caverunner17 wrote:

As far as the "don't buy that ticket" - Not everybody lives somewhere where Southwest, Delta or Jetblue flies. When you're pretty captive to a single airline due to being at a hub (like DFW, PHX etc) you don't always have a lot of options.

DFW and PHX? Seriously? You realize that DAL and PHX are WN hubs in all but name only (since they won't use that term). The notion that one is "captive" to AA at those cities is absurd.

ikramerica wrote:

It's hilarious to read so many people afraid of a minimum standard because "who is to say" what it should be?

The answer of course would be an industry working group with government input. There are countless standards set in this fashion on the local, state and federal level.

And I sad - rather than hilarious - the suggestion that I, as a taxpayer and consumer, need an "industry working group with government input" to determine what it is that I need to purchase. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions without the help of bureaucrats. If I want to travel with just a backpack and don't mind sitting in a middle seat at the back of the plane, I don't need someone to tell me I'm not allowed to. It continues to be incredible to me that anyone would want that kind of intrusion into a citizen's life in an instance where public safety is not endangered in any way.

Again, if one person finds these basic economy fares abhorrent, the fine, don't buy them. But I'm still waiting for the answer to this question: why should that person get to tell a fellow citizen that they're not allowed to buy these fares?

ikramerica wrote:

But even if you get past that, all the federal government needs to do is to include fees for things they say should be included in the fare and just tax them instead of the way fees are excluded now. One of the main reasons that airlines are breaking out things into fees is because of a loophole in the tax system. Close the loophole and this all probably goes away.

Agree. Tax everything equally. It would slow the fees but not stop them, as the motivation for them isn't just a tax loophole, but also to price-discriminate based on customers' individual and varied value judgments, and that wouldn't go away. But as already said, I agree that "fees" should be taxed just like the base fare - both to avoid misaligned economic incentives, and also so taxpayers are bearing the full brunt of the amount of money going to the government, and are aware of that.

Didn't the legacies promise to congress they wouldn't charge for overhead bin space? IIRC delta specifically said to congress they would never charge for overhead bin space.

Southwest is still the premier airline, allowing you to check when these cheapskates are gonna charge for a carry on now. Long live southwest. No change fee, 2 free checked bags, more space, better seats, free snacks, how can you not like southwest in 2017. They have kept flying humane.

caverunner17 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Precisely! Not everyone needs to carry an over-head-sized bag; why should everyone have to pay the freight for it. Just because you want to take a "change of clothes" (or my wife wants to take six pair of shoes on a day trip) doesn't mean I do .It is your (and my) choice.

I weigh 150lbs. Why can't I bring a 15lb carry on for free yet the overweight person next to me weighs 230lbs. I'm actually a cheaper option than he is for the airline to "freight".

If it were practical to weigh each passenger and charge by the pound, that actually might be the most fair. But you can imagine the public reaction to that...

caverunner17 wrote:

As far as the "don't buy that ticket" - Not everybody lives somewhere where Southwest, Delta or Jetblue flies. When you're pretty captive to a single airline due to being at a hub (like DFW, PHX etc) you don't always have a lot of options.

You are confusing "don't by a ticket" with "don't buy that ticket". If you want to use the options not offered by a "basic" ticket, then buy a ticket that includes those options - or pay for them separately. Even children know they must make choices; that is why they make both chocolate and vanilla.

caverunner17 wrote:

It's the same damn argument about healthcare. A small increase for everybody can yield a significantly better base than charging individuals higher prices through independent insurance.

It should be obvious, but healthcare and air travel are not the same thing.Healthcare is a necessity; air travel is a luxury. People should be entitled to affordable health care; there is no such entitlement to cheap airline tickets.

There are minimum standards for the size of a shower (30" diameter circle), room in front of a toilet, room side to side on a toilet. They aren't safety related. Just comfort. Codified in the USA.

"If you don't like the bathroom, don't buy the house/rent the apartment/buy the shower pan, why is the government involved?"

There's also minimum ceiling height which is taller than most people but not all people, standards for bed sizes which are longer than most people but not everyone.

Point is there are standards that impact personal property that are related to minimum comfort. Why can't there be something similar in an industry that relies on government licenses to operate and uses government as barrier to entry for competition?

ikramerica wrote:

Point is there are standards that impact personal property that are related to minimum comfort. Why can't there be something similar in an industry that relies on government licenses to operate and uses government as barrier to entry for competition?

Because "minimum comfort" is highly subjective!

I clearly have a very different definition of "minimum comfort" than others here on A.net - because, as said, my definition of "minimum comfort" would, in many cases, not include the overhead bin. Does that mean that I should be prohibited - by force of federal law and/or regulation - from purchasing a fare that conforms to my definition of "minimum comfort" but not someone else's? As said - nobody is forcing anyone to buy any of these basic economy fares, on AA, Spirit or any other airline. This isn't a matter of public safety - nobody's life or liberty is materially endangered if I put my backpack under my seat.

If someone defines "minimum comfort" as including space in the overhead bin, then fine - don't buy a fare that doesn't include that. But, yet again, why should someone else be able to prevent me from purchasing such a fare if I freely want to? I'm still waiting for a coherent, cogent answer to that question.

commavia wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Point is there are standards that impact personal property that are related to minimum comfort. Why can't there be something similar in an industry that relies on government licenses to operate and uses government as barrier to entry for competition?

Because "minimum comfort" is highly subjective!

And some people may be more comfortable knowing they have bought the lowest fare available, even if it means sacrificing some options that other people may want. If a smaller - but cheaper - seat, no overhead carryon, and no advance seat selection is someone's choice... should we deny them that?

