United Airlines: here to make flying more unpleasant than it already is
November 17, 2016 9:29 AM   Subscribe

 
I'm okay with this. Boarding takes way longer because of problems finding overhead bin space.
posted by ocschwar at 9:31 AM on November 17, 2016 [30 favorites]


I'm going to offer to fly naked as long as they pay me.
posted by Fister Roboto at 9:31 AM on November 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


There's always someone who doesn't realize how big their personal carry-on is, and they end up having to gate-check it...What happens when that person has a "budget economy" ticket, do they have to stop at the gate to pay the difference for a regular economy class ticket to check the bag, or do they have to hold the huge carry-on in their lap?
posted by doctornecessiter at 9:37 AM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I am very curious how they're going to enforce this. I guess they can force people to gate check roll-aboards, but does this also mean the budget ticket holders can't put jackets and small items up there (not that anyone should to begin with, but who listens to those pesky rules)?
posted by backseatpilot at 9:38 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The cost will be borne by the staff who will face basic economy passengers rating them endlessly over how much baggage they can take aboard.
posted by Emma May Smith at 9:39 AM on November 17, 2016 [35 favorites]


This is fine. The size of people’s carry-ons is crazy, and when I sit near the back of a plane it takes forever to get off because everyone is pulling down their big-ass wheelie bags. I was on a flight earlier this year with 26 gate-checked bags after the overheads filled up. The captain made an announcement that sounded both amazed and appalled.
posted by migurski at 9:39 AM on November 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


The planes were designed for baggage in the hold. The system is designed for baggage in the hold. They pushed baggage into carryon hoping people would pay more for baggage in the hold.

Actively making systems that are miserable to experience is...long term destructive.
posted by effugas at 9:41 AM on November 17, 2016 [110 favorites]


Frontier Airlines has been charging for all carry-on bags for a while now. You have to read between the lines to figure out that you are allowed to bring a "personal item" that fits under the seat at no charge. They also charge a fee to guarantee your seat—if you don't pay it, you may be separated from your traveling companion. Combined, the fees to carry on a bag and sit with your companion are often higher than the original cost of the ticket.
posted by designbot at 9:41 AM on November 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


There's always someone who doesn't realize how big their personal carry-on is, and they end up having to gate-check it...What happens when that person has a "budget economy" ticket, do they have to stop at the gate to pay the difference for a regular economy class ticket to check the bag, or do they have to hold the huge carry-on in their lap?

What I've seen starting to happen is a lot more vigorous enforcement of your carryon bag before you even enter security, who will then tell you your bag is too big and you have to pay to check it in.

So far as I can tell flying over this past year the gate bag checkers are usually because the overhead bins are already too full and they've got no choice.
posted by Karaage at 9:41 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


While I'm also annoyed by people with enormous luggage cramming it into overhead bins and slowing down the boarding/deplaning process, I have a tough time blaming the travelers for it. This is another instance of the airlines encouraging this behavior (by adding a charge to check luggage in an attempt to make the ticket look cheaper).

My biggest complaint with this is that it will end up saving corporations money while passing on costs to traveling employees. Every company I've ever worked for has a "cheapest available airfare" policy. None of them would pay for a checked bag, even for week+ long trips. How many of them do you think are going to pay for the overhead storage when this rolls out?
posted by fader at 9:44 AM on November 17, 2016 [69 favorites]


"I'm okay with this. Boarding takes way longer because of problems finding overhead bin space."

Except now it'll take much longer to check in since you'll have to check in your carry-on bags so no more just printing out your boarding pass at the kiosk and going through security. That's an extra 30 minutes to board.

And no more just getting off the plane and walking out of the airport. Now it's getting off the plane, going to the luggage carousel, waiting for 20-30 minutes for the luggage to appear, and then finally leaving.

This is going to cause a ton more problems.
posted by I-baLL at 9:45 AM on November 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


What I've seen starting to happen is a lot more vigorous enforcement of your carryon bag before you even enter security, who will then tell you your bag is too big and you have to pay to check it in.

I was thinking that if you buy one of these budget tickets and check in online and get an electronic boarding pass, then the first time you see an airline employee will be at the gate. Are TSA people (or even less likely those third-party line herders pre-security) going to tell you to go back to check-in because your bag isn't allowed?
posted by backseatpilot at 9:45 AM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


(It's also another example of airlines pitting travelers against each other rather than directing their anger at the airline itself, much like the incredible shrinkage in space between rows of seats becoming a fight about the person in front of you reclining rather than about the airline taking another few inches of space to cram in more warm bodies.)
posted by fader at 9:45 AM on November 17, 2016 [54 favorites]


Oh, wait, I misread. So the overhead bins will be available but you'll have to pay. Eh, this isn't going to work too well
posted by I-baLL at 9:47 AM on November 17, 2016


"Customers have told us that they want more choice and basic economy delivers just that"

LOL

"while still receiving the same standard economy experience, including food, beverage, Wi-Fi and personal device entertainment"

LOL
posted by nikoniko at 9:50 AM on November 17, 2016 [32 favorites]


Except now it'll take much longer to check in since you'll have to check in your carry-on bags

No, the new charge is only for overhead storage, per the article. For a while now, I've been using a small duffle bag that stuffs under the seat so I don't have to worry about the overhead rat race at all; under the new system this would still be free.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:55 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would be OK with this if airlines actually had a decent track record of getting checked bags where they are supposed to be. I go on a many short trips a year for work where I'm often on the ground at my destination for less that 24 hours. If the airline loses a checked bag, I'll often only get it 1 to two days after I get back home. This happened at least six times in the last year

If I need ANYTHING to be reliably available at my destination it means I need to have a rollaboard. since I actually need to carry parts, tools and instruments to my destination to do my job this is a big problem. one consequence of this is that I need to pay very close attention to my Frequent Flyer status to insure that I board early enough to get overhead bin space. I'm also strongly encouraged by my company not to check a bag to save money and also to get the cheapest airfare possible. If the cheapest airfare doesn't include overhead space it directly screws me, especially since I fly united predominantly.
posted by Dr. Twist at 9:55 AM on November 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


So what's to keep you from buying the cheap ticket and just checking your "carry-on" at the gate? It's free, and half the time it's the best option already.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:56 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Where "food" = small packet of pretzels, "beverage" is half a can of soda, Wi-Fi costs $8-10 for the flight duration, and "personal device entertainment" is your own phone or computer because their free TV options are shit.
posted by explosion at 9:56 AM on November 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


For me, just as big an issue as the new charges is the "no pre-assigned seating" part. I cannot tolerate a middle seat for any length of time as a 6'3" dude.
posted by Hargrimm at 9:57 AM on November 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Every company I've ever worked for has a "cheapest available airfare" policy. None of them would pay for a checked bag, even for week+ long trips.

What!? That seems nuts.
posted by ODiV at 10:01 AM on November 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


The last flight I took they were debuting a new entertainment system that streamed their TV/Movie offerings right to your phone/laptop/whatever. There were no screens in seatbacks. It was currently free for its introductory period. Pretty sure I'm not going to pay any money to watch 3/4 of a movie on a plane, thanks.
posted by ODiV at 10:06 AM on November 17, 2016


I'm perplexed how well this is going to work since most non-budget airlines can't even be arsed to enforce their existing baggage rules. Always interesting to see an overhead compartment that has a single oversized rollaboard taking the space of three correctly sized bags.

When they're stuck in the last boarding group, I'll wonder how strongly the gate counter staff will hold up. They have the option of delaying the flight for arguing with / charging the passenger for the carryon, ignoring the rules and letting carryons in, or sticking to their schedule and leaving without the passenger.
posted by meowzilla at 10:08 AM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Frontier Airlines has been charging for all carry-on bags for a while now. You have to read between the lines to figure out that you are allowed to bring a "personal item" that fits under the seat at no charge. They also charge a fee to guarantee your seat—if you don't pay it, you may be separated from your traveling companion. Combined, the fees to carry on a bag and sit with your companion are often higher than the original cost of the ticket.

I'm honestly pretty OK with paying for Frontier's bags-and-seats-included package, especially since it includes refundability, but I wish they'd allow me to search for prices with all the extras included already. It's annoying not to have any idea how much flights are really going to cost from the search results, and I'd rather they just be honest about it.

I was also OK with that time JC Penney tried the "no coupons, just predictable prices lowered on a predictable schedule" experiment, though, so I may not be a normal customer.
posted by asperity at 10:10 AM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]



For me, just as big an issue as the new charges is the "no pre-assigned seating" part. I cannot tolerate a middle seat for any length of time as a 6'3" dude.

The solution to every flying problem is to just pay more. Flying is expensive and people are cheap and the o ly way to reconcile the two is to make planes into flying greyhound busses.
posted by GuyZero at 10:10 AM on November 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


A few years ago I flew on United, and as I went to board they told me I'd need to check my carryon due to insufficient space. I'd already checked a suitcase, please note.

I told them that I would check my bag if they would give me assurance my computer (this was my MBP in a Tom Bihn Empire Builder) would be undamaged. They proceeded to quote me the part in the luggage carriage contract that they couldn't promise that.

"So basically, you're saying you can't promise me the bag that I am being involuntarily checked will and am following your own airline's rules about carrying on will be safe due to the inability of others to follow directions? Am I correct here?" I was informed that yes, I was correct.

I looked for a moment and saw the other issue: the woman in front of me was travelling eith a lap infant and had taken the space under her seat - should have been for my bag, which should fit there fine - for one of her bags. And they knew that. And they didn't want to deal with her.

I found out why: when I asked her to move that bag which was in my space, I was delivered of a rant about her baaaaaaybeeeee and how she needed the stuff in the bags for her baaaaaybeeee and if I was a parent I'd understand, and and and.

The flight attendant finally offered to rebook me on the next flight at no extra charge, and I took it, because I think that woman would have abuses me the entire trip from Denver to Newark and they'd have arrested me for garroting her.

But I fully see this being the new normal on Untied for the future: people stealing the underseat storage spots when no one wants to buy space in the overhead bins.
posted by mephron at 10:10 AM on November 17, 2016 [58 favorites]


Honestly, the new nickle-and-diming doesn't bother me as much as the age-old class system. Rationally, I realize that first-class is more carbon-friendly than private planes, but irrationally the in-your-face-ness of separate lines, separate bathrooms, separate lounges, disparate treatment etc really bothers me.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:10 AM on November 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


If there's only a few, they'll let the passengers on in defiance of the rules and let everyone else grumble about the guy who's getting away with breaking the rules. If there's a lot, they'll hold up everyone while they sell them carryon access or checked baggage, and let the whole plane be annoyed at the rulesbreakers.

Mostly, they'll convince a lot of people to travel with fewer bags and increase both stress and cost factors for those who can't use a handbag. Oh, and add a bit of nuisance to everyone who has to deal with even more bags sliding around on the floor instead of being safely packed away in locked bins.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:12 AM on November 17, 2016


"Customers as voters resoundingly told us on November 8th they accept the capitalist oligarchy under which they live," United's COO Julia Haywood said, who refused to speak on condition on anonymity because, "shit, who's gonna stop us?"
posted by glaucon at 10:12 AM on November 17, 2016 [62 favorites]


I found out why: when I asked her to move that bag which was in my space, I was delivered of a rant about her baaaaaaybeeeee and how she needed the stuff in the bags for her baaaaaybeeee and if I was a parent I'd understand, and and and.

Uh, babies actually do need a lot of stuff. I understand your frustrating with the airline but the problem is with them and not with this woman who is also in a bad situation.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 10:13 AM on November 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


This is another instance of the airlines encouraging this behavior (by adding a charge to check luggage in an attempt to make the ticket look cheaper).

To be fair, consumers reward this behavior by overwhelmingly buying the cheapest looking tickets possible. The race to the bottom exists because that's where the money flows.
posted by Candleman at 10:15 AM on November 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


I wonder if it shouldn't be about how often you fly vs. how much you pay. I travel every week. Traveling consultants know how this all works. We're always gold/platinum/diamond members, we always get on w/ a rolling bag + carryon that fits under the seat. We always get our shit stowed and into our seats super quick, and then either get to work while everyone else gets seated or immediately fall asleep. We don't cause slowdown in the boarding process and most of us don't take up too much overhead space. We know what we're allowed to have, and we don't take up more than that. (If you do, you haven't been doing this very long.)

And I am NEVER going to check my bag, because I am very very often switching flights at the last second, and they won't do that if your bag is checked. And if they charge more for that, then that's just a cost I'm going to transfer to the client.
posted by nushustu at 10:17 AM on November 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Well, the airlines have to come up with some way to recoup all that lost SkyMall revenue.
posted by TedW at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Uh, babies actually do need a lot of stuff. I understand your frustrating with the airline but the problem is with them and not with this woman who is also in a bad situation.

I've flown across two oceans and three continents with babies as young as three months old. I didn't steal other people's space.
posted by Etrigan at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2016 [104 favorites]


Uh, babies actually do need a lot of stuff. I understand your frustrating with the airline but the problem is with them and not with this woman who is also in a bad situation.

She had an overhead and the underseat in front of her, she then also took the under seat under her which I would have used for my bag, and then she was screamingly abusive to me when I asked her to move the one in should have been my space. The problem was both of them IMHO.
posted by mephron at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2016 [69 favorites]


I fly maybe 20 segments a year and I welcome this. Currently everyone has an incentive to bring a wheelie bag because the alternative is $25 to check it. Therefore the bins are unpleasantly crammed with suitcases that don't even fit. At least this way people will decide whether they'd rather be able to have more stuff, but wait for it to arrive at the carousel, or whether they really need to carry on a bag.

None of this will change my platform:

1. The overhead bins will remain locked until all passengers with underseat-only luggage have deplaned.

2. Any bags placed the long way in the bins will be removed just before the plane lands and detonated by the bomb squad at the arriving airport in full view of the passengers.
posted by wnissen at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2016 [30 favorites]


The solution to every flying problem is to just pay more.

Well, except many airlines only have 3 options: crap economy which is cheap and massively uncomfortable, "premium" economy which is more comfortable but available in short supply and often only available to frequent travelers with airline status, and first class which is prohibitively expensive.

I would love to always have access to premium economy inventory, and I would absolutely pay more for it, but on most airlines I've flown recently this inventory isn't even available for purchase unless you're a gold/platinum/whatever member. Or, it's open to everyone but there's so little inventory on each flight that it sells out almost immediately. There needs to be more of a middle ground.
posted by joan_holloway at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is another instance of the airlines encouraging this behavior (by adding a charge to check luggage in an attempt to make the ticket look cheaper).

Yeah, pretty much. The overheads are mainly cramped because of the charges for checked luggage. I fly at least once year, and while the overhead situation was never good it's clearly gotten worse in the last few years, as we've gone from charging for only for large or overweight checked bags to charging for all checked bags. I'm just glad I can afford the fees for checked bags.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:19 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just flew United last week and had to gate check my bag--mostly because we were in tiny planes. I didn't mind because my bag was just barely within acceptable overhead bin limits and frankly, I didn't want to deal with people who might get mad at me.

I wish I didn't have to buy the cheapest tix possible to visit family and friends. But I don't, then I don't get to go anywhere or see anyone. (I am continually trying to master the art of having everything I need for a two week vacation in an overnight bag.)
posted by Kitteh at 10:19 AM on November 17, 2016


I think the issue with lazy corporate travel policies is the actual issue here. Airlines make it insanely difficult to price shop and set up conflicts of interest between companies and employees with frequent flier programs BUT that doesn't really excuse corporate travel policies saying dumb things like"always take the cheapest flight."

If the cheapest NYC-LON flight happens to be Aeroflot through St Petersburg, no, no fucking way am I taking that flight. Companies need to find a way to balance employee productivity and basic comfort with flight costs. Some people are just not going to get to fly and those who can't avoid flying are going to be paying more. These ultra-cheap fares are for casual or vacation travellers and really have no bearing on business travellers, well, except they fuck with lazy travel policies.
posted by GuyZero at 10:20 AM on November 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I almost never fly, but I never, ever check luggage. It comes on board with me. I am happy to pay more for the privilege if I have to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:22 AM on November 17, 2016


on most airlines I've flown recently this inventory isn't even available for purchase unless you're a gold/platinum/whatever member

Huh, I'm surprised. It usually seems available to me but I tend to fly pretty high volume routes and live near a United hub. And I don't fly for business all that much, probably less than once a month.
posted by GuyZero at 10:22 AM on November 17, 2016


There is no reason, anyone, no matter who or what they are traveling with, should be able to take up more space than they paid for. Flying with everything you own is not a right. If you cant fit, the solution is not to take up someone else's space, the solution is make it work with less, or take another form of transportation. Sorry.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 10:24 AM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


She had an overhead and the underseat in front of her, she then also took the under seat under her which I would have used for my bag, and then she was screamingly abusive to me when I asked her to move the one in should have been my space. The problem was both of them IMHO.

Okay, fine, maybe I'm a bit defensive because I've recently flown with a baby (who had her own seat so we had plenty of space) but the characterization of the way the mother was speaking really bothered me. This is a derail so I'll drop it now and I am sure you are right that she was taking up more space than was reasonable but boy the typed out whining so we'd know how awful and annoying this woman was really hit a nerve with me.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 10:24 AM on November 17, 2016 [30 favorites]


Except now it'll take much longer to check in since you'll have to check in your carry-on bags so no more just printing out your boarding pass at the kiosk and going through security. That's an extra 30 minutes to board.

And no more just getting off the plane and walking out of the airport. Now it's getting off the plane, going to the luggage carousel, waiting for 20-30 minutes for the luggage to appear, and then finally leaving.

This is going to cause a ton more problems.


Or maybe people will just take less crap. (I get that some people, I've been one of them, have to bring stuff for work, they can't help it, but maybe there will actually be room now, if the casual travelers have left out 15 of the 16 pairs of shoes they usually pack and maybe brought Grandma a gift certificate this year instead of a mixer and a matching blender like last year...)
posted by WalkerWestridge at 10:34 AM on November 17, 2016


i like how airlines reduce space for passengers in every possible avenue and our response is 'wow other passengers are selfish'
posted by beerperson at 10:35 AM on November 17, 2016 [37 favorites]


So...if these "super cheap extra economy" passengers have to board the plane last, does that mean they all get aisle seats? Because if they don't, they are seriously inconveniencing those who paid more when they climb all over them and make them get up to get to their "unreserved, we picked it for you" window seat. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.

I'm not flying United next month for my Christmas trip, but I'm trying really hard not to have to take a wheelie bag onboard (although gate checking it is fine with me). The boyfriend has to have a separate suitcase for medical supplies though, so packing to go anywhere is a challenge (coming back is easier because his medical supplies have been used up on the trip).
posted by MultiFaceted at 10:36 AM on November 17, 2016


i like how airlines reduce space for passengers in every possible avenue and our response is 'wow other passengers are selfish'

Both of those are true.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:37 AM on November 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


Ha! This is catnip to anyone who has flown on the cheap European airlines. Passengers wear special luggage jackets like these. Paying for overhead bins? Those fools don't realize I just have to add more pockets. I could dissassemble my bicycle and carry it all on my person.
posted by storybored at 10:37 AM on November 17, 2016 [32 favorites]


our response is 'wow other passengers are selfish'

It's the tragedy of the commons. Airlines jack up prices but give people an out by cutting back on features so people do the fairly obvious thing - they buy the cheapest ticket and then try to steal back the features like luggage storage space. It's not selfish but it's not exactly fair either. You want more space? Pay more money.
posted by GuyZero at 10:38 AM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Passengers wear special luggage jackets like these.

I will pay a fee merely not to be forced to wear anything called the Rufus Roo.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:39 AM on November 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm not flying anywhere anytime soon, but by the time I get to, I hope there will be exceptions for medical supplies and equipment. My purse that goes under the seat and my bag that goes in the overhead bin are mostly full of medicines, medical equipment, syringes and other paraphernalia - things that would be difficult to impossible to replace if they were lost in checked luggage. My insulin has to stay in a special cooler to remain within a safe temperature range. Forcing people with chronic medical conditions to pay more for an airline ticket when cheaper ones are available doesn't quite seem kosher to me.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:41 AM on November 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


"Customers have told us that they want more choice and basic economy delivers just that, while still receiving the same standard economy experience, including food, beverage, Wi-Fi and personal device entertainment"
I like to think that this sentence was meant to keep going, but United's PR rep received a sharp kick to the knee under the table before he could finish listing "upholstered seats, latrines, and oxygenated air" as passenger amenities.
posted by Mayor West at 10:44 AM on November 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


My rule of thumb that I would rather drive ten hours than fly one just keeps sounding better and better.
posted by TedW at 10:44 AM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also, I'd love to see the survey data upon which they base their claim that the customers are asking for "more choices." Did they survey a panel made up of those one out of five dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum, or was the question just strangely worded?
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:45 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not flying anywhere anytime soon, but by the time I get to, I hope there will be exceptions for medical supplies and equipment. My purse that goes under the seat and my bag that goes in the overhead bin are mostly full of medicines, medical equipment, syringes and other paraphernalia - things that would be difficult to impossible to replace if they were lost in checked luggage. My insulin has to stay in a special cooler to remain within a safe temperature range. Forcing people with chronic medical conditions to pay more for an airline ticket when cheaper ones are available doesn't quite seem kosher to me.

Also this seems totally fair to me. I would not mind if someone needed to take up more room for medicines because they absolutely can not travel with out them or they will get sick or die.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 10:45 AM on November 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Also, I'd love to see the survey under the data upon which they base their claim and that the customers are asking for "more choices."

The fact that shitbag airlines like Frontier and Spirit continue to exist and even grow is evidence that consumers like cheap fares and shit service.
posted by GuyZero at 10:46 AM on November 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


My insulin has to stay in a special cooler to remain within a safe temperature range. Forcing people with chronic medical conditions to pay more for an airline ticket when cheaper ones are available doesn't quite seem kosher to me.

For what it's worth, Underpants Monster, most carriers have an exemption for medical devices. I'm technically allowed to bring a third carry-on for most providers, since my CPAP machine is in its own bag and there's an extra-super-secret baggage policy that they probably have around to avoid ADA lawsuits.
posted by Mayor West at 10:46 AM on November 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


There is a hand baggage exception for medical equipment - just make sure to have a doctor's note just in case. I travel with my CPAP machine and I used to try to fit it in my luggage but now I just board with three pieces of in-cabin hand luggage (suitcase, messenger bag and CPAP machine) and it's fine.
posted by GuyZero at 10:47 AM on November 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


My rule of thumb that I would rather drive ten hours than fly one just keeps sounding better and better.

But one-hour flights are the most bearable ones! Flying SJC or SFO to LAX is a lot better than driving it, depending on where you're going and who you're going with.
posted by GuyZero at 10:48 AM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Book Southwest, check in 24 hours before flight for decent seat and plenty of overhead bin space, problem solved (domestically anyway).
posted by repoman at 11:01 AM on November 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's the passengers who think they're so special that they have the right to store both their personal item and their carry-on item in the overhead bin who bug me. You've got an under-the-seat space in front of you, use it. I don't care if it limits your legroom. Tough. It limits mine too, but I still use it, and I don't hog somebody else's overhead bin space.

Yes, I know the airlines are the real bad guys in these scenarios, but people who make things worse for their fellow passengers deserve a bit of rebuke too.
posted by sardonyx at 11:04 AM on November 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


I've always been kind of averse to flying--I'm not afraid of it, I just get way more easily motion sick when flying than driving and there have been times it's taken me 2-3 days to stop feeling woozy. That plus security plus the cost plus being taller than 5'4" has generally meant that I'm happy to drive pretty much anything less than multiple days over flying unless I have to fly. (Like when I used to travel with my moot court team.) If I drive, I have leg room the whole way, I can take as much stuff as I can fit into a PT Cruiser, and when I arrive, I already have a vehicle. So, there's a few things to recommend it. For a long time I felt a little defensive about this, but I'm starting to wonder how much people are willing to endure to get from point A to point B a bit faster. Once you factor in security, leaving enough time to account for traffic, layovers, and flight delays, the time difference starts shrinking, and the difference in human dignity is pretty huge.

And I don't even have cruise control.
posted by Sequence at 11:06 AM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


ITT: the american public who shows with frightening speed their instinct to bootlick corporations' bottom line (where the $ goes to zillionaire CEOs, of course, not the front-line staff who have to actually, ya know, manage this) at the expense of their fellow passengers because once in a while an annoying person with wheelies (who likely couldnt afford to check a bag) held them up for 20 seconds. Shameful.
posted by yonation at 11:09 AM on November 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


My problem is while I like being places, I hate going to them.

That's why I have a fly-head now.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:09 AM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Odiv: What!? That seems nuts.

If you think that's bad, wait until I tell you about US companies' vacation policies.
posted by fader at 11:12 AM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


If the cheapest NYC-LON flight happens to be Aeroflot through St Petersburg, no, no fucking way am I taking that flight.

A couple of years ago, I was flying Ottawa->Amsterdam. Normally that's a one hop to a major centre in Canada then a single flight over. A whole bunch of carrier options, so while we do have a lowest fare requirement in our system, normally that isn't such a big deal. Most of the flights we are allowed to pick from are Star Alliance ones, because Air Canada.

However, this time Turkish Airlines was playing silly buggers with fares, something like a 50% discount with overnight in Instanbul. So, of course, my only allowed options were five or more hops, with multiple 8 to 12 hours stops, typically Canada to Frankfurt or Rome, to Istanbul, then back to Frankfurt, then finally to Amsterdam.

I was only allowed to book a regular flight when I pointed out to my director exactly how much I would be claiming in overtime as a result of flights that took 25-36 hrs each instead of the usual 8. Which was many times the cost of the ticket.
posted by bonehead at 11:17 AM on November 17, 2016 [23 favorites]


An American company would generally just not allow you overtime pay. Problem solved!

But seriously, for those of you who are winding up with ridiculous travel dilemmas like the ones above, how many layers of middlemen exist in your company to check up on your travel claims?
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:26 AM on November 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


So what's to keep you from buying the cheap ticket and just checking your "carry-on" at the gate?

This is what I do as a matter of course, and they don't lose gate-checked bags because they take them straight to the plane from the jetway. (And that is a serious concern for me, as I am usually flying out of a terminal that is theoretically still on the LAX property but you have to go out a secret door in the terminal and then drive on the runways in a bus to an undisclosed location, where the planes are so small they use a sort of rickety scaffolding instead of jetways.) I keep my laptop in my big purse, which would fit under the seat if only my boss would stop putting us in the fucking bulkhead seats and then being surprised when we are in bulkhead seats.

