KCI Passenger Use Soars

[Highlander]

I thought is was American that was charging $15.00 for checked luggage (along with downsizing the allowed weight). It could be said that with the ticket prices the way they are, 15 bucks is a drop in the bucket anyways. 
But yeah, it was said that either United or US airways will charge $2.00 for water and soft drinks.

It's a drop in the bucket until you become a family of four travelling for two weeks at a time and need to check baggage.  I recently flew into the US at Detroit (en route to Denver) and then to KC a few days later repeating the same route on the way home.  That would have been an additional 240$ for the baggage for the trip, fortunately, Frontier and Northwest do not charge for checked baggage (yet).  Because our trip originated and ended in Europe where carry-on is more restricted, we cannot limit the checked baggage by simply carrying it on.   

[lock+load]

It's a drop in the bucket until you become a family of four travelling for two weeks at a time and need to check baggage.  I recently flew into the US at Detroit (en route to Denver) and then to KC a few days later repeating the same route on the way home.  That would have been an additional 240$ for the baggage for the trip, fortunately, Frontier and Northwest do not charge for checked baggage (yet).  Because our trip originated and ended in Europe where carry-on is more restricted, we cannot limit the checked baggage by simply carrying it on.   

Why shouldn't you have to pay a premium for beinging all that baggage versus a flyer who travels light? It costs more to haul your stuff, so the fare should reflect that.

[Highlander]

Why shouldn't you have to pay a premium for beinging all that baggage versus a flyer who travels light? It costs more to haul your stuff, so the fare should reflect that.

I was only stating the fact that 15$ does add up to something significant, not necassarily commenting on the fairness.  BUT, since you bring up the issue.....I travel with my family which includes my 200 lb self, my 110 lb wife, my 130 lb son and 110 lb daughter.  My kids bring about 25 lbs of luggage each and my wife about 30 lbs and they all carry on a small backpack.  Because the rationale behind charging for luggage, per the airlines, is to levy the fares on the basis of weight to make up for fuel costs, my kids/wife with an average weight of less than 150 lbs including luggage are paying considerably more per pound than almost all other passengers toting their often excessive carry on bags (the average US passenger weighs 190 pounds without carry-on luggage).  On top of that, there are many obese passengers who carry-on the maximum load in addition to making the person next to them extremely uncomfortable during the flight; their cost per weight unit would be relatively low compared to mine.  So, I guess the answer is absolutely not, I do not think I should be charged more for checking luggage.  I would prefer that the excessive carry-on luggage be charged instead as their is limited space in the overhead bins and those folks who carry two large bags on (and they are plenty of them) force others to put their carry-on bags under the seat in front which is extremely uncomfortable for 6' 4" people like myself. 

[nota]

I'll give one of you guys my credit. I never carry on luggage unless I take a 'puter. Just a small purse.

Since my rotator cuff surgery, I'm unable to lift the 25 to 30 or so pounds my bag weighs into the overhead and I refuse to ask someone else to do it.

[lock+load]

I was only stating the fact that 15$ does add up to something significant, not necassarily commenting on the fairness.  BUT, since you bring up the issue.....I travel with my family which includes my 200 lb self, my 110 lb wife, my 130 lb son and 110 lb daughter.  My kids bring about 25 lbs of luggage each and my wife about 30 lbs and they all carry on a small backpack.  Because the rationale behind charging for luggage, per the airlines, is to levy the fares on the basis of weight to make up for fuel costs, my kids/wife with an average weight of less than 150 lbs including luggage are paying considerably more per pound than almost all other passengers toting their often excessive carry on bags (the average US passenger weighs 190 pounds without carry-on luggage).  On top of that, there are many obese passengers who carry-on the maximum load in addition to making the person next to them extremely uncomfortable during the flight; their cost per weight unit would be relatively low compared to mine.  So, I guess the answer is absolutely not, I do not think I should be charged more for checking luggage.  I would prefer that the excessive carry-on luggage be charged instead as their is limited space in the overhead bins and those folks who carry two large bags on (and they are plenty of them) force others to put their carry-on bags under the seat in front which is extremely uncomfortable for 6' 4" people like myself. 

I'd be OK with charging a per pound premium for passengers weighing more than a set amount.  Just call it a "fuel surchage."  Good luck getting them on the scales though

You make valid points, but something has to change.  Maybe an across the board fare increase is a better option.  At least charge for more than one checked bag, and reduce the weight limit for the one checked bag and charge for overage.

[IraGlacialis]

At least charge for more than one checked bag, and reduce the weight limit for the one checked bag and charge for overage.

Most airlines started doing that already.
So far, it's only American that charges for the first checked bag. Unless airlines more jumped on that bandwagon.

[shinatoo]

I'd be OK with charging a per pound premium for passengers weighing more than a set amount.  Just call it a "fuel surchage."  Good luck getting them on the scales though

The free/fair market economist is on board with this.

I personally am not. Especially since I ate that free/fair market economist.

[dangerboy]

This is all fiddling at the margins.  Peak oil is going to decimate the airline business. Oil prices are going up much faster than research into alternative aviation fuels. 

Airlines cannot continue charging people fares that don't cover the costs of flying.  The problem is that they will have to raise prices so much it will soon put flying out of reach for the middle and working class.  Flying will soon become a luxury, and probably stay that way for many years.

[shinatoo]

You will see the price drop back down once they raise the margin on futures trading. Goldman Sachs has driven the price of oil through the roof and are making a fortune at it. Plus they discovered a new field in Saudi Arabia and in North Dakota. Plus there is a glimmer of hope that Iraq will be upping production soon.

[ignatius]

Data to Nov 2006.  Lotsa cool info.  

MCI ranks 34/34
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.a ... ernational

STL ranks 31/32
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.a ... ernational

Now KCI increases to 32nd and STL still at 31 - January 2011.  KCI still way below it's peak though - it once hit 12M passengers/year.  STL dropped passengers even more since losing the hub status, below when KC hit peak.  Gotta love those airline mergers.

[Highlander]

Now KCI increases to 32nd and STL still at 31 - January 2011.  KCI still way below it's peak though - it once hit 12M passengers/year.  STL dropped passengers even more since losing the hub status, below when KC hit peak.  Gotta love those airline mergers.

I flew in and out of KCI over the weekend.  While the terminals seem busy (unless you take it upon yourself to walk away from the immediate area around your  gate), you can get a much better feel for the airport's vitality while the aircraft taxi's to and from the runway.  As we did, both coming and going on a busy flying weekend, only 2-3 planes were present at KCI's gates.  We saw only 1 other plane on the tarmac so 5 planes total at 10 AM coming in and 1 PM going out.  Having just came from Houston (albeit a United hub) where we had to queue up to take off, and saw planes at nearly every gate, it was sad to see almost every gate at KCI empty.  Almost seems like they could close down one terminal just to make the other two a little more vital, concentrate services and save all kind of costs. 

[ignatius]

Apparently a couple other airports are shrinking faster than KCI.  KCI was ranked 34th in passenger traffic and is now 32nd.  KC peaked at 12M passengers/year and is now down to 9-10M.  Flight departures have decreased even further so yeah, one terminal could almost be shut down, though traffic is just starting to rise back again - slowly. 

STL shut down one of their terminals after losing the hub. They've gone from 30M+ passengers to under 12M, down to about KCI's peak, ouch.

This is what happens with airline consolidation.  Unless one of the main hubs, the others suffer.  Minneapolis could be hit next.

[KCPowercat]

Never going to see tons of idle planes at kci gates unless a hub moves in. The airlines want planes in and out of kc as quick as possible.  It works and is effecient for the of market....

[Highlander]

Never going to see tons of idle planes at kci gates unless a hub moves in. The airlines want planes in and out of kc as quick as possible.  It works and is effecient for the of market....

Probably because SW is KC's primary carrier and they are the models of efficiency.  It's not the idle planes I want at KCI, it's the number of flights, and particularly, the business activity and local prosperity to keep that number of flights high putting planes at more than 1 or 2 gates at a time. 

[KCMax]

Just curious, but is HSR expected to impact air travel numbers much, or is ridership expected to be a drop in the bucket compared to air travel?

[Highlander]

Just curious, but is HSR expected to impact air travel numbers much, or is ridership expected to be a drop in the bucket compared to air travel?

I think that all depends on cost on convenience.  Air transportation is just getting too expensive for me and my family, especially with all the add ons.  Business will always stick with air travel but I could see families opting for HSR as long as it doesn't include multiple train changes and considerably more time. 

[Major KC Fan]

Anyone know anything about Delta ramping up their schedule from KCI?  Did I miss an announcement?  I was on the FlyKCI site tonight and when checking the non-stop destinations page, found that there were quite a few cities on the list that had Delta starting new service June 6th. 

[warwickland]

Apparently a couple other airports are shrinking faster than KCI.  KCI was ranked 34th in passenger traffic and is now 32nd.  KC peaked at 12M passengers/year and is now down to 9-10M.  Flight departures have decreased even further so yeah, one terminal could almost be shut down, though traffic is just starting to rise back again - slowly.  

STL shut down one of their terminals after losing the hub. They've gone from 30M+ passengers to under 12M, down to about KCI's peak, ouch.

This is what happens with airline consolidation.  Unless one of the main hubs, the others suffer.  Minneapolis could be hit next.

Admittedly, I like the current sad status of STL considering what I fly, albiet the hurricane damage.

[brewcrew1000]

Anyone know anything about Delta ramping up their schedule from KCI?  Did I miss an announcement?  I was on the FlyKCI site tonight and when checking the non-stop destinations page, found that there were quite a few cities on the list that had Delta starting new service June 6th. 

They are pretty much flying the same routes Frontier is flying but i don't except it to last long.  This is retaliation when Frontier started MCI-MSP.  Delta/Northwest will do anything to protect their fortress hubs.

[KC0KEK]

Anyone know anything about Delta ramping up their schedule from KCI?  Did I miss an announcement?  I was on the FlyKCI site tonight and when checking the non-stop destinations page, found that there were quite a few cities on the list that had Delta starting new service June 6th. 

Maybe it's Delta's response to Southwest's acquisition of AirTran.