Airline CEO says "People on vacation don't need luggage"

[SirFozzie]

Ben Baldanza, the CEO of Spirit Airlines, told Congress that bringing luggage on vacation was "not essential" to travel and his airline was actually helping the poor fly by charging up to $45 to place a carry-on bag in the overhead bin.

Spirit Airlines CEO Defends Luggage Fees; Tells Congress Bags Are 'Not Essential' For Vacations - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1)

[Anthony]

people on vacation don't need to fly.


wow, this is easy. saving lot of money already!

[dawgfan]

Ben Baldanza, the CEO of Spirit Airlines, told Congress that bringing luggage on vacation was "not essential" to travel and his airline was actually helping the poor fly by charging up to $45 to place a carry-on bag in the overhead bin.

Spirit Airlines CEO Defends Luggage Fees; Tells Congress Bags Are 'Not Essential' For Vacations - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1)
Did he actually say that bringing luggage on vacation is not essential? The only relate quote I found in the article was this:

"Carrying more than one bag is not necessary for all travelers and we believe it is unfair to charge those customers for extra services they do not use -- indeed, it is the basis for Spirit's policy to unbundle services not essential to passenger transport," he added.

The only issue I have with the growing trend in airline fees is the added work in figuring out true costs when shopping for tickets.

[molson]

That quote is kind of taken out of context.

If fees help smaller airlines offer more competitive fares, they're a good thing. Why should I pay as much for a ticket as someone who brings 15 bags, gets sodas and snacks on board, etc?

[Buccaneer]

I am taking an 11-day solo vacation next month and all I need will be a medium-sized carry-on.

[lungs]

I never understand the people that find it necessary to bring their whole wardrobe on vacation.

[JediKooter]

Isn't this the same mental superman that said his airline is going to charge for using the bathroom on their planes or something like that?

[SirFozzie]

Nope, that's Ryan Airlines.. whose latest great idea is eliminating seats and have people stand up the whole way over

[JediKooter]

Nope, that's Ryan Airlines.. whose latest great idea is eliminating seats and have people stand up the whole way over

You could certainly get more people in there if they were standing.

[Lathum]

My issue with charging for bags is it really isn't fair for people who have kids and need to bring a lot of extra stuff.

[SirFozzie]

You could certainly get more people in there if they were standing.

Ryanair: Low Cost Airline May Allow Passenger To Stand Up For Cheaper Fare | Business | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Ryanair-Low-Cost-Airline-May-Allow-Passenger-To-Stand-Up-For-Cheaper-Fare/Article/200907115330054)

[terpkristin]

I don't know what to say. I tend to travel light, but (for example) for my trip in a month to Alaska, I'm going to be taking one carry-on (for entertainment on the plane-2 iPods, a Kindle, my DS, ID, and maybe a small paperback) and my big suitcase (which I think is about a 27" suitcase). I don't think that's excessive for a 2-week trip. I think I'll be paying about $20 to check my 1 bag (looking at airline's website), which I'm not stoked about, but is better than $50...

/tk

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My issue with charging for bags is it really isn't fair for people who have kids and need to bring a lot of extra stuff.

Define fair. Is it fair for those without kids to subsidize those who have them?

[miked]

What I didn't know was that these "unbundled" services the airlines charge for don't get hit with the 7.5% excise tax on airline tickets. So the airlines stand to gain a lot by selling you your ticket for $150, then an extra $150 in fees.

[terpkristin]

In thinking a little more, the thing that really drives me nuts about baggage fees is that they could easily fold the nominal fee into the price of the ticket. If all the airlines did that, you'd be in the same range. And then, as airlines have always done, charge for excesses to what was assumed in the baggage fee. Right now, it's almost like the baggage fees are "hidden" fees, that you know about, but masks the real cost. Meh. I'm not stopping flying over it, but I've always flown mostly on Southwest, which (thankfully) does not have baggage fees (yet?).

/tk

[RendeR]

If and when I manage to get to Europe for a vacation I'll take a ship both ways.

