American - $15 Charge for FIRST Bag

[kenish]

I also have to agree that UPS doesn't sound like the most economical, easy, or practical alternative. How does this beat $15.00? Unless your point is to not give the money to the airlines but UPS instead. And if it means shipping over water (like from Hawaii) there is an additional charge because it must be sent by air and not ground.

 

You're correct that UPS is often not a savings in dollars and cents. But what if you're on an extended trip and can plan the contents of the UPS pacakage to avoid two, second-bag fees? It starts to make financial sense. If you avoid overweight fees even better.

 

There's also intangible benefits like hauling less crap through the airport, knowing the baggage shipped via UPS has a far better chance at not getting lost, damaged, or pilfered, having insurance on it and being able to track its progress.

 

I fully agree it's not the Mother of All Solutions. :) But it has benefits and may even save a few bucks depending on the situation.

 

Also, if dumb ol' me thought of this, you can bet UPS is looking at the potential opportunity.

 

BTW, domestic travelers in Japan travel very light. Trains and domestic flights are not really set up for lots of luggage. The reason is that Japan has a whole baggage and parcel infrastructure. Airports, train stations, hotels, and convenience stores can accept luggage. It gets forwarded to your destination overnight or in 2 days depending on distance. The charge for an average suitcase is $10-$20. It will be interesting if that sort of thing starts in the US.

[greatam]

greatam:

 

I don't get it. You say the environmentalists do damage here but Peru has a dirty river and China has a brown cloud? You want to take emission devices out of cars so we can have brown air too? The people of China are suffering very high rates of asthma not to mention lung cancer and this is a high cost to pay for a cheaper car.

 

You are correct-you don't get it!!!! Why should the USA have to go further and further for the sake of "environmental salvation" when a good percentage of the world DOES NOT CARE. No one advocated taking emission devices out of cars-heck, I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I have lived with air pollution since I was a child. But when it comes to damage-YES-economic damage is happening to the USA BECAUSE of our VERY stringent environmental rules that the rest of the world DOES NOT have to meet.

 

Small example: I own an international logistics company and have 37 over the road semis. The new, "environmentally friendly" engines DEMANDED by the environmentalists have raised the price of a new semi truck by over $10,000 (just the tractors are now over $110,000 EACH and they wear out in 3 years). So not only do I have to buy a new engine if I trade in a truck, which MAY or MAY NOT produce less pollution, but now I have to compete with the MEXICAN trucks (thank you Mary Peters and US DOT) who DO NOT have to have the new engines AND buy diesel fuel in Mexico for less than $2.00 per gallon.

 

The Mexicans are crossing the border in increasing numbers with 500 gallons of diesel fuel on board. At 6 miles per gallon, they can make it from the Arizona/California border to NYC for $1000.00 in fuel costs. It costs my trucks about $2800 to make the same trip, NOT COUNTING the extra money I spent on buying the truck in the first place. We both get the same freight rate. A good percentage of the fuel cost is in taxes and refining the ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, low sulphur diesel fuel. Mexico does not have those restrictions. You think that is FAIR????

 

Another example: DH is an electrical engineer at the USA's largest nuclear plant. The amount of ENVIRONMENTAL rules that they have to abide by is stifling to a competitive market. So the cost of electricity is high in Arizona and California. How does a businessman in the USA compete when the cost of just running machinery or heating the building is about 5 times what it is in China where there are very few environmental rules. One of the large power plants in Arizona (coal fired) just had to spend almost 2 million dollars on additional "scrubbers". The price of power from that particular plant is going up 14%. China, which uses soft coal for just about everything, has to install NO scrubbers. They also use various lacquers and most of the chrome plating that is done in the world today is done in SE Asia. Why-because an American company cannot compete due to the strict environmental rules that are FORCED on companies, whether they have any value or not.

 

The cost of fuel is going up because the oil cartel OPEC controls how much oil is pumped, not how much it costs to pump the oil.

 

The USA does NOT get as much oil from OPEC as most seem to think. And who are we to tell another country how they can use their natural resources or how much oil they can or should pump??? They are laughing at us-we have a lot of natural oil resources-ANWR for one. The absolutely HUGE oil sands find in North Dakota is another. And between the environmental lobby (who just happened to enlist the native tribes in South Dakota) and the fear mongering with the landowners sponsored AGAIN by the environmental groups, the pipeline which was to bring 590,000 barrels of oil A DAY to Patoka, Ill and Cushing Oklahoma is now the subject of lawsuit after lawsuit, all sponsored by the environmental groups to STOP the PIPELINE and STOP the OIL. Will we ever get the oil???? Ask the environmentalists.

 

Yes the US is at the limit of their refinery capacity, but no it's not the environmentalists who are keeping refineries from being built.

 

False info-please turn off the TV and do some REAL research. You live Texas-take a weekend drive west and ask questions of the oil people in your own state.

 

A total of 17 permit applications have been turned in to DOE for new refineries or expansion of current refineries in the last 4 years. TWO have made it past the EPA and environmental groups. And those two had old permits to expand capacity-the companies tagged onto their old permits, changed a few things, fought back hard against the environmental lobby and are just now breaking ground for EXPANSION. NOT new facilities, which would be more up to date, environmentally friendly and technologically superior. AS I posted previously, Sir Richard Branson (and other investors) have been trying to build a refinery in either Far Western Arizona or Far Southwestern Texas (both places where VERY few live). At every turn, they have been sued by an environmental group.

 

Nuclear is OK too provided that you figure out what to do with the radioactive waste and include the total cost of that waste disposal in the cost of the fuel produced. You would rapidly find it is not really economical.

 

WRONG AGAIN. DO YOU REALIZE that USA nuclear plants pay into a fund EVERY year (currently to the tune of 800 million per year AND there is currently over 30 BILLION in the fund)??? But again, due to "environmental concerns", Yucca Mountain can not be opened. So in addition to paying into the fund yearly, USA nuclear plants are paying ADDITIONAL monies every day to expand or build new storage facilities on site. Again, due to "environmental concerns", you and everyone else is paying more than they need to.

 

Now please tell me how the environmentalists are NOT doing economic damage to our country.

[Jenna1983]

I flew AA once and will never fly them again. I saw airfare for $119 last year from them and paid $170 just for the simple fact I refuse to fly American Airlines after they completely destroyed my suitcase and lost all of my shoes. I reported it to them in the airport, called and reported it, and when I filed my claim, they refused to pay it since they said I never reported it.

 

Add to the fact my brother flew AA this past January (his only option to get home) and the pilot and flight attendant weren't even sure the door on the plane was closed. And they kept messing with it the entire flight, according to my brother (the attendant and co-pilot).

[chipmaster]

Do I agree with the charge/bag that AA has installed? NO

 

Do I understand why they are doing it? Yes, they are losing money and fuel prices are going up and up.

 

Should they charge a different way? Yes, raise ticket prices so they reflect the real cost. An even better idea I say charge everyone by the lb/mile. In the end that is the fairest way. If you are fat and take no luggage you should be charge the same as a skinny guy with 100lbs of luggage. Its almost the same. Surcharge also if the fat person takes up more then his air space above the arm rest!

 

Why is oil going up? Because the supply and demand equation is now changing. You can argue if it is artificially on both sides, but the market is now reacting. Its over reacting of course as these things always do. In the end it will settle down. If it proves economic and it is now economic new sources will come on line. AND no it isn’t going to be solved with increased drilling in the Arctic Refuge, nor with more Nuclear, more Solar, more alternative fuels, nor more refineries. Between the real demand, the hedgers and the rapidy growing economies a balance will be arrived in the next 6-18months. Between a combination of economic slow down and natural curbing an equilibrium will develop. I’ll bet it’ll be right around 150 dollars a barrel. That will drive 5 dollar or so gas in the US, significant flattening of consumption and increased growth. Once that happens projects that are positive like oil sand extraction, old well revival, solar, ec. etc. and others will get funding and you’ll see a steady inflation adjusted price of between 5-6 dollars for gas and 150-170 dollars for oil.

 

Expect the collateral damage will be things like air fares to be up 50%, cruises and other things likely 20%, food prices 10-20% pretty much everything is effected by energy :eek:

 

Hopefully your income can adjust to all that!

 

And thru it all their will still be pollution in China and Peru, peanut allegeries will continue to climb as the world population gets weaker and weaker due to decades of environmentally poisoning.

 

Complain all we want the age of indiscriment growth with cheap energy is now over and it'll be a really bump ride, nothign like any of the recent economic shocks of the recent past. We can all now sit back and watch it happen and tell our grandkids about how we lived thru the time that our lives changed forever :D

[greatam]

You're correct that UPS is often not a savings in dollars and cents. But what if you're on an extended trip and can plan the contents of the UPS pacakage to avoid two, second-bag fees? It starts to make financial sense. If you avoid overweight fees even better.

 

There's also intangible benefits like hauling less crap through the airport, knowing the baggage shipped via UPS has a far better chance at not getting lost, damaged, or pilfered, having insurance on it and being able to track its progress.

 

I fully agree it's not the Mother of All Solutions. :) But it has benefits and may even save a few bucks depending on the situation.

 

Also, if dummy me thought of this, you can bet UPS is looking at this potential opportunity.

 

Better rethink this for quite a few reasons. Hauling less crap is really the ONLY benefit.

 

First-insurance. I know you have Travelpro luggage. Would you REALLY only want your package/suitcase insured for $200??? Even the normal $1000 insurance doesn't generally cover the stuff in a big if you have formal clothes

 

Second-UNLESS you ship via air, you have to box your suitcase. So run around, find the box (U-Haul has excellent boxes that fit suitcases), pack it, drag it to UPS or pay the pick up charge.

 

Third-the transit time. As you pointed out, may work for a cruise where you spend a week on land first. But sure doesn't work monetarily unless you are spending time on land or are willing to pay for hotel space to accept the suitcase. Independently shipped suitcases generally cannot be sent to ships.

 

Fourth-UPS lost and damage record is pretty bad. And you have to fight to get them to pay off.

 

I am in the international logistics business. I ship a lot of personal stuff all over the world, not counting shipping for numerous customers. I sure wouldn't ship UPS or FedEx unless I had money to throw away. IF I have to ship personal stuff, it goes via the Post Office. Cheaper and easier as a general rule to just pay the baggage charge, even overweight baggage.

[ctr5000]

Wow, lots of issues to address. OK, in no particular order,

 

1) I have nothing against profit, but OBSCENE profit bothers me. Oil companies are making OBSCENE profits when the average American is struggling to be able to afford to put gas in our cars. I support paying the total cost of a product. That includes the cost of a company to clean up any mess they or their products make. That includes the cost of environmental cleanup. I don't support unfettered capitalism. I don't support over regulated capitalism, but I do support regulated capitalism where health, safety and environment are protected.

2)Yes we have high rates of asthma and lung cancer, but China's are higher. People who live in polluted cities have higher rates of asmtha then others who live in cleaner areas. I personally would not want to live near a coal plant much less one with no scrubbers.

3)Yes, I know there are permits, but lots of businesses need permits for lots of reasons. With all the money the oil companies have, they can afford the permits, but don't want them. Yeah, there are a few feeble attempts, but why would they want to increase supply when they are making so much money? They didn't make nearly as much money in the 90's when at one point gas was below $1/gal. Oil companies like high prices.

4)I don't think Mexico should be able to bring their trucks belching their pollution into our country and not compling with our safety standards. I wrote Congressmen about this. I don't like free trade, I like fair trade.

5)Yes, some countries don't think keeping the air & water clean is important. They are wrong. Many countries have even higher environmental standards then we do. I want our country to set the example. Many cities in our country are voluntarily compling with the Kyoto protocals. Every single city that has done so has not just increased their quality of life, but has also bettered their economy even with a nationwide recession looming (ex: Portland, Oregon). I therefore reject your assertion that envionmental standards cause economic damage. What causes economic damage has been free trade agreements instead of fair trade agreements, not to mention the screwy laws that reward companies with tax rebates/incentives when they close US companies and move them to foreign countries.

6) Nuclear power plants need to be VERY careful in all they do. Regulation is necessary to keep people safe. Sorry, radiation has one heck of a half life and is no good for you.

7)You asked how US companies are going to compete with foriegn companies that pay less for their energy. I don't think that companies are chasing cheaper energy when they move from this country because then they have to ship it back and that will eat up any savings as transportation uses energy too. They are mostly (not all,but most) chasing cheap labor. Many pay slave labor wages (esp for textiles) and you still pay big bucks for the products because it's all profit. The simple solution is the import tax. The US raised almost all it's revenue from import taxes for most of its history. It would be a fairly simple process for actuaries to figure out a fair tax on an item based on minimum labor, safety and environmental standards.

8)I'm not a big Yucca Mountain fan. Since it was suggested, it has been found to be a terrible place to store nuclear waste because of water issues. This thing will have to be intact 10000 years. What lasts that long? Plus do you really want to have that stuff trucked all over the US? Yes, I know they use specially constucted canisters and trucks, but I still don't trust it. Instead of spending all that money on nuclear power plants and storage facilities, can we invest it in solar panels? There's a company in Colorodo that is one year away from manufacturing really cheap solar panels. Think about it, put these puppies on your roof, with the ability to sell the excess back to your utility and you may not have a utility bill! What's wrong with that? And no, I don't think solar panels will solve all energy problems. There is no one solution. We will need to conserve, improve energy efficiency, move to renewables like solar and wind and non food bio fuels. We can't continue to burn fossil fuels or we will burn ourselves up.

