Breaking News! Westjet To Charge Travellers For First Checked Bag

[cp fa]

I think most people even simple ones can grasp that prices rise over time. My problem is how airlines seem to shoot themselves so consistently in the foot by rolling out those completely valid and justified increases in such clumsy, nickel-and-dime ways. No wonder everyone hates us, we suck at removing peoples money from their pocket and having them like it.

Somebody equated airlines to mobile phone carriers. Today I had my once every 4 years encounter with my mobile phone carrier when I went to renew my wife's contract and pick her up an iphone 6. The latest, coolest, most functional, amazing piece of technology presently on the planet. Truly the entire world at ones fingertips and only for a few hundred dollars. Incredible. And yet, I left the store pissed off. Why? Because of their goddamn stupid "activation fee" of $15. It's the cellphone equivalent of a bag check fee. Do I expect to pay the same price for my mobile phone that I did in 2004? Certainly back then one couldn't access the entire internet at high speed in the palm of one's hand, message friends- by video if desired- an unlimited number of times, take 8 megapixel pictures and store several thousand of them, among thousands of other useful functions. I truly pity the Luddite who hasn't yet embraced this technology, but I digress. Has the price of the plan risen 40%? Yes, but one could argue on balance that it still represents value as functionality is up at least 10 fold. Did the price of a phone itself also rise? Substantially. I pay both if not happily, at least with the understanding that quite simply, prices rise over time and as long as I am getting value for money, it's the "cost of doing business" as an upwardly mobile human in 2014. But why OH WHY do they have to jam me for $15 to activate the goddamn phone onto their network. IT IS A NETWORK DEVICE. It is 98% useless without a network on which to connect. Connectivity is assumed, expected, it is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of purchasing the damn thing. "But Zan, there might be customers who walk into a Bell store to purchase an iPhone 6 to use as a clock, or music player, or just on their home Wifi, or some other non-network function, why should they subsidize others who desire this additional service?" Ahh yes, the user-pay gambit. What could be more fair than paying for what you use? Such is the logic of the airline baggage check fee.

So my wife now has the latest greatest mobile computing and communication device in the world, I'm out a few hundred dollars and if only for a short time achieved best husband status, and Bell has an extra $15 of mine that they demanded as an "activation fee." Congratulations you are an idiotic company. There has to be a better way, and there is! Embed the fee. The surcharge/additional overcharge has been a joke, and an insult, for a million years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, it seems.

Have you ever tried to quit Bell? There's a fee for that too.

[Guest longtimer]

Bean, in the world you live in I guess you can travel more than once a year. For a lot of folks, retirees, large families their air travel is limited to once a year. So I repeat, a refund credit that is only good for 6 months is worth exactly nothing to those folks and will only benefit the "frequent travelers" . I therefore don't believe it is the enormous consumer win you trumpeted. But I do agree it will be interesting to see who jumps onboard.

This is an enormous consumer win that got completely lost in all the bag fee noise. It'll be very interesting to see if others match that policy

[DEFCON]

The 'gift card' concept is a pervasive idea as evidenced by the many retailers now employing the gimmick. Outfits such as Marks Work Warehouse give out six month gift cards too, which I am a collector of as I only attend the store once a year on average. I do appreciate the fact that the store is only attempting to drum up more frequent and repeat business, but it's not part of my play book, so, when I attended last week, I just told the gal to keep the card for herself, or give it to the next guy coming through the door.

[Thebean]

I wonder if the same people who walk away from their gift cards are the same people who scream wildly when airlines decide that they aren't going to make customers who choose not to check bags subsidize those that do?

People erroneously make the argument that charging for a bag is like charging people for cutlery at a restaurant.

Wrong.

It's more like a restaurant that used to include a soup appetizer in the price of the meal deciding that instead of raising the price of all the meals to cover the cost of the soup, they'll make the soup optional and charge a couple of bucks for it if you want it.

As hard as it might be for some people to believe, there is a cost to make soup, unless there is a soup fairy out there we don't know about. I'm sure the prep cooks and the suppliers of the ingredients of the soup would be less than impressed if they were told that the soup is free, therefore, they are not going to be paid to prepare it or for the ingredients to make it.

