American's $15 first checked bag

[gtpilot]

I've seen hints of this topic in other threads but I have to ask - what are they thinking??? I get the need to raise revenue but how does this do anything but piss customers off? While I haven't bought and airline ticket in years and haven't checked a bag in over a decade, if I had to buy a ticket (checked baggage or no), I wouldn't touch American now, no matter how cheap their up front price is!

But seriously, is there a logical reason for this move?

[ready2fly]

The word "logic" and "airlines" do not belong in the same sentence, paragraph, page, book.

[DeltaAVL]

If it means avoiding bankruptcy, then AA's gonna do whatever it takes.

But you're right, it does seem like there should be a less invasive way of increasing revenue...

[taildragger173]

I think the outcry from the public is gonna be massive and I dont think this fee will stick. A fee for a second bag is one thing.

[Mavmb]

I heard US Airways is going to get rid of all snacks, even the peanuts! Now I think that is going to tick people off. They should have raised fares 50 cents or something instead. Now everybody's thinking, "3 hour flight and I can't even get any peanuts! What a cheap airline."

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by Mavmb

I heard US Airways is going to get rid of all snacks, even the peanuts! Now I think that is going to tick people off. They should have raised fares 50 cents or something instead. Now everybody's thinking, "3 hour flight and I can't even get any peanuts! What a cheap airline."

Pax should pay the 600-700 fare that tickets really cost and not the 1/3 fare of 200-300 they pay and perhaps they'd get double the service. Until then you get what you pay for in this country and so be it. The entitlement that too many americans have about the airlines is just sickening! Pay up some money and get better/great service.

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by gtpilot

But seriously, is there a logical reason for this move?

Logical? Yes. Ethical? probably not.
Its a combination of greed in corporate America, and the ignorance of the average consumer. The thing is, the average comsumer is going to go to expedia, or travelocity etc., and pick the lowest fare of the pairing they are looking for. They don't give a damn if the next highest fare is only an additional $9 for a round trip and for that $9 they get a meal, leather seats, free checked luggage, Direct TV, and a massage. The customer will select the absolute lowest fare, don't even know what airline they are flying on until they get to the airport for check in, and then bitch about how they have to pay to check their luggage, don't get a meal, no inflight movie, with no mention at all about how they actually saved money on the flight as opposed to taking a buss. And they dare to complain about how high airline fare is. It is waaaay too low, and the pax need to learn to accept that they are getting what they are paying for, while the airline is not even breaking even. But the bottom line is, the customer will take the lowest fare, so the airline had better be the one that offeres the lowest fare. If their customers are not satisfied, it dosn't matter because the airline already has their money. Even after a bad experience, the customer will still go to expedia and pick the lowest fare with every disreguard for what airline they will be flying on.

As for the airline executives, they need to learn that when the cost of running their business goes up, so must the price they offer it for. Instead, they cut the salaries of their employees and the quality of their service at the same time. No wonder pax bitch so much. Its too much to ask that they give up their heafty bonuses when the airline is losing money, so I won't even bother suggesting that.

[taseal]

I wonder if they are going to have infomercials like skybus did soon hahaha

[ljg]

Doesn't "Eye on American" in-flight programming run commercials already? So, yeah probably.

I totally agree that airlines should raise their ticket prices to profitable levels. Maybe sky-rocketing fuel costs would provide an excellent opportunity to do that.

[tonyw]

A few years ago, I was at an industry event and there were some big name consultants.

They were ridiculing the things airlines were doing to "save" money. Sure, taking the olives out of drinks saves you $100K a year, but it pisses off the folks who buy the drinks at $5 a pop. So it's not smart.

It's interesting to me that the two airlines consistently on top of the list for customer satisfaction are Singapore and Southwest. Singapore provides a premium product and says you will pay for it, or don't fly us. Southwest doesn't even try, and says we may not be the cheapest but we won't be the most expensive either.

It seems like customers will be okay with getting what you pay for. So there is money to be made by saying, okay, no, we won't be the cheapest, but we will give you extra room, an assigned seat, and on flights of longer than three hours, we'll even give you a small snack.

[germb747]

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/3991706/

[Minuteman]

Letsee ... $160 million is executive bonuses last year, 667000 departures ... that's $240 per flight.

