i'd be willing to bet that by 2020 the majority of airlines charge for overhead bins on domestic flights. When the first airline started charging for checked bags, everybody else followed.

The current system is clearly not working with everybody trying to avoid the fees for checked bags. Airplane cabines are not designed for that amount of luggage and you can see that every time you board a full flight even though they try to combat that by offering to check bags for free at the gate.

Keep the personal item free, charge amount X for carry on that goes in the overhead bin and amount Y for checked bags. Make X > Y (like Spirit does) and boarding/deboarding takes 10 minutes less.

LVL Airlines FTW

United has next to no presence where I live. They share just a handful of the 185 gates here. I don't expect this to affect me one bit.

Keep in mind that despite deregulation, the airline industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US. Back in the 2000s the airlines had the great idea of hiding security fees which had risen substantially since 9/11 and in 2011 a law was passed requiring airlines to include all mandatory taxes and fees in published fares. It also requires airlines to disclose bag fees upfront.

Who is to say the government won't further amend this to force airlines to include bag fees in the published fare? The airlines that don't charge bag fees will most certainly lobby for this to be included if it is seen as a competitive advantage. If it's not a competitive advantage then many of the carriers will not adopt it. Either way, I don't see this one sticking.

Completely different situation from what happens in Vegas. If Vegas hotels were regulated like the airline industry then they would not be able to publish fares that don't already include the resort fee and taxes.

And yet, even today they don't all charge you to check bags. That being said, I rarely check bags and per my previous post think it makes a lot of sense for the airlines to charge for checked bags.

AFAIK Southwest is the last holdout.

I have a feeling that this will piss off customers a lot more than checked bag fees. If I'm wrong then everyone else will adopt it too.

i'm generally in favour of overhead luggage fee...... carry-ons have got completely out-of-control AND i hate the way people hang out by the gate hoping to be early in line when their section is called. it's inconvenient for those trying to get through.

i don't mind in theory all the add-in fees but of course you would think fares might somewhat reflect that all these optional fees have been added but they haven't.\

by the way, do they still charge "fuel surcharge" when you redeem frequent flier points? simply a way of devaluing the points and/or making some revenue off "free" tickets.... taxes i understand completely.

So if I read correctly you will still be able to self park Free at Caesars properties with local ID or Platinum or above player card. Right?

For now...

Resorts fees were originally waived at Caesars properties for Platinum; that didn't last long.

Also, the Caesars web pages makes no mention of local ID's getting free parking. Time will tell...

There's been at least some good faith effort to reign in resort fees.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...nate-bill/2599

Can't see anything endorsed by Elizabeth Warren moving forward in congress for at least the next two years though.

They won't charge for self-park until next year and haven't announced that stuff yet.

They will wait and see how MGM does when they start charging locals first. Looks like MGM will start charging locals really soon.

You can also get free parking status with MLife or CES credit cards, plus other benefits.

Southwest doesn't charge for bags due to software issues. They tried to change the software several years ago, but wasted tons of money due to internal fighting. They decided to stick with the model they had and it is currently working for them. Believe me, if they could charge for luggage, they would be. With that said, Southwest now has the highest average ticket cost of any airline that flies in the U.S.. This is due to the way they structured some of their financing years ago.

Locals on here won't like to what I have to say. Having a delay on charging locals for parking is actually a pretty brilliant piece of strategy from the corporations. It hides the impact that charging for parking would have on the number of people visiting the casino. Since locals are still visiting the casinos that started charging for parking, they are essentially enabling the casinos. By the time they start charging locals, it will be an accepted thing by tourists that any drop in local business won't be that large on the bottom line.

So for all the locals that still park and visit these casinos that are charging for parking, you are just as guilty as these big corporations because all you are doing is enabling their new business model.

Huh? Why would tourists care about the Casino's bottom line?

I hate typing on the iPad. What it was supposed to say that paying for parking will be accepted by tourist because they are over the initial shock, so any drop from local business won't be as noticeable on the casinos bottom line.

I think you misunderstood his post. He's basically saying that tourists won't notice a change in the number of customers on the casino floor because locals will still be there. That might lead to tourists thinking that everybody else is OK with parking fees which in return makes them more likely to being OK with those fees.

I'm still not following. A tourist wouldn't even notice the drop in crowds inside a strip casino if zero locals showed up. Nor would he care even if he did notice. What behavior are you thinking would be altered for tourists in your scenario?

Research shows that people are more likely to spend time (which translates to money) at businesses they deem to be successful.

Easiest example are two beach bars next to each other. Bar A looks busy, Bar B is almost empty. Even though you'd prolly get your drink faster at Bar B, most people would pick Bar A instead.

[not saying that I agree with his points, but if things were as described, there's good reason for casinos to only (potentially) alienate one customer group at a time]

Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense to me. If Southwest thinks it makes financial sense to implement bag fees then they will do so. Only one person would make that decision and that is Gary Kelly, who while CFO actually headed up the Technology department on an interim basis. To assert that they can not implement a technological solution for charging bag fees is beyond ridiculous. Whatever costs they incurred previously are all sunk costs and irrelevant to the current decision.

As for costs, there are many reasons why an airline's costs may increase relative to competitors including fleet age, current labor contracts, and oil hedges. However, since Southwest doesn't charge bag fees or change fees this is an apples to orange comparison.

Southwest Airlines is a publicly traded company. Decisions like that require board approval.

Part of what madlex said and part due to the fact that the establishment won't experience a dip from local and tourist traffic at the same time. They will get a dip in tourist traffic initially from those who drive to vegas or rent a car. That will smooth out and even rise back up to before levels once people get used to it. Then they start charging locals. They'll get another temporary dip but it won't be as bad as if they did it all at once.

Admittedly I don't know the exact role of the board, but I do know Gary and how he operates and given his roles as Chairman of the Board, CEO, and President, he's the one with the final say on all the major decisions.