Cranky on the Web: Fares Up, Bag Fees Up

Apr 18, 2026

More Reading on This Topic: Cranky on the Web, Fares

Are flights getting more expensive because of the Iran war? – USA Today

It was a twofer with USA Today this week. First, are flights getting more expensive because of the war? Well, yes, but mostly because of that pesky jet fuel price that has risen because of the war.

All major airlines raised checked bag fees again. Get used to it – USA Today

Fares can only go up so much, but airlines want more to cover costs. Bag fees? That hasn’t been touched in a couple of years, so why not take a swing at those too.

Panel Discussion on Airlines – Schwab Network

I was asked to join a short six minute panel discussion about what’s happening in the industry.

Brett

6 responses to “Cranky on the Web: Fares Up, Bag Fees Up”

1990

Apr 19, 2026 at 10:35 am

When these airlines each and all inevitably come to Congress demanding a bailout (loan or grant), we’d better actually include stipulations for worker and consumer protections (I’d love to see an EU261 equivalent, personally), not merely more layoffs and stock buybacks.

Totally unrelated, and not sure who needs to hear this, but Alaska Air finally added MFA for account login, so, unless you like getting hacked and losing all your pointies, please do set that up, friends!

Reply
Michael B

Apr 19, 2026 at 12:50 pm

It’s always interesting to see readers of Cranky, who are exposed to the horrible financial bedrock of the airline industry in general, advocate for EU261 equivalent’s and etc…These types of “protections’ drive up costs and are certainly passed to the consumer in higher fares and fees. If they can’t be passed, the airlines just lose more money. This is in no way an endorsement of reckless stock buybacks and other foolish management decisions that have come to haunt the industry, but it must be recognized that air travel is safer, generally cheaper, and more reliable than it has ever been considering the scale of the industry.

Reply
1. 1990
  
  Apr 20, 2026 at 6:24 am
  
  Michael B, have you heard of Ryanair? In 2026, it’s the 3rd largest airline globally by market capitalization; largest in Europe; over 600 aircraft (including subsidiaries), carrying 206 million passengers in 2025. Ryanair is notorious for offering dirt-cheap fares (think, as low as £10), and yet, still operating under both UK and EU 261 rules, while profitable (multi-billion euros per year). So, your pro-industry, anti-consumer argument falls flat. Such regulations do not impede profits, or increase fares; rather, it creates the incentive for airlines to operate more reliably, and timely. They can hedge with insurance and more efficiencies on their side; passengers shouldn’t pay a ‘premium’ for specific dates, times, routes, only to have to ‘just suck it up’ when the airline can’t handle it’s own proper staffing or maintenance. Passengers deserve better. EU261, Canada’s APPR is a good start.
  
  Reply
  1. Michael B
    
    Apr 20, 2026 at 9:57 am
    
    Yes, and Ryanair runs a completely different operational model compared to almost every single US carrier except maybe Southwest and Breeze. It’s a completely apples to oranges comparison. The hub and spoke system in the US unique in its scale. Trust me, anything that drives up costs either ends up back in ticket prices and fees, or just adds to the loss ledger. The airlines are incentivized to run efficient operations because it’s really expensive not to.
    
    Reply
    1. 1990
      
      Apr 20, 2026 at 10:20 am
      
      Michael B, you suggested such regulations would basically bankrupt airlines (a classic trope, as if it came from the mouth of Airlines for America, the industry lobbyist); yet they don’t (not just Ryanair, but all legacy EU, UK, and Canadian carriers are a testament to this, since they operate profitably within these rules). Keep in mind, even US carriers are ALREADY subject to EU/UK261 and APPR, when they originate in the EU, UK, and Canada (oh, hey, looky, still not bankrupt). You compared Ryanair to Southwest; which is great, as they are similar size, also LCC and ULCC models. So, it can and should be done. Of course, your version of “Trust me” bro, isn’t a strong argument, either. The Big-3 should absolutely focus on running more efficient operations and engaging in healthy competition within the law, instead of seeking further forms of monopoly and regulatory capture, which harms workers and consumers (and tax payers). We get it; these are businesses, not charities, and yet, still, they shouldn’t be able to take advantage of us; US-based passengers are leaving money on the table without such protections.
      
      Reply
Kilroy

Apr 20, 2026 at 4:18 am

Glad to see that your expert opinions are still being sought out by reports from USA Today; I believe that seeing a quote from you there was how I first discovered this blog 15+ years ago.

I agree with you that the demand for bag fees is probably largely price inelastic, within reasonable bounds that are well above the current checked bag fees. For those who have more stuff to bring with them than they can fit in a carryon (or items that aren’t allowed in carryon bags due to size, danger, etc), there aren’t really any other good options. Unless one is using a company’s mail room (in which case the person’s employer/client is likely paying checked bag fees), mailing an equivalent large parcel would cost several times as much money at even the cheapest retail rates, not to mention the additional time and hassle of going to a post office or UPS store.

Reply