Spirit Starts Charging Up To $45 For Carry-On Bags

Prepare to shift that carry-on bag to your other hand as you reach for your wallet because today is the day Spirit rolls out their new fee for carry-on bags. Billed as an ostensible solution to gate delays, the worst problem you never experienced, the fee ranges from $20 to $45.

Spirit reduced its lowest fares by an average of about $40 ahead of the new carry-on fees. The average one-way base fare for August is $63, [Spirit spokeswoman Misty Pinson] said. She said passengers have been paying the carry-on fee in advance but she did not have specific numbers.

A larger bag destined for the overhead bin will incur a $30 fee, as long as the passenger pays in advance. Paying at the gate brings the fee up to $45.

Umbrellas, camera bags, strollers and car seats are among the items that will remain free of charge.

Will you pay the fee or fly a different airline?

Spirit Airlines’ carry-on bag fee starts Sunday [AP]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. humphrmi says:

    It really doesn’t matter if Spirit lowers their fares to compensate for the carry on bag fee; what matters is, will that lower fare with the bag fee still be lower than their competitors. If not, travelers will take other carriers.

    • FranktasticVoyage says:

      Untrue. There will be many people that do a search for a flight, see the lower Spirit Air price and choose that one. Some will choose another carrier once they see the final price, but Spirit Air’s bet is that many will not and go ahead and book that flight.

    • damageddude says:

      Perhaps, but it can be difficult to do research while forking over money at the gate for a fee you didn’t expect.

  2. theSuperman says:

    I will just get a really big camera bag.

  3. thivai says:

    Southwest Airlines has proven that this fee-for-everything business model is good marketing for competing airlines. I’m sure other airlines are watching Spirit to see how much push back they get from customers, but I doubt this maneuver to charge for purses, messenger bags, and briefcases will get much traction.

    Flying is quickly becoming one of the most irritating forms of transportation. From frustrating security theater to the feeling of having one’s body and belongings being itemized and audited, it seems like air carriers don’t _want_ customers.

  4. curmudgeon5 says:

    As much as we all complain about these constantly increasing fees (next there will be a “seat fee,” to sit in the seat you paid for), you have to conclude that ultimately the American public will accept it. As far as I know (and I admittedly haven’t actually seen statistics), people are continuing to fly, the number of fliers is not dropping in response to this shoddy treatment by airlines, and the airlines will continue to conclude that they can charge us whatever they want.

    It’s notable, too, that they do it in the form of fees rather than added prices — people get sticker shock at an airline ticket price, but somehow additional fees (separate from the core cost) don’t see so bad.

    • Destron says:

      Mostly because a good percentage of fliers don’t have a choice. I know I have not flown for personal reasons for over 10 years, but I am flying all the time for business, and when I do that is really the only option. Driving/bus/train are generally out of the question, and that is the case for a lot of people. Airlines will continue to tack on fees and people will pay them because the have no choice.

      Often times even the people that are flying for their own personal reasons don’t have another option depending where they are going or what they are doing.

      • curmudgeon5 says:

        Agreed. It would be interesting to figure out if there were some way to pressure the airlines financially, though I don’t know what it would be, for exactly the reason you cite.

        • JMILLER says:

          You mean something like competition? They have that already. The fact is what do you think you pay for in a fare? The reality is about 25% of the amount you paid is not the airlines money to keep, IT goes to taxes, or airport fees. Why is it wrong to charge for something some use, while others do not? It’s funny how people on this forum want ala carte pricing for cable, but when an airline introduces it, they are evil. If a restaurant forced you to pay for an appetizer and dessert that you did not want, you would not eat there, but the reality is, those that do not have overhead luggage are subsidizing those that need it. I suggest the airlines stop all “snacks” , soda, and entertainment, and just have those that want it pay for it. I hope you realize the cost of that “free” pop is built into your fare.

          • thompson says:

            That would make sense, if it wasn’t for the fact that the airlines who have introduced baggage fees have shown a (rather large) increase in revenue. If this was truly a-la-carte pricing, it would be revenue neutral.

            • Doughbuy says:

              Increase in revenue yes. Increase in Profit? NOPE. Airlines are still bleeding money… just look at the financiatl statements for the top US airlines and you’ll see how bad it is for them… they’re operating margin is a measely 5%, which is really not something to be proud of… I don’t see them raking in the cash, so I don’t complain about these fees at all.

          • SBR249 says:

            Well I actually can’t remember the last time I saw someone fly without at a single piece of luggage (carry on or checked) and only a “camera bag” so I’m not really sure how large that segment of consumers that subsidize others’ carry-on’s are.

            Also, there’s a difference between having the cost integrated in the ticket and going to a la carte pricing. The former is taxed by the federal government some of which is ultimately used to maintain and upgrade the aviation infrastructure, the latter isn’t and is 100% profit for the airlines. That’s part of the reason why the airlines are seeing increased revenue and profit from these new fees.

    • RevancheRM says:

      I’ve stopped flying because of a bad experience I experienced last summer with Delta. My family and I chose to rent an RV for the first time for one spring vacation to Florida (we wouldn’t have done that if I hadn’t put my foot down against flying unnecessarily) and drove to DC and back a few weeks ago.

      Note again: these were things I would have normally just jumped on a plane to do, but because I didn’t we enjoyed the experience SOOOO much more.

      I’ve been able to avoid traveling for my job this year, and I’ve purposefully directed travel opportunities to my subordinates, simply because I’d prefer to not deal with airlines. i realize that’s results in a base line sum, but I figure out it goes into the negative (for airline’s coffers) when i volunteer for the assignments that allow car travel as an alternative).

    • banndndc says:

      It’s the modern American way. State and local governments have been doing the same thing with taxes. Instead of raising taxes they create or increase a whole host of user fees. Same source of money but this way it’s not a tax/price increase (even though it is).

      I wish we would just stop flying, but out country is big and our train network is bad (except the NE corridor which subsidizes the rest of the system). The worst thing about this is that the price decrease will be temporary but the fee will be permanent.

  5. CuriousGeorge113 says:

    I think the real reason is taxes. Airlines have to pay federal taxes on the total cost of every ticket sold. But, the way the law is written, they don’t have to pay them on ‘fees’ (like luggage).

    So, instead of raising the cost of the ticket to cover costs, they add these fees. Lets them save a little tax moo-lah.

    • Ilovegnomes says:

      And to fool the airlines and to save money, passengers are going to start wearing all of their clothes, like in the book Heidi.

    • JMILLER says:

      Airlines do not pay the taxes, they collect them from their passengers. Your opinion is, the airlines are helping you pay less in taxes to keep fares lower? Wow, how evil of them. How dare they try to save their customers money. If the airlines said flying would be the way it was in 2000 with free meals and movies, and blankets and pillows and free baggage, and said instead, we need to raise our fares 20%, how many people on this board would be screaming about them “gouging” Look at the profitability of airlines. They are not exactly Apple or Microsoft.

      • Beeker26 says:

        Ala carte is being pushed for cable because for most people they are paying for hundreds of channels but only watch maybe a dozen. How exactly does one NOT travel with luggage?? They started charging for checked bags so everyone switched to carry-ons. Now they are charging for carry-ons. So we’re supposed to do what? Travel with just the clothes on our backs and whatever we can fit in our camera bags? That’s not ala carte, it’s mandatory fee payment.

        But hey, since I NEVER use the restroom on a plane, by your logic I should be complaining that my fare is subsidizing them. Some European airlines are now charging for restroom access. I guess they should start doing that here too if it means I can get a few bucks knocked off the price of my ticket. What’s next? A card reader that drops with oxygen masks? Needing your PIN number to release the seat flotation devices? How about a coin slot on each seat arm that allows you to pull out the seatbelt. Wanna get up to stretch your legs? Too bad, you need to unlock the belt again. The airlines are clearly missing out on the plethora of available ways to nickel and dime us suckers, er, travelers.

        • Beeker26 says:

          Damn, replied to the wrong post. Right person, wrong post.

        • Pax says:

          “How exactly does one NOT travel with luggage?? They started charging for checked bags so everyone switched to carry-ons. Now they are charging for carry-ons. So we’re supposed to do what? Travel with just the clothes on our backs and whatever we can fit in our camera bags?”

          … ship everything else via UPS or FedEx. Seriously. The fees, even for next-day delivery, will be lower for many (if nto most or even ALL) with-luggage people will pay in airline fees. Unlike the airlines, delivery really _IS_ guaranteed to be on-time (or your money back). And unlike the airlines, you get a TRACKING NUMBER for your shipment.

          The most amusing part, though? Your shipment may be on THE SAME PLANE YOU ARE. :) For less money, with better service.

          Think about it.

          • Beeker26 says:

            It doesn’t really work out that well when you look at the numbers. Shipping is VERY expensive. It doesn’t take a lot of weight before you’ve passed $25. It also depends how far you’re shipping. The further away the destination the higher the cost. And this doesn’t take shipping time into account. Either way you’re going to be without your luggage for a few days.

            As someone who recently moved I managed to keep my cross-country truck rental cost low by shipping a lot of boxes media mail, which is by far the cheapest way to go as you don’t pay for distance, only weight. And even then a 35 pound box costs about $20 to ship. Going to Priority Mail would almost double that cost, and UPS or FedEx is even more than that.

            I guess in some rare circumstances it might work (close, short trips), but most of the time it’s going to cost more and be more trouble than it’s worth.

            • hoi-polloi says:

              I concur with Beeker. That theory just doesn’t hold water if you’re not traveling light. When I check bags, they’re maxed out at 50 pounds. On a recent trip, checking one bag one way was $21 online. You’ll impress the hell out of me if you can ship a 50 pound box from Pennsylvania to Calgary and back for under $42.

          • clickable says:

            Unfortunately, the numbers don’t bear that out. The airlines’ weight limit for one checked bag (domestic) is ~50 lbs., for which they charge ~$25.

            The cheapest rate to ship a 40 lbs package from New York to Miami is $38, and that’s for 3 days in transit. If you want it within 2 days, it’ll cost $163. If you pack your bag to the maximum 50 lbs, the lowest UPS rate is $44.

            Maybe there’s somewhat of a discount for business accounts, but still – unfortunately, in general this isn’t cost-effective for luggage.

            There are companies that sprang up in the past few years that specialize in transporting luggage. I have no idea of their rates, though.

        • JMILLER says:

          I have no problem paying for a restroom fee, but in general that is not something you as the end user would have control of. You do have control of your luggage. As a frequent traveler, I go without a carry on many times. Recall this does not apply to purses, briefcases, or camera bags. I take many day trips or overnight trips that do not require me to bring a carry on, or checked baggage. There are many delivery services that can also bring you your luggage if you feel it necessary. I would also submit an increase in fares increases the amount of tax, so a $30 fare increase to cover you bags would result in a cost to the traveler of $3 at 10%. So you can have a $33 increase, or a $30 increase.
          The problem with most of the people on this site, is the sense of entitlement they have regarding running a business. If you do not like it, do not fly Spirit. Of course, the average consumer would look at a $40 fare decrease and decide spending $30 for an overhead bag is a win. Those that do not see this, need remedial math.

          • Beeker26 says:

            It’s not a sense of entitlement, it’s a sense of being ripped off. Now if they truly have dropped all their fares by at least $30, and plan on keeping them there then there is nothing to complain about. But I know enough about how companies “run their businesses” to not trust them to do so. Cause we all know it’s not about consumer trust, it’s about scamming every single penny they can out of us. And while adding new luggage fees does this, lowering their prices doesn’t, so sorry if I’m a tad skeptical.

            In the end it just means more work for the consumer to find the best value. Not only do we need to look at the cost of the fares and taxes, but also all the hidden and barely-disclosed fees that vary from airline to airline. If they want to nickel and dime me to death then they should expect me to do everything I can to avoid paying a single dime more than I have to. And if they don’t like it then they should get into another business. Or maybe start treating passengers like real people instead of cattle.

      • coren says:

        And if they have less taxes to collect because they’re getting the money in fees, their overall price will be lower, not to mention look even lower than it actually is due to making up cost in fees.

  6. Span_Wolf says:

    What if I put a camera in my bag and called it a camera bag?

  7. Lightweight says:

    I’ve never flown Spirit, and this is not encouraging me to try.

  8. Kitteridge says:

    That would be me, changing airlines. Unless Spirit’s prices were suddenly $50 cheaper on average.

    Look, the real issue here is weight, right? So while I’m sure everyone would be uncomfortable with this option, here is the airline I’d pick: The one that comped everyone a certain poundage (say, 225 lbs) and made everyone get on a big scale with their luggage. Anything over 225 — you pay for, in a prorated way. this shouldn’t be about how much crap you can stuff in your pockets or bags you can slip by the gate agent — it’s about how much do you and your stuff weigh on the plane. So, weigh us and our stuff and go from there.

    • anduin says:

      Yea lets just discriminate against fat people, Im sure that’ll go over well.

      • thompson says:

        It’s not discriminatory if it is based on the realities of the situation — the cost to the airline is directly proportionate to the weight each passenger is carrying (him/herself + baggage).

        Under your logic it would be discrimination to charge more for people flying longer distances.

        • Paladingo says:

          You really need to learn the definition of “discrimination”.

          • thompson says:

            … and you really need to learn the meaning of “personal responsibility” and “actions have consequences”

            • coren says:

              Like being personally responsible for glandular conditions – which I guess would be the consequence of the action of two people having sex. So yeah, step up!

              • thompson says:

                I love that excuse… “glandular problem”. Yes, some very small percentage of people who are overweight have glandular problems. But the vast, vast majority are overweight through personal choice (or lack of will power).

                McDonald’s is not a medical condition. Sorry.

                • Pax says:

                  You’re not a doctor. Stop talking as if you were one.

                  • thompson says:

                    “Those who fall into the category of being obese due to “glandular problems” make-up 1% of the population. Therefore, weight gain for most people, is the result of increased energy intake and decreased energy output.”
                    http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/occupational-health/obesityinamerica.pdf

                    “The association between weight gain and hypothyroidism is well recognized by both physicians and patients, they noted. Yet, this study confirmed that evidence did not “support the notion of hypothyroidism as a cause of obesity,” they added.”
                    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Thyroid/7857

                    etc, etc. I’m not denying that some people have legitimate glandular problems that result in obesity / weight gain. But when you look at the percentage of people in the country who are overweight/obese, clearly glandular disorders are not at play in all of these cases. For most people, claiming glandular disorder is simply passing the blame.

                    • HogwartsProfessor says:

                      Some disorders make it harder to lose weight, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t. It’s just tougher.

                    • Pax says:

                      “Glandular problems” aren’t he only _medical_ cause of obesity.

                      Psychiatric issues can also cause obesity; there are any number of eating disorders which cause obesity … and, no, they are NOT as simple to correct as “just don’t eat too much”.

                      Some cases of obesity are _GENETIC_ – for example, Prader–Willi syndrome.

                      And current studies suggest that some cases of obesity may be tracable to bacterial (differences in gut flora) or even viral (for example, the Adv 36 adenovirus, which has been observed to increase fat-sell production in lab animals, including primates, and antobodies to which have been found in obese humans) origins.

                      So, I say to you again, two things:

                      (1) Stop misrepresenting the source of obesity as being “choice of diet” for all but a vanishingly-miniscule minority.

                      (2) Stop pretending to be a medical doctor (in terms of the manner in which you speak), when clearly you are _NOT_ one.

                • coren says:

                  And the airline has no way of determining, in looking at a person who is overweight, if a medical condition or overeating or something else caused them to be overweight, so rather than open themselves up to a lawsuit in the case that they do go after someone with a condition, they err on the side of caution

            • Pax says:

              … and you, asshole, really need to get a medical degree AND a psychiatric degree, beforeyou decide you can pontificate on what does or doesn’t cause obesity in EVERY person’s individual case.

              Some of us don’t eat much at all, and are still “fat”.

            • Snaptastic says:

              Agreed. As a person who eats properly and works out, why should I have to pay relatively more per pound than the person who weighs 3 times more than I do?
              If we’re going to claim discrimination against fat people, I’m going to claim that I am being discriminated against because I am not fat. Then someone can discriminate against me for feeling discriminated against.

              Personal accountability is losing ground with each passing day in this country.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      Also, the airlines should stop with this “Children under 2 fly free on domestic flights” nonsense. The average weight of a 2 year old is approximately the same as the weight of my carry-on luggage. If I have to pay for my carry-on, then parents should have to pay for theirs. $45 is quite reasonable for a plane ticket.

      In addition, I like the idea of having a baseline weight for air travel. If you and your luggage combined are over 250 pounds, then you have to pay a fuel surcharge for the extra weight. If the average American man is 190 pounds, and his clothing, including shoes, and pocket contents, are 10 pounds (that’s a pretty liberal allowance), then two, 25-pound pieces of luggage are all you are allowed to carry without incurring fees. That’s pretty much the standard baggage weight allowance anyway. Every 5 pounds over the allowance should be $10.

  9. curmudgeon5 says:

    It used to be that you had to make sure your carry-on fit in a container that they kept by the gate. If it didn’t fit, it had to be checked.

