Government telling Airlines what they can charge?

majorwhiteapples

majorwhiteapples

5,000+ Posts
So our Democrat Senators are introducing a bill, telling airlines that they can't charge for the first checked bag.

How freaking ridiculous has this become?

Pay as you go, if you have checked bags you pay, if you don't you don't.

This bill is going to increase the price of tickets, instead of giving you the choice your ticket will just be higher to accomodate those that check bags.

More ******** regulation, pay as you go, if you use the service you pay for it and stay out of the business.

If you want to tell airlines what they can and can't do you shouldn't have de-regulated the industry.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/22/senate-bill-aims-to-block-airline-baggage-fees/#ixzz1eTPXIUxZ?test=latestnews
 
the airlines would not exist were it not for regulation by the government. The government did not de regulate, it partially de regulated and the result has been that a lot more people could afford to fly.

The insane steps people go through to not check baggage now is annoying and stupid. If the governement tells them they can't charge for bags it means the price of a ticket goes up a little. BFD.

People who are whining about this need to think about whether this is really a major problem or alternatively that they are relentless knee jerk wusses whose default position is to blame the government for everything that inconveniences them even a little.

BFD
 
So you think that the government should be regulating that our first bag is free?

What is it about choice and freedom that you do not get?

You would be so much happier living in Europe, the old Soviet Unioin or China.

Our government is going to try and pass a law telling a for profit company that they can't charge a customer for a service that is being provided?

You do not see the idocy in this?

I feel sorry for you, man I feel sorry for you!
 
Restaurants would no longer be allowed to charge customers for beverages under a bill being introduced in Congress. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., announced the legislation Tuesday, describing it as way spare customers from "unfair charges" while encouraging them to ease up a bit on the free tap water.

"Eating out can be a stressful experience for many reasons, but unfair fees for basic amenities should not be one of them," Landrieu said in a statement. "Diners have been nickeled and dimed for far too long and something has to be done about it."
Under the proposal, restaurant-goers would be allowed one glass of tap water and one soft drink or alcoholic beverage, provided they are within size limits. Restaurants would also be required to provide free access to windows and toilets -- the senator wants to impose penalties on any restaurant that fails to comply.
 
Huisache's apathetic approach is goofy. Govt should not be dictating what private enterprise charges or doesn't charge because of a perceived logistical issue (their TSA is a much larger culprit) or for any other reason. As if airliners need anything else to worry about, now they're dealing with a meddlesome govt? How intrusive and how retarded.
 
It's funny how many liberals will complain long and loud about even a hint of rights violations or inconveniences or slippery slopes when it comes from a conservative origin. Funny how that attitude changes when a dem is doing the legislation.

You guys know perfectly well that this one issue is not the point. The fact is that if the government can dictate this, why an't they also dictate that airlines must fly into certain airports? Or that they must allow additional legroom on all future jets they purchase. Or that they can only charge a certain amount per ticket based on the miles traveled? Or that the government should just go ahead and set pricing, since that's essentially how far these other suggestions have taken it.

And the only argument that can be made that this would never happen is "this would never happen" or "I wouldn't ever support that." Great. But the people you elect to office would. And when you try to cover for them and minimize their encroachments on free enterprise, you are telling them that you're in their camp and you're emboldening them to take that next step.

And yes, that goes for both sides of the aisle. But now we've gotten to the point where if anyone we generally disagree with suggests something, we immediately dismiss them as "crazy" or "whining" without even an attempt to understand the concern.
 
I agree with the Politics professor who wrote
:Blaming government for virtually all of society’s problems can be very alluring. As the anxieties and insecurities of average Americans mount, the anti-government movement offers them a simple – and simplistic – explanation for who is at fault. Is the economy stagnant? It is because of government over-regulation of business. Are you having trouble paying your bills or sending your children to college on your current wages? It is because government takes so much of your salary in taxes. You didn’t get that job or that promotion? It is probably the fault of government promoted affirmative action programs. Worried about the moral decay of society? Blame government for taking prayer and God out of schools. Don’t have enough money for retirement? It’s the fault of government for not letting you invest your Social Security money in the stock market. Blaming government is a convenient, one-size fits-all explanation that can be stretched to fit just about every problem in this country.
 
Those are all great explanations for those specific ills. Regardless, that point is irrelevant, as those are by and large unintended consequences. This is a very specific, focused instance of meddling.
 
Geez, I know there are a lot of statists and interventionists on this board, but I'm really surprised at the level of support/ambivalence toward this proposal. To Sen. Landrieu and others I have two words: Southwest Airlines! You know, "bags fly free"? The most important thing government can do is preserve freedom and choice in the marketplace. This proposal leads precisely in the wrong direction on both of those counts. Everyone loves to "bag" on the airlines but heaping more regulations upon them is the wrong way to "handle" the situation. "Claims" of mistreatment or unfairness are best handled by healthy competition, something that is not currently lacking in the airline industry but needs to be fostered. Proposals like this amount to little more than anti-competitive, coercivee bullying. While they make some on the left tingly for sticking it to the big bad airline corporations, in the end, like most regulations, they are only hurting the consumer.
 
No, they shouldn't.

I know big government types love to use these kinds of safety arguments but you're forgetting two key things:

1) Airlines have tremendous incentive not to kill their customers. That much should be obvious.
2) You're making the false assumption that government can do it better.
 
Well in the name of protecting the public, safety mandates are relatively effective while pricing mandates **** up the economy and cost jobs and wealth. To me the distinction has a huge difference in effect and is thus a distinction with a difference.
 
**** em. The only reason airlines charge for bags is because of online ticket merchants (orbitz, travelocity). When those started popping up on the intertubes, every airline knew that in order to sell tickets through them you had to have the lowest price possible. Cutting out all the stuff you normally would have paid for in a ticket (ie meals, drinks, bags) gives you a lower priced ticket, and the people that can do without bags meals and drinks end up winning because they save money and the airline fills the seat.


Anybody know if this applies to international carriers operating in the US? If US carries would now have to charge for bags no matter what, if I am flying from O'hare to Heathrow for a couple days and don't have a checked bag, and all other things being equal, wouldn't it be cheaper for me to fly BA, Air Canada, etc instead of American or United since AA and UA would be forced to charge me extra?


The funny thing is, one of the first things that got shut down during the debt limit crisis was the FAA, including inspectors and regulators. Airlines could've done whatever the hell they wanted because nobody was there to tell them otherwise. Senators and Reps still collected paychecks, but they people in charge of monitoring aircraft maintenance were furloughed. Then they come back, and the first thing the government does is try to impose airline taxes to make your tickets more expensive, then, they try to make you pay for bags, even if you don't have them.


Look, right now, airlines charge you for bags, they charge you for wifi, they charge you for live TV, they charge you for food, they charge you for drinks, and they charge you for more leg room. Does everybody pay for this stuff? No, but they people that need it or want it pay for it. You don't have a wifi enabled device, you won't be paying for wifi. You don't have a bag, you won't be paying for it, oh wait, now you will. Why doesn't the government say the airlines should automatically charge for wifi, or live TV, or leg room?

Personally, to be absolutely fair, the airlines should have you step on a scale with everything you're taking on the plane and charge you by the pound. For a fleet of 350 airplanes, every pound that is carried by those planes over the course of a year cost the company $20,000. Making a 100 pound person with 10 pounds in bags pay the same as a 350 pound person with 50 pounds in bags is ridiculously unfair, plus, charging by the pound would be a great incentive for some of the fat fucks in this country to lose some GD weight.
 
I'm opposed to this proposal. It isn't the government's place to engage in price controls except in war time.

Having said that, it is funny to hear the airline industry and small government advocates whine about government interference in this case. I can scarcely think of an industry that has derived more benefit from government largess than the airline industry.

First, the technology used to develop their aircraft was borrowed heavily from military funded research and development. Second, they use airports that were built partially or fully with taxpayer money. Third, the U.S. Postal Service contracts with many of the larger carriers to transport mail.

And one thing I've learned over the years is that whenever a business can treat its alleged customers like sh*t and still make money, government is always involved. Airline customer service is terrible. They sodomize you if you lose your paper ticket (if you're dumb enough to buy paper tickets). They don't give you real food anymore. They charge you if you want a beer. They charge you if you want to check a bag. They make you put up with bitchy and obnoxious old, ugly women and stereotypical gay men as your flight attendants. In spite of all that, they stay in business.

And I question whether this BS actually saves the consumer money. Try flying on Swiss Air, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, (or most any major airline from Europe or Asia). You get free food, free beer (as much as you want), and don't have to pay for luggage. You get far better customer service, and you get friendly, competent, and usually hot flight attendants on board. Are they more expensive than the US carriers? Not that I've noticed. In fact, they're often cheaper.

So though I agree that we shouldn't be dictating what airlines can charge, I'm pretty unsympathetic to their bellyaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top