Reader comments: American to charge for 1st checked bag, cut flights

14 comments  |  Read story

lowonoil | 2:54 p.m. May 21, 2008
The airlines are reconfiguring themselves to serve a much smaller, richer base of customers at much higher prices. It's the only way for them to stay in business with high fuel prices.

This is why all plans for airport expansion should be immediately scrapped. Air traffic will not be growing, it will be shrinking. A lot.

We will probably be needing more Greyhound slots at the intermodal hub, though. At 200+ passenger miles per gallon, the bus is the future of intercity transit. Until we rebuild the passenger train system we had in the first half of the 20th century.
Stick it To ME | 3:00 p.m. May 21, 2008
Well the fun is just beginning and thanks to the present administration it will take quite a while for this to end. But, lets see what else could the airlines possibly cut, no in flight movies unless you pay, no head phones unless you pay, no drinks unless you pay and now no luggage uless you pay. Here is a good one, how about take all the seats out and rent them to each passenger as they board the plane, that way they only have to bolt in the seats actually used or as an option we could bring our own lounge chairs and save a few bucks. Well I use to fly but it appears that this is no longer going to be affordable transportation, imagine if Greyhound charged you to take luggage or the train system. Where does it all end, personally I am getting tired of all the games because "the republicans" decided that its profits for busines over the public or those who support the businesses. HOPE ALL YOU REPUBLICAN DIE HARDS ARE HAPPY - YOU GOT YOUR WISH - A FULL BLOWN ENERGY CRISIS - THANKS JERKS
Dave | 3:03 p.m. May 21, 2008
Not only have the airlines services been consistently declining to the point of embarassment, now they are nailing the customer on every nickle and dime they can and blaming it on the oil......give me a break! BOYCOTT AMERICAN AIRLINES or everyone else will follow suit.
Comments continue below
Right idea....wrong way | 3:08 p.m. May 21, 2008
This is dumb execution of a fair idea. It will backfire on them.

Consider this: Despite the fact that aircraft and engines are more efficient now than ever before, the amount of fuel consumed per passenger per trip is at a record high. Why? Because the average passenger is a whopping 40 lbs. heavier than 30 years ago, not to mention that everybody's luggage weighs more than ever before. All that extra weight is wasting fuel.

Here's how airlines should operate: Each passenger pays a base fee to cover non-fuel expenses (pilots, stewardesses, ground staff, planes, etc.). Then each passenger and his stuff should be thrown on a scale and pay a fee per pound based on combined weight of passenger plus his luggage. It's only fair that heavier people (or people who pack more stuff) should pay more because they require more fuel.

But it will never happen because fat people will cry discrimination.
Bad policies | 3:10 p.m. May 21, 2008
Why would I fly American and pay for the basic right to take anything with me? They shoot themselves in the foot. We will probably end up with one giovernment-controlled airline instead of an industry and customer service will be even worse. The lucrative tourism industry will be the next to suffer. Get with it oil companies and stop making record profit at the expense of the entire country.
GoodGuyGary | 3:13 p.m. May 21, 2008
Great, now people will try to put the whole house into their carry-on luggage.
American will go bankrupt | 3:43 p.m. May 21, 2008
They will go bankrupt by nickel and diming everyone
I agree with Gary | 3:50 p.m. May 21, 2008
And, can you imagine how long it will take to board & disembark with EVERYONE having a couple of carryon bags!
L C L | 3:53 p.m. May 21, 2008
Great idea, American. (And I suppose they will only tell people this at the time they try to check their luggage). Guess which airline I will now avoid like the plague??? NO WAY will I pay extra to check one lousy bag, which I pretty much HAVE to do because of the other rules implemented about what you can carry on an airplane these days.
JW | 4:00 p.m. May 21, 2008
As I understand, Southwest is locked into long-term low-cost fuel contracts. A percentage (they use more fuel than they anticipated when they made the contract) of their fuel that they will use in 2008 is locked in at $33 per barrel. The market price for a barrel of oil is over $130 currently. I find it difficult to say that oil prices are the culprit for airlines ripping us off.
Backfire | 4:20 p.m. May 21, 2008
After 9/11 it was easier to check your bag rather than hassle with taking it through security. But for $15? I'm going to carry on, and so will all my fellow passagers. That will delay loading the plane, and delay take off.

Brilliant, American. Just brilliant.
Huh? | 5:45 p.m. May 21, 2008
I fly about 100K miles per year, so I don't get charged for baggage. However, I will do more carry-on which will slow down the turn-around time, which will cost the airlines more money. As for Republicans being blamed for the cost of fuel, someone flunked Econ 101, the supply & demand class.
The Numbers | 9:15 p.m. May 21, 2008
I put 12000 lbs pounds of Jet fuel on my CRJ 700 on a flight from SLC to SAT. I burned 9800 lbs total for the flight. 9800/6.7= 1462 gallons. Delta payed $3.42 a gallon 1462*3.42= $5000.04 My plane was full 70 people. 5000/70= 71.43 $71.43 in fuel alone per seat!!! I know this is bad news for people who where used to flying for cheap. It sucks for all of us. At least you don't a family to try and feed, I might not have a job soon.
Re: The Numbers | 11:48 a.m. May 22, 2008
Actually, I think we're ALL kinda' worried about not having a job soon. Not as soon as you, thank goodness...but this economy HURTS!

Good luck to you.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.