I don't know why this is such a shock to me! I guess I'll have to carry on and forgo any "liquid" products because I'm limited to "Travel-size toiletries (3.4 oz./ 100 ml container or smaller) that fit in ONE, quart-size, clear plastic, zip-top bag." (per the AA website.) ARGH!

Well then just be honest about making ticket prices higher! People can see right through all this nickel-and-diming. And this is just going to lead people to cram more bags into the overhead compartments. This is going to be a boon for the toiletries industry, though. Since people won't be checking bags as often, they'll be limited to the 3oz allottment and have to buy everything else when they arrive.

Just the cost of doing business, right?

I wish that airlines would be forced to combine all of these fees into a single number for the WHOLE ticket price.

Looks like Amtrak is my new best friend...

@Kajj: They do both, though. They'll jack the ticket prices and nickel and dime us.

The airline industry as it is constituted today was not built to handle REALITY. They've never been able to deal with reality, so why should now be any different?

I wish they would also list the salaries and bonus amounts for the CEO and other top guys along with all of these fees. I am all for making money but when you are in charge of a business and it is not doing well then you do not get a multi million $ bonus.

These fees are getting ridiculous, if it costs X dollars to run the plane, then chare X for the tickets.

Sounds fair to me. The industry is being crushed by high fuel prices. I'm all in favor of having a ticket be just that, a mode of transport for your person from point A to B. Seems to make sense to charge for extras, i.e., checking bags, reserving specific seats, or additional assistance as long as it's clear up front. It also allows those who do not use those extra services to pay less for their flights.

Refuse to pay it, refuse to fly AA. Write Arpey and every other airline CEO and tell them to stick it. Refusing to fly the airline will cause them to back down. Don't take this lying down!

@ChrisC1234: They know how to handle reality. If they get introuble the govt will bail them out with our money. That is their reality.

So I won't be flying American next month. Good to know.

Short on details...

Does this mean if you are already a ticketholder you won't be grandfathered it? Seems a little odd to start hitting people with fees AFTER they've already agreed to a price AND paid you.

I'll see how it goes, I'm flying American overseas in June.

honestly, if the issue is the cost of gas and fuel vs. weight, eventually they will have to charge ticket prices by total amount of weight you carry, yourself and any luggage you haul with you.

::dodges rocks from civil lawyers::

this all comes down to the oil industry...why are prices so high while companies like exxon are recording record profits? THAT is the problem in my opinion.

@lincolnparadox: Yeah, Amtrak, that's cheap and efficient.
/sarcasm

AA sucks, but at least they suck less than most. This is really sad...as if we haven't given enough tax money to bail these aholes out as it is...

Subhead: American declares War on Clean Clothes.

Sites like Travelocity have done a pretty good job so far of calculating "true" prices for flights so that you can get a meaningful comparison. If they're smart, they'll add a "checked bags" field to their search form, and suddenly, the AA flight that seemed like a deal loses out to an airline that doesn't charge for the first bag. Problem solved.

@sir_pantsalot: Well, some might think the CEO deserves a bonus for "innovations" (fees) that keep the company alive and operational, especially with record fuel prices.

@The Count of Monte Fisto: I agree...tried to take Amtrak ONCE...never will again. After waiting 4 HOURS for the damn train, I walked down the street and hopped on a Greyhound bus in ten minutes. The saddest part is that, while the freight companies own the rails they are REQUIRED to yield the right of way to passenger trains from AMTRAK. The reason? Amtrak is OWNED by the US gubmint and it is the law. Is it ever practiced? Obviously, no....if it were Amtrak would be making money rather than sucking down our tax dollars like every other stupid gubmint stupidity...

My problem with all these fees is I really don't see them ever coming down once the economic climate improves.

I'm also with the people who say that the ticket price should just include everything, including taxes. So should cell phone plans for that matter...(and everything else). How awesome would it be to walk around any store and know exactly how much something is going to cost you? I guess you could in a state without sales tax...(I live in NY, so no such luck).

@oneTee:

Because Exxon doesn't set the price of oil, the free market does. Exxon extracts the oil and sells it for what the market will bear. Record profits have already been spurring more development of harder to reach oil, but as countries like China continue to demand more oil (yeah, US too, but we're not the main pull on demand anymore) the price will simply keep on rising.

If you're that concerned about the rising prices, why not invest in an oil-focused fund? That way at least any rise at the pump will correspond with one in your portfolio.

Oh good...this is going to make the security lines so much quicker as well as free up all that overhead compartment space...

/sarcasm

I know I may be in the minority here, but frankly I think charging the fees on the bags is a lot better than raising prices across the board. It should have been like this for a long time. It shifts the cost burden onto those that use up more fuel.

I'd rather pay a base fee that is just to get me and a carry-on from point A to point B and have to pay for extras like checked bags. If I don't have 50lbs worth of luggage with me, why should I have to pay a share of the other guy's luggage? It'll also help to keep people from packing things they don't need to take with them. If more people take less unnecessary luggage, the airline uses less fuel, which drops the overall cost of the flight.

looks like my car and I will continue to be good friends, and I'll also be giving more of my good money to Amtrak.

I honestly don't understand why the airlines can't configure a business model that allows them to make profit without nickel and diming, but I suppose I'm no economist. Mostly, these new advances just guarantee that I'm going to try my hardest to travel without flying. Ten hour car trips are starting to look better and better.