Fuck these airlines.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, it's really deceptive advertising. "Fly to Vegas for $40!*"

(* +$25 for checked baggage. $40 for selecting your seat. $20 for boarding pass, $45 for overhead luggage bin)

[jeff061]

Spent a week and a half in Florida. Put everything in a carry on duffle bag.

I'm an abnormal human though.

[JediKooter]

If and when I manage to get to Europe for a vacation I'll take a ship both ways.

Fuck these airlines.

Just watch out for the icebergs.

[JediKooter]

Ryanair: Low Cost Airline May Allow Passenger To Stand Up For Cheaper Fare | Business | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Ryanair-Low-Cost-Airline-May-Allow-Passenger-To-Stand-Up-For-Cheaper-Fare/Article/200907115330054)

Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that it's an Irish airline and they want to put bar stools in the back of the plane? I hope they install a Guiness tap as well.

[digamma]

I like things that reward efficiency.

[terpkristin]

Spent a week and a half in Florida. Put everything in a carry on duffle bag.

I'm an abnormal human though.

Depending on what you're doing in Florida, this is emminently reasonable. A bathing suit or 2. Shorts. T-shirts. Maybe a sweatshirt. Underwear. Mosquito netting. ;)

Going somewhere on business, though, is a different story. I go on business travel for a week, I bring fancy clothes for the professional meetings, clothes to wear to go out in the evenings, plus sleep wear, and maybe workout wear if I know the hotel has a gym.

Or, going to a place where the weather is a little more iffy in terms of temperature, it gets trickier...

/tk

[Lathum]

Define fair. Is it fair for those without kids to subsidize those who have them?

People shouldn't have to pay extra to bring on a car seat, diaper bag, etc... and other necessities for a child.

[Lathum]

TK, will you be coming through Seattle at all for your trip?

[dawgfan]

People shouldn't have to pay extra to bring on a car seat, diaper bag, etc... and other necessities for a child.
Why not?

[DaddyTorgo]

this isn't going to end well i predict

[wade moore]

Why not?

I'm with dawgfan here. So again, those that do not have children should subsidize?

FWIW - I know several airlines do not charge for car seats.

[terpkristin]

TK, will you be coming through Seattle at all for your trip?

Yes, but not for long--an hour layover both ways. I actually wish I could have rigged it to stay a day or so in Seattle, it's a place that's been on my "to visit" list for quite awhile, one of the few places in the US that I want to visit but haven't (Chicago is another, oddly enough).

/tk

[Lathum]

How exactly is it subsidizing if it is a carry on?

[dawgfan]

How exactly is it subsidizing if it is a carry on?
If people with children are allowed to carry on more items than those that don't and for the same amount of money, then those with children are getting more bang for their buck than those without.

[molson]

Kids cost money.

I mean, is it "fair" that you have to buy extra tickets for your kids to fly?

[terpkristin]

Kids cost money.

I mean, is it "fair" that you have to buy extra tickets for your kids to fly?

Actually, at the age that I imagine parents end up carrying the most baggage for kids, the kids usually fly free (sitting in parents lap). Though I guess it depends on where you're going. When we took my nephew on a cruise, I felt kind of bad that my brother and sister-in-law had a separate suitcase just for diapers. And after seeing what a mess Otto can make of himself (he was 2 at the time), I realized why they brought so many extra clothes, too...

/tk

[SackAttack]

Kids cost money.

I mean, is it "fair" that you have to buy extra tickets for your kids to fly?

Children young enough for car seats on an airplane are also generally young enough not to require a ticket. If you're buying them a ticket, it's because you don't want to hold them in your lap for 2000 miles.

There's no "have to" about buying a ticket in those circumstances.

[Celeval]

Children young enough for car seats on an airplane are also generally young enough not to require a ticket. If you're buying them a ticket, it's because you don't want to hold them in your lap for 2000 miles.

Or aren't comfortable safety-wise with the possibility of a kid starting to squirm during takeoff or landing.

There's no "have to" about buying a ticket in those circumstances.

Agreed to a particular extent. There is certainly no additional charge for a car seat if you purchase a seat for the child, as the car seat goes into said seat and the child in that (i.e. no carry-on space used). Plus, if you're buying a seat, then the child gets his/her own carryon allowance as well.

