Hacker News Reader

Comment by drewg123 | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how much of the increased schedule times are due to baggage fees? Here is my theory:

In 2008, airlines began charging for checked bags[1]. This was done both for the immediate revenue increase, and also to prod flyers into airline loyalty programs or airline credit cards to get a free checked bag. However, that caused a lot of casual fliers to go carryon-only. That, in turn, causes it to take longer to board/exit planes, leading to longer turn around times.

I've long contended that airlines should get rid of checked bag fees. And if they feel like they really want to be evil, switch the fees to carryons. That would decrease the number of carryons and decrease the turnaround time.

EDIT: From the article "Starting around 2008, Scheduled flight times began increasing even faster than actual ones" This has me convinced that the bag fees really torpedoed turnaround times.

[1] https://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/airline-fees-bags-...

View on HN

Carry on policy has triggered an arms race for passengers and carry on size. I usually just bring a small backpack because it’s convenient and I don’t want to lug two bags through the airport.

Recently, certain airlines have announced that small bags must go under seats so there’s room in overhead storage for roller bags. There goes my leg room and any incentive to pack smaller with just one small backpack.

Now, I’m incentivized to bring the maximum size carry on so that I get overhead space and don’t have to shove smaller bags next to my feet.

Almost 45 years after my first flight, I still carry a backpack. The same one in fact, though its waterproofing is long gone.

More often than not, I get to stash it in the overhead bin. There's often space for something like 3-1/2 rollers in a bin, so I can squeeze my bag in. The option of putting it under my seat is something I save for strict necessity, but it's still preferable to gate-checking.

I need dire circumstances to travel with more than a backpack. Waiting for baggage claim drains my soul. Traveling with just a carry on means I can walk off the plane into a cab without further downtime.

I'm the opposite. I hate having to drag my lugguage around while I'm in the airport. I'm happy to wait for my baggage to be delivered. My life isn't so frantic that 10-15 minutes more is the end of the world.

I also don't see it as "downtime". I can check mail, message friends, call friends, read news, listen to podcasts or audio books, or music, all from my phone while I wait.

My most frequent flight lands at 11:50pm, and is often 30+ minutes late. The last thing I want is to spend my "down time" at 1am waiting 30+ minutes for my bag in an uncomfortable, loud, jarring space. I'd rather just take a backpack and already be in bed by the time my luggage would have shown up.

My wife is just the opposite, and always checks a giant bag. I get so irritated waiting for her bags and so stressed getting to the airport on time for them to take it -- another advantage of carryon only is that you can show up to the airport just-in-time, and you have one less unpredictable line to wait in. Carryon only + clear means I can show up to the airport 10 minutes before doors close and walk on the plane & not have to worry about lines, carry on space, waiting for luggage, etc.

I’m team checked luggage. When plane lands, everyone is rushing out of airport, but I causally walk, perhaps grab some coffee or snacks before heading to baggage claim. It helps me relax and get energized for the driving.

I don't enjoy carrying my baggage around either, but I very much don't enjoy one extra line to stand in to check my bag, and after a long flight I very much don't enjoy having to wait even longer to get to my destination. It's not a matter of "downtime". I want to be to my hotel or house or whatever as soon as possible.

Due to airline status etc. I always have a free checked bag, but I never, ever use it.

Same, also a backpack simply does not have enough room for any trip longer than a couple of days. By the time you add underwear for every day, shirts for every day, multiple pairs of pants, some pajamas, toiletries... you're at a carry-on at least, and it's not hard to fill a checked bag.

I've had a backpack for a trip that lasted more than a year. Yes, you cannot do this in all climates, but it's not impossible.

I took some equipment once so figured I’d check my bag at the same time as I hard to wait for baggage anyway

Airline lost my bad, and took 5 days for it to arrive. Had no clothes, toiletries etc. to compound things there was then a hurricane and the shops were closed.

It's 10-15 minutes if the airport you're landing at is functioning properly. I've waited for two hours for a bag before.

It's not the waiting at the end that kills me, it's the waiting at the start.

When you need to check-in a bag, that's a whole situation. When you turn up at the airport with a backpack and a boarding pass in your Apple Wallet, now that is a nice way to start a trip.

Can you share a photo of the backpack?

It's quite similar to this:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/267204880751

Basically a non-descript nylon bag with minimal accoutrements. I curse its lack of features (extra pockets, etc) on every trip, then it goes on the shelf until the next trip. It was on sale at the local sporting goods store when I was in high school. I recently bought a cheap waterproof cover for it, because I noticed that most of the advertised "waterproof" packs come with a cover.

I have a very lightweight, tiny day pack that I either roll up and stuff in the main pack, or carry on as my "personal item." That way, I can leave the big pack in my hotel room.

I've had good luck waterproofing things with Nikwax. I've got a 20 year old Tom Bihn bag that I've applied it to as well as outdoor clothing and it's been great!

I often only take a backpack as well. And I feel just fine putting that in the overhead bin, since that's my only carry-on.

Airlines should get more strict with regards to the overhead bin. Both with bag size and placement. Planes can probably fit a certain sized bag for everyone who brings one, but too many flyers seem to intentionally bring bigger bags or place them oddly so as not to share the space.

In other words, it's too time consuming for flight attendants to do it for customers. Why? Because it's too time consuming.

All the more reason to remove disincentives from checking bags.

Honeestly the biggest reason I avoid checking bags is reliability. After you experience having a suitcase completely lost by an airline, it's hard to trust the system again.

Wow another issue that comes down to "Airplanes are packed with too many people"

The FAA can force airlines to dedicate about 1.5X the amount of space per person that they do today, and all of these stupid problems disappear. Airlines could even get away with the skeleton crew of airline staff that they use today with the reduced amount of people who'd be paying more per seat.

But, because we have to let far too many people fly, and because the FAA doesn't stop private companies from violating human rights with their airplane seat designs, we have to deal with this lunancy where anyone 6 feet and above has to assume a struggle position for in some cases 20+ hours (i.e. flights to Singapore) in a fully packed metal coffin.

Or maybe someone 6 foot tall should just pay the more expensive ticket with larger leg room. Why should someone 5 foot tall pay for your comfort.

Same with seat width. The only issues there are when a minority of passengers are so large they take up your seat, they should be removed from the flight.

In the anglo speaking world, that might turn out to be the majority of passengers.

The only place I ever got well priced business class flights of anywhere near 9+ hours were Japanese airlines, so maybe it is just because we are too tall!

Business class is 20x the price of economy (it should be no more than 4X and that should be taxpayer funded), isn't enough of the plane and is constantly sold out months before the flight on long flights.

"Premium economy" and similar doesn't give meaningful legroom improvements and is generally a scam.

The only option for tall people (not overweight) is exit rows which are also the first seats taken or the few "extra legroom" seats usually in the front of economy by the bathrooms. These seats are also taken months in advance.

Americans are tall because we are fed well. Our tallness is partly why we are so dominant during wartime. The world bends to our will, not the other way around.

We need widespread and popular "passenger revolts" to force the FAA to change policy. Make the lives of the airline executives hell and use political power to nationalize them yesterday. Privitization of the air was a massive mistake.

Business class should be taxpayer funded? I would love to hear the case for that.

I mean that air travel should be nationalized in general, with whatever losses come from offering subsidized business class (no more than 5X economy) being ate by the tax payer.

I’m sat in premium economy now, with plenty of legroom (39” pitch I believe) and width (2-4-2 rather than 3-4-3). Feels similar to the first class seat ton cruise was in in the first mission impossible film. Except without the smoking, and far cheaper.

Business class gives me a bed to sleep on, and first class is beyond that. That don’t exist in the 80s let alone 60s

Don't forget figuring out a way to tie overhead bin space to assigned seats to keep "overhead bin pirates" from storing their carryons in the front of the plane when their seats are in the back...

I guess I’m one of your pirates. Especially when I notice that most of the bins are closed near the back, where my seat usually is, I’ll use the first open space that I see. Bonus is that I don’t have to maneuver my suitcase as far. Drawback is that I have to keep an eye on things during deboarding: once I had to chase down some idiot who exited the plane with my bag. Why do you believe that people are supposed to use the bins next to their seats?

Well, for one thing, on many planes the space above FC and whatever their premium economy class is called is specifically labeled for use of passengers seated in those areas. For another, it's just common courtesy. I get if you are boarding late and there are only a few available bins but in my experience the bins at the back fill last not first, so you really should have no problem storing your bag near your seat.

A bullet train holds 2x to 4x the passengers and loads in 2-5 minutes. I get they are very different. Those 2x to 4x passgeners load into 16 cars (so 16 doors). The baggage does not have to be stowed before take off nor do any cargo holds need to be loaded. The aisles are wider. Etc.

Still, as an example of the best possible case, it does make me wonder how much more efficient loading a plane could be. I can imagine some magic way to use all of the doors, even if in the short term it means walking on the tarmac to one of 4-6 stair cases.

Maybe it doesn't matter. I wonder if anyone has calculated if such a system would save (or lose) money.

Relevant "The Better Boarding Method Airlines Won't Use" by CGP Grey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo

The real limiting factor is the willingness of people to actually follow the system, which I think he mentions but doesn't examine much. It'd be interesting to see if any of the papers test the better systems to see how they fair with noncompliant passengers.

Using a rear door (in addition to the front) for entry and exit is unusual but not unheard of.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/why-the-american-airlines-shut...

Or the loading chute thing that they use could just lead to more doors :)

Not a tarmac.

https://aerosavvy.com/aviation-terminology/

I'm a _somewhat_ frequent flyer (5-8 trips a year). I've never experienced a plane being delayed by the time it take passengers to enter/exit the plane. I have, however, experienced delays because the baggage handlers are still loading the plane.

For that reason, I've never understood the obsession with loading the plane quickly.

If they’re not done loading the plane, they don’t have to make an announcement about it because it’s self evident, whereas if everyone is sitting down and ready to go, they will let everyone know what the holdup is.

Just yesterday I took a flight where they asked everyone to try to hurry up loading so they could get the plane off the ground sooner.

I've also been on flights where they asked us to hurry, and then we (flight attendants included) sat and waited for other things to be completed. Not saying that was what you experienced, of course! Nor am I complaining. My understanding is that gate attendants get penalized if they're the reason the plane is held up, so I understand why they'd play it safe and hurry people.

I'd love to see some hard data on this (I've tried to find it in the past, but there's so much fluff about this subject)!

I don't think the claim is that boarding causes flights to depart later than scheduled. Of course they plan for the time it takes to board. The claim is that, despite being predictable, it significantly increases the turn-around time for airplanes.

I've often have the opposite experience. I fly a LOT (4+ times per month) and I hear the bag doors close and watch the handlers drive their ramp away while people are still staggering on-board more than 1/2 the time.

At least watching videos of loading planes on YouTube, it is pretty clear why! It is one tiny cramped tunnel and a whole lot of suitcases.

My theory is that the increased turnaround times are due to the fact that people are too stupid to board a plane properly. And Airline staff is doing less about it than, say, 10 years ago, probably being afraid of social media shitstorms or whatever.

I'm a frequent flyer, and the sheer carelessness of how people waste the time of everyone behind them in the boarding queue still surprises me. As if in the moment they reach their aisle they immediately forget they, too, were waiting...

I do not remember things to be so bad 20 years ago, and even 10 years ago. Some airline staff was quite active in herding the cattle back then, but also the cattle maybe was not as ignorant as today.

But maybe I am just becoming an old, grumpy man, and nothing has really changed. Who knows.