If you don't want soup, don't pay for it. It's a pretty simple concept and only people who want something for nothing would object to it. I, for one, have no interest in a bowl of soup when I order a meal and I certainly don't want the cost of it buried in the price I pay.

The next step will be to charge for overhead bin space. IMO, it's inevitable and the only way to prevent the crush of carry-on bags. Good thing it'll be AC's turn to lead when that occurs.......

Fare gaming remains a scourge in the industry. I won't get into details of what could / has occurred, but you'd probably be amazed at the complexity of some of the various scams that have been attempted by individuals and others over the years.

One of the most effective ways of dealing with it is to make fares creditable, but non-refundable. For that reason, unless the fare paid is at such an enormous premium to regular fares making the initial cash outlay the highest possible, a scenario scammers steadfastly avoid, airlines aren't going to change that policy any time soon.

The travel credit policy has been an extremely effective policy over the years, in every respect.

The travel credit may not work for 100% of guests, but it will certainly work for a very significant proportion of them.

What ever proportion that ends up being, it will be infinitely higher than the amount of people able to take advantage of the same program at other airlines. And that is all that matters.

[DEFCON]

I agree Bean; I don't want to pay for someone else's soup either. In my view, the people and their accompaniments should be weighed at check-in and charged accordingly on a per kilo basis. I'm tall and not entitled to leg room as a matter of necessity and so, I do not appreciate my being forced to subsidize the transport of someone else's obese carcass around the Country.

[Thebean]

I agree Bean; I don't want to pay for someone else's soup either. In my view, the people and their accompaniments should be weighed at check-in and charged accordingly on a per kilo basis. I'm tall and not entitled to leg room as a matter of necessity and so, I do not appreciate my being forced to subsidize the transport of someone else's obese carcass around the Country.

The CTA would debate the matter for about 4 seconds before shooting it down in flames. It is a complete non-starter.

[DEFCON]

Probably because it might make sense and as we know, nothing coming from government ever seems to produce that result?

[mo32a]

I think that after a period of adjustment airlines will crack down more on people who set out to take more than their fair share of overhead space. There's no point to a checked baggage fee if you let customers circumvent it by carrying on silly amounts of baggage. It's unfair to folks who pay to check baggage to let others check baggage free of charge at the gate only because you allow a few to abuse the system by crowding out cabin stowage areas with more baggage than they're entitled to.

I think the solution to excess overhead baggage would be to put dividers in the compartments and label them with the appropriate seat numbers. If what you have doesn't fit put it under the seat in front of you.

[J.O.]

In that system, how do you account for the seats adjacent to bins that are already taken up with emergency equipment?

[st27]

I think the airlines have got it wrong...they should charge for carry on [other than purses and man bags].. it would stop the chaos that will ensue from people fighting over bin space.

[inchman]

It's interesting what factors have influenced the gradual shift to large amounts of carry-on luggage. If you look at old pictures of people boarding aircraft, they just have their coats, hats and purses.

My list of factors:

• Wheels.... I still remember the first pilot I knew to put a set of wheels on his flight case in the early 80s. It's now difficult to find any bag without wheels. If people actually had to carry their bags through the terminal, especially to a distant gate, they wouldn't be taking a heavy carry-on with them.
• Longer wait for bags .... big terminals with long fingers means longer waits for bags.
• ... and an instant gratification society ... Nobody wants to wait 30 minutes for their bag... actually, nobody wants to wait 5 minutes for their bag
• bag fees
• websites that tell frequent travelers how to pack in one "legal" bag.

The concept of having one slot per seat for bags is a non-starter. At current bag sizes, there just isn't enough room for every seat to have a designated slot in the overhead bin. The system generally works as long as everyone doesn't bring a full sized bag. And, it's too late to limit the carry-on dimensions.

I do agree, though, that airlines should charge for carry-on bags. If there was a lot less cabin bags, aircraft could turn faster because of both boarding and de-boarding, weight and balance could be optimized better, more emphasis would be placed on getting checked bags to passengers sooner and people would be more relaxed getting on and off the aircraft.

Ultimately, there is more "convenience" in bringing a bag on board for those that need to get in and out of the airport quickly. People are willing to pay for convenience. By charging them to check a bag, we're charging them for inconvenience.

