# Proposal to cap airline bag fees



## CHamilton (Jul 23, 2015)

Rep. Mica's latest.

GOP bill would cap airline bag fees at $4.50


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 23, 2015)

If the government gave a damn about travelers they wouldn't have approved merger upon merger upon merger until the level of competition had been severely reduced. Where was big talking Mica back then? This is just a bunch of noise about closing the barn door years after the horse left.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 23, 2015)

Well, in an alternate Universe maybe he can add an amendment that Caps the rip off baggage storeage fees that are charged @ NYP and Union Station in WAS.

They are much higher than the standard Amtrak $ 4 per bag/per day that Amtrak charges @ staffed Stations with Baggage check.( lots of agents either only charge a flat $4 or even nothing if you're in a Sleeper)


----------



## jis (Jul 23, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> If the government gave a damn about travelers they wouldn't have approved merger upon merger upon merger until the level of competition had been severely reduced. Where was big talking Mica back then? This is just a bunch of noise about closing the barn door years after the horse left.


Exactly. the usual Mica posturing over nonsense. All that this will do is get the fares raised for everyone a bit for the loss of the baggage fees, so that those do only carry on will again get to subsidize those who check in bags. And BTW, I do check in a bag quite often, though as a matter of full disclosure, due to status and my Amex Platinum Card I have never ever paid a baggage fee anywhere.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 23, 2015)

Blah blah blah. Another government show.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 23, 2015)

I'm not _entirely _opposed to this, though to be fair it would make more sense to me just to extend the taxes that the fees are used to get around to those fees. The biggest problem I see here isn't relief on fees on the first bag (or second), but rather what this might do to the ability to purchase extra luggage allowances beyond the norm when requested.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 23, 2015)

As far as I know, this proposal isn't going to pass anyway.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 24, 2015)

I'm actually not opposed to this idea. When I travel I usually bring one rollaboard style suitcase, that wouldn't change, but I might check it more often if the fee was only $4.50.

Like Jis, I actually do check my bag occasionally since I either fly Alaska (and get a free checked bag because I'm a Milage Plan credit card holder) or I fly Southwest (who gives everyone free checked bags).

But this is really a proposal to tie bag fees to the amount of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) which Mica wants to raise from $4.50 to $8.50.

I'm not really opposed to that either. The PFC helps fund airport maintenance and expansion projects.

I'm actually most surprised that Mica has a proposal I could get behind!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 24, 2015)

Here's some airplane fans' opinions: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6458703/.


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2015)

Maybe they should simply add a baggage handling tax on the bag fees to fund baggage handling systems that can actually deliver the checked baggage in a timely fashion.  As soon as airlines realize that they actually have to pay a tax on that fee their urge to manage such a fee would diminish considerably I think.

But one would expect such utter idiocy as a stunt from the likes of Mica who afterall would also like to regulate how much Amtrak charges for a Hamburger if he could. All this just as a stunt mind you.


----------



## saxman (Jul 24, 2015)

While I'm not a fan of bag fees, this is no better than Mica telling Amtrak what they can and can't do for it's F&B service.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 24, 2015)

jis said:


> Maybe they should simply add a baggage handling tax on the bag fees to fund baggage handling systems that can actually deliver the checked baggage in a timely fashion.  As soon as airlines realize that they actually have to pay a tax on that fee their urge to manage such a fee would diminish considerably I think.


Alaska (and now Delta since they're in a tit for tat) offers a bag service guarantee that gives you miles or a discount code if your bag isn't at baggage claim within 20 minutes of your plane arriving at the gate.
It makes the baggage fee just slightly less annoying.


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2015)

Good for them. United would go bankrupt just on compensations if they made such an offer  They have some of the most incompetent baggage handlers, specially in Newark. They are even worse than the baggage handlers in Kolkata Airport, and that is saying a lot, trust me.


----------



## railiner (Jul 25, 2015)

I too, am not a fan of any of these creative fees, be it baggage, seat selection, or whatever, for squeezing more revenue from passenger's. But I believe the market, (competition), should determine what the airlines do, not government regulation. Government regulation should be limited to safety, not service, IMHO. If they deem regulation necessary, then I would like it to go all the way back to the fully CAB era type regulation...."...all, or nothing"....


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 25, 2015)

Service and safety are more related than some may think. Yeah, meal service for a short flight probably isn't essential, but packing pax in like sardines does make evacuation harder. And all the extra bags that people haul on to save on fees makes loading slower and could affect operations.

Me, I always check bags. I don't like to deal with tsa nonsense about sizes of liquids, etc. An I travel with knives and other prohibited items like maybe bottles of wine I buy on the trip. I just stick em in my checked bag and no problem. The one time I carried on everything, my daughter thought she was going to have to call a lawyer after I had a "disagreement" with tsa about whether I could carry on something that would not have been a problem in checked baggage.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 30, 2015)

The other thing that comes to mind, frankly, is a horror story or two I've heard about gate agents playing a bit loose with bag size limits (e.g. rejecting properly-sized bags as oversized even if they fit the bin correctly and forcing a gate check). I think this happened on Untied (I want to say it was the unfriendly sky folks, at least), but it might have been on one of the other big ones. Really, while I'm not opposed to reining in these fees there's a strong case to be made for just legislatively reclassifying most fees as being part of the "fare" and moving on.

Edit: Figured that I'd lay out why I support the kibosh here in numbers terms. Basically, let's assume that the airline fare tax is 7.5% on the fare. You have two airlines that, on the same route, same plane, etc. both bring in $200 in fare and fees (net of government taxes and fees aside from the fare tax). One of them brings it in as $200 in the fare, no additional fees. The other brings in $150 as the fare and $50 as various incidental fees (baggage, seat assignment, etc.). The first airline will fork over $15 in tax to the government (0.075*200) while the other will fork over $11.25 in tax (0.075*150). If a third airline wanted to be utterly abusive with this, they could go to $100 in fare and $100 in "fees" (perhaps throw in a huge "fuel charge"...I think Spirit does some nonsense like this) and only pay $7.50 in tax (0.075*100).

In all three cases, the passenger has paid $200. In the latter two cases, the airline has ducked* a pretty big chunk of tax. I think this falls under the banner of "I'm not a fan of taxes but if I can't avoid paying them they shouldn't be able to either".

*When typing word, due to a slip of a finger I found myself very much wishing I could occasionally isolate the key to the right of the "D" from the rest of the keyboard...


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 30, 2015)

Anderson said:


> The other thing that comes to mind, frankly, is a horror story or two I've heard about gate agents playing a bit loose with bag size limits (e.g. rejecting properly-sized bags as oversized even if they fit the bin correctly and forcing a gate check). I think this happened on Untied (I want to say it was the unfriendly sky folks, at least), but it might have been on one of the other big ones. Really, while I'm not opposed to reining in these fees there's a strong case to be made for just legislatively reclassifying most fees as being part of the "fare" and moving on.
> 
> Edit: Figured that I'd lay out why I support the kibosh here in numbers terms. Basically, let's assume that the airline fare tax is 7.5% on the fare. You have two airlines that, on the same route, same plane, etc. both bring in $200 in fare and fees (net of government taxes and fees aside from the fare tax). One of them brings it in as $200 in the fare, no additional fees. The other brings in $150 as the fare and $50 as various incidental fees (baggage, seat assignment, etc.). The first airline will fork over $15 in tax to the government (0.075*200) while the other will fork over $11.25 in tax (0.075*150). If a third airline wanted to be utterly abusive with this, they could go to $100 in fare and $100 in "fees" (perhaps throw in a huge "fuel charge"...I think Spirit does some nonsense like this) and only pay $7.50 in tax (0.075*100).
> 
> ...


Of course, this assumes that everyone pays the airlines fees. They don't. Besides earning elite status with a carrier's mileage program, simply holding that airline's credit card often eliminates many of the fees. Besides the obvious direct revenue benefit of the fees, an ancillary benefit is to develop brand loyalty by waiving the fees for passengers in exchange for showing preference to that carrier. Sometimes that "loyalty" is a little hard to figure. I rarely fly United now due to American being the prime carrier at PHL, yet I still have baggage fee waivers, some lounge access and early boarding privileges with UA because I have a Mileage Plus credit card.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2015)

Yep. For various reasons I am yet to pay a baggage fee to any airline, including a few in India. There are only a few airlines where there is absolutely no way to avoid paying a checked baggage fee, and they are easy to avoid, and are almost worthy of avoiding for other reasons, AFAIAC.

As for gate agents playing fast and loose, if there is no safe place left within the aircraft to stow a bag, no matter what its size, then it gets gate checked. It is as simple as that. Just because such a bag got gate checked does not necessarily mean anyone was playing fast and loose.

On the regional flights on the puddle jumpers all sorts of things get gate checked for that reasons. At least the gate checking at least on the airlines I fly do not incur any checking fee.


----------



## trainman74 (Jul 30, 2015)

jis said:


> As for gate agents playing fast and loose, if there is no safe place left within the aircraft to stow a bag, no matter what its size, then it gets gate checked. It is as simple as that. Just because such a bag got gate checked does not necessarily mean anyone was playing fast and loose.


I think Anderson might be under the impression that airlines collect the checked-baggage fee when a gate agent or flight attendant insists that a bag be gate-checked. They do not. (At least, not the big ones -- I can't speak for Spirit and others of that ilk.)