The gate agents are always more than happy to have me volunteer my bag before they start forcing people to hand 'em over.
posted by Lyn Never at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I will pay a fee merely not to be forced to wear anything called the Rufus Roo.

Whereas I feel that "I could have more pockets!" is the single useful insight I have derived from this thread.
posted by brennen at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


In the face of the ever lowering bar of air travel comfort I've been a long advocate of ever more expensive travel. I suspect; however that the standards would continue to be so shitty while prices would be higher, meaning you'd be paying more (for PROFIT) for the same bog-standard air-travel that is making us all sick and tired of travel.
posted by NiteMayr at 11:33 AM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Or maybe people will just take less crap.

See, part of the problem is we weren't all born today. We all - at least all of us over a certain age - remember air travel where you bought your tickets, weren't dicked around with "you get charged extra for the window" fuckery, were provided with a meal AND snacks AND drinks, multiple drinks a flight even, and could check two bags free.

So at this point I take any cutback to that as a personal affront. I refuse to pay the extra fees out of anger sometimes, not inability. I refuse to let the airlines profit from their fuckery. I would rather buy a $100 Bagtogo jacket than pay $100 to check baggage.
posted by corb at 11:33 AM on November 17, 2016 [32 favorites]


> I fly maybe 20 segments a year and I welcome this. Currently everyone has an incentive to bring a wheelie bag because the alternative is $25 to check it. Therefore the bins are unpleasantly crammed with suitcases that don't even fit. At least this way people will decide whether they'd rather be able to have more stuff, but wait for it to arrive at the carousel, or whether they really need to carry on a bag.

Not EVERYONE. My carry-on bag is not a wheelie bag and it is more-than-compliant with the actual carry-on size guidelines, though it's not underseat-sized. (And this is the bag I use for multi-week vacations. I'm a light packer.)

If these airlines actually required passengers to comply with the rules, the overhead bins wouldn't be crammed.
posted by desuetude at 11:34 AM on November 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


I know that it's popular to blame the "greedy" airlines for these kinds of changes, but I think appropriately structured baggage fees are a good thing, even for the consumers. I'll even go so far as to say that charging for overhead bin space is an improvement over the general status quo.

If there were no fees for a first checked bag, flights would cost $X.
Right now, most flights cost $X-$20, and a first checked bag costs $25. So, most thinking people do what they need to do to avoid checking a bag (that's on top of the incentives to keep control of your luggage in flight).

So, you've got people incentivized to use as much overhead space as possible, and the planes aren't built for that. Some airlines handle this by free gate-checking, which in the best case is like a luggage valet where you get your bag back on the jetway at your destination, but even in the worst case allows you to save $25 by lugging your rollerbag through security (and all the liquids wrangling that that entails).

The proposed system removes the incentive to game the overhead space. Flight costs $X-20, checking a bag costs $25, using the overhead bin costs maybe $15. As a rational flier, what are you going to do? Personally, I know that I might start checking bags more often.

Now, yes, airlines could just make all the bags free again. But airlines aren't charities, so it's very likely that the loss of bag fees will lead to all flights being more expensive, which puts travel even more out of reach for the poor and middle-class.

Regardless how skeptical you are about the free market, it's hard to make the argument that we shouldn't just let the invisible hand do the nudging when it comes to how people pack for flights* (with exceptions for medical supplies, etc.). If you want to travel with a big bag, pay for it. If you want to travel for cheap, pack light. I can't see how it can be more fair than that.

*if this were a discussion about making fat people pay for two seats, I'd have a different opinion.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:35 AM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


So United is basically becoming Spirit Airlines?
posted by mosschief at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


So what's to keep you from buying the cheap ticket and just checking your "carry-on" at the gate?

I love "sky-checks" on the smaller feed routes, the ones with the wee planes that you board from the tarmac directly. Bags right out on the runway, grab'em and go.

Some airlines do this on the jetways too with the midsize Embrair and Bombardier planes and it's a real pain: more people waiting for more bags in a smaller space. You get a long queue down the jet way opposite to the flow of traffic; it's a mess typically.

I can't imagine that on a big wide-body.
posted by bonehead at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


ITT: the american public who shows with frightening speed their instinct to bootlick corporations' bottom line (where the $ goes to zillionaire CEOs, of course, not the front-line staff who have to actually, ya know, manage this) at the expense of their fellow passengers because once in a while an annoying person with wheelies (who likely couldnt afford to check a bag) held them up for 20 seconds. Shameful.

As has been said many times in this thread: IT'S BOTH.

Yeah, the companies are squeezing us for profit, but the general public has also encouraged this behavior, flocking to shitty discount airlines like Frontier and Spirit. Yeah, the overhead bins are full because of the attempts to monetize checked luggage, but they're also full because people bring bags that are too big, suck at orienting them in the bays, and put personal/underseat bags up there too.
posted by explosion at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


(And that is a serious concern for me, as I am usually flying out of a terminal that is theoretically still on the LAX property but you have to go out a secret door in the terminal and then drive on the runways in a bus to an undisclosed location, where the planes are so small they use a sort of rickety scaffolding instead of jetways.)

If you're talking about the American Eagle remote terminal (ugh I hate flying out of that one) the location isn't undisclosed. It's on the other side of Sepulveda. There's an access road that runs parallel to 7L/27R.
posted by Talez at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Like, it'd be one thing if they were cutting their existing prices to offer "choice", but instead they're just making every choice more expensive. They're not saying: "We're taking existing airline ticket X, subtracting 50$, and making each of your two checked bags cost $25, such that all passengers pay X -50, and passengers with bags pay X-25 or X." They're saying, "We're taking price X and making it all no-bags, so passengers without bags pay X and those with pay X+25 or X+50.

If I added up the cost they charge for, say, two checked bags, assigned seating by a window, a meal, a snack, and a drink, and subtracted it from the cost of some flights, I'd be flying for like 25$.
posted by corb at 11:40 AM on November 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


", but the general public has also encouraged this behavior, flocking to shitty discount airlines like Frontier and Spirit."

But don't those airlines allow the use of overhead luggage bins without being forced to pay extra?
posted by I-baLL at 11:42 AM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


See, part of the problem is we weren't all born today. We all - at least all of us over a certain age - remember air travel where you bought your tickets, weren't dicked around with "you get charged extra for the window" fuckery, were provided with a meal AND snacks AND drinks, multiple drinks a flight even, and could check two bags free.

My very first flight from Chicago to Los Angeles in 1990 cost $430, which the BLS Inflation Calculator says is $790 today. American now prices their first-class seats from Chicago to LA for about that much. So, first class is now old coach and new coach is now Greyhound.

I got upgraded to the front once, and the old-timer next to me was complaining about the exact same thing. When I said, "Yeah, airlines really went to shit after Carter de-regulated them in '78", I was then subjected to an hour-long screed about the evils of regulation.
posted by hwyengr at 11:47 AM on November 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


I know that it's popular to blame the "greedy" airlines for these kinds of changes, but I think appropriately structured baggage fees are a good thing, even for the consumers. I'll even go so far as to say that charging for overhead bin space is an improvement over the general status quo.

I kind of agree, and kind of don't. The problems are that 1) many flyers, both corporate or personal, buy only based on the cost of the ticket in Expedia or whatever other travel aggregator they use. This incentivizes the airlines to make the naked ticket price as low as possible. 2) Air lines make their profit back with add-on fees and the like. These fees are often not included at the time of deciding which ticket to buy, so they don't figure in the choice of flight. 3) Finally, the airline staff frequently modify or don't enforce rules about carry ons, which leads to fee-avoiders overstuffing the cabins currently.

Back when there were no baggage fees, people would check two bags each, particularly people on vacation, and the cabin room was a lot more pleasant.

So to bring that back, the price of baggage should be included up front in Travelocity or whatever. Just like options on a car or a computer, baggage and other fees (meals?) should be bookable pretty much only at the time of ticket purchase. Want to book another bag at the airport on the day? Fine, but that will be $10 more. This gets flyers back to booking a flight with a baggage included, sort of. Airlines could even have a price per carry-on under this system (with tags for your shoulder bags, natch).

Monetize everything, fine, I guess, but do it up front, not at check-in. People still have options to fly cheap, but they can pay for bags up front too. Corporate policies would have to adjust for baggage fees too.
posted by bonehead at 11:49 AM on November 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


What's disgusting about the airlines pulling this crap is that these fees are nickel and dime bullshit to them, but not to the average economy traveler, who just wants a basic human decency level of service when they're on vacation and now has to pay a couple hundred dollars extra in fees that didn't exist a few years ago. They're not making their money off people in coach who want to put their suitcase in the overhead compartment - they're making their money off executives who have to fly across the world for a business meeting on 2 weeks' notice. Just raise that business class fare to India by $20, guys. Corporations will pay it without a second thought.
posted by something something at 11:49 AM on November 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


"Yeah, airlines really went to shit after Carter de-regulated them in '78"

Yeah fuck that deregulation. Never mind that poor people can actually afford a flight and go somewhere once in a while. You gotta pay eight fucking dollars for the world's shittiest sandwich and that's the real tragedy here.
posted by Talez at 11:51 AM on November 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I would be OK with this if airlines actually had a decent track record of getting checked bags where they are supposed to be.

Last week I was standing around in the luggage claim area at o'hare at 1:00 AM with 200 or so fellow passengers waiting for our luggage and nary an airport worker was seen. Strangely, 15 bags had come through immediately and then nothing for half an hour.

I went over to the airlines luggage lost and found and asked them what was up. They assured me it was being unloaded as we spoke. Then the conveyor stopped and briefly and restarted. They didn't tell me be it was pretty obvious our luggage had gotten jammed on the conveyor and there was nobody around at that hour watching the system to fix it in a timely fashion.

Sometimes I think the goal of airlines is to make passengers want planes to crash just so they can get some relief even if it is by dying.
posted by srboisvert at 11:52 AM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments deleted. Let's rewind that a bit, maybe we can skip having a fight about who's being an asshole or who's preventing assholism.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:55 AM on November 17, 2016


Yeah fuck that deregulation. Never mind that poor people can actually afford a flight and go somewhere once in a while.

Well, that was certainly the upside. But you (and not you, literally) shouldn't wax nostalgic for the meals, and drinks, and playing cards, and plastic wings while paying 1/4 or less of what airfare used to cost when you got those things.
posted by hwyengr at 11:57 AM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


As above, if there were a class between economy plus and business/first or business were an extra $100 instead of $1000 I would take it. I hate flying and I hate all the cheap people who have incentivized airlines to make it worse, but I love being places, and when I get to fly first, it is night and day. But like everything else in this world, it just keeps getting worse.
posted by dame at 11:57 AM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


for those of you who are winding up with ridiculous travel dilemmas like the ones above, how many layers of middlemen exist in your company to check up on your travel claims?

With my company, you have to book through a travel service that has rules that flat out disallow buying expensive flights on their website. Don't use the service, you don't get reimbursed. That said, our rules aren't completely insane - I think you have to be within something like $100 of the cheapest flight, so if the cheapest flight is an outlier with three layovers, you're not completely screwed. You can also work with travel agents if you get into weird situations who are allowed to break the rules when they feel it's reasonable. I've never had that come up so I have no first-hand experience with it.

I imagine they'll filter out these new flights because the company is trying to be efficient but not make the employees unhappy.

If I added up the cost they charge for, say, two checked bags, assigned seating by a window, a meal, a snack, and a drink, and subtracted it from the cost of some flights, I'd be flying for like 25$.

Consider that airfares have barely budged in the past decade while inflation and cost of living has gone up. That difference has to be paid somehow and what capitalism has selected is fees for some features. It might be more egalitarian to charge everyone the same thing, but making things cheaper for people that don't need to check bags does allow some people that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to fly to do so.

ITT

This is one of those conversational anti-patterns like FTFY that tends to not lead anyplace constructive. Can we leave the passive-aggressive sniping elsewhere?

posted by Candleman at 12:00 PM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


As above, if there were a class between economy plus and business/first or business were an extra $100 instead of $1000 I would take it. I hate flying and I hate all the cheap people who have incentivized airlines to make it worse, but I love being places, and when I get to fly first, it is night and day. But like everything else in this world, it just keeps getting worse.

IMHO first class on a domestic even cross country isn't worth it. There's not enough time to sleep on a red-eye, there's so much room in economy plus which you can usually get free with status.

If I could get premium economy (+50%) with the ability to lay down I would never fly coach again international long haul.
posted by Talez at 12:01 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


IMHO first class on a domestic even cross country isn't worth it.

I dunno. As someone who has been flying coast-to-coast at least once a year for ~20 years now, (and 10+ times last year), I hate being crammed into a tiny seat and treated like scum when I could instead stretch out and have the nice attendant, plus not fight the bag scrum. Especially since the planes have gotten slower and it is 6+ hours. But I can never sleep; I just want to not feel like dying.
posted by dame at 12:07 PM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I fly for vacations, and I used to fly for travel, but given that we're working super hard at turning Planet Earth into a combination of scorched earth and boiling oceans, I'm kind of moving toward the philosophy that maybe things that discourage cheap, casual air travel are a net bonus.
posted by Shepherd at 12:07 PM on November 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


the location isn't undisclosed

Well, *I* never know where the hell I am.

Also, we flew on some other carrier a couple weeks ago and my boss and I got into an argument about whether we went to the same remote terminal as before and I said it wasn't because the "going to Salt Lake City" terminals are 44 and these "going to Sacramento" terminals were 60 and also everything was different and it turns out I was wrong.
posted by Lyn Never at 12:10 PM on November 17, 2016


The fact that shitbag airlines like Frontier and Spirit continue to exist and even grow is evidence that consumers like cheap fares and shit service.

Or that they've got nonstops between the airports I use.

many flyers, both corporate or personal, buy only based on the cost of the ticket in Expedia or whatever other travel aggregator they use. This incentivizes the airlines to make the naked ticket price as low as possible.

Just like with hotels, the service and options are much, much better when buying directly from the airline. It's the difference between being completely hosed and being mildly inconvenienced in situations like weather delays. And the price is generally the same as through the aggregators.
posted by asperity at 12:11 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


And the price is generally the same as through the aggregators.

The only time I've done better than buying direct from the airline is recently when I used our corporate travel agent (such things still exist!) for a long international flight and got access to a specifically negotiated discount fare. But otherwise, yeah, don't buy from expedia, etc. Just buy from the carrier. It's not surprising that discount airlines opt out of the aggregators.
posted by GuyZero at 12:16 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Corporations will pay it without a second thought.

Please see all the comments from people who's employer nitpicks them on the cost of having a bag big enough to hold the tools they need to do their job.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 12:17 PM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hey, remember when the airlines assured us that the only reason they implemented checked baggage fees was because the price of fuel was so high? That was fun.
posted by SisterHavana at 12:20 PM on November 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


In Europe we don't pay extra for checked baggage (mostly), but the putrid rash of wheeled hard trolleys is fast becoming unbearable. It's a case of every three dimwits taking the overhead space of six seats and still feeling entitled (some even in this thread).

Last week it got so bad that people had to put those trolleys under their feet, and some complained. And then I complained to the airline for allowing those trolleys on.

I mean, it's a hassle checking your bags in, but the plane was just not designed for taking all that precious personal cargo in the cabin. Maybe the next generation of planes will return to the concept of in-cabin baggage hold, and maybe United will find a way to fit the lowest-fare paying pax in the current cargo hold, loading them into nice, economy-grade semi-reclined containers.
posted by Laotic at 12:29 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


As long as no one successfully applies personal seat licenses to airline seating.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:34 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Consider that airfares have barely budged in the past decade while inflation and cost of living has gone up.

That doesn't seem accurate, though. The first flight I ever paid for was in 2001, and it looks like inflation would have made that about 100$ more expensive, which seems about what they're charging now - at least for economy tickets. And that's for the base price.
posted by corb at 12:38 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also the worst (so many worsts) is that there are a number of planes where the overhead bins are clearly not designed to handle the current specs for carry on baggage and you only get one bag per bin but the bin is only about 60% full. It's the dumbest impedance mismatch and wastes a lot of overhead space.
posted by GuyZero at 12:38 PM on November 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


To be fair, you really can't expect the big domestic carriers to fly airplanes that were built in the last 25 years.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:43 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


As long as no one successfully applies personal seat licenses to airline seating.

Shush, we don't want them to get anymore ideas. I fear the day someone manages to get standing seats.
posted by Badgermann at 12:45 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Please see all the comments from people who's employer nitpicks them on the cost of having a bag big enough to hold the tools they need to do their job.

Right, but corporations still pay whatever the fare is. They have to, if they want their people to get where they need to be. And believe me, many large corporations do not have very nitpicky rules in place. Source: I'm an executive assistant at a US-based multinational corporation and have come to consider an $8000 ticket to South America reasonable in less than six months of having this job.

Honestly, it's pretty infuriating to see what large multinational company spends on air travel. Corporate travelers are the reason airlines charge whatever they want, especially with regard to change fees. They know they can get away with it.
posted by something something at 12:58 PM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


One of the reasons overhead space is at a premium is the airlines have managed to squeeze a significantly larger number of seats into planes over the years but that of course didn't come with more overhead space. On the small planes I fly where they haven't been able to play the sizing games this is a lot less of a problem.

gottabefunky: "So what's to keep you from buying the cheap ticket and just checking your "carry-on" at the gate? It's free, and half the time it's the best option already."

Batteries; can't check them. My 17" laptop especially has a battery I can't remove and is large enough that fitting it's bag under the seat can be problematic. But also the batteries for my SLR, ebook reader and phone.

GuyZero: "The solution to every flying problem is to just pay more. Flying is expensive and people are cheap and the o ly way to reconcile the two is to make planes into flying greyhound busses."

Shit I wish economy had the features of a Greyhound which has nice comfy seats with more room to stretch out than a plane; lets one check two massive and heavy bags; and doesn't care what you bring on board including food or drink in any quantity you want. And, though this would obviously be impractical for airlines, it stops every once and a while allowing you to use people sized bathrooms and top up your snacks for gas station prices instead of airport prices.
posted by Mitheral at 1:05 PM on November 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Corporations need to let people fly business class on long-haul flights or they will not go. Restrictive travel policies are a great way to make sure that people manage risk and seek opportunity in far flung places to the extent permitted by google searches.

(A big company you have all heard of some years changed their "long haul" definition from four hours to ten hours ... and more or less in an instant, no one would travel to or from the New York headquarters, but mysteriously people kept on traveling between the West Coast and Europe offices. For a while, the CFO was like "aha, this proves people were only traveling for cushy business class treatment" and then when he realized that no one in New York had any idea what was happening beyond reach of the Metro-North, the policy was reversed.)
posted by MattD at 1:06 PM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Shit I wish economy had the features of a Greyhound which has nice comfy seats with more room to stretch out than a plane

We've been encouraged to book VIA train tickets instead of short hop flights and even Ottawa to Toronto is moderately competitive for time when you figure time to and from airports and at the gate. The kicker though is that air is often cheaper than rail, certainly when a seat sale is on.
posted by bonehead at 1:18 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


"the woman in front of me was travelling with a lap infant and had taken the space under her seat - should have been for my bag, which should fit there fine - for one of her bags."

Huh. How does that even work? I didn't think it was usually possible to get anything under from the front. Was she planning to get up and access that stuff from the row behind her, or is it actually easier than I'd realized to get at stuff under your own seat?
posted by bfields at 1:20 PM on November 17, 2016


Seems to me there is a business opportunity for shipped luggage to your destination hotel. FedEx provides some standard sized box, the hotel has a room where they're stacked until you arrive, or it's waiting in your room, or...

Charge the same as a baggage check fee, or be a bit more generous with your allowances, and you get to avoid a ton of hassle at the airport in exchange for a bit of hassle dropping your bag at the drop center.
posted by maxwelton at 1:22 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


bfields, depends on your height. I'm 6'4" with broad shoulders, so on the occasions that I end up in a small plane or not with an exit seat, I usually get the choice of something-under-seat and stand on it with my knees digging into the seat in front of me, or nothing under the seat with knees... digging slightly less into the seat in front of me.
posted by Seeba at 1:24 PM on November 17, 2016


So what's to keep you from buying the cheap ticket and just checking your "carry-on" at the gate? It's free, and half the time it's the best option already

My theory is that, given United is going to board these passengers last, that as those passengers board they would either be forced to pay for the baggage at the gate or be refused boarding altogether. Since they'd all be in a group already, it would be easy to identify all passengers with rollaboards or bags too big to fit under the seat. (This would, of course, create even more crap that the gate agents have to deal with.)
posted by andrewesque at 1:25 PM on November 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I would check my single wheelie bag if I could trust the airline not to lose it, dig through it, steal from it, or damage it. Until then, nuh uh, my stuff stays with me and goes in that overhead bin.
posted by Servo5678 at 1:26 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Corporations need to let people fly business class on long-haul flights or they will not go. Restrictive travel policies are a great way to make sure that people manage risk and seek opportunity in far flung places to the extent permitted by google searches.

We have a dollar cap for flights which I think creates the right incentives - it encourages people to book early and not go last-minute and for long-haul flights it has barely enough room to book first/business class if you do it right so you can get a comfortable seat but you can't spend any amount of it and get your favourite airline. I had to do a 16-ish hour flight recently and I got first class on an airline I never usually fly (normally I go Star Alliance). It was really nice and was a few thousand less than the Star Alliance alternatives. Win-win.

That said, our travel policy is pretty complex under the hood and I don't think it's how most companies handle things.

Finally let me say that The Rock is a funny actor and Will Ferrell has gone downhill and Kevin Hart is sure working a lot these days.
posted by GuyZero at 1:31 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Seems to me there is a business opportunity for shipped luggage to your destination hotel.

People do this! I also recently learned of this absurd "personal valet" service where they will maintain an entire wardrobe for you and ship whatever you want wherever you're going.
posted by something something at 1:32 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


"My theory is that, given United is going to board these passengers last, that as those passengers board they would either be forced to pay for the baggage at the gate or be refused boarding altogether. Since they'd all be in a group already, it would be easy to identify all passengers with rollaboards or bags too big to fit under the seat. "

Wait, you made me realize something. What if enough passengers pay for overhead luggage that the overhead luggage racks become full and then some the higher paying customers won't be able to use that space? Would they get a refund?
posted by I-baLL at 1:33 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Say I'm the average American in terms of my activities causing global warming. How much extra damage do I do by taking an extra round-trip cross-country flight each year? And how much of a difference is there between economy and business class in terms of global warming?

Because I'm wondering whether anything that makes flying "more unpleasant than it already is" (particularly for business class) might be a very good thing.
posted by pracowity at 1:39 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Think of flying like a bus. A bus that's full is environmentally friendly. A bus that's half empty is less environmentally friendly.

Now think of all of the people who fly between NYC and, let's say, North Carolina. Now imagine if they all drove.
posted by I-baLL at 1:41 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Imagine if they didn't go.
posted by pracowity at 1:49 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


What if enough passengers pay for overhead luggage that the overhead luggage racks become full and then some the higher paying customers won't be able to use that space? Would they get a refund?

This happens today in that everyone pays for an overhead bin but not everyone gets one. A refund from an airline, ho ho, it is to laugh.
posted by GuyZero at 1:50 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


As a former very frequent traveler I never checked bags, because if you do you're unable to standby for alternative flights. Four or so times in the past 10 years, this meant getting home a day earlier than if I'd checked a bag. That might not seem like a lot, but ...
posted by dylanjames at 1:50 PM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Meh, I am pretty sure living in a tiny apartment and taking public transit constantly makes up for my flying. But sure I guess if you changed the world so people had to stay in whatever shithole they were born in or never see their families that would be the first way we should attack climate change.
posted by dame at 1:53 PM on November 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


We've been encouraged to book VIA train tickets instead of short hop flights and even Ottawa to Toronto is moderately competitive for time when you figure time to and from airports and at the gate. The kicker though is that air is often cheaper than rail, certainly when a seat sale is on.

Boston to NY or DC the cheapest I can always get is Amtrak. Especially when you figure it's a $10 Lyft from Penn to anywhere in Midtown instead of a $52 taxi from JFK or having to take a train from Newark to Penn and then still taking a Lyft to wherever you want to go.

I don't think I'll ever fly into New York. It's too ridiculous and expensive and Amtrak is nice on the NEC.
posted by Talez at 1:57 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Now think of all of the people who fly between NYC and, let's say, North Carolina. Now imagine if they all drove.

In an admittedly alternate-reality USA, rail travel would be another feasible option for this kind of trip: NYC to Raleigh is about 500 miles, roughly the same distance between Paris and Marseille (775 km), which has a very functional high-speed rail line that takes approximately 3 hours from train station to train station.

Rail is not universally greener than air, but I'm pretty sure in most reasonable scenarios the rail travel would be better at least carbon emissions-wise per passenger-mile than air.
posted by andrewesque at 1:59 PM on November 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


Seems to me there is a business opportunity for shipped luggage to your destination hotel.

Shipping rates for a suitcase sized box exceed checked bag fees for the most part, unless your company has a good negotiated rate with UPS or FedEx. Many hotels also charge to receive packages and then you also have to get the package to the shipper before leaving which takes time or money.

The first flight I ever paid for was in 2001, and it looks like inflation would have made that about 100$ more expensive, which seems about what they're charging now - at least for economy tickets.

The DOT's figures show a minor drop in the past decade, adjusted for inflation. I'm sure it varies by routes.
posted by Candleman at 1:59 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


My DSLR and MacBook are not going in checked luggage. Period.

If they wanted to make the process more painless, they'd actually give you a discount for checking luggage, then people wouldn't be schlepping all their crap on board to avoid the $25 luggage fee.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 2:00 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


If they wanted to make the process more painless

But they don't. They want to maximize profits.
posted by grouse at 2:02 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Rail is not universally greener than air, but I'm pretty sure in most reasonable scenarios the rail travel would be better at least carbon emissions-wise per passenger-mile than air.

Rail can easily be powered by renewables. Just buy your electricity from the solar/wind generation plant, pay for the power transit and you have a green train. Planes? Ehhhhhhh... Maybe. It depends on whether you consider biofuel renewable.
posted by Talez at 2:02 PM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


if i pay for space, i want physically defined space. reserved for me. by my seat. that is mine. even if i leave it empty.
posted by j_curiouser at 2:13 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Problems with overhead bin space is precisely why checked bag fees are stupid, which I have been saying since they started doing it. It is a problem the airlines broght on themselves.
posted by wierdo at 3:09 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Planes? Ehhhhhhh... Maybe. It depends on whether you consider biofuel renewable.