Say 2/3 of 'em averaged 1.5 carry-ons ... that's $18.33 per passenger (additional bags are $25 a pop).

$240 / $18.33(/pax) = 13 pissed-off passengers to offset the executive bonus, the rest goes to increased operating expenses.

Could be worse.

[N826AW]

This is going to be interesting from an operational point of view. Check-in lines are going to be longer because now the agent has to swipe a card. And what do you do about bags checked at the gate?

[E_Dawg]

Not that dumb. They can keep the prices competitive for the orbitz crowd but still raise prices at the same time.

I think

[madmax]

I flew on an airline today that only gave out drinks, any type of food was at least $3 (pack twizzlers or some pringles or something), I know I will never book a ticket on this airline for that reason. Especially after flying the same distance on CAL for $170 and getting a full meal.

WSJ quoted some AMR higher ups, and it sounds like they know it's a bad idea but that they have run out of ideas.

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

Pax should pay the 600-700 fare that tickets really cost and not the 1/3 fare of 200-300 they pay and perhaps they'd get double the service. Until then you get what you pay for in this country and so be it. The entitlement that too many americans have about the airlines is just sickening! Pay up some money and get better/great service.

Exactly. Just up the price of the tickets a bit and now you don't have to nickel and dime passengers to death. I mean c'mon, $3 for trail mix, M&M's, or Pringles on my flight from Kansas City on a certain airline yesterday (though I will say this off the subject: ALL of the employees were extremely nice and helpful. The captain even tried to get my 2 year old to sit in the FO seat).

[killbilly]

It's a question of value.

People have different perceptions of value where they spend their money. Pax expect to get more for their $250 ticket on a legacy carrier than they do on an LCC flight. Most of them fail to wrap their heads around the fact that it costs roughly the same amount of money to fly a seat from point to point, regardless of whose livery is painted on the airplane.

If the airline wants to charge for the first bag, that's fine. They're doing what they feel they need to do. I don't have to fly them if I don't want to.

[Cruise]

Originally Posted by DeltaAVL

If it means avoiding bankruptcy, then AA's gonna do whatever it takes.

But you're right, it does seem like there should be a less invasive way of increasing revenue...

Yep, it's called raising fares to an appropriate level. Once you're charging a fare that will generate revenue, you no longer need to nickel/ dime the pax.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by Cruise

Yep, it's called raising fares to an appropriate level. Once you're charging a fare that will generate revenue, you no longer need to nickel/ dime the pax.

"But if we charge an appropriate fare, how can we be the lowest price airline in existence?"

-mini

[JDMcFly]

It's just horrible marketing.

People would accept a $15 fare hike over costing $15 to check a first bag.

Or at least I would think. People are pretty stupid.

[surreal1221]

Flying is easily becoming a luxury item.

As we see capacity reduction, and overall industry consolidation pricing power will return to the airlines. As such, we can also expect to see demands for certain services (meal, snacks, etc) returning as prices finally reflect what it costs to provide the service, plus an additional surcharge to promise a profit.

Great!

[mojo6911]

Originally Posted by madmax

I flew on an airline today that only gave out drinks, any type of food was at least $3 (pack twizzlers or some pringles or something), I know I will never book a ticket on this airline for that reason. Especially after flying the same distance on CAL for $170 and getting a full meal.

WSJ quoted some AMR higher ups, and it sounds like they know it's a bad idea but that they have run out of ideas.

They do this on American already. DFW-LAS - No snacks/peanuts unless you want to pay $3 for a cookie.

[surreal1221]

Sad thing is.

Joe Six pack will take the nickle and diming over paying an appropriate fare for the services rendered.

I really want to just knock some sense into customers who complain about ticket prices and the lack of services. O RLY? Well, if we charged you 25-30% more, and you paid it. . .you might actually get some sort of service that isn't Greyhound of the skies.

[JDMcFly]

Like I've said, irregardless of how pilot groups feel about JetBlue, from what I've experienced as a PAX they have a great product. And while they make act like a LCC, they are not, of course.

[PGT]

I have realized that the common citizen is a complete idiot when it comes to airlines. I just laugh at people when they talk about ticket prices nowdays.