@Crymson_77: I don't know where you get your information, since every Amtrak train I've ever been on has had to yield right of way to the damn freight companies.

For what it's worth, there are a few Amtrak trains on certain routes that are known to be almost always late. There are also a lot that are almost always on time. For my money, riding Amtrak totally beats the airlines. No one rifles through your bags, you can buy a ticket and hop right on, and the pricing structure actually makes sense.

@facted: Places with VAT generally have prices listed with VAT included (eg Europe). Meanwhile, I have to add 9% or 10% to everything. That makes those "dollar menus" really annoying...

I can't remember where I read this, but a study said that when prices are quoted with VAT included, it makes it much easier to levy ever-higher taxes on the people. That's also my one gripe with the FairTax idea...when politicians are in charge (just like airlines, to keep it on topic), rates and fees tend to go up and never back down.

I am in favor of charging people based on the "services" they use. Why should someone who only takes a backpack pay the same as a morbidly obese person with two suitcases?

However, rewards work (and sound) better than punishments. Therefore, airlines should start with a high all-inclusive ticket price, then deduct amounts for less luggage, less services, not a fat ass, etc.

@corporateamericabites: I haven't flown AA ever since they lied to the St. Louis community/area, promised they wouldn't gut TWA, promised their employees would be treated fairly, promised they wouldn't screw us over, then did all of those things. Why should I reward pathological liars? The icing on the cake was one of their employees screaming at me on a discussion forum and telling me it was all our fault. Uh, what?

Turned out that guy was lying about a lot of things, too, and hasn't been back there.

If AA behaves like this, why should I give them any business?

Southwest all the way.

@Leah: Passenger trains used to yield to nothing. Pathetic how far things have fallen that inanimate freight that doesn't care gets to move before humans, who do, can.

@bonzombiekitty:

Except they will still raise fees across the board, and then charge you $15 to check your bag.

@Leah: Here you go:

[en.wikipedia.org]

it might be cheaper to start Fedexing my luggage soon.

For trips less than 10 hours I've started taking Greyhound. I'm not really a big fan of theirs in general, but when you factor in everything, it's not that bad of a financial deal. Their fares are MUCH less, usually at least half the price if not more. The overall travel time is obviously longer, but I'm an hour and a half from the airport, whereas only 15 minutes from the bus station. That saves 2 1/2 drive time, plus having to be at the airport early. You also save daily parking fees which in my case are at least $10/day. By the time all is said and done, I've saved a ton of money in exchange for a few hours of my time. I usually take a book I've been wanting to read and my iPod and I'm all set.

basket548 = Shill

@Franklin Comes Alive!:

"Except they will still raise fees across the board, and then charge you $15 to check your bag."

In some kind of crazy scheme not to be bankrupt, right?

@bonzombiekitty: As Franklin said, the issue is that they're not reducing the price that YOU pay. You are paying exactly what you paid before the insituted the $15 fee. I agree with the general principle that you described which is I understand it is what happens on the European low-cost carriers. However, they start with a rock-bottom price and then nickle and dime you.

The US system has started with high prices and also nickle and dimes you. Doesn't quite do the same thing.

@ironchef: Not to mention it has a better chance of actually getting there :)

@Landru:

Not a shill, an economist. I'd like to pay $200 to fly cross country with two bags, a meal, and lots of leg room, but realistically it isn't possible. On this blog, there tends to be a lot of bitching when prices rise or a new fee is added. I'm trying to present the other side of the argument.

I'd be in favor of charging people and their luggage based on a "fixed seat base rate plus total cargo weight". We're all cargo, after all...

But only if they make everything clear IN ADVANCE and have a rollout date. None of this after-the-fact nickel/dime crap.

@Landru: Agreed...shills...go elsewhere, we are too smart to take your line of bs and believe it...

GOD - I have a work conference every summer that is at least a week long, sometimes longer. I HAVE to check a bag. If all the other major airlines start doing this, I am so screwed.

If I weigh 100 lbs and bring a 40 lb bag, why should I pay more than a 300 lb person with no bag?

But I can also agree with all the new bag fees. Makes picking up my bring-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink mother from the airport much easier.

I just really wish they'd slap a fee on people who bring stinky food into the cabin to eat during the flight.

@basket548:

Two problems here. One, people like to propagate the theory that because other people now have to pay to check their bags, their fares will go down ( or at least not be raised as much ) because they are no longer subsidizing the cost of transporting other peoples' luggage. Just pointing out that this is false.

Second, while they may have to charge more to avoid bankruptcy, aren't they on a curve that says increasing prices will lead to fewer tickets sold, which will eventually lead to making less money than they would make by not raising prices? I'm not saying we're there yet, but we're getting awfully close.

@Crymson_77:

OK, then, what's your view? I'm perfectly up for debating mine.

My Prediction:

Someday you will walk into the airport, and step onto a large scale along with everything you are bringing on the plane (all bags, clothes you are wearing, etc...) - then your "total weight" surcharge will be charged to you for the total weight of what you are bringing.

@basket548: We will never see pricing by weight though, as much sense as that makes. The ACLU among other organizations would be all over that. For every person who is overweight because of laziness there are others (myself included) who have a thyroid condition that causes problems. Also, can you imagine people at the ticket counter checking to see if weight on presold tickets match actual weight?

I guess American Airlines is going to be the one to avoid.

@Zclyh3: Ahh... but just wait - as with almost all previous fees, the other airlines will soon follow suit and we'll be screwed either way.