----------



## Anderson (Aug 1, 2015)

trainman74 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > As for gate agents playing fast and loose, if there is no safe place left within the aircraft to stow a bag, no matter what its size, then it gets gate checked. It is as simple as that. Just because such a bag got gate checked does not necessarily mean anyone was playing fast and loose.
> ...


Spirit definitely does...IIRC they actually have a "penalty fee" at that point (at least, assuming it's not a lack-of-space forced checking).

That being said...does the not charging also apply if the gate agent claims the bag is oversized (e.g. not a case of "we know your bag is the right size but there's no space in the bins)? That was the issue in question (the gate attendant saying a bag was oversized even though it properly fit in the airline's bin at the gate).


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 1, 2015)

Anderson said:


> trainman74 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Of course Spirit, an ULC carrier, is not a mainstream example. Spirit uses bag fees, including fees for carry-on, not just a revenue source but also as a tool to control passenger loading time and shorten aircraft turn times. The fewer bags carried on and stowed, the quicker the plane can load and push back.
Perhaps some mainstream carriers flag oversize bags at the gate requiring checking through, including the bag fee, but I've never seen it happen. Seeing some of the bags carried on, I sometimes wish they would do that. Typically gate checking occurs when either the overheads are already full or when the gate agent solicits checking due to the likelihood that the overheads will become full. In those cases the service is, in my experience, always free.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2015)

So I am assuming that Anderson was there and yet he has provided very little detail about what happened with some context around it. Specifically was the passenger charged? Also I am curious to learn what led upto the measuring of the bag etc., what airline was it? Etc. etc I just get the sense that a lot is missing from the story, enough so as to make it difficult to say anything definitive having not been there to see what happened. I get the feeling that we don't even have a complete one side of the usual three sides that exist in each such incident.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 2, 2015)

If I recall correctly the rules of most US carriers do indeed indicate that payment is expected for carry-on luggage that is gate checked as a result of being oversize or overweight for a mainline flight. That being said, I cannot recall ever been charged for such an infraction even though my previously valid luggage no longer meets the perpetually shrinking measurements for acceptable size and weight. This is probably due in part to the airlines' desire to meet scheduling goals and due to the gate agents' desire to avoid delays caused by last minute disagreements with customers. The vast majority of my gate checks were due to the use of small regional jets which simply cannot fit standard sized luggage and thus do not result in fines or penalties.

In my experience regardless of the airline the primary risk for penalty fees is at the check-in desk. I rarely check luggage, and these days even your passport verification can be done digitally, so I rarely need to bother with the check-in desk. For those who do need to check luggage I strongly recommend verifying the latest size and weight requirements for your specific flights and then measuring your luggage at home to make sure there won't be any problems. If you're careless you may discover that oversize and overweight penalty fees can be rather excessive if you don't carry status that is sufficient to avoid them.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 2, 2015)

When I fly, I always use Southwest. No baggage fees.

I hate people who carry on luggage. It always seems like the people boarding last try to stow steamer trunks, pushing aside legitimate bags carried by people who know to arrive on time. It always seems like we could leave a half hour early if it wasn't for someone trying to stuff their life's possessions in an overhead bin. Obviously all this is an exaggeration. It's just a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 2, 2015)

Good post Mike! You are correct about both points!


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2015)

Ok, I did a little poking around to try and find the story I remembered hearing. On the one hand I couldn't find it; on the other, I found a few related ones that I could easily have confounded into one item (yay for fallible human memories):

(1) "Gate and Switch": The issue here was bags that would fit in a carry-on check at the check-in desk but not at the gate because of a dimension switch. Whether this was down to one of the sizers being too large or the other being too small is an open question.

Link: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus-pre-merger-closed-posting/1105425-carry-bag-template-gate-switch.html

(1a) I think the initial complaint _may_ have been a case where an airline (I'm thinking Untied, but I'm not sure) had dropped its carry-on size but hadn't adjusted all of its sizers, resulting in gate agents "eyeballing" baggage sizes (something that never ends well). That actually makes a good deal of sense (a GA trying to enforce a policy without the proper tools on hand to do so plus passengers used to a given baggage being allowed only for it not to be equals a problem).

(2) I found a few other stories, but most seemed to be muddled:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1511658-forced-bag-check-w-fee.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger-closed-posting/1088365-dca-gate-agents-charging-gate-check-bags.html


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2015)

OK, so we are discussing stuff posted on FlyerTalk. Welcome to FlyerTalk Unlimited 

I think people bringing on bags as carryons that are too large to start with, is the most irritating pestilence in air travel these days, worse than even the TSA, and anything that curbs it is goodness overall. If it is large fees extracted at the gate. good for them. This is a separate issue from checked bag fees, which actually cause this particular pestilence that I mentioned.