A lot of pathology in air travel is related to the fact that people use aggregate search engines to find flights and sort by price. The lowest up-front base fare tends to win. So that encourages airlines to nickel and dime later, such as by charging for bags and a million other things, making the whole experience worse.

If the whole price had to be flat and bundled into the ticket the experience would be better.

It's also an industry that competes on price, and that tends toward a spiral to the bottom in quality. They aren't allowed to skimp too much on safety stuff, and if they did it'd cost more in the long run, but they are incentivized to make seats tiny and uncomfortable and nickel and dime.

I agree 100% and when I encounter people that don't believe this theory I point out that, once upon a time, Southwest Airlines used to be able to turn an entire 737 in 10 minutes.

https://southwest50.com/our-stories/a-turning-point-the-birt...

I agree, but it's worth noting that those 10 minute turns were probably -100 or -200 series aircraft with a capacity of about 100 passengers, while a modern Max-8/9/10 aircraft holds about 200 (who still board through a single door).

Still, 20 minute turns would be industry-leading.

Is it possible this has anything to do with cheaper tickets and more amateur flyers? There are always some families new to flying that seem to gum up the works.

If that were the case I don’t think Southwest would ever have been record holders in turnaround time. Their tickets have historically been cheaper than many competitors.

The one advantage SW has is the open seating. People will naturally disperse along the length of the plane so as to avoid the middle seat. This could prevent many traffic jams that otherwise slow boarding with the rest of the passengers stuck behind a slow loader.

Not sure if it would actually make an impact -you will still get blockages. Would need a queuing theorist to comment.

... and because of activist investors, they're throwing that away.

It's insane how Southwest is willing to throw away a unique competitive edge that nobody else has, and their loyal customer base with it. It's also insane that the activist investors pressured them to do something that stupid. In one stroke Southwest went from being an airline worth going out of your way to fly, to just another airline which has to compete on price alone. Absolutely boneheaded move.

The number of SWA customers who needed wheelchairs to board (earlier than able-bodied pax) and were healed enough mid-flight to be able to walk off at the destination was astounding. It’ll be sad to lose all those miraculous recoveries.

I intentionally chose Southwest for my last flight because the old policies -- included bags and free-form seating-- made me feel better about the experience. I didn't need the free checked bags, but I appreciated not being pressured into guessing exactly how many pairs of pants I'm going to need for a trip I booked 3 months in advance.

I know I'm not the industry's ideal customer-- taking solo tourist-class flights booked long in advance, once or twice a year, and not churning frequent flyer points, but that doesn't mean I want to be treated with contempt.

To be honest, that feels like an entire direction the travel sector needs to focus on. I'm paying hundreds of dollars to sit in your lowest-bid Metal Death Tube or stay in your Totally Not A Bedbug Sanctuary, stop treating me like a transient who walked into a Rodeo Drive boutique because I don't have Triple Ytterbium Status.

We did SW once and never again. Some things we learned the hard way having never flown SW before: You have to pay extra if you don't want to be dead last on the plane, and evidently, everyone pays extra, because we were dead last. Not sitting together for sure (you have to pay extra for that too). So we finally get on the plane, and all the carry on space is already used up. We ask the flight attendant "so what now" and she just shrugs like it's my problem. I tell her OK we'll just leave the bags in the aisle then, or will you gate check them for us? Finally, she huffs and proceeds to open every overhead bin one by one until we find two of them with small backpacks that we have to yank down and convince the owners to stick under the seat in front of them. All the while the rest of the passengers are looking at us like we're preventing their ambulance from getting to the hospital.

No thanks. I'll take a slower boarding with a traditional airline that doesn't make their passengers feel like a burden.

You do not have to pay to get your seat order. The order in which people check in to the flight determines seating priority.

SWA is phasing in assigned seating and will be fully cutover by this coming February.

While true, in summer travel season more than half the plane will board early when SW allows families with small children to board between groups A and B. There's no real definition of small child and SW will let a party of 8 board early because one of them is 4 years old. Mom, Dad, teenage kids, grandma...etc.

You really do need to pay for A boarding if you must sit together. Or game the system and claim you need to preboard.

For those not familiar with Southwest Airlines, they famously offered two free checked bags for years after all other major carriers started charging for them. Sadly, they ended that practice earlier this year.

Southwest Airlines was purchased by an activist investor.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/money/business/southwest-airlin...

So SWA will no longer have any features that distinguish them from other airlines? Guess my tax dollars will be bailing them out in a few years.

They also didn't have assigned seats and you could seat wherever you liked, right?

The article itself shows why scheduled times grew: so that airlines could report a very high percentage of on-time flights, which have regulatory and marketing advantages that they did not before.

Passengers preferred carry-on long before fees because checked bags take longer or get lost. I’m not aware of any data showing per-passenger load / unload times have increased.

Per-plane load / unload times have definitely increased, because the average passenger count per flight has increased. Bigger planes + fewer empty seats.

Average passenger circumference has also increased.

I too subscribe to the Anthropogenic Waistband Change model.

A very high percentage of on-time flights is an actual good thing and not just a reporting trick, even if all you have to change to achieve it is the reporting.

Honestly I'd love to check bags more often, but it's too frequently an inordinately slow and risky proposition.

I get free checked bags through my preferred airline's credit card, but still almost never do it because it adds so much time and frustration. The number of times I've had to wait an additional hour+ at baggage claim is ridiculous. And I've had bags lost/misrouted a stupid percentage of the time considering how infrequently I check bags. Fortunately never lost for good, but getting your bags days after you arrive is not great.

Even airlines like Alaska that have their "20 minute guarantee" often exceed it but get away with it because to make a claim you have to wait in line at the understaffed baggage office, wasting even more time after late bags. Get real.

If airlines/airports want to incentivize checking bags they need to do more than just make it free, but make it fast and reliable, too.

> And if they feel like they really want to be evil, switch the fees to carryons.

They have decided to be evil.

All low costs companies in Europe have been charging for carry ons since the end of Covid. You are only allowed a backpack which has to fit under the sit in front of you for free and adding carry ons is quite expensive, can be nearly as much as the ticket.

Classic airlines have started weighting carry ons before boarding too so it’s only a matter of time before they charge.

For a normal traveler and unless you do a very short trip, prices have actually significantly increased in the past few years.

They need to be weighing the passenger with the bag.

United already charges for carryons (the basic-economy fare only includes items small enough to fit under the seat), and if you bring one they charge you more than the checked bag fee to gate-check it.

I like it better this way so I don’t have to stand in line and try to get on the flight early enough to not get my carry-on gate-checked anyways.

Sometimes there isn’t even enough space in the cabin for all carry-ons, so you have to leave yours with a baggage handler in front of the plane.

Very often.

And I assume that adds a bunch of time to the boarding process as well. Generally no bag fees if they have to check those, either.

I also experienced recently that gate agents will lie about this to decrease turn around time if a plane is running late. We were forced to gate check ours after being told the plane was too full to hold all, only to get onboard and find ample space. When we asked the flight attendant, they apologized and said they did not tell them to do this, but it’s unfortunately common at airports with frequent delays. So charge ridiculous bag fees, forcing everyone to carry on, which delays boarding, so they lie to you and check your bag for free (which maybe you would’ve done to begin with if that was an option), only to board a plane and feel duped. All around great experience!

> I've long contended that airlines should get rid of checked bag fees.

I agree, but I think another big incentive for people to bring carryons is how the airlines deal with checked baggage. All too often you have to wait forever to collect your bags, or your bag gets damaged, or your bag gets lost (usually not permanently).

With checked bag fees, the airlines took one of the worst aspects of their own service and started charging more for it. And they wonder why nobody wants to check a bag.

If airlines took checked bags seriously I'd check bags more often -- even if I had to pay to check them.

The budget carriers in Europe (RyanAir, EasyJet, etc) all have fees for carry on bags that are almost as high as checked bags and they only even offer those fees to people who have purchased the “up front” premium seats.

They board and deboard planes insanely quickly. Just about the only good thing about those airlines is that they are super dedicated to on-time operations and not wasting time. They can’t afford to waste any time when they’re offering $25 international flights.

Of course, not having 9 boarding groups of various status levels helps a lot too.

I fully agree and practically anyone should have seen this coming a mile away.

Yet almost 20 years later, the fees largely remain, little has improved.

I’m surprised there hasn’t been a discount airline that mandates everyone travel nude without any bags at all.

Would make security and boarding a breeze… no more boarding groups! Planes would be lighter — reduced fuel cost — more environmentally friendly.

Could even charge for premium robes on arrival.

How would they charge for carryons though? Would they charge for say a bag of food you just bought? Also they'd have to put in infrastructure for charging right at the gate, and I'd imagine that would further slow things down, require more staff etc. Just don't think either thing will happen, since clearly they care a lot more about making money than passenger convenience.

Ryanair already does this in the UK and Frontier does it in the US, so clearly someone has figured out the logistics of it. Both are ultra-low cost carriers (in the same model as Southwest used to be).

As for payments slowing down boarding: I expect that it does, but the price info I see online suggests that the carryon fees are punitive (more than checked baggage, and with a 100% surcharge for paying at the gate). In other words, the purpose of the fee is more about discouraging people from bringing a carryon in the first place than the revenue it generates.

Frontier doesn't seem to be shy about reminding customers about the gate pay surcharge, either.

They already have the "infrastructure" to prevent one person from bringing on two carry-ons or a carry-on that exceeds the size requirements. I'm not sure what new thing you're imagining they would need.

For the record, As a carry-on lover and cheapskate, I viscerally dislike this idea. But your logistical objections don't ring true to me.

> How would they charge for carryons though? Would they charge for say a bag of food you just bought?

Simple. Charge for the right to put a suitcase in the overhead bins. If it can fit under the seat in front of you, in the seat pocket, or if you can wear it, then no problem.

> Also they'd have to put in infrastructure for charging right at the gate

The flight attendants already have the ability to say "sorry, you need to check that" if the bins are full or if an item is too big, and then get the item where it needs to go. They already have the ability to charge your card with a handheld reader if you want to order special food items. I'm failing to see the obstacle here.

The budget airlines have all started getting very strict with carry ons. If your ticket has not paid for the larger carry on size they make you put your bag in the sizing basket and dont let you on if it doesnt fit. There is also a smaller basket for the personal item so you cant just bring a ton of food bags.

Spirit already does this. You need a special ticket to be allowed to carry on more than a personal item. I've seen people stopped and forced to pay an exorbitant punishment fee to take on a bag when they hadn't purchased a carry on in advance.

you're currently allowed a carry-on and a "personal item" like a purse or a small backpack. the carry-on can be stowed, but the personal item has to stay with you in the seat.

getting rid of the carry-on doesn't mean no personal item, it just means you aren't allowed any space in the overhead bin.

I should be entitled to the same amount of space, carry-on space and under seat space, as every other passenger paying for the same class of ticket.

If I chose to not bring two items (or three, or four, as many passengers do because there is no enforcement of rules), I should get to place it in the overhead bins and not have to cramp my feet.

Carry-on luggage is transported for free; checked luggage requires paid ground personnel.

Anecdotally, Southwest flights now take much longer to board because of the stupid checked luggage fee they just introduced.

I’d pay $60 more per flight just to not have to deal with other people screwing with giant carry on bags, and the repeated announcements that there’s no room in the overhead compartments.

As a bonus, they also set the sizes for checked luggage slightly below industry standards. Good luck finding something close to but below their linear inch limit. I figured this out because instead of checking three small bags, the family now checks one that’s right up to the weight + size limit.

They used to be the best domestic airline (due to enshittification with all the other carriers), and also one of the cheapest. They could have just raised ticket prices by $50 on average and still have been one of the cheapest.

Instead of realizing they were the premium choice, they’re racing to become one of the worst airlines. They even recently announced they’re going to charge extra for legroom early next year.

I wonder how much it will cost them to move the seats around so some of them have inadequate legroom, and how many rows that’ll add.

Anyway, yes, flights have gotten much worse in the last ten years.

Southwest got taken over by private equity. That always results in enshittification.

> I’d pay $60 more per flight just to not have to deal with other people screwing with giant carry on bags, and the repeated announcements that there’s no room in the overhead compartments.

It’s been awhile since I’ve boarded less than Group 4 on Delta. But I don’t remember it being that bad even with group 5 - Silver medallion, credit card holders and economy travel.

I tend to board Group 5 and have had only one flight in the past three years where I wasn't able to put my bag in the bin in my row. That flight was one where they decided to force gate checking before the bins were even half full. Lots of disgruntled passengers then.

It also matters where you are flying from I assume. Flying Delta from ATL (former home airport) with a lot of business travelers would probably be different than flying from MCO (current home) with mostly once a year family vacationers. Group 5 was a breeze out of MCO.

I notice the difference when flying out of MCO with for instance TSA+Clear now and flying out of ATL with TSA+Clear where everyone has it.

Other things like the one Delta lounge is never at max capacity at MCO. But we have to find one (using the app) out of the 9 Delta lounges + Centurion lounge at ATL that’s big crowded.

We still end up flying in and out of ATL a lot to see friends and family.

Carry on luggage should just be banned. If it can't fit in your lap the whole flight it's not a valid carry on.

This is really a safety issue. And tbf, you don't need more. I've traveled internationally with just a laptop bag.

Airlines have either lost my checked bag or just stolen from it too many times for me to trust them with my possessions again. Maybe if I was transporting horse manure, or unpackaged glitter.

Every single statistic I’ve seen shows that lost luggage happens around 1% of the time. We fly fairly frequently - on average more than once per month and it’s really not something we think about.

1% means it happens to 2-3 people per flight.

My personal experience is I've had my luggage lost twice in the last 10 years at an average of 6 flights per year, so my personal incidence rate seems to be 2%

It also means that if you fly every week of the year it will likely only happen to you once all year. For the average traveler, it will be more like once in their entire lifetime.

Still sucks when it does happen though.

1% of losing my stuff is very high imho, I wouldn't want to put anything actually important through such a risk.

There is absolutely nothing in my checked bag that would be any more than a minor annoyance if it were lost.

My wife and I literally had everything we owned in 4 suitcases for a year and carryon back packs for our electronics.

We got rid of everything we owned that wouldn’t fit in four suitcases in 2022 and hopped around different cities for a year on planes. Even then, if one of our suitcases had been lost, we would have used the airline reimbursement and just gone shopping.

With every lithium-ion battery needing to go in carryon, and everything in the world having a lithium ion battery, this simply isn't reasonable.

I can't even put my toothbrush in a checked bag anymore.

You can put the toothbrush in your laptop bag. Although I don't know why you're buying toothbrushes with lithium batteries in them. Even if electric toothbrushes made sense that's still a waste of money compared to the disposable ones.

Electric Toothbrush: $70

Cavity Filling: $300

Still having teeth in my 70s: Priceless

And no, it's not just a laptop bag. The list of things with batteries in our daily life is huge, and telling people to skip it just so that you can get on a plane a bit faster isn't reasonable.

Is this true? Granted I usually just deal with using a standard toothbrush when I go on vacation but I have absolutely put my electric shaver and electric toothbrush in my checked bag without issue.

I thought there is now a battery size allowance that allows these to go under the plane.

Having a bag in your lap is a safety issue.

This is honestly why I love flying on spirit. No one has a carry-on bag so you just quickly board and de board at the end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com