Spirit Airlines’ fee for carry-on bags might be stupid, but it shouldn’t be illegal

Our recent survey of over 5,000 Gadling readers makes clear that a wide majority of travelers think Spirit Airlines’ recently introduced fee for carry-on bags is a horrible idea. I can see their point. Passengers are already grumbling about having to pay extra for things like in-flight snacks, headphones, and checked bags– which were all free just a few years ago– and now Spirit introduces yet another fee into the mix.

But here’s the thing: Much as I dislike Spirit’s decision to charge for carry-on luggage, I don’t think it should be illegal. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood disagree. Sen. Schumer, who said the move by Spirit Airlines was “a slap in the face to travelers,” is planning on introducing legislation that would ban airlines from charging for carry-on luggage.

Secretary LaHood was similarly appalled by the new fee, calling it “outrageous” and saying, “We’re gonna hold the airline’s feet to the fire on this. Because we have an obligation to do it and we have the ability to do it.”

In the world that busybody senators and transportation secretaries inhabit, any arguably incorrect decision a company makes ought to be made illegal. In the real world, companies who make stupid decisions lose customers and go out of business.

As Jeff Jacoby wrote in yesterday’s Boston Globe:

Maybe LaHood imagines that air travelers, like taxpayers, have no choice but to pay whatever they’re told to pay. A lifetime in the public sector may have so calcified his ignorance of how markets function that he simply cannot grasp that passengers who don’t want to pay Spirit’s new carry-on fees can always switch to an airline that doesn’t charge them.

So, by all means, let’s groan about Spirit Airlines’ stupidity, let’s pillory their CEO and call him a fool, let’s never buy a ticket on board their airline for the rest of our lives. But please, before we cry out “there oughta be a law!” let’s remember that companies should be allowed to cater to people with preferences other than our own. A company’s innovative pricing scheme, whether that company is Netflix, Apple, or Spirit Airlines, should live or die on its own merit, not because some government bureaucrat doesn’t like it. Jeff Jacoby hits the nail on the head again:

Spirit’s $30 fee for the use of an overhead bin may well strike people as “outrageous.” But for Washington to bully the airline into rescinding its fee for no better reason than that some passengers don’t like it would be a greater outrage by far.

Read the entire Jacoby article here.

Photo of the Day (4.18.2010)

San Francisco is a particularly photogenic city, between the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz and the city’s iconic cable cars. But these “same old” San Francisco shots get old after awhile – that’s why I’m loving today’s image from Flickr user evilninjam0nky, who captured this unique nighttime street scene. A frenzy of activity catches your eye in the foreground, as a blur of pedestrians and traffic scurries back and forth. It’s contrasted perfectly by a block of stoic old Victorian brownstones, which anchor the background.

Have any picturesque shots of San Francisco you’d like to share with Gadling? Why not add them to our Gadling group on Flickr? We might pick one of yours as our Photo of the Day.

Major airlines commit to keeping carry-on luggage fee free – will not follow Spirit Airlines

In a funny twist to the Spirit Airlines carry-on bag fee situation, Senator Charles Schumer has managed to get five major airlines to agree that they will not follow suit.

American, Delta, JetBlue, United and US Air have all confirmed that they will not go the route Spirit Airlines took, and that they will keep carry-on baggage free. The commitment comes as Senator Schumer works to talk Spirit Airlines out of their plan which will go into effect on August 1st.

In the past, many fee generating measures quickly spread to other airlines, so it was not completely unthinkable that the measure could become an industry standard.

In our own survey, 93.2% of Gadling readers said they think the carry-on bag fee is a bad idea.

While I agree that government getting involved in the private world of air travel is a dangerous precedent – I applaud their intervention in this case – the government regulates the skies and has the right to put measures in place to protect consumers.


Want to win an $800 JVC Everio camcorder?
Click here!

%Gallery-64688%

%Gallery-86528%

White Collar Travel Extra: Abercrombie CEO grounded!

When you think about it, $71.8 million in total compensation just isn’t what it used to be. That’s what Abercrombie & Fitch Chairman and CEO Mike Jeffries raked in for 2008. Meanwhile, the company he was skippering showed a profit of $254,000. Basically, A&F as a company – with all the resources available to it – earned the decent salary of a lower-level executive. So, it’s no surprise that Jeffries had his wings clipped.

According to the Corporate Library, a watchdog group, Jeffries was one of the top five Highest Paid Worst Performers of 2008. Translation: never has one received so much for accomplishing so little. I don’t know if you can call it punishment – hell, it doesn’t even feel like a reality check- but A&F is putting the brakes on its contributions to the CEO’s personal travel cost. After $200,000, he has to pick up his own tab. Compare that to the 2008 personal travel bill he turned over to shareholders: $1.3 million.

Yeah, times have changed.

Now, I’m sure someone, somewhere, is about to shed a tear for Jeffries. After all, he’s losing a nice perk. Fortunately, he has found a way to compensate (well, be compensated) for the change in travel policy: A&F is kicking in a $4 million lump-sum payment.

I know it’s fashionable to hate greedy CEOs. Frankly, I’m fine with their making obscene amounts of money, as long as they’re creating kick-ass amounts of shareholder value – that’s really all that matters. Well, Jeffries hasn’t been delivering the goods, which means just about anything is “generous” at this point.

If it had to happen, at least, the cap on personal travel expenses came at the right time. Flights are still pretty cheap, and hotel rates aren’t likely to start recovering until next year.

Icelandic ash stranded you in the US? Beware of a visa overstay!

The Iceland volcano disruption is causing unprecedented disruptions in air travel all around the world – but your problems could become even worse if you are here in the United States on any kind of Visa or Visa Waiver that is about to expire.

The Visa Waiver program allows you to be here for 90 days – and overstaying that period will result in all kinds of hassles if you ever plan to return. I have personally witnessed someone being sent back to Europe because they had overstayed by 3 days several years ago.

There is no blanket exception for travelers impacted by the flight cancellations, so you are on your own to apply for an extension. Do not assume everything will be alright – even one day past your 90 days can result in a future deportation or entry refusal.

To apply for the extension, you will need to contact a local U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services facility. A guide on how to extend your visa status can be found here. Even though the normal procedures do not permit Visa Waiver status to be changed, exceptions are being made for people stranded due to the volcano. If you are not able to contact a local office, make sure you have a copy of your I-94 arrival-departure form, as you’ll probably have to put together a letter once you get back home.

The official statement sent to foreign embassies in the U.S. can be found here. I recommend printing this information for future reference.