SWA = False Advertising ?? Do Bags "REALLY" Fly Free?

[kinggoofy]

Do any of you think that SWA is getting themselves caught up in some false advertisment ?

Do bags REALLY Fly Free ?

I have been hawking AT and SWA for fares in August. AT is averaging about $10 LESS than SWA NOT including bag fees...whereas SWA is average $10 more and bags fly free.

Usually, its $25 per bag, right ? So I see the difference, BUT..something is fishy with SWA adverstisements BAGS FLY FREE.

I cant believe how high their fares are.

Just my 2 cents. What do you guys think ?

KG

 

[WINTER]

You have to watch for specials. They have them all the time. I bought tickets to Orlando a few weeks ago - total with tax $185.40 pp. I see now I can get tickets to Orlando through Airtran for about the same (185pp) BUT I have to pay for luggage AND a seat. Last week my SW seats for higher. This week they are $6 less on one leg of the trip. I say bags do fly free!

 

[ancestry]

I don't see it as false advertising. You don't pay for your bags on SW (well 2 bags anyways within size limits). SW, in my opinion, is a more reliable airline for their flight schedules. SW rarely makes changes. If you book a flight on SW chances are that flight will happen as scheduled. If you book a flight on Air Tran you run a high probability of the flight being changed, canceled or otherwise.

Same thing with Jet Blue. You don't pay for the 1st checked bag on Jet Blue. Jet Blue's fares are usually higher than Air Tran's (at least in my home airport) but Jet Blue also doesn't constantly change their schedules and cancel flights like Air Tran does. Jet Blue also has free in flight entertainment (TVs in the seats) and has unlimited snacks and beverages.

Not all things are equal with airlines. In my opinion there is more to consider than just the bottom line airfare cost.

 

[msmayor]

I think that I'd rather believe that SW builds the price of bags into their fares and not have to worry about how much extra my luggage is going to cost.

How many people have already commented that they'd rather the airlines just build in the cost of one or two bags into their fares and be done with it?

 

[snowbunny]

Do any of you think that SWA is getting themselves caught up in some false advertisment ?

No.

Do bags REALLY Fly Free ?

Yes.

SW has not advertised that it has always has the lowest fare. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. If you don't like the base fare, you are free to book elsewhere.

 

[goofy4tink]

I think that I'd rather believe that SW builds the price of bags into their fares and not have to worry about how much extra my luggage is going to cost.

How many people have already commented that they'd rather the airlines just build in the cost of one or two bags into their fares and be done with it?

I have to agree. Of course SW is building baggage fees into their fares. So what?? It only makes sense. Travelers care only about the bottom line. They look at various fares and figure that if they have to pay $200 to fly with Delta and then pay for each piece of checked baggage (about $25 or so each), they are better off flyng SW and paying $240 and get 2 bags free. SW is not saying bags fly free out of the goodness of their hearts. They fully understand how things work..and what the traveling public will bear.

People will almost always go with the lowest fare, and then try to cram as much stuff as possible into their carryon bags, and then complain when their flights get changed. Most people just have no idea what they are doing when it comes to flying. They just want to travel as cheaply as possible, with absolutely no glitches. And route/flight changes and baggage charges are glitches to them.

I would much rather have the airlines charge a nomimal fee for any overhead bin bags brought on board (say about $10-15 each), then give everyone one free checked bag and then charge $30 for any addtl checked bags. If every single airline did that, it would even the playing field and we could stop arguing about who should pay for what.

 

[Lewisc]

Absolutely not false advertising. The fare is exactly the same if you check 0, 1 or 2 bags. SW isn't claiming to always have the lowest fare.

Disney may be a different story, Is it false advertising to promote "free dining" when Disney is also running a room discount promotion? Customers can't take advantage of both discounts. "Free dining" guests pay a higher room rate. Not really free.

 

[goofy4tink]

Absolutely not false advertising. The fare is exactly the same if you check 0, 1 or 2 bags. SW isn't claiming to always have the lowest fare.

Disney may be a different story, Is it false advertising to promote "free dining" when Disney is also running a room discount promotion. Customers can't take advantage of both discounts. "Free dining" guests pay a higher room rate. Not really free.

I disagree. It's not that free dining guests are paying 'higher room rates'..it's that others are paying a lesser room rate because they are able to get a discount. Disney is already giving a discount...free food. It's up to each guest to run the numbers to see which offer is going to be more profitable for their family. There have been times when free dining was cheaper for me..other times, it wasn't.
That is why I tend to disagree with a lot of people when they say they get their meals free...no, they don't. Disney is tacking on those costs someplace. Same thing with DME..it is actually costing every single person who books a room at WDW. Those that use DME are benefiting...those who choose a car service or rental car are paying twice...once for DME which is included in their room rate and then again for the car rental or service. But since it's a minimal cost for everyone, nobody thinks about it.

 

[Detailor]

I agree with goofy4tink that comparing Air Tran and Southwest on straight up pricing is an incomplete way of looking at this. You certain can't say that because there's a small difference in price that it's only because of a hidden luggage fee. All of the air carriers are looking at bottom line and attempting to develop pricing that will support a profit. I think that you could just as easily argue that Air Tran is reacting to Southwest's pricing and low-balling by a few bucks in order to influence purchasing patterns/increasing passenger counts.

The other thing to think about is that this whole Air Tran/Southwest argument only works where they're head-to-head like they are at Chicago-Midway. This doesn't play out for me as when I fly Southwest it's out of Manchester, NH where there isn't an Air Tran option. At Manchester, I'm typically comparing Southwest with some of the legacy carriers and Southwest's pricing structure tends to offer the lowest options.

So, no, I don't think that the Southwest advertising is at all disingenuous.

Dick Taylor

 

[Detailor]

I disagree. It's not that free dining guests are paying 'higher room rates'..it's that others are paying a lesser room rate because they are able to get a discount. Disney is already giving a discount...free food. It's up to each guest to run the numbers to see which offer is going to be more profitable for their family. There have been times when free dining was cheaper for me..other times, it wasn't.
That is why I tend to disagree with a lot of people when they say they get their meals free...no, they don't. Disney is tacking on those costs someplace. Same thing with DME..it is actually costing every single person who books a room at WDW. Those that use DME are benefiting...those who choose a car service or rental car are paying twice...once for DME which is included in their room rate and then again for the car rental or service. But since it's a minimal cost for everyone, nobody thinks about it.

Yep, just like "free shipping" when you buy something from a company online. The cost is just built in to the over-all cost structure so the company can make a profit even when it offers "free shipping."

Dick Taylor

 

[Manda]

AirTran is more expensive for my flights right now... does that mean they are really secretly charging me twice for that bag.

 

[Lewisc]

I disagree. It's not that free dining guests are paying 'higher room rates'..it's that others are paying a lesser room rate because they are able to get a discount. Disney is already giving a discount...free food. It's up to each guest to run the numbers to see which offer is going to be more profitable for their family. There have been times when free dining was cheaper for me..other times, it wasn't.
That is why I tend to disagree with a lot of people when they say they get their meals free...no, they don't. Disney is tacking on those costs someplace. Same thing with DME..it is actually costing every single person who books a room at WDW. Those that use DME are benefiting...those who choose a car service or rental car are paying twice...once for DME which is included in their room rate and then again for the car rental or service. But since it's a minimal cost for everyone, nobody thinks about it.

If others are paying a lesser rate then I'm paying a higher rate. I agree we need to do the numbers. I agree a discount may be more valuable then free dining.

The first few years of free dining Disney didn't run a room discount for the same time period. Later years Disney offered room discounts during a free dining period, but only after the free dining offer had expired.

What Disney is doing is (probably) legal but I question if a business should be able to call something "free" if the exact same product is avalable, at the exact same time, for a lower price but without the "free" element.

 

[Tara]

If others are paying a lesser rate then I'm paying a higher rate. I agree we need to do the numbers. I agree a discount may be more valuable then free dining.

The first few years of free dining Disney didn't run a room discount for the same time period. Later years Disney offered room discounts during a free dining period, but only after the free dining offer had expired.

What Disney is doing is (probably) legal but I question if a business should be able to call something "free" if the exact same product is avalable, at the exact same time, for a lower price but without the "free" element.

it isn't the exact same product- it's a package that combines room and meals. It also comes with benefits the room only doesn't, like vouchers for mini golf, Planwt Hollywood, etc.

 

[DebbieB]

Do any of you think that SWA is getting themselves caught up in some false advertisment ?

Do bags REALLY Fly Free ?

I have been hawking AT and SWA for fares in August. AT is averaging about $10 LESS than SWA NOT including bag fees...whereas SWA is average $10 more and bags fly free.

Usually, its $25 per bag, right ? So I see the difference, BUT..something is fishy with SWA adverstisements BAGS FLY FREE.

I cant believe how high their fares are.

Just my 2 cents. What do you guys think ?

KG

I wouldn't call it "false advertising". I would pay the same with no checked bags as someone else would with 2 checked bags.

However, I do agree that they are building the cost into their fares. When fuel started going up, other airlines decided to charge extra for bags rather than increasing fares. SW just builds their increased costs into the fares. The increased fares aren't specifically the bags, it's really cost of doing business in general.

 

[Lewisc]

It's probably OT to continue the discussion regarding "free" dining. To make a comparison, I'd have an issue with "bags fly free" if SW offered a lower fare to those passengers who don't check a bag.

 

[goofy4tink]

It's probably OT to continue the discussion regarding "free" dining. To make a comparison, I'd have an issue with "bags fly free" if SW offered a lower fare to those passengers who don't check a bag.