A plane full of people just flew cross country on wood-based fuel made by a Colorado company. Not sure how economical or sustainable this is right now, especially since that fuel's still 70% petroleum-based, but maybe it'll be more so in the future.
posted by asperity at 3:24 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


A plane full of people just flew cross country on wood-based fuel made by a Colorado company. Not sure how economical or sustainable this is right now, especially since that fuel's still 70% petroleum-based, but maybe it'll be more so in the future.

Wood based fuel is great but you still need the back end which is making sure the carbon gets taken back out of the biosphere into a carbon sink.
posted by Talez at 3:59 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


if i pay for space, i want physically defined space. reserved for me. by my seat. that is mine. even if i leave it empty.

As a person on the physically smaller side, agreed. If I'm going to have people jamming their bodies into my physical space and get yelled at for reclining my seat simply because I do not "need" it (even though the person in front of me is reclining), then I should at least be allowed to have a full carry-on size bag. (And not be told that I'm taking too much space for packing everything for my 4 week long, 3-season trip into it.)

Contrary to what some people think, being able to take an airplane flight is not some public good, in which I would feel it appropriate to have my space "taxed" for some other people's comfort. If I do not make a fuss, it's because it's not worth it, not because the other person is in the right.
posted by ethidda at 4:02 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seems to me there is a business opportunity for shipped luggage to your destination hotel.

I do this sometimes. More often, I'll ship stuff home at the end of a trip to avoid baggage on the return flight. If anything goes wrong, it won't mess up my trip.

I wonder if there'd be any efficiency in the airlines partnering up with UPS for delayed delivery of bags shipped via ground. Less weight on the planes.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:17 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


And the price is generally the same as through the aggregators.

I just had the opposite experience. I bought RT DC - London and the price was around $500 through an aggregator. Once I found that price I popped over to BA.com to buy direct, but could not get British Airways website to offer up that same flight for any where near the same price. It was over $1000 direct from BA.
posted by COD at 4:26 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm sitting on an Airbus flight now, we just finished deicing. I shipped a next day package yesterday so I could avoid having to check baggage or use the overhead bins. I'd absolutely check bags if I trusted bag check at all. Our local airport had a theft ring that got busted. I'm a musician and I opted to go a week without practice (compared tho my usual hours a day) rather than try to travel with my instrument.
posted by idiopath at 4:56 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]




My theory is that, given United is going to board these passengers last, that as those passengers board they would either be forced to pay for the baggage at the gate or be refused boarding altogether.

Yes, this is how it works. The basic economy passengers will be in Group 5, and everyone in Group 5 will be forced to gate check their bags. The basic economy passengers will be required to pay. There is no "free gate check" loophole for basic economy.

I'm a little bit worried about the corporate travel policy angle others have mentioned as well. My companies policy isn't strictly "the cheapest flight," but is "within $X of the cheapest reasonable flight." But as these kinds of fares propagate across the carriers, I worry that it will be harder and harder to find a non-basic fare that complies with that rule. However, as a data point, a lot of people who fly Delta (who has previously implemented a similar scheme) have said that their corporate travel portal actually doesn't even offer the "basic" fare. So maybe there's some hope here...

BTW, if your company's policy really is "cheapest flight, no exception" and you're required to travel with any regularity, that's... terrible. I've worked at a lot of companies, large and small, and have never seen a travel policy that bad.
posted by primethyme at 5:00 PM on November 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've never understood why airlines don't just raise fares by $x. That is, in essence what baggage fees amount to, but they'd make more money if they were honest about rasing the cost of flying, and it wouldn't encourage air travellers to behave like Black Friday shoppers. There isn't enough room on any plane for every passenger to take an overhead bag. So there's an upper limit to how much money can be made. Raising everybody's ticket price by $x = more profit earned. It's a no-brainer. I don't get it.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:54 PM on November 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I flew a round trip recently and as it happens, the outgoing flight was a small Embraer, overhead bins only held the equivalent of two bags per four seats but a relatively large under seat space. The corresponding return flight ten days later was a larger plane with adequate overhead bins. So either more passenger demand/change of seasons/who knows. I checked it on FlightAware, and yes on that route, the airline switched from all smaller jets the week I left to larger jets thereafter.

I guess the moral is, check the aircraft type before you leave so you have an idea of what to expect for overhead space.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 6:28 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


ideally one day we can have planes powered by travel-based sanctimony
posted by poffin boffin at 6:43 PM on November 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


Wait, people don't like the window seat and will pay to avoid it? The view is the last good thing about air travel!

Take my bags, take my meal, take away my free TV,
Cramp my space, bump my knees, you can't take the sky from me.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:09 PM on November 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


When I travel for work I never check anything unless I'm going for a stupidly long time. I can do 3-4 days with a small backpack (privilege of jeans + t-shirt being considered appropriate work clothes).

When I travel for me it's go diving somewhere... which means a ton of gear especially since I'm usually bringing the photo gear too. My carry-on is usually ridiculously heavy because I try to put all the expensive/fragile stuff in it, but at least it's on the smallish side (bought it so it would fit overhead bins of local Indonesian flights) and I can lift it easily so I'm not holding anybody back. I will gate check it if I have too, but no I won't regular check it (even at no cost) because airport baggage handling employees are maniacs.

... so I guess that if United offered it I'd pay for the "privilege" but I'd be unhappy about it unless it's a very small fee.

The thing that would worry me if this is done a "group 5", is that current boarding by group numbers is not really enforced, and anyway most gate PA systems are unintelligible (screens plz!!!), so I fear it would just make boarding even longer because they have to turn people back if they're serious about it.
posted by coust at 7:25 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Seems to me there is a business opportunity for shipped luggage to your destination hotel.

We do this a lot with work. On our carrier of choice, it's really not a lot different in price to use airline cargo, picked up and dropped off at the airport, compared with checked bags, even oversize and overweight ones. A little more even, as they charge a little extra from ground delivery. If you're shipping a palette load of stuff (or dangerous goods), it is more convenient though.
posted by bonehead at 7:29 PM on November 17, 2016


Meh, I am pretty sure living in a tiny apartment and taking public transit constantly makes up for my flying.

What? NO.
posted by srboisvert at 7:30 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you don't live in a cave by yourself, subsist on sunlight alone, and train your body to stop exhaling, you are PERSONALLY responsible for global warming.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:19 PM on November 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


sorry earth but im not gonna stop being gassy.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:24 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Eh, the overhead compartment isn't large enough for me to stow my self-righteous sense of entitlement anyway.
posted by um at 8:39 PM on November 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Are checked baggage fees too low?

The author of that article better STFU before "something falls out of the overhead bin" onto him. I'm just sayin.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:46 PM on November 17, 2016 [1 favorite]



I've never understood why airlines don't just raise fares by $x.[ . . . ] There isn't enough room on any plane for every passenger to take an overhead bag. So there's an upper limit to how much money can be made. Raising everybody's ticket price by $x = more profit earned. It's a no-brainer. I don't get it.


Two reasons that the MBAs all know:

(1) Price discrimination. ("Discrimination" in this context is a non-judgmental term of art.) Once a plane is flying you want to fill every seat, but even if you'd take $100/seat some of the people are willing to pay $125/seat. So you want to find a way to charge those other people more. Airlines are already masters of this, changing prices with time or offering economy plus, but charging for wi-fi and pillows and baggage helps too.

(2) Complex ticket pricing schemes means its harder for anyone to know if they are getting a good deal, which favors the people with lots of information (ie, all the airlines relative ot all the customers) in the price-negotiation. This is also why cell phone contracts are so opaque.

Honestly at this point I check bags if I can't fit it under my seat. I don't fly much, I can afford $25 for my one non-work trip a year. And I get to not give a damn about boarding group, sitting or stretching my legs off the giant sardine can until the last possible moment because I don't care if all the space is gone.

My big complaint (at least on United) is that they incentivize all the other passengers to make everything take carry on, as they will invariably check your bag for free once they find there's not any overhead space. And there's never any overhead space.

[N. B. I am not an MBA thank god.]
posted by mark k at 11:37 PM on November 17, 2016 [6 favorites]



Wait, people don't like the window seat and will pay to avoid it? The view is the last good thing about air travel!

Take my bags, take my meal, take away my free TV,
Cramp my space, bump my knees, you can't take the sky from me.


+1 Firefly reference

Also....um...no. People absolutely like window seats. On Southwest, they fill up at about the same rate as aisle. Maybe a little slower, but it's not like all the aisle seats fill, then the windows. They fill pretty evenly all the way back. Then, the poor c group gets on :-(
posted by greermahoney at 11:55 PM on November 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


current boarding by group numbers is not really enforced

Not true in North America... Otherwise, the elite, high mileage flyers would be very angry - don't mess with the 1% of the air, don't mess with their "trusted traveler" programs or ever board them after us "normals".

Up until last winter, I flew constantly for work, and can tell you people are turned away to wait on every single flight I have been on if they aren't in the correct group - even if they appear elderly or don't appear to speak English. Told to wait and diverted from the line. Over and over and over... To the point, where as a frequent traveller, one becomes frustrated - follow the damn rules and we will all board faster.

It wasn't the same in Australia - they were pretty lax, people queued up in an orderly fashion and they would just keep processing them through and onto the plane.

Personally - it is high-time that airlines start to board by row/seat combination, fill up the plane from back to front. However... that would mess with the elite folks, who would never wait patiently... One would think that's what "groups" were for.... But, not in my anecdotal experience.

But logic and elite rewards systems do not go well together - even though we are all heading to the same place, in the same tin can - and will all arrive at the same damn time...

People absolutely like window seats

Yup - a window and one arm-rest and no one crawling over me 5-6 times to go to the bathroom (and, if it is less than a 5-hour flight, I won't need to get up), no being squished by people on either side, no being bumped by the cart or people bumbling their way up and down the aisle...
posted by jkaczor at 5:44 AM on November 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've never understood why airlines don't just raise fares by $x. That is, in essence what baggage fees amount to, but they'd make more money if they were honest about rasing the cost of flying, and it wouldn't encourage air travellers to behave like Black Friday shoppers.

Unfortunately, since deregulation, transparently raising your fares (as opposed to adding bullshit extra charges here and there) would kill an airline. Flying operates in a Wal*Mart-ified economic space, where raising a price is a huge no-no.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:57 AM on November 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not true in North America... Otherwise, the elite, high mileage flyers would be very angry - don't mess with the 1% of the air, don't mess with their "trusted traveler" programs or ever board them after us "normals".

Up until last winter, I flew constantly for work, and can tell you people are turned away to wait on every single flight I have been on if they aren't in the correct group - even if they appear elderly or don't appear to speak English. Told to wait and diverted from the line. Over and over and over... To the point, where as a frequent traveller, one becomes frustrated - follow the damn rules and we will all board faster.



Really? Never seen anybody turned back, although it would make sense that they enforce it for the 1st group (elite status + business class).
posted by coust at 6:07 AM on November 18, 2016


The thing that would worry me if this is done a "group 5", is that current boarding by group numbers is not really enforced, and anyway most gate PA systems are unintelligible (screens plz!!!), so I fear it would just make boarding even longer because they have to turn people back if they're serious about it.

United and AA will both beep and flash red at the gates if your boarding pass isn't in the right boarding group and they both use screens to announce boarding groups along with the PA.
posted by Talez at 8:12 AM on November 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


From experience on United, it seems like if you aren't in groups 1, 2, or 3 there is a high chance you aren't getting any overhead bin space anyway - so that change doesn't seem to be super different from now. It's almost comical how many people are in group 2 on United now - it seems like over half the plane gets on between groups 1 and 2 on a lot of flights with queues snaking out from the boarding area....and being group 1 on AA seems almost the same thing.....there are what, 4 or 5 calls for other passenger tiers before group 1 boards?
posted by inflatablekiwi at 9:00 AM on November 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Not true in North America... Otherwise, the elite, high mileage flyers would be very angry - don't mess with the 1% of the air, don't mess with their "trusted traveler" programs or ever board them after us "normals".

I am an elite (on multiple airlines), high mileage flyer. And yes, I am regularly angry* that the gate agents do not do a good job of enforcing boarding groups (again, across multiple airlines). This is such a rampant problem that it ends up being extremely surprising when I see someone turned away instead of getting away with it.

* "Angry" might be an overstatement — I travel too much to let myself get angry at all of these little, frequent, issues. But it's frustrating for sure, and if you read any frequent traveler forum, you will easily find people who are truly ANGRY about it.
posted by primethyme at 9:29 AM on November 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


If it weren't for fighting for overhead bin space, why would anyone want to board first? Who wants to spend *more* time crammed in a tiny tin can?
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:55 AM on November 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


If it weren't for fighting for overhead bin space, why would anyone want to board first? Who wants to spend *more* time crammed in a tiny tin can?

Because once your board the plane in first class the drinks are free instead of $15 for watered down Sangria at the airport's local Sysco distribution outlet.
posted by Talez at 10:05 AM on November 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Because once your board the plane in first class the drinks are free instead of $15 for watered down Sangria at the airport's local Sysco distribution outlet.

Ah, memories of my halcyon days of being an Aeroplan Elite flier on Air Canada and their help-yourself unattended fully-stocked YYZ lounge bar. I'd be half a dozen drinks deep before I set foot on the plane. Good times.
posted by GuyZero at 10:08 AM on November 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Before the baggage fee madness, my goal was to be last on the plane if I was in economy. Overhead bin space was not nearly so precious, so hanging out in the lounge until the last possible second was definitely the way to go, even with the extra exit row legroom.

These days I totally understand why frequent fliers want to be first on and get annoyed when people jump the queue. It could easily mean the difference between leaving the airport directly on the other end and waiting for gate checked bags for 10-30 minutes. The queue jumpers actively make life harder rather than just being mildly amusing to watch arguing with the gate staff.

I also understand why other group 1 boarders get annoyed. On many airlines that is something you pay extra for. Seeing someone else get it for free illegitimately is pretty infuriating when you've paid $20 to ensure you get bin space. Yes, the more rational target of ire is the airline, but at this point their stupid policy seems like a law of nature so it's easier to direct towards fellow passengers.
posted by wierdo at 2:48 PM on November 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I also find gate lice annoying—those people in zone 5 who stand around blocking the gate while zone 1 is still boarding. You aren't going to board noticeably earlier by standing four zones early instead of one.
posted by grouse at 3:02 PM on November 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry if this has been raised before - long thread. but wouldn't one solution to painfully slow boarding and limited overhead bin space be airlines charging for the second carryon, rather than charging for the first checked bag? I don't mind a few minutes wait to pick up an item from baggage claim, but the fee to check is galling. as it is now, you either wait the 20 minutes to board at the beginning, while people stow their numerous items, or to pick up at the carousel upon landing.
posted by sideofwry at 3:17 PM on November 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


The issue is partly that handling luggage has a direct cost to the airlines - baggage handling isn't free. And when fewer people check bags there's extra cargo space to sell to courier companies.
posted by GuyZero at 3:19 PM on November 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I would pay extra to get on the plane last and get off first.

This weird thing where your frequent flyer status lets you get on before everyone else seems like the weirdest thing to me. I want to spend as little time on the aircraft as humanly possible.
posted by VTX at 3:20 PM on November 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I also find gate lice annoying—those people in zone 5 who stand around blocking the gate while zone 1 is still boarding. You aren't going to board noticeably earlier by standing four zones early instead of one.

The worst is when they're all standing in line at group 5 with their roller carryons.

You aren't going to get overhead in group 5. Just gate check your god damn bag preemptively and give the gate staff a god damned break for a change.
posted by Talez at 4:21 PM on November 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


This weird thing where your frequent flyer status lets you get on before everyone else seems like the weirdest thing to me.

If you travel enough you will eventually experience enough bad things happening that could have been avoided if you had boarded earlier that boarding as early as possible becomes second nature. It's like some common trauma for frequent fliers. Some personal examples:
  1. No space for my bag so have to gate check and then it fails to arrive for a day
  2. No space for my bag so have to valet check and then while I'm waiting to pick up my bag at the connection I miss the last flight of the evening
  3. People taking up my seat and footwell space and having to confront them (something I'm not shy about but would really rather avoid, frankly)
  4. My assigned first-class seat is occupied by someone with the same name and I have to sit in a middle seat in the back (thankfully at least there was one left)
posted by grouse at 4:40 PM on November 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


You aren't going to get overhead in group 5.

No, but as a lady you can put your legs over it and hide it under your long skirt. I mean, I've heard.
posted by corb at 10:10 PM on November 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


The fact that shitbag airlines like Frontier and Spirit continue to exist and even grow is evidence that consumers like cheap fares and shit service.

s/like/cannot afford better than/g
posted by en forme de poire at 12:23 AM on November 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've never understood why airlines don't just raise fares by $x. That is, in essence what baggage fees amount to, but they'd make more money if they were honest about rasing the cost of flying, and it wouldn't encourage air travellers to behave like Black Friday shoppers.


Yeah the problem is that customers are like black friday shoppers. Fares are cheaper now than they've ever been, and customers are still consistently choosing the cheapest possible tickets. Don't want to worry about being charged for overhead space and carry ons and checked luggage? Buy a more expensive ticket. If your answer is "but I can't afford a more expensive ticket," the airline's straightforward rebuttal is "then you can't afford to fly comfortably." It's then up to you to decide whether you want to fly at all.
posted by craven_morhead at 7:25 AM on November 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


> Fares are cheaper now than they've ever been

Maybe on the whole, on average, I dunno. But with the consolidation of several airlines and airlines shifting which airports they use, fares are consistently more expensive for me for the places that I want to go than they were a few years ago. Especially for direct flights.
posted by desuetude at 9:52 PM on November 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Flights also still seem more expensive within the US than between European countries, even considering only similar distances. I only did a quick check but it seems like you can fly from Lisbon to Berlin for around half the cost of a San Francisco to Denver ticket. The US doesn't really seem to have the "struggling student" class of airfares, Spirit and Frontier notwithstanding.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:30 AM on November 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older Beastie Boys + Daft Punk = Daft Science   |   The American Thanksgiving Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments