Air Canada to remove free carry-on from basic economy | Hacker News Reader

Air Canada to remove free carry-on from basic economy

loyaltylobby.com

51 pointslxm137 comments

Open articleView on HN

I have a few other ideas for the airlines to drive growth:

- discounted standing room only tickets (pending FAA approval) on short flights

- frequent 60 second ads on the seat-back monitors and in the bathrooms. You can pay extra for an ad-free experience

- help load and unload the checked luggage for extra loyalty points

- “no-rush” shipping for your checked luggage

- a Premium Elite Sky Safety ™®© program where you get more oxygen and priority assistance in the unlikely event of loss of cabin pressure or crash.

Editing to add: You get 2 free restroom passes with a frequent flier account. A Medallion, Star Alliance, Gold Preferred, or a close personal relationship with an active-duty servicemember or honorably discharged veteran entitles you to an additional one free pass. Timed usage fees apply afterwards. Terms and conditions apply. Void where prohibited by law. Consult your doctor if restroom usage during travel is appropriate for you.

I would totally help with luggage if that was a thing

a per use toilet fee seems like an obvious way to boost profits

Except when someone doesn't want to pay and you are trapped in an aluminum can with them for a few hours.

easy: a prohibitive cleanup fee

also: make the bathroom more expensive as the flight goes on

they'll break

People love to joke, but the reality is that people don't value the things that are being removed -- that's why they're being removed.

WestJet, their main competitor, did this ages ago. People weren't switching en masse despite roughly the same route network. Ergo, it didn't matter to people, so removing it was reasonable. This gave them the ability to lower the sticker price, and makes them more competitive.

Airlines have awful margins. Literally, awful. AA's net margin in 0.5%. AC's net margin is around 10%.

[edit] I'm super tall, and I love flying LCCs like RyanAir and EasyJet, because they charge virtually nothing to get on, and then a low, reasonable fee for an exit row. I pay for what I want, and they're super timely. Economy is economy. On the premium cabin side, sure, there's room to differentiate.

Economy is economy, sure, but “economy” hides the fact that it is the only option for the vast majority of travelers. Almost everyone here has the financial security to spring for comfort if they want it, but that is not true for the broader population.

Totally, so if cost is your primary driver, you would want the sticker price to be as low as possible right? Aren't those the people who are most willing to compromise on 'frills'? This gives them the opportunity to do that in a way bundled fares do not.

But that's not making the actual price lower. There are few situations where you don't need carry-on, so almost everyone will end up booking a "cheaper" flight, but then paying extra for carry-on.

In fact, obfuscation like that probably allows the airline to charge you more, because you don't get to see all the fees until you commit.

> There are few situations where you don't need carry-on

I have taken tons of flights where I didn’t need a carry on. Either because I already needed to check a bag, or because everything I needed fit in my personal item.

> you don’t get to see all the fees until you commit.

Not true in my experience. Whenever I’ve booked basic economy it seems like they’re very clear about what’s not included.

So you paid another fee for a checked bag (or soon will, given that more and more airlines are converging on that). Either way, you're paying less for the base fare, but more for extras that most passengers need and that used to be free.

As for the second part, I meant "by the time you looked at the dates and hours and clicked on a specific flight".

I am a frequent traveller. This year so far, 50 flights.

I am absolutely for more price options. Why wouldn’t I be? Why would it end up being more expensive?

> So you paid another fee for a checked bag

Usually not. Often I only need a personal item.

And even when I do need a checked bag, that’s fine if I have to pay for it. But then if I don’t also need a carry-on, why should I be paying the same fare as people who do?

> extras…that used to be free

Not free, included in the base fare with no possibility to opt out.

I've never seen an airline that doesn't allow you to confirm what all the fees for ancillary services would be at the time of booking, and if you need to do it right after you pay there's usually a 24h window to refund after booking for no fee.

And having cheaper economy means it is accessible to more travelers.

For some reason people think you can just force companies to offer things at a loss. Requiring all these things you want as mandatory in economy doesn't mean that people with less money will be able to get them. It just means that there will be no airplane tickets they can afford at all.

So what? Are airlines obligated to provide more luxurious service to people than they’re able to pay for? Why exactly? If you think traveling with a carry-on bag is some kind of human right surely the state should be paying for it, not a private business.

Airline industry is Canada is hot garbage though. Just like telecom, it's over priced, and not competitive at all.

A single-digit % profit margin would indicate otherwise no?

Profit is the spread between what something is sold for and what was paid for it, so it's not always true. One can look at what similar flights costs in Canada and come to the obvious conclusion that air canada et al are bad at being airlines and are way overpaying for everything to drive much higher ticket prices while having better profit margins that are still terrible.

I think that view is overly generous. On flights where free check in luggage is offered there’s plenty of room for carry ons in the cabin, so a good amount of people clearly opt for check in when it is free. When they started charging for check in is when it became the norm that people where then pushed to gate check their carry ons for free once space was getting full. People were shifting their behavior to avoid the fee. The result, not surprisingly, is that fee avoidance is too common so the airlines make it more difficult to do so.

It is, of course, a “hidden” price hike with the advantage that your flight remains ranked higher when sorting by price.

Air Canada has 20x higher margins than American airlines? Wow

I think people value them, it's just that the alternative of flying your own plane has some pretty big costs involved, so you don't have much choice.

They are presumably still offering it a la carte.

I'm certain I read at one point that if you added the total profits of the airline industry from the beginning until now, it's Jess than zero. I don't know whether it's true but it seems like it could be.

> - help load and unload the checked luggage for extra loyalty points

I would legitimately want this; I have a big fear of my luggage going missing (so as much as possible, I try to do only carry-on if I can cram everything in), so being able to personally load the luggage in the plane I'm flying in would actually be extremely anxiety reducing for me.

I would actually take most of these for lower fare (except the last one)

Standing is more comfortable than sitting in those tiny seats so you'd have to pay extra.

Don’t forget lavatories.

$5.99 per use or for $29.99 get the LavPass which gives unlimited use for 24 hours, or LavPass Max for $79.99 which allows unlimited use for one year.

Number one only. Number two you have to bring your own bag and handle disposal at your destination.

And if number two is liquid, you have to split it in 100ml bags.

$5.79 per flush. $25.30 for not flushing.

In fine print it is written than "unlimited" really means "only until the airline thinks that you're abusing of it, at their sole discretion".

I'd definitely rather stand than using most airlines (economy) seats... Allowing to sit on a floor might be even better...

The Onion is ahead of you https://theonion.com/united-airlines-exploring-viability-of-...

Every air canada flight I have been on in the past few years always has the overhead bins full. I absolutely refuse to check in carry on because they have lost my bags or I have had to wait 2 hours for the bags to get on the carrousel.

I was thinking if we can somehow redesign air planes to have less under cargo space and more carry on space? I have never heard of the cargo store being full.

The new airframes (e.g. Max 8) have much larger overhead bins where the roller bags can sit vertically but it's going to take a long time for AC to retire the old fleet. Last week I was on an AC A321 that was old enough to have no WiFi, no IFE, and no plugs. It was a late flight so I just slept but it was kind of jarring to remember that it wasn't too long ago that none of those features were standard (I looked it up, I believe the airframe was made in 1997)

Delta wing passenger aircraft should have more cabin space and less under-cabin cargo space but there are many other issues with that design.

>I absolutely refuse to check in carry on because they have lost my bags or I have had to wait 2 hours for the bags to get on the carrousel.

I've never had this problem. But I've also never flown with Air Canada; is this a problem you've had with Air Canada specifically, or air travel in general?

I have read in recent years a lot of negative stuff about Air Canada from unhappy passengers. It sounds like it's even worse now than the worst American carriers.

It's Air Canada specifically. As a Canadian, I avoid them at all costs. Actually, I just avoid flying within Canada as much as possible (and especially avoid any transit through Toronto Pearson). I fly to and from Europe regularly (4x or so per year) and to the US now and then to visit family, and there's no hell like dealing with Air Canada or Canadian airports.

They all do it, just in different amounts.

How’s it even possible to absolutely refuse to gate check a carry on? Whenever I’ve been told to do so it didn’t really seem like I had a choice.

They will usually start offering to gate check some time before mandating it.

Be the at the front of the line for your zone. You will only be forced to check if there is no room and if you are first in your zone there will be room.

Alternatively there are certain things which cannot go into checked baggage such as batteries so you can pack batteries or other things which cannot go into cargo into your carryon baggage.

Newer planes do this, but broadly speaking airlines have no desire to give you overhead space. There's an established expectation that they can charge for checked bags, but anything they don't use can be sold as freight space for cargo. Air Canada does this and the money they make from it (~5% of revenue) accounts for a significant portion of their net margin.

Plus, the favorite pastime of Canadian airlines seems to be discovering how shoddy they can make their service before there are public riots.

Airlines need to make checking bags less awful and the problem of full bins goes away.

Why I don't ever check bags unless I'm travelling for more than two weeks:

TSA steals items from bags

TSA opens your bag and damages items

Airport staff steals items from bags

Whole bag gets lost

Whole bag gets stolen by airport staff

Waiting hours for bag to come out on the carousel

Bag gets sent to the wrong place

Bag doesn't make it on to the plane

They charge you for the privilege of all of the above

Back when I flew more my rule was "never check bags". Now I've mostly just stopped flying because the experience is so awful.

In theory this type of price differentiation is good since it allows extremely budget conscious folks to travel for very cheap with no-frills options while allowing others to travel with the same amenities for the same price except certain things are add-ons rather than built in to the price of the ticket.

The problem is that the universal implementation is that the "no-frills" tickets end up being the same price as they were before when they included things like carry on bags while tickets that include such "luxuries" end up even more expensive, leaving every single passenger feeling ripped off.

I feel like I'm missing something in this space since every airline is doing it but it makes no real sense from a consumer perspective. Price differentiation on extremely low-cost options makes sense, but only if it actually feels like a deal rather than paying the same price for a worse product, which is almost always what seems to happen.

Companies are people. People need to do stuff to justify their jobs. If they’re doing the same as everyone else, then it’s a safe change. Nobody thinks the changes are good for business, but they think they’re good for their own careers.

> The problem is that the universal implementation is that the "no-frills" tickets end up being the same price as they were before when they included things like carry on bags while tickets that include such "luxuries" end up even more expensive, leaving every single passenger feeling ripped off.

Do you have any evidence for this or is it just vibes? Given that airlines have low profit margins and customers are extremely price sensitive it seems unlikely to be true.

> Given that airlines have low profit margins

Low profit margins but companies like United can pay their CEO ~20MM?

Erm… yes? What fraction of United’s total revenue do you estimate 20 million dollars is?

Why would we look at revenue? I can sell a dollar for 90c and have very high revenue. The CEO's salary is ~2% of profits. Their profit margins were ~5%.

Assuming your numbers are accurate, if they magically were able to pay their CEO $0, their profit margins would be 5.1% instead of 5%.

What's your point exactly? How does this address my point that airlines are extremely price-competitive and will continue to be so?

Weird thing to focus on. What do you think their profit margins would be with a $10 CEO, and why?

Just basic inflation over time will make it feel true even if the increase is inflation and not "corporate greed"

Exactly, which is why I suspect this feeling is based on vibes rather than evidence.

Also any number of other things can affect prices, e.g. fuel costs.

A piece of this (after just plain greed and enshittification) is inflation.

Or perhaps some type of shrinkflation, just offering less services at the same price.

It's just shrinkflation, except you can pay for the missing biscuits in the pack.

The problem with airline-level price differentiation is that it introduces too much congitive load that makes flying more stressful, so people will pay to alleviate the stress rather than get the features they want.

People who are less price-conscious will do that. People who are more price-conscious won’t.

I don’t think it’s actually true that people are “paying the same price for a worse product”. This is an area where one has to be extremely careful because it’s not the case that all the input costs are held steady so you’d see a decrease in actual fare when switching to price discrimination. One possibility is that input costs have gone up but the lowest price stays the same with worse amenities.

Customers bitch about bad service but they buy the cheapest option every time. Partly it's an information problem - the median leisure traveller flys maybe once every couple of years and has only the vaguest idea of what each airline's offering looks like, so they go for what the price comparison website says. But I think it's mostly just that people are lying to themselves about their priorities.

They're also making a sound economic decision when business class is 3-10x the cost as you often do not get a matching level of service

Right but there can be a huge difference between economy on one airline and economy on another, one that absolutely justifies paying a bit more. It's just that that difference is often opaque to the customer.

The real price of airline fare has been going down for decades, and aside from the Covid dip it is the lowest it has ever been.

In part thanks to changes like this I almost never bring a carry on and it bothers me that I have to pay for it anyway on some airlines.

> The real price of airline fare has been going down for decades

Are they comparing like for like?

An economy fare on eg BA 30 years ago is very different to an economy (or is that "economy basic") fare these days. As were the seats, staff, service etc

No but I don't care, and business class now is cheaper than basic fare 30 years ago

If there were a less uncomfortable and cheaper option, many more people would fly

Oh fair enough.

Eating out has also become 50% cheaper the last 3 years*

*(I now define eating out as ordering a side of fries as that's all I care about)

I suspect most people don't fly for the experience, they fly because they need to get from point A to point B. So it's still the same basic service, just with shittier add-ons.

I am back to Cleveland from my vacation in Florida and this is the first time I refused to fly there, decided to spend 2 days driving with a night in Charlotte NC (didn't realize it is such a modern and vibrant city) instead. It ended up cheaper even taking into account a night in Sheraton than economy tickets + baggage for 3 people. Plus we got to see so much more, experience something else rather standing in line, insane charges for baggage, security etc.

I would be happy to pay for carry-on if it meant guaranteed space.

On the other hand, checked bags should be free/at a discount.

I have not understood why the pricing was inverse.

Yes I always thought that airlines wanted to encourage checked bags because people having to stow their carry-on bags dramatically slows down the time needed for boarding.

This. Not to mention deplaning and more expense time screening for security.

Exactly my thoughts, the current pricing model incentives people to cram as much as possible into their carry-on and stretch the definition of their extra "personal item" (not sure if all airlines allow those), leading to all kinds of shenanigans especially on full flights. I think the situation would improve a lot if you were always given 1 free bag to check in and a paid option for a carry-on, especially if they can guarantee the space.

Checked bags require the airline to pay humans to move them.

I do wonder when these restrictions will run into discrimination against those with disabilities. Many assistive devices and medications cannot be separated from the person and go in luggage because of temperature issues.

They should allow people with no carryon to board and deboard with priority.

WestJet already does this. Free personal item but must pay for carry on

Same with United

Which is presumably why AC went "if they can do it, so can we, what are people going to do, complain?"

Because they can't. That's how lock-in works. Don't like it, fly someone else. Oh, you can't? Guess that makes this a "lol" then.

Not surprised. It's the people with the roller bags.

Are roller bags really an issue if they are still within the dimensions that are allowed? They are great utility wise especially when you're already carrying a backpack. Also please assume good faith, I'm not talking about the people bringing a backpack larger than their carry-on.

Try putting a roller bag in the sizer. It doesn't fit. They are basically never within the size that is allowed.

It's the sizers that aren't accurate. Most roller bags fit in the bins.

Airlines don't enforce the sizer limits, do they? I can't remember the last time I saw this happen.

The sizes are accurate to the rules. Whether something physically fits in the bin on a particular aircraft isn't aligned with the rules.

If we're "unbundling"/giving into "free market" nonsense in a highly regulated area, I just want to be able to pay reasonably proportional fee for musical instruments and get a guarantee that they'll be carry-ons, and not destroyed in the cargo hold. My only other alternatives are buying first class tickets or flirting with the gate agent (...works remarkably well...).

The general perception, and often true, checking a bag means losing it or waiting two hours.

So it makes you wonder if the airlines are even putting any pressure on airport operators to improve baggage operations when it allows such commercial opportunities for the airline. Seems like a win win

Aer lingus started doing this and it’s… fine. It makes sense really, carrying a bag on is nicer than checking one. IIRC you can now check a carryon sized bag for free, which is useful if you have liquids, etc.

Airlines could also make it policy that you have to go through a secondary non-security screening where if they see anything of yours they like they can just keep it. After people get used to that, then if you fly then you sign of TOS that allows the airline to come directly access your bank account and make whatever charges they want to your credit cards. De-regulation is awesome.

Air travel is much cheaper because of deregulation. If you want a similar experience to pre-deregulation air travel at a similar price, business class is available to you. By demanding that all air travel be more luxurious than most people care about you are advocating for poorer people to be excluded from flying.

I didn't demand anything. I extrapolated on the current rate of enshittification in the industry. It won't be long before poor people are excluded from flying even with the shittiest experience possible.

Why do you think so? Flying keeps getting cheaper and cheaper in real terms and part of the reason for that is the “enshittification” you decry.

Our experiences on airline prices seems to differ. I see them going up.

Solution: get your stuff thru security and stuff it into a hollowed out jacket.

SCOTTeVEST (https://www.scottevest.com) make a bunch of jackets and vests specifically for that kind of thing, with internal engineering to comfortably fit an immense amount of stuff. They're great for touristy stuff and airline travel.

Dimensional weight is the rational endpoint for this

I love this. I fly a decent amount in Canada/USA on economy and almost every single time there is a massive line of gate humpers who haven't been called to board and are trying to get their oversized luggage into the overhead bins.

My greatest hope for airlines is someone starts a company focused on banning people. Bag too big for carry on? Banned. Wearing too much perfume? Banned. Got in line before your group was called. Guess what. Yeah. Banned.

Is that why people crowd the gate three boarding groups too soon? It's super annoying. I don't want to cut people in line, but it's hard to tell whose turn it is when everyone is crushed up at the front.

That's why I started doing it. I used to wait until the end to board but then one time I had a hard time finding a spot for my bag and now I try to board as early as possible

I feel the last paragraph is a little harsh especially on those that are wearing perfume because they know they have bad body odor for example, additionally people that fly for the first time might have no clue when the right time to get in line is, especially when you don't have a zone or seat assigned. With your line of thinking the parents with a crying baby are next to be banned, not that I don't understand your frustrations but my advice would be to assume good faith even where it is unlikely and maybe it will be less frustrating.

What else can they take away from economy class at this point?

Fly any European airline and you'll see.

What are you referring to?

Air France, Lufthansa and BA all have carry-on included in the fare.

If by "any European airline" you specifically mean Ryanair, then yes. We can expect people to pay if they did not print their boarding pass themselves.

The majority of airlines operating in Europe and the majority of flights taken are on low cost carriers where this is the norm. It’s not just RyanAir there’s dozens of them.

So maybe the OP should have specified 'any low cost European airline'.

But that's also true in North America.

Last I checked, Air Canada was not advertising themselves as low cost.

I guess they mean any flight within Europe. Most transcontinental flights still have a lot included

I was referring to flights within Europe.

(Btw, transcontinental is an American term that confusingly means from one side of the US to the other, and not 'between two continents')

Presumably they meant "transatlantic".

Any? I fly CSA, Air France and KLM regularly. Carry-on is included. Granted, there are budget airlines where it isn't. But it's definitely not "any" European airline.

No assigned seats a-la ryanair. Standing room only.

The question is what else do people not care enough about to pay for.

Not sure, but the price discrimination between “main cabin” and basic economy is fascinating. Literally any imposition that will make things better for people in the tiers above basic economy makes sense, even if it doesn’t directly save the airline money.

Ryanair proposed removing the seats to have a standing room area. Seriously. Definitely beverages can be removed. An inch or two more leg room could be trimmed. The 10th percentile femur length still can cram in to the seats as it is now, might as well make it 25th percentile.

Don't worry, Ryanair CEO lies awake considering that question every night

So they’re gonna charge to bring a handbag? A backpack? A laptop? We’re living in the worst aspects of capitalism as it eats itself and any fake vague promise of a decent system is flying right out the window. It’s only going to keep getting worse and worse until we’re crushed by it.

Personal item != carry-on luggage

The first paragraph of the article mentions that handbags, laptops, etc are still allowed on this discount fare. It’s the rollers for the overhead bins that they’re talking about.

Yeah, I've been travelling a fair bit for work lately and I kind of get it. The majority of the flights I'm on are full and if they're not a Max 8 with the "rollers can sit vertically in the overhead bin" there's almost always a handful of people that have to gate check their carry-on. By offering an even lower fare class that doesn't allow carry-on at all, they eliminate the need to randomly choose/offer gate checking.

It's kind of a... you've made the bed and now you have to lay in it situation though. I usually have an underseat bag with my tech stuff in it and a (regulation-sized) Pelican case with clothes or tools or both. I bring the Pelican case onboard with me because both Air Canada and WestJet have done an atrocious job of having my checked bags arrive on time. They've gotten better in the last few months but earlier this year I was keeping a tally: Air Canada had successfully gotten my bags to my destination and back 3/9 times and WestJet 1/4 times. On one trip I flew out on Sunday, my bags arrived at the hotel on Wednesday, I flew home on Thursday, and my bags arrived back home on Monday. I don't want to drag that case through 3-4 airports, but I also want to have clean underwear when I go to work on Monday...

Come on, be reasonable. You can just wash your underwear in the hotel sink.

I literally did this last month when flying air canada.

You could argue that it’s better to have to pay for things like bags, carryons or food as you use them. Problem is that they probably won’t lower prices from the current level so it’s basically shrinkflation.

You could also argue that it's better to have some minimum level of service that is useful.

That minimum level is to be flown to your destination.

Traveling with just a personal item is certainly useful to me and a lot of other people quite often. You can fit a laptop, charger and a few days' change of clothes in a backpack easily.

Carry on is not the same as personal item

It’s just unbundling, it’s not the end of the world, relax. Most “basic economy” is already like this.

This seems like a result of people buying primarily based on price via Kayak et al without seeing the full picture, and tools like Google flights have already started correcting for it by adding baggage into the all-in price that they display/sort by.

We should frankly make flying much more expensive than it is, it has an outsized effect on global warming.

It's only “unbundling” if the basic fare goes down by the carry-on cost. If the total ticket price goes up, it's called “gouging”. Hope that helps!

> If the total ticket price goes up, it's called “gouging”.

Or just rising with inflation. Or the business deciding to raise prices for their own internal reasons.

Do you consider it “gouging” every time a business decides to raise prices? What’s your definition of “gouging”, exactly?

Airlines are extremely low-profit commodity businesses. Most US carriers have low single-digit margins, and AC is high single digits. If unbundling allows them to lower the sticker price -- or avoid raising it because of e.g. inflation -- in what world is that "gouging?"

There's a subcategory of "every price change I don't like is gouging" but in reality, gouging is generally defined as raising prices to an unfair or unreasonable level in response to a shortage during a crisis.

You can consider that they might've had to raise the fare by that much to keep up with inflation/rising costs, but instead, they're keeping it constant. Like the sibling comments have already mentioned, it's an extremely competitive, extremely thin margin business, there is no way you can call what they're charging "gouging".

I don't love this change either, but we don't need to be hyperbolic about it.

It conflicts me to do “the reddit thing” and say “please read the article” but no. Personal item is not a carry on bag in the eyes of the airline.

A backpack can be; it depends on whether it's your only item and whether it's small enough to fit under the seat.

A backpack or messenger bag are almost always treated as a personal item. The only time is if they're too large to be a personal item and get upgraded, or if you bring two items when they limit you to one personal item + one carry-on -- then they usually treat the smaller one as a personal item. It's generally safe to assume unless it's one of those 40L packs, it's a personal item, but check your airline's dimension and weight limits for personal items.

You might not like it, but “we’re living in the worst aspects of capitalism” is an exaggeration for needing to pay to bring a bag on a form of travel that used to be a luxury only for the very wealthy, and has seen explosive growth and huge increases in accessibility to the broader population in the last 30 years.

If it fits under the seat in front of you you're fine. So things that used to be carry-ons like 20 years ago...

20 years ago when the industry-created problem of making checking a bag such a horrible choice didn't exist...

People used to joke about charging for a carry on. Yes it will come that you have to pay for the personal item/space under your feet is my prediction

Reply on news.ycombinator.com