True. But, I think this is where SW gets away with saying bags fly free. Each and every person on that flight is paying something extra, hidden within their fare, that will cover baggage costs. So, even though I may have only carryon bags, I am still 'paying' for checked bags...let's say $5 in that airfare. So....rather than charge, let's say, 120 travelers $20 to check a bag, which would garner SW about $2400, they say 'bags fly free'...and then charge each of the 180 passengers $13...but hide it in the basic fare. I'm sure those figures aren't accurate, but I an also sure that there is some calculation that SW uses that achieves the exact same purpose...whether we want to accept it or not. Those baggage costs have to come from someplace. And there are costs. Not to mention the valuable space passengers bags take from commercially shipped cargo...that's where the real money comes from.

 

[Lewisc]

SW doesn't handle much cargo. They gave up (or lost) their US mail contract years ago. SW has employees ready to load bags. The incremental fuel required to fly our bags is included in the fare we pay. Passengers who don't check a bag may wind up with a carryon bag almost as heavy as the bag they otherwise would have checked.

SW doesn't need to figure out exactly what it costs per bag. The question is how much fuel does the plane require. That's based (in part) on the weight of the passenger, the weight of his clothing, carryon bags and checked bags.

Charging for the second bag may not make sense, unless the airline can fill that space with cargo. I suspect most passengers who check 2 bags will wind up going with one checked bag and a large bin bag. SW would get very little extra revenue but would lose a competitive advantage.

That might change when (if) Southwest is able to do a better job selling cargo.

 

[goofy4tink]

SW doesn't handle much cargo. They gave up (or lost) their US mail contract years ago. SW has employees ready to load bags. The incremental fuel required to fly our bags is included in the fare we pay. Passengers who don't check a bag may wind up with a carryon bag almost as heavy as the bag they otherwise would have checked.

SW doesn't need to figure out exactly what it costs per bag. The question is how much fuel does the plane require. That's based (in part) on the weight of the passenger, the weight of his clothing, carryon bags and checked bags.

Charging for the second bag may not make sense, unless the airline can fill that space with cargo. I suspect most passengers who check 2 bags will wind up going with one checked bag and a large bin bag. SW would get very little extra revenue but would lose a competitive advantage.

That might change when (if) Southwest is able to do a better job selling cargo.

True about the cargo...I guess I was just lumping SW in there with the other legacy airlines..bad choice. I agree about 'knowing the cost' ahead of time. Of course SW knows what it is going to cost to fly that plane. And I truly think that rather than charge, outright, for checked baggage, they prefer to bury those costs in the airfares and then say 'bags fly free'. The other airlines are trying to compete with lower fares, hoping that travelers will just stop bringing as much checked luggage.
SW isn't doing so wonderfully that they can fly checked baggage gratis. I just really doubt that is the case. And if it isn't the case, then they have to be getting the money to cover the cost of baggage weight someplace.

 

[Glencora]

True about the cargo...I guess I was just lumping SW in there with the other legacy airlines..bad choice. I agree about 'knowing the cost' ahead of time. Of course SW knows what it is going to cost to fly that plane. And I truly think that rather than charge, outright, for checked baggage, they prefer to bury those costs in the airfares and then say 'bags fly free'. The other airlines are trying to compete with lower fares, hoping that travelers will just stop bringing as much checked luggage.
SW isn't doing so wonderfully that they can fly checked baggage gratis. I just really doubt that is the case. And if it isn't the case, then they have to be getting the money to cover the cost of baggage weight someplace.

So basically, what you're saying is that if you pay more for a SW flight than another carrier, then the bags aren't free, but if you pay less, they are? Your bags are free on SW because there is no charge to check your bags. Period. These is no difference in the price you pay for your flight if you do check a bag as opposed to if you don't. Other airlines make you pay money when you check your bags. That's "not free."

"SW just buries the price of the baggage into the ticket" is a pretty weird statement - you might as well say that SW charges extra for the FA's, or the emergency oxygen system, but they just "bury it in the price of the ticket." SW has a business model that is completely different from the legacy carriers. That's why they can have bags fly free.

 

[Tara]

"SW just buries the price of the baggage into the ticket" is a pretty weird statement - you might as well say that SW charges extra for the FA's, or the emergency oxygen system, but they just "bury it in the price of the ticket." SW has a business model that is completely different from the legacy carriers. That's why they can have bags fly free.

But this was not always their business model - it's a relatively recent change.

In goofy4tink's defense, I think it is perfectly rational to point out that Southwest includes baggage costs in its fees because other airlines do not. They price those separately. The point is that there's no such thing as no cost to transport baggage - there's a cost to everything. Southwest makes that cost indistinguishable because it's included in the fares. Most other carriers make it readily apparent through charging additional fees.