[GDR]

How about this? There is a fuel cost to anything that is taken on board. The more luggage the more fuel burned, so it is reasonable that a person with more luggage pay more. Instead of charging per bag why not combine the weight of the carry on and checked bags and charge the passenger a set amount per pound. If the cost was 50 cents per pound a 50 lb bag would cost $25.00. A 20 lb. carry on would be $10.00.

Of course the next logical step would be to weigh each passenger and combine that with the weight of the baggage and charge them for the total weight that they are responsible for. Maybe the airlines could charge passengers 50 cents for every pound over a combined passenger baggage weight of 200 lbs.

[boestar]

I wonder if the same people who walk away from their gift cards are the same people who scream wildly when airlines decide that they aren't going to make customers who choose not to check bags subsidize those that do?

People erroneously make the argument that charging for a bag is like charging people for cutlery at a restaurant.

Wrong.

It's more like a restaurant that used to include a soup appetizer in the price of the meal deciding that instead of raising the price of all the meals to cover the cost of the soup, they'll make the soup optional and charge a couple of bucks for it if you want it.

As hard as it might be for some people to believe, there is a cost to make soup, unless there is a soup fairy out there we don't know about. I'm sure the prep cooks and the suppliers of the ingredients of the soup would be less than impressed if they were told that the soup is free, therefore, they are not going to be paid to prepare it or for the ingredients to make it.

If you don't want soup, don't pay for it. It's a pretty simple concept and only people who want something for nothing would object to it. I, for one, have no interest in a bowl of soup when I order a meal and I certainly don't want the cost of it buried in the price I pay.

The next step will be to charge for overhead bin space. IMO, it's inevitable and the only way to prevent the crush of carry-on bags. Good thing it'll be AC's turn to lead when that occurs.......

Fare gaming remains a scourge in the industry. I won't get into details of what could / has occurred, but you'd probably be amazed at the complexity of some of the various scams that have been attempted by individuals and others over the years.

One of the most effective ways of dealing with it is to make fares creditable, but non-refundable. For that reason, unless the fare paid is at such an enormous premium to regular fares making the initial cash outlay the highest possible, a scenario scammers steadfastly avoid, airlines aren't going to change that policy any time soon.

The travel credit policy has been an extremely effective policy over the years, in every respect.

The travel credit may not work for 100% of guests, but it will certainly work for a very significant proportion of them.

What ever proportion that ends up being, it will be infinitely higher than the amount of people able to take advantage of the same program at other airlines. And that is all that matters.

So then why not make the entire experience A La Carte. Appetizer, main, side, soup salad, desert?

One low fare from, say YYC-YYZ. Seat +$50, Bag +$25, Carry-On, +$20, Advance seat selection +$25, Drink +$2, Food +$8, Bridge fee +$5, Video +$10 and the list could go on. That one low fare that got you to top of the Travelocity web page suddenly runs into paying more than the old "Expensive" fare.

[spreadsheet]

So then why not make the entire experience A La Carte. Appetizer, main, side, soup salad, desert?

One low fare from, say YYC-YYZ. Seat +$50, Bag +$25, Carry-On, +$20, Advance seat selection +$25, Drink +$2, Food +$8, Bridge fee +$5, Video +$10 and the list could go on. That one low fare that got you to top of the Travelocity web page suddenly runs into paying more than the old "Expensive" fare.

I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. That is exactly what the ULCC’s such as Ryanair, Spirit and Allegiant are doing (and what Canada Jetlines and Jet Naked propose to do), keep the fare as low as possible so they come up unbelievably low compared to others and theoretically stimulate more traffic. They never want to raise fares to keep the traffic coming so they have to increase revenue from ancillary areas - so people may end up paying more than a ticket with another airline but for the average consumer it’s next to impossible to compare everything between airlines before flying.

People claim they hate this and want things like baggage included in the fare, yet the ULCC’s have record load factors and the highest margins in the industry. WestJet and AC both offer fares where things like baggage are included, but really nothing trumps the fare price for the bulk of the public.

[spreadsheet]

How about this? There is a fuel cost to anything that is taken on board. The more luggage the more fuel burned, so it is reasonable that a person with more luggage pay more. Instead of charging per bag why not combine the weight of the carry on and checked bags and charge the passenger a set amount per pound. If the cost was 50 cents per pound a 50 lb bag would cost $25.00. A 20 lb. carry on would be $10.00.

