American - $15 Charge for FIRST Bag

[kenish]

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.

 

Flying one type of aircraft certainly helps reduce costs. But many other distressed airlines like Aloha, Independence, Skybus, EOS, Frontier, Virgin America, etc. have only one aircraft type too. Flying one aircraft type can increase costs or prevent competing on routes. Your second paragraph is a good example.

 

Not disputing your good comments, just pointing out flying one aircraft type is not a silver bullet and can actually be a wet blanket on business growth.

[Ocean Boy]

Flying one type of aircraft certainly helps reduce costs. But many other distressed airlines like Aloha, Independence, Skybus, EOS, Frontier, Virgin America, etc. have only one aircraft type too. Flying one aircraft type can increase costs or prevent competing on routes. Your second paragraph is a good example.

 

Not disputing your good comments, just pointing out flying one aircraft type is not a silver bullet and can actually be a wet blanket on business growth.

 

I completely agree with you. It is much harder for an airline like American to have such a plan because of the diversity of routes that it flies. An airline offering trans-oceanic flights as well as non- stop trans-continental flights needs very different types of aircraft from one offering 2-3 hour inter-city routes with mutiple flight segments.

 

For reasons unknown to many of us, which is why we are not CEOs of these companies with multi-million dollars salaries, Southwest managed to decide what type of airline it wanted to be and didn't try to out grow that plan. And at least part of that plan included using only one aircraft type. I'm sure far more went into making them successful that I can ever imagine.

[FlyerTalker]

For reasons unknown to many of us, which is why we are not CEOs of these companies with multi-million dollars salaries, Southwest managed to decide what type of airline it wanted to be and didn't try to out grow that plan. And at least part of that plan included using only one aircraft type. I'm sure far more went into making them successful that I can ever imagine.

WN actually operated the 727 in addtiion to the 737. Also, the expansion of the 737 model family allowed for the current WN route structure to be flown with a single type of aircraft (though different variants). The original 737's would never be able to do the transcon and long midcons that WN now flies, so they can thank the Boeing company for some of their luck.

 

On the really obscure front....WN bought competitor Muse Air along with its DC-9 (and later MD-80) aircraft. They operated this as a subsidiary company, TranStar, for about 2 years.

[956wenbrook]

So as I read it, if you purchased your tickets prior to the may 15 date mentioned the new fee will NOT apply to you? This could be very dismal if Delta decides to incorporate the rule and retro fee it to me...I don't know that they can do that to previously purchased tickets but I am traveling with my wife and can forsee us each having 1 carry on each, 1 large checkin piece each and sharing 1 checkin piece (for suits and dresses and shoes). This will be if they follow American Airlines 30 bucks for the 1 large piece each (15 x 2) and 25 bucks for the "shared" piece equaling 55 bucks extra x2 (to and from) for a total additional fee of 110 bucks! Doh!

[chipmaster]

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.

 

 

Wrong, SW is profitable really only because they hedged their fuel. Take away the hedging they've been doing and they too would have been in the red. Here is the hedged fuel price that SW locked in, it was huge, but less so going forward.

 

2007 is 95% hedged at $50/barrel;

2008 is 65% hedged at $49/barrel;

2009 is over 50% hedged at $51/barrel;

2010 is over 25% hedged at $63/barrel;

2010 is over is 15% hedged at $64/barrel;

2012 is 15% hedged at $63/barrel;

 

As efficient as SW is and with their one type of aircraft even SW can't continue at current fare prices and make money.

 

If oil stays at 130 or climbs to 150 as I expect it will this summer, more driven by speculators then demand, SW will have a hard decision. Continue to price tickets at hedged fuel cost and continuing their hedging at every larger premiums, or let the fares rise and put more cushion into their bottom line All the other major domestics; AA, US Air, NW, United will be doing drastic measure and fares will rise a bunch and I'm sure much to SW's delight.

[Globaliser]

And there are plenty of people who cannot manage to not take any luggage on a cruise. A carry on might work for a 3 day but most of us who take a 7' date=' 8 or 10 day cruise need our luggage.

 

Please tell me how you manage to cruise without luggage short of wearing the same thing every day.[/quote']I wouldn't cruise without a checked bag, but have never needed more than one. More and more people will now realise that taking more than one suitcase worth of stuff to a cruise is always a case of overpacking.

 

But there are plenty of trips where people don't need to check anything, even if staying overnight or more. So there are plenty of passengers who won't be paying even the first $15. So there cannot be anything illegal about the charge, however much you may dislike it.

 

Besides which, AA is hardly the first airline to charge for the first bag.

[kenish]

On the really obscure front....WN bought competitor Muse Air along with its DC-9 (and later MD-80) aircraft. They operated this as a subsidiary company, TranStar, for about 2 years.

 

Wow, "blasts from the past"!! I forgot about Muse Air; their paint scheme looked like graffiti taggers took a spray can to the plane!

