This post (#1422343) reminded me about something I wanted to ask SN about: should airlines charge for overhead bin space?
Seems to me there's usually a mass scramble for overhead space, and every flight has some people who can't get it and need to check in their carry-ons planeside.
To me, I prefer carry-ons to check-ins. Even if check-in was free, I'd carry everything I could with me that's allowed. Reason being: you save time, and you don't risk your junk getting lost. Since carry-on seems obviously superior: doesn't it make more sense for them to charge for carry-ons instead of check-ins luggage?
They can still charge for large bulky check-in luggages, if weight and space is the primary problem there.
Yes, charge for overhead bin space!73.3%
No, you filthy capitalist pig!26.7%
15 votes \ 1 day left
No. Doing so will leave a bitter taste in my mouth because I feel that this fee is already factored into the cost of the flight!
But don't you get annoyed if you aren't able to get the bin space, because the flight was too full?
My wife makes sure that that doesn’t happen through her meticulous booking. She will book seats that are as close to the cockpit as possible, so we enter the plane sooner. Also, as a family of 4, we get to skip the queue haha
Here's a better question. Why does airline travel suck so much more than it should?
A. Government
B. Government
A. Government bailoutsA. Government bailouts
When a business is failing it should be allowed to fail because the operators have failed to serve their customers. This is not allowed to happen. Instead of allowing airlines to go belly up they have been bailed out. Its not as bad as the banks but air travel is considered to important to allow the market to handle it. The result? Poor management is allowed to continue. They aren't as bad as completely state run airlines would be but the market pressure has been held back.
The truth is... its not like letting one of these poorly run companies to file bankruptcy would mean they don't exist. It would mean someone would buy them and hopefully run them better.
B. TSAB. TSA
The TSA is a joke. They don't make us safer. They make some feel safer. They mostly make our travel less enjoyable.
My answerMy answer
I'd rather pay for the space if it meant it would result in lower ticket prices. The reality is that airlines seem to be trying to get juice out of an onion. I have enjoyed South West for many years because they operated differently than the others. They have ditched that to become more like the rest.
I'd like to see actual capitalism return to travel. But, we have a population that is ignorant about state centralized control and the disaster it creates. Far too few understand the price system and the calculation problem. They simply want some leach to make laws to force people to do what they want. Until people wise up, we are doomed to circle the drain to communism. It starts with education. I have educated my family. My sons aren't socialist dummies. This is what we all should do. Teach our families. Maybe future generations can be more free.
Shit, A or B... Really not sure
Its tough.
I should have offered a C.
Corporate welfare but I think A. covers that pretty well. The airline industry really seems like one that is bed with government and likely creates moats to keep out upstarts. I mean, wants to keep customers safe...
Its already priced in...
You mean how they've tiered out basic-economy from regular-economy and economy-plus? In a way, I suppose that's right--I'll pay extra for earlier boarding privileges so I can guarantee bin space.
The actual space usage isn't priced in, though. There's no difference in charge between using zero overhead space and using the max.
Them overbooking the max doesn't mean its not priced in, it just means that they count on enough people not using the max.
That's not the issue. They have no marginal pricing, so the priced-in-ness does nothing to help ration that scarce space.
The issue is that passengers would viscerally hate it and a competitor would advertise "free" carry-ons and we'd be right back to the status quo.
No I mean there are specified volumes and weights regarding how much you can carry on board depending on your ticket in the first place. Always has been. So its included in your ticket price.
What will happen though is that all these assmilking airlines will just add it on top. I think when I flew a short flight on eurowings they had a class without carry-on.
It's called first or business class
I'm just a poor underpaid teacher, best I can do is economy-plus
Start a daycare in Minnesota
Off to the gulag with you
Definitely should charge. I usually try to bring a carry on small enough that fits under the seat in front of me and check my luggage.
Charge people by weight, that's the biggest priority IMO
Yes, we like differentiated markets... Its a scarce, overused resource!
One of my best friends in high school worked luggage crew. Never trust your bags with those monkeys, if you don't have to.
The pricing model I want is just per pound pricing, plus whatever premium for first class. I'm small and I pack light. It costs less to move me and my shit through the air.
Spirit is the reason why we have baggage fees! It may be only a matter of time before another budget airline does this
Yes. Nickel and diming is an annoying mechanic though. Better to give some cheaper seats if their shit can fit under the seat.
It could be possible to scharge for overhead bin space but be possible to be able for all budgets
Yes. Make the unseasoned sky cattle pay.
I pack pretty light when i fly so my bag can fit under the seat if need be but I prefer overhead bin space