Fewer fees—for a fee

Is a new era in airline a-la-carte fees emerging? After the major airlines have spent several years stripping out every service imaginable, and then charging a fee for it, at least one is now bundling them back together.

On Wednesday, American Airlines announced a new fare structure by which customers can opt to pay a higher fare that includes certain services like one checked bag, preferred seating and other perks. In other words, you can pay several smaller fees, or get the same perks by paying one larger fee.

Sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other, and you can be sure the airlines are going to get your money one way or the other. But even if all it amounts to is spin, at least they seem to be trying to add a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.

Spirit rationalizes their new fee

To close out this series of postings about Spirit Airlines' new carry-on bag fee, I want to share the response I received from the airline when I expressed my opinion about the new fee:

"In order to continue reducing fares even further and offering customers the options of paying only for the services they want and use rather than subsidizing the choices of others, we are progressing to the next phase of unbundling with this introduction of carry-on bag fees. In addition to lowering fares even further, this will substantially reduce the number of carry-on bags, which will improve in-flight safety and efficiency by speeding up the boarding and deplaning process, all of which ultimately improve the overall customer experience."

You could fly the largest plane in the Spirit fleet through some of the holes in their logic.

First, that by bundling the "cost" of carry-on baggage into the price of a ticket, they are making you subsidize the "choices of others." As if to suggest there is a measurable percentage of people who bring only enough baggage that will fit under the seat, and who don't need to check bags or stow bags in the overhead bins.

Second, implementing this new fee will "substantially reduce the number of carry-on bags." Really? If I have to pay a fee whether I check my bag or carry it on, which option am I going to choose? I'm still going to carry on if possible, so that I don't have to wait at baggage claim.

Third, that this new fee will speed up "the boarding and deplaning process." Even if you believe that there will be fewer carry-on bags, do you really believe it will take less time to board and deplane? Perhaps, slightly—if you swallow the fewer-bags claim—but I can think of other, more customer-friendly ways to accomplish that goal than charging this new fee.

And lastly, who among you can believe that anything an airline does in this day and age will possibly "improve the overall customer experience"? That claim flies in the face of 20+ years' worth of trends to the contrary. It will take a sea change in the airline industry to start making a positive impact on customer experience, and nickel-and-diming customers with more à la carte fees is not a step in that direction.

On their website, Spirit Airlines claims to "liberate customers from being forced into paying for services they do not desire or use." In my opinion, they are not following the "spirit" of that mission by charging a fee for something that is as "optional" as a lavatory. (Knock on wood; that may be next.)
 

A Spirited debate

I hope Spirit Airlines' newest à la carte fee is the straw that breaks the air traveler's back. Up till now, these à la carte fees have been optional; you can choose whether or not you want to pay for a checked bag, for a meal, for extra legroom, and so on.

But let's face it: for all intents and purposes, this carry-on bag fee is MANDATORY, because you'll have to pay it for all but the shortest of trips, for which you can pack light enough to fit your bag under the seat.

I urge you to voice your opinion directly with Spirit Airlines, which I just did. Just go to their contact form, and start venting. Let's start a "spirited" debate!
 

Your money: Spirited away

I am continually amazed at the creativity displayed by the airline industry in coming up with new fees. Today, Spirit Airlines announced that it will charge up to $45 each way for a carry-on bag stored in the overhead bin.

Flying truly is becoming a pure à la carte business model. Will this be the fee that broke the customer's back? Or will we keep paying and paying for less and less?


Life vest $15 if purchased online, $25 if purchased on the plane
($100 if purchased after impact)
 

Interactive urinals and other advertising

Just what is an "Interactive Urinal Communicator," you ask? One of a number of creative ways advertisers are using to engage our eyeballs. (Yes, there is such a thing.) Whether we're peeing, standing in an elevator or pumping gas, we're a captive audience for an apparently valuable part of any given day. And advertisers are increasingly trying to capitalize on that.

Nowhere are we more captive than at 30,000 feet. And advertiser agency Brand in the Hand knows it. They're hoping to earn our goodwill for their clients by hitting us with ads during that brief flash of excitement when the flight attendant hands us a free (for now) bag of peanuts.

But simply slapping ads everywhere isn't the trick. "The challenge for Brand In Hand and any company or marketer entering ambient media is to make sure their brand message is adding value to the consumer," says Andrew Hampp of Advertising Age in the CNN.com article.

