Again, IFLYSWA.com FTMFW

@Nogard13: I'd rather pay $2 for a drink than not have pre-assigned seats. ::shudder::

Sure...for a six-pack or two 2-Liters...

So you can't bring your own water so they can charge you exorbitant prices for their drinks. Classy.

I'll be swallowing my own spit.

You know, I wouldn't mind paying for coffee or soda (though $2 is too much). But you've got us penned up for several hours inside a very dry environment, you better provide complimentary drinking water.

You think that's bad? You should see what they charge if you need an oxygen bottle or a defibrillator!

Oh wow. Southwest looks better every day as a company, thanks to assholes over at US Airways. All the other airlines' PR people should call US Airways and thank them for making their jobs easier.

I don't get all these people voting no, as if they had a choice.

$2 for that tiny cup of juice? no thanks.
Fewer people will want to use the bathroom if they don't get drinks. Are they trying to send out another message?

Ha, this is utter BS, becuase we're not talking about 12oz sodas, I'm sure. They will be opening a soda and pouring a bit into a 8-10oz cup filled with ice.

@Scuba Steve:
You can buy a drink in the terminal and bring it on.

I wonder if it's $2 for that dinky little cup they give you.

@Scuba Steve: There's plenty of choice. Thankfully, we don't have just one airline in this country.

Now, the problem comes if this becomes widespread.

@Jabberkaty: You can buy water after security at (usually) relatively normal prices.

Agreed, though, that water is one thing that should always be complimentary, just about everywhere.

Not sure what people expect the (legacy) airlines to do though. First, there are till just too many carriers competing for the same routes. Next, consumers have demonstrated repeatedly that they will select the cheapest flight to their destination with relatively little regard for the carrier. As long as (coach) air travel continues to be a commodity, it will continue to be a race to the bottom among the legacy carriers.

Water takes it a bit far though.

@balthisar:

Have you actually tried to fly SW? I hear this complaint all the time, but if you are organized and can get yourself checked in on time, the open seating is way better than assigned seating. I find the most common users of this reasoning either (a) haven't flown SW or (b) don't check themselves in 24 hours in advance and end up at the end of the C line.

So when they finally get their wish of fewer customers and they end up with a plane with only 10 people on it will they:
A)cancel the flight.
B)Encourage the flight attendants to plus sell those 10 people about $20,000 worth of snacks on the 3 hour flight.

You might think A but they have shown that they are not that good at decision making.

They should really just raise the price by $2 per passenger.
People don't like it when they feel like they are getting nickeled and dimed. They instead like it much more when they get 'free' things,even if already paid for.

Also, Southwest still gives you 2 checked bags at no extra cost.

Ah, to look at this picture and think about how long we've slid from the golden age of airline service:
[i75.photobucket.com]

I wasn't alive back then, but I did fly in the 1970s and I recall there was definitely some systemic incentive to make the passengers comfortable rather than to just pacify them, be a seatbelt monitor, and clock out for the day. I remember just after boarding a Flying Tigers 747 charter flight back in the early 1980s, a flight attendant (stewardess?) correctly sensed my 8-year old sister was afraid of flying and actually spent 5 or 6 minutes with her talking with her and making her feel better. Now that is service. Never seen anything like that since... not by a country mile.

Why did I think that it was mandatory that passengers on a flight get water if the flight is greater than a certain amount of time? Maybe that was internal policies, but I swear that a flight attendant told me that once.

Water should be complimentary, but charging for soft drinks is fine -- as long as it's a somewhat reasonable price and not $2 for a 12oz can.

I'm sure glad I only fly from San Diego to Sacramento and only have to fly Southwest. Fill up at a drinking fountain before I leave and bring a Snickers bar and all is good.

I have sworn off all other flights this year, so far I have survived and may continue my personal boycott of the airline industry indefinitely.

WOW! I just came back from Italy and the flight time from Miami to Rome was 8 hours going and 8.40 coming back. If there was nothing to drink for that amount of time I guess I would be forced to pay for the liquid....and hopefully not just a small plastic cup with half ice and a few drops of soda/juice/water....

wow, the economy is tough!

Depends how long the trip. For short 1-2 hours I don't mind.

Also, local amusement park charges 3,50$ for a coke anyway. And you don't even fly.

Well if you are not willing to pay for it in the plane then they will just lean on the businesses in the concourse until they are charging $5 for a 20oz. cola.

Then $2 for a cup of ice and a splash of water will not seem so bad.

@Franklin Comes Alive!: Shockingly, not everyone has internet access when they are traveling, or wants to worry about their travel arrangements while vacationing. I usually find my outbound flight to be no problem, but I don't really think I should whip out my blackberry during my friend's wedding ceremony so I can check in for my flight home the next day.

This is stupid. The airlines should just charge one fee: The 'Sorry, but fuel went up and we can't be expexted to eat the loss fee'. That way, customers don't get nickled and dimes on petty stuff, the airline can maintain a decent level of services, and everyone can focus on the real added cost.

If that is unreasonable, then airlines should buy the fuel they need in advance if the flight and charge the ticket based on the actual costs of that fuel.

