Bin loaded

Toney mag for smart people The Atlantic has solved the overhead problem. Encourage people not to carry on or to carry on less by employing:

…Spirit’s strategy: make it more expensive to carry-on luggage than to check bags. If it cost $30 to carry-on and $10 to check, I can almost guarantee that you would see a vast improvement in amount of free overhead bin space.

Second, if airlines don’t want to create another fee, then eliminate the one for regular-sized checked bags and increase ticket prices accordingly. I have often crammed as much as possible into my carry-on-sized suitcase to avoid the fee associated with bringing a larger bag that would have to be checked. After all, doing so can save you a significant amount of money on a round trip.

A third alternative is to price all luggage — whether carry-on or checked — based on weight. Then, flyers will still have an incentive to pack light to save airlines money on fuel, but won’t have a disincentive to check. If it were free to check, some passengers would still likely prefer to carry-on due to fears of lost luggage, but surely more would be open to checking. - read more

Don’t like #1, #2 is better, and I think #3 is better still, though none are as good as this radical idea: Enforce existing rules!

Comments

[Alan Birnbaum]

Short of an FAA directive, nothing will really bring an armistice to the economy section "bin wars." Seat pitch is typically 31 inches, so even if a roll-on bag is properly stored its long axis perpendicular to the long axis of the plane, there is only space for 2/3 of the passengers bags in the overhead bin, given bags which even if legal are 14 inches wide.

As I have suggested previously, creating a fairly broad class of individuals entitled to check such a carry-on sized bag at no cost would free up bin space. Even an FAA directive that the maximal charge to check such a bag is $5 would encourage enough people to check these bags.

Unfortunately, even one's own good judgment to avoid a wheeled bag won't always help. The solution has to come from above, and be a universal solution.

[KF]

I'd like to see the airlines simply enforcing carry on limits more consistently. That or limiting carry on bags to one with the 9x14x22 size dimensions.

However, the cynic in me thinks that airlines will adopt something similar to Spirit's plan within the next six months.

[Alan Birnbaum]

I will SPARE you the full contents of the 8/20/2010 Terry Ward piece "Five Things Airlines Don't Want You to Know", particularly the water and toilet details:

http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/08/20/five-things-airlines-dont-want-you-to-know/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk1%7C166277

BUT one issue seems directly relevant to this discussion:

"Next time the pilot makes an announcement that you're being delayed at the gate while a few extra bags are loaded below, consider what might be being hoisted into the cargo holds instead. Adding sandbags to correct weight and balance in an airplane by providing ballast and redistributing weight has long been a common practice in the airline industry. But ever since the new checked bag fees were introduced on many airlines, with fewer passengers checking bags as a result, there's been an upturn in the need to add ballast before takeoff, particularly on smaller commuter flights that are more sensitive to weight issues.

"The weight balance of the aircraft is set up to where they're usually expecting a certain amount of bags to balance out the plane," explains the captain for a major U.S. airline. "So if we have 50 passengers on board, we expect 50 bags and that offsets the weight of the passengers and balances out the aircraft to give it the right center of gravity for take off.

"But what happens now, with charging so much for bags, is that people carry on so there's a weight balance problem. Because of that we end up carrying sometimes 500 or 600 pounds of sand bags to even us out."

Wouldn't it be BETTER to carry a few dozen smaller roller bags in the baggage hold, after creating a positive public relations spin to attract older and some smaller female passengers, whose bags would be checked at no charge, than to spend fuel and money transporting....SAND BAGS? (One source estimates that airline fuel cost per 1000 miles would be about $0.25 per pound, so those sandbags cost around $150 for that average length flight, or maybe as much as $350 transcontinental.)

For the last nine years airlines have had to deal with the Bin Laden problem, now compounded by the Bin Overloaded problem. Enough is enough....maybe the airlines should PAY those qualifying passengers $5 to $10 each to check them!

[Lisa FD]

Alan-- I'm sure you don't intend to offend but as a smaller female, I take exception to your consistent suggestion that we and older folks (I may be considered both now that I am closing in on the half-century mark) be targeted to check our bags.

I lift weights, exercise regularly and can easily lift my luggage overhead without any assistance. My husband golfs with a man who is almost 90 and is a personal trainer. I believe he could lift heavier luggage than most people 1/3 his age.

I agree with others who state that the airlines should just enforce the rules they have established which would be much more sensitive and fair than targeting based on stereotypes.

[Alan Birnbaum]

I surely did NOT mean to offend fit females. My former ballerina of a wife is ten years your senior, and normally wouldn't have any problem putting a bag into a bin, though she'll avoid that until after hr shoulder repair heals. BUT, if airlines are going to rationally encourage some passengers to check those rolling carry-ons, without charging for it, and I may be dreaming on this point, then the first group who deserve this privilege are older individuals or those with a medical basis to avoid overhead lifting. If we can get a fourth to a third of such bags checked, then the airlines won't have to resort to carrying sandbags, but especially those who really WANT to carry on their bags, won't have to to skirmish with that evil villain, Bin Overloaded.

[Laurie]

My understanding is that ballast may still be necessary, but not as critical since Airlines have been hauling products in their cargo hold for some time now. Thus, they have an additional revenue (and ballast) source from the same flight that carries passengers.