I'm a voracious bathroom reader, so I'm looking forward to the day when USA Today sponsors the airplane lavatory and prints the news on each sheet of toilet paper. Talk about adding value....
 

Bait and switch?

I've expressed some of my airline conspiracy theories in the past, including the ol' "bait and switch." How often have you found a low fare, visited another website to compare, and come back to the first site only to find the fare has gone up? I've even had this happen without leaving the site I'm searching. On Orbitz, for example, it's common to search a route, select a fare that I like, only to get a "Sorry, that fare is no longer available" message.

It seems I'm not alone in my conspiracy theorizing. Frommers.com featured an article today about this phenomenon, which the airline industry is explaining away by saying the lower fares are "cached" to enable faster searching. So even though they show up in search results, they might not actually be available. The recommendation: if you see a fare you like, buy it right away, instead of price-comparing elsewhere.

Hmmm... that recommendation seems to lean a bit heavily in favor of the airlines, no? Or maybe I'm just making up another conspiracy theory.
 

Southwest's baby steps: "optional" fees

Southwest Airlines has so far made a name for itself staying out of the airline industry's Year of the Fees. Last year, I wrote about their marketing campaign in which they bragged about not charging fees to check baggage. That's still the case, even as they lose millions—and other airlines bring in millions with baggage fees.

But now they're taking baby steps into Fee Land, offering an optional $10 fee to get a priority spot in the boarding queue. For those of you who haven't flown Southwest, they do not assign seats; it's first-come, first-served. So your position in the boarding queue is critical if you don't want to sit in a middle seat.

The more people who take advantage of this new option, the fewer aisle and window seats will be available to those who don't. I predict the tipping point will be reached quickly, and the $10 fee will become all but standard. I also predict this is the beginning of Southwest's journey toward charging the same fees as all the other guys.
 

Labor Day fare sale (NOT)

"Don't spend your holiday weekend at home this Labor Day," United Airlines urges. "Take advantage of low Labor Day fares!"

The wife and I have been searching for some last-minute getaway ideas, since my birthday falls on Labor Day this year, so United's promotion caught our notice. A quick glance at the terms, however, revealed that the "Labor Day Savings Sale" was no sale. The valid departure and return dates did not line up with the actual Labor Day weekend dates—at least not in any practical fashion.

Sure, you can leave on Saturday, September 5, and return the next day, if your idea of a Labor Day getaway is spending all weekend flying. Or you can depart and return on the Tuesday or Wednesday preceding or following Labor Day, if you have the vacation time to tack onto your holiday weekend. But if you've got the extra time off, wouldn't you rather use your vacation days in conjunction with a non-holiday weekend, when things are cheaper and places less crowded?

So once again, we have an airline fare sale that is not really a sale. You can find one of these "sale fares" if you're willing to fly on the most inconvenient dates and times; but that's true anytime you fly. If it were a real "Labor Day Savings Sale," the airline would offer a limited number of low fares for Friday and Monday, the preferred departure and return dates for Labor Day Weekend.

Yes, those travel dates are the highest in demand, so why should the airline offer low fares on those days? The answer is, they shouldn't. That's not the issue. But neither should they call a fare sale a "Labor Day" sale if it's useless to anyone traveling on Labor Day Weekend.
 

AYCJ: An air travel smorgasbord

I have to hand it to my favorite airline, JetBlue, for their creativity. They have just announced the AYCJ (All-You-Can-Jet) pass: fly anywhere you want, as often as you want, from September 8 to October 8. The cost is $599 (domestic taxes and fees included), and you can choose from the more than 50 cities that JetBlue serves. Read the full details here; it really does seem to be as good as it sounds.

But act now; you only have till next Friday—or while supplies last—to buy the AYCJ pass. I'll be picking one up myself. Those friends and family members who live in cities served by JetBlue, better get your couch ready for me!
 

Continental flight "stranding" may be a good thing

If it were a bad made-for-TV movie, it might be called "The Stranding of Flight 2816."

Last week, a Continental Airlines flight spent nine hours on the tarmac while trying to fly from Houston to Minneapolis. Thunderstorms forced the plane to divert to Rochester, MN, where it sat on the tarmac—full of passengers—overnight until it finally deplaned the passengers after seven hours. The airline then waited another couple of hours, reboarded the passengers and completed the flight to Minneapolis.