Of course the next logical step would be to weigh each passenger and combine that with the weight of the baggage and charge them for the total weight that they are responsible for. Maybe the airlines could charge passengers 50 cents for every pound over a combined passenger baggage weight of 200 lbs.

The biggest cost for checked baggage isn’t fuel, it’s the handling costs. I found a Wall Street Journal article from a few years back the calculated the average cost of moving a checked bag. They estimated the average checked bag is handled by 10 people with an estimated cost of $9 per bag. Add to that the airport infrastructure costs and costs of lost/damaged baggage and you can add an additional $4 per bag. Then the fuel costs came in at about $2 per bag.

So theoretically it costs about $15 to move a checked bag, or in reverse it would save $15 for each bag not brought. I realize this isn’t a linear relationship and would be a step function to truly remove the costs, but if enough bags are not checked these savings would start to add up and even for those bags moved to carry-on I would imagine the savings could significantly outweigh the costs of carry-on (delays, bin damage). The additional aspect from less checked baggage is the increased ability for cargo revenue, which in my opinion is what a checked bag cost should really be compared with.

[GDR]

The biggest cost for checked baggage isn’t fuel, it’s the handling costs. I found a Wall Street Journal article from a few years back the calculated the average cost of moving a checked bag. They estimated the average checked bag is handled by 10 people with an estimated cost of $9 per bag. Add to that the airport infrastructure costs and costs of lost/damaged baggage and you can add an additional $4 per bag. Then the fuel costs came in at about $2 per bag.

So theoretically it costs about $15 to move a checked bag, or in reverse it would save $15 for each bag not brought. I realize this isn’t a linear relationship and would be a step function to truly remove the costs, but if enough bags are not checked these savings would start to add up and even for those bags moved to carry-on I would imagine the savings could significantly outweigh the costs of carry-on (delays, bin damage). The additional aspect from less checked baggage is the increased ability for cargo revenue, which in my opinion is what a checked bag cost should really be compared with.

True enough. It would however give the airlines a solution for the the problem of carry on baggage and it would also cause people to minimize what it is they want to check or carry on at all if they were being charged by the pound.

[Maverick]

Another way to do it might be the way that Air Canada pioneered. Everyone takes their baggage to the door of the aircraft and then it's dropped onto the air conditioning hoses and subsequently loaded onto the aircraft.

Minimizes the amount of people handling it and almost guarantees that it's on the correct flight!

Easy-peasy

[Thebean]

I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. That is exactly what the ULCC’s such as Ryanair, Spirit and Allegiant are doing (and what Canada Jetlines and Jet Naked propose to do), keep the fare as low as possible so they come up unbelievably low compared to others and theoretically stimulate more traffic. They never want to raise fares to keep the traffic coming so they have to increase revenue from ancillary areas - so people may end up paying more than a ticket with another airline but for the average consumer it’s next to impossible to compare everything between airlines before flying.

People claim they hate this and want things like baggage included in the fare, yet the ULCC’s have record load factors and the highest margins in the industry. WestJet and AC both offer fares where things like baggage are included, but really nothing trumps the fare price for the bulk of the public.

Just wait till the airlines start charging punitive fees for people who drag over sized bags through security in an attempt to carry them on.

A number of LCC's charge $100 for a gate checked bag vs as little as $20 if you pay in advance on line. Dealing with those scenarios costs a fortune in delayed flights and wear and tear.

It'll be interesting to see how many people will gamble they'll save $25 to bring it on as carry on, then get nailed with $100 at the gate, with no guarantee the bag will be on the same flight.

People will learn pretty quickly.

I can already see the CBC / " woe is me" headlines ......

[Zan Vetter]

The thing that I find confounding is the, perhaps contempt isn't the right word but, disdain maybe, that some of you seem to have for those who bring baggage. "People will learn quickly" and "that'll teach people" etc. This is a service business, shouldn't we be approaching this problem from the point of view of the customer? How can be allow people to bring what they want whatever that is, in a manner that is efficient, covers the cost and a profit, while still making the entire experience enjoyable. So much of this talk views the passengers and their baggage as a hindrance rather than the entire purpose of the enterprise itself. As I said above, no wonder everyone hates flying.