Flighty wrote:

A ticket that doesn't allow me to bring a change of clothes isn't really a ticket. Selling a ticket like that doesn't really have any plausible story of what I would do. Making people buy new clothes at their destination really isn't a plausible assumption. I don't think it would hold up in court, at least not always

Currently, to be fair, the question is not exactly already this one. It's rather "Is a ticket that doesn't allow me to bring one carry-on luggage really a ticket?". That question is debatable. I lean slightly for "No". But I understand the adverse opinion, especially since I travel sometimes with a small backpack only, that I keep under the front seat.

But what if the next step is a basic fare that doesn't include ANY carry-on, no matter the size? Would it be acceptable to sell such a ticket?

winginit wrote:

micstatic wrote:

definitely don't agree with this. Not sure why this is something being brought up by a senator either.

Schumer loves sticking his nose in the business of airlines in particular; and airlines love telling Schumer to shove off. The pattern continues.

Schumer is an ambulance chaser with a lust for attention and the worst that will come of this for him is another TV appearance, but he does have a point on the topic overall.

That said, you get what you pay for. Basic Economy fares are designed to be a little cheaper in exchange for a little more inconvenience. Does it suck? Yes. I hate that the airlines are racing to the bottom and it's come to this, but we've got what we've got. What's twisted about it is that there's now a de facto carry-on charge in spite of it being "free" if you pay the slightly more expensive fare which lets you bring one on.

ikramerica wrote:

It's hilarious to read so many people afraid of a minimum standard because "who is to say" what it should be?

The answer of course would be an industry working group with government input. There are countless standards set in this fashion on the local, state and federal level.

But even if you get past that, all the federal government needs to do is to include fees for things they say should be included in the fare and just tax them instead of the way fees are excluded now. One of the main reasons that airlines are breaking out things into fees is because of a loophole in the tax system. Close the loophole and this all probably goes away.

I bet you these same people who are afraid of a minimum standard for the airline industry - are the very same people who expect ad demand to have a minimum standard elsewhere. For some strange reason the airline industry is sacrosanct.

The airlines can charge or not charge for overhead bins. As long as there is sufficient space underneath the seats for most average sized carry-ons, it really isn't too much of an issue, certainly not for me since I always check in one suitcase. I will say this, charging for overhead bin space might be a way to deter some passengers from bringing aboard those suitcases masquerading as carry-ons. That's a huge pet peeve of mine, when they try to lug those aboard and then they fit, if at all, with difficulty into the overhead bins.

In the end, the market will make this choice and decide upon it's viability, not the good senator. Since airlines seem to be bringing out a variety of fare structures, this is just one more item or characteristic of this trend. If the flying public likes it, they'll endorse and embrace it. If not, it will go away. People will also adapt. Heck, I can cram a ton of clothes and a laptop PC into my backpack and then push it underneath the seat in front of me if need be, and others will do likewise if they don't like being charged for using the overhead.

Personally, the country has a lot more pressing issues than this for Senator Schumer to be interested in. As far as aviation is concerned, I'd love for him to be looking into airport renovation and infrastructure, or ATC improvements, or a host of other aviation issues rather than this.

I hate seeing the government encroach further into an industry, but I could get behind this. The government could help everyone by removing the tax incentive to make everything a fee. But I don't think that alone will be enough. I think minimum standards of service are not out of the question anymore. Airline are not primarily using this as an "unbundling" and adding customer choice. They're primarily using it as a hidden fare increase. With oligopoly power, the consumer has little choice but to suck it up. That's wrong.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Many argue that unbundling is good and allows the passenger to pay for only what they need, but the reality is that the vast majority of passengers pay far more in basic economy or on ULCC's like Spirit once you tack on the ancillary fees that most pax buy.

Nope.

If you ad up the average fare + average ancillary fees paid on ULCCs...if you take that total and compare it to the average fares on legacies or Southwest, ULCC still cost significantly less.

EA CO AS wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Supplying drinking water, enough room to sit down, and someplace to store at minimum 1 cu ft of belongings for a journey is not outlandish

Here's where I disagree; while the first two are arguably what one could consider bare minimums for health and well-being while in the airline's care, the last piece is not a requirement for either. It's a convenience, not a right, and if the airline wishes to make it available for free, great. If they wish to charge a premium, that's their prerogative also.

And again, it's also the customer's discretion on whether or not a company earns their business based on what they offer. Or do not offer.

Don't you see what's happening? In a year, an airline will say that humans do not need drinking water to survive a 3 hour flight, and to bring a bottle of water. What then?

I absolutely feel an organization that represents all people should step in to set a bare minimum set of standards because this race to the bottom is unacceptable. If only there was such an organization out there...

The "free market" doesn't care about your safety, comfort, wallet, or security. The free market only wants your money, and since the airlines are an oligopoly now the government has to intervene. I wish it wasn't this way, but the airlines are abusing their position.

N867DA wrote:

In a year, an airline will say that humans do not need drinking water to survive a 3 hour flight, and to bring a bottle of water.

No need to wait a year. Spirit charges for water now.

N867DA wrote:

What then?

People who want free water won't fly that airline! It's called consumer choice. Why do people have such a problem with it?

N867DA wrote:

I absolutely feel an organization that represents all people should step in to set a bare minimum set of standards because this race to the bottom is unacceptable. If only there was such an organization out there...

And what organization could that possibly be? Because, as has already been discussed at length, an organization which subjectively and arbitrarily defines access to the overhead bin as a "bare minimum" standard wouldn't represent me, nor - apparently - at least a few other travelers here on A.net. And we get the same number of votes in federal elections as everyone else. So who represents us?

N867DA wrote:

The "free market" doesn't care about your safety, comfort, wallet, or security.

The "free market" doesn't care about your safety. Hmmm. Okay. I think that's incredibly wrong for numerous reasons. But in any event, safety isn't really relevant to this discussion at all since (1) not one single aspect of AA's "basic economy" fare in any way threatens anyone's safety, and (2) nobody here is seriously arguing the point that safety is one area where the government naturally ought to have a regulatory and oversight prerogative.

