Airlines have launched a lobbying blitz in Brussels to combat efforts to allow larger cabin bags to fly for free.
That frisson of fear felt by many air passengers at the boarding gate about being hit with an extra charge for a carry-on bag is generating a political dogfight.
Spain had enough of the extra fees and fined five airlines for charging people for hand luggage; now the battle over the freedom to stuff a porkier bag into the overhead bin is being joined in other countries.
Consumer organizations from 12 European countries on Wednesday joined Spain’s legal battle against low-cost airlines charging passengers to bring larger carry-on suitcases on board.
The airlines have created their own problem. By charging extra for hold luggage it incentivizes people getting as much into the cabin as possible.
Reverse it. Make hold luggage free (because it’s the one that’s actually better for the airline) and charge for cabin luggage that’s beyond small light bags.
It’ll also reduce the load on security.
Counter:
-
Carry-ons can be objectively better for passengers.
- Go straight to your gate, no check-in drop-off
- No angst about lost luggage
- No interminable waiting at the luggage carousel
- Less TSA pawing through and stealing your stuff
- For many trips, a carry-on is all you need
-
Carry-ons are cheaper for airlines.
- Carry-ons require no handlers to transport or physically stack luggage
- Carry-ons are categorically lighter and use less space than checked bags, translating to less fuel
2b could be mitigated by checking only carry-on-sized luggage; basically a smaller luggage-size limit.
I traveled for business for years, and got used to traveling only in a carry-on. My GRo (the best luggage ever built, and which you can no longer but) always fit into a single overhead space. I could pack underwear and several business shirts, toiletries, a pair of (compressable) casual shores, and wear my suit, and still have room left for a pair of jeans. It was a stretch to go for two work weeks, but I could do it. One week was no inconvenience at all. Now even when I travel for pleasure, unless it’s a two week vacation I still only pack a carry-on.
That said: I’m a man, and women in corporate environments - unfairly - often feel obligated to pack more clothes: multiple pairs of shoes, multiple outfits, more cosmetics, etc. It is generally easier for a man to stretch a suit by altering only shirts and ties. Even so, my wife will also pack only a carry-on if the trip is 5-days or less. Even though the company pays for baggage fees, it’s a worse customer experience at both ends of the trip to check a bag, and I don’t think there’s much airlines could do about that. It’s a straightforward logistical problem.
Except for long, or specialty, trips (e.g, skiing, backpacking), carry-ons for us are subjectively, but uncontestedly, superior. Airlines reversing the fee schedule would be categorically worse for us, enough that we’d switch our frequent flier programs over it.
Counter:
- Carry-ons can be objectively better for passengers.
That’s not a counter. If carry one have more value to the consumer, that’s what you charge for.
- Carry-ons are cheaper for airlines.
Not when they’re running out of space and putting things in the hold anyway. Also I doubt they like always flying with a 90% empty hold. If no hold baggage was guaranteed then the plane could carry cargo and make money that way. Or have a smaller more fuel efficient plane.
that’s what you charge for
Because bleeding a captive clientele dry is perfectly normal and acceptable business practice?
To add to this, carry-ons dramatically slow the boarding process, which adds to the overall cost of the flight. Charging for carry-ons makes it easier for flights to be consistently on-time, which is why airlines prefer to have fewer of them
Turning an airplane around is not a quick process, and anything that can be done to speed that it up saves the airline time and money.
carry-ons dramatically slow the boarding process
I will never allow valuable items and essential medications to be entrusted to the unreliable checked-baggage system.
Also I doubt they like always flying with a 90% empty hold.
Sure they would if they knew it in advance. They could sell that as cargo space.
I didn’t know about this GRO luggage. It seems amazing
It is amazing. They shut down during COVID, just before I decided to buy their checked bag. I don’t know how good the large one was, but there carry-on is fantastic. The only thing I’d change about it is that it has one of those built in battery ports, which I’ve never used in my life and is IMHO wasted space; but it was a big trend back when they designed it, and before airports and airlines started putting charging ports in everywhere.
https://trekbible.com/g-ro-luggage-review/
A random, but fairly comprehensive, ad-disguised-as-review.
-
People really need a better way to compete with lobbyists.
Anyone making money to lobby government should be thrown in jail.
My mom made money as a lobbyist when I was a kid.
She lobbied on behalf of family farms that wanted to limit the use of bovine growth hormones, either because they had moral objections to pumping their cows full of steroids or because its use gave advantages to factory dairy farms over small family operations.
Lobbying is a disease on democracy, but there are moral cases for its existence in certain circumstances.
I think that if it was impossible to get paid for it, they could just petition the government themselves and get a lot better results. Lobbying will always tilt the field in the direction of people with more money over those with less.
Like the people in the ACLU?
I believe the ACLU mostly fields lawsuits against those doing the oppression. But my feeling is that lobbying is on balance such a negative force fielded 95% by the ultra wealthy to further their agenda, that I’d be okay with losing the other 5% that had a positive impact. Those causes could easily be taken up by individuals and unfunded groups and have a much better chance of getting heard.
…unfunded individuals have an enormously worse chance of being heard. That’s the whole point of organizing, including unionization.
One guy saying “hey maybe we should treat people better” can easily be ignored. A group, especially a national group with a large membership contributing resources is much, much harder to ignore. Banning organizing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (And in the US, it would be a violation of the first amendment right to assembly.)
You can form groups without paying people. This ensures people actually care about the cause rather than just doing it for the money.
Banning lobbying isn’t banning organizing. It’s banning rich people being able to put their giant thumbs on the levers of democracy.
Yeah, but it limits the time they can dedicate. It means they can only do organizing outside of a full-time job. This is restrictive, and will actively hurt the ability of people to organize. The only people who will then be able to dedicate their time are those who have the excess free time and money. What you are suggesting would mean it’s individuals like you or me going up against Jeff Bezos. Who do you think would win that fight?
There’s only one Jeff Bezos. If he can’t hire people, it’s only what he can do himself in his spare time. We greatly outnumber him, even if we are only doing it in our spare time.
Please don’t instigate them into enforcing their weight limits. I’m dreading the day I’m going to have to cram laptops into my pants to pass through that check.
Is that a laptop or are you just happy to see me?
Is that a 12-incher you’re packing in there?
I prefer to check my bag unless it’s a direct flight or very short trip just so I don’t have to deal with my luggage. What annoys me more is that booking sites often don’t include the fees when searching. You already have to put in details to search and a lot of them have options panels for things like departure/arrival times, first class or coach, etc. etc.
Just add a few options for checked bags, carry on bags, etc. and show the real cost. “Budget” airlines often end up more expensive after all the junk fees and since so many people just go with the cheapest flight, every airline is forced to use fees to look competitively priced.
“Budget” airlines often end up more expensive after all the junk fees
One of those budget airlines (famous for its entusiastic abuse of customers) imposes a size limit on carry-on bags that’s about 5cm in each dimension smaller than a standard backpack. And yeah, their junk fees are not only extortionate, but maniacally enforced. I’ve paid more to take a different route to my destination to avoid those evil sons of bitches.
I’ve noticed that car rental agencies are pulling similar junk-fee tricks, as well as fraudulently charging for pre-existing damage and imposing cleaning fees for vehicles returned in spotless condition. They’ve tried both tricks on me recently, despite my scrupulous documentation of the vehicle’s condition, including photos and inspection forms. I was on business travel, so it ended up being handled by my employer’s legal department, but I could easily imagine an individual traveller being harassed to the point of capitulating to the leeches.
Trrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaa
