Boeing 737 landing.
Ryanair announced they want to be rid of checked bags. Reading the blogosphere about this (mostly the comments), it seems fliers are upset they wouldn’t be able to check bags and will probably somehow get charged more.
But is this really thatcrazy? I think this concept will save Ryanair money which will in turn should save passengers money. Here are some reasons I think it might be a good idea:
#1: No need for ticket counters. If you can check in at home (and be charged for it no doubt) and you can’t check in bags, why do you need a counter? Maybe one or two customer service people (that you can pay to talk to) at the airport, but this means no counter rental, staff, equipment, etc.
#2: No bag carrousel needed. If there are no checked bags, there is no need to have the carrousel. Not only does this save money but saves you a lot of time not having to wait for your bag.
#3: No baggage personnel. Ryanair doesn’t have to pay people to take bags on/off the flight, drive them to the airport, etc.
#4: No vehicles needed to transport luggage and no gas, insurance, upkeep on those vehicles.
#5: Don’t have to pay for lost luggage. People can’t lose it if they don’t check it. The airline would have no need for customer service representatives for lost baggage, and they don’t have to pay to hunt it down, ship it, or return it.
#6: Reduces the need for fuel. With the plane weighing less it would take less fuel to get from point A to B.
#7: It works. Take a look at Horizon Air, they give you the option for ’œAla Cart Service’ where passengers can put bags on a cart before entering the plane, they put the bags in the cargo hold, and have them on a cart for you when you get off. It might be more difficult with a larger plane, but the concept can work.
Yes, there are some downsides to this, and they will lose checked baggage fees, but I think overall they will walk away with more money in the pocket and able to provide even cheaper fares.
Although many fliers complain when changes like this occur, their memory seems to be erased when they can see how much money they can save on an airline ticket. Right or wrong, good idea or bad, I am interested to see how this works out.
What do you think? Is this a good idea? Will it work? Will Ryanair pass on their savings?
Image: jordi757
ANA's Boeing 787 Dreamliner waiting for its first flight. Image from Boeing Media
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has not had very good luck.
It is Boeing’s newest jet made to be more economical and replace the aging Boeing 757 and 767’s.
The new aircraft was supposed to enter service in May 2008, but has hit a number of hurdles causing delay after delay. The aircraft had its official roll out on 07/08/07 (get it 7-8-7…cleaver), but it was just a pretty looking shell with almost no functionality (duct tape anyone?).
Delays have ranged from software issues, a strike, fasteners, contractors, supply chain and in-correct installations.
Everyone following the drama were hoping the Dreamliner’s would finally have its first flight on June 23, 2009 but it wasn’t meant to be. Boeing is now announcing that the newest delay, “stems from 18 points where the center wing box (11) meets the wingbox (12) on each side of the aircraft. The fix, once identified, will be installed on location. ”
A new airliner being developed and taking its first flight is a very exciting experience for anyone that follows the airline industry. It has been a long time since the Boeing 777 took its first flight (wow 1994) and I feel a personal connection to this project, since I live less than 15 miles from where the plane will take its first flight and I know people who have been working on the Dreamliner.
At this point, Boeing does not know when the first flight will happen, but check out FlightBlogger Jon Ostrower, who has minute by minute coverage of the events unfolding.
Happy Birthday Virgin, Southwest and Delta
Just wanted to say congrats to Delta Airlines for turning 80, Virgin Atlantic making it to 25 and to Southwest Airlines for turning 38!
With Delta’s recent merger with Northwest Airlines, Virgin’s innovative vision and Southwest Airline’s long history of profit (I am sure they will return), I am sure these three carriers will be celebrating many more!
Images (L to R): gTarded, kaszeta, Thomas Becker,
Virgin and British Aiways Boeing 747-400's racing for the finish (yes, I am sure this is photoshopped)
Virgin Atlantic and British Airways have had a cold war going on for years, according to Sir Branson. Now he is taking advantage of British Airways’ admission of financial difficulty by urging the British government not to financially assist the legacy carrier. He states that British Airways is, “not worth much.”
Although Sir Branson might be trying to stir up trouble, British Airways is not in the best financial shape. British Airways’ CEO Willie Walsh has a self-imposed June 30 deadline which he calls, “a fight for survival.”
He recently asked all 40,000 employees to work up to four weeks without pay in an effort to keep the airline afloat.
Sir Branson, who founded the privately held Virgin Atlantic, obviously has much invested if British Airways fails. “We and others are standing by ready to take on their routes and runway slots at Heathrow if they get into serious trouble,” Sir Branson stated re-assuring the government their nation would still have a viable transportation network.
A British Airways spokes person calls Sir Branson’s comments as “fantasy.” The airline stated, “There are no talks with the Government and there will be no talks. We have opposed state aid and our position has not changed.” Both British Airways’s CEO Walsh and finance director Keith Williams have announced they will work for free during the month of July.
Even if British Airways pulls through and Branson is just in fantasy-land, it is never a good sign having an airline (or any company for that matter) asking its employees to work for free. In this economic time, nothing is impossible and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Source: dailymail Image: SamR
It fits!
Rep Dan Lipinski from Illinois feels it is a good idea for the TSA to have a uniform carry-on size regulation. He wants to limit the maximum size of a carry-on to 22″ x 18″ x 10″. It is not the size that is as disconcerting, as not allowing the airlines to make their own decisions and the total lack of need for this legislation
Each airline flies different aircraft, have different configurations and clientele with different baggage needs. The bill would require the TSA to enforce the rules (presumably during the security check process). Although TSA has made leaps and bounds with speeding up the security process, this could greatly slow it down. People would be having to take stuff out, trying to cram their bags through and of course having to leave the line to check in their bags and come back through.
CrankFlier points out that many low cost airlines have their “minimum size” larger than what Rep Lipinski is asking for, and legacy carriers are already meeting the requirements. The low cost carriers would have to cut what they already offer.
What is the real reason for this? I don’t see a safety issue here, I would like to see someone try to make a valid one. In fact this would decrease safety. The TSA would have to police bag-size instead of doing what they are trained and look for illegal items taken through security.
This seems like a waste of time and legislation that will really hold no benefit. If airlines want to get together to create their own standard carry-on size, that is one thing, but for the government to come in and require standardization seems unnecessary.
UPDATE: FlyWithFish.com has a great chart showing all the airlines and their bag size requirements.
Image: FlyingWithFish