5 ms·

It became more rare because the cost to fly people (plus one free checked bag) began to exceed what people were willing to pay, so airlines pulled a lever. If t

It became more rare because the cost to fly people (plus one free checked bag) began to exceed what people were willing to pay, so airlines pulled a lever. If this were regulated, the cost of plane tickets would go up for everyone plus overhead for compliance. Maybe that's a better deal for you, but only because the government is effectively forcing other flyers to pay your way.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago
I suspect you have the cause and effect backwards. It's not that people weren't willing to pay the cost of the included checked bag -- back when every airline did include 1 (or even 2!) free checked bags, it's not as people wanting to fly were going to travel sites and saying, "If only the cheapest flight here was $25 less than it was, I'd buy a ticket, but guess I'm stuck with Greyhound now." Instead, by not including the checked bag in the cost of the initial fare, an airline got to have a lower number in the list of ticket prices when customers checked on aggregation sites like Orbitz and Expedia, and most other airlines quickly followed.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  This. It's the same reason American hotels are expanding and increasing "resort fees", and auto dealerships try to charge as much as possible for "doc fees". Businesses have essentially added their OWN taxes on transactions in order to lower the prices they advertise below what they actually charge. It's got a name: bait and switch.
  - ericd 8y ago
    Or, if the FTC was on the ball, they might call it Deceptive Advertising.
  - TylerE 8y ago
    US really just needs to adapt transparent pricing laws, like most of the civilized world. Yes, I know sales tax in various jurisdictions makes it impossible, but at least make them advertise the "all in" cost including any fees.
    - cortesoft 8y ago
      But how would that work for something like an airline ticket on a comparison site? The airline has pricing transparency- they tell you when you buy a ticket that a checked bag isn't included. It is the comparison site where that is missing. Let's say you decided to make every airline display how much it costs to fly with one checked bag... well, why did you pick one? What if one airline let's you check two bags free? Or if one gives you free food but the other charges? Has more leg room? Etc... Pricing transparency laws only help things like "you have to include all taxes and fees for the exact item you are selling" It doesn't help with requiring a company to include certain extras (like a checked bag or two) with the price. You are allowed to choose how you bundle things together, no matter the pricing transparency laws.
      - nmca 8y ago
        Require companies that sell online to offer an open API so it's easy to aggregate? Sounds nuts, but not that different from open banking (PSD2) in the EU.
        cortesoft 8y ago
        Ok... what information is required in the API? You can't possibly describe every possible differentiating characteristic of a product in an API... even for a specific case like airlines, there are countless differences. Plane type, baggage limits, weight limits on bags, leg room, in flight entertainment, Internet, food, drinks, etc. you want the law spelling out what needs to be included? What about other industries? New ones that are being created? What happens when new features are added that aren't in the api spec? Internet wasn't a thing on airplanes 10 years ago, so it wouldn't have made it in the spec, but now internet access is a huge differentiator for flights.
        gmueckl 8y ago
        This is actually an easy problem to solve: define a list of extras in the standard including fees. The structure for each extra can be pretty rigid. Something like e.g. short-name: Tray fee long-name: You get a foldable tray for seat to use during the flight. price: 39,99 includes-tax: false This is basic data modeling, really. Tne real thing would probably have closer to 50 well defined fields instead of 4 because of real-world self-inflicted complexity in the system, but the concept is the same.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    With one crucial difference. I can’t buy the car without the doc fee, but I can fly without a checked bag.
    - weirdkid 8y ago
      Yes, you can. Get to the final signing then refuse to pay it. Tell the dealer you'll walk if it isn't waived. I do it every time.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I chuckled at your scenario, but more realistically airlines realized that some critical mass of the market would rather pack a little lighter and save on their airfare instead of paying for a checked bag. If the scenario went as you described, then the airlines were trading their credibility for a short term boost in profits and the market will correct to their mid/long-term disadvantage. This is a poor consolation to the unsavvy consumers who "fell for it", but the solution is to produce savvier consumers, not to penalize the current crop of savvy consumers by inflating their ticket prices.
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    "This is a way for airlines to get the lowest price in front of consumers" and "this is a way to address a market segment willing to go carry-on only in order to save money" are not mutually exclusive, are they? Consider the recent addition of "Basic Economy" fares for some airlines now, which incur extra charges for overhead bin space. I would assert that this is a way to get an even lower price in front of consumers. You would presumably assert that it is a way for the airlines to let people who can travel with little to no luggage save even more. Again: both of those things can be true.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Lol they are both true; that’s my point. The market is securing an agreeable outcome for both parties. It’s literally a win-win scenario. The airlines are finding ways to carve out more value for their customers in exchange for their business. This is eminently desirable! I think your real issue is against the increased cost of air travel and the inconvenience it poses for travelers who are unwilling or unable to compromise by trading off luggage for price. It sucks, but it’s not “greedy corporations”; it’s just economic reality.
- deelowe 8y ago
  Maybe Orbitz should include baggage fees in their pricing estimates?
- cynicalkane 8y ago
  > it's not as people wanting to fly were going to travel sites and saying, "If only the cheapest flight here was $25 less than it was" Is this meant to say that consumers aren't price sensitive? If so, why don't airlines just charge arbitrarily high prices?
Consultant32452 8y ago
I think you're missing one piece of this picture. If there is unused space/weight capacity, the airline fills that space with cargo from traditional/package carriers. So there are third parties, unseen to you as an airline passenger, competing with you on price to put stuff in that cargo hold.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