That's the thumbnail version of the story. But when you start peeling back the layers, more and more outrageous details emerge.

- The Continental plane had only one lavatory, and at some time during the night, it stopped flushing and began to stink up the cabin.

- The plane was only 85 miles from its final destination, which means the airline could have easily put passengers on a bus instead.

- Continental's regional partner ExpressJet (which operated this flight) claimed that the airport was not staffed or set up appropriately at that time of night to deplane passengers safely. According to the manager of the airport, however, there was plenty of staff on hand—ground handlers from Delta Airlines, in fact, repeatedly volunteered to help—and a secure area in the airport was available, where security re-screening would not have been necessary.

- In fact, a Northwest Airlines flight was diverted to Rochester after the Continental flight, and they were able to deplane—and the airline made the decision to bus the passengers on to Minneapolis (where they arrived at about the same time the Continental passengers were just being let off the plane for the first time).

- Tellingly, the flight crew on the Northwest flight had "timed out"—that is, they had reached the maximum time they were allowed to fly. So, if a timed-out crew can be deplaned, but passengers with a crew that isn't timed out have to endure hours of wailing babies and overflowing toilets, it certainly leaves the impression that airline labor issues are more important than concern for passengers' well being.

As the title of this blog posting suggests, there may actually be some good news out of all this, believe it or not. The Obama administration is investigating the incident to determine if any laws were broken. More importantly, the incident may be the final push needed to pass the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate in 2007. Among other things, the legislation would mandate deplaning of passengers after a three-hour wait on the tarmac. (Continental already has a policy for doing so "if it is safe," but this incident clearly shows the judgment of the airline's dispatchers can't be relied upon in all cases.)

Enough is enough.
 

RyanAir: Pay to pee

A few months back, I reported that RyanAir was considering the implementation of a fee that has long been a standing joke when it comes to airline fees: a charge to use the lavatory. Believe it or not, they are making good on their threat.

Starting sometime in the next year or two, Europe's budget airline will charge passengers to take a pee. Not only that, they're planning to reconfigure their planes to remove two of the three lavatories to make room for more seats.

As one reader opined in a comment to one of the news stories I read, someone should investigate whether it's legal to sell beverages without providing a free lavatory. While they're at it, they should investigate some of the airline's other new or proposed policies, such as doing away with airport check-in counters and forcing passengers to pay to check in online; firing their baggage handlers and making passengers load their own bags onto planes; and perhaps even charging for air sickness bags. (No, I am not making this up.)

One has to wonder when enough is enough....
 

$9 nonstop fares - no, really

Do you need to fly between Newark, New Jersey; Melbourne, Florida; South Bend, Indiana; Toledo, Ohio; or Lansing, Michigan? For most of you, the answer is probably "No." But if so, news of America's newest low-fare airline might interest you. Jet America opened for business today, and takes to the skies beginning July 13.

The airline's introductory fares, clearly designed to grab headlines, are priced at $9 each way for the first nine seats on each flight. If you manage to get one of those seats, however, then of course you'll pay more. Based on a sample flight that I looked up, the minimum out-of-pocket cost will be $49 after all taxes and fees. Still, not bad for a nonstop round-trip flight on a 737—if you're traveling between any of the aforementioned cities (which, other than Newark, are not exactly high-in-demand destinations).

From what I've been able to find out, it seems Jet America will follow the RyanAir model of making money off miscellaneous fees, such as a $5 fee (each way) for booking online ($10 for phone reservations), and $10 for a reserved seat assignment.

We're getting closer and closer to that coin-operated lavatory....
 

Surf the friendly skies

The "World Wide Web" is expanding its reach skyward. This year, a number of airlines are launching GoGo's in-flight WiFi internet service, enabling those of us with WiFi-capable laptops and mobile devices the online access we've been dreaming about. The service is already available on many Virgin America flights, and is rolling out on select American, United, Delta and AirTran routes later this year. (United says the service will be available "in summer" on its JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO routes; I'll be flying the former next month, so I'm eager to see if GoGo is available then.)

Not surprisingly, there will be a fee for access; surprisingly, the fee sounds rather reasonable, at least when you remember how much those Airphone calls cost. For laptops, it costs $9.95 for flights of three hours or less ($12.95 for longer flights), and only $7.95 for those of us using iPhones or other mobile devices. That's a much better deal than $5 for a sandwich that tastes like the cardboard box it comes in. As of now, GoGo will only be available on U.S. domestic flights.

I'm sure this is not welcome news to everyone. But I don't see this changing anything (yet) about the in-flight experience. Laptops are already ubiquitous, and people are well-trained to wear headphones when using them. Browsing the Web is a mostly quiet activity, so I don't see it as any more disruptive as someone watching a DVD on their notebook.

What does worry me, however, is the "gateway drug" nature of offering internet in-flight. It seems inevitable for this to lead to cell phone service in the sky. If that ever happens, then I will suddenly become a Luddite. I would rather fly behind a crying baby or in front of a seat-kicking toddler than next to someone who talks on the phone through the entire flight. (The article I read claimed that Skype would not be available through GoGo.)

Yes, I know that, by my own logic, this won't necessarily change the current in-flight experience, when people are free to talk as much and as loudly as they want to each other. But we've all observed the people who talk loudly on their phones in restaurants, pay more attention to their phones than the road on which they're driving, and bump into you on the street because they're too focused on their phone call to watch where they're walking. Do we really want to fly with those people?

Until then, though, I will happily—and quietly—surf the friendly skies whenever possible.
 

US Airways dipping into your wallet again

Since I'm flying on US Airways tomorrow and have to check a bag, I looked up their latest charges for checked baggage (which they conveniently list on a page titled "Baggage Policies" instead of "Baggage Fees"). Starting on July 9, they'll dip their hands into your wallet yet again.

After that date, if you check in and pay your baggage fees at the airport, they're going to charge you an extra $5 per bag (making it $20 for the first bag and $30 for the second bag). Sure, you can avoid this charge by checking in online and paying your baggage fees over the internet. And we're all already used to the idea of avoiding extra charges by doing things online (such as purchasing our tickets).

But what about those of us who don't have access to a computer while we're traveling? Many of us don't have or choose not to bring a laptop, and many hotels don't offer public computers. So this extra $5 fee per bag will be mandatory for many of us much of the time. How fair is that? And if you have more than two bags to check, their policies force you to check in at the airport; so they'll not only gouge you for the extra fees for multiple bags, they'll also ding you the extra $5 for each of those bags.

US Airways has led the way in the new era of airline fees. They were the first to charge for the first checked bag, and the first to be bold enough to try to charge $2 for a bottle of water. What new and creative fee will they dream up next?
 

Fat tax, seat infringement, and other flyer equality issues

Political correctness is finally succumbing to financial pressure, at least as far as airlines are concerned. More airlines—United the most recent—are now requiring overweight people who can't fit into one airplane seat to purchase a second seat. Those of us who have had the misfortune of involuntarily sacrificing part of our own small real estate to a large fellow traveler are secretly celebrating.

No, I have nothing against fat people, overweight people, "weight challenged" people, or whatever term is politically correct. No more than I have against tall people or short people, black people or brown people, old people or young people, or any other people. All I ask from my fellow man and woman is to treat me as they'd like me to treat them, and vice versa.

I am relatively tall, so when I fly coach, I don't have a lot of room to get comfortable. Do I ignore the people sitting next to me, and just stretch my legs as wide as I can? Do I lean over into the seat next to mine to take a nap? No. I respect my neighbors' space, as I would like them to respect mine.

So if I were overweight enough that I could not fly without encroaching on the seat next to mine, I would not feel right about forcing that person to give up some of his or her space. They ostensibly paid the same price as me for their ticket, so they should be entitled to the same amount of space.

And if the airlines are charging extra fees for checked baggage for weight or fuel cost reasons, then the only fair way to charge everyone equally is to weigh each passenger with his or her bags, and then assess fees based on the passenger's total weight, including bags (an idea I proposed last year). RyanAir may soon consider such a "fat tax."

It's easy to be politically correct in the abstract, but where the rubber meets the road—where political correctness has a dollar amount attached to it—common sense will tend to win out. So this is one rare example where I'm in agreement with new airline fees. What's your opinion?
 

