For The Love Of Port

I have lots to gripe about, but will give others a chance to get us started.

The carryon policy, or rather the nonenforcement of it. See people lugging huge bags onto the aircraft, so heavy they can't lift them up into the bins. Then they spend minutes trying to cram it in delaying boarding. They take up all the bin space so people with regular sized carryons end up having to check them in. This forces people to try to get on the aircraft asap to get their carryons in the bins thus causing a big gaggle at the gate.

I'd agree with Eric. Last week I flew back and forth to Phoenix from Newark non-stop on United. I was pleased they enforced the carry on rules, for instance one lady showed up with five bags including the biggest purse I've ever seen--the stewards made here check all but two.

The other thing that gets me is the lack of service. Really, a 5+ hour flight and one small glass of soda/juice. Everyone just ends up carrying on; then its warm. I guess the couple of dollars to serve more is too much to bear.

The other thing that gets me is the cramming in of people. There's just no leg room.

Eric Ifune wrote:The carryon policy, or rather the nonenforcement of it. See people lugging huge bags onto the aircraft, so heavy they can't lift them up into the bins. Then they spend minutes trying to cram it in delaying boarding. They take up all the bin space so people with regular sized carryons end up having to check them in. This forces people to try to get on the aircraft asap to get their carryons in the bins thus causing a big gaggle at the gate.

I agree with this being a major problem, but my gripe would be with what leads to this--charging for even one checked bag. The reason people are carrying multiple and large bags onto the plane is because they don't want to be charged for checking in a bag. Come on airlines, include the cost/price of one checked bag in the ticket price so we can have a little space in the bins for the critical items we need when you lose our checked luggage.

Not being able to carry on wine.

People are hitting all the bells so far.

Eric Menchen wrote:

Eric Ifune wrote:The carryon policy, or rather the nonenforcement of it. See people lugging huge bags onto the aircraft, so heavy they can't lift them up into the bins. Then they spend minutes trying to cram it in delaying boarding. They take up all the bin space so people with regular sized carryons end up having to check them in. This forces people to try to get on the aircraft asap to get their carryons in the bins thus causing a big gaggle at the gate.

I agree with this being a major problem, but my gripe would be with what leads to this--charging for even one checked bag. The reason people are carrying multiple and large bags onto the plane is because they don't want to be charged for checking in a bag. Come on airlines, include the cost/price of one checked bag in the ticket price so we can have a little space in the bins for the critical items we need when you lose our checked luggage.

I'm in complete agreement with Eric I. & Eric M. on these points. One other aspect of flying that I think is totally lacking (with a few notable exceptions) is the absence of in-flight service on most domestic routes. A Greyhound bus with wings comes to mind....

Eric Menchen wrote:I agree with this being a major problem, but my gripe would be with what leads to this--charging for even one checked bag. The reason people are carrying multiple and large bags onto the plane is because they don't want to be charged for checking in a bag. Come on airlines, include the cost/price of one checked bag in the ticket price so we can have a little space in the bins for the critical items we need when you lose our checked luggage.

I don't think that charging for checked bags is what leads to people abusing carry-ons. I've been flying for going on 30 years, and people have ALWAYS abused the carry-on policy. Nothing has changed in the last 10 years as the airlines have started charging for checked bags... at least not that I've noticed.

Your last 6 words are a more likely reason, I suspect. The airlines simply can't be trusted with your property, so people will do everything they can to avoid having to check bags.

Not fair, since I don't actually fly, but:

If I flew, I could turn the gripes about charging for checked baggage (and any rise in abuse of carry-on rules) on its head. I could object to being charged extra for my ticket when I DON'T have a checked bag if the cost of a single (or any other number of) checked bag(s) was included in my ticket price. Pay for what you use and no more. Why should "lite" flyers be charged extra to pay for the people who seem to need a ton of baggage for a simple week on the road?

Do like Jack Reacher (fictional character) and throw away your clothes when they get dirty and buy new. Cheaper than owning a washing machine and a house to keep it in (and suitcases to carry the clothes in). Of course you would have to adjust your life-style so you could get along with nothing but cheap clothing for it to be economical. No Armani suits and the like.

Before e-readers (and before I quit flying) most of my baggage weight was books; I just couldn't go anywhere without two or three books for each day of my expected stay. It drove my wives to distraction (and possibly the first one to leave me).

BTW, I quit flying (gradually) when it became impossible to walk into an airport, plunk down cash, and give any name that you cared to make up on the spot. (Around the 1960s during all the Cuban hi-jackings.) It's nobody's business, especially the government's, when, where, and if I choose to fly.

Glenn E. wrote:I don't think that charging for checked bags is what leads to people abusing carry-ons. I've been flying for going on 30 years, and people have ALWAYS abused the carry-on policy. Nothing has changed in the last 10 years as the airlines have started charging for checked bags... at least not that I've noticed.

There has always been abuse, but I think there are more carry-on bags these days. When I was regularly traveling for business 10+ years ago, I remember an occasional person having to gate check a bag because it was too big. Now I think there are more people having to gate check bags because there isn't room. That's my perception.

Eric Menchen wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:I don't think that charging for checked bags is what leads to people abusing carry-ons. I've been flying for going on 30 years, and people have ALWAYS abused the carry-on policy. Nothing has changed in the last 10 years as the airlines have started charging for checked bags... at least not that I've noticed.

There has always been abuse, but I think there are more carry-on bags these days. When I was regularly traveling for business 10+ years ago, I remember an occasional person having to gate check a bag because it was too big. Now I think there are more people having to gate check bags because there isn't room. That's my perception.

Ah, that could also explain the difference in perception. I have traveled for business before, but not all that frequently. Most of my travel is for vacations and holidays, and it seems like those flights haven't changed a bit. Everyone brings twice as much clothing as they really need, the airlines give you half the space you need, and there's a screaming/kicking kid in the row behind you. Fun fun.