@Techguy1138: Again, if they did that, they'd be at a disadvantage in the fare search engines (unless the other airlines matched.) Their tact is that consumers want the lowest fares - period - and have shown greater acceptance of a-la-carte pricing for optional items (like, er, water) than higher ticket prices.

I think the $15 for first bag trend is more egregious than the $2 beverage charge... not because I'd ever check a bag, but because this is going to lead to a miserable lack of overhead storage.

I really think Amtrak is the best option in the NEC... and though they do charge you for (bottled) water, it's usually just a far better experience all around.

On the air travel side, there are plenty of alternatives to the legacy carriers (Virgin America stands out, so does Jet Blue, never flew SW) so vote with your wallet, not just on a blog post. :)

Is there any wonder why Southwest is (the only) profitable airline?

I think these extra charges are a mixed blessing for those of us who are low maintenance on a flight. It's sort of like a use tax for flying -- sort of like how the gas tax goes towards roads that drivers drive on. It's essentially a soda tax for those who want soda.

geez. quit your BS about "Southwest is number 1! ", "Continental baby!". U.S. airways is merely leading the pack in cuts to come all around full circle in the industry... just as has happened before.

@choinski: Only 1 airliner has done this. I can't remember what it's called, but they buy their fuel at some low price. I will have to look up what company but it on a CNN special.

@Scuba Steve: I do have a choice: don't buy a drink, or fly a different airline.

@Techguy1138: My guess is that this kind of crap is being driven by the growth of online price comparison websites. They know that a large part of the public makes airline decisions solely on price, so they are just trying to shift as much of their price into "fees" as possible so that it won't show up in the listed ticket price, at least on some websites.

@Coder4Life:

It's Southwest. For years they have been profitable and have spent a lot of that money on fuel hedges, so they usually pay a lot less per barrel than most of the other airlines. Some of the others do it as well, but none to the level that SW does.

$2 for drinks? That's basically all of Midtown Manhattan! Hey if you're cool paying $7 for a bottle of water at a convention, why not save $5 and get it at an airline?

how is it that everyone keeps faulting the airlines? It is not the airline's fault that gas prices are the way they are. Here are your options-A:airlines close B:Everybody's ticket price goes up significantly C:Tickets go up a little and they charge for the "unnecessary" extras.

I'd rather have $17 off my ticket if I don't need to check a bag of drink a drink.

I think they should be able to charge what they want...but then I should also be able to bring my own bottles and drinks onto the plane. it makes no sense to take away my drink then offer me the exact same drink except charge me $2

Nope. There is a faucet in the bathroom and I can cup my hands together.

They need to start allowing us to bring our own beverages again. $4 for water in the terminal and now $2 in the plane, pfft.
At least you can bring your own food again and mothers of babies can bring water. I may start smuggling water onto the plane in the nearest baby pram.

@ thorny

that idea works in theory only if the airlines were to drop the cost of the ticket. if these are all ADDITIONAL charges then we're simply getting less for our money.

Also, Southwest (which I love, and am not badmouthing in any way) turns a profit due to aggressive fuel hedging. this will be harder to maintain as the economy adjusts to higher oil prices.

@Coder4Life: Southwest wins again. They have a fuel hedge fund so they're paying less for gas than the other airlines.

[www.usatoday.com]

Why the other airlines don't look at their business model and try to copy it is beyond me. Even if they did everything else but still assigned seats? Southwest is obviously doing something right.

UGH! Forgot it.

I know this won't satisfy all those hooty-falooty water bottle drinkers, but there is a way to get free water past security. Bring your own bottle through security that has no water in it (i.e. Nalgene bottle). Go to one of the soda fountains and fill it with ice. Then, go to a drinking fountain and fill it with water. There you go. Ice cold, free water, and lots of it.

I don't mind the extra charges (use tax) but I suspect the result will be longer lines (esp. at security) and less space and increased delays as more and more people try to carry on all luggage. And that I do mind.

People! Its alright that these airlines are comitting business suicide. In 5 years or so, or even maybe this year, you will be getting on your own private jet from that airport down the street you got breakfast at or watched Cessna's take off at when you were a kid. They will take you an equally small airport at your destination, non-stop, all service. Until a legacy airline decides they are going to offer old school luxury service, the legacy's are doomed to fail. To feel what I am screaming, or smell what I'm stepping in, visit these sites: [www.dayjet.com] [www.linearair.com]

i wouldn't mind this so much if we were still allowed to carry our *own* beverages through security, but we all know how the TSA feels about that. and the kicker to all this is the fact that beverages (and other snacks) are jacked up once you clear TSA. so either way, the consumer is getting bent over.

either way, i'm fine with this. does that mean my ticket will now be cheaper?

@MadameX:

Copying Southwest would mean massive changes, which would be admitting failure. Think any of the airlines are going to do that?

Slightly OT, but the whole point of the US Airways - America West merger was to create one more efficient airline. Due to the inability of the new company to reach an agreement between the US Airways and America West pilots' unions, they are still operating internally as two completely independent airlines, just under one corporate moniker. That can't be good for efficient operation.

@lsocoee: wow the first rational comment.