On the matter of Mica, I don't think he's either stupid or an idiot. He just has this unfortunate propensity to grandstand on random things from time to time. Unfortunately Amtrak F&B was one of the things he fixated upon. The folks in Orlando actually have pretty good reason to keep re-electing him, specially since Amtrak F&B is not something that most there care much about, if they even know of the existence of something like that. They do care about things like SunRail (as far as Rail matters go) and some even care about AAF, and Mica has been strongly supportive of both of those. Apparently the fact that supporting SunRauil helps Amtrak did not deter him from being supportive. So you win some, you lose some, or as our friend Jim says YMMV.

As for Europeans enforcing carryons, I have seen dozens and dozens of Americans argue endlessly with checkin agents in European airports about their hand baggage which they were allowed to carry on board on the way out from the US, therefore they should be allowed toc arry them back as carryons, and inevitable fail in their mission. Americans more than others seem to have a problem with the concept that other countries may have regulations that are different from those in the US. A typical phenomenon of the imperial lead country of the world.  The British used to have this problem too. They have gotten over it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 3, 2015)

jis said:


> I think people bringing on bags as carryons that are too large to start with, is the most irritating pestilence in air travel these days, worse than even the TSA, and anything that curbs it is goodness overall. If it is large fees extracted at the gate. good for them. This is a separate issue from checked bag fees, which actually cause this particular pestilence that I mentioned.


How are fees at the gate going to prevent bags from being brought on board? We may have added an irate customer and a disgruntled gate agent to the equation but chances are the bag is still coming along for the ride regardless. In fact it will probably take even longer to board due to all the arguing. I agree that better solution is to add the cost of at least one checked bag back into the base fare like it was in the past. I say this as someone who rarely checks luggage because I still stand to benefit from less competition for carry-on space. While we're at it I would like to add unavoidable resort fees and mandatory parking/shuttle fees to base hotel rates as well.



jis said:


> So you win some, you lose some, or as our friend Jim says YMMV.


 How does your glib "win some lose some" retort explain how Amtrak keeps shrinking and deteriorating as a whole while passenger rail in other industrialized nations is improving in both size and speed? Does "YMMV" not apply to other industrialized countries?



jis said:


> As for Europeans enforcing carryons, I have seen dozens and dozens of Americans argue endlessly with checkin agents in European airports about their hand baggage which they were allowed to carry on board on the way out from the US, therefore they should be allowed toc arry them back as carryons, and inevitable fail in their mission.


Keep in mind that airline alliances have created a simple and easy way to unwittingly buy a series of tickets that leverage numerous rule changes over the course of a single trip. The world's airlines have been busy coordinating and co-branding the sales side of the business while simultaneously dividing and compartmentalizing the rules side of the business. As a result you'll often be booked on an initially generous international flight followed by a series of extremely restricted regional and domestic flights. In what world does that make any sense?


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > So you win some, you lose some, or as our friend Jim says YMMV.
> ...


Other than lashing out at me in frustration for merely observing reality and stating it, do you have any realistic solution within the realm that we live in today, in mind?

The problem of Amtrak and its current state goes far beyond one single Congressman, and stretches back all the way to the law that created it in 1971. I was merely stating that said Congressman has on the one hand created a headache for Amtrak while on the other hand played a key role in adding to passenger rail in Florida. He was even willing to pick a fight with Rick Scott to try to re-instate the Tampa HSR, but the T-Party anti-Obama enthusiasm on that one was too big to overcome.



> jis said:
> 
> 
> > As for Europeans enforcing carryons, I have seen dozens and dozens of Americans argue endlessly with checkin agents in European airports about their hand baggage which they were allowed to carry on board on the way out from the US, therefore they should be allowed toc arry them back as carryons, and inevitable fail in their mission.
> ...


Yes there are other more complex situation. I was talking of the same airline in this case.

Depending on the co-branding parties you could get highly variable and unpredictable results. Ideally they should provide the customer with the most restrictive baggage rule that they will have to deal with in their itinerary, but they don't. Similarly they should provide the immigration rules involved, which also they don't, and explicitly let you know that it is your problem to figure this out. In the past all these things were handled by travel agents and in some cases they still do today. If you book an itinerary through American Express Travel Service or through Carlson Wagonlits Travel, they will give you the entire laundry list, both of baggage rules and immigration rules involved (and a service to get the necessary visas and so forth), and provide very good hands on web service to figure things out in greater depth yourself. but if one insists on "do it yourself" well it *is* do it yourself afterall 

It would be nice if all regulations all over the world were the same. but they are not, and someone who thinks they need to travel across multiple regulation domains, whether it be airlines or countries, needs to learn about the issues, or deal with the consequences.

Actually in general people from the US have it much easier than people from many other countries in the world when it comes to having to deal with bizarre regulatory quirks whether it be customs and immigration or airline regulations or such. That is partly because the US is the master of dreaming up bizarre requirements for others to follow.


----------

