Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Continental announces a 'downsize' for carry-ons starting November 1
I've never really objected to the checked baggage fees that most airlines now have in place.As someone who never checked luggage in the past, doesn't travel with small children (or anyone else, really, for that matter) and typically travels light, I saw the fees more as an incentive for people to make choices in their packing and lighten a plane's load. If one can't, or doesn't want to, then pay the fee.
But recently several major carriers have been reducing the size of acceptable carry-ons, and this does irk the hell out of me, because it smacks of a money grab. Clearly airlines are making good money out of the baggage fees -- enough, I'm guessing, for them to be aware of all those other passengers that are choosing to carry-on. If airlines can make it more difficult for those of us that fit into this category, well there's even more money to made.
In recent months, American Airlines, United, Delta and Northwest have all reduced the size of acceptable carry-ons.
The latest is Continental, which recently sent a note to travel agents that starting November 1, it would be enforcing strict new size restrictions for carry-ons. The 51 linear inches that used to be kosher will be reduced to 45 linear inches, or 9"x14"x22".
New sizing bins will be installed at all of Continental's domestic counters. Continental's carry-on downsizing is effective for all tickets; it doesn't matter when you purchased them.
Is a scant six inches really that big a deal for your packing? Probably not. And it certainly doesn't amount to much space savings (or weight savings) on board. Which is why such downsizing should piss you off. Increasingly, people who carry-on are going to be scrutinized at check-in and efforts are going to be made -- rightly or wrongly -- to force you to check that carry-on, for a fee.
And this should make you mad even if you never carry-on. Why? Because -- and we probably all suspected this to begin with, on some level -- it proves that the airlines' claims that all these nettlesome fees that surfaced this year were necessary to combat record high fuel costs were at the very least only partially true. In reality, these were obvious and never-before-explored ways to make money for many airline companies who have rarely been able to turn a profit, even in good times.
Passengers were asked to understand how record-high fuel costs were forcing airlines' hands. Yet in recent months, as the price of oil has dropped significantly due to the financial crisis, there do not seem to be many airlines hurrying to reduce their taxes or fees, in a good faith effort to put an extra buck or two back in their passengers' pockets and rebuild traveler loyalty.
US Airways is holding its carry-on size to a 51 inch dimension.
Southwest Airlines, that maverick of the industry, is not changing the size of carry-ons it allows. That's not surprising: The airline doesn't have checked baggage fees, fuel charges or any other hidden costs.
Southwest is consistently the most profitable airline in the domestic industry. How does it do it?
Filed under: Airlines, Consumer Activism
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lampbane Oct 23rd 2008 12:30PM
While I don't agree with reducing the size of the carry-ons, it is nice to see airlines actually enforce the carry-on rules. What people try to stuff into the overhead sometimes is ridiculous.
Chris Oct 23rd 2008 1:22PM
The problem will be that people have bought luggage pieces that are approved carry-ons. Now they are officially checked luggage. To avoid fees they either have to buy new luggage. Boo on that.
Mike Oct 23rd 2008 2:00PM
Glad to see that Gadling sees this issue for what it is -- a money grab. Clearly this doesn't change the amount of baggage on the plane (hence the weight, hence the fuel required for the plane), since bags are merely transferred from passenger compartment to baggage compartment.
And I'm right there with you, Chris. As somebody who has bought bags based on their approval as carry-ons, this was the first thing I thought when I saw this article.
Meg Massie Oct 24th 2008 8:16AM
I actually disagree. While it certainly is part money grab, no doubt, I'm glad that airlines will be enforcing carry on rules. Ever since they started charging for checked luggage, people have been trying to get away with bigger and bigger carry on bags. I've actually missed connection flights due to delays from so many passengers having to check their luggage at the gate because it won't fit in the overhead bins.
I'm usually a carry on only traveler, too, and while it will be annoying to lose some of my allotted space, I think the rule is overall for the better. And it will cut down on fuel costs, because every little bit adds up.
Guest Oct 27th 2008 9:43AM
"Southwest is consistently the most profitable airline in the domestic industry. How does it do it?"
Easy - they hedged their oil way back when it was on the cheap, and were never hit with the $140/barrel blows that most airlines had to deal with. Smart? Obviously it worked out for them, but hedging oil is a tricky business, and you can easily end up with the short end of the stick.