What is chance of Southwest charging for bags?

[poohs4me]

I am getting ready to start watching for flights for next January, but I already know I may have significant luggage. I am trying to decide if it is better to wait until Southwest releases dates which I know will not be for some time or book now if I find a good airfare.

 

I know people cannot tell the future, so I am just looking for peoples gut instinct. I would normally not worry too much but I recently saw an article that indictated SWA might be considering baggage fees. What do you guys think?

[PennyAgain]

There is no way to predict the future with airlines. Any airline, but SouthWest has made a big deal about not charging for baggage. Of course with SouthWests fuel contracts coming to an end, it all could change when they are hit by higher fuel prices.

 

I am far from any airport served by SouthWest. To me it is silly to have to drive a couple hours each way to save a few bucks.

[Sargent_Schultz]

SW is spending a lot on their Bags Fly Free campaign. I doubt they will change it anytime soon. Even if they do, I think the first bag will always be free.

 

The SW charges for a 3rd bag and/or overweight luggage is less than the legacy airlines and I don't expect that to change.

[imsulin]

SW is spending a lot on their Bags Fly Free campaign. I doubt they will change it anytime soon. Even if they do, I think the first bag will always be free.

 

The SW charges for a 3rd bag and/or overweight luggage is less than the legacy airlines and I don't expect that to change.

 

I agree. The non-charging of two pieces of checked baggage is one of their biggest draws (as well as relatively cheaper prices), which is why I've flown SW exclusively for the last few years. I'm flying next week from East to West coast r/t for about $178.00. (Thanks to 72-hour sale and $50.00 left on a LUV voucher). Can't beat it.

 

My neighbor, a CONFIRMED Delta fan for years, has recently said, "Never Again"! after a couple of disastrous trips this past year. While trying to save her pride, she is now cautiously asking me about SW, prefacing each inquiry with, "I'm allergic to peanuts and hate small planes, BUT........".

[paul929207]

I agree. SouthWet has made a big deal of not charging for bags. It would be difficult for them to reverse course now. But never say never.

[imsulin]

There is no way to predict the future with airlines. Any airline, but SouthWest has made a big deal about not charging for baggage. Of course with SouthWests fuel contracts coming to an end, it all could change when they are hit by higher fuel prices.

 

I am far from any airport served by SouthWest. To me it is silly to have to drive a couple hours each way to save a few bucks.

 

We live two hours from Atlanta (no SW, horrible traffic with miles of construction work on I-85 north, expensive parking, LONG security lines, escalators and trains, largest International Airport in the world, five terminals) and two hours from Birmingham (Has SW, easy drive, cheap parking, short security lines, and very easy to navigate.) Since a two-hour drive is involved anyway, Birmingham and SW is an obvious choice.

[hdawson]

It just may depend on the need for profits. If oil hits $90, $100 or $120 baggage fees could be SWs salvation. Maximizing profits are a responsibility to the shareholders. i.e, owners.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Historically, SW will raises fares, if necessary. Nickel and diming is not their style. Even when oil was much higher than $120 and legacy airlines used fuel costs as an excuse to charge luggage fees, SW didn't.

 

When SW opens up ticket sales, they have a pretty good idea of their costs for the duration.

[grandmato4]

No, I don't think SW will be charging for all luggage anytime soon. I have no doubt they will hold on to at least one piece free for a long time.

 

If I saw a good airfare(with all cost added in) on a flight I was happy with before SW releases theirs I certain would book it. There is no guarentee that when SW releases their flights for the dates you wish that you will find prices you are any happier with.

 

Booking airfare is always a gamble as to what prices will do. Sometimes we feel we've won that gamble in the end and sometimes after booking we feel that we've lost that gamble. That's what a gamble is;)

[Gardyloo]

I personally hold to the belief that this "cafeteria" approach to air travel pricing (base plus this plus that plus the other thing) is not a good business model in the long run. IMO it really plays on perceived gullibility (of the public, by the airlines) that can't be maintained forever. People are getting too sophisticated in terms of price-shopping.

 

One of these days one of the search/booking engines like Expedia or Kayak is going to find a way to show both Southwest's fares and "with baggage" fares for other carriers side-by-side. Right now, part of Southwest's secret is not to use any GDSs and not to release their fares/schedules to the search engines, because they fear the result - people will see that their alleged "lower prices" aren't lower in many cases, even allowing for dumb add-on bag charges by the other carriers. Somebody will give at that point, and I expect it will be the bag-chargers. They'll just raise base fares to match WN's, then the race will be to see who does the most value-added, like interline baggage forwarding, or international connections, etc.

 

Look at the practices of the US auto makers prior to the Japanese coming in to dominate the marketplace. Everything was an option, from the radio to the floor mats. Then Toyota and Nissan and Honda waltzed in with cars that came standard from the factory with air conditioning, power windows, radios and stereos, etc. etc. and it was only a matter of time before the "add-on" approach was ditched by the US companies. Now if you buy a Chevy it comes with AC and AT and PW and PS because the public came to expect that as part of the deal.

 

The major airlines tried to do the reverse - "un-bundle" the basket of services - and it's worked for a time. But now the public is starting to react negatively, and every bag charge hike is being ballyhooed as a "fare increase" by the media. I expect the point of diminishing returns is nigh for the majors, and one of these days I predict (be afraid) that you'll see discounts for not checking bags, rather than surcharges for bags. But of course I could be wrong on all fronts. Been there done that.

[scottbee]

I personally hold to the belief that this "cafeteria" approach to air travel pricing (base plus this plus that plus the other thing) is not a good business model in the long run. IMO it really plays on perceived gullibility (of the public, by the airlines) that can't be maintained forever. People are getting too sophisticated in terms of price-shopping.

 

The most offensive part of the deal is that they expect the customer to be stupid. While I can understand the need for some extra charges, keeping them within the realm of reasonableness is the key. Most people are offened (for example) of FR's rediculous baggage/checkin fees, not because they exist, but because they're OUTRAGEOUSLY more than it costs to provide that service.

 

A good case in point for airlines having to backtrack on fees is AC. WS (AC's biggest competitor for domestic travel), didn't charge for bags, and AC had to backtrack on their luggage fees.

 

However AC are also a poster child for for assuming people are idiots with regards to fuel surcharges. Their fuel surcharge represents 80% (AC pay 20% of the fuel, you pay 4x that) of the total fuel cost for the flight (easily calculated as AC publish their total CASM and CASM-fuel, and hence fuel/CASM).

 

I think you're right in that the airline business is going to backtrack a bit. Charging for a bag is reasonable, charging $30-40 for it, isn't. Oddly, I think the lowest domestic charged bag in the USA now is on G4, who were one of the 1st to start charging.

[cruiserbryce]

with the amount of advertising SW is currently doing promoting themselves as the "bags fly free" airline I would be shocked if they changed course and started charging

[AZjohn]

... What do you guys think?

 

What do I think? I think the marketing company working for Southwest has hit the nail on the head and has once again fooled most of the American public.

 

I’m still at awe how so many people think their “bags fly for free” and “cost nothing “(lol). And then have people wait to purchase their tickets until WN decides to release their flights and prices knowing in their hearts that WN will have the best deal just because they don’t charge for bags….

 

It has been tried to be explained a thousand times here on this board. Southwest charges for bags, it’s simply added to the base fare, period. Does everyone really believe that WN doesn’t pay their baggage handlers, the ticket counter agents, scanners, and the fuel it takes for the added weight???

 

I have nothing personal pro or con about Southwest. They have been very smart with their market shares, fuels margins, employee recruiting, and domestic product (and I stress domestic). Now their marketing has joined the ranks and they have a loyal following regardless of the real “out the door” prices.

[kenish]

Another "cost" of luggage (besides fuel, labor, and liability) is the weight and volume displaces cargo, which is a big revenue source for airlines.

 

Many companies (and the government, USPS, etc) have shipping contracts with airlines; if they ship internationally then Southwest simply won't work for them. Greatam on this board is a good example. It's possible that WN carries less cargo than airlines with international routes and hub/spoke structures. If true, then luggage displacing cargo is less of an issue for WN. To find out for sure, a comparison of cargo ton-miles versus total revenue miles would have to be made for various airlines.

 

This is just my speculation but could be a factor in the luggage fee policies.

