Airline group suggests smaller carry-on bags.

@DLD - I'm not complaining about the specifics. If I had this issue professionally, I probably would fly first class, if available. My point is that you have to pay for first class to get the kind of service that we formerly got in coach. And, the hassle factor has simply become almost intolerable. Yes, it would cost a lot more than $475 to fly to the west coast round trip. I would have no problem with $675 if I could park close to the airport without taking a shuttle, walk right up to the gate, and get assistance from a knowledgeable crew without having to communicate in grunts and gestures.
The best you can do now is find a way to get on TSA's express list, take a taxi to the airport, and fly first class. For professional work, probably worth the money.
 
I don't know about first class. No way my employer is going to pay it anyway. TSA-pre is definitely worth the $90 when traveling with gear. I find I get less of the secondary bag checks and have less to keep track of going through security. I'm not much of a complainer when it comes to air travel, except the issue of getting my camera bag on with me. I don't know how many battles I've had with gate agents. And all for a bag that will go under the seat. This new regulation is just going to make it worse.

Besides the fact, these new dimensions don't make sense, if they want to add more space they have to take it from the width - not depth. 22x10x9 would create more space while not wasting space as the suggested dimensions do.
 
jbregar said:
Maybe they should charge for carryons and give you checked bags for free?

The airlines created the overhead bin shortage when they decided it was a good idea to charge for checked baggage yet leave carryons free (for most airlines). Considering overhead space is in VASTLY shorter supply than cargo hold space, economics (and common sense) would tell you it should be the other way around.

I've flown Southwest for the last several flights and while the overhead bins do get full, it's not NEARLY as bad as on other airlines. Southwest also gives you two free checked bags... coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...

Would love to see this. I fly carry-on only, but many times I don't have a place for my bag as the overheads are full before I can get to my seat, so I'm forced to gate check. I'd gladly pay $25 for guaranteed space overhead.

I'm in favor of standardized sizes that are strictly enforced, my small roller meets the proposed size and hasn't had any issues fitting into the bins. I see lots of bags that are expandable and stuffed full, they are always too fat to go in wheels first, so people put them in sideways and eat more space. Make people stick them in the measuring box before getting your boarding pass, if it don't fit you must check. No exceptions. It would speed boarding as well with less fussing with the overstuffed bags.
 
Curtis Mack said:
@DLD - I'm not complaining about the specifics. If I had this issue professionally, I probably would fly first class, if available. My point is that you have to pay for first class to get the kind of service that we formerly got in coach. And, the hassle factor has simply become almost intolerable...
Click to expand...
The problem - if can call it such - is that air travel has turned into an air bus service. It is indeed cheaper to air travel now than before but that also meant certain compromises. As I recall, there were airlines trying to cater to the upscale clientele - it wasn't Braniff, was it? - but they went broke because the market didn't support it enough.

But back in the 1920's and 1930's, when the public air transport was at its infancy -

LOWER FARES ON AIRPLANES --Reductions effective here January 1, McCluer announces.
A reduction of passenger rates on airplanes operating out of Springfield has been announced by Carl McCluer, manager of the Springfield Municipal airport. The cut in prices was effective January 1 and makes air travel more economical than either bus or train transportation.

800px-Monomail_175x100.jpg

The reduction has been made in the hope of interesting more Springfield persons in air travel. Only 10 percent of the passengers on planes leaving from Springfield are Springfieldians, Mr. McCluer said. The new rate not only saves money for the passenger but time.


An airplane leaves for the south-west at 10:35 a.m. The eastbound airplane leaves at 2:25 p.m. Rates for points reached on the Safeway Air route including taxi fare both to and from the airport are Abilene, $26.75; Chanute, $15.00; Coffeyville, $12.50; Dallas, $27.00; Fort Worth, $25.50; Kansas City, $21.00; Oklahoma City, $15.00; St. Louis, $10.50; Swetwater [sic], $20.00; Tulsa, $9.00; Wichita Falls, $20.50.
Click to expand...

For reference, a 1 Lb steak cost about $0.2 then.
 
brettsherman said:
I don't know about first class. No way my employer is going to pay it anyway. TSA-pre is definitely worth the $90 when traveling with gear. I find I get less of the secondary bag checks and have less to keep track of going through security. I'm not much of a complainer when it comes to air travel, except the issue of getting my camera bag on with me. I don't know how many battles I've had with gate agents. And all for a bag that will go under the seat. This new regulation is just going to make it worse.

Besides the fact, these new dimensions don't make sense, if they want to add more space they have to take it from the width - not depth. 22x10x9 would create more space while not wasting space as the suggested dimensions do.
Click to expand...

Most won't do it just on principle("We're not flying you FIRST class!!!"). BUT if you check gear and especially if the bags/cases are over 50lbs, it IS cheaper to fly first class. For the last few years, at least, USAirways(now American) first class tickets(non-refundable) were only $100-$150 more than non-refundable coach. Anytime I've booked my own flights the last few years, I've flown first. An extra $100-$150 and you don't have to worry about crazy baggage fees, get to board first, get a MUCH larger and more comfortable seat, better drink and food service(cross country flights you actually get a real meal) AND you beat the masses off of the plane. Great deal, in opinion.
 
Some airlines here in Europe allow you to book an extra seat for musical instruments. This should be possible for camera equipment as well. And considering how cheap tickets are these days, could be well worth it, not having to risk the luggage getting sent to wrong destination, broken or stolen.
So many stories how musical instruments that are checked in are being treated has scared me from ever checking in anything valuable and/or fragile ever again.
 
Good News! "Don't Worry, Your Carry-On Luggage Isn't Getting Smaller"
TORONTO (AP) — A global airline association said Wednesday that it was scrapping its recommendation to reduce the size of carry-on bags for air travelers after an "intense" response in North America......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/global-airline-group-scra_0_n_7613334.html
 
I think a lot of people missed(or glossed over) that this was a TRADE GROUP making this proposal. NOT a governing body with any type of legal power.
 
Curtis Mack said:
The problem is deregulation. The airlines are under tremendous price pressure just to stay alive. Air travel has become a utility, which should never be exposed to an open market. Before deregulation, there were a lot more airlines, and they competed on service, not price. Air travel then was , if not comfortable, not the complete karma black hole that it is now. Of course, it cost more then. Since we are obsessed with cheap, cheap skimpy service is what we get, with ever-increasing levels of hassle and discomfort.
Click to expand...

Yes, airline travel was much better when it costs three times as much and the big airlines had a protected monopoly, courtesy of government force. Ah yes the good old days....

Airlines are no more a "utility" than the car in your driveway is. It is transportation, a service like anything else. Utilities as you mention are a service as well, although you wouldn't know it given their monopoly status via regulation and effective elimination of competition.

When you get a chance, do some research on the regulatory maze that airlines have to operate in, the costs that the security theater state, aka the TSA ( Thieves and Sexual Assailants) impose upon airline travel. Last but certainly not least, the gate fees that airports impose upon travelers as a way to endlessly tap the flying public for their grandiose projects and never ending remodels.

The notion that airlines only competed in terms of service is myth. "Services" cost money, they affect profit margin regardless of the guaranteed revenue provided the old airlines enjoyed via the regulatory/ monopoly racket.

You almost make monopolies, and State protected profits sound dignified, like its a good thing for the traveler...?

I for one, relish the chance to fly Southwest Airlines. Low cost, happy employees and they are still far more generous with luggage than any of the old guard airlines. Go figure.

There are problems with airline travel, but de-regulation has nothing to do with it.
 
The airlines are a utility just as much as cable, and phone service. It's something we have to have, not something we choose, and it requires a large concentration of resources to exist. In a regulated market, a utility must provide service to everyone at a reasonable price, regardless of location. As a matter of fact, air travel was much better before deregulation, with the conspicuous exception of Southwest. Yes, it cost more, but not three times as much. But, now that Southwest has become a major player, they are starting to act more like United.
As far as state-protected monopolies are concerned, the old telephone monopoly offered superior service to what we get now. You paid one monthly rate for local service, and if it broke, which was rare, they came to fix it at no extra charge. Yes, long distance was a premium service then, but there was no hassle about choosing from hundreds of competing plans with hidden charges.
In contrast, the free market serves us well with products such as cameras, but even there, we now have a Canon cartel. If the government required compatibility of lens mounts among manufacturers, it would certainly raise the price, but it would prevent us from being locked into one system. Sensible regulation in the economic realm improves the quality of our lives and gives us more meaningful choices. If the government were doing its job with the Internet, we would not have spam. And before you come out swinging about government interference with the Internet, remember where it came from.
I was there during the regulated era - service was uniformly superior. Here in the United States, we have gone from being a first-rate nation to a second-rate nation for the last thirty-five years during which the role of government in economic affairs has significantly receded. It is not a coincidence.
 
Curtis Mack said:
The airlines are a utility just as much as cable, and phone service. It's something we have to have, not something we choose, and it requires a large concentration of resources to exist.
Click to expand...
This line is as old as the day is long. The monopolist would always like us to believe that that no one else can provide their service. They used to say the same about railroads, justifying the subsidies and monopolistic cartel. Of course, no one else could build a railroad except through favors granted by USGov. Oh wait, there was the privately funded and operated Great Northern line built by James Hill in the 1800's. One of the few transcontinental railroads not to go bankrupt.

The same myth is at the heart of the US Postal service. Of course... no one else could marshal the resources and know-how to transport and deliver letters and packages...This is from the realm of the gods. This albatross would have long ago gone out of business if it were not for its seemingly endless bailouts and legally enforced monopoly status for delivering letters. Other entities are prevented by law from delivering mail, as they were prevented from delivering packages up until that part of their monopoly was lifted in the past twenty five years or so.

Curtis Mack said:
In a regulated market, a utility must provide service to everyone at a reasonable price, regardless of location. As a matter of fact, air travel was much better before deregulation, with the conspicuous exception of Southwest. Yes, it cost more, but not three times as much. But, now that Southwest has become a major player, they are starting to act more like United.
Click to expand...

How do you know what the reasonable price is, especially when their monopoly status creates a price/profit floor for them and protection from all competition? The mechanism for price discovery and lower prices is non-existent. This is the desired definition of "reasonable prices" according to utility companies. Perverse.

Curtis Mack said:
As far as state-protected monopolies are concerned, the old telephone monopoly offered superior service to what we get now. You paid one monthly rate for local service, and if it broke, which was rare, they came to fix it at no extra charge. Yes, long distance was a premium service then, but there was no hassle about choosing from hundreds of competing plans with hidden charges.
Click to expand...

The phone monopoly was positively Soviet, well actually fascist. All of the hidden costs that you decry were indeed truly hidden, actually buried in the monthly rate. You had no chance of knowing what the real price should be, no choices of which services you did not want vs. those you did actually desire.

Curtis Mack said:
In contrast, the free market serves us well with products such as cameras, but even there, we now have a Canon cartel. If the government required compatibility of lens mounts among manufacturers, it would certainly raise the price, but it would prevent us from being locked into one system.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, whose locking you into a system? Please shine the light on these dastardly villains. A Canon cartel- seriously? It is possible to mount virtually any lens onto any camera, or use any lens you care to on a Canon camera or any other for that matter. Furthermore, what is particularly confusing is the logic you've employed:

Problem: There is supposedly a Canon Cartel...
Solution: Facilitate an absolute cartel to force us to truly buy into one system, a system that is somehow determined by a sole omnipotent and omniscient entity.

That is going to lead to choice...really? The ultimate cartel and monopoly is government.

Curtis Mack said:
Sensible regulation in the economic realm improves the quality of our lives and gives us more meaningful choices. If the government were doing its job with the Internet, we would not have spam. And before you come out swinging about government interference with the Internet, remember where it came from.
Click to expand...

First, the "government created the internet" narrative as you would like to believe it, is untrue. DARPA solicited research and issued grants. The internet as we know it is largely a consolidation of existing work and protocols from various scientists cobbled together. It is not even close to the crowning achievement of government prowess that you would like to believe.

Secondly, I would strongly encourage you to expose yourself to the information other than the banalities most Americans learned in the K-12 indoctrination centers ...and college for that matter.

The regulatory system you talk of is tyrannical and fascist. It is the essence of fatal deceit. Knowingly or not, what you appear to be an advocate of, is a fascist economy and state. You talk of government regulation somehow providing more choices. Logic, history and a mere examination of current events destroys the assertion whole scale. Likewise, while espousing a desire for more choices, the subtext of everything you've written testifies to a fear of choice, and a fondness for monopoly, cartelization of the economy, less choice and higher prices. Government is the antithesis of choice.

Curtis Mack said:
I was there during the regulated era - service was uniformly superior. Here in the United States, we have gone from being a first-rate nation to a second-rate nation for the last thirty-five years during which the role of government in economic affairs has significantly receded. It is not a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I was too. It's not gone away, on the contrary. Sorry got to disagree, the service sucked. It was overpriced and provided limited choices. No choices at all in many cases. In your world, we are forced to pay for services we don't want and prices artificially protected for the states corporate friends. Your beloved regulated era has only gotten more expensive, larger, more intrusive, more oppressive and more deadly.

The real stunner? Your assertion that "governments role in economic affairs has receded". With due respect, this comment makes it hard to take this conversation seriously at all. We are in a regulatory police state, with a centrally planned economy, controlled and directed from the most fundamental level from Central banking and the artificial manipulation of the interest rate. As for the lack of bureaucratic regulation the Federal Register is now over 82,000 + pages. Yep indeed, not enough regulation.

You can have it, along with your Trabant, or Chrysler (same difference) .

For me, I'll take a Toyota.
 
Not sure the US airlines could make air travel any more painful than they already have. They have sucked the lifeblood out of air travel in a needless race to the bottom. Flying on low budget airlines in third world countries is a far superior experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top