Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter
Back to Squawk list
  • 18

Faster airline boarding? It could be in the bag

Soumis
 
New research from Clarkson University focuses on carry-on bags as the key to getting passengers onto planes faster. Bonus: it could mean less jockeying for precious overhead space. (news.cnet.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


canuck44
canuck44 7
Maybe it would be faster if enforcement of the carry on size and number took place. The jerk with the oversized suitcase containing most of his wardrobe is the number one problem.
TXCAVU
...or "jerkette".
canuck44
canuck44 3
True...one of the problems with all these electronic records, we cannot leave warnings for the next person that has to deal with an individual...we used to have a notation of SHPOS or SHPOSette, as you suggest. The SH translates to Sub-Human.
blackadder
Chris Taylor 1
If it's a jerkette,it will be ALL of her wardrobe and the result of a visit to the mall on the way to the airport and all for a 2 day trip.
TXCAVU
If it's a jerkette, it will be merely 1 month of her latest wardrobe because she had "noting" to wear. Translation: excuse to buy something different, then buy more at the destination because it will give memories forever of that trip. End result: rediculous.

[This poster has been suspended.]

TXCAVU
Take it you don't dare breath the letters "CG" or "WnB"...

[This poster has been suspended.]

TXCAVU
...the same man who later says "Why did I tell her "No"?

[This poster has been suspended.]

TXCAVU
The gate agents deal with the bag issues that should have been dealt with on the unsecure side. All day long passengers bring up the point that they were allowed through on the unsecure side or at a station (all manned by contractors). If carry ons were dealt with, uniformly, before they hit TSA...boarding would before less impeded by the monsterous, heavy bags.

[This poster has been suspended.]

TXCAVU
Why would you comment on the TSA? Just wondered.

[This poster has been suspended.]

rjudy175e
Richard Judy 1
AMEN John...A M E N! ! !
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
If airlines wanted to encourage more passengers to check their bags (I suggest that the airlines' reluctance to add carryon fees may suggest that there are substantial labor cost, benefits cost and labor scheduling and logistics cost, and space costs to take on additional responsibility for additional bags), but if airlines do want passengers to check bash in greater numbers, they could add one checked bag per passenger to each reservation ad default. Each passenger could adjust their number of checked bags to zero, one, two or more per passenger before confirming the details and paying for their fare.

Also, airlines can make an effort to sell at time of online check-in, as well as in the check-in reminder email. Additionally, offers could be sent to pasengers selectively (eg. a passenger that sometimes checks and sometimes doesn't and/or a passenger that used to check their bags consistently, but don't anymore.

Some new programs that deliver bags to an off-airport destination will continue to bring in increasingly larger amounts of new revenue, while providing a real additional service. No waiting around for baggage check. No having to carry your bags. Not at the airport. Not to the rental car. Not on public transportation. Not to meetings throughout the day. Not having to check-in early at hotel to get rid of bags. Not having to deal with lots of bags, especially when you're responsible for managing movement and belonging of a group [particularly involving kids or elderly parents]. And, no having your bags go round and round on a public conveyor belt that can be easy pickings for those with an appetite for the things of others, etc.

But by far, the best thing airlines could do to encourage more pasengers to WANT TO check their bags is to not lose, not misdirect and not delay so many bags.
rjudy175e
Richard Judy 4
The airlines have caused this problem on themselves...I remember when the price of your ticket included 2 CHECKED bags. Come on airlines...WISE UP, enforce the carry-on sizes and return to free checked bags.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
And free ice cream at the sweet shop of your choice, whenever the kids want ice cream.
tbgaus
Terry Gaus 4
Let's not forget about the moron who puts his/her bag in the overhead at row 10 and then proceeds to his/her seat at row 22, thus forcing the row 10 pax to put THEIR bag further down the fuselage, etc. I have actually seen flight attendants start to police against this type of behavior, but it is really not their job.
jimprevo
Jim Prevo 2
In my experience, the problem starts back in the terminal. Passengers tend to jump the gun and line up too early for their zones. Then they get intermingled and the aisles get clogged on the aircraft. Since everyone knows people jump the gun, more people jump the gun.

It would be great if passengers could get arranged properly in the terminal prior to boarding. That way the boarding would be partly over before it even begins.
TXCAVU
Jim is right.
preacher1
preacher1 2
The proper arrangement of the people and strict enforcement, maybe even a reduction in carry on size.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Many airlines have installed larger overhead bins to accomidate more luggage. In some cases like the former Continental was years, maybe decades before airlines were considering charging for checked bags.

It would make little sense to drastically reduce the permitted size of carry-ons after building up so much capacity.

OTOH enforcing the current limits would help. Some people bring monstrously large luggage and/or many bags. In the past, gate checking worked to control any exuberant attempted user of bin storar capacity.

The problem for carry-on luggage and any potential impact on boarding speed, now I all directly related to charging for checked luggage.
OnTheHorizon
Tony Smith 2
One simple way would be to reverse the paradigm: have checked bags free and charge for carry on. Spirit is a little ways in this regard compared to the rest of the industry. But most airlines want their cake and to eat it too, little baggage costs and fast boarding. Those two are opposing forces and pushing one one pushes the other side out like a balloon. Add to that some passengers who have a sense of entitlement and are surly and you arrive at the situation that exists today.
TXCAVU
Concur!
But allow bags that fit underneath the seat in front of you.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
That doesn't fix the fact that millions of bags are lost every year, and many more are misdirected or delayed in some way, which also negates the entire effort of choosing and packing your stuff that is not available during your trip as planned.

At least airlines can't charge baggage fees for luggage that is lost. That would add insult to injury.
TXCAVU
In fact and I have personal knowledge of this, checked baggage tracking is not the issue. Unmarked/identifiable luggage accounts for the staggering amounts of lost luggage. Included are devices that have no ID on them.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I call bull.

The airlines tag every bag that they receive and take responsibility for safe delivery to the intended destination.

That the airlines still lose millions of bags is utterly and completely unacceptable and completely inexcusable.
nyj713
coco liguori 2
Don't forget the ones that that take up valuable overhead space with their jackets and overcoats
tireman
tireman 2
Easier solution: Charge for any carry-on bigger than a briefcase/purse. People trying to get out of paying for checked luggage by using multiple carry-ons are ruining flying.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Many airlines are already charging for carry-ons. Of course their motivation is revenue.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Their motivation for the airlines that DON'T charge for carry-ons is not to upset some of the best customers -the other half of passengers that carry-on. These are the one's that have always
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
These are the pro travelers that have always carried on, even when checked luggage was free.

(Plus airlines do save some money on ramp rats, when passengers carry their own bag.)

(Also, it is easier to justify a fee for checking a bag, as work is done to bring that luggage to the destination.OTOH Passengers do the work of carrying their own carry ons. )

But logic would suggest that fees for carry-on bags would reduce the amount of luggage carried into the passenger compartment, and speed

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Ha! Funny you mention Dollar Tree. I rarely go there, buy was there yesterday. They may have a small number of featured loss leaders, but they typically make quits a bit of money on each item sold. I noticed that they specifically choose items to stock that they can sell exactly for a dollar. I'm always impressed at the great number of things they sell profitably for a dollar, that in other stores are a high-margin item selling for much more, often multiple dollars (that help to increase the overall profitability of their store.

But as far as ramp as a cost, that's got to factor into the decision to add a carry on fee.

If they add the fees on carry-ons and bring in an additional $50million in fees (a mix of some carry-on fees, plus a substantial increase in luggage checking fees), but have a substantial increase in ramp costs due to the increased amount og checked luggage (let's say $55million), then nobody is happy. Even if the additional ramp costs are only $45 million, that only nets the company $5 mil, but at a cost of $50 mil of heartache to passengers in additional fees.

I would've said the ramp guts would be the only ones happy in such a situation (you know eith all the additional work and job security). But even they'd bitch about all the extra work.

So that's why you're likely only seeing ULCC's such as spirit charging for carryons.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
These are the pro travelers that have always carried on, even when checked luggage was free.

(Plus airlines do save some money on ramp rats, when passengers carry their own bag.)

(Also, it is easier to justify a fee for checking a bag, as work is done to bring that luggage to the destination.OTOH Passengers do the work of carrying their own carry ons. )

But logic would suggest that your premise should hold. Fees for carry-on bags would reduce the amount of luggage carried into the passenger compartment, and therefore should result in speedier boarding and deplaning times.
dral6503
Ed Berling 2
It's all money. I've seen people lug 'carry-ons' the size of Volkswagens onto the plane then struggle (usually with the help of several other passengers) to get the bag into the overhead, all to save $25. I agree with many of the commenters, if it doesn't fit into those little boxes by the check in counter it has to be checked. Of course, the gate agent has to actually ENFORCE that rule, which is another problem all together...
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Agreed.

But some of the airlines' best passengers have been carrying on for years. They are the ones that have been carrying their bags on for years. Both becasuse they don't want tinwait around for baggage claim, but also because two couldn't do without their files/laptop, nor without their suit (in case their bag is lost, delayed it misplaced in some way). Too many years of airline baggage experiences have led some to keep their essential items with them at all times. The roller bags' popularity also arose at first to meet the needs of this subset of travelers (who were themselves copying the example of flight crews who had their own roller bags before them).

These folks would continue to carry-on even of tbe cost of carrying on were equal to checking. Many of these,would even carry on, even if it were more expensive, but they'd resent the airline for it.

Many airlines already give their best passengers free checked luggage (or at least preferential treatment/ pricing) through membership in loyalty programs' elite statuses. The airlines could do the same for them, if and when airlines started charging for carryon bags.

My best guess is that there are substantial additional marginal costs that offset a substantial portion of any additional marginal revenue from carryon bag fees. Despite my claims that an important subgroup of passengers carry on because of preference, with today's fees many more carry on to save a buck or $50.
onjuku20
onjuku20 1
The Russians solved it years ago. They designed some passenger aircraft that have a baggage room that is entered before the seating area. No one checks bags. Everyone carries all baggage on board and throws it on a shelf and continues to the seating area of the aircraft.
TXCAVU
Keywords: "some passenger aircraft". The 737 Combi aircraft used to ferry passengers and cargo has a similar layout but both are for very specific markets.
grinch59
Gene Nowak 0
Well, they are getting closer to what I suggested last year. "The main problem is the overhead bins. Eliminate them and carry-on luggage, then you can have a faster boarding system because people are not standing in and blocking the aisles."
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
That's just a completely ridiculous statement.

The airlines are doing the exact opposite. In every press release about redesigned or reconfigured cabins includes at least a bullpen point indicating that overhead bin space has been increased. They continue to increase bin space all the time.

Most of the standing around (in the aircraft) is related to not enough overhead bin space, resulting in people looking a Andrew open space or trying to arrange/organize the contents of the bins to make room for their belongings.

Less bin space is the absolute irst idea I've ever heard.

As far as getting rid of carry-ons is not within the rhelm of the possible, as it would open up the airlines toneven greater liability of lost checked luggage if no alternative were made available.

Many people carry many materials such as prescription medications, jewelry, technology gadgets and clothing that greatly surpass the current lost baggage liability limits.

There would be hell to pay if passengers were prohibited in carrying luggage onto the plane. There would be much pressure to increase the liability limits on lost baggage immediately and substantially. The airlines wouldn't want to even consider opening that bag of worms.

It's auchincloss better idea to provide passengers with ample bin space. Doing so actually increases the value proposition, rather than substantially reducing the value proposition.

On the positive side, it would give private aviation a gigantic boost. Bi it could cut away many of the airlines' most valuable passengers. The airlines would again start bleeding cash, and have tonfond themselves in bankruptcy court to again trim cost and get rid of lots of underutilized planes. They'd also have to get rid of lots of workers that that wouldn't be needed for the planes that are no longer part of the fleet.

SO NO, the airlines won't be getting rid of overhead bins nor carry-on baggage any time soon. They won't even consider it.
marymcelyea
Mary McElyea 0
On ANY flight in/out of China, overheads are now used as export depots! Just ban all carryon except for one flight bag that must fit under your seat......Keep overhead for coats, the way they were meant to be!

( I always fear overheads opening in heavy turbulence and dumping a coffee maker on my head! It really IS a safety issue!)
TXCAVU
After a recent experience with a carryon taller than myself, I remarked jokingly to the gate agent "What next; a kitchen sink as carry on?" The agent quickly said "Oh yeah, we've actually had that happen. When we insisted to look inside the carry on...a sink!" And it went right through TSA because it met requirements.
RECOR10
RECOR10 1
Years ago (25+) leaving on a family vacation from EWR there was a guy trying to get on a Peoples Air flight with the mattress from a baby crib. Every time I fly I wonder how that worked out.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!