    They’re clearly not using that anymore since I’ve seen people bringing on bags that are the size of my entire body, and I wonder why.

    • Trilby says:

      And let’s not forget that people’s strong preference for carry-on is related to the abysmal job airlines do with checked baggage, starting with the delay in being able to leave the airport, questionable handling of the bag, possibility of theft, and bags ending up elsewhere than your destination. They create a condition where you are reluctant to hand over your bag and then they get to charge you for hanging onto it. Hm…

  10. MarsVolta187 says:

    I fly for a living. Twice a week I’m on a plane, so I guess you could call me a seasoned vet of the airline industry. These types of discount airlines with weird and numerous fees are fine for the lower middle class vacationer, who only flies maybe once a year, and doesn’t require any type of luxury while traveling. That’s who these airlines cater to, and that’s who will keep them in business.

    For my travels, I always go United. Sure I pay more for a little extra legroom near the front of the plane, as well as baggage fees and the such, but with the amount of time I spend on planes and in airports, it’s worth every cent. So there’s room for both types of travelers, the ultra-comfy and the ultra-cheap.

    • Fair&Balanced says:

      Business travelers are what keeps airlines in business not the yearly vacationers.

    • tbax929 says:

      I’m curious. Do you consider everyone who only flies for vacations to be lower or middle class? I’m sure that’s not what you’re saying, but your post seems to imply this.

      I fly a few times a year on business and maybe once or twice a year on pleasure, so I’m certainly no expert. I do know that I couldn’t care less about fees when I’m flying on business since I get reimbursed for everything anyway. I’m less likely to use an airline with high baggage fees when I’m traveling on my dime.

  11. pantheonoutcast says:

    Why should my messenger bag, a relatively small, unobtrusive piece of luggage, cost $45, while a stroller, a large, unwieldy, obnoxious contraption continues to be free? Have you seen these strollers lately? Giant frames, rugged wheels, canopies – They look they were designed for desert Ops. Even the smallest stroller, when folded up, still takes up three times the space as my carry-on bag.

    • 47ka says:

      Strollers are usually gate-checked anyway, and if you had a kid plus an eight hour delay you would be very happy to have that stroller. The article says, “any bag small enough to fit under a seat flies for free,” which I guess is good for me because I can usually cram my stuff under the seat, but not so much for people with the little rolling bags.

    • Beeker26 says:

      Or even a laptop bag, which is considerably smaller than most carry-on luggage.

  12. Smiley36 says:

    I read somewhere that airline fees are not taxable by the federal government. I think someone should be working on making these fees taxable. If the airlines don’t profit as much as prior, piling these fees onto consumers will be less attractive.

  13. r2w7 says:

    Sites like Bing Travel/Expedia/Kayak/(and other fare comparison sites) need to be updated to include #OfCarryOn and #OfCheckIns to flight fare search queries as extra fees can be a non-trivial % of total costs. As it is, the sites are accurate for comparing if you only carry-on or check a separate list (like http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/3801089/airline-baggage-fees-chart/ ) while purchasing.

  14. anduin says:

    Car seats? Wtf. Those are bigger than most carry ons and so families get a a discount yet again.

  15. sonneillon says:

    I think since they leverage a fee against easily %90+ of the passengers it should be called a fare pure and simple.

    Although really the largest airline in terms of passengers (southwest) doesn’t charge fees and they are reasonably pleasant. I have never seen spirit beat them in price so I do not even know why anyone would fly spirit.

    • JMILLER says:

      Who told you the stat about SWA being the largest by passenger volume? You may need to research a little bit before you lose credibility.

    • JMILLER says:

      Well a quick check on both their websites as of 5 minutes ago, here might be a reason. Spirit from DTW to TPA on Sept 13, returning on Sept 20th is $46.08 each way with taxes and airport fees. Spirit gets me there non-stop both ways, thus reducing taxes and airport landing fees. Southwest on the other hand is $93.40 each way with taxes and fees on the same dates. Southwest also would require a stop and change of planes in Nashville. It may not be that in all situations, but Spirit is an airline that does a lot of leisure travel to Florida, it seems a very reasonable comparison.

      • sonneillon says:

        fair enough. They always were just higher from DC where I live, although when I went to Florida I flew Continental because they were super cheap.

  16. MFfan310 says:

    Never have flown Spirit.

    After this, I probably never will.

  17. madtube says:

    Doesn’t matter. After the pilot strike fiasco, I will never fly with them again.

