Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
A modest proposal: Let's ban large carry-ons altogether
A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate last week would ban airlines from charging for carry-on luggage, according to Reuters. Two senators rightly point out that carry-ons often contain items that are "important for the safety and health" of travelers, including medication and eyewear.But can we please keep in mind that Spirit Airlines' now infamous decision to charge for carry-on luggage only applies to items too large to fit in the seat in front of the passenger? You can still carry on personal items for free, and that would include a large purse, brief case, or backpack into which you can stuff whatever essentials or valuables you desire. Coats, strollers, cameras, and certain other items are also carried in-cabin for free.
Let's get real here. To avoid looking disingenuous, Spirit should simply ban carry on bags altogether rather than making them a profit center. And the US Congress should let airlines conduct business as they see fit, and if it really cares about airline passengers, instead legislate a solution to the real safety risks of carry-on luggage.
Spirit's CEO, Ben Baldanza, with some justification, claims that the overhead bin fee will discourage carry-on overcrowding and lead to safer air travel, both for flight attendants and passengers, who are sometimes injured when lifting heavy bags into the bins and by bags falling out of the bins, despite the airlines' constant "bags do tend to shift in flight" PA announcements.
But most likely, safety isn't the real issue here, at least not for an airline CEO. Baldanza also suggests that the airline will be able to board and deplane their aircraft faster, which implies that Spirit will profit by faster airport turnarounds, and thus be able to complete more flights per day and earn more revenue per plane (or fly more passengers with fewer multi-million dollar jets).
Is safety the real issue here?
But if safety is really the issue, then the airline should ban large carry-ons altogether, rather than charging for them. Is a carry-on that is charged $45 any safer than one riding for free? Of course not. Indeed, in the infancy of commercial aviation, there were no overhead bins at all, just hat racks into which it was forbidden to place even the smallest flight bag or other hard object. Everything else went under the seat. (OK, OK, the seats were spaced farther apart, granted.)
In any case, the US Congress should back off. If Spirit or any other airline decides to ban larger-sized carry-ons for safety reasons or to charge for them for revenue-enhanhcement reasons or to discourage passengers from using the overhead bins altogether, then that's their business. If the government were really consumer focused, they should recognize the health hazards of large carry-on luggage and encourage airlines to ban the practice altogether, following Spirit's model of only permitting smaller carry-ons that fit under the seat.
And there are about a thousand other things Congress should focus on when it comes to air travel, such as fixing the air traffic control system.
Then we could go back to the old model of free checked baggage, or not. But that should be the airlines' decision. Or maybe passengers will finally "get it" that the airlines don't want to be carrying their luggage in the first place, and they'd learn the pleasures of 5-day FedEx Ground delivery service, at least on domestic flights.
Airlines could save millions, and offer free checked baggage once again.
Although putting an end to large carry-on bags, whether free or paid, would require the airlines to hire more baggage handlers and check in staff, who are paid relatively modest wages, most likely the carriers would come out ahead by boarding and deplaning planes far faster than currently possible. It doesn't take an airline CEO with an MBA to figure out that if every one of the thousands of flights flown in the US each day could shave 30 or 45 minutes off of their schedules by turning around quicker at the airport, then the airlines would save millions in equipment, fuel and the more expensive salaries paid to pilots, who often sit around doing nothing while passengers attempt to stuff bags in the overhead bins, blocking other passengers from reaching their seats.
With the money they save, airlines could once again offer free checked bags, just like in the good old days, when flying was fun.
In any case, the US Congress should back off. If Spirit or any other airline decides to ban larger-sized carry-ons for safety reasons or to charge for them for revenue-enhanhcement reasons or to discourage passengers from using the overhead bins altogether, then that's their business. If the government were really consumer focused, they should recognize the health hazards of large carry-on luggage and encourage airlines to ban the practice altogether, following Spirit's model of only permitting smaller carry-ons that fit under the seat.
And there are about a thousand other things Congress should focus on when it comes to air travel, such as fixing the air traffic control system.
Then we could go back to the old model of free checked baggage, or not. But that should be the airlines' decision. Or maybe passengers will finally "get it" that the airlines don't want to be carrying their luggage in the first place, and they'd learn the pleasures of 5-day FedEx Ground delivery service, at least on domestic flights.
Airlines could save millions, and offer free checked baggage once again.
Although putting an end to large carry-on bags, whether free or paid, would require the airlines to hire more baggage handlers and check in staff, who are paid relatively modest wages, most likely the carriers would come out ahead by boarding and deplaning planes far faster than currently possible. It doesn't take an airline CEO with an MBA to figure out that if every one of the thousands of flights flown in the US each day could shave 30 or 45 minutes off of their schedules by turning around quicker at the airport, then the airlines would save millions in equipment, fuel and the more expensive salaries paid to pilots, who often sit around doing nothing while passengers attempt to stuff bags in the overhead bins, blocking other passengers from reaching their seats.
With the money they save, airlines could once again offer free checked bags, just like in the good old days, when flying was fun.
Gallery: 10 of the worst luggage incidents in the world
George Hobica is the founder of Airfarewatchdog™, the most inclusive source of airfare deals that have been researched and verified by experts. Airfarewatchdog compares fares from all airlines and includes the increasing number of airline-site-only and promo code fares.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Charley Apr 19th 2010 10:55AM
I almost always check my bags, mostly because I travel internationally, but also on domestic flights. Some people attempt to carry-on the most ridiculous items and it does slow the boarding process (for everyone else.) I'd be in favor of banning any carry-on larger than a gym bag, or weighing more than 20lbs. In my 20 years of flying, the airlines have only delayed one of my bags - which I think is a pretty good record. Plan the extra 30 minutes into your schedule to allow you to pick up checked bags. Rent your car, check your emails, hit the head, grab some coffee - there are always thing to do while they unload the plane.
Andrew Apr 19th 2010 11:03AM
Great article George.
While I do not agree with the airlines being able to charge passengers for carry-on luggage, I do agree with your point that larger items been to be banned. I was on a flight from London to New York recently and some guy came on with his guitar case. It was huge and was not fitting into the overhead bin no matter how hard he tried to jam it in.
I try to carry-on luggage and skip the check-in process at all costs. Even before they were charging. I just liked the idea of grabbing my bag and getting out of the airport asap. My record is packing 11-days of clothes into one carry-on bag. I plan to break that record this summer.
Cheers,
Andrew
Malaycobra Apr 19th 2010 2:52PM
No bag with a laptop coat and all the detritus most business travelers have to carry will ever fit under the seat in front. Also, I'm 6'-1"...where are my legs supposed to go?
Anyway, limit carry on size by all means, but then abolish first checked bag fee and roll it into the ticket price. If they all do that, there will be no commercial disadvantage.
Unfair to those who don't check bags? I feel the same way about 350 lb people not paying double to effectively carry another passenger my size.
Bob Apr 19th 2010 3:16PM
Faster turn around time......NOT!!! We flew Spirit from NJ to Tampa in February, the plane was set for an on-time takeoff even with the carry on bags but there was no pilot, he had left the plane as soon as it touched down. We had to sit there for
almost a half hour waiting for another pilot. Of course, coming back there were a
couple of inches of snow at the airport in Atlantic City, that resulted in a 4-hour delay.
Marilyn Apr 19th 2010 4:05PM
Carry on bags, should be just that a small gym size bag. Not the suitcases people bring on. I've seen people wheeling two (2) bags on and trying to squeeze them up in the overhead bins. Where are the flight attendents and the ground people when that is going on?
Just up the cost of the ticket and have no baggage fees.
Sherry Apr 22nd 2010 10:33PM
As a flight att. I have to say the carry-on bag situation has gotten increasingly worse over the past 20 yrs. You ask where are the flt. attds are: we're in the aisle trying to accomodate all the bags that people seem to think they can't do w/out. Or we're arguing w/ 'Mr. Million Mile Man' who seems to think that the number of bags he can bring on is equivalent to the number of miles he has. When employees try to inforce the carry-on policy some throw fits and threaten and intimidate agts/flt. attd. Instead of backing us, mang. says 'Bad employee; Mr. MMM heres some more miles for your trouble and a free upgrade'. Now you go through that enough you look the other way. Someone stated earlier that the gov. can't legislate everything and I agree but something has to be done b/c the airlines won't. Putting the templates back on the screening machines at all airports and taking some of the enforcement out of the hands of the airline and the employees will relieve some of the problem.
steve326a Apr 20th 2010 7:42AM
Here in The Philippines, you are only allowed 1 carry on up to a certain size up to 7 kg (15 lbs) period. No debates, no discussions. Anything else is checked. Here, checked baggage fees for the 1st are included for the 1st bag. They charge for the 2nd one but reasonable. Beyond that, expensive. Checked bags can't weigh more then 20 kg (44 lbs) each. Here, flying is still pleasant. Yes they have heavy security here too but they are very kind and helpful not arrogant like TSA.
God Bless,
Steve & Myrlita
Bacolod City, PH
L. Apr 20th 2010 9:56AM
This is one of those cases where being 5 feet tall works in my favor. I haven't put anything in the overhead in years. I understand that doesn't work for tall people, but I do think a lot of people could be putting a lot of what they cram into an overhead under a seat. Admittedly, I get incredibly annoyed when I'm waiting to get on and off a plane and people are struggling to put their huge suitcases in the overhead bins and get them back out.
cjbill Apr 20th 2010 1:29PM
Agree that carry on bags should be kept small and light enough for the overhead bins. Inconsiderate people who bring large and heavy bags should be turned away at the boarding gate, rather than allowed to enter the aircraft. Flight attendants have reported many injuries trying to lift these 'weights'. Also, they have had to literally break up fights among passengers, over the selfish misuse of the overhead space. I would be in favor of a policy that 'If the overhead space does not hold the belongings of the passengers sitting directly beneath it, then that stuff should be checked.' Essentially, that is really the only space one should expect to use for their 1 carry on item. We pay for 1 seat and the overhead is a 'perk'. Stealing someone else's space is tooooo rude.
Jim Apr 20th 2010 5:02PM
Why utilize airport security the way it is done in Denver. A metal template is put in front of the scanner. If it doesn't fit through the template, it doesn't go with the passenger to the gate. Simple.
Vonkiser Apr 20th 2010 6:14PM
I think they should altogether ban large carry ons.....why should somebody be allowed to have a carry on that takes up an entire overheard? I watched(last month from Minneapolis to Anchorage) a lady come in with a huge bag, start punching and mangling some guys laptop to make room for her small suitcase. She was actually appalled when the man, other passengers and stewardess were telling her it was too big and made her check it? This crap actually delayed our departure? What is wrong with people. I am all for charging or at least further restricting carry on size. Why do you need that much shit for a 6 hour flight?
ray Apr 20th 2010 6:25PM
I fly a lot and just last week got stuck on a flight to Chicago not believing the bags people had the gaul to carry on. Or that it was allowed from the onset. It was dangerous with the overheads packed to the max and witnessed a huge bag fall out of the overhead only to hit some poor guy who it did not belong too. Maybe if they charged for the overhead space as suggested and not the checked in luggage it would make a huge difference
georgehobica Apr 20th 2010 6:46PM
A friend of mine opened an overhead bin, and his suitcase fell out midflight, hitting someone on the head. Result: $50,000 law suit, which luckily his homeowners insurance covered. But it was a pain. Literally and figuratively.
b-evans Apr 20th 2010 11:52PM
Everyone has seen the carry-on "sizing boxes" next to the podium at the boarding gate. But has anyone ever seen them used? Or has anyone ever seem someone denied the ability of carry aboard an item that obviously would not fit?
A few months ago, I took a Southwest flight from Nashville to Orange County, California. I was in the first row, and amazed as a the mob boarded the aircraft. People were boarding with an assortment of oversized luggage and doubled up luggage strapped together on wheels. Obviously, they would not have fit in the sizing boxes.
However, what was most startling were the large guitar cases and even a bass fiddle (it *was* Nashville). There is, of course, no way they could fit in an overhead bin or under the seat!
Unless and until the airlines enforce the carry-on size requirements, they should remove the sizing boxes, for they are meaningless and even "false advertising".
Matt Bille Apr 22nd 2010 3:38PM
A meaningful, enforced restriction on the size of carryons is legitimate. The idea that a passenger must use the space under the seat in front of them for permitted carryons, though, is ridiculous. That space is where my FEET go. No one over 6ft has even the minimal room needed for comfort, much less room for baggage.
Charging for a carryon is an ingeniously twisted example of airlines trying to make money from a problem they created in the first place by imposing absurd charges on checked baggage. If you want to reduce carryon congestion, scrap the checked baggage charge for the first bag. Raise the fares to cover it. The reduction in hassles is more than worth it.
Of course, this only works if your bags actually get where you do, which is another topic entirely.
don Apr 22nd 2010 5:37PM
raise the airfares big time and get the unwashed back on greyhound where they belong. ban anyone under 15 from flying in first class. Then things would be good like in the past.