1. I understand that everyone is angry about being charged $25 for each checked bag...however, people are getting carried away with their carry-ons. Stuffed to bursting and almost as big as a checked bag. Of course they've also got their one "personal" item (laptop, purse, etc), and it's also a MASSIVE backpack stuffed to the gills or a "handbag" the size of Texas stuffed to the gills. The problem is that those who load on the plane first HOG all of the overhead space, so by the time I get on with my itsy little roll on bag (that actually fit into the measuring thingy) there is no room on the plane for my bag so I HAD to check it underneath and waste a half an hour at baggage claim at my destination. All because the rest of the entitled folks had to drag on everything but the kitchen sink.
I think it is high time that the FAA step in. There are two approaches that they may take.
The first, most likely, scenario is putting in place rules here similar to those that are in place everywhere else, i.e., that all carry-ons must fit under the seat in front of you (as opposed to "under the seat in front of you or in the overhead bin). This restriction is very visible in many airports in Europe. Many airports even have metal shield bolted on the x-ray machines at the security check-point, so that oversized items simply cannot get through security. And, of course, they have government officials (like TSA) doing the carry-on enforcement, so there is no concern about a customer brow-beating an employee into letting the customer violate the rules.
The second is a more
American solution: Every airline charging for first or second piece of checked luggage must charge for every item brought on the aircraft, and charge
more for a carry-on (beyond a single, highly-regulated personal item, which cannot be bigger than can fit under the seat in front of you, i.e., again, not bigger than that so it would
have to go in the overhead compartment) -- and they must charge
more for carry-ons than they charge for checked baggage.
2. I witnessed BOTH the going and coming flights completely over booked (airlines are truly out of hand) and more than one person nearly get into a fist fight with the gate attendant over that fact. I saw one older couple arguing that the gate attendant had no idea the configuration of the aircraft and according to THEIR research, there were plenty of seats elsewhere on the plane to move into. there wasn't.
The overbooking problem will
not get solved. Here's why:
One way that they could solve the overbooking problem is by making all reservations non-refundable after 48 hours prior to the flight. If you are a no-show, you lose your money. If you cannot make it to the airport in time, you pay an extra fee to be fit onto some later flight (still subject to availability). If you miss your connection because you were switching from some other airline, but not via a code-share reservation, then you still pay that extra fee. (If you miss your connection because your incoming aircraft was late, then that fee wouldn't apply, of course.) That would solve the problem. However....
Some folks will react negatively, rebellious perhaps even, in response to these ideas. Those folks are a big part of the problem: They feel that the negative impact of their conduct (being late, not planning far enough ahead, not leaving enough time between connections, not buying
travel insurance to cover cases where their own overly-complex itineraries cause them problems, etc.) should be a cost imposed on the system instead of onto themselves. They don't want to take personal responsibility for their own decisions that made serving their travel needs more difficult (and therefore costly) than serving the travel needs of other consumers, and so expect, without good foundation for such expectation, that those added costs would be subsidized by the majority of folks with simply travel needs. And the press would thrive on the unrighteous indignation of such folks, and would essentially use its own political power to squash any efforts to make airline travel better for the majority by shifting responsibility on individual passengers for the costly conduct I outlined above.
Another way that they could solve the over-booking problem is passing a regulation that outlaws the practice entirely. This will, of course, cost airlines more money, but it will cost all the airlines more money, and ostensibly increase the value of airline travel, so that added cost will be reflected in proportionately higher prices (the percentage increase in airfares being reflective of roughly how many no-shows there are on flights).
This is not something individual airlines can do themselves. Any airline that did this unilaterally would be severely punished by its customers for charging higher fares, despite the fact that the customers are getting the added value. Mass-market customers, such as purchasers of airline travel, don't make decisions rationally. They want all the advantages of better service, along with the lower costs, and have little patience for matters of rationality or logic in that regard. So the only way this kind of thing can come about is if the government imposes it. It is the best use of government, to force an entire industry to do something that makes things "better" for "everyone", while not allowing any one of the suppliers to use their refusal to adopt these "better" practices as a competitive
advantage (in this case, offering travel
with over-booking, at lower cost).
However, again, the media will exploit the sensationalistic aspect of consumers whining incessantly about how this reduces their ability to choose, or some silliness like that, and that will essentially crush and opportunity for the government to actually do any good in this regard.
