2008 shaping up as the year of the fee

Christopher Elliott Travel columnist • Profile • E-mail

Let’s assume, for a moment, that you can’t stop 2008 from becoming the Year of the Fee.

Let’s assume you’ll cheerfully pay every fuel surcharge, resort fee, excess luggage fee and security fee they throw at you.

But here’s a question no one else seems to be asking: What’s in it for you?

Hardly a soul wondered about that after United Airlines imposed a controversial $25 fee on a second checked bag. Or when Southwest Airlines began charging $25 for a third checked bag. Or when the Transportation Security Administration requested a “temporary” 50 cent per-leg surcharge to the existing $2.50 passenger security fee.

You expressed outrage, yes. “Words cannot express my contempt,” wrote Kathleen Much, an editor from Menlo Park, Calif., when she learned of United’s move — a move, by the way, other airlines say they are “studying” and are widely expected to follow.

But if these fees stick, are you entitled to anything? You certainly are.

Now that I’m paying for this bag, how about tracking it?
Let’s take a closer look at the rash of new luggage fees. United’s chief revenue officer, John Tague, said his airline’s surcharge would allow it to “offer competitive fares to everyone” while generating more than $100 million in revenue and cost savings each year. This makes little sense. Airline passengers have long regarded their ticket as a contract to transport both them and their luggage, an assumption the document appears to support. So by adding to the cost of their ticket price, United, Southwest and all others who follow their lead, are actually making fares less competitive. But the new fees also target the wrong passengers. Frequent-flying business travelers have always been the biggest moneymakers for airlines, yet they are exempt from the new rules. So guess who’s getting socked with this luggage fee? The very families for which these airlines purportedly want to keep fares competitive.

More by Christopher Elliott 5 times when you should just sue 'em Tips to ensure the TSA doesn't swipe your stuff Flying sick? 4 secrets for surviving your trip Grounded by inspections? Get there anyway 5 ticket screw-ups air travelers make Four secrets for finding the right travel pro First passenger rights law is dead – or is it? Viva la (passenger rights) revolution! Laughing – and dying – in the face of danger Why cut-rate carriers are No. 1 More Christopher Elliott columns

What you should expect: If you’re going to pay for your luggage, shouldn’t United spend some of that $100 million to install an RFID-based luggage tracking system to ensure your luggage is returned to you when you arrive? The airline industry lost an average of 7 bags per 1,000 passengers last year. If you’re paying more than it costs to ship a parcel across the country to check your luggage, isn’t it reasonable to expect an airline to track and find your bag when it’s lost instead of sending it to the unclaimed baggage center to be sold after conducting a halfhearted search?

If I’m paying more for security, do you mind scanning my liquids and gels — or at least taking my name off the “no fly” list?
The TSA’s new 50 cent per-leg surcharge, which would take effect in 2009 and expire in 2012, could raise $426 million next year and a total of $1.7 billion over four years. The money will pay for new baggage explosive detection systems. Anyone want to bet the fee will still be with us after 2012? The airline industry is not happy with this idea — its lobbyists at the Air Transport Association have waged a long battle against higher security fees — because they would make its uncompetitive airfares look even more uncompetitive. Isn’t it odd that the airline industry complains about external fees then turns around and imposes their own? Who else thinks that’s more than a little ironic?

What you should expect: The federal government had better use some of that $1.7 billion to figure out how to scan our liquids and gels. The ban has been taken to extremes, including confiscating holiday pies. I think most air travelers would settle for having the feds take a hard look at the no-fly list and removing innocent passengers, like five-year-old Matthew Gardner.

Print this Email this Blog this  IM this

MORE FROM CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT

Christopher Elliott Section Front

All aboard: Tips for getting on the plane pronto 5 times when you should just sue ’em Tips to ensure the TSA doesn't swipe your stuff Flying sick? 4 secrets for surviving your trip Grounded by inspections? Get there anyway 5 common ticket screw-ups air travelers make Four secrets for finding the right travel pro First passenger rights law is dead – or is it? Viva la (passenger rights) revolution! Laughing – and dying – in the face of danger Christopher Elliott Section Front   Add Christopher Elliott headlines to your news reader: