Baggage fees.. Tightening the Screws

[cvchief]

Here is the problem - airlines and just about any business offer a product to an existing market with existing conditions, few businesses make a new market.

If the market was there, you'd see airlines playing off the weeknesses of what is going on with their competitors by diferentiating their product. Basically an airline for example would enlarge coach seating noticably and market their airline product as "We have way bigger seats", an airline would start serving great free meals and market their product as "We serve great free food", an airline would start not charging for bags or give you 100 lb allowances and market their product as "Bring as many bags as you want, we don't care, we won't treat you like the other guys"

Why don't you see an airline doing this yet? Because the market isn't there to pay for the offset in an increased ticket price to allow them to provide those things. They can't be done without a cost involved, this isn't magic and its not about being a 'good' business, it's simple mathmatics so don't even go there. To offer more you're going to have to charge more, and obviously the market isn't there, because while I'm pretty smart, but I'm not a genius that has this figured out and no airline has thought of this.

Problem is the market - the american flying public still hasn't reached the squeeling point where enough is enough yet. They (or you all) are still willing to put up with less and less as long as the you get a low priced ticket. You'll still bitch about it without a doubt, but you won't pay more to get more. Not yet anyways.

Fin, that is why we need more government regulation. With that I am sure we can get better service while not paying what it costs for that better service. The gov can make the numbers work... or at least look like they work, right?

 

[Mike]

LOL

At best, maybe for a little while, eventually you hope people figure out the government's money started out as yours and mine. :depressed:

 

[budaman]

LOL

At best, maybe for a little while, eventually you hope people figure out the government's money started out as yours and mine. :depressed:

It is?.....boy, do I need to rethink this whole the government is paying for it thing. LOL

Chaulk that up as another pet peeve.....people that think it's free because the gov't is totin the bill. Could be why the Europeans get 30 days off/yr also.

Mike

 

[dmoore19]

If I decided not to fly because of the cramped conditions I probably would never see places like Cozumel. Being cramped up in a plane for a few hours is a small price to pay for the experience of diving in Cozumel. If it bothered me that much I would fly first class and avoid the problems with flying coach.

If I was that worried about or had that much money tied up in batteries I would probably have them shipped and pick them up when I got there. The problem with shipping them is, what can you ship? If you can't fly with them in your checked bag, would you be able to get them shipped? Since 911 being able to walk in someplace and ship a package to anywhere can be a problem. Shipping air freight can't be done without getting a Certified Shippers number from the government. Even then if you are shipping electronics you can't pack and seal them, the packages must be inspected before they are shipped air freight. Makes it tough to do it.

May just have to leave the camera, strobes and lights at home or buy batteries when I get there.

 

[budaman]

There was a time, not too long ago, I schleped my HD video rig and all it's associated hardware on my trips. One trip I decided I wanted to travel light & left it behind. It was like opening up diving again and a whole new world. Didn't realize how different it was not spending the whole dive with my eyes on the screen. I'll probably pack it when I go someplace new for a new video reference, but leave it behind on trips to previously visited sites.

Mike

 

[Mossman]

Apparently k ellis beats Europeans, getting 6 weeks off per year (42 days), which is why he has no problem taking days or weeks to drive to a destination. No wonder states are trying to cut back on public sector benefits. Why should government employees get 3x the number of vacation days as the average American working in the private sector.

If everyone who "works hard" should be able to afford air travel, where does it stop? Are we talking only domestic flights or should everyone be able to afford to fly to the Caribbean, Europe, Southeast Asia? Surely it isn't fair that people who work hard can't afford to fly in business class, or why not first class for that matter? Also, how many flights? If I had 6 weeks of vacation a year, I'd take 6 week-long dive trips, or more likely 4 week-long and 1 2-week-long trip a year. Should I be entitled to all those flights just because I work hard?

And why stop at flights? Why not luxury liveaboards for everyone who works hard, they shouldn't have to settle for the inconvenience of a Blackbeard's. Why not subsidized dive gear because we all know how the dive gear manufacturers charge way more than what they need to and are therefore "robbing" hard-working Americans.

I'm a liberal and therefore support certain entitlements: basic-needs support for the elderly and impoverished including housing subsidies, health-care assistance, and food stamps. I also believe working wages should be higher, whether forced by union contracts, or by higher minimum wage regulations. But subsidized air travel for the masses is going too far IMO.

 

[dmoore19]

Apparently k ellis beats Europeans, getting 6 weeks off per year (42 days), which is why he has no problem taking days or weeks to drive to a destination. No wonder states are trying to cut back on public sector benefits. Why should government employees get 3x the number of vacation days as the average American working in the private sector.

If everyone who "works hard" should be able to afford air travel, where does it stop? Are we talking only domestic flights or should everyone be able to afford to fly to the Caribbean, Europe, Southeast Asia? Surely it isn't fair that people who work hard can't afford to fly in business class, or why not first class for that matter? Also, how many flights? If I had 6 weeks of vacation a year, I'd take 6 week-long dive trips, or more likely 4 week-long and 1 2-week-long trip a year. Should I be entitled to all those flights just because I work hard?

And why stop at flights? Why not luxury liveaboards for everyone who works hard, they shouldn't have to settle for the inconvenience of a Blackbeard's. Why not subsidized dive gear because we all know how the dive gear manufacturers charge way more than what they need to and are therefore "robbing" hard-working Americans.

I'm a liberal and therefore support certain entitlements: basic-needs support for the elderly and impoverished including housing subsidies, health-care assistance, and food stamps. I also believe working wages should be higher, whether forced by union contracts, or by higher minimum wage regulations. But subsidized air travel for the masses is going too far IMO.

I can understand AID to the elderly and those that CAN'T care for themselves. I am not against health-care ASSISTANCE, and food stamps. Does that make me a liberal?

I have problems believing that minimum wage regulations are the cure. The end result will be the business paying increased minimum wage has no choice but to pass the increase onto the consumer. End result nothing but a vicious circle. I am not even going to comment on the idea of forced union contracts.

As for subsidized air travel? It is available to the masses, that's why everybody is bitching about it.

 

[ggunn]

Oh and as for the supply and demand "Game" they play if I recall the airlines demand dropped drasticly when the economy collapsed. Instead of more seats being available for people and so forth the airlines responded to the overabundance of supply by cutting flights and squeezing people into even more cramped conditions.

Well, of course they did. What would you have done if you were they, flown half full planes at a loss on every flight? The fewer people who fly, the more they have to make on each passenger to meet their expenses. There was no "overabundance of supply". Without the income from fares, they can't afford to keep all those planes in the air. Granted, if conditions make still fewer people fly, then it's a vicious cycle, but they are caught in it, too.

 

[cvchief]

I'm a liberal and therefore support certain entitlements: basic-needs support for the elderly and impoverished including housing subsidies, health-care assistance, and food stamps. I also believe working wages should be higher, whether forced by union contracts, or by higher minimum wage regulations. But subsidized air travel for the masses is going too far IMO.

Well, the union and minimum wage argument might be liberal. (but you complained about PS bennies and alot of that was union driven) Other than than that you sound a little middle of the road. Of course that is cool! Middle of the road is the new extreme!

 

[Mossman]

Well, the union and minimum wage argument might be liberal. (but you complained about PS bennies and alot of that was union driven) Other than than that you sound a little middle of the road. Of course that is cool! Middle of the road is the new extreme!

I can understand AID to the elderly and those that CAN'T care for themselves. I am not against health-care ASSISTANCE, and food stamps. Does that make me a liberal?

I have problems believing that minimum wage regulations are the cure. The end result will be the business paying increased minimum wage has no choice but to pass the increase onto the consumer.End result nothing but a vicious circle. I am not even going to comment on the idea of forced union contracts.

Unfortunately, I don't know any better solutions to the problem that working a full work-week at the minimum wage or even a bit more, still leaves one under the poverty level. I believe unions over-reach in many cases, often securing high wages for jobs that would otherwise be paid at minimum, but there has to be some middle ground between the minimum that leaves one poor and the exhorbitant demands of the unions. I also believe unions should only be in the private sector, so that unions are never in a position to force the government to do something or else risk of strike of essential personnel like police, firemen, air-traffic controllers, and teachers. In this economy there are plenty of qualified unemployed people that would take the government jobs at low pay and without any bennies attached.

As for subsidized air travel? It is available to the masses, that's why everybody is bitching about it.

It is available, however it shouldn't be considered a commodity but rather a luxury. Yeah, I know coach doesn't feel too luxurious when you're crammed into the seat and you have pay $5 for some stale chips, but it truly is a luxury to be able to step on a plane and step off a few hours later in a different country. The masses should count their blessings they're able to travel at all. Traveling is a luxury, scuba diving is a luxury, traveling to scuba dive in the Caribbean, even in coach class and staying at a budget AI, it definitely a luxury.