|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AblangAblang Date: Jun 15, 2008 13:32
Readers share packing tips in light of new baggage fees
by Molly Feltner, SmarterTravel.com Staff - June 5, 2008
Packing difficulties (Photo: iStockPhoto.com/Justin Horrocks)
Ever since American started charging a fee for all checked bags,
SmarterTravel.com has been surveying readers on your feelings about
this charge and collecting packing tips for reducing baggage. Your
response has been overwhelming so far: Most of you are very
disappointed by American's new fees, but many of you have a few tricks
in mind to keep the airline (and any other airline that adds more
baggage fees) from getting your money. Survey highlights and top
reader packing tips are below.
Survey results
"I AM ENRAGED! The Airlines have cut back service as it is. I will NOT
fly American so long as there is a carrier that does not charge. If
that changes, my flights within the U.S. will stop and I will only fly
international. I think all consumers should boycott American flights."
Advertisement
|
| Show full article (7.81Kb) |
|
| | 23 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jim DavisJim Davis Date: Jun 15, 2008 13:58
>Readers share packing tips in light of new baggage fees
>That one reader comment pretty well sums up the prevailing attitude of
>survey respondents. Almost 100 percent of our respondents said they
>will now avoid flying American altogether (46 percent) or will only
>fly it when there aren't cheaper fares available on any other carrier
>(47 percent).
BINGO!!!! That's the main issue. Cheap Fares. Everyone wants cheap fares.
So the airlines are now trying to keep their fares reasonable, but still
stay in operation.
>If those numbers reflect the attitudes of the flying:
What are these numbers that reflect the attitude of flying on any airline.
How many are Elite Members.
How many are business travlers.
How many are occasional holiday travelers.
Elite members don't get hit with these nickel & dime fees, so they really
don't care.
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: John DoeJohn Doe Date: Jun 15, 2008 15:59
Jim Davis wrote:
> BINGO!!!! That's the main issue. Cheap Fares. Everyone wants cheap fares.
> So the airlines are now trying to keep their fares reasonable, but still
> stay in operation.
This isn't about cheap fares per say, It is about competition.
When Soutwest gets a huge chunk of its fuel at $55/barrel, and less
healthy airlines were not in a position to hedge a lot of their fuel
needs are stuck paying $130/barrel for a large portion of their daily
needs, then those unhealthy airlines are stuck:
Since Southwest doesn't need to raise dare that much, the other airlines
are having difficulty raising their fares. So they hide those increases
in sideline costs like baggage, drinks etc.
If all airlines had equal access to the same fuel at the same costs, the
situation would be very different and you might find the legacy
carriuers still serving meals while Southwest was still just a cattle
class carrier.
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jim DavisJim Davis Date: Jun 15, 2008 16:31
"John Doe" doe.org> wrote in message
news:4855a0fb$0$20561$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...> Jim Davis wrote:
>
>> BINGO!!!! That's the main issue. Cheap Fares. Everyone wants cheap
>> fares.
>> So the airlines are now trying to keep their fares reasonable, but still
>> stay in operation.
>
> This isn't about cheap fares per say, It is about competition.
But wouldn't you agree that competition is also about keeping low fares?
> When Soutwest gets a huge chunk of its fuel at $55/barrel, and less
> healthy airlines were not in a position to hedge a lot of their fuel
> needs are stuck paying $130/barrel for a large portion of their daily
> needs, then those unhealthy airlines are stuck:
>
> Since Southwest doesn't need to raise dare that much, the other airlines
> are having difficulty raising their fares. So they hide those increases
> in sideline costs like baggage, drinks etc.
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DaveMDaveM Date: Jun 16, 2008 15:19
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:59:59 -0400, John Doe doe.org> wrote:
>Opps, can't bring drinks accross
>security thanks to the Bliar/Bush follies.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jfengjfeng Date: Jun 16, 2008 16:25
On Jun 15, 1:32Â pm, Ablang gmail.com> wrote:> Shoe sense
>
> Â Â * If you go hiking or need to bring large boots on a trip, wear
> the boots onto the plane and pack the smaller comfortable shoes
> instead.
I like it. On my next ski trip, I will wear my ski boots onto the
plane.
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jim DavisJim Davis Date: Jun 16, 2008 16:49
my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:314ba209-9f47-4390-8fb3-d0db95acc1e3@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 15, 1:32 pm, Ablang gmail.com> wrote:
> Shoe sense
>
> * If you go hiking or need to bring large boots on a trip, wear
> the boots onto the plane and pack the smaller comfortable shoes
> instead.
>I like it. On my next ski trip, I will wear my ski boots onto the
>plane.
Why not wear the ski's too?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sancho PanzaSancho Panza Date: Jun 16, 2008 21:13
> Shoe sense
>
> * If you go hiking or need to bring large boots on a trip, wear
> the boots onto the plane and pack the smaller comfortable shoes
> instead.
Taking them off and putting them back on should add to the fun at the
security checkpoint.
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: jfengjfeng Date: Jun 17, 2008 07:01
On Jun 16, 11:51Â pm, Larry in AZ DELETE.THISljvideo.com>
wrote:> I laugh like hell when I see these retards with their tight, lace-up boots
> with 40 sets of holes in the security lines.
My ski boots have four buckles each. Some have only one. And ski
boots do not have to be buckled when you are not skiing. I worry
about my boots with the built-in electric heaters, since the TSA has
been known to confiscate and blow up shoes with battery-powered
heaters.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
