Spirit Airlines Charging For Carry-On

[TheRealDrew 0]

We all had the fear this could happen. To quote "Animal House" they have dropped a big one.

 

Charging $30-45 for carry-on. They are not charging for items that can fit under the seat, only those that need to be placed in overhead. They also say they are dropping ticket prices so it balances out.

 

MSNBC Article

 

 

MoneyWatch Article

 

Wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that if people fly nude they get a further discount since they do not have the weight of the clothes

[Mike L 0]

This is absurd!!! And then to charge more than they charge for check in?

[TheRealDrew 0]

This is absurd!!! And then to charge more than they charge for check in?

 

Traveling will now be with an Digital Elph and an iPad

[MikeO 5]

Quite frankly, I'm just as pissed by all the people who try to fit 100 pounds of crap into the overhead bin and delay my flight as I am with the airlines for charging money for checked bags. And yes, I know that one could be seen as driving the other.

 

Consider this: I am an airline and I am losing money hand over fist. I'd like to raise ticket prices to allow me to continnue to give a reasonable level of service but I'm afraid that if I raise the actual posted ticket price at all, that idiot consumers who are only interested in the lowest possible price will flee from my airline. So, I decide the only way that I can proceed is to post the absolute lowest price and charge fees for "extras". So I decide to charge for checked bags thinking that I need people to pay their weight, so to speak. Unfortunately, this has caused passengers to rebel against baggage fees and try to carry all their crap into the cabin, knowing that we'll gate check just about anything for free. I can't rely on TSA to check the size of bags as they are government employees concerned solely with the safety of passengers and I can't tell them what to do. My flight attendants, trying not to be combative (and who quite frankly feel that they are no longer paid enough to do heavy lifting, so to speak) do make an attempt to wrangle bags and cajole the passengers, but several flights have been delayed by minor skirmishes over whose bags should be gate checked. If I let the carry-ons make it as far as the gate, my gate staff, who currently only inhabit each gate for 30 minutes for each flight don't have time to measure bags. So, now that I've established that people are happy enough booking the bargain basement tickets, paying the fees and seem to be content enough simply bitching about it, why not solve the next problem I've created by charging more for a carry-on than a checked bag? I'll tag each one at the check in station and if the bag doesn't have a tag, it doesn't get on the plane making enforcement at the gate much simpler. I'm just attempting to drive more stuff back into the hold. Simple, right!

 

In the grand scheme of things, it is too late to reverse the progress of these fees. Only way to do that would be to roll some of the cost into the ticket price and then the idiot consumers will bail again. We're not Southwest, after all.

 

If it were me, I'd let people take one checked bag and one carry on for free. I'd then charge for the second carry on and something somewhat less for the second checked bag. This would still get me my fee revenue while trying to get people to check the bigger stuff. But hey, then I'd miss out on the first round of fees!

 

As a photographer, I'd be willing to pay more for my large carry-on full of expensive stuff if I knew that someone else decided to check their dirty underwear because it was free, leaving me room in the overhead bin . . .

 

Having said all of this, I know where it is headed. And that is where I said it would above. We're idiots who will surf the internet for days to save $5 on a $500 plane ticket. We're used to complaining about fees that we fork over anyway. So we're ripe targets for the next quick airline fix that can be passed on to us. Just don't raise the base fare $5, or we'll pay the other guy's fees!!!!!!!!!

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2010 by MikeO

[Dave L 0]

Well, maybe those people would check their heavy carry on of expensive camera gear if they were sure it would arrive at the destination. On another thread here a gentleman recently lost his cannon cameras and lenses out of his TSA locked case. With all the security of our checked luggage I have a problem with the thefts. I think most people on this board carry on their camera gear to have a reasonable chance that it will arrive with us at our destination.

 

Dave

[TheRealDrew 0]

Well, maybe those people would check their heavy carry on of expensive camera gear if they were sure it would arrive at the destination. On another thread here a gentleman recently lost his cannon cameras and lenses out of his TSA locked case. With all the security of our checked luggage I have a problem with the thefts. I think most people on this board carry on their camera gear to have a reasonable chance that it will arrive with us at our destination.

 

Dave

 

 

I would probably carry the body and lenses with me to avoid having them bounced around even with good packing (or maybe just one body and a couple of lenses), but if we knew housings and all the items would make it without taking a..ahem..detour it would be nice. Trying to make sure to have something to shoot in carry-on due to things getting lost or stolen adds the weight and size for me. Though I have just packed housings and ports on some trips. Sort of like going to Vegas and the thrill of seeing what actually makes it.

[DiverPam 13]

Heard about this on NPR. Here is a link to a senator from NY who is trying to stop these fees.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=125828641

 

I say good luck with this one. It appears that other carriers are saying they will not do this "for now." How long will "for now" last.

 

DiverPam

[RWBrooks 26]

Why don't they weigh each individual passenger with their bags and assess the total weight? After all isn't it the weight of the plane in total that governs the amount of fuel and the cost to the airline?

Or is that being insensitive?

[eyu 27]

Spirit Airlines is also reconfiguring its seats so they do not recline, thus allowing more seats.

[philsokol 1]

Well, guess I won't be traveling on Spirit any time soon!

 

Phil

[johnspierce 25]

Why don't they weigh each individual passenger with their bags and assess the total weight? After all isn't it the weight of the plane in total that governs the amount of fuel and the cost to the airline?

Or is that being insensitive?

 

Is that being insensitive?

 

Obviously you are not 6'2" tall and weigh 230 in your birthday suit. Why should I be penalized for my genetic makeup? Maybe we should just let people wrestle for seats and the biggest and toughest get on the plane; I would do well in that scenario, but that would be as prejudicial as what you are proposing. I already "pay" a penalty since the damn seating is obviously designed for people under six feet tall, an additional fee on top of that would be adding insult to injury.

Edited April 26, 2010 by johnspierce

[scubagrunt 0]

Why don't they weigh each individual passenger with their bags and assess the total weight? After all isn't it the weight of the plane in total that governs the amount of fuel and the cost to the airline?

Or is that being insensitive?

i'm 100% with you on this!! i am tired of having to share my seat with larger passengers and then to add salt to my injuries force me to pay extra for bags!!!

mel

ps us smaller people are penalized for our size also, think about a typical tech dive where i have to carry excess of 200-300 pounds of gear, when i weigh 125 pounds. or think about how it feels to share your seat with a large person for 6+ hours. this could get quite hot this topic, but the bottom line is when the airlines cite weight as being the problem for their increasing costs then they need to take a look at the whole package. they should not penalize larger people (assuming they can fit in one seat) but perhaps offer a bonus for smaller people like 50 pounds free. yea i know while i am dreaming here why dont i ask for a pony too!!

Edited July 2, 2010 by scubagrunt

[DeanB 19]

Maybe we should just let people wrestle for seats and the biggest and toughest get on the plane;

 

 

That sounds cool, maybe nude and in jelly as well ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[scorpio_fish 5]

That sounds cool, maybe nude and in jelly as well ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

 

Having been on several Wetpixel trips, I think this is a bad idea.

 

Why don't they weigh each individual passenger with their bags and assess the total weight? After all isn't it the weight of the plane in total that governs the amount of fuel and the cost to the airline?

 

Yes and know. Fuel is the biggest cost. But it is not the only cost. Most of the actual cost of a flight is not passenger weight related. E.g. the cost of the crew doesn't change depending on the weight of the passengers and baggage. Even fuel costs are not completely variable. Theirs this big hunk of weight called "the plane". I would guess if you really calculated the variable cost aspect of passenger weight and luggage, the range of ticket price would not vary that significantly.

 

Another perspective is that you are renting a cube of space. I don't care how much the person next to me weighs, as long as he/she stays in their respective rented cube. Anyone who does a lot of shipping deals with cube weight. Pricing is combination of volume and weight.

 

Finally, there is a cost associated with fine tuning fees. The administrative procedures for checking in and paying for flights would also be increased, with a corresponding increase in fixed cost to be passed on to ticket holders.