Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Say what you will about federal lawmakers, gridlock, and special interest groups, but Senator Charles Schumer just got five of the top airlines to agree to not charge passengers for their carry-on bags   (syracuse.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Chuck Schumer, spirit airlines, JetBlue, US Airways, Victoria's Secret, special interests, price of oil, citizen journalism  
•       •       •

1796 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Apr 2010 at 6:34 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-04-19 02:39:44 AM  
I wish they WOULD charge for carry-on. I farking hate carry-on...it slows everything down...slows down the security checkpoints as well as getting on/off the plane. You would think that the airlines would want you to check your luggage...but I've heard that it cuts down on the amount of other cargo they can carry and thus they make less profit. Either way, airlines suck.
 
2010-04-19 02:43:36 AM  

jerry2a: I wish they WOULD charge for carry-on. I farking hate carry-on...it slows everything down...slows down the security checkpoints as well as getting on/off the plane. You would think that the airlines would want you to check your luggage...but I've heard that it cuts down on the amount of other cargo they can carry and thus they make less profit. Either way, airlines suck.


cdn2.knowyourmeme.com

Why on earth would airlines want to limit carry-ons? If bags are checked, they have to hire baggage handlers and have less room for paid cargo. Your logic, it is missing.
 
2010-04-19 02:52:41 AM  

jerry2a: I wish they WOULD charge for carry-on. I farking hate carry-on...it slows everything down...slows down the security checkpoints as well as getting on/off the plane.


I travel with 10k worth of camcorder and gear, and I can get it into a carry-on and a backpack. No farking way am I letting them check and loose those bags.
 
2010-04-19 02:53:32 AM  

southaustin: Why on earth would airlines want to limit carry-ons? If bags are checked, they have to hire baggage handlers and have less room for paid cargo. Your logic, it is missing.


Because it slows them down...and they have to have baggage handlers anyway. I would think they'd want you on/off the plane quicker to avoid delays. As far as my logic goes, I already pointed out in my post that they make more money with cargo so I understand why they do it. I just don't like having to wait for the person who has obviously never seen a suitcase OR a luggage compartment spending 20 minutes jamming an object 3' deep into a space that's 2' deep.
 
2010-04-19 02:53:44 AM  

jerry2a: I wish they WOULD charge for carry-on. I farking hate carry-on...it slows everything down...slows down the security checkpoints as well as getting on/off the plane. You would think that the airlines would want you to check your luggage...but I've heard that it cuts down on the amount of other cargo they can carry and thus they make less profit. Either way, airlines suck.


I only ever carry a backpack. Why do you hate me?
 
2010-04-19 02:53:45 AM  
I can live for two weeks plus from a carry-on plus a bag to carry my computer. That's in a business environment. I can live for a month if I'm not having to dress for success. So to speak.

Just came home from Arizona a week ago. Been there, done that ;)
 
2010-04-19 02:55:17 AM  

vartian: I travel with 10k worth of camcorder and gear, and I can get it into a carry-on and a backpack. No farking way am I letting them check and loose those bags.


That's obviously different and understandable. I don't check my laptop either. Meh...I'm not going to win this battle as I'm in the minority when it comes to check -vs- carry.
 
2010-04-19 02:56:39 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I only ever carry a backpack. Why do you hate me?


Heh. I usually carry just a backpack when I travel 1/5 of the way around the planet. I do not understand why other people can't do that ;)
 
2010-04-19 02:57:22 AM  

jerry2a: I'm in the minority when it comes to check -vs- carry.


Carry-ons annoy me too. Not all of it, just the people who completely over do it.
 
2010-04-19 02:57:40 AM  
So, let me get this straight, jerry2a: you want me to trust baggage handlers with my stuff, knowing that many of the "lost" bags wind up in someone's trunk at the end of the day?

Riiiiiiiight. I'll keep my carry on, thank you very much.
 
2010-04-19 02:58:09 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I only ever carry a backpack. Why do you hate me?


I was attacked by a backpack when I was a child.
 
2010-04-19 02:59:48 AM  

hubiestubert: So, let me get this straight, jerry2a: you want me to trust baggage handlers with my stuff, knowing that many of the "lost" bags wind up in someone's trunk at the end of the day?

Riiiiiiiight. I'll keep my carry on, thank you very much.


I've been lucky...only ever had one lost bag and they delivered it untouched to my house the next day.
 
2010-04-19 03:03:21 AM  

jerry2a: I've been lucky...only ever had one lost bag and they delivered it untouched to my house the next day.


Then you travel with sh*tty stuff.

The likelihood of your checked bag going missing is directly proportional to the quality and cost of the goods contained therein.
 
2010-04-19 03:06:59 AM  

jerry2a: I wish they WOULD charge for carry-on. I farking hate carry-on...it slows everything down...slows down the security checkpoints as well as getting on/off the plane. You would think that the airlines would want you to check your luggage...but I've heard that it cuts down on the amount of other cargo they can carry and thus they make less profit. Either way, airlines suck.


I completely agree, I also want to ban children and old people, they slow things down. Plus invalids and the handicapped. For good measure, also the fatties, and anyone over 6'1".

As for carry-ons slowing things down for them. Your logic is flawed. It slows things down for you, not them. The plane will always take off at the same time, it is just you who has to get there earlier. They aren't hurt by a carry-on, just you are.

/Recheck your logic that it hurts the airline.
 
2010-04-19 03:08:01 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Then you travel with sh*tty stuff.

The likelihood of your checked bag going missing is directly proportional to the quality and cost of the goods contained therein.


I try to leave my vast personal fortune at home when I go away on business. I guess the first time I get burned I'll change my mind.
 
2010-04-19 03:10:20 AM  

BackAssward: As for carry-ons slowing things down for them. Your logic is flawed. It slows things down for you, not them. The plane will always take off at the same time, it is just you who has to get there earlier. They aren't hurt by a carry-on, just you are.

/Recheck your logic that it hurts the airline.


Fine, I'm a selfish bastard and I don't like standing around waiting for people to stow/take their luggage.
 
2010-04-19 03:11:59 AM  

jerry2a: BackAssward: As for carry-ons slowing things down for them. Your logic is flawed. It slows things down for you, not them. The plane will always take off at the same time, it is just you who has to get there earlier. They aren't hurt by a carry-on, just you are.

/Recheck your logic that it hurts the airline.

Fine, I'm a selfish bastard and I don't like standing around waiting for people to stow/take their luggage.


So long as we get the crux of your argument tacked down early, before it can swell into a listing of your personal failings and justification for your being pilloried in the stocks and made to listen to Celine Dion tunes whilst immobilized...
 
2010-04-19 03:16:49 AM  
A month later:

Breaking News: Airline ticket prices rise by 25 dollars!

/eh, assuming everyone doesn't carry on, ticket prices might go up less than 25 dollars. But rest assured jerry2a - you are now subsidizing their carrying on.
 
2010-04-19 03:17:38 AM  

jerry2a: vartian: I travel with 10k worth of camcorder and gear, and I can get it into a carry-on and a backpack. No farking way am I letting them check and loose those bags.

That's obviously different and understandable. I don't check my laptop either. Meh...I'm not going to win this battle as I'm in the minority when it comes to check -vs- carry.


Let's compromise: If anyone takes more then two minutes to put away or gather they shiat, they can be pushed down and trampled. Sound good? :)
 
2010-04-19 03:17:55 AM  

hubiestubert: So long as we get the crux of your argument tacked down early, before it can swell into a listing of your personal failings and justification for your being pilloried in the stocks and made to listen to Celine Dion tunes whilst immobilized...


Sorry...I thought I was clear that my problem with carry-on is due to it wasting time (mine) along with my deep-seated fear of having to listen to Celine Dion while stuck behind people who packed 4 years worth of supplies for their 2-day trip. I hereby apologize to ALL lovers of carry-on luggage and going forward I will be more sensitive before ranting on Fark.
 
2010-04-19 03:20:21 AM  

jerry2a: I try to leave my vast personal fortune at home when I go away on business.


I traveled between Chicago and Vancouver a couple times a month for 3 1/2 years for business, and only ever had a carry-on. It was with United and I used the priority security check and economy plus.

We were all traveling for business so it was no muss, no fuss. It was like clock work. Through security faster than the average person without a carry-on, on the plane and off faster than the average person without a carry-on. And as for selfish and waiting around, I didn't have to wait for bags when I landed.

You're complaint isn't really with carry-ons, it is with inefficient people. The mouth breathers that would slow you down no matter what. Like not realizing they can't have liquids in their purse, or not taking off their shoes untill they are standing at the metal detector.

No, no matter what, airlines can't ban the stupid or inefficient. They will always slow you down, carry-on or no.
 
2010-04-19 03:21:19 AM  

Coprolalia: /eh, assuming everyone doesn't carry on, ticket prices might go up less than 25 dollars. But rest assured jerry2a - you are now subsidizing their carrying on.


Heh. Last time I flew to Atlanta, they didn't charge me for my checked bag. On my way back, DING! $25 please to check your luggage. I argued for a bit..."are you kidding? You didn't charge me to bring it but now I have to pay to bring it back?". I couldn't carry it on due to the dangerous chemicals and explosive materials (toothpaste, shaving cream) I had that weren't in plastic baggies and 3 oz bottles.
 
2010-04-19 03:23:56 AM  

BackAssward: You're complaint isn't really with carry-ons, it is with inefficient people. The mouth breathers that would slow you down no matter what. Like not realizing they can't have liquids in their purse, or not taking off their shoes untill they are standing at the metal detector.


Exactly...OK, I take back what I said about carry-on. From now on, I would like there to be a $500 surcharge for anybody other than ME flying on an airline. That will save me considerable time and I will be able to sit down quicker and enjoy my Celine Dion.
 
2010-04-19 03:28:37 AM  

jerry2a: BackAssward: You're complaint isn't really with carry-ons, it is with inefficient people. The mouth breathers that would slow you down no matter what. Like not realizing they can't have liquids in their purse, or not taking off their shoes untill they are standing at the metal detector.

Exactly...OK, I take back what I said about carry-on. From now on, I would like there to be a $500 surcharge for anybody other than ME flying on an airline. That will save me considerable time and I will be able to sit down quicker and enjoy my Celine Dion.


Hey, don't get me wrong, I am selfish too.

BackAssward: I also want to ban children and old people, they slow things down. Plus invalids and the handicapped. For good measure, also the fatties


/Was only half joking.
 
2010-04-19 03:29:44 AM  
Just a general question:

What is the economic thinking of this tactic?

My first thought is that it is a terrible idea. People wouldn't notice a small uptick in price of their airplane tickets, and even if they do, they'll write it off because it is already part of a rather large purchase.

But, when you make it a completely separate purchase that people notice, people will biatch.

The only explanation I can think of is that less carry-ons is more valuable to them. Why? I would assume anyone who reacts to the disincentive to bring a carry on will just put their stuff in their luggage - which will keep the plane weight the same. I guess a few people might start flying with absolutely nothing due to this, but really how many people is that?

What am I missing?
 
2010-04-19 03:30:03 AM  
I never knew people had such strong emotions about carry-ons.
 
2010-04-19 03:31:27 AM  

Coprolalia: The only explanation I can think of is that less carry-ons is more valuable to them. Why?


less carry-ons means less weight means less fuel used means $$$.
 
2010-04-19 03:32:23 AM  

Coprolalia: The only explanation I can think of is that less carry-ons is more valuable to them


Don't go there...trust me.
 
2010-04-19 03:33:08 AM  

log_jammin: Coprolalia: The only explanation I can think of is that less carry-ons is more valuable to them. Why?

less carry-ons means less weight means less fuel used means $$$.


But do you not agree that they will put the carry-on stuff in the luggage?
 
2010-04-19 03:36:05 AM  

Coprolalia: But do you not agree that they will put the carry-on stuff in the luggage?


They charge because they CAN. They're already charging now to check luggage - and apparently they don't want you to do that either - so now they're just going to charge everybody an extra $25.
 
2010-04-19 03:38:16 AM  

jerry2a: Coprolalia: But do you not agree that they will put the carry-on stuff in the luggage?

They charge because they CAN. They're already charging now to check luggage - and apparently they don't want you to do that either - so now they're just going to charge everybody an extra $25.


But my argument was that it would be a better idea to simply put that extra cost in the airline ticket, not the carry on where people will notice it and internalize it.

It's the old pscyhological observation: It's much easier to get someone to spend an extra 25 bucks on the purchase of a 30,000 car than on a 50 dollar shirt.
 
2010-04-19 03:38:32 AM  

Coprolalia: But do you not agree that they will put the carry-on stuff in the luggage?


maybe. maybe not.

I only used a carry on for stuff I might want during the flight or things I was afraid would get broke. So If I knew I'd get charged for a carry on I wouldn't take those things.

I'm sure everyone else has a different take on it.
 
2010-04-19 03:39:12 AM  

jerry2a: Coprolalia: But do you not agree that they will put the carry-on stuff in the luggage?

They charge because they CAN. They're already charging now to check luggage - and apparently they don't want you to do that either - so now they're just going to charge everybody an extra $25.


Basically it... there was the fuel surcharge, and various other ones as well. They are a business and there to make money... not some public service. Sure there might be many providers, but if they all agree to do the same charges, there is no competition.

/Free market: a bunch of companies agreeing to charge you the same.
 
2010-04-19 03:39:24 AM  

log_jammin: Coprolalia: But do you not agree that they will put the carry-on stuff in the luggage?

maybe. maybe not.

I only used a carry on for stuff I might want during the flight or things I was afraid would get broke. So If I knew I'd get charged for a carry on I wouldn't take those things.

I'm sure everyone else has a different take on it.


I can buy that. Less books and magazines and maybe snacks foods. Seems insignificant, but I guess that crap adds up.
 
2010-04-19 03:41:49 AM  

jerry2a: I was attacked by a backpack when I was a child.


I like the cut of your jib, but you have to make room for the business travelers.

They learned that fee trick from the government, or vice versa. Just add it to the price of the ticket if they need money. I am sick of f*cking fees. Just call it the cost of doing business or STFU, airlines. I know the airlines lose shiat-tons of money. Yet, Southwest is profitable.

/I only fly Southwest.
 
2010-04-19 03:44:24 AM  

Coprolalia: I can buy that. Less books and magazines and maybe snacks foods. Seems insignificant, but I guess that crap adds up.


Makes sense considering that they charge an arm and a leg now for snacks...I was really hungry last time and I had to cough up $3 for a tiny bag of chips. The airline industry is taking a lesson from the movie industry...I'm surprised they haven't started prohibiting you from bringing your own food yet.
 
2010-04-19 03:44:59 AM  

jerry2a: hubiestubert: So long as we get the crux of your argument tacked down early, before it can swell into a listing of your personal failings and justification for your being pilloried in the stocks and made to listen to Celine Dion tunes whilst immobilized...

Sorry...I thought I was clear that my problem with carry-on is due to it wasting time (mine) along with my deep-seated fear of having to listen to Celine Dion while stuck behind people who packed 4 years worth of supplies for their 2-day trip. I hereby apologize to ALL lovers of carry-on luggage and going forward I will be more sensitive before ranting on Fark.


Oh! I got an idea we can all agree on (I think you'll like it).

A $25 charge for every security checkpoint infraction. So, a charge for every bottle in a person's bag. A charge for every time the metal detector goes off because of someone's belt or keys in their pocket. A charge for not having to be told by the agent to take off shoes or a jacket.

It might take a few weeks, but people will start to learn.
 
2010-04-19 03:47:34 AM  

BackAssward: A charge for not having to be told by the agent to take off shoes or a jacket.


FTFM. Damn, I re wrote that line and forgot to remove a word.
 
2010-04-19 03:47:58 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I like the cut of your jib, but you have to make room for the business travelers.

They learned that fee trick from the government, or vice versa. Just add it to the price of the ticket if they need money. I am sick of f*cking fees. Just call it the cost of doing business or STFU, airlines. I know the airlines lose shiat-tons of money. Yet, Southwest is profitable.

/I only fly Southwest.


I am a business traveler...But I agree with you regarding these extra fees. Especially when your company will pay for your ticket but hassles you to death for any other expenses that you have to submit separately...like checked bag fees.
 
2010-04-19 03:50:34 AM  

BackAssward: Oh! I got an idea we can all agree on (I think you'll like it).

A $25 charge for every security checkpoint infraction. So, a charge for every bottle in a person's bag. A charge for every time the metal detector goes off because of someone's belt or keys in their pocket. A charge for not having to be told by the agent to take off shoes or a jacket.

It might take a few weeks, but people will start to learn.


$25 charge for the lady blocking the aisle that has picked that moment to rearrange the contents of her gigantic purse, $25 for the person that has to get up while they're serving the snacks thus forcing the flight attendants to back the cart WAAAAY the fark back...I'm down with that.
 
2010-04-19 04:03:05 AM  

jerry2a: Especially when your company will pay for your ticket but hassles you to death for any other expenses that you have to submit separately...like checked bag fees.


That is bullshiat. I know their (accounting) mandate is to lower costs, but why do they yell at people with a claim ticket and the outlay of funds is clearly spelled out? If they want to biatch, biatch at the airlines.

I swear to god, U.S. airlines are run so poorly, I'm shocked their executives haven't been burned at the stake. Is there a tax incentive for investing in really stupid companies? Aside from investors thinking they can get a Blue Star deal, I have no idea why they put good money into U.S. airlines.

The system is FUBAR and needs massive overhaul so someone can make a damn profit on it.
 
2010-04-19 04:05:18 AM  

BackAssward: A charge for not having to be told by the agent to take off shoes or a jacket.


jerry2a: BackAssward: Oh! I got an idea we can all agree on (I think you'll like it).

A $25 charge for every security checkpoint infraction. So, a charge for every bottle in a person's bag. A charge for every time the metal detector goes off because of someone's belt or keys in their pocket. A charge for not having to be told by the agent to take off shoes or a jacket.

It might take a few weeks, but people will start to learn.

$25 charge for the lady blocking the aisle that has picked that moment to rearrange the contents of her gigantic purse, $25 for the person that has to get up while they're serving the snacks thus forcing the flight attendants to back the cart WAAAAY the fark back...I'm down with that.


I completely agree with your charges. How about a charge for when someone grabs the back of your seat to get up. Or for when a parent lets the kid kick the back of your seat. A charge for someone do deaf, you can hear their mp3s playing 3 rows away, and it is Celine Dion.
 
2010-04-19 04:41:06 AM  
You all are stupid. Let's just all charge people for EVERYTHING we don't agree with.

Palin-American?
Done.
TOTAL-FARk-TARD?
Done.
Title I?
Done.
Title VII?
Done.
Title IX?
Done.
Title XII?
Done twice and 9000 times over again...

I don't care how pussified and cushy you think Amurka is... There is a reality happening in every state... Americans are stupid beyond belief if they haven't had a carefully-sculpted education.

Always follow the flow of money. It's natural. Where does the water flow?
 
2010-04-19 04:52:47 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I swear to god, U.S. airlines are run so poorly, I'm shocked their executives haven't been burned at the stake. Is there a tax incentive for investing in really stupid companies? Aside from investors thinking they can get a Blue Star deal, I have no idea why they put good money into U.S. airlines.


Airlines are considered a critical industry, and the Feds will keep propping them up, no matter the cost. Sounds like a good investment to me.
 
2010-04-19 06:04:19 AM  

BackAssward: I completely agree, I also want to ban children and old people, they slow things down. Plus invalids and the handicapped. For good measure, also the fatties, and anyone over 6'1".


Hey, as a fatty over 6'1", I object to that. I carry a backpack that fits nicely under the seat in front of me. As soon as we've come to a complete stop, I'm up and waiting to deplane.

And I have asked an entire planeload of people if lack of oxygen made them forget how to walk when they didn't move fast enough.

However, if you give me $25 (or peanuts, I am fat) I will plow through everyone not fast enough to get their shiat and go.
 
2010-04-19 06:06:48 AM  
Grammar nazi here:

jerry2a: I...but I've heard that it cuts down on the amount of other cargo they can carry and thus they make less profit. Either way, airlines suck.


Correct use of "less"!

Coprolalia: I can buy that. Less books and magazines and maybe snacks foods. Seems insignificant, but I guess that crap adds up.


No, you meant "fewer." If you can count the items, you mean "fewer." Wrong.

Ugh. Grammar Nazi enough for now. If you can count it, use fewer: (fewer children). If you can't, use "less fuel" (can you count fuel?) Don't get me started on the "15 items or less" signs at the grocery stores.
 
2010-04-19 06:12:54 AM  

schoberp: BackAssward: I completely agree, I also want to ban children and old people, they slow things down. Plus invalids and the handicapped. For good measure, also the fatties, and anyone over 6'1".

Hey, as a fatty over 6'1", I object to that. I carry a backpack that fits nicely under the seat in front of me. As soon as we've come to a complete stop, I'm up and waiting to deplane.

And I have asked an entire planeload of people if lack of oxygen made them forget how to walk when they didn't move fast enough.

However, if you give me $25 (or peanuts, I am fat) I will plow through everyone not fast enough to get their shiat and go.


You do realize I am speaking tongue-in-cheek, right? Also, from your pic, you're not exactly of whom I was referring.

I've been squished into the window by a 6'4" 320lb man sitting in the middle seat, before.
 
2010-04-19 06:16:42 AM  

schoberp: And I have asked an entire planeload of people if lack of oxygen made them forget how to walk when they didn't move fast enough.

However, if you give me $25 (or peanuts, I am fat) I will plow through everyone not fast enough to get their shiat and go.


Oh, and sorry. I missed your humor before I replied. Would you like those peanuts honey roasted, or even better... candy coated beer nuts?

/I know my choice, bet it is yours.
 
2010-04-19 06:32:29 AM  

BackAssward: Oh, and sorry. I missed your humor before I replied. Would you like those peanuts honey roasted, or even better... candy coated beer nuts?

/I know my choice, bet it is yours.


Mmm... candy-coated beer nuts. S'all good on the initial post, and to prove it, have an interesting look at the history of beer nuts (new window), on the house.
 
2010-04-19 06:33:41 AM  
I don't know, the whole being unable to check in online or at the kiosks because of TSA stupidity is a disincentive for me to fly, honestly.

/checking bags is way more hassle than carrying on 1-2 bags.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report