Carrying On

I traveled this week. Both flights we were delayed as people boarding in the last groups brought on luggage for which there was no overhead storage space. As the people last to board are disproportionately seated in the back of the airplane, it takes inordinately more time to transfer the luggage up to the crew at the front door to be checked. One airline, Spirit, has incentivized passengers not to carry on their luggage. For this sensible move, the airline is being vilified. New York Senator Charles Schumer stated "Airline passengers have always had the right to bring a carry-on bag without having to worry about getting nickeled and dimed by an airline company" [reference a)]. Since when did a carry-on bag become a right? Let alone that it become one for which no charge is associated? If an airline prohibited me from carrying on my laptop, I would not fly on them. If enough people took the same position, the airline would change its policy. A solution without the government's involvement. By the way, Spirit is not going to charge for laptops or personal items or strollers or cameras or diaper bags or reading materials or any other personal item that is fitted under the seat [reference b)].

Why would the federal government insert itself into something for which it is unnecessary and at best a stretch of the intent of the Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)? I suggest there are several answers. First - power. They do because they can and sometimes it makes our so-called leaders feel good they are doing what they think is good for us. Eroding the power of the people on minor matters such as this allows for further erosion down the road on items we would otherwise find unacceptable. Second - elitism. Whether they have read The Republic or not, I suspect they see themselves as The Guardians, the elite wise enough to make the appropriate decisions the masses are unable to make. Third and most importantly - money. The big bad airlines, or at least Spirit, has found a way to charge the consumer without giving a cut to the federal government. While it may be appropriate for the Secretary of the Treasury not to pay all the taxes he owes - tax evasion, it seems unacceptable for Spirit to use the regulations and legally not pay taxes on a source of income - tax avoidance. Here is what I believe is the root of the matter. In a revision to a federal rule written in January, airlines can exclude from their taxes fees earned on things deemed unessential to air travel [reference c)]. Senator Schumer suspects Spirit will lower their ticket price by the cost of the bag fees, and only pay taxes on the remainder. While I doubt Spirit will do that, I applaud them if they do. Why did the government revise the rule if it did not want the airlines to act upon it? If the government deems it is necessary to intervene, then why not simplify the tax code or require all fees and taxes be included in the price of a ticket so consumers can compare our flight options? Oh, I forgot, I am not a Guardians, therefore I can not be expected to understand the nuances and wisdom of the government's direction.

Senators Schumer (D, NY), Menendez (D, NJ), and Cardin (D, MD) have said they will pursue whatever measure works best if airlines do not relent [reference c)]. The bully pulpit seems to work as American, Delta, JetBlue, United, and US Airways have agreed not to follow Spirit's lead [reference d)] and consequently decrease the number of checked bags and increase the delays and commotion on our flights.

References:

a) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/chuck_to_carry_on_vs_bag_fee_JN54gm5XPohAVqcxKCLenJ#ixzz0m8ENbkPX

b) http://www.spiritair.com/Policiesbags.aspx#CarryOnBag

c) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/04/schumer-offers-bill-to-bag-car.html#ixzz0m8Kwi6o

d) http://www.newser.com/story/86345/5-airlines-agree-not-to-charge-fee-for-carry-on-bags.html