Airlines did used to let you carry on 2 bags plus a personal item. Now the limit is 1, and the definition of a personal item is getting more and more strict (rightfully so, in my opinion).

Peter W. Meek wrote:Not fair, since I don't actually fly, but:

If I flew, I could turn the gripes about charging for checked baggage (and any rise in abuse of carry-on rules) on its head. I could object to being charged extra for my ticket when I DON'T have a checked bag if the cost of a single (or any other number of) checked bag(s) was included in my ticket price. Pay for what you use and no more. Why should "lite" flyers be charged extra to pay for the people who seem to need a ton of baggage for a simple week on the road?

Do like Jack Reacher (fictional character) and throw away your clothes when they get dirty and buy new. Cheaper than owning a washing machine and a house to keep it in (and suitcases to carry the clothes in). Of course you would have to adjust your life-style so you could get along with nothing but cheap clothing for it to be economical. No Armani suits and the like.

Before e-readers (and before I quit flying) most of my baggage weight was books; I just couldn't go anywhere without two or three books for each day of my expected stay. It drove my wives to distraction (and possibly the first one to leave me).

BTW, I quit flying (gradually) when it became impossible to walk into an airport, plunk down cash, and give any name that you cared to make up on the spot. (Around the 1960s during all the Cuban hi-jackings.) It's nobody's business, especially the government's, when, where, and if I choose to fly.

While I sympathize with a lot of your statements, I'd have to say that no included bags is as unfair as included checked bags. I'm 130 pounds, so by your logic (extended) I should either get a cheaper ticket or be able to check a case of wine for the same price the guy who weighs 180 is flying for with no bags.

Actually, on second thought, I could get used to that!

Bradley Bogdan wrote:While I sympathize with a lot of your statements, I'd have to say that no included bags is as unfair as included checked bags. I'm 130 pounds, so by your logic (extended) I should either get a cheaper ticket or be able to check a case of wine for the same price the guy who weighs 180 is flying for with no bags.

That has actually been proposed and discarded by various airlines. Samoa Air allegedly already does.

Bradley Bogdan wrote:While I sympathize with a lot of your statements, I'd have to say that no included bags is as unfair as included checked bags. I'm 130 pounds, so by your logic (extended) I should either get a cheaper ticket or be able to check a case of wine for the same price the guy who weighs 180 is flying for with no bags.

Actually, on second thought, I could get used to that!

I guess I should be careful what I wish for: I've been as high as 277 pounds (now 245) and could imagine being surcharged for both excess "carry-on" weight and possibly excess width. My last flight I was seated next to someone about my own size and the combined width of our shoulders exceeded the combined widths of our seats by 10" or 12". We had to take turns leaning forward and/or twisting our torsos and overlapping our shoulders. Needless to say, neither of us was a happy flier. I hadn't though of that recently, but that would also be another reason for me not to fly anymore. Even seated next to a normal person my shoulders hang over into their seat space. If I'm on the aisle, I can hang out 6" inches or so into the aisle and get jolted by everyone passing, and injured every time the drinks cart comes by. I'm about 25" across (at the biceps), and I'm sure he was at least that, if not a bit more. Normal seat width is 17-18" (including two halves of the armrests, which is the seat-holder's share).

EDIT: Huh! Just noticed. That was my thousandth post.

I've always wondered why airlines don't make a few larger, coach seats (other than the exit rows) and just charge a bit more. Not every bigger person wants to shell out for first class, or can, but that doesn't mean they should be doomed to being squished. I know most of the populace is taller/wider than me, and I think the seats are just my size! That means a lot of people aren't gonna be comfy!

Bradley Bogdan wrote:I've always wondered why airlines don't make a few larger, coach seats (other than the exit rows) and just charge a bit more. Not every bigger person wants to shell out for first class, or can, but that doesn't mean they should be doomed to being squished. I know most of the populace is taller/wider than me, and I think the seats are just my size! That means a lot of people aren't gonna be comfy!

for me, it's leg space. I'm 6'2", not too tall. I hate it when the passenger in front of me reclines their chair and upon hitting my knees, they act like they can force past my bones to fully recline back. They don't seem to care that what they are hitting is a person.

What I dislike about airlines, is feeling like I'm being nickel-and-dimed.

John F. Newman wrote:What I dislike about airlines, is feeling like I'm being nickel-and-dimed.

I'd actually prefer that IF (big big if) the base price was reasonable enough. I could see a fully unbundled pricing structure: a base price for the seat, a tariff for weight (personal and luggage wherever it is stowed), a tariff for cubic (volume of luggage and whatever a passenger needs beyond a normal seat - width and/or length).

Again this is a strawman because I won't fly for entirely different reasons. The principle applies in other areas, though. Computers are everywhere, so it would not be difficult to charge people for exactly and only what they want to buy.

I feel that while that is the most efficient way to allow the market to operate, that would unfortunately be crazy confusing to a large number of flyers. Otherwise I'd be a fan.

Yes seats are another gripe of mine. I'm pretty scrawny at 5'09" and about 155 lbs and I barely fit in the coach seats comfortably. Seats should be wider with a tad more leg room than most airlines currently have.

They should make all airline exec's fly in coach on a long haul flight so they really understand the problem.

Oddly enough, at 6'4" and 185 lbs I fit okay in an airline seat. Of course, I wouldn't complain if they gave me 4" more leg room... but what they should really do is fix all of the seats. No reclining. What makes the seat spacing bad is when someone reclines 6" into your space and there's nothing you can do about it.

My biggest problem with them, though, is that the seats are shaped for someone Andy's size which means that the lumbar support and head rest both hit me in the wrong place.