Are these long term trips? I can't see a week of travel needing anything more than a rollaboard. And even then I stuff mine til full because I want gym clothes and street clothes so I can hang out with friends.

I went to Asia last year with my boss with 1 checked bag because I was planning on stopping by to visit my relatives but man did that make me feel like I was a giant holdup already.

I frequently travel with two checked bags so that I have all of my essentials I need while away from home. I might be a crappy packer or my size 13 shoes just take up more space. Therefore, I fly airlines that do not charge for two bags. For me it's WN, US, AA and AS.

So what about people who use TrueBlue points instead? Are those treated as "cheapest tickets" or not? Does TrueBlue have multiple levels of redemption the way that Southwest does?

Every other airline that has bag fees charges them for coach award tickets. It's one of the stealthier devaluations these programs have accomplished. Jetblue will likely exempt Mint class (a superb first class product comparable to top tier international business class) redemptions only.

It's 2015, time to get a kindle or an iPad. I made it through grad school entirely by relying only on e-books. Eliminated a huge pain for me :D

If bag fees mean lower fares, I'm all for it. I literally never check a bag and generally carry on only one backpack, so I'm essentially subsidizing everyone that hauls half their closet to MDW. I like the ala carte pricing model; if I don't need or use a service, I'd rather not pay for it.

I typically check two bags but one is my girlfriend's bag and the other is my own that I might as well check if I'm already going to be at the counter. Besides, I usually check my own even when flying solo as I just don't care to drag it around with me and worry about bin space but if they did reduce the check bag allowance then I will adapt.

True, all things being equal and if the market has perfect competition. But did WN lower fares when oil fell so substantially recently? I just don't see them being this kind or magnanimous... Plus there turnaround times would increase astronomically.

This is a key point. WN relies on quicker turns than any other major airline. If pax start carrying on the kitchen sink to avoid baggage fees, it's going to affect boarding time, on time performance, and ultimately, WN's ability to schedule industry-leading turns.

They won't. Checked bag fees are not about the cost of transporting the bags, they're about generating ancillary revenue for the airline. Those who think fares and fees have any relation to cost of transport fundamentally misunderstand airline pricing.

Not when you are traveling for business. I am and I always have two pieces maxed to 50lbs. The 'two free' is the only reason I remain with LUV. The dismal on time arrival performance and frequent cancellations in the last two years is trying my patience. They add luggage charges and I suspect there will be fist fights for bin space for the 'C' crowd. And they will increase the turn time since more luggage will be carried on.

They are no longer the lowest cost. If LUV makes me pay for checked luggage and I probably have to bolt to UA. How low is that?

I'd much rather them charge for the second bag vs raise fares. In reality, your bags don't fly free, the cost is included in your ticket price. As for marketing, they can say "Your bag flies free" or they can keep it the same as your carry-on is free.

Untrue.

Fares are set based on the market, not the cost of providing transport. For example, SFO-LAX, WN fares typically match UA, even though UA does not give free bags for non-elites. And when airlines do charge baggage fees, they generate ancillary revenue, i.e., revenue that is not directly tied to the fare (and is treated differently for taxation purposes).

There are also no change fees. But any time a route pair is being fare matched, another route pair somewhere else is getting screwed with higher fares to offset the fare matching on the competitive route.

For example, with Frontier and Spirit covering PHL-ORD and PHL-ATL, Southwest has lowered it's PHL fares to MDW and ATL. But flying PHL to the Bay Area through a hub has higher fares now on Southwest than years ago when AirTran offered competing service on cross country trips. AirTran would be competitive for routes like PHL-ATL-SFO/LAX/SEA. Lately, I've seen US and DL being about $100 cheaper each way on connection flights than Southwest, but US is being competitive through SJC. Perhaps US wants to funnel some traffic on it's ORD-SJC flight so it's discounting PHL-ORD-SJC even though PHL-SFO fares are pretty high. Of course, there are some itineries that Southwest will not be competitive perhaps by choice.

My comment had nothing to do with whether or not fares are cheap on a particular route. There's competition on LAX-SFO, but the fares from 7 days in are generally extremely high on both WN and UA. Same with SFO-SAN (or OAK-SAN, which tends to price the same).

My point is that fare prices do not reflect cost of transporting bags. They are set based on the market. So it's a fallacy to say that "I'm paying for your free checked bags." You're not. If WN were to add checked bag fees, fares would continue to price as they price now - based on the market. WN would also collect ancillary revenue in the form of checked bag fees. Which might or might not make up for the pax they lose due to the reduced benefits.

The key is to strictly enforce carryon rules. Those with large bags get pulled out of line to deal with an agent. On WN that means losing boarding priority and so means you get a lousy middle seat. A double incentive to stick to the rules.