I suspect you have the cause and effect backwards. It's not that people weren't willing to pay the cost of the included checked bag -- back when every airline did include 1 (or even 2!) free checked bags, it's not as people wanting to fly were going to travel sites and saying, "If only the cheapest flight here was $25 less than it was, I'd buy a ticket, but guess I'm stuck with Greyhound now." Instead, by not including the checked bag in the cost of the initial fare, an airline got to have a lower number in the list of ticket prices when customers checked on aggregation sites like Orbitz and Expedia, and most other airlines quickly followed.

whyaduck 8y ago
This. It's the same reason American hotels are expanding and increasing "resort fees", and auto dealerships try to charge as much as possible for "doc fees". Businesses have essentially added their OWN taxes on transactions in order to lower the prices they advertise below what they actually charge. It's got a name: bait and switch.
- ericd 8y ago
  Or, if the FTC was on the ball, they might call it Deceptive Advertising.
- TylerE 8y ago
  US really just needs to adapt transparent pricing laws, like most of the civilized world. Yes, I know sales tax in various jurisdictions makes it impossible, but at least make them advertise the "all in" cost including any fees.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    But how would that work for something like an airline ticket on a comparison site? The airline has pricing transparency- they tell you when you buy a ticket that a checked bag isn't included. It is the comparison site where that is missing. Let's say you decided to make every airline display how much it costs to fly with one checked bag... well, why did you pick one? What if one airline let's you check two bags free? Or if one gives you free food but the other charges? Has more leg room? Etc... Pricing transparency laws only help things like "you have to include all taxes and fees for the exact item you are selling" It doesn't help with requiring a company to include certain extras (like a checked bag or two) with the price. You are allowed to choose how you bundle things together, no matter the pricing transparency laws.
    - nmca 8y ago
      Require companies that sell online to offer an open API so it's easy to aggregate? Sounds nuts, but not that different from open banking (PSD2) in the EU.
      - cortesoft 8y ago
        Ok... what information is required in the API? You can't possibly describe every possible differentiating characteristic of a product in an API... even for a specific case like airlines, there are countless differences. Plane type, baggage limits, weight limits on bags, leg room, in flight entertainment, Internet, food, drinks, etc. you want the law spelling out what needs to be included? What about other industries? New ones that are being created? What happens when new features are added that aren't in the api spec? Internet wasn't a thing on airplanes 10 years ago, so it wouldn't have made it in the spec, but now internet access is a huge differentiator for flights.
        gmueckl 8y ago
        This is actually an easy problem to solve: define a list of extras in the standard including fees. The structure for each extra can be pretty rigid. Something like e.g. short-name: Tray fee long-name: You get a foldable tray for seat to use during the flight. price: 39,99 includes-tax: false This is basic data modeling, really. Tne real thing would probably have closer to 50 well defined fields instead of 4 because of real-world self-inflicted complexity in the system, but the concept is the same.
- zaroth 8y ago
  With one crucial difference. I can’t buy the car without the doc fee, but I can fly without a checked bag.
  - weirdkid 8y ago
    Yes, you can. Get to the final signing then refuse to pay it. Tell the dealer you'll walk if it isn't waived. I do it every time.
weberc2 8y ago
I chuckled at your scenario, but more realistically airlines realized that some critical mass of the market would rather pack a little lighter and save on their airfare instead of paying for a checked bag. If the scenario went as you described, then the airlines were trading their credibility for a short term boost in profits and the market will correct to their mid/long-term disadvantage. This is a poor consolation to the unsavvy consumers who "fell for it", but the solution is to produce savvier consumers, not to penalize the current crop of savvy consumers by inflating their ticket prices.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  "This is a way for airlines to get the lowest price in front of consumers" and "this is a way to address a market segment willing to go carry-on only in order to save money" are not mutually exclusive, are they? Consider the recent addition of "Basic Economy" fares for some airlines now, which incur extra charges for overhead bin space. I would assert that this is a way to get an even lower price in front of consumers. You would presumably assert that it is a way for the airlines to let people who can travel with little to no luggage save even more. Again: both of those things can be true.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Lol they are both true; that’s my point. The market is securing an agreeable outcome for both parties. It’s literally a win-win scenario. The airlines are finding ways to carve out more value for their customers in exchange for their business. This is eminently desirable! I think your real issue is against the increased cost of air travel and the inconvenience it poses for travelers who are unwilling or unable to compromise by trading off luggage for price. It sucks, but it’s not “greedy corporations”; it’s just economic reality.
deelowe 8y ago
Maybe Orbitz should include baggage fees in their pricing estimates?
cynicalkane 8y ago
> it's not as people wanting to fly were going to travel sites and saying, "If only the cheapest flight here was $25 less than it was" Is this meant to say that consumers aren't price sensitive? If so, why don't airlines just charge arbitrarily high prices?

Consultant32452 8y ago

I think you're missing one piece of this picture. If there is unused space/weight capacity, the airline fills that space with cargo from traditional/package carriers. So there are third parties, unseen to you as an airline passenger, competing with you on price to put stuff in that cargo hold.