As said repeatedly - the government can and should regulate public safety. It should not regulate overhead bin space.

N867DA wrote:

The free market only wants your money, and since the airlines are an oligopoly now the government has to intervene. I wish it wasn't this way, but the airlines are abusing their position.

Fine. Let the federal government "intervene" and re-regulate the airlines. Set "minimum standards" for "comfort" - as defined by an abstract "organization that represents all people" and, since it also seems to be such a bone of contention with some of the regulatistas around here, set a ceiling on profit margins as well. That is absolutely a public policy path that the U.S. government can, if it so chooses, take. Congress can pass a statute imposes such limitations on the airline industry if it so chooses. But again, let's all acknowledge what the result will be: choice will go down, and fares will go up. It's as simple as that. Take a look at what average fares were in the U.S. before deregulation. It's stunning to me that anyone wants to return that sort of system, or wants to impose regulations that effectively move in that same direction.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Southwest is still the premier airline, allowing you to check when these cheapskates are gonna charge for a carry on now. Long live southwest. No change fee, 2 free checked bags, more space, better seats, free snacks, how can you not like southwest in 2017. They have kept flying humane.

Don't think they're maintaining those policies out of the goodness of their hearts. Southwest boosted their brand by not having change or bag fees (in part because their dated systems couldn't handle either), but it's reached a point where it would be more costly for the carrier to impose them versus the revenues that they would collect. Think about it - Southwest no longer has a broader cost and thus price advantage when compared to ULCCs (and the legacies that are matching the ULCCs), they don't have a product advantage versus the legacies, and their network is without some of the schedule advantages that legacies can pick up with regional jets. Right there you've eliminated price and schedule advantages, which dictate a vast majority of air travel decisions. What's left? Why would you ever fly Southwest Airlines if not for their lack of fees? (fine or their service, but I'll argue that's degraded a bit as labor relations have soured)

Southwest aren't simply holding off on charging common fees because they're trying to keep flying 'humane', they're doing so because it's their only competitive advantage.

N867DA wrote:

I absolutely feel an organization that represents all people should step in

Pray tell what such an organization would look like... ridiculous...

commavia wrote:

N867DA wrote:

The free market only wants your money, and since the airlines are an oligopoly now the government has to intervene. I wish it wasn't this way, but the airlines are abusing their position.

Fine. Let the federal government "intervene" and re-regulate the airlines. Set "minimum standards" for "comfort" - as defined by an abstract "organization that represents all people" and, since it also seems to be such a bone of contention with some of the regulatistas around here, set a ceiling on profit margins as well. That is absolutely a public policy path that the U.S. government can, if it so chooses, take. Congress can pass a statute imposes such limitations on the airline industry if it so chooses. But again, let's all acknowledge what the result will be: choice will go down, and fares will go up. It's as simple as that. Take a look at what average fares were in the U.S. before deregulation. It's stunning to me that anyone wants to return that sort of system, or wants to impose regulations that effectively move in that same direction.

For many, it's a wholly elitist affair. It's this perception that the riff raff who can now afford to fly thanks to un-bundling practices are dragging down the experience for them, who want flying to be like it used to be...the noisy hoi polloi bottom-feeders inducing a "race to the bottom" with their stubborn desire for inexpensive, affordable air travel. They purport to want an "organization that represents everyone" yet advocate for policies/practices that will result in whole segments of people being priced out of flying.

AEROFAN wrote:

ckfred wrote:

A friend of mine is a pilot, having been flying for more than 25 years. Here are issues that prevent an on-time departure, in no particular order:

Late arrivals from a connecting flight, both passengers and baggage
Clearing the stand-by list, particularly, if a flight was overbooked and volunteers were needed
Flight attendants trying to stow bags, especially for passengers in the last group to board

The last issue can lead to problems, because someone doesn't want to gate check a bag, because of electronics, valuables, fragile items, medications, and the like packed in a rollerboard. It can be real problem, when a passenger with very high status boards late because of a late connection or unusually heavy traffic on the way to the airport.

Is this extra revenue? Of course. But, if even 5% of flyers who would otherwise check carry on a bag for the overhead wind up checking it, space in the overhead doesn't wind up at a premium. You don't know how many times I've heard this announcement. "Ladies and gentlemen, we have a very full flight today, and space in the overhead bins will be at a preium. If you have an item that you would be willing to check, we will check it for free today, to your final destination."

Then, the agents start watching the bag sizer and wind up being a bit aggressive on what does and doesn't fit, in order to get more bags into the hold.

So a passenger in the last group does not want to check his bag and he pays for the privilege of placing it in an overhead bin. Flight attendants try to stow his bag in the overhead bin, because after all he has paid for this privilege like all the other passengers who have paid for the privilege of stowing their bags in the overhead bin. How exactly does making this passenger pay for overhead bin storage improve on time departure.

Simple. If F/As are walking up and down aisles, opening bins to look for empty space, the plane can't push back. Then, you get the discussion/argument. Then, a gate agent has to tag the bag as the rampers are closing the cargo hatches, meaning someone has to stow the bag in a hold.

If you board late because of a late connection and have no status, it probably isn't the end of the world to gate check a bag, unless you have items in the bag that shouldn't be in a checked bag. But, if you are Ex Plat with AA, you're mindset could be that for flying 100,000 miles a year with AA, you shouldn't have to gate check a bag, because the overheads are full. Snooty attitude, but it happens.

Next thing you know, your on-time departure pushes back 10 minutes late. A friend of mine is a captain. It happens.

So, if you have a somewhat small, but definite number of passengers can't put anything in the overhead, then the latecomers, shouldn't have issues.

flyguy89 wrote:

commavia wrote:

N867DA wrote:

The free market only wants your money, and since the airlines are an oligopoly now the government has to intervene. I wish it wasn't this way, but the airlines are abusing their position.

Fine. Let the federal government "intervene" and re-regulate the airlines. Set "minimum standards" for "comfort" - as defined by an abstract "organization that represents all people" and, since it also seems to be such a bone of contention with some of the regulatistas around here, set a ceiling on profit margins as well. That is absolutely a public policy path that the U.S. government can, if it so chooses, take. Congress can pass a statute imposes such limitations on the airline industry if it so chooses. But again, let's all acknowledge what the result will be: choice will go down, and fares will go up. It's as simple as that. Take a look at what average fares were in the U.S. before deregulation. It's stunning to me that anyone wants to return that sort of system, or wants to impose regulations that effectively move in that same direction.

For many, it's a wholly elitist affair. It's this perception that the riff raff who can now afford to fly thanks to un-bundling practices are dragging down the experience for them, who want flying to be like it used to be...the noisy hoi polloi bottom-feeders inducing a "race to the bottom" with their stubborn desire for inexpensive, affordable air travel. They purport to want an "organization that represents everyone" yet advocate for policies/practices that will result in whole segments of people being priced out of flying.

There are two issues at play here.

1. The basic economy fare and its restriction on overhead bin use. Generally speaking, it's a non-issue if it's properly advertised.

2. The broader perception of airlines. It's fashionable to think air travel is a frill, not a necessity. Is that true In the 21st century? There isn't a lot that differentiates air travel from any other form of mass transportation. That its privately owned, as opposed to municipal transportation authorities, does not change the fact that it is increasingly as vital to the functioning of the domestic/global economy as public transit is to a city. Pushing consumers too hard in the name of free market and profit is a dicey game to play, especially when it has a significant material impact on people's livelihood (this notion of 'if you don't like it, drive' is grade school simple-mindedness defined). If a city's public transit system tried to charge more for people with backpacks, how would people respond? The Senator is an elected representative, so he's well within his rights to raise the issue if even one constituent asks him to. While a.net may be dominated by airline employees, it would be worthwhile to remember that airlines exist at the pleasure of the Government, which represents the people. Upsetting too many people risks inviting popular opinion-fuelled intervention.

Also, the notion that there is a causal relationship between regulating use of overhead bins and fare increases is a red herring. With airlines trotting out 'record' profits every few months, it's clear that the cost of providing the service only plays a partial role in determining air fares.

and congress should have the same healthplan as the commoners that they represent

ElPistolero wrote:

The broader perception of airlines. It's fashionable to think air travel is a frill, not a necessity. Is that true In the 21st century? There isn't a lot that differentiates air travel from any other form of mass transportation. That its privately owned, as opposed to municipal transportation authorities, does not change the fact that it is increasingly as vital to the functioning of the domestic/global economy as public transit is to a city.

I take your point about public perception, but I think the only reason this conversation is even happening is because of how the public was conditioned to have such ridiculously, wildly unrealistic perceptions and expectations to begin with. First during regulation, and then during the first three decades of deregulation when bankruptcy laws prolonged and delayed necessary industry consolidation, consumers became conditioned to expect astoundingly uneconomical fares that were not sustainable. During the decade following 9/11, capital simply stopped. One by one, virtually all of the major airlines' debt and equity holders - to say nothing of their unions - simply said, "enough is enough, we aren't giving any more." And then, through bankruptcies and - finally - consolidation down to a rational industry structure, the industry finally found a sensible equilibrium where it's now producing entirely reasonable returns (high-single-to-low-double-digit margins). But, as you say, this isn't good enough, - because the public perception is that since now some of the economic value created by the airline industry is once again going to employees and shareholders, and not near-entirely to consumers, somehow they're getting screwed. It's quite sad.

ElPistolero wrote:

Pushing consumers too hard in the name of free market and profit is a dicey game to play, especially when it has a significant material impact on people's livelihood (this notion of 'if you don't like it, drive' is grade school simple-mindedness defined).

Which "people" are we referring to here? Are we concerned about the "livelihood" of the thousands of "people" who have seen their jobs eliminated or pensions terminated in the name of affordability to facilitate lower airfares? Or perhaps the "livelihood" of the thousands (possibly millions) of investors who have seen some portion of their portfolio hit when their investments in airlines were wiped out in serial bankruptcies? Whose "livelihoods" are we supposedly so worried about here? Because I must admit, it seems to me like lots of people seem to focus near entirely on the "livelihood" of consumers who have - objectively - been getting an incredible steal on air travel for the last four decades and who, if we're being honest, still (on average) do today. But consumers are just one element of the economic value chain of the airline industry. And perhaps it's time that some of the other economic stakeholders in the airline industry get their cut.

ElPistolero wrote:

it would be worthwhile to remember that airlines exist at the pleasure of the Government, which represents the people.

Airlines "exist at the pleasure of the Government?" No.

ElPistolero wrote:

Upsetting too many people risks inviting popular opinion-fuelled intervention.

Again - fine. Bring on the "popular opinion-fueled intervention." Re-regulate the airlines. Set ceilings on profits and floors on service. And fares will go up, and choice will go down. It's as simple as that. And then we'll have to listen to even more whining about the cost of air travel. I continue to find it stunning - almost to the point of comedy - that people don't recognize the causal relationship here. Airlines are responding to consumers' desires by introducing new products, at different prices, to cater to a demand at various price points. And it's working. And yet people still complain. Simply breathtaking.

ElPistolero wrote:

it's clear that the cost of providing the service only plays a partial role in determining air fares.

Indeed. That should be crystal clear - as it should have been for decades. Airfares are not based on cost - they're based on value. Different products have different value to different people, and airlines respond accordingly. This is entirely economically rational behavior - exhibited in virtually every single other market on earth.

This legislation might work for carriers such as Spirit who openly charge for use of overheard bin, but not so sure it would work for something like Basic Economy. For example, UA won't ever actually charge for using overhead space, but with Basic Economy you just can't use it. It will be controlled by last group boarding.

commavia wrote:

I take your point about public perception, but I think the only reason this conversation is even happening is because of how the public was conditioned to have such ridiculously, wildly unrealistic perceptions and expectations to begin with. First during regulation, and then during the first three decades of deregulation when bankruptcy laws prolonged and delayed necessary industry consolidation, consumers became conditioned to expect astoundingly uneconomical fares that were not sustainability able. During the decade following 9/11, capital simply stopped. One by one, virtually all of the major airlines' debt and equity holders - to say nothing of their unions - simply said, "enough is enough, we aren't giving any more." And then, through bankruptcies and - finally - consolidation down to a rational industry structure, the industry finally found a sensible equilibrium where it's now producing entirely reasonable returns (high-single-to-low-double-digit margins). But, as you say, this isn't good enough, - because the public perception is that since now some of the economic value created by the airline industry is once again going to employees and shareholders, and not near-entirely to consumers, somehow they're getting screwed. It's quite sad.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those 'unrealistic expectations' and uneconomical fares were created by the industry, not consumers. If consolidation didn't take place when it should have, I'm afraid some of those shareholders have to take responsibility for that. Did employees take a hit? Absolutely. But aviation is hardly unique in that regard. Either way, the perception has been created, and consumers are aware enough to know that status quo isn't hurting airlines profits (even accounting for delay costs. Any additional cost for overhead bin use is pure profit -there's no value in it for the consumer. Since we're paying lip service to free market principles, let's acknowledge that individuals are just as self-interested as corporations, so why would they be happy parting with cash with no additional value in return? Or be unhappy about diminishing value? Hardly unreasonable.

Which "people" are we referring to here? Are we concerned about the "livelihood" of the thousands of "people" who have seen their jobs eliminated or pensions terminated in the name of affordability to facilitate lower airfares? Or perhaps the "livelihood" of the thousands (possibly millions) of investors who have seen some portion of their portfolio hit when their investments in airlines were wiped out in serial bankruptcies? Whose "livelihoods" are we supposedly so worried about here? Because I must admit, it seems to me like lots of people seem to focus near entirely on the "livelihood" of consumers who have - objectively - been getting an incredible steal on air travel for the last four decades and who, if we're being honest, still (on average) do today. But consumers are just one element of the economic value chain of the airline industry. And perhaps it's time that some of the other economic stakeholders in the airline industry get their cut.

That depends on where you sit on the spectrum of economic thought. Is the onus on the consumer to sustain an industry? Or is the onus on the industry to cater to the consumer? While the painful effects of streamlining to meet consumer demands as efficiently as possible are undeniable, this reality applies to everything in life. The 'people'/consumers work in sectors that are subject to similar efficiency pressures and consumer demands. What makes them different to airline employee in this regard? Nobody is owed a cut - the market doesn't guarantee profits and nor should it (since that would require government intervention).

Airlines "exist at the pleasure of the Government?" No.

Hmmm? Good luck getting your planes off the ground if the government revoked licences etc. Frankly, they can nationalize all of the airlines if they feel like it.

Again - fine. Bring on the "popular opinion-fueled intervention." Re-regulate the airlines. Set ceilings on profits and floors on service. And fares will go up, and choice will go down. It's as simple as that. And then we'll have to listen to even more whining about the cost of air travel. I continue to find it stunning - almost to the point of comedy - that people don't recognize the causal relationship here. Airlines are responding to consumers' desires by introducing new products, at different prices, to cater to a demand at various price points. And it's working. And yet people still complain. Simply breathtaking.]

Or simply stop airlines from charging for the use of overhead bins and leave it at that.

Indeed. That should be crystal clear - as it should have been for decades. Airfares are not based on cost - they're based on value. Different products have different value to different people, and airlines respond accordingly. This is entirely economically rational behavior - exhibited in virtually every single other market on earth.

Indeed - a point you should be making to the people who think prices will increase if people use overhead bins for free.

The crux of the issue is simple enough - the market is what it is, and while its in the airline's interest to make hay while the sun shines, pushing the travelling public too far will create opportunities for government intervention (even if only for political gain). To be perfectly blunt, arguing that airlines are special because of historical context or whatever isn't going to garner any sympathy.

ElPistolero wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

commavia wrote:

Fine. Let the federal government "intervene" and re-regulate the airlines. Set "minimum standards" for "comfort" - as defined by an abstract "organization that represents all people" and, since it also seems to be such a bone of contention with some of the regulatistas around here, set a ceiling on profit margins as well. That is absolutely a public policy path that the U.S. government can, if it so chooses, take. Congress can pass a statute imposes such limitations on the airline industry if it so chooses. But again, let's all acknowledge what the result will be: choice will go down, and fares will go up. It's as simple as that. Take a look at what average fares were in the U.S. before deregulation. It's stunning to me that anyone wants to return that sort of system, or wants to impose regulations that effectively move in that same direction.

For many, it's a wholly elitist affair. It's this perception that the riff raff who can now afford to fly thanks to un-bundling practices are dragging down the experience for them, who want flying to be like it used to be...the noisy hoi polloi bottom-feeders inducing a "race to the bottom" with their stubborn desire for inexpensive, affordable air travel. They purport to want an "organization that represents everyone" yet advocate for policies/practices that will result in whole segments of people being priced out of flying.

There are two issues at play here.

1. The basic economy fare and its restriction on overhead bin use. Generally speaking, it's a non-issue if it's properly advertised.

2. The broader perception of airlines. It's fashionable to think air travel is a frill, not a necessity. Is that true In the 21st century? There isn't a lot that differentiates air travel from any other form of mass transportation. That its privately owned, as opposed to municipal transportation authorities, does not change the fact that it is increasingly as vital to the functioning of the domestic/global economy as public transit is to a city. Pushing consumers too hard in the name of free market and profit is a dicey game to play, especially when it has a significant material impact on people's livelihood (this notion of 'if you don't like it, drive' is grade school simple-mindedness defined). If a city's public transit system tried to charge more for people with backpacks, how would people respond? The Senator is an elected representative, so he's well within his rights to raise the issue if even one constituent asks him to. While a.net may be dominated by airline employees, it would be worthwhile to remember that airlines exist at the pleasure of the Government, which represents the people. Upsetting too many people risks inviting popular opinion-fuelled intervention.

Also, the notion that there is a causal relationship between regulating use of overhead bins and fare increases is a red herring. With airlines trotting out 'record' profits every few months, it's clear that the cost of providing the service only plays a partial role in determining air fares.

ElPistolero wrote:

That its privately owned, as opposed to municipal transportation authorities, does not change the fact that it is increasingly as vital to the functioning of the domestic/global economy as public transit is to a city. Pushing consumers too hard in the name of free market and profit is a dicey game to play, especially when it has a significant material impact on people's livelihood (this notion of 'if you don't like it, drive' is grade school simple-mindedness defined).

Yet it's the free market that has made this vital industry inexpensive, common-place, and accessible. The fact is, airlines are breaking down barriers for people to get on planes, so this argument that intervention is justified for the reasons you cite holds no water.

ElPistolero wrote:

If a city's public transit system tried to charge more for people with backpacks, how would people respond? The Senator is an elected representative, so he's well within his rights to raise the issue if even one constituent asks him to.

Public transit systems are owned and funded by tax payers, airlines are not.

ElPistolero wrote:

While a.net may be dominated by airline employees, it would be worthwhile to remember that airlines exist at the pleasure of the Government, which represents the people. Upsetting too many people risks inviting popular opinion-fuelled intervention

That's a dim view to take and not how a healthy, property-owning democracy works. People don't own property/businesses at the pleasure of government. One of the reasons governments exist is to protect the rights of individuals who own property/businesses.

I traveled to Barbados on AA from MIA last December:
I was in seat 25A. I was the first person to board for row 25. I am including ABC and DEF seats.
Opened the overhead bin over row 25 ABC to place my one bag that I carry over my shoulder - no space (3 roll ons already there)
Opened the overhead bin over row 25 DEF - also no space (3 roll ons already there)
Went to row 24ABC. No one in that row as yet, but two roll ons already in the overhead BIN

WTF!!!

If airlines enforced the one bag and size policy- we would not have this nonsense. But hey, why enforce it, when you can have another revenue stream.

ElPistolero wrote:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those 'unrealistic expectations' and uneconomical fares were created by the industry, not consumers.

I disagree. Those unrealistic expectations were created by an entire system - a huge, sprawling, interconnected and complex web of economic relationships that produced the airline industry for the first three decades of deregulation. That system included, among other things, generally stupid investors willing to continue throwing good money after bad business, employees willing to live with year after year of constant uncertainty and insecurity, management teams that stupidly chased market share over margin, reckless mavericks who thought they knew how to run an airline and ended up just wasting a lot of time and money building and then closing them, and on and on. All of that produced three decades of cutthroat competition that destroyed tens of billions of dollars of economic value. Through all of it, pretty much the single only constituency - other than, perhaps airframe OEMs - who actually benefited from that value destruction was consumers. And that conditioned consumers to think that every other actor in the system would willingly continue forever to sacrifice their economic value to facilitate uneconomic fares. Well no more. The other stakeholders simply refused. Thus the wave of bankruptcies and restructurings, and the consolidation. And as a consumer myself, I think it's awesome. I much prefer a stable, profitable industry to one perpetually teetering on the brink of insolvency.

ElPistolero wrote:

If consolidation didn't take place when it should have, I'm afraid some of those shareholders have to take responsibility for that.

Yes and no. What inhibited consolidation happening soon was, for the most part, not shareholders - or even airlines themselves. The (glacial) pace of consolidation in the first three decades of deregulation was driven almost entirely by factors outside the industry's control - antitrust law, and bankruptcy law. Both - or more specifically the interpretation of and application of both - is what kept excess capacity in the market far longer than it ever would have been had the industry been truly unshackled and able to operate efficiently.

ElPistolero wrote:

Since we're paying lip service to free market principles, let's acknowledge that individuals are just as self-interested as corporations, so why would they be happy parting with cash with no additional value in return? Or be unhappy about diminishing value? Hardly unreasonable.

Absolutely. Nobody is saying that consumers should be thrilled if they pay a higher fare. What I'm suggesting is that's tough. Consumers got an unfairly exceptional deal for a long time, and now all that's happening is the pendulum is swinging back towards more balance and equilibrium - with other stakeholders also getting a cut of the economic value of the airline industry.

ElPistolero wrote:

Is the onus on the consumer to sustain an industry? Or is the onus on the industry to cater to the consumer?

100% the onus is on an industry to cater to the consumer. And that is exactly what the airline industry is doing. It's segmenting its product offering for various different groups of consumers who want different things, with different values, prices variously at different price points. What on earth is wrong with that?

ElPistolero wrote:

Hmmm? Good luck getting your planes off the ground if the government revoked licences etc. Frankly, they can nationalize all of the airlines if they feel like it.

That doesn't mean airlines "at the pleasure of" the government. It's not arbitrary like that. There are specific, prescribed requirements for airlines to receive regulatory approval to operate in the U.S. If a company meets those requirements, they get approved. "At the pleasure of" implies that the government can, at its discretion and without any justification, deny an airline. That is not so.

