Slashdot Mirror
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.
First, the article saya the CEO of United "wants to pursue everything, from a merger to charging passengers who want their luggage to come first off the plane" (emphasis mine). That's a far cry from the article title which infers it's a done deal.
Deregulation brought about intense competition in airline fares. The flying public wants to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible. As a result, the airlines have been under continued pressure to reduce costs to stay competitive. This has resulted in charging for meals and in some cases, even pillows.
ISP's are in a similar boat with respect to intense pressure on keeping prices low. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to charge additional
fees for "extras". You get what you pay for.
Oh, and you still get "priority" tags on your bags for being an elite frequent flyer. Whether or not your bags come out first though is strictly a matter of chance.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I do. And I'd rather forget, believe me.
Flying sucks because of all the security theater annoyance. I used not to check bags for more than half my trips, but now I have to check a bag every time because I don't feel like going through the annoyance of having my toiletries inspected at the security line. Fuck that shit. I now drive wherever possible.
[ home ]
I mean...yeah, I'm not thrilled with the 'cattle car' mentality you go through, but, hey....at least their prices are reasonable, they seem to be about the best with respect to flight times, and they don't seem to try to fsck the last $ out of their customers.
I hope, though, that they stop the policy of trying to keep good looking chicks with skimpy outfits off the planes....that was kinda stupid.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Of course not. It's a series of belts.
If noone pays, the luggage will come out at the same time - but last. If everyone pays, it will come out at the same time - but first!
FRA: STFU GTFO
The airlines all have to be looking at the low cost European carriers, such as RyanAir or EasyJet. I haven't flown EasyJet in a while, but on RyanAir, the ticket covers carriage, everything else, baggage, excess baggage, drinks, priority seating, luggage tags, calls to customer service, etc. etc. are a premium. It's declared up front, and you take the "a la carte" items you wish.
The problem is, that taking one part of this model will not work, you have to take it all - very low cost tickets, fly only one type of plane, open seats, fast airport turn around, and so forth. The leading carriers in the US don't get this, so will nickel and dime without adding service or reducing costs/fares.
This doesn't seem like a neutrality issue to me.
Isn't this closer to a customer just paying for a lower latency connection?
Submitter has never worked in the airline industry before.
You will notice bright orange tags as they come off the converyor belt in baggage claim. Those tags are for GS, 1K, Premier Exec, Premier, *Gold, and *Silver. The idea is that you alert ground crews to the bags belonging to the best customers so that they will offload those first. This is no different from AA, Delta, USAirways, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, and every other airline that flies. All Tilton wants to do is offer this service as an add-on so if you are NOT an elite member and feel it necessary to get your bags off in a hurry (tight transfer in ORD or LHR perhaps) you can purchase that service.
*wacks subby over the head*
If they do this, it'll just mean more and more people will try to push the limits of carry-on luggage, rather than pony up for another fee. And we all know how much fun it is to be stuck in the aisle, waiting to get off the plane, while some PHB wrestles a laptop bag and an extra-large "carry-on" from the overhead bin.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
As someone who travels quite regularly for their job, I avoid the airports whenever possible because of this type of crap. These days, if it's under 500 miles each way, I'll drive it. I used to wish for the airlines to all go out of business, hoping that they'd be forced to figure out a business model that was actually profitable, but gave up on that after we (US taxpayers) were forced to bail them out after 9/11. It's a mess with no easy fix in sight, unless someone can magically make all of the airline lobbyists disappear.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
... United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton, who is wowing Wall Street with his willingness to examine new ways to wring money out of the carrier [CC], including making economy passengers pay a fee unless they want their luggage to come last off the plane.Let's think this through for a bit. At first, only a couple of people pay the fee. No biggee, and not much impact. Then someone, whose baggage came off last, notices the "priority tag" or whatever they use to identify the "don't take me off the plane last" tag. So s/he now ponies up for the fee from now on. Repeat for a few iterations. Now, nearly everybody has paid the fee, and they all come off just as before.
EXCEPT when some poor customer has paid the fee, AND his stuff comes off AFTER someone who did NOT. Guaranteed Upset Passenger.
The real kicker: what happens when someone:
Yep, sure sounds like <sarcasm>great customer service</sarcasm> to me. With increasingly ubiquitous video cameras, all it takes is a couple of postings to YouTube, a few blog posts, and then the REAL FUN begins!
Really, there are two issues with this. First, it seems that more people are using carry on anyway. In my experience flying, more carry on reduces the already dreadful flying experience. I see this as a competitive disincentive.