 

http://www.museair.com/

[Globaliser]

While I can see your point on some of this, I will never agree with passengers being charged for checking 1 bag. NEVER. That to me is an entitlement of paying "whatever" for the airfare ticket. If you fly somewhere, you need clothes, toiletries, etc.

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.

You can easily get at least three to four days' worth of clothes into a "legal" carry-on bag. And you are allowed to take liquids in your cabin baggage.

 

So not every passenger needs to check a bag. Plenty of passengers do not check anything, including women.

 

And if it's a "right" to have one included checked bag with your airline ticket, what are you going to do about all the airlines that have been charging for the first checked bag for some time?

 

I don't like AA's decision, either, but calling it "illegal" is far wide of the mark. Your weapon is choice - fly someone else.

[PennyAgain]

United just announced increasing RT ticket prices $60 and is 'considering' the $15 first checked bag fee.

 

It's going to be a long summer!

[Globaliser]

Wrong, SW is profitable really only because they hedged their fuel. Take away the hedging they've been doing and they too would have been in the red.

Indeed: if Southwest had paid the same for fuel as the other major airlines cited in this thread paid in that reporting period, and nothing else had been different, Southwest's loss would have exceeded that of every one of those airlines except for United.

[Tucker in Texas]

If you all would like a good laugh, go to this link and see how it was flying in the early days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbvFusR43k. Airfarewatchdog sent it out today with their newsletter.

 

Tucker in Texas

[MJL]

You think we have problems.....:)

 

NEW YORK — Bankrupt Frontier Airlines said Friday it will increase the charge for taking antlers on its planes to $100 from $75.

 

Colorado-based Frontier is the latest airline to announce new fees in an attempt to counter the cost of record oil prices, which have roughly doubled in the past year.

 

"During hunting season, people do bring antlers back in cargo" said a spokeswoman for Frontier. "If you look at some of the other airlines, they also have an actual antlers fee, so it does happen," she added.

 

Frontier said it also plans to charge a $25 fee for a second checked bag, cancel half-price infant seats and take no more bookings for pets traveling in airplane cabins.

 

By Mark McSherry

Rueters

[familyof4cruising]

Sorry if this has been stated, but if your ticket was ticketed prior to May 21st, the $15 fee will not be charged. That sound sgood to me because I am flying AA 3 times in the next 10 months. On 5/17 I purchased my airfare for April 2009. i will have to take the $15 fee into consideration when I purchase my next airline ticket.

[kenish]

If you all would like a good laugh, go to this link and see how it was flying in the early days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbvFusR43k. Airfarewatchdog sent it out today with their newsletter. Tucker in Texas

 

Thanks, that is so cool !! Continuity error- the jetway is connected to the rear door when the plane parks at the gate but is at the front door in later shots.

 

Also, "Skippy the Wonder Dog" definitely does NOT want to go on the flight. Animals are always better at sensing trouble.... :eek:

[bikn4fn]

We have a flight to Hawaii in October. I will be sure to take ALL of my travel docs to show that I purchased my tickets prior to the deadline date (like many of you mentioned). I'll see how far I get. The way things are going, they may change the rules again by that time.

[nho9504]

We recently did a 16day Transatlantic, followed 2 weeks on land, for a total of exactly 30 days trip, with each an expanded carry-on, and a shoulder bag.

 

We carried our outer jackets - needed such for a few occasions - our first day at Barcelona was quite cold, and our last week was spent in Switzerland - needed the jackets up in the Alps.

 

My husband brought 1 suit, 1 shirt, 3 ties, and 1 dressy shoes for those formal nights.

 

I brought 1 full gown, 1 long black velvet skirt, 1 long black velvet gaucho pants, 1 silk pants, plus various tops. 1 dressy heels.

 

The rest of clothings were casuals, incl pairs of jeans and pants, plus cotton tops and knit tops.

 

They all fit into 2 21" carry-ons. We did laundries once on the ship (Emerald Princess), once at the appartment we rent at Barcelona. We hand-washed our undies and some delicate tops.

 

I have all the toilertries packed into 1 zipblock and still have another zipblock to carry any other liquid items we might pick up en-route.

 

Oh, when we unpacked upon return, hubby's suit did not have any permanent crease. My gown and silk tops did not even wrinkle.

 

We felt we overpacked - for there were clothes we either did not wear, or only wore once or twice for the whole month-long trip. If we weeded out those unworn items, our carry-ons did not need to expand.

 

We did check our carry-ons on this trip, mainly due to we have long lay-over between segments - it is easier to just have the shoulder bags instead of 2 pcs of luggages each to carry around, going into lounges, etc

 

It can be done going on a cruise without checked luggage - we have done a 14day Panama full crossing without checked luggage before because the whole trip was in warm climate.

 

However, I would venture to say, we are not the norms. :p

[JRsMom]

If you all would like a good laugh, go to this link and see how it was flying in the early days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbvFusR43k. Airfarewatchdog sent it out today with their newsletter.

 

Tucker in Texas

 

 

I love how "gingerly" they handle the luggage!!!:rolleyes: If only that were true...then & now!!!:p