Southwest Airlines to service LGA

Exciting news today for New York City-based budget travelers like me: Southwest Airlines—the original budget airline—will begin offering flights from New York's LaGuardia Airport (LGA) beginning June 28. Until now, New Yorkers wanting to fly out of NYC on one of Southwest's cheap flights would have to get out to Long Island's Islip Airport (an inconvenient drive or ride on the Long Island Railroad).

It's too soon to tell if Southwest will offer the cheapest flights out of LGA. A sample roundtrip flight between LGA and San Diego in July came to $456 on Southwest, but $313 on American; a nonstop between LGA and Chicago Midway, however, was less expensive on Southwest ($301) than on Delta ($307), the next cheapest fare. In any case, this is surely good news for Southwest fans and frequent flyers (such as my brother, who now has one less excuse for not visiting).
 

ACT NOW! $14 fares between NYC, SFO and LGB

Here's a fantastic (real) deal for TODAY ONLY that might sell out before you even read this. That's right, $14 air fares between NYC, San Francisco and Long Beach on JetBlue. Really! A round-trip fare between NYC and SFO for $49 TOTAL, after taxes.

The catch: you have to purchase your tickets TODAY, before 11:59 p.m. MT, and travel must take place between April 2 and April 8, 2009.

Here's the link. Sorry, no time for commentary; I want to publish this before it sells out!
 

"Year of the Fees" here to stay

I've blogged aplenty about new airline fees for everything from checked baggage to pillows, even calling 2008 "The Year of the Fees." However you may feel about these fees, get used to them—they're apparently here to stay. This New York Times article outlines ways in which the airline industry is standardizing and codifying these a la carte fees. They wouldn't be doing that if they considered these fees a temporary, stop-gap measure to recoup losses.

So, I hope you've learned some useful skills this past year to avoid these fees—carrying on all your luggage, packing your own snacks, bringing your own pillow—because you'll be using them for the foreseeable future.

Happy flying.
 

Pee for free? Not for long

In the past year of travel blogging, I've taken my fair share of swipes at the airlines for their nickel-and-diming ways. I even dubbed 2008 "The Year of the Fees." More than once, I jokingly suggested that airlines would eventually start charging for the use of lavatories in flight:

• In No More Free Hot Dog, I wrote, "You can still pee for free at the ballpark (last time I went, anyway), but don't expect that luxury to remain free in flight forever."

• In United to Ground Planes, Cut Routes, I reported, "Yesterday, the International Air Transport Association projected a $2.3 billion loss for the airline industry this year, due to soaring fuel costs. They can't recoup that kind of loss by charging $25 for a second checked bag, or even installing coin-operated lavatories."

• And in Even More Legroom™, I rhetorically asked, "What's next, you're going to levy a fee for the oxygen masks that might drop in case of a decrease in cabin pressure? Add a credit card slot to recline your seat? Tokens for the lavatory?"

All joking aside, it's becoming reality. The CEO of Ryanair, Europe's low-cost airline, told the BBC, "One thing we ... are looking at again, is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door."

Cocktails make air travel a bit more pleasant; but sure, I understand charging me for them. I have a certain expectation about being fed on a long flight; but okay, I understand the business costs associated with them. Hydration and urination, however, are two fundamental human needs for which I think it's immoral to charge customers.

Not that the airlines are shy about doing so: US Airways led the "charge" by dinging travelers two bucks for water. Now Ryanair may make you pay to pee. If that happens, will they also charge you per sheet for toilet paper? And would this guy have had to pay extra for his seat?

[Thanks to Michele for the Ryanair tip-off.]

Airline fees and other useful charts

Awhile back, I posted a chart outlining the various fees that airlines charge for taking your pet aboard your flight. Today, I came across a treasure trove of other useful charts on AirfareWatchdog.com. Bookmark this page as a jumping-off point to these charts when planning your air travel, as AirfareWatchdog appears to be updating these charts on a regular basis.

Frequent flyer fees. How much will that "free" ticket really cost you?

Baggage fees. These new fees change so often it's hard to keep up with them.

Miscellaneous fees. When it comes to finding new ways to steal your money, the airlines are more creative than Congress.

Shipping luggage vs. checking fees. Yes, Virginia, sometimes it really is cheaper to ship your suitcase.

Rule 240 comparison chart. Which airlines follow a post-deregulation version of Rule 240 to get you on another flight (even on a competing airline) at no charge if they screw up?