RustyC

Read all about it

Ya knew someone would have to be the first to try it, but IMO customers should really push back on this one.

G, why has the carry-on situation deteriorated? Because of charging aggressively for checked bags, including, of course, the first. But this charge would apply even to those who have rolling bags that don't take up more than a fair share of space in the overheads.

As for speed in de-planing, it'll be disastrous. Their seat pitches are very frugal already, and shoehorning out things from under seats on a full plane will be worse than pulling them from the bin (which many of us can do as a grab-and-go without breaking step).

Employees also won't like dealing with irate customers who'd get charged the extra amount at the gate.

If only it were a belated April Fool's joke.

[UPDATE: Here is a link to the page. They're planning to implement fully on August 1, which gives time for media to publicize this and passengers to complain (in the meantime they appear to be cracking down on sizes for overhead bin).

Incredibly, for everyone but $9 Fare Club members the charges for a carry-on are higher than the charges for checking a first bag.

I don't think passengers will stand for having to lose all their legroom on an already crammed seat-pitch plane while tons of overhead space goes empty.

One thing for sure: If customers don't push back, some version of this change will be coming to your airline as well. The domino theory definitely applies here.

remphish1

Yikes...who will be the first to follow?

buckeyefanflyer

Not a surprise. All of use who fly alot see the problems that occur at times when everyone tries to bring on carry-on's not just to avoid paying to check bags to to avoid the hassle of picking up bags in claim area. Also avold the chance of something getting stolen or damanged.
Now let see how can I travel without checking bags or putting something overhead. I can wear all my clothes. 3 shirts, 3 pair of socks and underwear,
2 pair of pants. Put my toothbrush and razor in my pocket. It may be a little warm wearing all your clothes but I bet people will try it.

gspdjosh

This could be especially good for shipping companies. Charging so much for a bag makes it substantially cheaper to ship most everything to/from your destination and carry on only a few items. It's also less likely you will lose a bag using UPS.

mrx900

ridiculous...when are the frequent fliers just gonna say NO and push back???

ktremor

Add another fee to the list of things Spirit Airlines charges for. They are the king of the US airline nickel and dime game

Penbank

Once a terrorist was caught because they were flying a long distance and had no carry-on or checked baggage. We now have to be terrorists if we want to be economical.

Except for the LGA-DCA shuttle, I can't travel with just a briefcase. So the cost of carry-on or checked luggage has to be figured into the price of the ticket. How about weighing passengers? Once I was asked my weight on a flight but the flight only could carry about 6 passengers.

Travel is different from the late 1980's. Now, one can buy the ticket without speaking, check in by kiosk, not be served food (chicken or beef?), and survive the entire flight being mute. +1 for mute peoples' rights? They can function just as well on flights as the rest of us.

RustyC

They're also hinting strongly at moving toward domestic fuel surcharges, as they're already publicizing "estimated cost of fuel" as a precursor.

They even have the nerve to call themselves the "transparency leader" with that, all the while charging $16 RT now as a bogus "passenger usage fee" meant to look like a tax.

Penbank

Wear several shirts, stuff other things in a cloth or canvas bag (which fits under a seat. Carry a shopping bag. When you get on the plane, take off the extra clothes and but them in the shopping bag and sneak them overhead!

pushmyredbutton

Really curious as to how this will be enforced.

If you have a backpack that will fit under the seat and you bring it on-board, whats from stopping you from placing it in the overhead bin?

I'm guessing the checks will be done before you board the plane? And what if you make it through security with a carry-on, GA does the charging?

Just see too many operational issues, not to mention the irate-customer domino effect for this to be good.

Redhead

Just another reason to never fly Spirit and to maintain elite status on at least one of the alliances.

TrojanHorse

As much as I hate the entire Idea

i'm baffled by the prices they are charging

there becomes a price point where it is cheaper and easier to ship especially for those of us who have good corporate discounts

otoh.. i am always going to bring my laptop with me so I guess i have to bring something on

Teefaf

I'm in no way in favour of this, but in fairness the article does state that Spirit reduced some/most(/all?) of their fares by the same amount as this baggage fee.

Of course, who's to say they won't just slowly increase the prices back up to their current levels? Much the same as happened with checked baggage fees a few years ago.

Even Ryanair hasn't has the gall to try this yet, and they're so tight they're looking into ways to make us "spend a pound to spend a penny" (charges for onboard loos).

gglave

I can see this going either way.

After the 'underpants bomber' incident, the US government decreed that all carry-on on flights bound for the USA had to be hand-searched. Transport Canada, realizing they didn't have the resources to search all hand baggage simply banned most of it instead. Here's the result:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoff_a...ia/4485321747/

...A completely full flight boarded at YVR bound for PHX with near-empty overhead bins. Most people just had a purse or pouch at their feet.

I've never seen a full flight board or de-plane so fast.

So if this rule results in more checked baggage for Spirit and emptier overhead bins, they may be able to load the aircraft much faster, resulting in faster turnarounds and more $$$.

avsfan733

most/all of their fares were/are less than the carryon fee. If this were actually true they would be at the point of paying you to fly them (purely from a fare basis).