Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Schumer at it again

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
That is a perfect example of why the airline industry, as a whole, has never produced a sustainable profit.
 
I say we weigh the people, and their bags, and hand them a bill. No reason a 200 pound person and a 400 pounder that requires a Shamu harness should pay the same thing
 
I disagree. Every passenger carries something on to a flight. The fee and the management and enforcement of the fee would be a nightmare for gate and flight attendants. Stop nickel and dime'ing our passengers and charge the revenue in the damn ticket. The check bag fee was BS and forced people to carry on and make DH'ing a nightmare. Charge the appropriate amount for tickets and stop pissing people off. Have any of you got a raise from bag fee revenue, or just your CEO?
 
What does it matter?

$50 ticket and $100 carry on fee = $100 ticket and $50 carry on fee = $150 ticket and $0 carry on fee. They can package it however they want - the end price is the end price.

If you are stupid enough to think a $50 ticket and high carry on fee is a good deal than that's your fault for being an idiot. These are the same people that walk into a car dealership not caring how much the car is only what their monthly payment is.
 
Heh... reminds me of the dealer I dealt with last year, who said, "Why do you keep harping on the interest rate? Isn't the payment the important thing?"

Yeah, maybe to you, dinkus...
 
CA1900 said:
Heh... reminds me of the dealer I dealt with last year, who said, "Why do you keep harping on the interest rate? Isn't the payment the important thing?"

Yeah, maybe to you, dinkus...
Click to expand...

Ha ha. I went through the same thing. I told the dealer I needed to keep the price below $20,000. He kept asking me what I was willing to spend a month. I told him none of his business (as I was going to pay cash). His response was that I could probably afford a more expensive car if I would answer his question. My response was I already have a budget and it's $20,000. If he can't work within my budget, I'll go somewhere else. I never did buy the car because I got frustrated with the dealers. That and I kind of got drunk playing craps in Vegas.
 
Last edited:
Cue Rez in 3, 2, 1 with a golf clap.............
 
Bag fees are like crack cocaine to airline executives. And it is not cutting their own throat when every other airline jumps on the bandwagon and gives customers no safe harbor from the practice. But hey, the idea came from a Democrat, so you must automatically oppose it.
 
Okay, as far as calling the USAir babe a beeeotch, the old boy was right. Cell phones may be used until the door is closed.

With regards to charging for checked bags, that requires ground crews, bag tags, tugs, conveyor belts, etc. All that stuff costs money, so a charge for a checked bag actually kinda makes sense.

Charging for a carry bag is nonsense.
 
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.
 
Ticket prices are taxable and the federal gubment gets their share.

Bag fees are fees and not taxable, hence Schumer doesn't get his "fair share".

He's not watching out for the little man, he's looking out for his pockets.
 
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.
 
Quimby said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the equivalent of target charging customers for wearing their shoes inside the store.
 
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!
 
Dizel8 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Kind of like how customers have several choices of airlines that don't charge for checked bags??? Political idiology over commonsense.
 
Blue Dude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Smarta$$ said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom