harryhv

Priceless.

The sad thing is that there's not a whisper of a suggestion from UA that the funds raised will be directed to improve baggage-handling, reduce lost bags, or be used in any productive way.

It's more like "UA's CEO needs to know where his 180m bonus is coming from this year, here's the first slug on the customers"

If and when CO introduces excess-bag fees I'm sure there will be a better explanation

ijgordon

I assume you've never gone skiing?

ssullivan

My prediction is that most of them won't pay the $25, but they won't leave it at home either. They'll just try and haul more crap on the plane as carry-on luggage.

This policy stinks, and I hope no other airline adopts it. Rather than focus on returning to profitability by providing consistent, excellent service that makes people want to fly UA, they seem focused on treating passengers like they are a major inconvenience to deal with. This is a very Ryan Air-esque policy, yet, UA tries to market themselves as a full-service, high-quality, classy airline (whether they really are or not is debatable). I'm sorry, but you can't be both. UA can't live up to the premium image it tries to market while instituting draconian policies that nickle and dime customers, and drive them away to the competition.

Renard

I think it's pretty tough for any airline that does stuff like charge $2 for each bag checked at the curb to market itself as classy or premium....stuff like this fits the bill of 'nickel and diming'....and isn't CO just about the only one of the legacies that hasn't yet instituted this charge for curbside?

rkkwan

Exactly. That's why I put the link to their January traffic. All they seem to care are short term profitability and to merge with someone. Is there a major airline in the world so willing to give up marketshare that the strategy is to not take any new aircrafts and not order any new ones for the next many years.

I think any employee would like to see their company growing, not shrinking. How can you get good morale when they feel like they're on a shrinking ship?

And I thought cutting out excess capacity or routes should be done during bankruptcy, not 2 years after getting out of it. DL came out of Ch11 stronger and expanding. UA is still cutting...

J.Edward

Don't say that too loudly!

Someone from the UA board might read it and come to realize the horrible truth about the airline.

One of the main tenants propping up the UA board is a very UA-centric viewpoint on the industry with UA being the absolute zenith of success (think the CO forum's attitude towards CO...but without the justification)...and UA diehards become flustered when this illusion is attacked.

climmy

Sure, plenty of times. Golf too.

I just wouldn't worry about paying $50 to get my skis/clubs there either. Paid $200 for my club carrier. $150 for my fancy ski bag.

Let's face it, this is a USER FEE. If you use it, you'll pay for it. The great American way. It costs the airlines money to manage/load/transport baggage. If they're losing money (or close thereto), they have to recoup the costs somehow.

I personally would rather see a fee apply to only the people using it rather than subsidize the guys baggage beside me if the airline needed to raise overall pricing to cover for a loss.

pbarnette

Why not? Plenty of "premium" foreign airlines have similar or worse policies. SQ gives you 20 kg, except to the US. I think you only get 30 kg, even in J. Ditto LH. Plenty of premium carriers give partial FF credit for coach.

Heck, consider how much CO's 50% EQM policy costs the average status-chasing flier. I bet it is a lot more than the occassional $25 charge for those times when you have to check two bags. I mean, it is all well and good to criticize UA for being petty and being anti-consumer, but let us at least be somewhat balanced. I just don't see how one anti-consumer policy somehow elevates UA to an out-of-touch, poorly-run sinking ship, yet the various stupid little things CO does become, definitionally, great management in the eyes of much of this board. Of course, UA may be a sinking ship, but I hardly think this rises to be any sort of proof of that.

I'm not saying that I like this policy, but:

1) I think it will become the norm among airlines. The last contraction saw weight limits drop. I think that the next one will see the elimination of one bag.

2) All this talk of how difficult it is to market oneself as a "premium carrier" is, I feel, a bunch of hooey. There is absolutely nothing premium about domestic Y. On any carrier. And frankly, I think most folks like it that way. For those fares and classes that actually attract a "premium traveller", nothing has changed.

But, when will those folks fly again? And is there any reason to believe that such folks will really follow through? Or that they won't be offset by gains from other people who swore off CO because of a bad EWR connection or AA because they didn't get a meal, or US or...?

otralot

I don't know how much it costs to transport a pound one mile on a plane, but I bet UA does and with cost of fuel not looking to ever drop significantly again charging $25 to move a 40 lb bag for someone who purchased a low fare ticket seems reasonable.

Basically, they are saying you get a lower level of service with a low fare.

My guess is this not a way on increasing reveuneu as much as its is of saving $'s through lower luggage weight on planes and therefore less fuel.

I would expect all airlines will impose similar weight restrictions in the near future. Maybe people will fianlly learn how to pack.

burghboys

You hit the nail right on the head. Its all about the weight restriction.
I have noticed in the last year most of the oversales are because of a weight restriction and not by the overbooking. Less luggage also allows the airline to tanker fuel which saves the airline money.

ssullivan

OK, but if that person says "I'm not going to pay $25, I'll just carry on my second bag," there's no real weight savings, nor the increased revenue. I see a lot of passengers doing this. A 20 pound bag weighs the same, and uses the same fuel, whether it's checked to the cargo hold or sitting in an overhead bin on the plane. And what happens when enough people say this that the overhead bins fill up, and UA has to spend time checking bags at the gate during boarding, possibly holding up an on-time departure? Do those people get charged the $25 at the gate? If not, UA is handling the bag, possibly delaying departure by a few moments to do so, and they are not collecting the $25 service fee. If they do charge for gate checks, what happens if the passenger refuses to pay it, since the bag was considered a "carry on"?

hobo13

Or mountaineering. Or scuba diving.

otralot

Good point. Of course this needs to be married with good control of carry ons, which should be implemented regardless. The disrefard passengers and the airlines pay to what people try to carry on is outrageous ( cleary many threads these boards on that topic). Espeically given how many opportunities during there are to weed out larger bags, Security, gate, check in, etc.

Another way to look at is that people are already skewing toward carry on over checked ( don't we all..?) so by imposing the policy UA is actually getting people to the avearge of tow bags overall.

fozz

Which I will never understand. It's always fun to meet up with a UA centric person and mention they are my secondary carrier and that CO is my primary. It's always a great discussion starter.

But, then again, those very same people who accept UA for what it is are also the same folks supporting it and keeping it alive.

It amazes me that at any given day there are anywhere from two to four 777s or 747s sitting at the Superbay in SFO. And they always seem to have a spare or two at LAX as well. Now, if only CO had that problem...

To the points, UA does have a good international route structure and great hubs. Their domestic structure is a bit lacking. Lately i've been noticing more asymmetric routing (three flights SFO-PHL but only two PHL-SFO, same for SFO-EWR).

Secchi777

What about the massive YOY increase on jet fuel cost as a reason?