US airline to charge passengers extra to use overhead lockers

When I fly for work it is typically United due to them being th cheapest. I do not enjoy those flights one bit

Ryanair announces crazy schemes like some of those, which it has no apparent intention of actually implementing, apparently just for the publicity:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/17/travel/ryanair-money-savin...

On the other hand maybe people will choose not to use the overhead bin now that it costs money. Wouldn't that save some time?

I would guess that enforcement would just mean at the gate you couldn't take through anything bigger than specified in the article.

Most people in that situation would prefer to keep the item with them or under the seat rather than up in a bin.

Generally I'd say that if it encourages more people to check luggage and reduce the shit show that boarding has become I'm all for it. But then it doesn't affect me personally because I don't pay for bags and only carry a backpack on board. I definitely see how the move might encourage more people to sign up for United credit cards with baggage perks that "pay for themselves."

Also, if you pay a lower fare or don't book early enough and your party is broken up that's your problem. Maybe I'm an asshole for saying no. But unless it involves children or some other extenuating circumstance, or you just need me to move an aisle or two back and I still get my aisle or window or whatever I chose that day, I'm not giving you my seat and won't feel even a little bad about it.

Someday you will handled like luggage, you are put into a pod with 20 other people and one toilet and the pod is stuffed into the plane. At the destination they pull the pod out and stuff the next one in while you are exiting. You can utilize a 3d packing scheme to optimize the pod space. Perhaps they will offer free paralytics to ensure you don't move much.

To be fair to 'people', the flight search engines do a really poor job of permitting sorting by any other variables.

British Airways recently announced that they're modifying their 777 fleet to ten-abreast seating, instead of nine, to bring them into line with other airlines like Air France and Emirates. But if you were browsing similar flights between those airlines you'd never have been told that BA offered an extra two inches of seat-width, so why would you have chosen them?

They temporarily lost my luggage before... I would much rather have it with me. And it is much quicker then going to the carousel, especially if you choose a seat close to the exit.

I assume you have never travelled long haul with small children.

It's in everyone's interest for children onboard to have access to entertainment, food, diapers, comfort objects, and clean clothes. That all takes space.

Considering how checked baggage is thrown around I'd rather keep photography gear in my cabin baggage and have lenses unbroken, thank you.

I try not to use the overhead compartments and will check a bag if it all possible because I don't want to be a part of the chaos.

The time you wait at the baggage carousel is unrelated to how long it takes to get off the plane. If it takes them 25 minutes to get your bag from the plane to the carousel, then saving 20 minutes getting off the plane will only mean a 20 minute longer wait at the carousel.

You say that, but United made my boss take his laptop out of his checked luggage and carry it onto the plane. Considering the phalanx of gear some travel with these days, would it really all fit under the seat? Maybe not.

In some situations the risk that a bag doesn't make it to your destination is too great to take, and therefore it's necessary to carry on.

If checking a bag gave the same assurance that it would make your destination with you as carrying it on person, fine: make checking a back the only option. But in reality your checked bag is less likely to meet you at your destination than if you'd have just carried it along with you.

>"Why do they even exist? All they do is make boarding and deplaning take 20 extra minutes each."

How is that different then taking another 20 minutes to wait to get your luggage at the carousel?

Its still 20 minutes of lost productivity for all passengers.

You won't get your luggage from the carousel any minute earlier (at least I've never arrived at the carousel after my luggage), so the only thing you are doing is shifting your waiting time from a plane seat to a loud hall where you have to stand around. I generally prefer my plane seat + the knowledge where my important stuff is and how it has been handled.

Did you read the article?

> United expects the changes to raise around $1bn by 2020. Those choosing a standard economy fare, it is therefore reasonable to assume, will be expected to pay significantly more than they do now.

The problem with that is that no one shops directly on the airline websites any more, at least not at first. Now this company's fares will appear at the top of the list when you search kayak or google flights or whatever. Then you order your ticket and don't realize the restriction until you're about to put the order through. This works effectively well.

Then the rest of the industry feels pressure to do the same thing to remain competitive. It's a race to the bottom and I think it's how we wound up in the present situation of frequently paying for checked bags and not getting meals included.

This is going too far though -- who travels for even a few days without an overhead bag? And have you noticed how much smaller the size restrictions on the overhead bags are now?

It's a fee disguised as a "new lower fare". Basic economy seats will cost as much as economy seats do today, with standard economy costing much more.

Doesn't Spirit do the same thing, too? Start barebones and keep selecting add-ons until your fare is the same as a regular airline?

Did you read the article? The no-bag fare will be equivalent to today's lowest fares. People carrying bags will pay more. This is not a new lower tier.

> But those who choose the cheapest fare are unlikely to be making any savings. According to Reuters, basic economy fares “will be comparable to low fares it now charges for the economy cabin, but with more restrictions”.

It's because they are afraid of substances like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide

Note that that stuff is an explosive that contains no nitrogen, so it can't be detected by common explosive detectors.

They are the first "legacy" carrier to do this. That's significant because it means that every other major airline will likely follow suit if this works for them.

I always wished they had charged for overhead instead of checked. Yes, there are some conveniences to carry on but as you note it really breaks down when everyone decides to use it

Admittedly, I only flew on United once (coinciding with how often I've visited the US so far), but in my eyes the complete boarding process was a horrible inefficient mess. They seem to regularly overbook flights to 150 % or so and then first ask any passengers whether they want to go on a different flight maybe since there are too many passengers. Then seemingly everyone brings baggage that should have been checked (like, gigantic suitcases and bags) as carry-on baggage, so they ask whether anyone of those would rather have their bag put on the flight as checked baggage. All that takes plenty of time already since usually no one seems to be willing to volunteer. And then comes boarding in five different classes, most of which are distributed evenly across the plane, so the different boarding classes seem to be more about who likes to get their head bashed with baggage while they're already sitting, getting up to let people through to the window seat, and, perhaps the most useful, overhead storage bin space.

Admittedly, boarding in groups is common everywhere, although I haven't seen that many different classes until then. But I haven't ever seen overbooking to that extent or the fight for every bit of cabin baggage space to that degree.

if they offer a checked bag free, they can't quote a ridiculously low fare on the popular travel search sites.

No I think the $6 Billion in fees Unites is racking up every year prevents that. :-)

Ehh, this is more like if the cable company started charging a monthly fee to use the remote control.

Nope,

this will cause people to bring less garbage with them onboard which means much faster boarding times which means more money earned which means Southwest is sure to follow.

It's not like Southwest doesn't have it's price issues. If you want to avoid their seat lottery system, you have to pay $15 each way.