When I fly I send as much of my stuff checked as possible
except for a backpack I stuff under the seat in front of me.
I just don't want to be part of the crush of people wheeling wheels around the airport, trying to pack as much as possible within the "free limit".
When I do a check a bag that I don't need to check, often the baggage handlers will question why I am checking this bag, they'll tell me it is a waste of money and I tell them I have the credit card so I get a free bag.
Gotta wait for the bag to arrive at baggage claim though. At some airports, this can just take a long time. In Denver, you might not ever see that bag again.
It's also a slow proposition when flying late at night into smaller airports. I frequently fly SFO-MSY that lands at midnight CT. I swear there's only a single bag handler in all of MSY at that point. Not unheard of to wait an hour for your bag.
I think most people prefer to carry on for these reasons, not just avoiding the fee. International, I always check the bag. Global Entry makes up for any lost time in waiting for a bag.
It seems this analysis is forgetting the revenue made by the airline by selling tickets to passengers. If it's too expensive to check a bag, the airline will have empty seats and a lot more empty space wasted.
Air shippers offer a money-back guarantee on timely delivery of the baggage. If an express cargo package is bumped from a plane, the very next plane will take it to its destination, because failure is expensive.
My checked baggage, on the other hand, is a strictly best-effort affair. If it doesn't fit on my plane, it becomes a "gets there when it gets there" problem. Once it's bumped once, the airline sees little reward in getting it to me faster or slower. There's good odds I will never see it again.
Comparing a $25 checked bag fee to a contracted cargo shipment is quite unfair.
--
edit: Here's another fun item. Technically, the conditions of carriage on your ticket don't require them to bump cargo for your baggage. And there's no incentive for them to do so.
“It costs United nothing to remove checked baggage, rather than cargo, in order to arrive at an acceptable aircraft weight because the checked baggage fee is purportedly nonrefundable, and United can simply transport the checked baggage on a later flight to the passenger’s destination.”
While I completely see your point, it sounds pessimistic to me. The last time I had a bag end up on a wrong flight (which happened only because I got on an earlier flight from standby), they delivered the bag to my doorstep several hours later. I was impressed and had been ready to sit around the airport for while waiting for it. Other than that, I have literally never had a bag on the wrong flight, even when travelling cross country. Honestly, if they handled passengers as well as they handled my bags, I'd be happy.
I actually looked this up. The mishandled baggage rate is now 7.3 bags per thousand passengers. (It has fallen considerably in recent years, since baggage fees reduce the amount of baggage carried per passenger)
I have had snafus often enough that I no longer check bags, in any capacity. If I can't carry it myself, I mail it in advance.
Funny enough, the postal service has managed to lose one of two parcels I had sent to myself. The tracking number showed that it got to a halfway point and that's it.
Getting someone on the phone was impossible. Going to the local post office was not easy either (snow season) and when I finally did, it didn't seem like the package ever made it there. Apparently, if the USPS manages to get a package mishandled, they will send it all to a sorting facility near Atlanta, Georgia. I'd have to fill a form to start an investigation. Of course, the form is not available on the USPS website.
Thankfully, it wasn't something ridiculously valuable. However, if I ever have something of value it will stay with me. No, I will not check that carry on either.
I assume that would work. This was a return trip though so it wasn't a concern. Not sure why you'd be more worried about this being stolen than anything else you keep in a hotel room.
Sounds like how it is dealing with the Post Office. Sending books or magazines bulk rate is best effort or at times no effort; really it is amazing the things they can do to a magazine.
When it comes down to it, just like with airlines you have to pay for that guarantee
Sure but you're also paying an extremely rock bottom rate, $1/lb for media mail iirc (don't flame if wrong). Don't expect you're going to build a next day media delivery service to rival amazon on this service. There are tradeoffs for prices.
In addition to that, they have almost no accountability for breaking your checked bags or the stuff inside. One time we had an industrial plastic tool case get damaged. It appeared as though the fork from a forklift had rammed into it and punched completely through... damaging several pieces of equipment inside. This was not "normal wear and tear" like a scuff on the outside. This was right fucked up... but they still tried to screw us over. We needed this tool box to do our jobs and didn't have time to wait for them to put the claim all the way through and send us what they thought was a suitable replacement. We needed to buy a new one now and get reimbursed later. They fought us on that but finally gave in. But they did manage to screw us by not coving ANY of the broken equipment inside.
First, the conclusion that baggage fees are a good deal doesn't follow since the baggage fee shortfall is accounted for in the price of the ticket. A more valid conclusion is that travelers who don't check bags are subsidizing travelers who do.
Second, opportunity cost is used to conclude that the fees are a good deal. However, most travelers won't travel without baggage and since baggage fees we're most likely just a way to raise prices without raising the ticket price per se, it's a wash.
I suppose it would be different if the article made a case for cheaper, carry-on only flights which sell the cargo space for shipping. Does something like this exist? Seems to be a good business opportunity if not.
Agree, just because you are using an asset (the travelling space) and charging two different prices for it, doesn't mean one is getting it cheap.
When bookstores started putting coffee shops in them, the coffee shop only took a small portion of the bookstores footprint. Though the revenue per square foot was larger for the coffee shop, they don't just say 'we should charge more per book because of the revenue difference to the rev/sqft in the coffee shop.
The point is that there's a serious opportunity cost. By prioritizing customer service (to some degree), airlines can't charge sell space to businesses moving cargo for a higher margin.
The coffee shop argument doesn't really work because you can't keep scaling it. At a certain point people want space for books. But given that there's a space shortage on international flights, there's probably room for airlines to make more money by charging for freight instead of taking your luggage.
Correct me if I am wrong, but when these fees showed up, my ticket price did not drop by the same amount, correct? So adding a fee, no matter how much of a "good deal" it is is still a addition to cost.
Yes and no. Airline prices have been dropping in real terms since the 1980s, if not sooner. (Of course, the airline experience has been dropping also.) I recall reading that since about 1960, net profit for the (US domestic) airline industry has been $0. And the history of the airline industry has been bankruptcy, reorganization, lockout, rinse and repeat.
So airline ticket prices have been dropping to the point that airlines don't make money. So the baggage fees, yes, did not cut ticket prices, but ticket prices were arguably too low to begin with.
It would have been better for airlines to honestly increase ticket prices, of course...
I know this is in jest, but I think one of the biggest problems with this would be the security implications. I wouldn't put my name on a stranger's bag if I didn't know them. Next thing you know, TSA finds illegal substances or something and you're in a lot of trouble because, after all, your name was on the bag!
We talked about this at work a few years ago since it seemed like a prime arbitrage opportunity. We looked at the cost of overnight shipping of a letter or document and thought maybe you could set up terminals at the airports and someone can be paid to carry it on board and drop it off at the receiving station on the other end.
The security implications came up and my coworkers decided to call the idea "bombvelope"
Perhaps this is different on long haul widebody flights - but one of the secrets of ryanair/easyjet's success is their ability to get so few checked in bags onboard. I've sometimes seen as few as maybe 5-10 bags going in the hold.
Now that means there's a lot of space going free in the cargo hold, but it means you can turn the flights round ridiculously quickly. Which means you can do many more segments per day and you don't have the plane sitting their deprecating.
edit: it's also great for a passenger as it can take up to an hour in big airports to get the bags onto the belts. i hate checking in bags now and curse myself every time I do.
Southwest has the opposite thesis: it believes that baggage handlers are faster at loading bags under the plane than passengers would be trying to stuff those bags overhead.
At least in the US, Southwest is known (notorious) for the having the fastest ground turns of 737s. They started at 10 minutes [1] and have moved to a leisurely 25 minutes, against a US average of 90 minutes.
This seems to make a lot of sense to me -- baggage handlers are pretty fast and can move bags much faster than passengers can board a plane. Moving luggage handling below the plane allows two parallel tasks to execute: one stream is focused on passengers finding seats and the other is focused on bags being loaded. Otherwise you have serial execution of passengers trying to upload bags to the bins before the next passenger can do anything.
The issue is that on other airlines that charge baggage fees, everyone brings a big roller bag on board. There isn't enough room for everyone's bag, so this leads to a massive slowdown as people try to find a spot, flight attendant's trying to convince people to put stuff that fits under seats under the seat, etc.
But you've got 100+ people trying putting their bag overhead and usually only 1 or 2 people physically in a 737 loading baggage (because it's so small).
Plus surely the airport is going to charge more to handle 100+ checked bags vs 5? And if there is a big problem with the baggage system and none of the baggage arrives, you've got a much bigger problem if everyone's baggage is checked vs only a handful of items...
> Here’s the takeaway: when airlines check your suitcase for $25, they’re giving up space for which freight forwarders would pay $40 to $100 to transport air cargo.
Uh, but if they decide not to ship my bag^, they also decide not to ship me, because I'm not planning on buying a whole new wardrobe at my destination.
Also, doesn't this imply that they should be paying me not to check luggage?
Author is a long time import/export supply chain business man. So his views are naturally reflected his narrow domain.
I think we probably all agree that paying extra luggage fees that we don't used to pay is NOT a good deal. We also know that airline industry are struggling in the post-911 era. They have been trying to extract every possible revenue streams they can possibly get: narrower but more seats on the same plane, more granular levels of seat upgrades, non-free in flight meals, change of milage programs and luggage fees.
As some of the other commenters pointed out, the author failed to recognize that airliners are making profit not because of those extra fees but by carrying more passengers (and more efficiently). And customer patronage and airfares have DIRECT impact on the sales (e.g. post 911 airline industry slump).
Author also failed to recognize that each passenger carried with luggage, there are more ways for airlines to sell added-value services (drinks, merchants, in-flight movies, seat upgrades etc) to. So to say that carrying air freight is going to be more profitable for airlines is absurd.
I almost wonder if the author was getting paid to write this article or perhaps trying to stir up getting some PR exposure out of this absurd post.
34 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 66.8 ms ] threadI just don't want to be part of the crush of people wheeling wheels around the airport, trying to pack as much as possible within the "free limit".
When I do a check a bag that I don't need to check, often the baggage handlers will question why I am checking this bag, they'll tell me it is a waste of money and I tell them I have the credit card so I get a free bag.
It's also a slow proposition when flying late at night into smaller airports. I frequently fly SFO-MSY that lands at midnight CT. I swear there's only a single bag handler in all of MSY at that point. Not unheard of to wait an hour for your bag.
I think most people prefer to carry on for these reasons, not just avoiding the fee. International, I always check the bag. Global Entry makes up for any lost time in waiting for a bag.
My checked baggage, on the other hand, is a strictly best-effort affair. If it doesn't fit on my plane, it becomes a "gets there when it gets there" problem. Once it's bumped once, the airline sees little reward in getting it to me faster or slower. There's good odds I will never see it again.
Comparing a $25 checked bag fee to a contracted cargo shipment is quite unfair.
--
edit: Here's another fun item. Technically, the conditions of carriage on your ticket don't require them to bump cargo for your baggage. And there's no incentive for them to do so.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-09/a-lawsuit-co...
“It costs United nothing to remove checked baggage, rather than cargo, in order to arrive at an acceptable aircraft weight because the checked baggage fee is purportedly nonrefundable, and United can simply transport the checked baggage on a later flight to the passenger’s destination.”
I have had snafus often enough that I no longer check bags, in any capacity. If I can't carry it myself, I mail it in advance.
Getting someone on the phone was impossible. Going to the local post office was not easy either (snow season) and when I finally did, it didn't seem like the package ever made it there. Apparently, if the USPS manages to get a package mishandled, they will send it all to a sorting facility near Atlanta, Georgia. I'd have to fill a form to start an investigation. Of course, the form is not available on the USPS website.
Thankfully, it wasn't something ridiculously valuable. However, if I ever have something of value it will stay with me. No, I will not check that carry on either.
I would always be worried that it gets delayed and I get there and its not there. Or that the hotel staff lose/steal it.
Permanently.
On the way to our honeymoon.
Ended up getting reimbursed a significant amount for the resulting loss.
The only bags we've checked, since, have been souvenirs, and that includes month-long trips overseas.
When it comes down to it, just like with airlines you have to pay for that guarantee
First, the conclusion that baggage fees are a good deal doesn't follow since the baggage fee shortfall is accounted for in the price of the ticket. A more valid conclusion is that travelers who don't check bags are subsidizing travelers who do.
Second, opportunity cost is used to conclude that the fees are a good deal. However, most travelers won't travel without baggage and since baggage fees we're most likely just a way to raise prices without raising the ticket price per se, it's a wash.
I suppose it would be different if the article made a case for cheaper, carry-on only flights which sell the cargo space for shipping. Does something like this exist? Seems to be a good business opportunity if not.
When bookstores started putting coffee shops in them, the coffee shop only took a small portion of the bookstores footprint. Though the revenue per square foot was larger for the coffee shop, they don't just say 'we should charge more per book because of the revenue difference to the rev/sqft in the coffee shop.
Seriously flawed logic.
The coffee shop argument doesn't really work because you can't keep scaling it. At a certain point people want space for books. But given that there's a space shortage on international flights, there's probably room for airlines to make more money by charging for freight instead of taking your luggage.
So airline ticket prices have been dropping to the point that airlines don't make money. So the baggage fees, yes, did not cut ticket prices, but ticket prices were arguably too low to begin with.
It would have been better for airlines to honestly increase ticket prices, of course...
The security implications came up and my coworkers decided to call the idea "bombvelope"
Now that means there's a lot of space going free in the cargo hold, but it means you can turn the flights round ridiculously quickly. Which means you can do many more segments per day and you don't have the plane sitting their deprecating.
edit: it's also great for a passenger as it can take up to an hour in big airports to get the bags onto the belts. i hate checking in bags now and curse myself every time I do.
At least in the US, Southwest is known (notorious) for the having the fastest ground turns of 737s. They started at 10 minutes [1] and have moved to a leisurely 25 minutes, against a US average of 90 minutes.
This seems to make a lot of sense to me -- baggage handlers are pretty fast and can move bags much faster than passengers can board a plane. Moving luggage handling below the plane allows two parallel tasks to execute: one stream is focused on passengers finding seats and the other is focused on bags being loaded. Otherwise you have serial execution of passengers trying to upload bags to the bins before the next passenger can do anything.
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/43768488
Plus surely the airport is going to charge more to handle 100+ checked bags vs 5? And if there is a big problem with the baggage system and none of the baggage arrives, you've got a much bigger problem if everyone's baggage is checked vs only a handful of items...
Interesting.
Uh, but if they decide not to ship my bag^, they also decide not to ship me, because I'm not planning on buying a whole new wardrobe at my destination.
Also, doesn't this imply that they should be paying me not to check luggage?
I think we probably all agree that paying extra luggage fees that we don't used to pay is NOT a good deal. We also know that airline industry are struggling in the post-911 era. They have been trying to extract every possible revenue streams they can possibly get: narrower but more seats on the same plane, more granular levels of seat upgrades, non-free in flight meals, change of milage programs and luggage fees. As some of the other commenters pointed out, the author failed to recognize that airliners are making profit not because of those extra fees but by carrying more passengers (and more efficiently). And customer patronage and airfares have DIRECT impact on the sales (e.g. post 911 airline industry slump). Author also failed to recognize that each passenger carried with luggage, there are more ways for airlines to sell added-value services (drinks, merchants, in-flight movies, seat upgrades etc) to. So to say that carrying air freight is going to be more profitable for airlines is absurd.
I almost wonder if the author was getting paid to write this article or perhaps trying to stir up getting some PR exposure out of this absurd post.