Schumer at it again

[Quimby]

Politicians shouldn't be meddling in business decisions such as this one.

I don't see them going to Target and telling them what they can (or should) charge for a pair of socks.

 

[Smarta$$]

Politicians shouldn't be meddling in business decisions such as this one.

I don't see them going to Target and telling them what they can (or should) charge for a pair of socks.

This is the equivalent of target charging customers for wearing their shoes inside the store.

 

[Dizel8]

If that is what Target wants to do, then it's their choice and the customer has the choice not to shop there!

Seems pretty simple to me!

 

[Smarta$$]

If that is what Target wants to do, then it's their choice and the customer has the choice not to shop there!

Seems pretty simple to me!

Kind of like how customers have several choices of airlines that don't charge for checked bags??? Political idiology over commonsense.

 

[Soverytired]

The point isn't whether there's any business justification for the charge. I think it's a stupid idea. The point is that there's no way to stretch the Constitution enough to make it within Congress' power to have any say in the matter whatever.

Actually, the "Commerce Clause" in the Constitution gives the federal government license to do pretty much anything it wants. It didn't used to, but recent court cases have expanded the authority of the federal government to regulate everything, as long as they wave the fig leave of interstate "commerce".

Gonzales v. Raich, Wickard v. Filburn are two good instances of this. In the Wickard case, a farmer was prohibited from growing his own grain to feed his own chickens, as to do so would keep him from buying grain (which was kinda the point), thereby impacting wheat sales on a national level. Interstate commerce has been impacted, congress must/can regulate. Wiki the cases if you're interested.

In any case, Interstate air carriers are most certainly engaging in commerce, so it's probably well within Congresses purview to regulate costs/fees. I think it's a terrible idea as a matter of capitalism, but undoubtably legal to do so.

 

[Smarta$$]

Capitalism implies consumer choice. When all airlines jump on the carry on bag fee just as they did with the checked bag fee, there is no consumer choice. Passengers can't practically stop traveling and we should not make that their only recourse because it is bad for our job security and our country. Just charge an appropriate price in the damn ticket.

 

[Soverytired]

Capitalism implies consumer choice. When all airlines jump on the carry on bag fee just as they did with the checked bag fee, there is no consumer choice. Passengers can't practically stop traveling and we should not make that their only recourse because it is bad for our job security and our country. Just charge an appropriate price in the damn ticket.

How about I choose not to fly Spirit because of their bag fees?

Or I choose to fly Spirit because even with the bag fee's they're way cheaper than a competing carrier?

Or I choose to fly Spirit, but pack light?

Or I choose to fly Spirit, but use UPS to send my bags ahead?

Everything the feds touch turns to *#it.

 

[The Prussian]

When all airlines jump on the carry on bag fee just as they did with the checked bag fee, there is no consumer choice./QUOTE]

I missed the part where all airlines now charge a checked bag fee. Is this true???

 

[Smarta$$]

Virtually every one. Southwest is the only large carrier that I know of that does not. Most destinations have no choice but to pay the fee.

The options the other guy listed above intentionally and misleading'ly (not a word) ignore the history and reality that suggest that most or all other large carriers will follow spirit's lead and add the same fee. Which again leaves virtually no consumer choice.

 

[Smarta$$]

Virtually every one. Southwest is the only large carrier that I know of that does not. Most destinations have no choice but to pay the fee.

The options the other guy listed above intentionally and misleading'ly (not a word) ignore the history and reality that suggest that most or all other large carriers will follow spirit's lead and add the same fee. Which again leaves virtually no consumer choice.