Second, I wonder if the cost of implementing such a plan, which would require marking and sorting bags, would be less than the additional revenue. This is the same question I have for the ISP. Will the costs of all the additional equipment really justify the additional fees such equipment would impose on the end user. Wouldn't it be better, like the airliines, to impose a fixed limit on throughput, and allow users to pay for more?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Ever since the increase in "security" after 9/11, I have done everything I can to avoid flying unless it's absolutely necessary. I've gotten pretty good at getting through the security gauntlet without an orifice probe -- playing dumb and cheerful seems to be the ticket -- but even then, most planes make the city bus feel like a luxury limo by comparison and airports seem to have been designed by a retired platform game designer. Add to that the bizarre security rituals, like the TSAA guard in New Jersey who banged my shoes against the floor before declaring, "Nope, no bomb in there," and if I can skip traveling, I will, and if I can't skip it, I'll drive. About the only reason I'll board a plane voluntarily now is to vacation abroad, and even then, I have to ask myself if it's worth the extra-special unlubricated scrutiny you get when returning from abroad.
So now my bags are going to be delayed a few minutes? Who gives a shit? That's like being told that in addition to being worked over for an hour by mafia goons, someone will now call you a sissy at the end of your beating.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I'm seeing a lot of anger and discussion as to why are airlines *cheapening* the flight and do all of these things like what United does with Economy Plus or Continental and Northwest charging for exit row. So let me bring you into the world of US domestic air travel.
Domestic air travel is one of the five most price elastic products avaliable for purchase today. This means when you go on to Orbitz we all charge practically the same thing. Internal tests in the airlines have proven that a $5 difference in airfare will dry up your demand. So, no people for the most part say they want everything but time again have proven through actions that they will only buy for the most part on price. International flights are a different story.
Price, Schedule, Frequency in that order is how people buy airfare. The idea now is to shrink the price as much as possible and try to recoup through the difference with ancillary revenue streams. This is why you see such things as purchase of Snacks on Board, charging for pillows, SkyBus and RyanAir charging for everything. People complain about buying a $5 meal on the plane but you can create a better product and for most part people realize they will pay $10 in airport for the same caliber of meal.
Since the industry is so price sensitive it is trying to debundle the product. It costs money to serve meals and when you make as little as $200 on a flight from JFK to LAX TOTAL, you have to find other ways. So what do we do, we try to offer things that people are willing to purchase. Economy Plus 5 additional inches of leg room on most United flights...it makes a big difference when you go cross-country or across the ocean. Purchase an Admirals Club ticket from AA for $35 for the day so you have a place to shower and change because you can't check into your hotel in London until after 4:00 PM but you got there at 10:00 AM.
Programs like giving luggage priority to the customer that flys 1 or 2 times a year is to give customers what they want (a lower flight price), but also for those folks that want something extra a place where they can purchase it.
Sometimes your money vanishes into a CEO's private yacht.
United is a prime example of an unethical company that fails to meet any of it's three primary responsibilities: customer service, job security, and investor return. It does not matter that this "plan" to screw customers is not a fact yet, because United customer service is already the pits. How could it be otherwise when the employees are demoralized by games like this:
One of the "concessions" was the elimination of employee pension plans. Bankruptcy, of course, screwed investors. It's little wonder that United is often mentioned when I hear bad travel stories. Please do not talk to me about regulation to protect such scumbags. The kinds of things United is accused of are crimes that should be punished.
The other half of TANSTAAFL is a free market. Without that, there's no such thing as a fairly priced sandwich lunch. Glenn Tilton is lucky there's air on the other side of most doors.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
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.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
I've never traveled by train, just taken tourist-type train rides.
Travelling by train actually pretty much rocks, if you don't need to get across the country in three to five hours (or cross an ocean, obviously).
They don't pack you in like sardines, you frequently have real tables and comfy seats (as in, you can face your travelling companions and play cards or something), you can move about (pee, go to the bar, etc) whenever you want, usually no assigned seating (which could count as a downside, but usually the non-commuter-trains have so few passengers you have all the choice you could want)... For a vacation rather than a business trip, I'd highly recommend going by train - And as a bonus, you'll actually see the country rather than seeing clouds.
Of course, like the rest of our lives, we Americans even make our leisure time a non-stop rush-rush-rush flurry of activity. Get "there" as fast as possible, then lose more sleep than normal trying to visit every point of interest in a 100mi radius of our destination. Thus we have the phenomenon of needing to come home an extra day before resuming work because we need to crash from what we call "relaxation".
Sad.
I generally try to be the last person on each flight I take. I take a lot of flights. I generally check a bag.
Trust me, it does not make your luggage come out first. Not even an appreciable fraction of the time.
When I was doing VTC installs on the west coast I usually flew Southwest and it was great because I just wanted to get there and get home. If I got to the airport early I usually got on an earlier flight no problem, if I was late then I got on a later flight with no extra charges. I packed light personally but had a 50 pound tool kit that never was a problem. I rarly had a reason to bitch about SWA.
