More travel pain: carry-on fees

More travel pain: carry-on fees

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on April 12th, 2010, 9:28 am | Travel

Well, Spirit Airlines (yeah... I never heard of them either) has fired the next salvo in the war on passengers: Charging up to $50 for the privilege of taking a bag on boar the plane with you. Of course, there ARE problems with carry-ons. As in people taking things that resemble miniature trunks on wheels on board these cramped planes ,and cramming them into the bins regardless of whether the space can take it without bursting. Really, this was a problem well before folks were encouraged to pack for a week trip using just their carry-on.

And I could see an effort to penalize people who do this overstuffing, if you could not bother folks like myself, who live within the size/weight limits for bags in the overhead. I mean, I only carry the sensible things in my carry-on: a change of clothes, camera, a few necessities to live overnight in case of delays or loss of my main bag, and a book. I don't think I'm asking too much to take that and put in in the bin over head. Spirit apparently thinks I am. Well screw them, and anyone else who tries this crap.

In the end, I may have to go on vacation with just a laptop bag for under the seat, stuffed with a second set of clothes. And I'll just have to plan on doing laundry every couple of days while I'm away.

Jerks.

(sorry -- had to edit it to correct the fees being planned... originally my post read $5, which even I couldn't get huffy over) :lol:

Noooo problem - if you have online seat selection :lol:

Dad used to fly Spirit... think they used to fly to Toledo.

That said... I saw this, I laughed.... Suddenly you'll have men carrying large purses.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Well, Spirit Airlines (yeah... I never heard of them either) has fired the next salvo in the war on passengers: Charging up to $50 for the privilege of taking a bag on boar the plane with you.

A bag on boar? No wonder they want to charge.

Use a regular Rollaboard like everyone else

I hate my typing......... April 12th, 2010, 7:38 pm Reply with quote

I hate my typing......... :oops:

I think it was Ryanair that introduced a form of carry on charge a while back. Not sure if it's the case now, but if you were not checking in luggage then you would have to take their Speedy Board option and that was chargeable.

Yeah... Ryanair is going through on charging for the toilet I was reading over there. Not only are they charging a pound for use, they're removing one of the Lavs for more seats. They said they're attempting to change flyer's habits....

Personally the horror stories of Ryanair kept me from flying on them.... and that's why we kept to trains. If Spirit wants to do it, maybe they'll find their niche but I won't fly them, just like I won't fly Southwest.

Eventually airline travel is going to become split into these horrific cheap-o lines that half of us can't fit into, can't take luggage and you must have a big bladder for OR a half way decent airline experience which may cost a few dollars more but doesn't leave you hating the experience. I'm sticking to AA for now.

It will be interesting to see how the market shapes these ideas. I never fly unless there's a huge necessity. Heck, if I could get to Spain this summer by driving, I'd seriously consider it. But when some airline becomes a "luxury airline" simply because they don't hassle you about your carry-ons and allow people access to the toilets for free, there will be only one last step for airlines to take: stacking passengers like cargo and putting them to sleep while in the air.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote: stacking passengers like cargo and putting them to sleep while in the air.

When we emigrated, the cats came out in a good sized box - they could stand up, lie stretched out, turn around etc. (for a human it would be equivalent to a 6' cube). They spent the journey in a pressurized, heated hold, with food, drink and a litter tray.

I remember thinking how nice it would be to have the option of travelling in a crate. You could equip it yourself with appropriate comforts (a superior litter tray). It would beat 'excursion seating'. Something like a mobile Japanese capsule hotel

Sort of like the transport ship from "The Fifth Element." I wouldn't object. Makes me wonder... if you got rid of the seats and placed ventilated, padded cubicles with, say, about 150% of the storage space of a coffin, stacked floor to ceiling.... and a central walkway for entrance and flight crew passage... could you get more passengers in the planes? I know I sure would not object to getting stuffed in like that, so long as I could lie down all the way to my destination.

Too many people are claustrophobic. April 13th, 2010, 10:39 am Reply with quote

Too many people are claustrophobic.

I'm really considering avoiding flying too. I can easily reach a number of countries by ferry from the UK including France, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium and Holland. Taking the car allows me to take as much luggage as I want and I can always stop at free toilets on route.

smiler125 wrote:I'm really considering avoiding flying too. I can easily reach a number of countries by ferry from the UK including France, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium and Holland. Taking the car allows me to take as much luggage as I want and I can always stop at free toilets on route.

Yeah, here in America, there are a number of options to avoid air travel. Sadly, if you're going any distance (and there are a LOT of distant places to consider when you live in bloody North Carolina!) those options involve days on end of ground travel. And the rail system... forget it. It sucks worse than you Europe-y types could possibly dream.

Bah!

The first time I flew on a commercial jet was when I emigrated. But I had driven to over twenty countries. Including Turkey, which at 2,000 miles is less than driving from Calgary to Toronto, even if you pass through nine countries on the way.

Calgary to Vancouver (a relatively short hop) is the same as driving from London to the Mediterranean. The scale is just so different.

Does Canadian rail suck as badly as Amtrak? All I know of rail travel in Canada is what my Dad told me of his experience during the war, traveling for days on end across seas of flat terrain in troop trains...

Liv wrote:Too many people are claustrophobic.

Claustrophobic people wouldn't fly today anyway, now would they?

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Does Canadian rail suck as badly as Amtrak?

I don't know, I've never travelled by either

Except for commuter trains that is.

I tried to book a trip across the Rockies to Vancouver with the plan of going onto Vancouver Island for a cycling holiday, but it was expensive, the train went through the interesting stuff at night, and there was no sensible way to get from Vancouver station to the ferry terminal. There is a tunnel but bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited, meaning that there would have to be a very long detour. In the end I drove.

The trains are very far from 'high speed' and the tracks are taken up with slow moving freight.

To go VIA rail from Calgary to Toronto I would first have to drive to Edmonton - a 4 hour drive. The train leaves at 23:45, arriving 09:30 on Apr 17, 35 hours later, at a cost of $750 for a cheap seat. I could drive there in less time and money. Or I could take a plane that takes 4 hours and costs around $500

When I was in the UK a few years back I had to make a business trip to Pau, France. I was able to do the whole trip via public transport (train to London, Eurostar to Paris, Metro to Gare Montparnasse, TGV to Pau) all in six hours - less time than getting to the airports and flying there.

I agree with Liv, the Eurostar is a bit anticlimactic. You ride along looking at fields, it goes in a tunnel and half an hour later comes out in more fields. Nothing dramatic. I really used to like taking the Hovercraft. That was cool, you drive onto the hovercraft at the beach, it lurches around like a sick camel as the skirt inflates, then roars off sideways in a cloud of sand and water, bouncing from wave to wave like a speed boat with people throwing up everywhere.

The most civilized way was when I went to Holland. We left on the Hull ferry, after having some truly excellent fish and chips, watched the run set romantically (over Hull, which is less romantic) and went to sleep in a cabin like a hotel room with en-suite. We were woken with coffee and pastries an hour out of Rotterdam.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
Liv wrote:Too many people are claustrophobic.

Claustrophobic people wouldn't fly today anyway, now would they?

I've seen a few people freak out on today's airliners. Take out the windows, put them in a hot box and watch mankind regress into rabies infested chimps in a cage.