The proposal from American Airlines to charge $15 for the first checked piece of luggage is so bad that even The New York Times story was able to list the key problems. Among them:
It is also likely to make the fight for already-tight space on planes more fierce, as passengers try to stuff more carry-on luggage into overhead bins.
American officials said the company had not devised a way to collect a $15 fee at boarding from passengers whose bags are deemed too big to carry on and must be stowed.
I'm not sure if doing it this way shields the $15 from travel agent commissions and that is playing a role. Even so, a better way to do it would be to simply raise the price of the discounted fare by $15 and credit elite frequent flyers with an additional 1500-3000 miles per flight (taking the value of an additional mile to be 1-2 cents). Given that the alternative taxes all tickets, not just those who check bags, it could be a smaller surcharge, even if it were to be split with travel agents.
But an even better way to do it would be to add a fuel surcharge to the tickets, since that's the input cost that is squeezing their profits. Plenty of businesses now do this. For discounted tickets, there could be a fuel surcharge that roughly offsets the cost of a barrel of oil beyond, say, $100. The fee could be determined as of 3 months before the flight. Those who book more than 3 months in advance could pay the surcharge based on the price of oil when they book and be entitled to a refund of the difference if the price falls in the intervening period. If fuel were to drop below $100 per barrel, then perhaps the surcharge could be waived or turn negative.
I don't think most passengers would mind the fuel pass-through as much as they mind this unrelated surcharge. It would allow the airlines to be honest with their customers, which goes a long way.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Why?
Weigh people and baggage
If they're really trying to more closely tie flight weight to fuel costs, they should weigh people and all their luggage, carry-on or checked.
There is a scale at each check-in counter already. You step up, get yourself weighed, put your bags on, and total it up. Perhaps exempt the first 200 or 250 lbs total, and charge a fee based on weight * flight miles * fuel costs - it could vary day by day.
This would be unambiguously fair, despite the howls it would elicit.
Incentivizing behaviors
By encouraging lighter carry ons (and encouraging people to carry less baggage) the plane can fly lighter. Flying lighter saves fuel.
Weighing the passengers backs up lines at the check-in counter, not to mention there is no way to lose weight anyway in the hour before takeoff. A passenger's weight is what it is, and there's no changing it. Baggage, on the other hand, is like ballast. If you can encourage the passenger to toss some overboard you can save fuel (money).
I had to step onto a scale in Europe many years ago (because the plane had a weight capacity and they didn't want to go over it), and that was unnerving -- it didn't inspire confidence among the American passengers.
Incentivizing behaviors
By encouraging lighter carry ons (and encouraging people to carry less baggage) the plane can fly lighter. Flying lighter saves fuel.
Weighing the passengers backs up lines at the check-in counter, not to mention there is no way to lose weight anyway in the hour before takeoff. A passenger's weight is what it is, and there's no changing it. Baggage, on the other hand, is like ballast. If you can encourage the passenger to toss some overboard you can save fuel (money).
I had to step onto a scale in Europe many years ago (because the plane had a weight capacity and they didn't want to go over it), and that was unnerving -- it didn't inspire confidence among the American passengers.
Losing weight
Minnesota Mom suggested that there's no way to lose weight an hour before a flight, but I must disagree. The human urinary bladder holds about 1 pound when comfortably full. The stomach holds more. And Ex-lax could be a cost-effective way of saving fuel("Take Ex-Lax...Do It For Planet Earth")
A couple more things
The problem with weight of passenger + bag is that it encourages some to fly with more and some with less. The 6 foot 5 inch 240 pound man might have only 10 pounds of extra free weight. The 5 foot 100 pound woman would have 150 pounds of free baggage capacity -- extra weight she might even "sell" to another passenger (and I don't have to mention how scary this would be vis a vis Homeland security).
Overall, the incentive the airlines are shooting for is for everyone to travel lighter. If every flight took off one pound lighter it can save something like $20 million a year in fuel costs (mentioned for Northwest airlines alone). D the math. The savings to be had from reducing the load by 50 or 100 pounds per flight are enormous.
social security and payroll taxes
IBD (Investors Business Daily) had a front-page article on Obama payroll tax idea. To summarize in generalities: Obama wants a donut-type policy where there would be no change to the first $100,000 or so of wage ... no change on $100,000 to $200,000 of wage ... and payroll taxes kick on income $200,000 and up.
American Airlines Frequent Flier
Yeah, I am an AA frequent flier. Fortunately I can pack a weeks worth of clothes into a carry-on & backpack. I do it to avoid waiting for my baggage after the flight. While this surcharge does not affect me personally, I think it stinks. I hope no other airline follows suit so that AA has to rescind it. I am sick of airlines nickel and dimeing us while providing low quality service.
Fuel surcharges
I live in Japan, we're being socked with $400 for fuel charges to fly to the US. Be careful what you with for!
Post new comment