[stevew]

every kid should be free until it make noise.

[wade moore]

If people with children are allowed to carry on more items than those that don't and for the same amount of money, then those with children are getting more bang for their buck than those without.
Right. This is in a scenario where someone else would have to pay for a similar sized piece of luggage.

[Celeval]

Children young enough for car seats on an airplane are also generally young enough not to require a ticket. If you're buying them a ticket, it's because you don't want to hold them in your lap for 2000 miles.

There's no "have to" about buying a ticket in those circumstances.

For the sake of saying so, also, in many countries an unsecured infant in the lap is a safety risk and is not allowed at all (UK, Australia are two that come to mind, unless it's changed lately).

[Celeval]

If people with children are allowed to carry on more items than those that don't and for the same amount of money, then those with children are getting more bang for their buck than those without.

If the child has his/her own seat, then they have their own carryon allowance. Just because the dad is carrying six bags doesn't mean they're all his. :-D

[dawgfan]

If the child has his/her own seat, then they have their own carryon allowance. Just because the dad is carrying six bags doesn't mean they're all his. :-D
Sure, I agree. If a family of three (parents and child) is traveling and they all have their own seats, they should get same amount of carry-ons per seat as travelers without kids. If the airline grants 2 carry-ons per passenger for free, then the family of 3 should get 6 carry-ons for free.

[Marc Vaughan]

If I travel on business I only ever take one bag - if I travel with my family then by the time my wife and daughter have packed we don't have to worry about burgulars while we're away the house is near empty ;)

[MacroGuru]

I have been gone for over a month now...I have one bag + my back pack (Which is the Swiss Gear carry my laptops kind)....I can pack 3 to 4 weeks of clothes into this bag and it could be a carry on if I wanted it to.

Charging for carry on is a tad silly to me, even really charging for 1 bag is silly...after that it is ok, but for those who are frequent travelers and have status with ab airline, typically you don't pay any bag fees...

[lighthousekeeper]

I'm going to be taking one carry-on (for entertainment on the plane-2 iPods, a Kindle, my DS, ID, and maybe a small paperback)

/tk

why the hell do you need 2 ipods?

why do you need a kindle and a paperback?

[Cringer]

It isn't fair? Was that really said? HAHAHAHA Seriously, feel free to call me an ass every day for the rest of my life, but that is hilarious to me.

[Cringer]

why the hell do you need 2 ipods?

why do you need a kindle and a paperback?

She has two heads. An iPod for each, something to read for each.

[Apathetic Lurker]

People shouldn't have to pay extra to bring on a car seat, diaper bag, etc... and other necessities for a child.



If they bring a car seat they better be paying for an extra seat

[sterlingice]

I am taking an 11-day solo vacation next month and all I need will be a medium-sized carry-on.

But, really, who needs more than that when you're going on a nude beach holiday ;) :D

SI

[sterlingice]

Ben Baldanza, the CEO of Spirit Airlines, told Congress that bringing luggage on vacation was "not essential" to travel and his airline was actually helping the poor fly by charging up to $45 to place a carry-on bag in the overhead bin.

Spirit Airlines CEO Defends Luggage Fees; Tells Congress Bags Are 'Not Essential' For Vacations - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1)

Wow- totally misleading headline, after looking at the quote.

SI

[Lathum]

If they bring a car seat they better be paying for an extra seat

You check it at the gate.

[terpkristin]

why the hell do you need 2 ipods?

why do you need a kindle and a paperback?

2 iPods = iPod touch for games and music and iPod classic for my full library (including many books to listen to). Also, if I end up playing iPod games, the battery on the touch is going to get drained, so really it's just in case. But really, both are getting carried on because I'm sure as hell not putting one in my checked luggage, and I do forsee using both while in Alaska (audiobooks).

Kindle and paperback...Kindle has books I'm reading, paperback is usually a crossword puzzle book. Need something non-electronic for takeoff and landing. ;)

Also, unless the TSA balks (they don't usually but they have once or twice on me), I'll probably have either some knitting or cross-stitch in my bag.