[Taxguy77]

 

I’m still at awe how so many people think their “bags fly for free” and “cost nothing “(lol). And then have people wait to purchase their tickets until WN decides to release their flights and prices knowing in their hearts that WN will have the best deal just because they don’t charge for bags….

 

.

 

What is WN?:confused:

I searched for it and found nothing.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Toilets are also included in the base fee. It isn't SW that changed. They never have charged for the first two pieces of luggage. It is the legacy airlines that thought passengers were idiots and continue to do so. For a number of markets that SW serves, SW is a price leader or at least price competitive. The net result to the consumer is that bags do fly free.

 

SW also doesn't charge change fees - the legacy airlines do - airfares go up and down on all airlines. Once you purchase a ticket on SW, if you see a lower fare on your flight or other flights, you can get a credit for the difference - no change fee required. Change the dates. You can completely change your routing including start and finish. No problem.

[Sargent_Schultz]

What is WN?:confused:

I searched for it and found nothing.

 

SouthWest

[scottbee]

What is WN?:confused:

I searched for it and found nothing.

 

WN is the IATA code for South West Airlines. People in or around the travel business will refer to the airline by their official code, much in the same way you'd talk about ORD (IATA code again) airport, and not call it CHI or Chicago. SW is used by AIR NAMIBIA, and I'm not sure what the history of the WN is.

 

Most of the common North American Airlines have pretty obvious codes

DL: Delta

AA: American

UA: United

US: USAir

CO: Continental

AS: Alaska (not AK)

AC: Air Canada

WS: Westjet (not WJ)

but there are a few unobvious/obscure ones

G4: Allegiant

B6: Jet Blue

FL: Air Tran

 

 

For added fun and confusion, there are different codes used by ICAO (Air Traffic control), so while you might fly WN from LAX to LAS, the pilot files the flightplan as SWA from KLAX to KLAS. More fun with ICAO is that every airline has a call name, so while AAL = "American", there are some fun ones like "Cactus" for US Air (which dates back to the America West history) and "Speedbird" for British Airways.

[fbgd]

Historically, SW will raises fares, if necessary. Nickel and diming is not their style.

 

So now as someone who doesn't check bags I'm subsidizing those who do. I cannot believe this! Southwest would be ripping me off by essentially charging me for a bag I don't check. That evil "subsidizing" you've whinged about in that other thread ? :rolleyes:

 

When it comes to defending your beloved Southwest you've really got to get your story straight!

[Sargent_Schultz]

So now as someone who doesn't check bags I'm subsidizing those who do. I cannot believe this! Southwest would be ripping me off by essentially charging me for a bag I don't check. That evil "subsidizing" you've whinged about in that other thread ? :rolleyes:

 

When it comes to defending your beloved Southwest you've really got to get your story straight!

 

Are you now hijacking this thread?

 

If you check no bags on SW are you subsidizing those who do? Possibly, and we thank you. Are you the only one on the planet that hasn't seen SW blatantly advertise that bags fly free? If only the legacy airlines were so honest.

 

As previously mentioned, Southwest (one word, not two) has maintained the status quo. It is the evil, bloated, mismanaged, lying legacy airlines that think customers are too stupid to read the fine print.

 

Also, as previously mentioned, with or without bags, SW is often less expensive than those legacy carriers. Are you really willing to spend more money to avoid subsidizing my bags? I guess some people have too much money.

[zebra36]

I got a rather extensive survey from SouthWest the other day which put forth several scenarios for fares with and without baggage fees and other options. Though I doubt they will start charging for bags anytime soon, considering their ad campaigns, it did look like they were trying to figure out at what point resistence to these fees would melt away given other options or perks.

[AZjohn]

I cannot believe this! Southwest would be ripping me off by essentially charging me for a bag I don't check. ? :rolleyes:

BINGO! We have a winner

Something I wanted to get into but glad you took the lead fbgd. Though it still probably won't sink in to some:rolleyes:

[zebra36]

Until a year or so ago every airline was "ripping you off" if you did not check a bag. It was simply the way the fares were structured. Now with a specific fee for bags, SouthWest is the only(?) airline that does not impose such a fee. Did the other airlines restructure their fares to lower them when they began to impose a fee for bags so that you may not feel that you were being "ripped off" when you fly with them?