[Boney]

If I remember, KFLL security have a sizing device at the X-ray machine, such that it will reject oversized carry on bags. The pax will then be required to return to the airline counter to check the bag in.

A possible solution to avoid bag issues at the gate. Now, if only we could get security on side.

Cheers.

[CanadaEH]

The thing that I find confounding is the, perhaps contempt isn't the right word but, disdain maybe, that some of you seem to have for those who bring baggage. "People will learn quickly" and "that'll teach people" etc. This is a service business, shouldn't we be approaching this problem from the point of view of the customer? How can be allow people to bring what they want whatever that is, in a manner that is efficient, covers the cost and a profit, while still making the entire experience enjoyable. So much of this talk views the passengers and their baggage as a hindrance rather than the entire purpose of the enterprise itself. As I said above, no wonder everyone hates flying.

Isn't that what unbundling is doing? It's customer driven in that they are entitled expect a cheap fare to travel from A to B. Unbundling is giving the consumer the option of what they want to pay. It's no different than buying a basic car or the one with a premium tech package upgrade. It's no different than buying a basic computer or one with a solid state HD and a fast processor and graphics card.

Another way of looking at it, airlines in North America have had a shitty 10 years. They've lost boatloads of money. They've gone through Chapter 11 or have merged. They have have cut employee salaries and benefits. What is a REASONABLE profit margin? 1%? 10%? 100%? Baggage fees and other charges seem to be, at least for now, the way for airlines to start making money. Reasonable money.

Sometimes the customer isn't always right.

[mo32a]

In that system, how do you account for the seats adjacent to bins that are already taken up with emergency equipment?

At check in you ask people if they are going to need overhead storage or would they like to save $10 by not using it. Then you put them in those seats.

[mo32a]

Another way to do it might be the way that Air Canada pioneered. Everyone takes their baggage to the door of the aircraft....

Sort of like what happens on the Q400? The overhead bins are so small anything larger than a laptop ain't going in.

We use medium size carry on bags, no where near as big as some, and we always have them gate checked.

[IFG]

The thing that I find confounding is the, perhaps contempt isn't the right word but, disdain maybe, that some of you seem to have for those who bring baggage. "People will learn quickly" and "that'll teach people" etc. This is a service business, shouldn't we be approaching this problem from the point of view of the customer? .... As I said above, no wonder everyone hates flying.

Isn't that what unbundling is doing? It's customer driven in that they are entitled expect a cheap fare to travel from A to B. Unbundling is giving the consumer the option of what they want to pay. It's no different than buying a basic car or the one with a premium ....

I've got no issue with unbundling, I like access to cheaper fares as much as the next person, but I'll tell ya, Zan is onto something. If you're viewing this as all about reforming the behaviour of a$$holes, maybe you're in the wrong job. And either one of "contempt" or "disdain" characterizes the attitudes here quite nicely.

I have mostly traveled with only carry-on for decades. It's convenient, it saves time, it ensures that my stuff arrives with me, and in one piece, and I travel light so it's no problem except for the longest trips. And yes, I do use bags that fit in O/head (wheels facing out) and under the seat. I travel frequently, and honestly, I rarely see problems or delays in boarding or turn-around, altho' of course it's going to happen occasionally. I can only imagine, tho', how time-efficient gate charges would be.

There probably are going to be more cabin bags now that checking costs extra. Stifle the customer-hatred, tho', maybe they just look at it all as many folks here do when they raise ID travel charges (or how about make it per lb?). IAC, I'm sure most of us will think about ways to save $25 too;

Sensible enforcement of limits will become a necessity because the old tolerance will not likely be possible any more, but perhaps solutions can be considered that actually cater to the customer needs and wants. The pendulum is swinging pretty far toward the barest of a-la-carte bones. To borrow 'bean's analogy, sometimes buffet or table d'hote pricing does well too. Hell, at McD's, most go for the meal deal. The key is striking the popular balance.

Cheers' IFG

[Thebean]

Sort of like what happens on the Q400? The overhead bins are so small anything larger than a laptop ain't going in.

We use medium size carry on bags, no where near as big as some, and we always have them gate checked.

Nonsense. I've put a soft roll-on in a Q400 bin today and Mrs Bean's acoustic / electric roadie guitar, (in a soft sided case), has no problems either.