  18. Champs says:

    I am not the first to point this out, but for anyone who misses it: you pay taxes on airfare, not fees. If they reduce airfare by something at or even near the carryon fee, the change is revenue-neutral to them and a savings for you.

  19. Manny says:

    Just to be clear, any bag is that 16″ x 14″ x 12″ and can fit under the seat in front of you, then you do not have to pay a fee. Aside from that, the following items are not charged a fee regardless of size: Umbrella, Camera, Infant Diaper Bag, Assistive Devices, Outer Garments (Coats/Hats/Wraps), Car Seat/Stroller, Reading Material, Food for the flight. The largest size bag that is allowed as a carry on is 22″ x 18″ x 10″. I’m not standing up for them, but I have been a member of their $9 fare club since 2006 and they are the only airline that flies from Boston to Myrtle Beach, SC and I have flown for as little as $10 round trip. I usually pay around $40 rt on average. Being that I fly there 6 to 7 times a year, I can take all their crap and I just figure out ways around it.

  20. Master Medic: Now with more Haldol says:

    Southwest FTW.

    They may not be the most glamorous or have the best amenities, or even the best customer service (just ask Kevin Smith). But overall you get what you pay for, there’s no bag fees and if you have to change your trip all the funds get applied to a new ticket not lose most the money due to “change fees”.

  21. VashTS says:

    Do not fly with Spirit…that is the solution.

  22. Emily says:

    I am never paying anyone for the right to carry my own possessions around.

  23. Fantoche_de_Chaussette says:

    To be honest, the way most European main-line air carriers do it is probably best: simply ban all carry-ons that weigh more than 15 pounds. It makes it a lot faster to get on and off the plane.

    And I have to believe that not having a passenger cabin chock-full of baggage makes for a safer environment in case of turbulence, hard landings, or emergency evacuations.

  24. humphrmi says:

    I agree with (a few) other posters here… in retrospect, a carry on bag fee is the result of a war between travelers and the airlines over proper handling of checked baggage. When I started flying, back in the ’70’s, nobody carried anything on board. You didn’t need to, upon exiting the aircraft your baggage was there waiting for you – intact, unopened, and in a reasonable time.

    In the ’80’s I was so enamored with airlines that I worked in airline “ramp service” jobs – basically baggage handlers. We were expected to deliver bags intact, unopened, and in a reasonable time.

    Then the 90’s came, and the airlines said “fuck all those rules, let’s just hire any monkey who is willing to throw a 90 pound bag around for minimum wage” and nobody wanted to check bags anymore. Hence the concept of carry-on bags. It’s been a war ever since. Consumers rarely lose in the long run, more companies go bankrupt for lack of customers than customers go bankrupt for want of an airline.

  25. vastrightwing says:

    Spirit, just sell flights for $1.00 and then charge everyone a boarding fee of $100 or so. Does that work for you?

  26. whoknowsdrwho says:

    I’ve flown on Spirit once…but I don’t think I will after this. They should have just keep their ticket prices stable and not done a carry on fee! I still think fees for luggage in general are crazy.

  27. PBallRaven says:

    Looks like if I ever have to fly on Spirit, I’ll be wearing a big coat that has LOTS of pockets.

  28. donovanr says:

    Do airlines like this not realize that I will just add them to the list of airlines that I won’t fly with except in the direst of emergencies? Airlines such as Air Canada.

  29. pot_roast says:

    “Umbrellas, camera bags, strollers and car seats are among the items that will remain free of charge.”

    “Service items” are exempt from bag fees and carry on restrictions, and at my airline job they were abused frequently. People would stuff all kinds of personal stuff into their “diaper bag” and insist it was a service item.

  30. runswithscissors says:

    Cargo pants with every pocket just crammed with stuff – FTW!

  31. LogicalOne says:

    Fees for both checked and carry-ons? No thanks, I think I’ll walk…

  32. HogwartsProfessor says:

    No way. Either treat my checked baggage with the respect due (to me as a customer) or let me bring my crap aboard for nothing. The reason people are afraid to check bags isn’t the fees; it’s all the theft/destruction. I don’t want to pay to check and still have nothing at the other end. That, and charging for carry-on, is like reaching into my wallet, taking out my money and then slapping me around with it.

  33. Mr.Gawn says:

    Thats why I show up to airports wearing 3-4 coats, 3 shirts, 2 pairs of pants and socks, and a back pack STUFFED with clothes