# American Airlines to begin charging for 1st checked bag!



## nell (May 21, 2008)

I just read on Yahoo that June 15 American will begin charging $15.00 for the first checked bag.  They will also be cutting capacity by 11%.  I wonder which airline will be next in line.


----------



## Dave M (May 21, 2008)

I'm sure that the other major carriers will soon start charging for that first bag, too. If they don't, AA will eventually have to back off of its fee for competitive reasons.

I don't mind these additional costs because I know that the horrendous increase in fuel costs has most of the major airlines hemorrhaging financially. There is talk in the business press that AA might file for bankruptcy soon and most of the other major U.S. airlines that have already gone through bankruptcy may have to do it all over again. That would likely mean some wouldn’t survive.

Of bigger concern to me is the significant reduction in capacity being announced in this AA press release, a reduction that matches plans already announced by most other U.S. airlines. With planes already flying at or near capacity, that reduction in available seating will make it easier for airlines to significantly increase fares, which could have a huge impact to travelers' expense budgets! Although I know those coming fare increases are necessary, I don’t like it!

Here are the contents of the press release.


----------



## Dave M (May 21, 2008)

Here is the updated AA FAQ on fees for checking bags.


----------



## "Roger" (May 21, 2008)

Actually, Spirit Airlines was first - $10 for a checked bag, $20 if you didn't make your reservation online.

Airlines are looking for ways to cover fuel costs with a minimum "price increase" on a ticket.  Part of what is going on is that they know people will choose the cheapest ticket online, even if it is only a $5 to $10 savings.  So, they want to keep those prices low while finding a way to increase revenue to cover costs.  Expect more of this ala carte type of pricing where the real cost of a ticket is not reflected in the online ticket price.


----------



## PigsDad (May 21, 2008)

"Roger" said:


> Actually, Spirit Airlines was first - $10 for a checked bag, $20 if you didn't make your reservation online.


Several smaller airlines have been charging for checking luggage for a while.  Allegient is another small airline that has that charge.

The point here is that American is the first *major *airline to go down this road.  Not a good sign of things to come.

Kurt


----------



## Carol C (May 21, 2008)

Wonder when they'll install scales to weigh passengers and charge us for "excess" weight?  

On a serious note, since American flies to Carib and MX locales where we like to travel for diving and snorkeling, it's going to be a challenge packing gear & clothes in just one carry-on. I will also long for the days I could schlep material aid to Mexico after a hurricane; sadly I'd be less inclined to do so if I have to pay fees for each checked bag.


----------



## Carolinian (May 21, 2008)

Actually, the airline that started it was European LCC Ryanair, and most, if not all, European LCC's do it now.

I don't mind this fee since I hate to check luggage anyway and try to fly with just a carryon.  The real zinger is Delta which is adding a massive surcharge to award tickets ex-EU.  I was quoted a $220 surcharge, over and above ''real'' taxes for a TATL R/T award ticket from Bucharest.  Delta has said they intend to take that policy system wide.

I would take American's baggage charge any day over Delta's surcharge.

My favoite baggage policy is that of European LCC EasyJet.  They charge for all checked luggage but the only weight restriction on carryons is that one person must be able to heft it into the overhead by himself.


----------



## pjrose (May 21, 2008)

I guess the $15 isn't so bad - we're flying on miles this year but our "free" flights are hardly that, with the taxes/fees, checked bag charge, and the costs of driving to/from and parking at a distant airport so we could get the (supposedly) free flights.....

Years ago I bought us all nice backpacks with the idea of traveling light (we never were able to manage it).  Then after 9/11 the carry-ons got more restrictions, so it was back to checking.  

Maybe this year I'll try doing the same as a woman we met at the beach a few years ago - 2 bathing suits, 2 t-shirts, toothbrush/paste, and some undies.


----------



## Carol C (May 21, 2008)

pjrose said:


> I guess the $15 isn't so bad - we're flying on miles this year but our "free" flights are hardly that, with the taxes/fees, checked bag charge, and the costs of driving to/from and parking at a distant airport so we could get the (supposedly) free flights.....
> 
> Years ago I bought us all nice backpacks with the idea of traveling light (we never were able to manage it).  Then after 9/11 the carry-ons got more restrictions, so it was back to checking.
> 
> Maybe this year I'll try doing the same as a woman we met at the beach a few years ago - 2 bathing suits, 2 t-shirts, toothbrush/paste, and some undies.



I don't even pack teeshirts anymore. I can usually buy 'em at tourist spots for $10 each, sometimes less. I like to pack 2 bathing suits & 2 pairs of shorts with pockets...dental care stuff, one starter bottle of sunscreen & yes undies!

What about backpacks? Can they still qualify as one's "purse" and if so, how large a backpack? Time to test the waters!


----------



## tmartin1 (May 21, 2008)

Personally, I think this idea stinks! Especially when it's being timed for summer travel. With this new fee, more people will attempt to only carry-on all their items, which means your 'unseasoned' traveler will make it a nightmare for the security lines. Have you ever been behind a family of 6 that you can tell hasn't traveled on an airplane for 2 years? Yikes!

Second, there is not enough carry-on space for the amount of people who will be trying to avoid the checked luggage charge. I've been on flights when overhead space has been filled to capacity. This will result in long delays (and fighting) while flight attendants have to remove carry-ons and check them in. Are they going to try to collect the money at that time if it turns out the overheads are filled?

Theresa


----------



## camachinist (May 21, 2008)

Just another reason to strategize to keep at least one family member with elite status on your airline of choice 

Pat


----------



## Carol C (May 21, 2008)

tmartin1 said:


> Personally, I think this idea stinks! Especially when it's being timed for summer travel. With this new fee, more people will attempt to only carry-on all their items, which means your 'unseasoned' traveler will make it a nightmare for the security lines. Have you ever been behind a family of 6 that you can tell hasn't traveled on an airplane for 2 years? Yikes!
> 
> Second, there is not enough carry-on space for the amount of people who will be trying to avoid the checked luggage charge. I've been on flights when overhead space has been filled to capacity. This will result in long delays (and fighting) while flight attendants have to remove carry-ons and check them in. Are they going to try to collect the money at that time if it turns out the overheads are filled?
> 
> Theresa



Wow...really good points you've made! I know there are some very narrow overhead compartments on certain sizes of planes. Filled to capacity with people...as they tend to be...yes, it will be a challenge to get space up top. Arrive early, be among those that board first, and grab your overhead spot before you miss out!