ElPistolero wrote:

Or simply stop airlines from charging for the use of overhead bins and leave it at that.

So again, just to be clear, if following the above statement to its logical end, what this effectively translates to is:

"If someone else wants to pay a backpack only fare, I want the federal government to prohibit them from doing so because I don't want to pay a backpack only fare."

Simply breathtaking.

ElPistolero wrote:

To be perfectly blunt, arguing that airlines are special because of historical context or whatever isn't going to garner any sympathy.

This continues to diverge into tragecomedy. Nobody is arguing that airlines are special. Quite the opposite. What many of us are suggesting is that in fact airlines are not special at all - and should be treated just like any other industry on earth. Which is to say - airlines should be free to price their offerings how ever they like, and either live or die based on consumers' acceptance or rejection of said offerings.

flyguy89 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

That its privately owned, as opposed to municipal transportation authorities, does not change the fact that it is increasingly as vital to the functioning of the domestic/global economy as public transit is to a city. Pushing consumers too hard in the name of free market and profit is a dicey game to play, especially when it has a significant material impact on people's livelihood (this notion of 'if you don't like it, drive' is grade school simple-mindedness defined).

Yet it's the free market that has made this vital industry inexpensive, common-place, and accessible. The fact is, airlines are breaking down barriers for people to get on planes, so this argument that intervention is justified for the reasons you cite holds no water.

ElPistolero wrote:

If a city's public transit system tried to charge more for people with backpacks, how would people respond? The Senator is an elected representative, so he's well within his rights to raise the issue if even one constituent asks him to.

Public transit systems are owned and funded by tax payers, airlines are not.

ElPistolero wrote:

While a.net may be dominated by airline employees, it would be worthwhile to remember that airlines exist at the pleasure of the Government, which represents the people. Upsetting too many people risks inviting popular opinion-fuelled intervention

That's a dim view to take and not how a healthy, property-owning democracy works. People don't own property/businesses at the pleasure of government. One of the reasons governments exist is to protect the rights of individuals who own property/businesses.

I'm not questioning the merits of the free market; I'm a proponent. My point is simple: if companies upset people in a democracy, they risk intervention.

The comparison to public transit was deliberate. As we move forward, airlines are going to become essential services (in Canada, they already are insofar as employee unions have been stopped from striking). This is going to shape consumer attitudes. And consequently the willingness of government officials to intervene. Come to think of it, why was public transit never privatized? I suspect it's down to political feasibility, which tells you how sensitive this issue can be.

As for the rest, the Social Contract is a two-way street between companies and the 'people' / their elected government. Airlines (or any companies or individuals) have to operate within the boundaries of what is acceptable. Elected representatives have a lot of leeway in determining what is acceptable. They're also answerable to the 'people'. Therein lies the rub. Every now and then companies push the limit - as they're entitled to. And the 'people' can push back. When they do, they tend to do it through the government.

I am not opposed to backpack only fares. I'm not opposed to the debate about making its way through democratic government machinery either, even if it results in intervention. The idea that this issue shouldn't be up for debate or that elected representatives shouldn't be raising it carries no water. No company is free to do what it wants, nor has it ever been.

ElPistolero wrote:

I'm not questioning the merits of the free market; I'm a proponent. My point is simple: if companies upset people in a democracy, they risk intervention.

I completely, totally agree. As I have said repeatedly in this and numerous other threads over the last few years on similar topics - I entirely respect and defer to the prerogative of the people, through their elected representatives in the legislative branch, to re-regulate the airline industry if they so choose. I think it's idiotic, and based on ridiculously unrealistic expectations from consumers that don't realize how spoiled they've been for three decades.

But that's fine. If we as a society want to elect legislators who pass laws re-regulating the airline industry, then so be it. But again - we should all go into such an endeavor with our eyes wide open about what the proximate result will be. Choice will go down, and fares will go up. That's what would happen. So to paraphrase the parlance above - if "people in a democracy" want to upset airline industry economics, they risk an economically logical response in the form of higher fares.

So if the goal is to increase the cost of travel such that we return to a time when fewer, wealthier people are the ones who get to travel, and when they do so they can enjoy an arbitrarily- and subjectively-defined "minimum standard" of comfort, then by all means re-regulation - in the form of "minimum standards" and/or maximum profits - is the path to take. I find such suggestions abhorrent, but I get one vote just like everyone else. Such is democracy.

commavia wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

I'm not questioning the merits of the free market; I'm a proponent. My point is simple: if companies upset people in a democracy, they risk intervention.

I completely, totally agree. As I have said repeatedly in this and numerous other threads over the last few years on similar topics - I entirely respecth and defer to the prerogative of the people, through their elected representatives in the legislative branch, to re-regulate the airline industry if they so choose. I think it's idiotic, and based on ridiculously unrealistic expectations from consumers that don't realize how spoiled they've been for three decades.

But that's fine. If we as a society want to elect legislators who pass laws re-regulating the airline industry, then so be it. But again - we should all go into such an endeavor with our eyes wide open about what the proximate result will be. Choice will go down, and fares will go up. That's what would happen. So to paraphrase the parlance above - if "people in a democracy" want to upset airline industry economics, they risk an economically logical response in the form of higher fares.

So if the goal is to increase the cost of travel such that we return to a time when fewer, wealthier people are the ones who get to travel, and when they do so they can enjoy an arbitrarily- and subjectively-defined "minimum standard" of comfort, then by all means re-regulation - in the form of "minimum standards" and/or maximum profits - is the path to take. I find such suggestions abhorrent, but I get one vote just like everyone else. Such is democracy.

It's not a case of full re-regulation or de-regulation. It's simply a case of addressing specific issues. Let's not make it out to be a bigger deal than it is. Governments have long regulated companies that push the boundary. Companies have adapted, as have consumers, and life goes on.

Will choice go down and fares go up? That's a questionable premise. Any fare increases will attract new LCC actors into the market. That competitive pressure is never going to go away, because we know the demand is there. I dare suggest that it's far more likely that fares for the pointy end, and more flexible Y fares, will go up, than the lowest fare baskets (unless airlines want to exit that market). As aircraft layouts indicate, the vast majority of people won't be affected by this.

I'm not worried about minimum standards affect on fares. If we use status quo as minimum standards, airlines won't gain much by hiking their lowest fares. They're more likely to take a hit to profits than run the risk of losing market share.

For the sake of brevity, I'll address your other post here too:

- The historical context remains irrelevant. The losses a company made in the past can't be used to justify demanding higher margins today.

- After noting that the onus is on the industry to cater to the consumer, you note that a) airlines have adopted a differentiated strategy and b) consumers aren't happy about this strategy. Which begs the question: how do you conclude that the industry is catering to the consumer when all its done is create a situation where the consumer is so ticked off, elected representatives are getting involved? As I see it, the industry isn't catering to the consumer as much as it is trying to impose its self-interest on them. Catering to consumers implies keeping them sufficiently satisfied. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

- airlines' existence is as arbitrary as lawmakers want it to be. They can be nationalized at any time Everything can change with a single law (at least in the parliamentary context - I suppose it might require a constitutional amendment in the U.S. context.)

- I think it bears pointing out that the involvement of elected representatives is evidence of consumer rejection of products that they can't or may soon not be able to avoid without incurring additional costs ("Drive"). I'm under the impression that the opposition is built on the belief that other airlines will follow UA's lead to the bottom, because that's what airlines do. Consumers are trying to nip it in the bud. It's not simply a case of fly XY instead, because XY might jump on to the bandwagon too. And then what, "drive"?

There should be a policy preference for checked bags. THe less carry-ons, the less of a burden on TSA and less time in line - a benefit for everyone.

ElPistolero wrote:

It's simply a case of addressing specific issues. Let's not make it out to be a bigger deal than it is. Governments have long regulated companies that push the boundary. Companies have adapted, as have consumers, and life goes on.

Well once again, setting aside the arbitrary and subjective notion, not universally accepted, that airlines have "pushed the boundary," all I can say is that yes, I once again agree that airlines can be re-regulated - partly or fully - and everyone will adapt. And one of the natural ways in which the 'adaptation' will take place is that fares will rise and some people willing and able to purchase a basic economy-type fare will simply stop flying. It's as simple as that.

ElPistolero wrote:

Any fare increases will attract new LCC actors into the market. That competitive pressure is never going to go away, because we know the demand is there. I dare suggest that it's far more likely that fares for the pointy end, and more flexible Y fares, will go up, than the lowest fare baskets (unless airlines want to exit that market). As aircraft layouts indicate, the vast majority of people won't be affected by this.

I continue to find it hysterical that this is supposedly the premise of what will occur when fares rise because of partial re-regulation, and yet now with fares rising without partial re-regulation, people don't think this will occur anyway. The above describes any functioning market - which is to say, it describes the airline industry today. We don't need partial re-regulation to force fares to rise and for new competitors to emerge and/or grow. That's already happening.

ElPistolero wrote:

I'm not worried about minimum standards affect on fares.

Well, with respect, that may be easier for one person to say than another. Perhaps a Spirit, Frontier or Allegiant customer who is only able to afford to travel because of the fares that those airlines offer might feel differently. And, yet again, I'm still eagerly awaiting anyone telling me why someone else should get to tell Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant or soon AA traveler that they are not allowed to purchase a product that they want. If I want to buy a basic economy fare that doesn't include an overhead bin, why should anyone else get to tell me I'm not allowed? Please, someone - anyone - give me a cogent answer to that question. I'm still waiting.

ElPistolero wrote:

If we use status quo as minimum standards, airlines won't gain much by hiking their lowest fares. They're more likely to take a hit to profits than run the risk of losing market share.

Well again, "minimum standards" is entirely arbitrary and subjective, and I simply refuse to accept the notion that one person gets to define "minimum standards" for another person if no threat to life or liberty is involved.

ElPistolero wrote:

The historical context remains irrelevant. The losses a company made in the past can't be used to justify demanding higher margins today.

Nobody is saying that "historical context" justifies higher margins today. Rather, what I am saying is that historical context explains why certain consumers are so mad about higher margins today. On the contrary, margins today are where they are not because margins were lower in the past, but because the margins today are exceedingly reasonable and normal for large, complex, capital-intensive and high-risk transportation companies like airlines.

ElPistolero wrote:

After noting that the onus is on the industry to cater to the consumer, you note that a) airlines have adopted a differentiated strategy and b) consumers aren't happy about this strategy. Which begs the question: how do you conclude that the industry is catering to the consumer when all its done is create a situation where the consumer is so ticked off, elected representatives are getting involved?

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said, nor agreed with the characterization that, "consumers aren't happy about this strategy" or that "the consumer is so ticked off." Once again, such categorical assertions beg the question - who is this "consumer" which is being described? Is this consumer a member of A.net? Or is this consumer a casual, once-per-year traveler who currently flies Spirit or drives? Because it seems to me that many here continue to myopically define "the consumer" through the lens of their own value judgements and their definition of "minimum comfort," and seem to want to impose it on other people who may feel differently. So again - if somebody doesn't want to buy a basic economy fare, then fine. But I continue to find it fascinating that some seem to feel that others should be prohibited from freely purchasing a product that they want. And as nobody can seriously argue - there are obviously people who want these types of fares. Millions of them fly on Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant every year.

It's called consumer choice. If I don't want to buy a basic economy fare, then nobody is forcing me to. But if somebody else wants to, I'm certainly not going to advocate for passing a law that says they can't.