# Yikes! Don't fly your bike with Delta ...



## wa-loaf (Jun 11, 2010)




----------



## riverc0il (Jun 11, 2010)

Should have just UPS'd or FedEx'd the bike. Pretty common to do that with ski gear these days due to charges. I bet it would have been just as expensive to Next Day it with UPS or FedEx.


----------



## severine (Jun 11, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Should have just UPS'd or FedEx'd the bike. Pretty common to do that with ski gear these days due to charges. I bet it would have been just as expensive to Next Day it with UPS or FedEx.



And then it would have been insured, too. Or at least, you could have shipped it insured. 

I hate this a la carte pricing for flights. Flight prices have not decreased and then these a la carte costs keep going up.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 17, 2010)

severine said:


> And then it would have been insured, too. Or at least, you could have shipped it insured.
> 
> I hate this a la carte pricing for flights. Flight prices have not decreased and then these a la carte costs keep going up.


 http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/20/news/economy/air_traffic_2009/index.htm


----------



## severine (Jun 18, 2010)

mondeo said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/20/news/economy/air_traffic_2009/index.htm



If it weren't so expensive to bring your crap with you, I'd probably fly more often than I do. It's sort of like factoring in the shipping costs when you make an online purchase: if it's more than I think is worth it, I won't buy. They're nickel and diming and it's not getting the desired results. The article blames the economy for grounding people: the airline practice of $x for your first checked bag and $xx more for the second is working in conjunction to keep people home. At least, IMHO. What the freak do I know?


----------



## TheBEast (Jun 18, 2010)

that's insane.....and they won't pay for the bike?  Even crazier...


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 18, 2010)

severine said:


> If it weren't so expensive to bring your crap with you, I'd probably fly more often than I do. It's sort of like factoring in the shipping costs when you make an online purchase: if it's more than I think is worth it, I won't buy. They're nickel and diming and it's not getting the desired results. The article blames the economy for grounding people: the airline practice of $x for your first checked bag and $xx more for the second is working in conjunction to keep people home. At least, IMHO. What the freak do I know?


The economy has definitely grounded a lot of business travel. Our company has cut back big time on meetings and travel for non-field personnel. Bag charges are the least expensive part of travel and do not really factor too much into that decision. It would definitely effect every day consumers a lot more. Southwest all the way!!! The excessive charges have opened up a market for airlines that don't charge extra to steal a lot of business.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 18, 2010)

Just got back from 8 days on the west coast of Florida using JetBlue, no charge for baggage, I think Southwest is the same. I did ship some stuff down so my checked bag would be under the 50 Lbs so there were no extra fees. I did the red eye both ways so despite the hassle of getting up to fly out at 6AM, it was so quiet that the boarding process was a piece of cake


----------



## mondeo (Jun 18, 2010)

severine said:


> If it weren't so expensive to bring your crap with you, I'd probably fly more often than I do. It's sort of like factoring in the shipping costs when you make an online purchase: if it's more than I think is worth it, I won't buy. They're nickel and diming and it's not getting the desired results. The article blames the economy for grounding people: the airline practice of $x for your first checked bag and $xx more for the second is working in conjunction to keep people home. At least, IMHO. What the freak do I know?


http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/avgfareseries.xml

What people don't realize is that the "extra" fees were added instead of raising ticket prices. They're a way to maintain a low baseline price while adjusting to a higher cost structure (primarily fuel.) 2009 yield per revenue passenger mile decreased YOY for every month, by about 10%. Ticket prices did come down. By charging per bag, customers are driven to reduce the weight of what they bring along (translating directly into fuel savings) and to free up space in the cargo hold, allowing for additional freight revenue. So even if you get passengers that just travel with a carry on, there are financial benefits to the airline despite no additional fee.

The airline industry is in a tough spot. There's too much capacity, which drives down prices, meaning there's an awful lot of unprofitable flights out there. Fundamentally, there need to be mergers or failures, along with a retirement of good number of aircraft, to get capacity down to a level that will support higher ticket prices.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 18, 2010)

mondeo does a great job here of pointing out the benefits or user funded extras through fees. Instead of raising costs (everyone suffers) increasing bag fees keeps rates the same and generally penalizes those that were being subsidized by the system. But the consumer does not see it as rates staying the same when they are paying per bag... but they don't see increased rates either. Same difference.

Personally, I think the airlines are generating ill will by not allowing at least one free bag check of a reasonable size and weight. Odd ball sizes and heavy weights should pay a premium. But unless you are traveling just a weekend or over night, most travelers need to check at least one bag. I think a tiered system of fees by weight with escalating fees for higher bags would be the way to go. 20lbs and below free and go from there. Or something like that.

What I would like to see is FEE THE HELL out of people maximizing carry ons and taking up all the in cabin room!


----------