Now the other west coast carrier, America West was a horror story almost every time. I would wait overnight and fly SWA before I got on another AWA flight. We once arrived at the counter at 6:30am an hour before our flight, pre-9/11, only to be told that because we booked the flight over 30 days prior and failed to confirm in the last 24 hours we were bumped. Even though the seats were paid for. Of course they tell us this after our luggage went down the chute, which they told us we could retrieve if we ever got to Portland. Then promised us to get us on the next flight. Fast forward 8 hours and we are still being fed bullshit by the ticket agents, of course I forgot to mention the two little bored kids with us. AAAAAAAAAAAhhhhh never agian AWA we went done the counter and immediately got on a SWA flight, kids got to sit with the pilot during a lay over (pre-9/11 again dang I miss the old days) and arrived 12 hours after our luggage, which was dumped beside a carousel out in the open. Never again AmericaWorst!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You haven't flown much in the past few years have you? Delta, United, AA all got rid of meals in coach on domestic flights, including transcons. Delta offers a light snack on shuttle flights, and continental offers a horribly bad meal. Some Delta flights have a new program where you can buy a meal in coach.
0. Dress properly. Leave the metal and piercings at home; you'll just make your security check worse.
1. Travel light. If you're crossing the ocean for two weeks, plan to use a laundry.
2. Avoid connections. If at all possible, drive to a hub airport.
3. Planeside check on your outward trip. This ensures the baggage monkeys don't lose your luggage. If you failed to follow tip #1, and you must check your bag, be sure you carry with you the basics for an overnight stay.
4. Check your heavy baggage on the return trip. Barcode scanners track everything in a database in Atlanta. Airlines don't actually lose your luggage, they just misroute it. On the way home that's a benefit: You don't have to carry your bags to your car! They'll deliver to your home, eventually.
5. Eat a good breakfast. You're not getting fed on the plane unless you're crossing an ocean.
6. Bring your own entertainment -- a book, videogame, etc. Unless you're crossing the ocean on one of those new 767s with the cool Linux personal entertainment system, you're going to be on your own. On most flights, even if they're showing a movie, you won't be able to see it.
7. Noise-suppression headphones really do work.
8. Book early, book online, and select an exit-row seat. Legroom and laptop space will be adequate for a change.
The downside of this is that everyone will do what you do, which is cram as much stuff as possible into the overhead bins in order to keep from checking bags. This slows down the security lines and getting on and off the plane.
It does sound like a protection racket, tho. Maybe next will be:
"Would you like your bag to be handled extra-carefully? For a small fee we can make sure your bag doesn't get dropped or run over by a baggage cart, or maybe show up with the handles wrenched off. Heh-heh."
It's not about service, it's about something more valuable -- my time. I despise that first class passengers get to deboard before everyone else. They pay for bigger seats, better meals, whatever, but they should not get to buy my time away from me.
This is just another method for separating out the classes. Have money? We'll make your life more convenient at the inconvenience of everyone else. It's one thing to give people better service in exchange for value-add, it's another to create that value by taking from someone else.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
Southwest, the only airline making money, is usually only a bit more expensive than the cheapest airline. The employees seem to be treated very well, because they are almost always happy, giddy even. They keep maintenance costs low by only flying one type of airplane (granted the 737 has a large number of subtypes). They don't punish emergency flyers by jacking up the prices in the last two weeks. If you arrive to the airport early or arrive for a connection early, they will try to get you on the earliest flight for free. Southwest understand that delays are cumulative, so getting you out of the airport and to the next stop is a priority over keeping everyone in their appointed seat on their appointed flight. Late night flights on Southwest are therefore sometimes nearly empty, so that flight undoubtedly loses money, but in the grand scheme of things, they make more money by not having to spring for hotels for lots of stuck travelers and making people happy by getting them where they wanted to be, perhaps even ahead of schedule.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I was reading "The Joy of C"
A work of fiction, I presume?
It never ceases to amaze me how the pernicious nature of a government bailout is completely lost on the average American. Businesses have revenue and they have expenses. Revenue minus expenses equals profit. If profit is negative, then your business model is flawed. No amount of corporate handouts can change this basic, simple fact. It doesn't matter if United is $10 or $10 billion in debt--either they are making money or they aren't. If their basic model is sound, then they should have no problem lining up private financing to bridge the gap. If they aren't, and they have to rely on the government for help, then this should raise a red flag, because the entire private banking industry took a look and said no. Who do you trust more to make sound, rational economic decisions--a bunch of self-interested, economically motivated lenders, or, omfg, the United States Congress? I almost can't even type that without laughing aloud.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
A work of fiction, I presume? I don't know. I never found out how it ends; I kept having to reread the chapter on recursion.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.