United Airlines Announces New Checked Bag Policy

[roteague]

FYI for those who travel a lot:

"CHICAGO– Feb. 4, 2008 – As part of its continuing effort to offer customers choice, flexibility, and low fares, United is announcing a new, simplified checked bag policy for customers who purchase nonrefundable domestic economy tickets. United’s new checked bag policy is available at united.com/baggage.

Customers who purchase nonrefundable domestic economy tickets and do not have status in Mileage Plus or Star Alliance may check one bag for free and a second bag for a $25 service fee.

For all customers, the cost to check up to four additional bags will be $100 per bag. Previous charges ranged from $85-$125 per bag. The cost to check items that require special handling because they are large, overweight or fragile will now be either $100 or $200, depending on the item.

United’s most frequent fliers – customers who have Premier status or higher in Mileage Plus, or Silver status or higher with Star Alliance – will continue to receive the benefit of checking two bags for free.

...

This new checked bag policy applies for travel beginning on May 5, 2008, within the U.S. and to/from Canada, San Juan, Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, and the service fee to check a second bag only applies to tickets purchased on or after Feb. 4, 2008. Customers may pay this service fee at an airport Easy Check-In kiosk with a credit card or at the check-in counter with a credit card, check or cash."

http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,6862,58892,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23070443/

I've always flown United, but this has me reconsidering.

[Walter Calahan]

Except for Hawaii, driving is beginning to be the only option.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I travel light, even with LF gear. Unless I'm going somewhere for more than two months, I rarely check more than one bag. If my wife and I are traveling together, then we check two bags usually (one each).

[anchored]

I travel fairly frequently, and also travel "loaded down" with large and medium format gear (plus digi-cam for odds'n-end on-the-fly pics). Usually a large suitcase for clothes and a tripod bag are my "check-ins," and large format camera essentials are in a carry-on bag. All other equipment and films are sent via UPS to destinations.

Airlines and airports are definitely not photographer friendly. They try to insist that films be xrayed. They slit open even factory-sealed film boxes when you insist on hand-inspections (altho' I've been told by TSRA this isn't a requirement). They refuse to allow insurance on gear. They won't let you put locks on cases... and I do not trust their employees or TSRA with unlocked cases containing multi-thousands of dollars in equipment... especially since IF something gets stolen or lost they face no consequences.

Fortunately shipping UPS resolves most of the above problems. Cases can be insured. Cases can be locked. Films won't be cut open or xrayed. Unfortunately shipping this way is rather expensive... just returned from 1-1/2 weeks in Death Valley... $875 spent on shipping to and from location.

Looks like United Airlines will no longer be considered for future trips... or any other airline reducing the number of bags allowed. Perhaps it's time to investigate trains... or time to leave the large and medium format equipment at home and borrow wife's point'n-shoot digi-Nikon for any trip that can't be covered by driving.

[roteague]

Well, here is something else. This really scares me, I can see our privacy rights evaporating.

"Travelers to Europe may face fingerprinting

The European Commission will propose Wednesday that all foreign travelers into and out of Europe, including U.S. citizens, should be fingerprinted. If approved by the European Parliament, the measure would mean that precisely identifying information on tens of millions of citizens will be added in coming years to databases that could be shared by friendly governments around the globe.

The United States already requires that foreigners be fingerprinted and photographed before they can enter the country. So does Japan. Now top European security officials want to follow suit, with travelers being fingerprinted and some also having their facial image stored in a Europe-wide database, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Washington Post. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23120034/

[Turner Reich]

The days of the anonymous traveler are about over, if the person isn't know now they soon will be.

It's the 21st Century and there is no turning back, like it or not.

[Matus Kalisky]

The question is: how much of these is really necessary. The other querstion is: how effective all these safety regulations (that's what they are, right) are. I am not convinced. Maybe one should try to do something with reasons, not only consequences ( easier to say, though ) ...

[vinny]

The new 50lb limits the airlines set a few years back get me all the time. My suitcase with clothes and tripod are rarely under the limit on my return flights since i often aquire gifts or more yard sale items. My 8x10 gear in it's pack goes in a big rolling pelican case that weighs about 20lbs empty. I usually get away with it but sometimes get stung for the $50 charge.
I won't fly united again if that's how they're gonna play it.

[Brian K]

This is why I drive for all photography related travel in North America. Just last year alone I did two 12,500 mile cross country trips. You simply can not carry the all the proper gear, and especially safety gear, when you fly. Plus there's no guarantee that your checked bags will get there.

[Frank Petronio]

I have my gear stripped to the minimum for flying because it has gotten so difficult to manage the whole thing. And I also have tried to "cheapen" what I bring so that if I lose it, I'm not in too much trouble. Right now I can get clothing and two-light kit and a CF tripod into one large bag, and my 4x5, film, laptop, portfolio, and dslr into a legal carry-on backpack (it might be a bit overweight). It's a compromise but it works -- driving XC is out of the question.

[Louie Powell]

I've flown on just about every airline on the planet, and United has never been among my favorites. There is something about the pitch of their seats that makes their planes more uncomfortable that others.

The airlines are having a tough time - they have dramatically cut services in order to cut costs, but they still are on the verge of insolvency. I suspect that the major issue is fuel cost, but who knows for sure.

It seems to me that if they need to increase rates to improve their financial performance, then that's what they should do rather than disguise rate increases by adding fees for luggage, food, choice of seating, etc.

The cost of flying has declined rather significantly over the past 15 years. I'm flying from upstate NY to Los Angeles in early April for just over $300. Seems to me that the price for that trip used to be $750 - $1000.

If the airlines need more revenue, all it takes is for one to bite the bullet and announce that they are increasing X%, and everyone else will jump in and do likewise within a matter of hours. I have a suspicion that the travel arms of major corporations may be placing pressure on airlines to keep fares low. After all, most business travelers don't check luggage or depend on airline chow - so all they care about is the cost of the ticket. If so, that would mean that the incremental cost that us non-business schlubs pay for checked luggage, food, seating, etc is really underwriting the cost of business travel.

Of course, the other argument is that business travelers tend to pay the full fare because they travel on short notice and don't have the luxury to shop around for bargains, and it is the highly-discounted leisure travel segment that is actually bankrupting the airlines.

It would be interesting to see some unbiased numbers to see what is really happening.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The really annoying thing is that the new charge will cause passengers to bring as much stuff as possible on board, slowing down the seating process and leaving less room in the overhead for camera bags that can't be checked.

[Ralph Barker]

Sounds reasonable from the airline's perspective, key point being that those with mileage status have some exemptions.

My ex, however, wouldn't be able to fly at all, as it would cost her an extra $thousand for the bags she took (on weekend jaunts, of course). ;)

[Nathan Potter]

When I fly now I only carry camera gear - no clothes or other stuff. After two or three weeks in the field with the same clothes I get hurried through the check-in without delay.
Seems to work pretty well. Other curiosity seekers tend not to bother me when I'm set up in the field either.

Nate Potter

[Louie Powell]

When I fly now I only carry camera gear - no clothes or other stuff. After two or three weeks in the field with the same clothes I get hurried through the check-in without delay.
Seems to work pretty well. Other curiosity seekers tend not to bother me when I'm set up in the field either.

After all, who needs clean underwear when you have a camera.:)

[Turner Reich]

When I fly now I only carry camera gear - no clothes or other stuff. After two or three weeks in the field with the same clothes I get hurried through the check-in without delay.
Seems to work pretty well. Other curiosity seekers tend not to bother me when I'm set up in the field either.


The thing is, how much does it cost to buy a couple pairs of boxers and sox's and throw or give them away before the return trip? Buy it there and leave it there, or if pressed just send them home.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Exactly. I never have time to shop for clothing when I'm at home, and often when I'm traveling there's some dead time or time for casual wandering around, so I don't mind picking up a few things along the way. I also have things that I can wash in a hotel sink that dry quickly (ExOfficio makes travel wear of this type), so I can get by on two shirts for a week or more if I have to.

[Nathan Potter]

There's a caveat to what I said. It only worked well when I was between wives. Ahh that is - I mean between marriages. Don't want to seen too strange.

Nathan Potter

[Francesco Gallarotti]

Well, here is something else. This really scares me, I can see our privacy rights evaporating.

"Travelers to Europe may face fingerprinting

The European Commission will propose Wednesday that all foreign travelers into and out of Europe, including U.S. citizens, should be fingerprinted. If approved by the European Parliament, the measure would mean that precisely identifying information on tens of millions of citizens will be added in coming years to databases that could be shared by friendly governments around the globe.

The United States already requires that foreigners be fingerprinted and photographed before they can enter the country. So does Japan. Now top European security officials want to follow suit, with travelers being fingerprinted and some also having their facial image stored in a Europe-wide database, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Washington Post. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23120034/

I am European and I have been living in the US for the past 9 years. I have been fingerprinted and verbally abused by the immigration officers every single time I left and came back to the US since 1999. How is this any different?

[Ed Richards]

> How is this any different?

It is exactly the same - they are doing as retaliation for the US policy.

[Francesco Gallarotti]

> How is this any different?

It is exactly the same - they are doing as retaliation for the US policy.

In fact, my understanding was that the US had introduced the "e-Passport" (the passport with a biometric chip inside) and "invited" all countries in the world to adhere to the new format.
I had my italian passport renewed 4-5 years ago and had to spend $100+ to upgrade to the new e-Passport. Without one, all Europeans who wanted to come to the US for tourism had to get visas even though EU citizens are not supposed to be required one for up to three months stay.

[russyoung]

Hi Francesco-

I'm a US citizen who lived in Scotland for a few years and had to travel back and forth to the USA about 6 to 8 times a year. They are equal opportunity abusers - my treatment at Newark was about the same as yours. Once, however, due to a diversion because of a booking snafu, I came into the USA via Chicago - and the folks there not only didn't hassle me, they were actively NICE (I wrote a letter to Customs & Immigration praising them).

Have never been strip searched but have had absolutely everything dumped out of my bags - watched the Mamiya 7 bounce on the stainless steel table surface, then then 150 and 65mm lenses... been verbally questioned in a "private room" about why I had so much camera equipment... these people are on power trips and need a little reassurance once in awhile that they can do whatever to whomever whenever.

Yeah, the voices of freedom. Uh-huh.

Russ Young