/tk

[Ksyrup]

I disagree with the entire premise, as it works in practice, that there is any subsidizing going on such that a single passenger or a childless couple would pay less than a family of 4 per ticket if it weren't for all of these fees. I fly mostly as a business passenger and not with my family, and I don't see any difference in the cost of flights.

Maybe on these low-cost, ala carte airlines where the base ticket is rock bottom price and you have all of these extras you can purchase this premise works better, but for the Delta, United, American, etc., flights, I just don't believe it. I don't believe that they've added all of these fees to shift the cost of flying to those who use those services, while making a corresponding drop in the base ticket price to reward those who would otherwise "subsidize" those services if free. I think those fees are extra money in their pockets, not a form of re-distribution of costs among differently-situated travelers.

And I think they know that there's no way for us to know the truth, too. If someone shows that base tickets cost more or the same now than 5 years ago, they'll just blame it on the economy or the oil spill or the price of gas or unions or whatever works. I agree in theory with the idea, but I have ZERO confidence it's playing out the way some of you seem to assume it is.

[JPhillips]

I disagree with the entire premise, as it works in practice, that there is any subsidizing going on such that a single passenger or a childless couple would pay less than a family of 4 per ticket if it weren't for all of these fees. I fly mostly as a business passenger and not with my family, and I don't see any difference in the cost of flights.

Maybe on these low-cost, ala carte airlines where the base ticket is rock bottom price and you have all of these extras you can purchase this premise works better, but for the Delta, United, American, etc., flights, I just don't believe it. I don't believe that they've added all of these fees to shift the cost of flying to those who use those services, while making a corresponding drop in the base ticket price to reward those who would otherwise "subsidize" those services if free. I think those fees are extra money in their pockets, not a form of re-distribution of costs among differently-situated travelers.

And I think they know that there's no way for us to know the truth, too. If someone shows that base tickets cost more or the same now than 5 years ago, they'll just blame it on the economy or the oil spill or the price of gas or unions or whatever works. I agree in theory with the idea, but I have ZERO confidence it's playing out the way some of you seem to assume it is.

+infinity

The fees are just another way to make money. If they want to be completely "fair" they should charge a flat per seat fare with a scaling fee based on total weight brought on to the plane.

[Logan]

Another big ups to that post.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I disagree with the entire premise, as it works in practice, that there is any subsidizing going on such that a single passenger or a childless couple would pay less than a family of 4 per ticket if it weren't for all of these fees. I fly mostly as a business passenger and not with my family, and I don't see any difference in the cost of flights.

I'm not claiming that, barring fees, the single passenger would pay less.

Ticket prices are obviously going up. Failing business models, cheap cash grabs, whatever. I'm just saying that if prices are going up and baggage brought onto a plane is one of the things that drives costs up, it makes sense to charge people based on how much they are bringing on the plane instead of just raising every ticket the same amount. I also think that the overweight should pay more, but something like that is unlikely to happen even if it should.

[Ksyrup]

When I say "cost less," I'm talking relative to the market. I still don't believe they aren't raising all tickets the same amount, PLUS adding the fees on top for those who use services that used to be free. That's what I'm talking about. They tell you you're paying less, but you're not paying any less than you would have before. I don't believe that a ticket from here to LA, for example, costs $450 now, plus an extra $120 in fees for me because I'm bringing my family, but if they didn't charge those fees, you and I would both be paying $525 for that same ticket. I don't believe it for a second. The price of the ticket would likely be roughly the same (driven by competition and supply/demand), but they wouldn't have the extra revenue. And the way they try to sell this new business model is to make you believe that in a hypothetical world, you'd pay more for your ticket to subsidize me. I say BS.

[DaddyTorgo]

I disagree with the entire premise, as it works in practice, that there is any subsidizing going on such that a single passenger or a childless couple would pay less than a family of 4 per ticket if it weren't for all of these fees. I fly mostly as a business passenger and not with my family, and I don't see any difference in the cost of flights.

Maybe on these low-cost, ala carte airlines where the base ticket is rock bottom price and you have all of these extras you can purchase this premise works better, but for the Delta, United, American, etc., flights, I just don't believe it. I don't believe that they've added all of these fees to shift the cost of flying to those who use those services, while making a corresponding drop in the base ticket price to reward those who would otherwise "subsidize" those services if free. I think those fees are extra money in their pockets, not a form of re-distribution of costs among differently-situated travelers.

And I think they know that there's no way for us to know the truth, too. If someone shows that base tickets cost more or the same now than 5 years ago, they'll just blame it on the economy or the oil spill or the price of gas or unions or whatever works. I agree in theory with the idea, but I have ZERO confidence it's playing out the way some of you seem to assume it is.

Exactly. It's extra money for them - nothing more.

[Passacaglia]

Exactly. It's extra money for them - nothing more.

Even so, what's the problem? It's not like it's extra money for nothing -- it's a service. Now you have the choice to not pay for it if you don't want to. If you're going to argue that the flight should cost less than it does now because of this, and it's a really big deal to you, I guess the solution is to not fly? Personally, I think it's better to decide on whether or not to fly based on my own situation then on whether or not I think the airline is making too much.

[Ksyrup]

Even so, what's the problem? It's not like it's extra money for nothing -- it's a service. Now you have the choice to not pay for it if you don't want to. If you're going to argue that the flight should cost less than it does now because of this, and it's a really big deal to you, I guess the solution is to not fly? Personally, I think it's better to decide on whether or not to fly based on my own situation then on whether or not I think the airline is making too much.

I think it's more that people are buying their argument that it's costing you less to fly than for me and my family with these fees. They are being dishonest in trying to justify a new business model. I'm not saying the industry is doing fine and all that, it's just that they aren't being honest about what they're doing. Everyone is paying more to fly, PLUS the fees are added revenue. The subsidy argument is BS.

[Ksyrup]

This is similar, to me, to the ala carte cable TV stuff.

[Anthony]

there shouldn't be any extra fees for overwieght people. you don't pay extra to go on a train based on your weight. taxi drivers don't charge you more if you have to put luggage in their trunk or if you weigh more - more weight=higher gas costs, but fee is the same. why do airlines need to charge more just cuz you have a fat ass or because you have some kids you need to lug an extra diaper bag or two? just a cash grab.

[Ksyrup]

I don't buy the weight issue, but taking up 2 seats is a legit issue for an industry that sells its product by the seat. I could understand a reduced 2-seat fee on less than full flights, but full price on booked flights. Seems fair to me.

[PilotMan]

Here is the real answer.

From Travel Weekly (http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid217416.aspx)

As airlines boost their revenue by charging for bags, the carriers are siphoning tax money that the FAA depends on to fund airports and other services, according to a report released today by congressional investigators at the Government Accountability Office.
The Internal Revenue Service has determined that checked-baggage fees are not taxable because they aren’t related to the "transportation of a person" — the basis for imposing a 7.5% excise tax, the GAO noted.


It's pure cash, untaxed.

[DaddyTorgo]

yep!

[Lathum]

Ksyrup and PilotMan FTW.

[SportsDino]

Ya the efficiency argument is a smokescreen, its a cash grab pure and simple. Another sign of the times, where profit is sought more by how best you can screw your customers rather than true innovation or increased production.

[sabotai]

U.S. airlines collect $769 million in baggage fees in 1Q – USATODAY.com (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/us-airlines-collect-769-million-in-baggage-fees-in-1q/98192/1)

Despite collecting $769 million in baggage fees, $554 million in reservation change fees, the industry made only $12 million in profit in the first quarter. The major airlines as a whole lost money while smaller and regional groups did much better.

[JediKooter]

U.S. airlines collect $769 million in baggage fees in 1Q – USATODAY.com (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/us-airlines-collect-769-million-in-baggage-fees-in-1q/98192/1)

Despite collecting $769 million in baggage fees, $554 million in reservation change fees, the industry made only $12 million in profit in the first quarter. The major airlines all lost money while the smaller and regional ones did much better.

They must be using Hollywood accounting...

[SirFozzie]

No.. I don't doubt those #'s are true.. the cost of fuel has skyrocketed over the last few years, and that is the #1 expense of airlines.