[curley23]

I think they are going about this the wrong way...If they simply raised costs to cover higher costs of doing business that would be one thing. I am not even sure as many people would notice if you were shopping for airfare and it was slightly more expensive...but the bag charge seems like nickle and diming and I think that is what gets people going

 

What's wrong with choices. Why should someone who would normally not check a bag have to pay more in a fare because someone checks bags. I think the way they are doing it is fine. they need to raise revenue whith out putting fares out of reach. If you want to bring more, than pay, if not, then nothing to worry about. It is really a matter of excess weight, which is detrimental to a planes fuel comsumption. The next thing around the corner may be making passengers pay more by how much they weigh, and this is no joke. Just like the cruise pax who say raise the prices and give better food or service. Why not give people the choice of how to spend thier money. that's not nickel and diming. Fuel for the airlines has doubled in the last year, and fares have not risen that much. If they just raised fares then at some point people won't fly. That is certainly not what they want, or need. They need to stay in business, and not just for profits.

[xpcdoojk]

The profit of the OIL COMPANIES is about the same percentage as other successful companies. Calling it obscene is just an example of buying the garbage spewed by talking heads and dangerous Senators.

 

I do wish people would think for themselves and not regurgitate what they want to believe.

 

I am all for solar panels, but how many nice neighborhoods are going to embrace you when you cover the front of your house with them. Solar panels are a much better option for someone in Phoenix and not quite so good for someone in London. Do you realize the environmental impact from all of those batteries? Do you realize a Prius uses more energy than a Surburban and causes more environmental harm when you consider the entire life of the product. IE the energy and the mining to make the Prius and the batteries is greater than the energy saved in fuel. It is all good, and I encourage everyone to do their part, I have installed a Rinnai Tankless water heater at a very serious cost disadvantage to a regular tank heater, although eventually it will pay for itself (if I live long enough) with energy savings. I drive a MINI which is not exactly a H1 Hummer, but it is a joke to think that any of these things really make a difference. The reality is that yes we can try to conserve, but the entire world is finally entering the 20th century (while we are moving ahead into the 21st), and they are now driving cars in China and India instead of bicycles, and now that these people have learned that the 20th century is really great, they are not going back to the 10th. So the global economy desparately needs more energy, and again I state the only limits on America and the world are those we place on ourselves. We need to shake off the yoke that the environmentalists are saddling us with before it is too late. When we break the system, the only system capable of maintaining billions of people on the planet it is not going to be bad it is going to be catastrophic, and I don't want to participate in a catastrophy. Meantime, blame the OIL INDUSTRY, because all they do is provide fuel at market prices, and gosh knows that is just obscene.:rolleyes:

 

jc

[kenish]

Better rethink this for quite a few reasons. Hauling less crap is really the ONLY benefit.

 

Good points, all food for thought. The "music" rather than the "notes" was that shipping stuff ahead via UPS, FedEx, or even US Postal Service can make sense in some situations. I'll bet these companies (and others) see a possible business opportunity and are scrambling to find ways to make it a good, cost saving solution for many travelers as several companies have done in Japan.

 

I've shipped stuff ahead to US hotels and they've never charged; of course I have to notify them it's coming.

 

To your points, the situation that makes the most financial sense is shipping bulky/heavy items ahead, especially low-value things. As I commented before, it's not a universal solution but may be better in some cases. :)

[cruzegirl]

quote=Globaliser;14735888 There's nothing unlawful about this. AA is not the first airline to charge for all checked baggage. And there are plenty of people who can manage to fly without having to check any baggage, even if they are staying overnight or more at their destination. I do it all the time.

 

But if you find yourself unable to do this, then you might want to choose another airline. That is what choice is all about!

 

Sorry, it has nothing to do with choice, and frankly your response is condescending. I'm glad you've figured it out, because I haven't. I travel for business and with the regulations on liquids there is no way I can avoid a checked bag. I'm sure the other airlines will follow if American gets away with it. And the airlines that have charged for all baggage in the past have traditionally been "budget" airlines. Seriously, there is the issue of discrimination against women traveling with this policy. Men can get away a carry on all the time since they don't necessarily carry liquids when they travel. I won't debate if it is entirely necessary for women to have liquids, but the fact is a good portion of the toiletries and cosmetics we carry are, and therefore can't be included in a carry on. Just raise the price $15 and continue to allow 1 carry on. Poor PR on AA's part in a time when customers are becoming less and less satisfied with customer service at the airlines.

 

I agree with you and that other post was condescending.

If your flying for travel, no matter how many nights, 1 piece of luggage should be included with the airfare price. It's flipping stupid to think we can or should be traveling without clothes/luggage. It's our right to have luggage and bring clean clothing, stuff to shower with. Unless that other poster doesn't change clothes or shower. Ridiculous. And the airlines just KEEP getting away with it. What a shame. And really stupid with the bad PR they airlines keep getting. They must really be stupid in management.

[vator90]

After reading this thread from one end to the other ( I feel as though I've been on a rollercoaster) a few thoughts come to mind.

 

#1- Airlines appear to be going ala-cart.

If you want an isle seat- press 1

If you are bringing luggage- press 2

If you plan on food- press 3

For a pre approved home equity loan to cover your preferences- press 4

Please wait while we add your costs for your flight together.

 

#2- People will defend anything just to get their count up.

 

#3- Would'nt it be wonderful if we had trains again, like other countries so we would have a choice in mass transit over long distances?

[vator90]

They need to stay in business, and not just for profits.

Then why, pray tell, if not for profits, then why stay in business?

[jahck]

[cruzegirl]

Good idea.... White flag time...... Sorry all but it really gets me both what they are doing and when others think it's ok. That post was not meant to offend anyone and yet might have. Our current economy is upsetting..... But really, to deny a person 1 suitcase is absurd.....;)

[curley23]

Then why, pray tell, if not for profits, then why stay in business?

 

What would happen if the airlines just shut down because they can't afford to operate. Do you think that would affect our economy. Remember 9/11 with no air transportation, and that was only for several days. The airlines are one of the few industries where they can operate at huge losses, and keep filing bk's. Yes they are a for profit company, however profitable or not, we need them.

Maybe you would rather see less planes flying, creating even greater demand, less people working in the industry and air fares most won't be able to afford, that will be the next step, but on a much larger scale that what some airlines are proposing for the future. That would be a great solution. :mad:

[lettienets]

Airlines are fighting for their very survival. They are just trying to stay in business unlike the oil companies who are making record profits. I don't mind paying extra for checked luggage. I suspect all the other lines will follow suit so switching won't help. Besides $15 isn't going to kill me or anyone else who has the means to travel by air.

 

I don't have sympathy for the airlines. There are too many of them anyway and greedy shareholders. Put the price of luggage into the cost of the ticket. Travellers carry luggage, period.

[pms4104]

I am concerned because AA also mentioned that they were planning on canceling some flights. My luck, it will be the one I have booked for my November 8 cruise on Serenade. I hope they make their decisions soon so I can make alternate plans if necessary.

 

Stacy

Indeed, by the fourth quarter this year, American intends to mothball 75 or 80 planes, all MD-80 guzzlers ... and reduce domestic capacity by about 11 or 12 percent. According to today's newspaper, American also is planning to pull out of some small (whatever they mean by that) markets completely, but American has yet to announce the cities they are leaving.

[vator90]

What would happen if the airlines just shut down because they can't afford to operate. Do you think that would affect our economy. Remember 9/11 with no air transportation, and that was only for several days. The airlines are one of the few industries where they can operate at huge losses, and keep filing bk's. Yes they are a for profit company, however profitable or not, we need them.

Maybe you would rather see less planes flying, creating even greater demand, less people working in the industry and air fares most won't be able to afford, that will be the next step, but on a much larger scale that what some airlines are proposing for the future. That would be a great solution. :mad:

As with most things in this changing world, perhaps the airlines need to change the antiquated ways they do business. Why is it that Southwest has been profitable every year since 1991? I don't know either, but they do. So rather than cite isolated incidents like 9/11, why not look at the problem as a whole. At the end of the day, I fly for one reason.... To get me to my ship!

[scottbee]

Good idea.... White flag time...... Sorry all but it really gets me both what they are doing and when others think it's ok. That post was not meant to offend anyone and yet might have. Our current economy is upsetting..... But really, to deny a person 1 suitcase is absurd.....;)

 

Other airlines have been doing this for a while in one way or another.

 

Allegiant Air (USA) - charge for any checked bag, always have (it's relatively cheap @ $10/bag)

Air Canada (Canada) - you get a $5 discount if you don't check bags

RyanAir (Ireland) - complicated (and if you're not paying attention...)

