United Makes Plans to Drop 'Baggage Neutrality'

theodp writes "If you need a clue as to how creative ISP execs might get in the absence of network neutrality, look no further than United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton, who is wowing Wall Street with his willingness to examine new ways to wring money out of the carrier, including making economy passengers pay a fee unless they want their luggage to come last off the plane." Now I think when i was like gold ultimate handjob elite years ago my bags had tags that usually made them come out first, but this seems just kinda crappy. I mean, remember when you got a meal on airplanes? No wonder people hate to fly.

Comments

Re:TANSTAAFL

[rjhubs]

The problem is the moves airlines make don't make sense if they wish to stay in buisness. In a competitive enviroment, buisnesses should be seeking to reduce their costs and increase the value a customer recieves. Charging to get your baggage first lowers the value of the product because while people who pay might get added value, the customer who is still paying the same ticket price gets less value by having their luggage no longer randomly come out. If the airlines were interested in being more competitve the correct move would be to offer flyers a discount if they don't mind their luggage coming out last. Removing meals from planes is the same thing. Reducing costs is only effective if you change the way you act internally and the product the public gets doesn't suffer.

The Point Is...

[beadfulthings]

You don't get what you pay for, but you're required to pay anyway. As in:

1) You pay for homeowners' insurance only to find that your particular disaster isn't going to be covered. Just ask the people on the Gulf Coast.
2) You pay for a utility, like phone or cable, only to find that when you've got a problem or outage, you're without your service--not for hours, but for days or possibly even weeks. (Ever try to get a rebate from, say, your phone company when they take four days to send out a "technician" to spend twenty minutes fixing your trouble?)
3) You pay ever-increasing costs for your health insurance only to find that a catastrophic illness or accident leaves you in debt for years.
4) You pay for what is termed "unlimited" Internet services only to find that your ISP is cutting you back because they have a different idea of what constitutes "unlimited."
5) You earn your money, but you are required to pay the bank ever-increasing "fees" so that they can use it until you need it. In some cases, you even have to pay to speak with a human being (as opposed to an automated system) to receive an answer to your question.

We're all part of a vast pool of money to be tapped into at will, and the game is to return the bare minimum of value for what we're all willing (or able) to pay. Why should the airlines be any different? An interesting article appeared on CNN a couple of days ago. It seems the "working poor" are having increasing trouble making that paycheck stretch from one payday to the next--and the term "working poor" is now encroaching more and more into the "middle class." The Big Box Marts are starting to notice an impact to their bottom lines.

The airlines will find that fewer and fewer people can afford to fly, so they'll focus on ways to wring more out of the people who can still afford to fly. It's not surprising.

Re:Not a dump truck

[AvitarX]

This is not equivalent to net neutrality.

The analogous situation to no net neutrality would be to say the destination countries need to pay to guarantee good baggage delivery, so people don't associate them with lost baggage.

Charging the customer for better service is a perfectly acceptable way to handle getting more money, both the cable and phone companies do it.

Re:Less is more

[PopeRatzo]

The government should've let a multi-billion dollar industry go down because terrorists took over a few planes?

If they had gone out of business, it wouldn't have been because of terrorists, but because they had a faulty business model to begin with.

I'm pretty sick of people using 9-11 as an excuse for everything from having to bomb Iran to having to wiretap Americans without warrants to giving corporations special taxpayer-funded benefits (only after they make large contributions to candidates, though).

Let's see, what else is happening with 9-11 as the excuse? Um, how about creating an ex post facto law to give telcos immunity from prosecution for having broken the law (even though the illegal act took place 6 months before 9-11?

Bullshit. 3000 people die and a nation of 300 million goes belly up?

Bullshit. We are being played.