Archives

Recent Assets

  • 2963861805_ecaba89723.jpg
  • Swelbar Photo 1.JPG
  • Glenn_Tilton_0001.jpg
  • airline-fees1.jpg
  • 022807menendez_911.png
  • Cary,Dennis.jpg
  • 2598958385_2a81d19eaf.jpg
  • mystory.gif
  • 724expedia-screen-shot.png
  • 2505957113_9524085cdb_o.jpg

Second-bag fee chain effect? United moves first

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) |
How much? Everyone's on the bag-fee bandwag luggage.jpg on, but United has taken the ancillary efforts a bit farther: it just raised the fee to check a second bag from $25 to $50 one way. United estimates that the $50 fee will apply to one in seven customers because its elite-level flyers, people in first or business or on active military duty are exempt, as are international passengers. Interestingly, American was the first out of the bag, er, box, with a fee for the first bag, and it stayed out there alone until others followed, with United setting off the chain reaction. Will that happen now?
The airline says that by year-end it will have developed a way for customers to pay baggage fees at united.com when they check in on-line. Chicago-based United estimates that its merchandising efforts including its bag fees will raise as much as $700 million in 2009. The United fees begin on November 19.

Predicatably, reaction was predictable, with predictable passenger blogs kvetching. But the United chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association 7-b-last-bag.jpgquoted its chairman, Captain Steve Wallach, as saying, "There they go again. The management at United should be trying to improve conditions for passengers, not finding back-handed ways to charge them more." Wallach also suggested that perhaps United could focus less on executive bonuses. The United move follows by a day or two a move by Frontier to begin charging $15 for a first piece of checked luggage.  

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Second-bag fee chain effect? United moves first .

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.flightglobal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/35147

Leave a comment