Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
Paterson Bombshell Rumor Watch: Resignation Imminent?
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Paterson "Bombshell" Just PG-13?
Yesterday, American Airlines started charging customers $15 for the first checked bag, a controversial but necessary move given rising oil prices (American, like many other airline carriers, also charges $25 for the second checked bag). Though full fare, gold/platinum frequent fliers, first and business class customers, are exempt from the fee, American expects 25% of its customers to be affected by the charge. And those fliers were not happy.
One traveler at LaGuardia told the Daily News as she tried "to stuff the contents of two bags into one," "I think it's rude when people bring large carry-ons, but now I'll be one of them." Then she added, "Part of airline travel is luggage. It's not the subway! Obviously, you're going somewhere and you need to bring things."
How fair are the new charges? USA Today travel columnist David Grossman takes up the issue and breaks down some costs:
A Boeing 767 flying one way from New York to Los Angeles consumes approximately 9,000 gallons of jet fuel. If 150 passengers are aboard, that equates to 60 gallons of jet fuel per passenger. At the current price of $4 per gallon of jet fuel, the fuel cost of that one-way flight is $240, or $480 round trip per passenger. But that's just the fuel cost and does not include the cost of owning and maintaining the airplane, plus all the computer systems, facilities and employees necessary to make the journey possible.Grossman goes on to say, according to the Air Transport Association, since fuel is about 40% of airline costs, in this scenario "the total cost of operating that flight exceeds over $1,000 per passenger" (round-trip). Which makes those low fares you've been paying a steal and unsustainable.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Excuse me, but if airlines are going to charge higher prices for checking bags to offset rising fuel costs, then surely the best way to fix this is by charging obese people more money. I shouldn't have to pay the same price as someone twice my weight if their marginal fuel cost is twice as much as mine.
I can't wait till they start charging people based on weight. That makes even more sense than charging people who check in baggage. Why should I pay the same price to fly as some lard ass twice my weight sitting next to me? The airplane has to burn TWICE as much fuel to carry his hefty ass not to mention the wear and tear on the seats is amplified.
As for the baggage fee, I'm mixed. It will definitely make the oversized carry on situation worse.
How about just charging me $20 more per ticket instead of nickel and dime me at the airport. I know that they want to keep the price of their advertised tickets down but this fee is ridiculous. Since they say that on 25% of their customers will be affected then why not just charge $5 more for every ticket and then they will be ahead of the game. It will also make up for all the people that are now going to carry a 150 pound "carry on" bag.
There's going to be hell to pay when these $uitcases get lost.
The main flaw in this analysis is that each consumer doesn't pay his/her representative share of the airline's cost. Premium passengers (i.e., business/corporate passengers, First-Class revenue passengers, and last-minute bookers who don't use Orbitz) effectively subsidize the cost of "monkey class" passengers who make the implicit trade-off of lower service, cramped quarters, and being nickeled-and-dimed in exchange for cheaper fares. Expect renegotiations with corporate clients to be the second place that these airlines look to raise basic fares, after eliminating or (further) severely restricting non-revenue travel from rewards programs.
As an aside, does anyone, for a moment, think that the airline business as currently implemented is inherently unsustainable? It seems that with every bump or jolt in the economy, airlines are begging for a bailout or looking for some way to charge more. How much longer until we let the market forces actually dictate fewer consumer airlines?
One thing I don't quite understand - airlines don't buy fuel on the open market. I believe all of them employ risk management teams which have hedged their cost of fuel several years into the future. How far into the future can a company hedge fuel costs, 2 years, 5 years? If an RM team is doing its job, it should have hedged their costs when the price of fuel was much lower, like in the early part of this decade, no?
I agree with Mr. Noah, fat people carry more weight on planes. So let's bring on a national fat ass airline tax. Or how about a new company called PhatAir, where the planes have 1/2 the passengers but carry the same load in weight. That way the fat ass can go from his Escalade to his Phatairplane to his McMansion by the sea.
Correct Rocknrope. For example, Southwest airlines locked in an extremely favorable rate on the cost of fuel for the next few years. Their fuel hedging strategy alone is whats keeping them profitable, that and their fleet commonality and simplicity, + good management, something the legacy carriers don't have.
@Rockenrope - All airlines hedge, but most in the united states didn't hedge as well as southwest, as Kojak pointed out.
European airlines seem to be in pretty good shape though. Well, relative to airlines here.
Don't forget that US carriers also has to deal with the dreaded unions and their LT contracts. Asian and Europeans carriers mostly don't have that problem. That's also why you see pretty flight attendants in other carriers, while you're being served by "experienced" people in American ones.
Also I am all for charging fatties for their extra weights, another reason why obesity epidemic is costing all Americans.
carry-on!
So does this mean they are not going to lose my bags?
I'm glad I travel lightly.
I'm all for this fee: just as there are those who rightfully feel that they shouldn't have to pay as much as obese passengers, why should I, as a light traveler, have to pay as much as someone who checks in the kitchen sink?
The fee lets people who only do carry-on (eg, business travelers) continue with the same priced tickets while charging more for people who use more resources. Same as the obesity charge.
fat people and unions suck
fat union members deserve no place on our planet
Maybe this will force people to learn to pack lighter and more efficently. People need to realize that they don't six days worth of clothes for a weekend trip.
I don't see the big deal. Get a max-sized carry-on. Fill it with all your stuff. Bring it to the boarding area.
- If you can find a spot for it, you save yourself the hassle of baggage claim and pay no fee.
- If the bins are full, it gets gate checked. So it's no hassle to you, no fee, and you still avoid baggage claim.
"Which makes those low fares you've been paying a steal and unsustainable."
Exactly. The end of cheap oil will change everything. The sooner everyone stops living in the past, the better off we'll be.
this is great news
people need to start realizing oil is no longer cheap and to adjust accordigly...bring on $10/gallon gas i say
death to suburbia
to the people saying obese people should pay more: maybe you can start flying DumbShit Air.
JIC must be pretty fat
JIC, morbidly obese people already pay for more, usually a seat and a half, if they can't fit their fat asses into one coash seat. I see absolutely no advantage to being obese.
Oh eff it, why don't they just start charging *everyone* by weight?
They could have each passenger and ALL his/her luggage (carry-on and checked) step on a huge electronic scale, and then adjust the price of the ticket according to how much fuel it will take to get the whole load to its destination.
Sound good, everybody?
All these people saying charge the fatties more - suppose they do charge by weight? All those that are men will automatically pay more,as typically, the most overweight woman usually still weighs less than an average American male. So women would pay less - apparently they have been subsidizing heavier male passengers all along.
I agree with the #3 post - just raise the fare and keep the overweight luggage fees. Anything that adds to the nightmare of the carry-on overhead bins drama is just gong to make flying even worse. I usually carry a small messenger bag size carry on - you know, the one that actually fits into the size limits that everyone ignores?
Stupid policy. They are just shifting the luggage to a different area of the plane.
BA has being doing similar, so European flights/airlines are really going down the same path.
Grossman's analysis is completely flawed. Along with Anna's points, airlines are also in the business of shipping items and packages. Not all that cargo space is used for passenger luggage.
If his analysis was accurate, the entire industry would have disappeared by now.