- €5 for checkin fee if you have luggage +

- €10/bag up to a combined weight of 15kg (33 lbs)

- €15/kg in excess of 15kg

(of course it's somewhat offset by the fact that you can fly from London to Rome for €15)

EasyJet (UK) - £5/bag, to a max of 20kg (and big excess charges on top of that)

[Ocean Boy]

As with most things in this changing world, perhaps the airlines need to change the antiquated ways they do business. Why is it that Southwest has been profitable every year since 1991? I don't know either, but they do. So rather than cite isolated incidents like 9/11, why not look at the problem as a whole. At the end of the day, I fly for one reason.... To get me to my ship!

 

One reason Southwest is profitable is because somewhere along the way someone had the foresight to decide that the airline would purchase and fly only one type of plane, the Boeing 737. They have only one type of plane to service, buy parts for and distribute along its flight routes, and train crews to operate. And there are not many commercial airports that it cannot land and take off from.

 

As for someone above mentioning airlines reducing capacity in order to increase demand, this is nothing new. It has been going on for some time. For example, last year A.A. started using Boeing 757s instead of 767s on its route from Bradley airport in Mass to San Juan. Much less seating capacity pretty much ensuring a jammmed packed plane and higher fares.

[PennyAgain]

I've said it before, but I'm saying it again. Allow plenty of time to check in for your flights. Since the first bank of charges went in on several airlines around or on May 12, there has been a slow down checking in.

 

It will only get worse as many people feel the need to argue and hold up the lines.

 

Airlines are not charities. The stockholders are no more greedy than the stockholders of other companies. If they can't make a profit, the airlines will cease to fly.

 

If you don't think there is a reduction of capacity of all carriers, try to use frequent flyer points to get a ticket or 2.

[linda_22003]

I don't have sympathy for the airlines. There are too many of them anyway and greedy shareholders.

 

I guess you don't follow the market too closely. Anyone who was a "greedy shareholder" got out of airline stocks a LONG time ago. As Warren Buffett famously said several years ago, the best way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start out as a billionaire.

[mek]

quote=PennyAgain I've said it before, but I'm saying it again. Allow plenty of time to check in for your flights. Since the first bank of charges went in on several airlines around or on May 12, there has been a slow down checking in.

 

It will only get worse as many people feel the need to argue and hold up the lines.

 

Airlines are not charities. The stockholders are no more greedy than the stockholders of other companies. If they can't make a profit, the airlines will cease to fly.

 

If you don't think there is a reduction of capacity of all carriers, try to use frequent flyer points to get a ticket or 2.

 

I'm sure it's going to be a zoo going forward. But, I have to tell you I had no problem getting FF flights to Rome on Delta in October for 2 to tie into a Med cruise and I got Cost Saver to boot - only 50,000 points pp. While they are not non stop flights, we only have 2 connections going over and 1 coming back. No complaints here! The majority of my European trips have been paid for with FF miles - you just have to be flexible with your dates or plan as far out as possible - the seats are still there. For now, it is OK, but in the future the FF programs will probably undergo major revisions. :(

[ZydeDiverDC]

Hello .. just a note: in our local newspaper last night there was an article re: just this .. noted: AA.. "one" needed to have "elite" status. I am just guessing that might include some serious mileage.

Also Vator90: your note regarding picking an option was a riot! I laughed right out loud , in spite of myself!

funny thing is, it really is like that I think. While on the last 3 flights from Delta, Southwest and Jetblue, I noted the change in "customer service" .. the pillows, the blankets, the "cashless" purchases of food. My carry on is filled with all of that stuff now, and I have to buy the food all over again "inside". yikes, I'm smilin but its kinda not funny. but you made me laugh! thank you!

I just got home from a flight with Spirit & did check on line regarding the checked bag issue: any checked bags were $10 each up to 2 bags each way. at the airport it was $20 and they charged a full bag size for overage. :eek:

Fortuneately, I "ordered" my checked bags on line and tho I traveled with one bag down, I guessed I might be coming back with two.

whew. glad I hit the net before I went. It seems that some of the weight scales seem to "way off' soo having a second bag I was able to divide and conquer.

Scares me tho, how DOES one travel without luggage?

will UPS be our new best travel buddy?

yikes

[greatam]

will UPS be our new best travel buddy?

yikes

 

UPS/DHL/FedEX will NOT be your new travel buddy. It is cheaper to pay the fee for the bags.