----------



## Dave M (May 21, 2008)

Carol C said:


> What about backpacks? Can they still qualify as one's "purse" and if so, how large a backpack?


From AA's website:





> Personal items include the following:
> Purse
> 
> Briefcase
> ...


----------



## Dave M (May 21, 2008)

Here is a current article (updated today) that summarizes most of the current U.S. airline extra charges for baggage, food, buying from a real person instead of the Internet, etc.


----------



## UWSurfer (May 21, 2008)

So if they havn't done away with this in November, my wife and I who already have tickets on American will have to pay for our bag(s).   I'm increasingly traveling with a single carry on suitcast and backpack these days for trips 3 days or less.  I suspect we may adopt this strategy for our week in Maui given how little clothing we need there.

It will be very interesting.
---------------------------

Speaking of nickle and dime'ing, I just flew round trip on Northwest from LA - St. Paul.   I was fairly impressed that Northwest was on-time boarding, flying and we even arrived back in LA 10 minutes early.   No movie, very uncomfortable seats & "snack" sales ranging from $5 to $10.  A small fresh vegtable tray with ranch dressing went for $7.   I had it on my return flight back.  I was happy with myself for selecting it over the high calorie crap, but had to get over the fact I just paid $7 for probably 50 cents worth of vegetables. 

The other thing I noted is I had my "liquids" in my small toiletry bag.  LA TSA couldn't care less.  St. Paul TSA had me remove them from the bag and put them in to the ziplock bag.  I was advised to do this by the TSA agent prior to running it through the xray machine.   I did, they were happy and I was on my way.   Always interesting to me the vibe of various cities and TSA agents.


----------



## Judy (May 21, 2008)

Carol C said:


> On a serious note, since American flies to Carib and MX locales where we like to travel for diving and snorkeling, it's going to be a challenge packing gear & clothes in just one carry-on. I will also long for the days I could schlep material aid to Mexico after a hurricane; sadly I'd be less inclined to do so if I have to pay fees for each checked bag.



Here are the exceptions from AA website:

" The following customers will not be charged a service fee to check a bag provided the bag is within the weight allowance:

    * For the first checked bag, customers who buy a ticket before June 15, 2008, or who fly before June 15, 2008
    * For the second checked bag, customers who purchased a ticket before May 12, 2008
    * Customers traveling on an international itinerary to destinations beyond the U.S., the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or Canada
    * Customers who purchase full-fare tickets in Economy Class
    * Customers who purchase Business or First Class tickets
    * Customers flying on AA codeshare flights not operated by American Airlines, American Eagle or AmericanConnection®
    * Customers traveling on government or military fares
    * Military passengers on active duty
    * AAdvantage Executive Platinum®, AAdvantage Platinum® or AAdvantage Gold® members
    * oneworld Alliance Emerald, Sapphire or Ruby members
    * Customers flying on the same reservation as an AAdvantage Executive Platinum, AAdvantage Platinum or AAdvantage Gold member or oneworld Alliance Emerald, Sapphire or Ruby member regardless of frequent flier status or fare type (not applicable to group bookings)
    * AAnytime® Economy Class AAdvantage award tickets, MileSAAver(SM) or AAnytime First and Business Class AAdvantage award tickets
    * First and Business Class upgrades confirmed prior to check in
    * AAirpass travel"

It appears that divers going to the Caribbean and Mexico are safe from the new baggage fees, for the moment.  Just stay away from the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

As for taking donations for hurricane victims, try asking the airline for permission for an additional free bag.  My sister got one from United to take donations to Africa.


----------



## "Roger" (May 21, 2008)

UWSurfer said:


> So ..., my wife and I who already have tickets on American will have to pay for our bag(s)...



No, the rule does not apply if you bought your ticket prior to June 15.


----------



## UWSurfer (May 21, 2008)

Oh good.   

Now I only have to worry that they remain in business through our trip.


----------



## Dave M (May 21, 2008)

UWSurfer said:


> Oh good.
> 
> Now I only have to worry that they remain in business through our trip.


Not a problem. Guaranteed! 

American is one of the few major U.S. airlines that have not gone through bankruptcy in recent years. It will probably have to do that to regain competitive financial status. If AA does enter bankruptcy, it's virtually certain that it would still be flying. Expect at least a year or two of continued service while AA puts together and implements a reorganization plan.


----------



## Pit (May 21, 2008)

Judy said:


> ... customers who buy a ticket before June 15, 2008, or who fly before June 15, 2008



That seems redundant.


----------



## pjrose (May 21, 2008)

... customers who buy a ticket before June 15, 2008, or who fly before June 15, 2008


Pit said:


> That seems redundant.



Partly - obviously you can't fly before June 15 unless you bought before June 15 - but you can buy before June 15 and fly after June 15.  :whoopie:


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 21, 2008)

I have to say that I prefer to see airlines increasing revenues with charges for extras (such as carrying luggage) as opposed to general fare increases.

Charging for luggage particularly makes sense, because handling luggage does create extra cost for the airline.  With a baggage charge, the cost of handling baggage ends up being borne by those passengers who use that service.  

Ultimately, though, I think this is going to head toward some schedule that charges for number of bags and bag size, with some added charges for oversize bags.  That reflects the tree cost elements associated with baggage: 1) the labor and facilities required to handle luggage; 2) the added weight resulting from the luggage; and 3) the space the luggage occupies.  I also expect that airlines will more aggressively enforce rules about the size of carryon luggage.  We might also begin to see space in overhead bins specifically assigned to seats.  E.g., there will be a stripes or marking in the bins assigning specific portions of the bin to particular seats.


----------



## gorevs9 (May 21, 2008)

Carol C said:


> I like to pack 2 bathing suits & 2 pairs of shorts with pockets...dental care stuff, one starter bottle of sunscreen & yes undies!



Maybe it's time to start going to the clothing-optional resorts.  I could carry on everything I need in one of those plastic grocery bags


----------



## "Roger" (May 21, 2008)

gorevs9 said:


> Maybe it's time to start going to the clothing-optional resorts.  I could carry on everything I need in one of those plastic grocery bags


Oh great.  They already charge extra if you want to sit in a seat with extra leg room.  Now, in order to save on fuel, they will start charging extra if you want to wear cloths onto the plane.


----------



## mtwingcpa (May 21, 2008)

tmartin1 said:


> Personally, I think this idea stinks!



Agreed! I certainly have no problem with the airlines attempting to cover costs, but I think this idea will backfire for the reasons you mentioned. And does this mean we'll now have to get to the airport EVEN EARLIER to cope with the related delays?


----------



## dive-in (May 21, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Charging for luggage particularly makes sense, because handling luggage does create extra cost for the airline.  With a baggage charge, the cost of handling baggage ends up being borne by those passengers who use that service.



I don't mind paying for something if the amount charged actually covers the amount of the expenses for said service.  I see this hurting the baggage handlers.  First, people are going to stop checking bags which means fewer handlers are going to be needed leading to lay offs.  That's real good in this economy.  Second, how much of the money made from this extra fee is actually going to go to the baggage handlers.  I know alot of the fee if for the fuel but can someone break it down?  Hypothetical:


$1 - Ticket agents checking the bags
$3 - Baggage movement infrastructure, conveyor, scanners, etc.
$4 - Baggage handlers
$7 - Fuel


----------



## caribbean (May 21, 2008)

I wouldn't mind as much if we could revert to the 70 lb limit for International. We have two really big bags that we used to use for our 2-3 week Caribbean trips. We could get all our snorkle gear, clothes and a few kitchen necessities in these 2 bags when we were allowed 70 lbs. Now we have to split it up into 3 bags to meet the 50 lb weight limit. 

Maybe once they see the effects of increased carry on bags and their staff begins to complain about the problems with carry-on they will see the light and revert to no charge. We can only hope.


----------



## Carolinian (May 21, 2008)

The European LCC's have charged for checked luggage for quite a while, and I have never had trouble finding space in the overhead bins for my carryon.  That includes EasyJet, which has the most geneous cabin baggage allowance in Europe.






tmartin1 said:


> Personally, I think this idea stinks! Especially when it's being timed for summer travel. With this new fee, more people will attempt to only carry-on all their items, which means your 'unseasoned' traveler will make it a nightmare for the security lines. Have you ever been behind a family of 6 that you can tell hasn't traveled on an airplane for 2 years? Yikes!
> 
> Second, there is not enough carry-on space for the amount of people who will be trying to avoid the checked luggage charge. I've been on flights when overhead space has been filled to capacity. This will result in long delays (and fighting) while flight attendants have to remove carry-ons and check them in. Are they going to try to collect the money at that time if it turns out the overheads are filled?
> 
> Theresa


----------



## bogey21 (May 21, 2008)

I don't check bags so this doesn't impact me but.....these extra charges are a royal pain.  I just paid Air Tran $6 to reserve a seat prior to departure date (it was $20 if I wanted an Exit row).  My preference would be that they just raise fares.  It would make my decision making process easier.  If I can accept the fare, I go.  If I don't like it, I don't.  I blew off a trip to Myrtle Beach last Summer because I didn't like the fare.  Impact was I wasted my MF and missed a trip.  On the other hand I didn't have to pay a rediculous air fare and didn't have a car rental or gas.  Saved money and missed a trip.  So be it!

George


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 21, 2008)

dive-in said:


> I don't mind paying for something if the amount charged actually covers the amount of the expenses for said service.  I see this hurting the baggage handlers.  First, people are going to stop checking bags which means fewer handlers are going to be needed leading to lay offs.  That's real good in this economy.  Second, how much of the money made from this extra fee is actually going to go to the baggage handlers.  I know alot of the fee if for the fuel but can someone break it down?  Hypothetical:
> 
> 
> $1 - Ticket agents checking the bags
> ...



Let's play a better hypothetical  Let's say that flying a particular flight segment profitably requires $40,000 under the current cost structure, which includes handling and hauling bags under the old baggage tariffs and restrictions. The airline sets it's revenue structure accordingly to meet that revenue requirement.  

When the airline starts charging money for bags, many passengers are now motivated to find ways to get by at their destination with less luggage.  So let's say that with the reduced weight in the luggage hold of the airplance plus reduced staffing requirements to handle luggage, that flight segment now only requires $39,000 revenue to be profitable.  

That's means that, as a society, we are new providing the same service for $1000 less.  That's the knife of economic efficiency in action.

That gets to a fundamental economic principle. When you charge people more directly for the components of a particular good or service, they refine their economic behavior to obtain what they want more economically.

Now the overall efficiency of doing this for airline baggage might be minuscule in comparison with the overall economy.  But economic efficiency is driven by millions of businesses each making their own infinitesimal improvements, But all of those minuscule improvement aggregate into something large and effective.

********

Another hypothetical.  Let's say a manufacturer of vehicles offered a standard set of options on every model - premium sound system, sun roof, power windows, leather interior, tinted windows, instrument package, etc.  Things that most people enjoy, and it comes for "free" with every car.  Now the manufacturer comes along and says, "Hey Now.  We're going to stop bundling all of that stuff. From now on our price will be the basic model without any added features. If you want any of those features we'll still provide them but we're going to charge extra."

If that happened, a lot of car buyers would decide they could get along without a premium sound system, without a sun roof, without power windows, without cloth interior, etc.  Of course that would mean that there would be a decrease in employment among the workers who are presently installing all of that equipment in cars now.

Do you think that would be bad?  Would you be worrying about how that decision would affect those workers?  Or would you select the options you want, and keep for yourself the difference between what the fully loaded vehicle would cost and the vehicle you do select?  

And wouldn't you then turn around spend that money you saved on something else that is more valuable to you than the the options you gave up.  And when you spent that money for that something else, wouldn't that * benefit workers in some other industry by the same amount of injury caused to the autoworkers*?  

In the end what happens under the new pricing scheme is that you buy a vehicle that has fewer options, and spend the money you save on something else that is more valuable to you than the automobile options you gave up.  Some workers are disadvantaged by your decision, but that is totally offset by benefits to a different set of workers.

You've spent the same amount of money, but you've gotten more value for the money you spent.  The effects on workers cancel each other out.


----------



## CapriciousC (May 22, 2008)

tmartin1 said:


> With this new fee, more people will attempt to only carry-on all their items, which means your 'unseasoned' traveler will make it a nightmare for the security lines. Have you ever been behind a family of 6 that you can tell hasn't traveled on an airplane for 2 years? Yikes!
> 
> Second, there is not enough carry-on space for the amount of people who will be trying to avoid the checked luggage charge. I've been on flights when overhead space has been filled to capacity. This will result in long delays (and fighting) while flight attendants have to remove carry-ons and check them in. Are they going to try to collect the money at that time if it turns out the overheads are filled?
> 
> Theresa



Interesting points.  My husband flies American three to four times a month and said last week when he came home from Dallas that with the charge for the second bag, people were already trying to carry on bags that were obviously too large for the overheads.  I imagine it will only get worse.

I think part of the problem is that so many people insist on putting their bags in the overhead instead of under the seat in front of them.  Then of course you have the "amateurs" (as my husband calls them) who don't seem to know where to put their bags.  On our flight back from the east coast a couple of weeks ago the family in the row in front of us all put their bags under THEIR OWN seats instead of the seats in front of them.  When we asked them politely to move their bags to under the seats in front of them so we could put our bags there the mother argued vehemently with my husband until the flight attendant came along and told her they had their bags in the wrong place.

I'm just glad hubby has lifetime Gold status, and that they won't be charging for children's car seats.


----------



## camachinist (May 22, 2008)

It oughta be interesting to see what happens to gate/plane-checked bags that go to the pit/hold because of no room/oversize, etc. F/A's with credit card readers?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 22, 2008)

camachinist said:


> It oughta be interesting to see what happens to gate/plane-checked bags that go to the pit/hold because of no room/oversize, etc. F/A's with credit card readers?



I don't see it Pat.  At the gate there is tremendous pressure to get the plane turned around and out the gate quickly, to the point where performance bonuses are based on keeping gate time below targets.

It's more likely that the gate agents will be charged with strictly enforcing carry-on rules.  Airlines will start using those devices that say "if your bag does not fit inside this space it must be checked" if your bag doesn't fit you will need to check it and pay a fee. Wouldn't surprise me either if they charged twice as much for a gate bag check as a ticket counter check.  And they'll actually start enforcing rules about the number and size of carryons. 

Right now I typically travel with a backpack and a computer case.  The backpack has the hard copy work files that I require, electronic devices, and miscellaneous reading materials.  I then check a bag, because 1) After loading the backpack with work files I don't have enough remaining room to consolidate into carry-on only; and 2) I often have other gear with me that can only be checked.

With the changes in rules for carryons I think I"m goint to end up shipping materials to my destination ahead of me using FedEx, UPS, DHL, or similar.  It will be  a pretty simple tradeoff, comparing the cost of checking luggage with the shipping cost.


----------



## camachinist (May 22, 2008)

I was thinking more late connections/last on board and no room for carry-on, especially one right at the regulation size. This has happened to me a few times, even as an elite. Into the pit it goes, sometimes tagged for baggage claim (not always). That became my first checked bag  As an elite, I'm exempt, but, also, as an elite, I board first so have pick of overhead space. General and non-members board later. This could impact them. I'll be curious to see how they handle it. There are some threads running on the issue on Flyertalk now.

At current ticket prices, I don't see a real issue. It's easy to cherry pick tickets that cover the fee and, if someone travels a lot on last minute tickets, they're likely an elite anyway, or are traveling full fare.

Pat


----------



## "Roger" (May 22, 2008)

It is not entirely clear that the overheads will be as crammed as people say.  

For starters, read what Carolinian has to say about his experiences in Europe where many airlines already have such a charge. 

Other considerations:  Some people are scrambling just to meet the 50 lb. limit to avoid a $100 charge.  They are not about to go all carry on.  

Even those who can currently get their checked luggage well under the 50 lb. limit, already have one carry on.  So they will not be in position to go all carry on.  

If the airlines start enforcing the stated carry-on size, some people who currently use carry ons are either going to have to put their luggage on a slim fast diet (creating more room in the overheads) or start checking luggage. 

For many, to be able to go a week with just a carry on would entail buying some new clothes especially suited for travel (beginning with the wash and overnight dry underwear).  Most people will not do that.

*******

I am not betting against some chaos when the rules go into effect, I am just not as sure where the chaos will lie.  It might well be that the big crunch will be when people at first try to board the plane with an oversized bag and are told that they need to check their bag. 

It will be interesting to watch.  I doubt that even American Airlines knows quite what to expect.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (May 22, 2008)

*Nightmares ahead!*

Okay, if AA is going to keep on schedule with it's new charge for checked bags, then one suggestion that would help would be to implement seating by groups starting in the rear of the plane such as is done on Delta (haven't flown AA in a while, so maybe they do this already), and strictly enforce boarding by section. Flight attendants should follow each group and make sure they place their bags correctly before the next group boards.  

I am always amazed when I board a plane according to my row grouping and find numerous passengers already seated- can they _all_ be elite level?  I also am astounded at the families who consider kids clearly above the age of 4 as "small children"!  God bless the gate agents who refuse early boarding to them.

DH & I can travel lightly in the summer- carryons suitcases and backpacks for 3+ weeks in Europe, but as I mentioned in a post in a similar thread, our ski vacations will require a new set of logistics. Oh, and bringing golf clubs on our US travels may go by the wayside.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 22, 2008)

Roger - that's pretty much the way I see it too.  And, to reiterate my point, I think the airlines are going to wind up charging a premium for luggage check if a passenger arrives at the gate with an oversize bag.  Part of the gate agents duties will be to not let a passenger down the jetway with an oversize bag; if airline needs to make pushback, they won't want flight attendants dealing with oversize bags. If a carryon does meet size limits but can't be stowed overhead due to lack of space, then the passenger gets a free bag check issued by the flight crew.

That makes too much sense to me for airlines not to do so.  It encourages passengers to be sure their carryons actually meet size limits and it means more money for the airline when a passenger does show up that gate with an oversize.


----------



## Judy (May 22, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by Carol C View Post
> I like to pack 2 bathing suits & 2 pairs of shorts with pockets...dental care stuff, one starter bottle of sunscreen & yes undies!





gorevs9 said:


> Maybe it's time to start going to the clothing-optional resorts.  I could carry on everything I need in one of those plastic grocery bags



How long can everyone make one quart sized zip-lock bag of all your liquids/gels/toiletries/sunscreens last?  Any tips?  What about liquid meds, prescription and over-the-counter - do they have to fit in the plastic bag along with everything else?


----------



## irish (May 22, 2008)

i think the next time i fly, i'll just WEAR everything i was planning on packing!!:whoopie: then they'll probably charge me for being to obese to fit in the seat 
so what's next... a charge to use the lavatory? do you want to breath while your on the plane? well i'm sorry..there's a charge for air.
IMO... this is all getting simply insane!!!


----------



## drguy (May 22, 2008)

Judy said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Prescription medicines DO NOT have to fit in the ziplock bags.  At least my insulin vials don't, though I usually take them out for inspection just to make sure.
Guy


----------



## gorevs9 (May 22, 2008)

From another perspective, the security lines will slow down as the TSA agents will ultimately be inspecting more carry on items.  

As much as I hate the idea of charging for the first piece of checked luggage, I would rather see a charge by weight, such as the first _N_ lbs are free.


----------



## mtwingcpa (May 22, 2008)

Judy said:


> How long can everyone make one quart sized zip-lock bag of all your liquids/gels/toiletries/sunscreens last?



I can usually get a week to 10 days of use out of most "travel size" items. I try to leave home with a "new" set, and use or toss any remaining quantities on return. Naturally, everyone's experience will be different.


----------



## winger (May 22, 2008)

Judy said:


> Here are the exceptions from AA website:
> 
> " The following customers will not be charged a service fee to check a bag provided the bag is within the weight allowance:
> ...
> ...


Awesome, since we used AA FF miles to book our 2009 Maui trip, we are exempt and can check luggage in without the new fee being added !!! ?


----------



## Dave M (May 22, 2008)

Yes, unless you booked MileSAAver economy tickets.


----------



## Twinkstarr (May 22, 2008)

mtwingcpa said:


> I can usually get a week to 10 days of use out of most "travel size" items. I try to leave home with a "new" set, and use or toss any remaining quantities on return. Naturally, everyone's experience will be different.



We can get a week out of them(except I buy sunscreen when I get there). I start also with new or refilled bottles.


----------



## Talent312 (May 22, 2008)

I happened to see a interview of Herb Kelleher, the recently retired of Chaiman of Southwest, this morning on CNBC, 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 becuz they were not hedged against the price of oil they way that Southwest was, and according to studies, SWA had the the best finances base and rated least likely to succum.


----------



## CapriciousC (May 22, 2008)

"Roger" said:


> It is not entirely clear that the overheads will be as crammed as people say.
> 
> For starters, read what Carolinian has to say about his experiences in Europe where many airlines already have such a charge.



I wonder if that's not a function of Europeans being used to the charges, though, and packing accordingly?  Or perhaps we as Americans tend to overdo packing in the same way that we do so many other things.  I can see that in time if the fees are maintained people will learn to take less with them, but I imagine that the first several months will see a steep learning curve, and of course those people (like my parents) who fly once every three years or so will get quite a shock when they check in with all their stuff.


----------



## x3 skier (May 23, 2008)

CapriciousC said:


> I wonder if that's not a function of Europeans being used to the charges, though, and packing accordingly?  Or perhaps we as Americans tend to overdo packing in the same way that we do so many other things.



I think the latter more than the former. A guess is that with the exception of the UK, a lot of Europeans drive for longer vacations and thus those aboard the LCC's just don't have lots of baggage. I have no facts to back this up. Of course lack of facts does not prevent any Congressman or woman or Senator from pontificating so I thought I might as well. 

Cheers


----------



## IngridN (May 23, 2008)

CapriciousC said:


> I wonder if that's not a function of Europeans being used to the charges, though, and packing accordingly?  Or perhaps we as Americans tend to overdo packing in the same way that we do so many other things.



Definitely the latter, IMHO! It amazes me that some folks must have a change of clothes for each day (slacks & the like).  Until 9/11, DH and I always carried on, even for 2 week trips to Europe...lots of fiber clothing and clothespins to wash undies each night!  Interestingly, now that I check a bag, I tend to overpack; on our recent trip to Aruba, I didn't wear half of the clothes I brought  .

Also, it may be that the Eurpean airlines enforce the carry on limits more rigorously.  I remember years ago being stuck in Heathrow for 6 hours and bought a handbag.  I had to check my carryon as I now had 3 items  .

Ingrid


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 23, 2008)

It occurred to me this morning that AA really bungled the way they introduced this.

What they should have done is waited until there was some kind of a fare increase or another hike in fuel surcharge. Then, simultaneous with the announcement, they say that to help passengers cope with the added fees they will give passengers a credit if the passenger doesn't check bags.

They can juggle the numbers in the fare/surcharge increase and the baggage credit to yield the same amount of revenue.  But the difference in public perception would be huge.


----------



## bogey21 (May 23, 2008)

Talent312 said:


> I happened to see a interview of Herb Kelleher, the recently retired of Chaiman of Southwest....... saying he was sympathetic to AA becuz they were not hedged against the price of oil they way that Southwest was



A number of years ago I was sitting on a Southwest plane next to one of their top execs (can't remember his name).  He was bragging about their hedging program.  I told him what they ought to do if they really wanted to hedge long term was to buy an oil company with mucho reserves in the ground, that it would be an excellent long-term hedge.  He more or less told me I didn't know what I was talking about. 

George


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 23, 2008)

Talent312 said:


> I happened to see a interview of Herb Kelleher, the recently retired of Chaiman of Southwest, this morning on CNBC, 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 becuz they were not hedged against the price of oil they way that Southwest was, and according to studies, SWA had the the best finances base and rated least likely to succum.



One reason why Alaska Airlines has remained relatively healthy is because they also have hedged against rising fuel costs.

*****

Hedging is a two-way street - if prices go down the airline is locked into above market fuel prices. Since fuel is the largest expense in running an airline, if you guess wrong the company is in big trouble.

The history with runups in fuel costs such as we have recently seen is that prices hit a peak then collapse.  There are always respected pundits announcing that inexorably rising fuel prices are inevitable for at least the next decade, prices will peak at some astronomic level, and dogs will be breeding with cats on the street corners of every major metropolis.  And Gozer will return in the form of the Sta-Puft marshmallow man.

And every time there are countless "smart" people who go long on the price of oil and take a financial beating when sanity reasserts itself.


----------



## Pit (May 24, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Hedging is a two-way street - if prices go down the airline is locked into above market fuel prices. Since fuel is the largest expense in running an airline, if you guess wrong the company is in big trouble.



I thought such hedging was done in the form of options. Thus, if fuel prices decline, they are only out the option premium (options simply expire worthless). Not so?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 24, 2008)

Pit said:


> I thought such hedging was done in the form of options. Thus, if fuel prices decline, they are only out the option premium (options simply expire worthless). Not so?



I believe that most of the airline fuel hedging is done via long-term fuel contracts.  Alaska Airlines, for example, indicated recently their fuel costs were going to increase this year because their old contracts expired.


----------



## Steel5Rings (May 24, 2008)

Great....now I have to pay for the airline to lose my luggage.


----------



## x3 skier (May 24, 2008)

Pit said:


> I thought such hedging was done in the form of options. Thus, if fuel prices decline, they are only out the option premium (options simply expire worthless). Not so?



AFAIK, they are fixed contracts for a certain volume of fuel at a fixed price. If the price goes below the contract, the airline is stuck.

What generally happens is the supplier of the fuel then sometimes engages in options trading to hedge their bet.

Cheers


----------



## isisdave (May 25, 2008)

I flew on Southwest this week, and realized it makes more sense to charge to check a bag on short hauls, where substantial numbers of people actually go on weekend or short business trips with just a carry-on. In that case, the a la carte pricing model makes sense.

But when you're heading to a week-long vacation, there's no way you can avoid checking a bag.  When we used to travel cross-country for Christmas, we'd always have one bag full of presents.  Just wait until people start cramming those -- and their parkas -- into the overhead bins.

And I too want to know what they're going to do about charging to check when there's no room in the overhead bin.  If they waive that fee because it's too time-consuming to collect, we'll all figure that out soon and bring the largest carryon permitted.

I wish they'd just figure out what they need to charge to make a reasonable profit, and let it go at that.  We'd pay it if we want to fly.  Last week I noticed that ice cream containers, which were half-gallons until a few years ago, have now shrunk from 1.75 quarts to 1.5.  It's another example of management who has faith in neither their product nor their customers.


----------



## wauhob3 (May 25, 2008)

If AA files bankruptcy protection how does that likely effect FF tickets and miles? If  you already have a ticket are you OK? I'm trying to decide if I should use miles for 2009 spring break or save them for what is likely a more expensive flight for 2010.


----------



## pjrose (May 25, 2008)

wauhob3 said:


> If AA files bankruptcy protection how does that likely effect FF tickets and miles? If  you already have a ticket are you OK? I'm trying to decide if I should use miles for 2009 spring break or save them for what is likely a more expensive flight for 2010.



According to the Aadvantage terms and conditions, they can change things without notice and end the program with six months notice.   

I can't imagine the furor that would cause.....

Not likely to happen, but.......


----------



## x3 skier (May 25, 2008)

wauhob3 said:


> If AA files bankruptcy protection how does that likely effect FF tickets and miles? If  you already have a ticket are you OK? I'm trying to decide if I should use miles for 2009 spring break or save them for what is likely a more expensive flight for 2010.



My miles on TWA, United and Useless Air all were not affected by Bankruptcy or, in the case of TWA demise. My TWA miles transferred to American and there was no change for United or Useless Air.

I doubt there will be any problem other than business as usual, like increased miles required or less seats. I would not worry and get the tickets NOW since if they become worthless later which is highly unlikely, what have you lost anyway.

Cheers


----------



## pjrose (May 25, 2008)

"Roger" said:


> Now, in order to save on fuel, they will start charging extra if you want to wear cloths onto the plane.




:rofl:       :rofl:       :rofl:       :rofl:       :rofl:


----------



## wauhob3 (May 25, 2008)

Thanks for the answers!


----------



## bogey21 (May 25, 2008)

I may be in the minority here but I kind of feel for our Airlines.  They have worked hard to cut much of their cost to the bone.  With the price of jet fuel today I wouldn't be surprised if they are losing money on every domestic flight, even the full ones.  

Maybe what the industry should do is quote the price for their tickets based on all their costs *except* jet fuel and Gov't mandated taxes and surcharges and be allowed to mark up their quoted (non-fuel, non-tax price) by a recognized per mile fuel surcharge (be it daily, weekly or monthly).  They could then eliminate charging for snacks, seat assignments (I just paid $20 to reserve an exit row seat), and baggage checking and get back to competing based on service.  

Sure we're going to have to pay more.  The airlines aren't going to be able to eat these fuel costs and stay in business.  If something like this isn't done, we are going to have a bunch of airline employees frazzled from fighting with customers as they enforce these nutty surcharges, and a very confused and unhappy flying public.

Basically the price you would pay for a ticket would have 3 components, the quoted price, taxes and other Gov't mandated charges, and a charge for fuel.  If you think about it, the airlines can control only one of the three.

GEORGE


----------



## Carolinian (May 26, 2008)

Having seen the fuel surcharge scam at work in Europe, that is the LAST thing passengers should want.

Airlines make up whatever fuel surcharge they want, and then quote a phony fare to fool the customer.  Search engines show what seems to be the lowest fare, but when you add in the fuel surcharges, it may come out as the highest fare.  This dishonest shell game is nothing but a fraud on the consumer.  It makes it difficult and timeconsuming to try to compare genuine fares.

The legacies have taken this dishonest practice so far, that many of the LCC's, who were originally the kings of add-ons, have responded by quoting all-in prices.

It is simply dishonest to call something that is a necessary component of the basic product a ''tax''.  It takes fuel to fly and airplane to transport passengers, and they should simply be forbidden to charge fro that on the tax line.

I recognize that they should raise fares to cover their costs of production, and have no problem with that.  I do have a big problem with sleazy, underhanded add-on charges for something that is part of the basic product.

Now an add-on for checked luggage I have no problem with, as that is not necessarily part of the basic product.  I myself usually fly with just a carryon.  If someone wants to take more than that, it is an option that the airlines should be able to charge for.  Extra luggage means more weight, and therefore more fuel, so the passengers responsible for that legitimately should may more than the passengers who aren't.

And where does the add-on madness end?  If labor costs go up, is a ''pilot surcharge'' next?  Anything that is part of the basic product should not be allowed to be an add-on.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 26, 2008)

Carolinian said:


> Having seen the fuel surcharge scam at work in Europe, that is the LAST thing passengers should want.
> 
> Airlines make up whatever fuel surcharge they want, and then quote a phony fare to fool the customer.  Search engines show what seems to be the lowest fare, but when you add in the fuel surcharges, it may come out as the highest fare.  This dishonest shell game is nothing but a fraud on the consumer.  It makes it difficult and timeconsuming to try to compare genuine fares.
> 
> ...



Steve - I totally agree.


----------



## bogey21 (May 26, 2008)

Guys, it just seems to me that if the airlimes eliminate all these silly add-ons; quote their fare not including fuel and taxes; we would be able to compare one to another's prices easily.  The taxes, etc are set by law.  We know what they are going to be.  Why not have a fuel surcharge (by the mile or some other reasonable basis) provided by the Government and published daily for all to see.

I, too, travel with only a carry on but don't like the baggage charge as it will just confuse and antagonize non-frequent flyers.  Immagine the chaos next Christmas.  Will the airlines charge per present?

George


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 26, 2008)

bogey21 said:


> Guys, it just seems to me that if the airlimes eliminate all these silly add-ons; quote their fare not including fuel and taxes; we would be able to compare one to another's prices easily.  The taxes, etc are set by law.  We know what they are going to be.  Why not have a fuel surcharge (by the mile or some other reasonable basis) provided by the Government and published daily for all to see.
> 
> I, too, travel with only a carry on but don't like the baggage charge as it will just confuse and antagonize non-frequent flyers.  Immagine the chaos next Christmas.  Will the airlines charge per present?
> 
> George


The last thing I think we want is the Federal government back in the business of deciding what the price is that travelers should pay for their tickets.

It also seems to me this is a classic situation in which the invisible hand of the marketplace can settle the situation without resorting to fiat.  Which option would travelers prefer:

Option A. Have published fixed fare, with surcharges added per individual airline policy or whim.  Attendant, of course, is more difficulty making side-by-side fare comparisons.
Option B. Publish standard air fare, but with actual ticket price unknown until sometime just before departure, when the fuel surcharge is fixed.
Two competing models.  Why not let the marketplace sort out which one is preferred by fliers?  If it's Option B, airlines that try Option B will generate more business and be more profitable. If Option A is preferred, the Optio nA airlines will benefit.

The trouble with your argument about bags is that where this has already been done - in Europe - the problems you mention haven't occurred or have been resolved.  Is there something different between the US and Europe that causes you to believe that travelers in the US won't be able to cope with it whereas Europeans can?


----------



## bogey21 (May 26, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The last thing I think we want is the Federal government back in the business of deciding what the price is that travelers should pay for their tickets.....................Is there something different between the US and Europe that causes you to believe that travelers in the US won't be able to cope with it whereas Europeans can?



OK Keep the Federal Government out of it.  Set the fuel price off the closing oil future the third Thursday six months out.  The only question would be who sets the factor to multiply against the oil future and when do they do it.  Now if I think the price of oil is going down, I wait to buy my ticket.  If I think it is going up, I buy now.

As to charging for baggage, your point is valid.  The only difference is that Europeans are used to it, most Americans are not but could adjust.

George


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 26, 2008)

bogey21 said:


> OK Keep the Federal Government out of it.  Set the fuel price off the closing oil future the third Thursday six months out.  The only question would be who sets the factor to multiply against the oil future and when do they do it.  Now if I think the price of oil is going down, I wait to buy my ticket.  If I think it is going up, I buy now.



There's not a thing I'm aware of that is preventing any airline from adopting that pricing scheme right now.  I also can't imagine that option hasn't been/isn't being considered by some airlines.

So let the market decide if that scheme is what customers want.  If an airline believes that pricing setup will be favorably received by sufficient customers, they can implement it and increase their profits.  They could even include it as a pricing option - pay this fixed fare now, or pay a base fare with an added fuel surcharge added at some later date.  Cancellation penalties apply if you fail to convert a base reservation to a full ticketed reservation at the established fuel cutoff date.


----------



## "Roger" (May 26, 2008)

To a certain extent, I think the market has already decided.  Airlines know that people will choose the cheapest flight on expedia (or whatever) even if the difference is only $5.  Thus, the desire to keep the stated fare low.

Also, they can hit frequent flyers with any surcharges.  While frequent flyers might gripe about that, it will cause much less stir than raising the mileage requirements for a frequent flyer ticket by ten to twenty percent.


----------



## Carolinian (May 27, 2008)

''Fuel surcharges'' arbitrarily set by an airline so that a phony low price is shown by search engines is a deceptive business practice in or affecting commerce, and should be nailed under consumer protection laws.  Many consumers are not going to be able to navigate the system to compare real prices, so the fuel surcharge scam is nothing but a ploy to deceive and defraud consumers.




T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The last thing I think we want is the Federal government back in the business of deciding what the price is that travelers should pay for their tickets.
> 
> It also seems to me this is a classic situation in which the invisible hand of the marketplace can settle the situation without resorting to fiat.  Which option would travelers prefer:
> 
> ...


----------



## Dave M (May 27, 2008)

Carolinian said:


> ''Fuel surcharges'' arbitrarily set by an airline so that a phony low price is shown by search engines is a deceptive business practice....


Perhaps it's different in Europe, but the major U.S. based search engines that are generally used by those who are most likely to be fooled by such a "deceptive business practice" have for years shown the total price (including all taxes, surcharges and other fees) on the first screen that comes up for a fare. Examples are Orbitz, Travelocity and Expedia. Even Kayak, which searches multiple sites for lowest fares, shows the total cost. So where's the scam?


----------



## pwrshift (May 27, 2008)

I just had an example of fuel surcharges this week. I have Aeroplan points too, and just enough to go biz class return next April to and from Phoenix. After going throught the process with Air Canada at the end they wanted $130 extra per ticket for fuel surcharges ... that's for next April. 2009!

So without booking I called UA and went through the same process ... booking on Air Canada as a partner of UA on Star Alliance ... got the same seats, same dates, same planes *without* the fuel surcharges Air Canada wanted.

I did notice that both airlines will not let you change or cancel now within 22 days of the flight without adding 'change fees' ... and in UA's case the fee has jumped from $100 to $150 (as of May this year).  They are looking at everything obviously where they can stick you for a few more dollars and the sad thing is these fees will probably never go away even if fuel costs go down.

Brian


----------



## x3 skier (May 27, 2008)

Dave M said:


> Perhaps it's different in Europe, but the major U.S. based search engines that are generally used by those who are most likely to be fooled by such a "deceptive business practice" have for years shown the total price (including all taxes, surcharges and other fees) on the first screen that comes up for a fare. Examples are Orbitz, Travelocity and Expedia. Even Kayak, which searches multiple sites for lowest fares, shows the total cost. So where's the scam?



Agree. Where's the scam?

Cheers


----------



## Judy (May 27, 2008)

Carolinian said:


> Now an add-on for checked luggage I have no problem with, as that is not necessarily part of the basic product.


Except for skiers, scuba divers, etc. 
Ever try to fit skis into a carry-on?


----------



## x3 skier (May 28, 2008)

Judy said:


> Ever try to fit skis into a carry-on?



My 170"s are shorter than my old 210's but I don't think they will fit in the overhead.  

Although I did see a guy try and carry on his guitar once.

Cheers


----------



## drguy (May 28, 2008)

x3 skier said:


> My 170"s are shorter than my old 210's but I don't think they will fit in the overhead.
> 
> Although I did see a guy try and carry on his guitar once.
> 
> Cheers


I saw that 2 weeks ago.  
Guy


----------



## pjrose (May 28, 2008)

x3 skier said:


> Although I did see a guy try and carry on his guitar once.



??? I would expect to carry on a guitar.  Maybe technically it's too big, but I'd hate to trust it to baggage handlers.

I accompanied a high school orchestra on a trip last winter - 2 planes each way.  We watched from the windows as instruments were THROWN into the hold.  $10,000 Cellos - obviously musical instruments b/c of their cases - were handled roughly.  About a half dozen instruments were damaged.  (All were in hard cases and had extra wrapping around the instruments)

The same group (sadly, without me) goes to Europe this summer.....I think they're crating the instruments (?).  

If the $15 baggage-check fee went DIRECTLY to baggage-checking, to allow for more people, padded compartments, and whatever else it would take to treat the luggage well....that would be worth it.


----------



## tmartin1 (May 28, 2008)

My DH is a high school pole vault coach. Try carrying 20' poles on the plane! He incurs a special charge (which will now be sky high) to transport them and has had them badly damaged by the handlers. It's not fun to explain to your star athlete that the pole they need to use for competition is broken. 

The airlines will not take responsibility for the damage either. There's always a loophole.

Theresa


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 28, 2008)

tmartin1 said:


> My DH is a high school pole vault coach. Try carrying 20' poles on the plane! He incurs a special charge (which will now be sky high) to transport them and has had them badly damaged by the handlers. It's not fun to explain to your star athlete that the pole they need to use for competition is broken.
> 
> The airlines will not take responsibility for the damage either. There's always a loophole.
> 
> Theresa



Why doesn't he ship them separately?  That's what I do when I have special gear that I need to travel with (usually field sampling gear).  Even if I could check the stuff, I can't afford to take a chance on the gear not showing up or getting damaged because the parcels aren't cared for as diligently as they are by a shipping company.  With the charges being added for bags, shipping becomes even more attractive.  

This gets back to one of my key points.  As a purchaser of goods and services, I would rather pay a lower fare for a ticket and have the choice of paying the airline to ship my belongings with me on the airplane, or paying someone else to ship my belongings.


----------



## tmartin1 (May 28, 2008)

Sounds like a good idea, but...

Since the kids are practicing the night before they leave, there's no time to ship the poles. Plus, my DH would be a nervous wreck wondering if the shipping company would get them to the right location on time. The risk of damage is actually less stressful than wondering where in the U.S. the poles may be.

Knowing my DH's personality, I don't think he could handle having the poles so far out of his 'control'.  

Which is why we always need that much needed de-stressing 2-week vacation to Hawaii immediately after track season!

While I don't personally have a problem with the check-in baggage fee, it will add to the stress and long lines that we have to endure when the summer season hits and we are inundated with the occasional summer travelers that don't have the travel know-how that we TUG members do.

Theresa


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 28, 2008)

tmartin1 said:


> Sounds like a good idea, but...
> 
> Since the kids are practicing the night before they leave, there's no time to ship the poles. Plus, my DH would be a nervous wreck wondering if the shipping company would get them to the right location on time. The risk of damage is actually less stressful than wondering where in the U.S. the poles may be.
> 
> Knowing my DH's personality, I don't think he could handle having the poles so far out of his 'control'.



Well - the practicing would be a problem.  

But as far as reliability and "being out of his contorl" ....  Personally, I'm much more confident that a shipping company will deliver my package at it's destination than I am confident my luggage will arrive on the same flight.  I've never had a shipping company lose a package.  Can't say the same for an airline.  And that doesn't even consider that a shipping company is far less likely to damage the shipment.


----------



## pjrose (May 28, 2008)

tmartin1 said:


> It's not fun to explain to your star athlete that the pole they need to use for competition is broken.



Yikes, plus if it's got a tiny crack or some other damage that doesn't show, it would be a safety hazard.


----------



## x3 skier (May 28, 2008)

Got an email today from AA and Elite members and their traveling companion do not have to pay extra baggage fees. I knew about me but not about the companion. 

I knew all those lifetime road warrior miles would help someday. 

Cheers


----------

