I'm kind of impressed by Spirit Airlines' new carry-on baggage fee.

[randomness]

And it looks like Congress is too: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-13/spirit-s-carry-on-bag-fees-draws-senate-bill-to-ban-practice.html

Carrying a bag onto a Spirit flight will cost passengers $45 at the gate, or $30 if paid in advance, starting in August

Even AirAsia and Ryanair haven't thought of that one...but I'm guessing they'll try now.

Comments

[frotz.livejournal.com]

I had a lot more sympathy for Spirit once I realized that they're charging (only) for bags that don't fit under the seat in front of you. Checked luggage fees have chased a ridiculous amount of stuff into the cabin, and I suspect getting a bit more balance there would be better all around.

Mind you, I'm still flying Jet Blue lately (one checked bag included in fare) more than anything else.

...and I started typing the parenthetical comment in the last paragraph as "one free checked bag" before correcting it. Unbundling of the traditional fare setup is kind of annoying from a user interface perspective, but for things that actually make a significant difference (which I believe baggage carriage vs. not does) it makes some sense, too.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Sure, I can see the point in it--if you want to see serious stuff in a cabin, try riding a domestic flight in Vietnam on JetStar Pacific--but I do think it should be much more transparent to the user; airlines which unbundle try to obscure all their fees for obvious price-comparison reasons, which isn't particularly helpful or honest.

[donnad.livejournal.com]

I think it's a good idea as long as they keep the checked baggage fees to a minimum or none. I personally hate that some people carry-on these huge bags that they can barely lift and try to stuff them into the overheads. Besides taking up more space so other people don't have any, It takes much longer to get boarded and to disembark. All because people don't want to wait at the other end for their bags to appear.

Also makes me angry to see a person put their bag in an overhead many rows ahead of their own row, instead of over their own seats. Seems wrong to take someone elses overhead space.

When I fly, the only carry-on I have is usually my wheely backpack with my camera in it (I absolutely will not check my camera equipment.) and it fits neatly under the seat. If I have a jacket I will sometime toss it in an overhead, but it usually fits in the backpack as well. (I have been known to open the suitcase in the airport to stuff my jacket in it before I check it.) Everything else is checked.

[cerridwynn.livejournal.com]

While i think the price is pretty steep, i have said for years that they should charge for carry-on bags.

I get very annoyed with entitled people who try to carry on huge bags, take up far more than their share of overhead space, and slow down boarding. Charging for checked bags made me more sympathetic towards those people, but only slightly. I have always thought the airlines had it backwards and, really, it was the carry-on bags they needed to charge.

(I have mumbled this to flight attendants before, and they have always agreed with me...)

[sarakate.livejournal.com]

I agree that knowing that it's only the overhead bags makes a difference. Also, I noted from the article that people paying the fee also get priority boarding -- so they get on first, get their stuff stowed and are out of the way, and people who aren't paying the fee know that there's no expectation of getting overhead space, which at least removes the uncertainty you get with most systems, about whether you get to keep your stuff with you or will end up having to have it gate-checked, and gets rid of the ridiculously long time people toward the middle of the pack spend trying to find a place to stash a bag.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I am currently carrying a bag that is so small even my netbook won't fit in it.

My big peeve is that the airlines are hiding these fees from fare comparison, which is not at all transparent. It's fine if I can figure out what the actual fare is going to be and make a fair decision, but not if they slam me out of the blue.

I've been flying airlines like JetStar, Tiger Airways, and AirAsia, who along with Ryanair and easyJet are the kings of fare unbundling, so I don't actually have a philosophical objection to it, just the way it's being used to obscure the true ticket cost.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my current carryon is sitting in front of me next to the computer as I speak. It's too small to fit my netbook. The things that go in it are my meds, my money, my passport, a flashlight, and my phone. Even the charger goes elsewhere. The bag fits under the seat in front with acres to spare.

It's been pretty sweet. None of the airlines I've taken recently--JetStar, AirAsia, Tiger Airways--do a damn thing for free, but as they're based in Asia all their extras cost much less than in the States. I've checked a bag on every leg so far, and it's never cost more than $10. Although I'll admit that remembering how many ringgits, baht, patacas, or Singapore dollars the checked bag fee actually is in US dollars is sometimes challenging.

[frotz.livejournal.com]

Are they not being transparent? Certainly in the case of Spirit, I pointed a web browser at spiritair.com and was two fairly obvious clicks away from this page: http://www.spiritair.com/Policiesbags.aspx#CheckedBag

These days, I don't think anybody can really have any expectation of not needing to go looking for such things when booking flights. It's irritating at times, but the price we pay for deregulation and open competition.

That said, you do have to know to be looking for such things in the first place, and if you look at, say, Ryanair, there's a link right on the homepage but the sheer number of ways to get charged over the base fare is eye-overglaze-inducing.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Most of the airlines I've been flying lately--JetStar, Tiger Airways, AirAsia--do the eye-overglaze-inducing charges. Tiger, for example, charges a mandatory flight insurance fee if you use a credit card, but if you don't use a credit card they charge a different fee, and if you use cash--assuming you can find one of their offices in your country--they charge yet another fee.

On the other hand, even after all the fees the flights come out cheap, so that's fine. I would rather know that all these mandatory fees are actually part of the price, but I guess that's the price comparison engines' job now.

The other pet peeve I have is that there isn't a global open skies agreement, but then I'm a dreamer. JetStar Pacific--just as an example--flying in the United States would be extremely surreal, but rather amusing.

I don't know whether the whole "You are not permitted to eat food you bring yourself on the flight" would go over with Americans, however. Asians put up with it, it seems, because all the low-fare airlines out here do it. AirAsia didn't really seem to enforce it particularly well on my last BKK-JHB flight, though.

[cerridwynn.livejournal.com]

I guess i assumed that small bags/purses would not cost extra -- that would be a bit ridiculous! But, then, perhaps not that unexpected these days...

And, sure, i agree with you about the unbundling. I guess i just feel that if they charge to check a bag -- which i have always viewed as the less convenient but far more responsible way to go -- then they should charge for a second carry-on as well.

[digitalemur.livejournal.com]

I don't know whether the whole "You are not permitted to eat food you bring yourself on the flight" would go over with Americans, however.

I hope we can keep that from happening by regulation, in the US, if it came to it, just because not being able to dig into a snack or a drink is a real hardship for people with all manner of health issues, many of which are really minor and manageable until one gets cooped up in a place where you a) can't leave and b) have to buy some company's crap instead of just feeding yourself. I'm sure companies will eventually try it... but there's a making-travel-accessible-to-all rationale for not allowing it.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I have in fact been buying food from the airlines partly because I am having sugar crashes at inappropriate times and partly because I'm curious about the food.

It's mostly been bad food but it does help me maintain blood sugar. And ten bucks isn't a hardship for me but it might well be for everyone else.

I sure they wouldn't stop me from taking my glucose tablets--there's a specific exemption for meds--but I didn't bring the big bottle, just the ten-pack, so I'm saving those for sometime when I really have no other alternative.