debunking the myth

[bydesign77]

I have left the airline business for now. So I have to start paying for my tickets once again, so I decided to do a little research.

Granted, this isn't scientific, but it shows people are easily led to believe things that they aren't willing to understand.

According to the commercials, Bags Fly Free on Southwest. Just a quick flight comparison shows this isn't what you think it is. For a flight from Baltimore to Seattle on Southwest, you'll pay $978.80 for non-stop service. On AirTran? $818.00. *(Prices for 2 roundtrip passengers) Guess where the charge for the bags are? Yep, you guessed it, in your fare.

If you actually checked two bags per person, roundtrip, you would still be better off with AirTran because you would save 80 cents. (Cost comparison based on checked bag rates for AirTran (2x$15 and 2x$25)).

Now I realize this isn't always the case and deals can be found. But airlines charging you to check bags seems like a nickel and dime thing, but really, it's just allowing you to decide what services to pay for and which ones you won't.

But it does make for a catch slogan, doesn't it?

 

[LongTimeListener]

Yes but when you by a Southwest ticket, the cost is up front -- there are no hidden fees and there's no bull**** advertising. AirTran's cost that got you interested in the ticket is actually 20 percent higher to get you on the plane. With Southwest, there's no game involved.

 

[bydesign77]

If, by now, you're not smart enough to figure in baggage fees when you purchase tickets, then shame on you.

Plus, think about it; do you think the average couple is checking FOUR bags?

That hidden fee argument is bunk anyway.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The flights I've needed to go on, Southwest has been cheaper than the rest, even before you figure in the other companies' baggage fees. And Southwest is wise to emphasize the bag thing, because the concept of charging $50-$100 just to put your bag in the hold is ridiculous.

 

[LongTimeListener]

If, by now, you're not smart enough to figure in baggage fees when you purchase tickets, then shame on you.

Plus, think about it; do you think the average couple is checking FOUR bags?

That hidden fee argument is bunk anyway.

As dools pointed out, Southwest is often cheaper than the rest. You found a case where they weren't. The bigger point is, other airlines are actively misleading their customers -- go on sidestep or kayak and the fare you're quoted is the fare without bags. It is pretty late in the process (often not until you get to the airport) that they hit you with the extra $$$$. It's actively misleading customers, and Southwest should be pointing out that they're not doing it.

Also these bag charges are really hurting on-time performance -- so many people are bringing "carry-on" luggage through screening and checking it at the gate. They know it's too big for the overhead bin, but they don't care because gate check is free and they don't want to pay the $20.

Having been on quite a few different airlines lately, I can say that other than jetBlue, Southwest is the most pleasant flying experience.

 

[bydesign77]

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are deals that puts SWA over the top. But the bags don't fly free. They just include that cost in the ticket. It's misleading.

I agree that the ads are smart to emphasize there are no additional costs to check bags. And the general public buys into it.

 

[Moderator1]

Then tell everyone to put the bags in the fares and cut the crap.
OR, as I suggested on another thread, check for free and charge for carry on.

 

[dooley_womack1]

OK, BD, explain to me what cost there is to tossing a bag into a hold that wasn't there in past decades, when there were no extra baggage charges. It's a blatant cash grab.

 

[MacDaddy]

When you go to a Mexican restaurant and they bring the chips and salsa, do you also announce to the table that they're not technically free and the cost is just absorbed into the price of the meal?

 

[Point of Order]

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are deals that puts SWA over the top. But the bags don't fly free. They just include that cost in the ticket. It's misleading.

I agree that the ads are smart to emphasize there are no additional costs to check bags. And the general public buys into it.

Actually, what's misleading is the airlines that list their fares in big, bold, conspicuous font and then list the baggage charges down in the fine print. It's designed to game the system and complicate direct price comparison on aggregation web sites. Southwest has every right to tout the fact they don't have hidden fees the other airlines do. In fact, they'd be stupid if they didn't. Unfortunately though, I think SWA will eventually cave a start charging the hidden fees because when people just compare the top line number SWA's flights will be higher.

 

[bydesign77]

For the record I don't like checked bag fees. But before they were absorbed in the fare.

In order to keep fares low, airlines decided to use an ala carte system. If you decide to use the service, then you pay extra. If not you don't.

It's hard to swallow. And again I don't like it personally. But you have to look at it from a different view to understand it.

 

[Iron_chet]

OK, BD, explain to me what cost there is to tossing a bag into a hold that wasn't there in past decades, when there were no extra baggage charges. It's a blatant cash grab.

It is a blatant cash grab but it is the only reason airlines made money last year (with SWA and Allegiant being the exception). Ancillary revenue is here to stay.

The cost to fly now is still basically cheaper than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. There are additional real costs associated with checked bags, more fuel, handling, claims, etc.

The mishandled baggage ratio has decreased since airlines started charging for checked bags.

 

[LongTimeListener]

It's hard to swallow. And again I don't like it personally. But you have to look at it from a different view to understand it.

Are you the bald-headed airline executive in the Southwest commercials or something? The only different view that would allow anyone to "understand" this is the "our business is ****ed and we need more money" view. A few years ago the airlines were similarly strapped and decided to add a "fuel surcharge" that was not listed as part of the ticket price. If you can name a single facet of air travel that is more integral to the experience than fuel, I will give you a dollar. Yet all the airlines -- except Southwest -- decided to try this "fuel surcharge" as if fuel was some optional thing that we could elect to receive.

This isn't much different.

 

[bydesign77]

Southwest also hedged their fuel at a rate that kept them from having to use a surcharge.

The point of all this is that no matter what, you're paying to check your bags. Southwest is lying creatively.

 

[MileHigh]

So be it. I'm flying SWA more now mainly because it's cheaper and it gets me where I usually go nonstop. Even if I was on United or Frontier, I don't check a bag, or if I do, it's at the gate because, yes, I've got a problem paying $25 to check a bag. That and waiting for it to come out -- and hoping it made it.

 

[MacDaddy]

Southwest also hedged their fuel at a rate that kept them from having to use a surcharge.

The point of all this is that no matter what, you're paying to check your bags. Southwest is lying creatively.

You seriously consider what they're doing lying?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Southwest also hedged their fuel at a rate that kept them from having to use a surcharge.

The point of all this is that no matter what, you're paying to check your bags. Southwest is lying creatively.

The proof of the pudding is, Southwest is still cheaper on the vast majority of routes, and I don't hafta pay extra at the airport, and it's as safe as anyone. It doesn't really matter if there's something Machiavellian going on (and I doubt there is)

 

[LongTimeListener]

OK I am already too involved in this to give up now, because I'm quite entertained by this line of reasoning. Here's the situation as I see it:

Southwest: "We are going to charge you $300 to fly. United, American and the rest say on their Web sites that they are charging you $275, but if you want to carry a bag there and back your charge is actually $315."

You: "Southwest is lying."

And regarding fuel ... so Southwest found a way to conserve fuel and otherwise absorb the charges without charging customers more? The bastards!

 

[bydesign77]

Ltr

But what if you don't check a bag in that scenario? Then your fare is covering a service you're not using. Simple as that. They may have lower operating costs, keeping the overall fares low, but believe me, the increased cost of the bags is in that fare you pay.

And they hedged on fuel prices before they spiked. Great move by them.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Ltr

But what if you don't check a bag in that scenario? Then your fare is covering a service you're not using. Simple as that. They may have lower operating costs, keeping the overall fares low, but believe me, the increased cost of the bags is in that fare you pay.

And they hedged on fuel prices before they spiked. Great move by them.

Again, you have not shown that there is any extra expense in putting a bag into the hold, aside from cost of living, that wasn't existant. My brother-in-law was a baggage handler for decades, and his job never changed. It's just a way for some airlines to squeeze out as much money as they can in a tough environment. Or to the traveler, a cash grab.