So Frontier, Spirit, and now the "Basic Economy" fares charge even more for cabin bags than for checked bags. Problem solved.
One theory I heard about the checked bag fees (back when carry-on bags were no extra charge) was that the fee freed up cargo space so the airline could carry more paid air cargo, purposefully pushing baggage into the main cabin.
Because no one ever travels with baggage? You can argue its "price transparency", but forcing something everyone needs to be an "add-on" is awfully shady.
«One theory I heard about the checked bag fees (back when carry-on bags were no extra charge) was that the fee freed up cargo space so the airline could carry more paid air cargo, purposefully pushing baggage into the main cabin.»
The other theory I've heard is that "unbundling" a lot of these fees and moving them to being charged at checkin and/or the gate has meant that traditional travel agents and corporate booking can't touch or negotiate them (because they aren't direct flight costs anymore). Given most corporate expense systems don't allow for reporting "add-on fees" at an airport (and it took a while for any corporate execs to catch up to a possible need to add baggage fees as an expense that could/should be reported; many companies still seem to have yet to notice), this was a good way for the airlines to increase flight costs across the board without immediately upsetting fat cat corporate clients and choice travel agents by sneakily passing the cost difference directly to employees/flyers who at that point were a "captive audience" to the new fees.
- less of the scarce cabin space used
- less time/complication loading the plane
- less labor to inspect (you have to apply more scrutiny to stuff a passenger can use in flight), although airless don't directly pay for that.
... but less desirable for passengers (other than not having to carry):
- have to wait for it at baggage claim
- can't access it during the flight
- have to risk the stuff being stolen or lost
Not surprisingly, every flight has the overhead bins over capacity, even though this shouldn't be possible! (I think it's because someone will have a regulation size carry-on and then add a second carry-on that takes too much space, and airline employees aren't paid enough to start confrontations by correcting passengers.)
Previous HN comment/replies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12438683#12439465
Try getting $50 out of someone as they're boarding a plane.
A major part of these choices involve whether they're feasible in situations with time pressure and frustrated passengers. Luckily airline staff have huge latitude to help defuse situations with angry customers.
Working for an airline is a thankless job
On the other hand, I do want to point out a couple of things. It's crazy to charge for printing a boarding pass. That does not cost money (to a first approximation). Also, substantially all the airlines that charge to check bags will gate check for free. It's just more hassle. So what's really happening is that your seat IS being subsidized -- by the people who check bags at at checkin rather than at the gate.
In the economists' world it shouldn't make any difference - a ticket for $200 plus a $20 option for a checked bag is economically equivalent to a ticket for $220 and a $20 rebate for flying without a bag, and if unbundling is really done for the passengers' sake then it will be equally worthwhile under the latter conditions. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if they had to still advertise the price as $220 then the airlines would suddenly decide it wasn't worth unbundling the checked bag after all.
The airlines are incentivised to make it complicated, and just dealing with n different website layouts is challenging enough. Compare to e.g. food labelling, where we require mass in specific units and nutritional information in a specific format, or cars, which are obliged to include mpg and safety information from particular standardised tests in their advertising.
> And there's nothing to say that the standard bundle will necessarily meet that many people's preferences.
It doesn't have to - the point is just to have a point of comparison to be able to compare equivalent offerings from Airline A and Airline B, even if you end up getting a very different bundle from the standard one.
> understanding and
> negotiating terms
> since there's no reason for
> airlines to cooperate with
> such a search engine
What cooperation is needed? These fares are sold under different fare codes, and the meanings of the fare codes are easily available.
However, banning outside food and drink is ridiculous. I'd get right on ignoring that, and if they were somehow able to enforce it, I'd stop traveling with them.
You can usually tell in whether they offer a true business class cabin or just a first class cabin like other domestic flights. :/
I have a suspicion the issue isn't really the lack of service, it's that either you get nickle and dimed or the next step up is an order of magnitude higher in price.
Which class were you in? IIRC they only give free food in the upper classes, not the basic one.
Also, any 14 hour flight will offer 2 meals and refreshments. The main concern from takeoff to landing is keeping people calm
Many of us routinely take plane flights that are longer than two hours. A cross country flight is 5-6 hours plus 2 hours at the airport before and often a half hour after to get checked baggage. That's an 8-hour day.
Sitting on a cramped airplane for 5-6 hours is pretty unpleasant already. Doing it hungry doesn't improve the experience.
