-
When Terrorists Deny Each Other
May 7, 2013 | 166 comments
-
Barack Obama, Gun Enthusiast
February 4, 2013 | 130 comments
-
Principled Compromise
June 22, 2012 | 56 comments
-
Obamacare’s Preemptive Regulatory Strike
March 29, 2012 | 69 comments
-
Santorum’s College Lesson
February 29, 2012 | 102 comments
The Nation's Pulse
The Latest Dumb Crusade
Stop those airlines before they charge again!
If you watch baseball or basketball on television, you would have to have taken a pee break during every single commercial interruption to have missed the recent Southwest Airlines ad featuring a bunch of baggage handlers flashing their protruding bellies at a competitor’s airplane.
The crew of rough-looking dudes screams at the other carrier’s passengers while revealing their torsos, which bear painted-on letters spelling: BAGS FLY FREE. I bring up this ubiquitous commercial merely as a way of saying that, well, I wish one of my U.S. senators watched sports.
I really do. For if Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., were a sports fan, the message might have sunk in at some point during the NCAA men’s basketball tournament or the first week of the 2010 Major League Baseball season that, hey, some airlines are not charging passengers to transport their bags. Other viewers might also have reached the equally obvious realization that not charging for bags is perceived by at least one airline to confer upon itself a competitive advantage so valuable that spending millions of dollars to advertise that point on national television would be a worthwhile investment. Alas, Sen. Shaheen is not as swift as the average American sports fan.
Nor, apparently, are five other U.S. senators. Led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., six Senate Democrats were so outraged at hearing that Florida-based Spirit Airlines plans to start charging for some carry-on bags this August that they have sponsored a bill to tax those fees out of existence.
At a press conference, Schumer said, “It’s time to draw the line. Airlines should not be allowed to charge for overhead luggage.”
Schumer’s indignation doesn’t apply to luggage stored under the seat in front of you? Well, it probably does, but Spirit’s fee doesn’t. The airline intends to charge only for items stored in overhead bins. But don’t let that little fact get in the way of a good politician-saves-the-helpless-woman anecdote. Shaheen didn’t. FOX News reported that she said, “if you’re a woman without pockets, you can’t even bring that comb and toothbrush.”
If Shaheen can’t fit her comb and toothbrush under the seat in front of her, I don’t want to know how she brushes her teeth.
The hygiene of U.S. senators aside, do we really need an act of Congress to protect us from airline baggage fees? An aware sports fan will have the right answer: no. Airlines compete on price all the time. They already compete based on baggage fees. If you don’t want to pay baggage fees, fly an airline that doesn’t charge them. If all the airlines serving your community charge baggage fees, complain. To the company, that is, not your senator. Companies tend to respond to consumer complaints.
It is worth noting that Spirit Airlines is a discount carrier. Like Southwest, Spirit charges less than $50 a ticket for some flights. For a $39.99 annual fee, customers can join Spirit’s membership club and get access to one-way fees in the single digits. If you’re paying $9 for a flight, you might not mind paying $30 to bring a bag.
But Schumer and his gang of airline fee police don’t see it that way. They’d rather airlines charge you a higher fare and no fee. Schumer argues that airlines don’t pay taxes on fees they apply to carry-on bags, so Spirit is really just trying to avoid paying taxes. Well, maybe. But Spirit’s bag fee might also make the planes lighter, which would save fuel, which could save the airline millions of dollars, which could help keep ticket (and fuel) prices lower.
I think Schumer’s real motivation is simply to tax the fees for the sake of collecting more money for Washington. He’s pretending to be outraged on behalf of the American consumer to justify his new tax. But I think Shaheen is dim enough to actually believe that airline baggage fees are sinister abuses of the traveling public from which Congress must save us all.
Unaware of the economic foolishness of it, a lot of Americans will probably agree with her. Except for the smarter ones, of course. The ones who watch basketball and baseball.
About the Author
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew Cline
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/16/the-latest-dumb-crusade
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 4.16.10 @ 6:31AM
Yeah just like those fee's that are in my bill at all levels of this State , they aren't called illegal taxes, or taxation without representation, it's just called a fee to get around the fact that they are a cheap wordsmith tactic and another way to drain me of the fruits of my labor.
Thomas, ---Old British Vet| 4.16.10 @ 12:29PM
I know only too well about these charges airlines make, last year I took a return flight from Cornwall in the UK, to Scotland, cost all in, £89=$145.00, rtn flights & taxes, this year, same trip as last year, return flight to Scotland, £63=$95.00, + charges+taxes, £100=$150.oo total £163.00 =$245.00, the ripoff merchants are out to fleece you for all they can get, hope they don't read about you guys being charged for overhead carry on luggage, we shall be in deep s---t, Thomas
jd| 4.16.10 @ 6:53AM
Ret. Marine,
I agree with your comments. BTW, I seem to be following you around the blogosphere of AmSpec this morning! Nothing like a big cup of coffee in the early am and reading about how some Democratic senators are attacking an airline for raising fees, yet these same senators will not attack the government for incessantly "raising fees" ie. taxes, on productive Americans. They will not pass any opportunity to attack businesses, yet refuse to acknowledge that it's as a result of liberal Democratic policies that businesses have to raise those fees.
Melvin| 4.16.10 @ 7:29AM
Why in the hell should this blow-hard buffoon of a politician care anyway, she flies first class as to not be soiled by the unwashed masses.
FrequentFlyer| 4.18.10 @ 4:15PM
Because she represents constituents who have complained about it and is just doing her job? This is far and away the dumbest manufactured outrage article I've ever seen. If tickets are taxed and the airlines are moving to a la carte fee structures to avoid taxes, then there's a loophole in the tax code that needs filling. It is that simple.
Sue Helke| 4.19.10 @ 7:37AM
This "blowhard buffoon of a politician" doesn't care, not any more than any of the other politicians. Like the article pointed out, this is another way to collect tax money without calling it "taxes." These people know that, if the airlines need to charge more, they'll just raise the price of a ticket.
Jim O'Brien| 4.16.10 @ 8:14AM
They are Democrats;ergo idiots.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 9:13AM
The market will, in the end, kill such fees more surely than any law or regulation. If one airline charges for bags in the overhead, another will offer this service free to gain a competitive advantage. If all of them do it, then air travel will decline in favor of other modes of transportation, and the airlines will look for ways of regaining their market share.
I would much rather the airlines strictly enforced the one bag under seat and one in the bin rule, together with bag size limits, because as a frequent flyer, I am sick to death of people whose idea of a carry-on bag is an overstuffed dufflebag or backpack which occupies 3/4 of the bin, leaving no place for my regulation size bag (on my last trip, the bin hogs filled up all the overheads before I reached my seat, requiring me to check my carry-on bag--free of charge, I might add, but still forcing me to wait around at the baggage carousel).
Congress would be better employed looking at the entire airline business model, which is irretrievably broken. Reform would require repeal of many existing regulations and implementation of some new ones, but unless this is done, the airline industry is in what pilots call a "death spiral", with nickel-and-dime fees and service cuts being only symptoms of the underlying problem.
As the old joke goes, "How can you make a million dollars in the airline business?" Answer: "First, you get a billion dollars".
Old Soldier| 4.16.10 @ 9:54AM
Shaheen will be returning to civilian life in dramatic fashion in November.
I guess I am too stupid for basic math and cannot add up the fees to determine the ultimate cost of a particular flight. Thank goodness the government is here to help.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 9:59AM
Actually, nobody can figure out the fares and charges for a particular flight, because there is no rational fare structure. A lot depends on the terms and conditions of the particular ticket, when it was purchased, by what means it was purchased, and whether the CFO of the airline woke up that morning with a hangover. As a result, customers almost never find the most affordable flight being offered, and apples-to-apples comparisons between airlines--a key to real competition--is almost impossible.
It's just another symptom of the underlying dysfunctionality of the airline industry.
Ned| 4.16.10 @ 10:16AM
You missed Old Soldier's point. Industry-wide fee structure is a different issue than knowing what you actually paid for your flight.
You are right, however, that the overall fare structure is needless convoluted... although that, too, is none of Congresses business.
Old Soldier| 4.16.10 @ 11:49AM
Or, just fly Southwest if it's too much of a hassle.
GavInTucson| 4.17.10 @ 3:58AM
Right on!
George S| 4.16.10 @ 4:49PM
To understand the fee structure of airlines, you first have to determine what you are paying for. It is not the fuel nor the overhead. It is Time. Let's say you have to travel to Miami from New York in 6 months. There are many ways to get there in 6 months -- plane, train, bus, taxi, car rental, cruise ship. All of these will be competing for your business, especially when you are up fronting the money. Now, if you had to be in Miami as soon as physically possible, that is about 2 hours, and the only ones who can make that happen are those who own aluminum tubes with turbofans. That's why you pay more for last minute travel, and why you could have spent hundreds for a ticket in a half-empty plane where everyone else paid $99.
The later you make your decision to travel, the more it costs as the supply of transportation options decrease. Simple economics.
Ned| 4.16.10 @ 10:13AM
If Spirit were charging a non-taxed baggage fee simply to avoid taxes on plane tickets... good for them... I would suggest that they advertise that competitive tactic with a poster showing a middle finger, rampant, with the legend, "Hey, Congress!"
Tim| 4.16.10 @ 10:18AM
"Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him. "
Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"
MikeBee| 4.16.10 @ 10:34AM
One should get Spirit's fee policy correct: Spirit has first lowered the price of a ticket, by about the same amount as they are charging for the overhead bag. So, if you don't need the overhead bin, like me, you win. What Spirit has found, since charging $25 per bag to CHECK a bag (in response to higher aviation fuel prices, a direct result of Democrat policies to NOT drill for more oil domestically), is that passengers are simply NOT checking luggage, and, instead, placing their heavy luggage in overhead bins. This is the reason that they are now charging for overhead luggage: they still have to transport the heavy luggage, and pay for the additional fuel to transport the weight; but passengers are not reimbursing them for this fuel.
Secondly, the annual fee for being part of Spirit's low-price club is $108 ($9 per month). If you fly often enough to one of Spirit's destinations, this can save you significant $$$$, as prices can be as low as under $50 each way to fly.
Paul from SA| 4.16.10 @ 10:43AM
Airlines should be able to charge whatever they want.
I think passengers should pay a standard price for one seat and then extras for weight, including body and baggage.
Why should people with no bags subsidize those with bags?
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.16.10 @ 11:25AM
Some of you missed the point here.
Again.....Southwest Airlines breaks the mold and makes those nasty profits in spades. Check their financial statements.
We fly ...a LOT...and always see if Southwest has the connection.
Bill A | 4.16.10 @ 11:32AM
Typical reaction from a politician. I think they use Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" for a playbook.
If you pass enough regulations, every business will break some rule requiring governmental oversite. Then our saintly politicians can saveus from our ignorance.
Martin Owens| 4.16.10 @ 11:33AM
When's the last time ANY of our ruling class flew
commercial?
Dean| 4.16.10 @ 11:39AM
Spirit Airlines is actually taking advantage of the incredibly confusing corporate tax laws. The airlines have to pay higher tax rates on the revenue from tickets. However, they pay taxes at a lower rate on fees that are considered "non-essential." The tax codes say that baggage is non-essential, so they get a tax break by having lower air fare and making the cost of the flight up in baggage fees.
Now, I know this is going to be confusing for some of you liberals--but, when a corporation gets to keep more of its money due to lower taxes, that usually results in lower prices for the consumer. Then, as a consumer, I can spend my savings in other places that help keep people employed or even create jobs.
However, if I don't like paying for baggage fees, I have other travel choices. It is not the airlines' responsibility to get me where I want to go at only the price I am willing to pay.
This is how the free market works and its good for America and good for the American worker and consumer.
DatsunMark| 4.16.10 @ 12:00PM
The only passengers I know of that do not bring carry on are...Terrorists. So...read'em their rights and no extra charge for flying our airlines. Thank you for flying our friendly skies.
Ray| 4.16.10 @ 2:04PM
Oh, really? I traveled overseas twice and I never used carry-on luggage. All my luggage was checked in and placed in the cargo hold, where it belongs. Does that make me a terrorist?
Stuart Koehl| 4.18.10 @ 9:12AM
It's not the absence of carry-on luggage, it's the total absence of luggage of any kind that is an alarm bell. The other biggies are young male, 20s-to-30s, one-way ticket, paid cash. Passport stamped with certain countries of interest, Arab or Central Asian ethnicity, and "Death to Infidels" button on lapel are all secondary indicators.
PolishKnight| 4.16.10 @ 12:35PM
This seems like a good issue to vent on. I can appreciate people who bring heavy carry ons to save time from baggage pickup and take extra time to pack the bags at boarding. After all, they can't sit until they do.
But why do they then insist upon holding up the whole plane until they lug their beast out? Can't they let the lighter passengers go? Oh, wait, he wants to save time so to hell with everyone else, got it!
In that spirit, pardon the pun, I can almost appreciate the carryon baggage fees. Let these guys pay the money for holding us up.
When my wife and I travel domestic, we squeeze everything into one bag that submits to the weight limitation and keep our carry ons light. It's easier that way too.
Ray| 4.16.10 @ 12:58PM
"Airlines should not be allowed to charge for overhead luggage."
And why is that? Luggage is NOT a necessity. People can fly without all that overhead luggage. If an airline wants people to pay for the addition storage that luggage requires, let them. That airplane is the property of the airline, not mine, not yours, and not the people who pay MONEY to use someone's else's property. Stop acting as if property, especially commercial property, is communal.
Obie Wan| 4.16.10 @ 10:15PM
Ha,ha, hey, if you're a SMALL private sector business struggling to stay afloat in a tough economy you can count on marxist pols like Shaheen and Schumer to gladly throw you an anchor. After all if you can't benefit them like the "fat cats" they bailed out on Wall Street twice, they'd rather see you die anyhow !!!
Patrick R. Spooner| 4.17.10 @ 2:43AM
Andrew, since you reside in New Hampshire as I do, you too have suffered through 6 years of Shaheen as Governor - do you expect anything less of her as Senator. She has no real world experience and to her government is everything and the end all solution to our problems, if only we will let her and the other demoncrats take all of ours through taxes and "fees" and then let them spend it all to buy future votes! Its time folks in New Hampshire and beyond realize what is ahppening with oblablama and his band of merry thieves in Congress and put a stop to it.
CHummel| 4.17.10 @ 1:39PM
Redesign overhead compartments for lie-down passengers or use them for bypass mail. More often than not it is stuff dragged aboard and not carried.
One checked piece and one under the seat include in fare. Take a charter if your incapacitated or overloaded or unable to hold your bladder for 2 hours.
Marc Jeric| 4.17.10 @ 8:07PM
Senators Shaheen and Schumer would prefer the soviet system of air travel: one government-owned airline company with unionized goevernment employees union, and with the simple fee structure: government goons fly free, all others pay triple prices provided the local soviet (ACORN) gives permission after submission of permit documents.
sam| 4.17.10 @ 9:18PM
What idiocy is being demonstrated by these members of Congress. We have killings of innocent Americans on the border and they want to worry about airline baggage fees? Let the free market take care of itself and get some done about protecting our borders and legal, productive citizens!!!!
Dave M. (now in S. Korea)| 4.18.10 @ 12:13AM
I'm sorry, but why can't airlines charge for overhead baggage? Additionally, where in the Constitution does it give Chuckie Shumer or any other member of Congress the authority to tell an airline what it can charge for its sevices? How does such an unattractive personality like Shumer get elected? How does he keep getting re-elected?
Chris Stalis| 4.18.10 @ 4:12AM
Your fundamental flaw is endemic to right wing notions about capitalism: specifically, that lower cost correlates to lower price. Unless a dramatic lowering of cost occurs, lowered cost only contributes to increased profits of a capitalistic business, not to increased savings for a customer. Remember, the goal of a business is to make money. When cost is reduced so significantly that a company can still make an adequate profit from a decrease in price, they will do so in order to compete against other companies. I do not think, however, that the weight of the luggage that will NOT be put into a bin by dissatisfied customers will be proportional to the level of profit derived from price gouging customers for these very necessary elements of air travel.
In cases like this, where a business is abusing customers, it IS the duty of the government to step in and smack a business down. Due to the current state of social and economic conditions in the world, air travel is not exclusively relegated to being a luxury. Some meetings MUST be attended on the other side of the country. Some family gatherings MUST be met in person by social convention and not a card. Some shipping MUST travel by air in order to ensure timely delivery. By analogy, imagine if car manufacturer's and auto dealerships owned the highway system the way that airline carriers own the airline transportation industry. And yes, the airlines DO own the airline transportation industry. There is no "public" airfare available, and the development of new business is exceptionally difficult to do due to the massive initial investment. What these airline carriers are doing is saying that, to travel on their airline highway, you must pay for the privilege of using your trunk every time you need to go some place. If you were only going to work and back, you could probably fit everything you need on your person and be fine. Instead, flights are not so inexpensive that I can fly to New York on the same whim that I go to the grocery store, and so luggage is an entirely necessary part of the trip. This element, which provides undue duress on the passenger to go around, is being charged like a luxury when it is as elemental to air travel as our lungs are to our respiratory system. This is abuse, and if a company (though, really, this is becoming endemic to the entire industry) brings itself to this level of manipulation of customers, it should be trust-busted to the point of financial failure.
Oh, and honestly... when was the last time you heard of a company changing policy due to customer complaints? Customers are complaining that Toyota cars are accelerating to unsafe speeds without their direction, and even after Congressional hearings indicating that this is not a frivolous charge, Toyota maintains innocence on the matter. Mom & Pop businesses care about complaints from customers. Corporations never will unless the government FORCES them to.
Stuart Koehl| 4.18.10 @ 9:16AM
"Mom & Pop businesses care about complaints from customers"
Apparently, you did not grow up in a small town far from a big city, or else you would know that such "mom and pop" businesses exploit their monopoly in the local market for all its worth, limiting choice in products, charging premium prices, and ignoring customer complaints ("If you don't like it, go somewhere else--Witchita Falls is only 50 miles down the road"). Mom and pops are also notorious for paying less than big firms like Walmart, offering fewer fringe benefits, and frequently treating labor disputes in a manner that would be cheered by the most exploitative 19th century robber baron.
Stuart Koehl| 4.18.10 @ 9:18AM
"Customers are complaining that Toyota cars are accelerating to unsafe speeds without their direction, and even after Congressional hearings indicating that this is not a frivolous charge, Toyota maintains innocence on the matter."
Evidence seems to point to a DFO (Dumb Fooking Operator) problem. Victims of unintended acceleration are disproportionately older drivers or unfamiliar with their vehicles. In other words, the real problem is inability to remember which is the gas and which is the brake.
Mike| 4.18.10 @ 3:40PM
It's amazing that people don't understand simple freedom and the free market. Spirit Airlines flies in direct competition with numerous other airlines. If you don't like the fee then don't fly Spirit. Fly on Delta, American , Southwest, etc. Either their fares will drop further or they will drop the fee. No one makes you fly on Spirit.
How in the name of God does that require government intervention?
It reminds us of the ATM fee outrage of the late 1990s. People were in a uproar over the fact that private institutions added a surcharge to users of their ATMs if the user was a customer of another bank. The simple answer was to use your bank's ATM unless you wanted to pay the extra fee. Those fees remain in place today and I suspect that Spirit's will remain in place until the market decides, not some dimwit Democrat.
Eric| 4.23.10 @ 1:08AM
I believe it should be up to the customer base to qualify what "abuse" happens to be. I wonder, how many hundreds of thousands of Americans are calling their Congressmen to have this problem dealt with, eh?
Seriously! If you don't like how a company does business, don't deal with that company. As others on this forum have pointed out, this is not the case with EVERY airline. It is simply another gimmick to get fares, and if they're paying less taxes because of it than the Fed. regulators should change the tax code if they see fit.
If A airline charges $140 for a ticket, and B airline charges $100 for a ticket and $38 for your overhead luggage, and you want to save a couple bucks, go with B airline. If the price of one ticket from A airline is less than the full price of ticket + luggage from B airline, what's to stop you from taking the fare on airline A?
This is rather simplistic, but it illustrates the point. Business is business, and there are certain areas where the U.S. government should just butt out. If Schumer and Saheed and those other idiots want to raise taxes on the airlines, it's just a House of Representatives bill away. In fact, it's Congress' prerogative to raise taxes if they see fit. Let em at it, tiger. Let's see which party loses more representatives come this November.
Sick_of_it_all| 4.18.10 @ 5:41PM
It's not the governments job to keep the public free of fees. It's the governments job to keep us safe from outside invaders. Do you people not realize that every time a business is taxed more, they have to raise their prices or cut back on services? How is it that so few people can understand this? This is why we are in the state we're in now. Stop expecting the government to fix every little thing@!!
Ted Dixon| 4.18.10 @ 7:38PM
We should hope that Shaheen and Upchuck continue with this Quixote attempt at avenge the wrongs of those evil corporations. They reveal their ignorance of the Constitution (Upchuck is a Harvard Law graduate) in this because all tax measures must begin in the House of Representatives. A Senate initiated tax bill is automatically unconstitutional. Were they to succeed in getting the bill through into law, it would be hysterical to see the courts throw it out on such a basic mistake. Probably though, the House would kill it merely my protecting its own Constitutional prerogatives.
Dr.D| 4.18.10 @ 7:54PM
Sick_of_it_all says, "Stop expecting the government to fix every little thing@!!"
This would be an entirely reasonable sentiment, except that we have given up on getting government to fix any of the big things like national security, economic stability, etc., so all that is left is to ask them to deal with the little things.
fdjskfk| 6.30.10 @ 11:12PM
beijing massage shanghai girl