Continental to start charging extra for certain seats?

[DisneyBamaFan]

I don't think its false advertising at all. According the contract of carriage, you are buying a seat on a flight that leaves/arrives on the same date originally purchased. You did not purchase a specific seat, you did not purchase luggage, etc...

You have bought into the BS. All of these things were included with the fare until recently. The fares did not decrease when they moved to your supposed ala carte methodology. They just started charging extra for them.

 

[simonsmom]

I wish they would change some rows to wider 2 seats and then charge 50% more for each seat. I would pay it. This is not the same as paying for three seats wrt comfort. It would cost the same. When DH and I have to fly next year, without the kids, we would love to have this arrangement. Not first class but a step up.

WHAT AN AWESOME IDEA! I would so pay for this option

 

[stashbin]

You have bought into the BS. All of these things were included with the fare until recently. The fares did not decrease when they moved to your supposed ala carte methodology. They just started charging extra for them.

ITA

 

[jlewisinsyr]

You have bought into the BS. All of these things were included with the fare until recently. The fares did not decrease when they moved to your supposed ala carte methodology. They just started charging extra for them.

They were included, I agree, but what you seem to be stuck on and forgetting is that there is NOTHING requiring them to be.

In the end, what this works out to be is a compromise IMO, either fares rise or fees are added. People seem to be less sensitive to fees then they are fare's rising as people can choose what fees to pay based on how they travel, fares are a blanket increase for all.

Lets also not forget, airlines are not a not-for-profit industry, they are open market and must have a revenue structure that both pays their expenses as well as generates income/profit. Failure to do so will result in airlines going bankrupt, less competition, and most likely even higher fares (less capacity).

 

[OceanAnnie]

They were included, I agree, but what you seem to be stuck on and forgetting is that there is NOTHING requiring them to be.

In the end, what this works out to be is a compromise IMO, either fares rise or fees are added. People seem to be less sensitive to fees then they are fare's rising as people can choose what fees to pay based on how they travel, fares are a blanket increase for all.

Lets also not forget, airlines are not a not-for-profit industry, they are open market and must have a revenue structure that both pays their expenses as well as generates income/profit. Failure to do so will result in airlines going bankrupt, less competition, and most likely even higher fares (less capacity).

I think it's all the same thing. The fare is increased, but it's all tacked on. It does seem kind of slight of handish, being that these things were covered before. I don't know.

Between the creative rising fees and the hassle of TSA (some needed, but none the less) people might re-think flying to their destination in those cases where there is another option. The airlines might start driving away their customers. There is a tipping point.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

They were included, I agree, but what you seem to be stuck on and forgetting is that there is NOTHING requiring them to be.

In the end, what this works out to be is a compromise IMO, either fares rise or fees are added. People seem to be less sensitive to fees then they are fare's rising as people can choose what fees to pay based on how they travel, fares are a blanket increase for all.

Lets also not forget, airlines are not a not-for-profit industry, they are open market and must have a revenue structure that both pays their expenses as well as generates income/profit. Failure to do so will result in airlines going bankrupt, less competition, and most likely even higher fares (less capacity).

Sorry, you see a compromise where I see deception. Why? Because various other taxes and fees used to be included in advertised fares, too. Now, they are not. It all started at about the same time...

 

[dislaney]

Sorry, you see a compromise where I see deception. Why? Because various other taxes and fees used to be included in advertised fares, too. Now, they are not. It all started at about the same time...

I would much rather them charge me the higher fare then pretend they are charging a lower fare and then nickel and dime me to death for things that used to be included in that fare.

 

[bettymae1121]

I'm a travel agent!

United and American have done this for years, it's nothing new as far as the industry goes.

How it works with most airlines is that the front third of the aircraft, usually from the 1st wing exit row forward, is reserved for an airline's elite frequent flyer members (you get this status by flying enough miles/segments in the previous year, or you or your company buys you the status for a $$$ fee). Some airlines, like UA, AA, and now Continental also offer these same seats (often with more leg room) to non-elite passengers for an additonal fee, usually in the $40-$60 range. If you want this seat, you pay the extra, if you don't, then you get a seat further back with less leg room.

If the only seats left on a flight are in the elite section when you buy your ticket, at time of booking you will NOT be able to get a seat assignment at all UNLESS you pay the fee. If you don't pay the fee you will get your seat when you check in for the flight. If a seat further back has opened, you'll get that seat. If the only seats left are in the elite section, they will not charge you extra for it.

Exit row seats are VERY popular with elite travelers and other frequent travelers and are usually the first to go, so even if you want to pay extra for it, they are usually gone by the time you check in for the flight.

 

[eliza61]

I don't think its false advertising at all. According the contract of carriage, you are buying a seat on a flight that leaves/arrives on the same date originally purchased. You did not purchase a specific seat, you did not purchase luggage, etc.

Adding ala carte fees allows people to pick and choose which features they want to add. This is similar to buying a car. If you don't want leather, don't buy it. If you don't need a big trunk, don't buy a car with one. If you want extra legroom, pay for it. If you want to bring luggage with you that does not fit within your personal space, pay for it.

I think my biggest gripe with the added fees is that they are not very standardized. If they were equal across airlines it would make it much more convenient, but then there wouldn't really be competition and it could be seen as coohersion (unless it was a federal mandate).

I disagree. That's like purchasing a car and then charging for the steering wheel, the windshield wipers. Some things are "inherent" when purchased. When I purchase an airline ticket I assume that the seat (at the same level) inherently would be included in the price of the ticket. So this is charging first class fees without the first class accomodations.

Also the size of the seat and leg room has not changed so you are now advertising the exact same product but now you are charging or advertising it as a premium when a year ago it was not.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I disagree. That's like purchasing a car and then charging for the steering wheel, the windshield wipers. Some things are "inherent" when purchased. When I purchase an airline ticket I assume that the seat (at the same level) inherently would be included in the price of the ticket. So this is charging first class fees without the first class accomodations.

Also the size of the seat and leg room has not changed so you are now advertising the exact same product but now you are charging or advertising it as a premium when a year ago it was not.

It was included free, but it wasn't required to be included. Also remember, to be honest airlines make more money off of business travelers then anyone else. Business travelers typically don't pack a lot with them, so why should they incur a higher fee to include luggage for everyone? It's also not like charging for a steering wheel, a steering wheel is needed to operate a car, while checking luggage is not required to fly. A seat is required to fly (and drive), but riding as a passenger in each doesn't require a specific seat, just a seat.

They also are not charging a first class fee without first class accomodations. Trust me, the fees are no where near a first class ticket!

In regards to taxes being included or not, this one I see both sides off, do you blame the airline for the taxes and show it in their fare quotes or do you blame the government and don't hold it to the airline. Some airlines show the fully loaded fare (and so do most 3rd party travel sites), some do not. I do wish there was consistency with this.

 

[TinklednPants]

My DH had an interesting idea - charge by weight. When you get to the airport, you and all of your luggage get on a scale and it is determined by your flight weight if you need to pay more.

We get charged by weight when shipping packages. Why not get charged by weight when "shipping" ourselves?

I know many wouldn't like it but as far as I'm concerned it is the fair and equitable thing to do. We are after all cargo.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I like the new policies. Airlines, like just about every business, set their prices to maximize their net income. They have always been charging us as much as possible. Now, they are finding ways to adjust prices to more closely match customer preferences. If I don't want the extra leg room, the meal, a blanket, a pillow, etc, I would prefer that they not build that into the price. To the extent that it makes economic sense, I like having more choices.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...In regards to taxes being included or not, this one I see both sides off, do you blame the airline for the taxes and show it in their fare quotes or do you blame the government and don't hold it to the airline. Some airlines show the fully loaded fare (and so do most 3rd party travel sites), some do not. I do wish there was consistency with this.

I agree that some show the fully loaded fare on-line, but few use it in advertising (Southwest is the only company that I know of that uses fully loaded fares in advertising). They know what these fees and taxes are. They choose not to include them in their advertised fares for a reason, and that reason is deception.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I agree that some show the fully loaded fare on-line, but few use it in advertising (Southwest is the only company that I know of that uses fully loaded fares in advertising). They know what these fees and taxes are. They choose not to include them in their advertised fares for a reason, and that reason is deception.

No, it's not. You don't see retail stores including taxes in their ads, do you? No, because they DO NOT CONTROL IT, they are just a pass through agency of the tax. I mean, Best Buy knows that the tax rate for a new TV is 8% in Onondaga county, but they don't include it in their sales ad.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think it's all the same thing. The fare is increased, but it's all tacked on. It does seem kind of slight of handish, being that these things were covered before. I don't know.

Between the creative rising fees and the hassle of TSA (some needed, but none the less) people might re-think flying to their destination in those cases where there is another option. The airlines might start driving away their customers. There is a tipping point.

It reminds me of car ads.....This _________ only $12,499*

*exclusive of tax, tag and title and assuming trade-in of at least $3,000 in value.

We fly on Southwest where they have it plastered that they still don't charge for bags (well--the first one or two...I don't recall how many you get).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I agree that some show the fully loaded fare on-line, but few use it in advertising (Southwest is the only company that I know of that uses fully loaded fares in advertising). They know what these fees and taxes are. They choose not to include them in their advertised fares for a reason, and that reason is deception.

I agree, though it is a stretch to call it deceiving. They certainly are out to make fares appear better than they truly are.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

No, it's not. You don't see retail stores including taxes in their ads, do you? No, because they DO NOT CONTROL IT, they are just a pass through agency of the tax. I mean, Best Buy knows that the tax rate for a new TV is 8% in Onondaga county, but they don't include it in their sales ad.

It is not about control - they may not control the costs, but they know what they are. You don't pay local sales tax for a flight - it is a federal tax.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

It is not about control - they may not control the costs, but they know what they are. You don't pay local sales tax for a flight - it is a federal tax.

It's still a tax, taxes are rarely reflected in the advertisement of a purchase price of an item, regardless of if they are local, state or federal, why because they are pass through items and pass through items are not required to be represented in the advertised price (business law 101). This could apply to car rentals, consumer products, cruises, etc. This is not a new fact of life, but keep trying to justify your opinion on this.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... but keep trying to justify your opinion on this.

Okay, smarty, then why don't they include the landing fees? Come on. I am sure that you have something for that, too. You know, the local home depot fees or something. You can come up with something...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It's still a tax, taxes are rarely reflected in the advertisement of a purchase price of an item, regardless of if they are local, state or federal, why because they are pass through items and pass through items are not required to be represented in the advertised price (business law 101). This could apply to car rentals, consumer products, cruises, etc. This is not a new fact of life, but keep trying to justify your opinion on this.

Your focusing on one thing he said versus the whole content.

The reason they do all this is to mislead the customer in a legal way.

We were house shopping in Virginia this weekend. One builder kept advertising that they had homes starting in the 200s.

Me realizing advertiser sneakiness noticed the absence of "low" and "mid" and figured it must be "high".

Well it was VERY high. Their base model was....$299,900.

They were legally advertising that they priced from the 200s. But they had many other models and of course the upgrades and the premiums...blah blah blah.

It was a marketing technique to get you in the door, but the majority of their customers aren't going to settle on that rock bottom model that is only in their as a loss leader.