4 ms·

I still think the best solution is to make basically reverse the current rules. Make the first 2 checked bags free, charge for additional after that. Allow one

I still think the best solution is to make basically reverse the current rules. Make the first 2 checked bags free, charge for additional after that. Allow one small carry-on, but charge for the second. The fee for the second carry-on should be at least 2x the fee for the 3rd checked bag.

Karunamon 11y ago
Don't checked bags incur a higher cost to the airline than carryon, though? (The whole sorting & hand screening & getting bags to the plane bit)
- cwyers 11y ago
  The bigger cost to the airline is opportunity cost - they use leftover space in the cargo hold to carry packages, which is more lucrative than your checked bags.
- jasode 11y ago
  There are 2 more angles to that... 1) more checked bags means less passengers wasting time fighting for non-existent overhead bin space. Less hassling with flight attendants. More efficient loading; planes have a better chance of pulling away from the gate on time. What cost savings there are to a more hassle-free boarding process, I wouldn't know how to quantify. 2) Passengers will bring carryons knowing ahead of time there will be no bin space and it will have to be checked at the jetway. (The ground crew takes the last bags down the stairs and and tosses them into the plane.) These "checked" bags don't pay the fee. Eliminating the checked bag fee removes the incentive for this loophole. However, I wouldn't know how to quantify the savings.
jasode 11y ago
>Allow one small carry-on, but charge for the second. I also think checked bags should be free and the carry-on bags should pay the fees. However, allowing only 1 free carry-on is a disadvantage to women who want to carry a purse (that's 1 bag) and also a laptop briefcase (that's now 2 bags) to do work. I suppose women could stuff the bare minimum of toiletries into the pockets of a laptop bag but I think a lot of them will want everything that they carry in the purse. The airlines could make an exception for purses, but then the men could claim they should also be able to bring on messenger bags[1]. Therefore, we're right back to 2 bags again. Or we allow 2 small carry-ons for free and they can't be rollerbags and suitcases. If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay. We have to draw the line somewhere :-) [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=messenger+bag&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=messenger+bag&source=lnms&tb...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  My wife's "Diaper bag" was an oversized purse, because she didn't like the designs/styles of the actual diaper bags. When we traveled "infant in arms" we never had more than 2 carry-ons between us.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  "If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay." That's not a 3rd bag, that's a bag for the infant. So you don't have to make an exception for parents, just say "2 bags per person", since the infant is a person too.
  - jasode 11y ago
    Yes that makes sense because you're using customer's logic instead of airline's logic. Airline's logic: "passenger" would mean "ticketed passenger" which would mean a seat that was paid for. Since most people do not buy separate tickets for infants (because infants are held in the arms), the infant doesn't get a "free bag". For example with American Airlines policy[1], the unticketed infant gets zero bags as an allowance. However, the diaper bag is allowed as an exception. There is no "2 carryon bags per human" type of rule. But my comment about mothers was tongue-in-cheek (note the smiley face) so we don't have to overanalyze it. [1]https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/childrenTraveling.jsp?anchorLocation=DirectURL&title=children https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/...
  - gambiting 11y ago
    On many airlines, you have to buy a ticket for an infant,but you don't get an extra seat. It's stupid.
phantom784 11y ago
Even if checked bags are free, I prefer a carry-on when possible to avoid having to wait for my bags to show up and the possibility of them being lost.
- youngtaff 11y ago
  +1 - carry on in the overhead, laptop under the seat infront. I can fit a weeks worth of clean clothes into a European carry on.
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  Agreed on the part of potentially lost luggage, but I think having to wait is going to be a thing of the past soon. Alaska Air already has a 20 minute guarantee. If you bag isn't on the carousel 20 minutes after arrival at the gate, they give you $25 off your next flight or 2,500 miles. Changing the baggage rules will drive innovation/competition elsewhere. I think for the better.
  - mAritz 11y ago
    But that still adds up to 20 minutes to your full travel time. I often have flights that are only 1 hour. Waiting even 10-15 minutes (normal here) is annoying for me, especially when I'm trying to get to work on time.
    - edwhitesell 11y ago
      I'd wager it's very rare for a significant majority of deplaning passengers to make it out of the plane, through the terminal and to baggage claim before 20 minutes have passed.

Karunamon 11y ago

Don't checked bags incur a higher cost to the airline than carryon, though? (The whole sorting & hand screening & getting bags to the plane bit)

cwyers 11y ago
The bigger cost to the airline is opportunity cost - they use leftover space in the cargo hold to carry packages, which is more lucrative than your checked bags.
jasode 11y ago
There are 2 more angles to that... 1) more checked bags means less passengers wasting time fighting for non-existent overhead bin space. Less hassling with flight attendants. More efficient loading; planes have a better chance of pulling away from the gate on time. What cost savings there are to a more hassle-free boarding process, I wouldn't know how to quantify. 2) Passengers will bring carryons knowing ahead of time there will be no bin space and it will have to be checked at the jetway. (The ground crew takes the last bags down the stairs and and tosses them into the plane.) These "checked" bags don't pay the fee. Eliminating the checked bag fee removes the incentive for this loophole. However, I wouldn't know how to quantify the savings.

jasode 11y ago

>Allow one small carry-on, but charge for the second. I also think checked bags should be free and the carry-on bags should pay the fees. However, allowing only 1 free carry-on is a disadvantage to women who want to carry a purse (that's 1 bag) and also a laptop briefcase (that's now 2 bags) to do work. I suppose women could stuff the bare minimum of toiletries into the pockets of a laptop bag but I think a lot of them will want everything that they carry in the purse. The airlines could make an exception for purses, but then the men could claim they should also be able to bring on messenger bags[1]. Therefore, we're right back to 2 bags again. Or we allow 2 small carry-ons for free and they can't be rollerbags and suitcases. If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay. We have to draw the line somewhere :-) [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=messenger+bag&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=messenger+bag&source=lnms&tb...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
edwhitesell 11y ago
My wife's "Diaper bag" was an oversized purse, because she didn't like the designs/styles of the actual diaper bags. When we traveled "infant in arms" we never had more than 2 carry-ons between us.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
"If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay." That's not a 3rd bag, that's a bag for the infant. So you don't have to make an exception for parents, just say "2 bags per person", since the infant is a person too.
- jasode 11y ago
  Yes that makes sense because you're using customer's logic instead of airline's logic. Airline's logic: "passenger" would mean "ticketed passenger" which would mean a seat that was paid for. Since most people do not buy separate tickets for infants (because infants are held in the arms), the infant doesn't get a "free bag". For example with American Airlines policy[1], the unticketed infant gets zero bags as an allowance. However, the diaper bag is allowed as an exception. There is no "2 carryon bags per human" type of rule. But my comment about mothers was tongue-in-cheek (note the smiley face) so we don't have to overanalyze it. [1]https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/childrenTraveling.jsp?anchorLocation=DirectURL&title=children https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/...
- gambiting 11y ago
  On many airlines, you have to buy a ticket for an infant,but you don't get an extra seat. It's stupid.

phantom784 11y ago

Even if checked bags are free, I prefer a carry-on when possible to avoid having to wait for my bags to show up and the possibility of them being lost.

youngtaff 11y ago
+1 - carry on in the overhead, laptop under the seat infront. I can fit a weeks worth of clean clothes into a European carry on.
edwhitesell 11y ago
Agreed on the part of potentially lost luggage, but I think having to wait is going to be a thing of the past soon. Alaska Air already has a 20 minute guarantee. If you bag isn't on the carousel 20 minutes after arrival at the gate, they give you $25 off your next flight or 2,500 miles. Changing the baggage rules will drive innovation/competition elsewhere. I think for the better.
- mAritz 11y ago
  But that still adds up to 20 minutes to your full travel time. I often have flights that are only 1 hour. Waiting even 10-15 minutes (normal here) is annoying for me, especially when I'm trying to get to work on time.
  - edwhitesell 11y ago
    I'd wager it's very rare for a significant majority of deplaning passengers to make it out of the plane, through the terminal and to baggage claim before 20 minutes have passed.