Comments on: $25 to Check a Second Bag, United Tightens the Rules

By: Consumer affairs, news, government watchdog - The Advocate - Times Union

Consumer affairs, news, government watchdog - The Advocate - Times Union — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:17:12 +0000

[...] for higher gasoline prices and jet fuel (yes, you’re paying for higher-priced jet fuel. Tried to check a second bag lately?) Anyway, here’s the beginning of the canary-in-a-coal-mine story: April 22 (Bloomberg) [...]

By: Artie

Artie — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:09:42 +0000

Crap. I guess I had wishful thinking that AA would do the right thing by its customers :) I should have known better.

By: CF

CF — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:04:58 +0000

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Artie. American is the only one to have not implemented the fee as of now, but it has applied to the Canadians to change its baggage policy. They apparently need 45 days notice. Nothing has happened yet, but I would be surprised if it didn't.

By: Artie

Artie — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:20:09 +0000

Hey Cranky,

I was wondering if you could post the list of which airlines are now charging the fee for the second checked bag. When you say “most legacy carriers” are now charging the fee for a second checked bag, it got me nervous about my future flights on American, but I couldn’t find anything on their website informing me of a fee.

Quite frankly, flying from the Caribbean to the States, I have always put my money where my mouth is and paid an extra $25-75 to avoid Spirit and all their hidden fees and fly American instead. In my biased opinion, it seems to me that if American has not and will not institute this policy in the future, it could really become a competitive advantage if they advertise/spin it right. Let the other airlines get another $25 while you get another passenger paying for the full seat!

By: flightjunkie

flightjunkie — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:11:14 +0000

I agree with CF’s comments that it is a simplicity thing. I also agree that if the original decision to exclude these didn’t have much business justification, they should have just stuck with not excluding those in the first place.

By: CF

CF — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:33:09 +0000

My guess is that it wasn’t a revenue play but a simplicity play. I got angry with United for having so many carve outs in the initial policy, because it was going to make ticket counter agents’ lives hell. So this actually makes sense to me. I just think it’s poor for them to announce one thing and then go back on it.

By: ML Harris

ML Harris — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:06:39 +0000

Feels like they moved, saw what the market was doing, and decided that not charging the fee to high fare customers was going to cost them more revenue than it was going to gain them in customers.

It’s a tough gig. Customers are going to hate any increase in anything other than service, and yet, they’re going to hate when the airline they booked on goes under for lack of revenue. Not that DC will let United go away, but still.

By: Short hops — April 7, 2008 — luggage fees, airlines R.I.P., fuel cell flight, and rate your customs agent » Upgrade: Travel Better

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:40:53 +0000

[...] Cranky points out that United has tightened up its rules on the 2nd bag. Previously, a refundable (read: expensive) [...]

By: Nicholas Barnard

Nicholas Barnard — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:24:03 +0000

CF, a four word answer: pussy footed decision makers.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:17:54 +0000

Looks like my million mile status which translates to Star Alliance Gold and Premier Exec will let me check 3 bags for now. Just waiting for THAT shoe to drop.