I've had companies crazy enough to ask if they could interview me on a cross-country flight day to save themselves a hotel night (after they were already planning to schedule the cheapest flights they could find), and I can only imagine those people have never traveled cross-country much.
I can't imagine interviewing the day of a cross-country flight. Even without connecting that would be miserable and probably pointless.
[0] http://harpers.org/blog/2012/03/the-empty-stomach-fasting-to...
I already pay for that as part of the ticket price. I do not want them unbundled in a way that makes my very necessary breakfast more expensive.
Except that most people want breakfast after a night's sleep.
1. Flying legacy carriers who are more bundled than low-cost carriers
and/or
2. By purchasing business or first class seats, which often still include all the bundled goodies
What I want is an airline that doesn't undermine their own business by making things better for their passengers, but instead have incentive both to make things better and more efficient. If there's no upsell the airline have to make sure things are efficient and there's less reason to hold back on "goodies".
I know there have been attempts to make such airlines in the past, but maybe with the new smaller long range aircraft, that can go from smaller airports, and more competitive taxi market, for transfer, it could work.
That's generally handled by having a cart with a garbage bag attached that comes by, and having people opening their food on the small trays provided.
>"Airports would be even less efficient going through security, vendors trying to sell food to go and people congregating to buy things."
Yes. It is called a "post-security food court".
>"I would definitely pay more if even more things was standardized and included for everyone on the flight (like luggage, security, airport seating)."
That's nice for you. A lot of people don't want that, or aren't willing to pay.
Considerable effort has already gone into making food service efficient. One of the few reason I can imagine to unbundle food is to have fewer flight attendants. But now you're suggesting they should service the passengers in a random rather than sequential order, as not everyone would want to eat at the same time. A tray doesn't really solve the problem of the person shaking their protein drink (which hopefully stays in it's container), the person having to grab the third thing from the over head storage nor someone spilling their to go coffee over you. Food service is efficient. It comes in bulk, everyone gets served, everyone eats, everyone throws things away, done.
> Yes. It is called a "post-security food court".
"Amenities" like food courts and shops is a big reason why airports are annoying. If it wasn't for trying to get you to buy overpriced things airport entry would be as efficient as airport exit and not some IKEA style maze.
Great. If an airline finds that it is more efficient that they bundle food with the ticket price, then more power to them. I just don't see why it should be required that they do so.
>""Amenities" like food courts and shops is a big reason why airports are annoying."
I am sorry that you are annoyed by food courts. On the other hand, I suspect that the fact they are usually full of businesses suggests that many people patronize them and find them useful. Again, I'm not sure what the proposed solution is. Prohibit airports from having food courts?
alternative - food stalls in airports serving specific food/packaging for flights. haven't seen a single one in those 30+ airports i ever visited.
Another issue - many foods are outright smelly and many can't stand some smells (ie -> puking) - imagine 300+ people eating their own stuff inside the plane, on 14 hours flight. ever experienced a strong smell of any airline food? thank god or whoever for that.
as for food courts, they are full of 'businesses' since those have that overpriced and usually seriously crappy food paid by employer as part of trip expenses. they have their place in airports, but definitely add chaos and size - why do I need to wade through countless restaurants and boutiques just to get from checkin to gate? that's cheap. they could be in some designated accessible 'shopping area' for example.
But these would efficiency in the airports, and that's usually not the name of the game these days.
An airline is a paid service. I'm not their friend, I'm their customer.
>"alternative - food stalls in airports serving specific food/packaging for flights. haven't seen a single one in those 30+ airports i ever visited." >"why do I need to wade through countless restaurants and boutiques just to get from checkin to gate? that's cheap. they could be in some designated accessible 'shopping area' for example."
Okay, I get it, you don't like the way airports currently are, nor all of their offerings. I still don't see why this requires that A Law Be Made governing what they are and are not allowed to offer.
Maybe it's a US/California thing, but that's pretty common here
For any flight over 45 minutes I always bring my own food. It's better than anything I can get on the plane and cheaper too. There's nothing special about going through security as it's in my carry on.
Only catch is you can't bring large liquids (so no thermos full of soup). I suppose you could have a set of 3.5 oz containers you eventually merge into a bowl but that's a little too extreme even for me ...
if you mean buy overpriced bottled water then yes, that's an option. but imagine some people want hot herbal tea on that flight, say 1-1.5 litre (ie they are sick). good luck negotiating with some airport 'restaurant' having say 8 tea servings for you (easily costing 20-30 usd/eur together)
If you don't believe me buy a sandwich on a ryanair flight.