant for >three people or more in coach class. That's volume, rather than weight, of course. DaveM > How difficult will it be for the airlines to weigh you in after they weigh > your baggage? No investment on their side except for another 15 seconds to > weigh you. How does a $1 a lb sound for men over 180 and women over 120 > (pounds - not kilos)? Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since the fuel usage would be the same? >> How difficult will it be for the airlines to weigh you in after they weigh >> your baggage? No investment on their side except for another 15 seconds to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since >the fuel usage would be the same? Because they talk more? >>Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since >>the fuel usage would be the same? > > Because they talk more? No, its because their centre of gravity is in a different location than males. Some women, like Pamela Anderson has weight below the shoulders, while most women have their weight at the waist level. Football players have their weight at the shoulders, while geeks are either overly obese all over, or as thin and pale as a sheet of paper with all of the weight centrered around their thick glasses. Then, there are the sumo wrestlers. Mr Travel wrote, > Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since > the fuel usage would be the same? Perhaps you have something there. So we charge the parents of screaming infants the same price as regular adult or do they go as the first, second or third checked bag? rg > Mr Travel wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > rg Would depend on whether or not the kid fit in the overhead. > Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since > the fuel usage would be the same? Airlines currently use a different average weight for men and women. So I could see some powerpoint-style management person using the argument that the excess weight should be based on the variation from the average of your sex. (Of course, this doesn't change the fact that men and women pay the same fares, despite men weighting more than females). remember than in the end, reducing the weight of what the passenger side loads onto aircraft allows the airline to load more cargo or less fuel. So getting precise weight figure of the passenger side of things would allow airlines to more precisely calculate aircraft weight and hence cargo capacity and/or fuel requirements. What is happening is that legacy airlines have begun to nickel and dime passengers instead of just raising fares, all this so that the base fare remains (on the surface) competitive with Southwest. What is silly in all of this is that Southwest already operates at high load factors. Southwest only has specific quantities of fuel hedged at the incredible $55/barrel. So if legacy airlines increase their fares and passengers flock to Southwest in droves, Southwest will have to increase capacity and buy more oil than it has hedged, and that new oil will then be at current prices. In the long term though, Southwest stands to lose the most because a larger percentage of its passengers are discretionary travellers. Raise fares too much, and lower the economic growth, and those are the first passenters to stop flying. >>Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since >>the fuel usage would be the same? > > Airlines currently use a different average weight for men and women. How do they do this? If I go to AA.COM, for example, book a flight, and enter a passenger name, there no place to mark the passenger's gender. >>>Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since >>>the fuel usage would be the same? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If I go to AA.COM, for example, book a flight, and enter a passenger name, > there no place to mark the passenger's gender. An ancient main frame, once wired up to be an unbeatable checkers player, has been converted, all the plug boards reset, to make a "Wild a.s Guess" at gender, and has been demonstrated to be correct in 96.7% of transactions, adequate for a/c weight & balance determination. If you're "Roger", you're likely male, "Hilda", female, and once they replug the board for the 6th letter in the name entered, the machine can solve the "Frances/Francis" equation. Initials only default to male, and entries from the US South carefully segregate "Billie Jean" from "Billy Gene". It deals easily in sexing entries such as "Pancho" or "Pancetta" You've heard of SABRE? This is a smaller shop, out-sourced to Oaxaca and manned by a crew of aging former circus dwarfs disabled by arthritis and medicated with the gusanos from bottles of Monte Albano Mescal, called POIGNARD. TMO mrtravel blabbled: > >>Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since > >>the fuel usage would be the same? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If I go to AA.COM, for example, book a flight, and enter a passenger > name, there no place to mark the passenger's gender. If it's your wife's name, you just enter "Whore"... -- Best Greg > mrtravel blabbled: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If it's your wife's name, you just enter "Whore"... I bet you'd crap your pants if I showed up at your door, you f.cking asswipe. Say what you want online, but cower if ever called on it. I will be in your neck of the woods in the near future. If I were you, I'd get a securrity system and bodyguards. >> mrtravel blabbled: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I will be in your neck of the woods in the near future. If I were you, >I'd get a securrity system and bodyguards. He's just another browser coward playing with himself (herself? itself?) as he (she? it?) posts his (her? its?) drivel. Ignore him (her? it?) >> Airlines currently use a different average weight for men and women. > > How do they do this? > If I go to AA.COM, for example, book a flight, and enter a passenger > name, there no place to mark the passenger's gender. OK, this may have been eliminated. But it used to be important to enter the "Mr" or "Ms" in a reservation, and it would show up on your ticket. Waiving the right to remain silent, John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> said: >>> Airlines currently use a different average weight for men and women. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > OK, this may have been eliminated. But it used to be important to enter > the "Mr" or "Ms" in a reservation, and it would show up on your ticket. Haven't seen that in many years...  SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." >> OK, this may have been eliminated. But it used to be important to enter >> the "Mr" or "Ms" in a reservation, and it would show up on your ticket. > > Haven't seen that in many years... > http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.ns f/0/d1ee786f363e795286256eee0061e9a6/$FILE/AC120-27D.pdf Page 29, specifically lists different weights to be used for male, female, children for both summer and winter seasons. But I have also seen references elsewhere to a unique average weight. For instance, in SR111, Swissair used 84kg as standard weight for adult passenters, no gender specified. But the manifest did break down how many males and female/chil passengers there were. Note that after some turboprop crashed on takeoff in south east USA (raleigh ?) a few years ago, the FAA and/or NTSB had called for a readjustement of passenger weights due to average weight having risen in the USA. I was going to say that perhaps they count the number of male/female pax at the gate, but these days, with automated boarding pass readers, the gate agents probably don't count as much as before. John Doe wrote, > OK, this may have been eliminated. But it used to be important to enter > the "Mr" or "Ms" in a reservation, and it would show up on your ticket. Some airlines have use the title "Dr."? What sex is that? rg On 27/05/08 6:12, in article GSL_j.2333$QW.590@trndny04, "Sharkbait" <sharkbait999@verizon.net> wrote: > Some airlines have use the title "Dr."? What sex is that? Easy in French, it probably would be Madame le Docteur, which might generally be used since the French have largely given up on genders. However, it could be Madame la Docteure. The shortened form would still be Dr. > >>Why would a 125 pound woman have to pay more than a 125 pound man, since > >>the fuel usage would be the same? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If I go to AA.COM, for example, book a flight, and enter a passenger > name, there no place to mark the passenger's gender. It is on AAdvantage, and the honorific shows up on the FF cards. > Jim Davis wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > rg While other airlines MIGHT go along with this, I will not fly American if I have any other reasonable choice. American was my airline of choice but no more. Even if they change back, I still will not fly them. Now I'm not goign to do anythign crazy like pay a lot more for a flight but they will be my last choice instead of now being my first choice. Oh boy - I can see oversized carry-ons trying to get squeezed into bins! link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmYw2BQoOdP6awY7XQq_YMhgyBywD90Q3DH00 snip: ======= American to begin charging for first checked bag By DAVID KOENIG – 33 minutes ago FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — American Airlines said Wednesday it will start charging $15 for the first checked bag, cut domestic flights and lay off workers as it grapples with record-high fuel prices. The nation's largest carrier said the fee for the first checked bag starts June 15 and that it would raise other fees for services ranging from reservation help ------------------------------------------------------------ This seems to be counter to the theory that if you don't help people to buy your product, they won't buy your product. Perhaps they don't want dumb customers? tim |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.