Put on a Few Pounds? Consider It Extra Baggage
Posted on: Thursday, 6 March 2008, 03:00 CST
By D.L. STEWART THAT'S LIFE
In their continuing efforts to make flying as unpleasant an experience as possible for their passengers without actually waterboarding them, airlines are packing planes, canceling flights, raising fares and withholding peanuts.
And now they have declared war on our luggage.
In January, Southwest and ATA Airlines reduced the number of bags a passenger could check for free from three to two. Although, to be fair, I've never understood why anybody needs to pack three suitcases for a flight. Unless the trip was to Antarctica and they were going to be there for a year and a half.
In May, passengers on United Airlines will be restricted to one free checked bag. A second bag will cost $25 and every bag after that will be $100. Also in May, United has announced, it will raise its fees for overweight checked luggage. Spirit Airlines, which previously allowed some fat bags to fly for free, now charges $25 for a suitcase over 50 pounds and $100 for one weighing between 71 and 99 pounds. Which is a bargain compared to Northwest Airlines, which charges $125 for a 51-pound bag.
All of these charges, the airlines say, will result in cost savings because lighter planeloads require less fuel.
Like most airline passengers, I am in favor of cutting costs, even though I'm pretty sure none of those savings are going to get passed along to me in the form of lower ticket prices or a second bag of pretzels. But here's something I've wondered virtually every time I've boarded an airplane:
If it's necessary to weigh the luggage, why isn't it necessary to weigh the passengers? If extra weight in the passengers' suitcases causes higher fuel costs, what about the extra weight in the passengers' pants? I understand that if there's too much weight in the back of the plane where the luggage is, it might not get off the ground. And I'm definitely a big fan of planes that make it into the air before reaching the end of the runway.
Still, it just doesn't seem fair to me.
If, for instance, I weigh 180 pounds and my suitcase weighs 51 pounds, our combined weight would be 231 pounds and I would have to pay Northwest Airlines an extra $125. Meanwhile, the guy behind me could weigh 381 pounds and have a suitcase that weighed 49 pounds for a combined weight of 430 pounds, but pay no penalty. Even worse, the guy would probably be in the seat next to me -- and in part of mine.
So what I'm proposing is that thin passengers should sit in the back of the plane and prices should be based on the combined weight of the passenger, his or her luggage and the carry-on bags he or she is going to spend 15 minutes cramming into the overhead bin.
There might be some exceptions. Pregnant women, for instance, shouldn't be penalized for their extra weight, although if they were to give birth on the plane, they probably would have to pay for a second seat. Couples might be eligible for a combination fair based on their combined weight.
Or maybe airlines could just allow us to check as many bags as we want, but only charge us for the ones that actually get to where we are going.
Contact this writer at 225-2439 or at dlstewart@DaytonDaily News.com.
(c) 2008 Dayton Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Source: Dayton Daily News
User Comments (0)
RSS Feeds