In Minnesota, the Star Tribune reports that six Democratic senators want to introduce legislation that would tax airlines that charge passengers that bring carry-on bags onto flights. The move comes just days after Spirit Airlines announced that it would charge as much as $45 per bag for bags put into overhead bins; handbags and briefcases that go under the seat still will be free.
The paper writes that “the senators - Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Charles Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey - want a law that would designate carryon baggage as a necessity for air travelers.” At the moment, Spirit is saying that carry-on bags are not a necessity, and so can be subject to an extra fee.
And, the Star Tribune writes, “Spirit spokeswoman Misty Pinson said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press on Wednesday that the airline is reaching out to all the senators' offices to clarify information that Spirit believes has been misrepresented in the media.”
The paper writes that “the senators - Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Charles Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey - want a law that would designate carryon baggage as a necessity for air travelers.” At the moment, Spirit is saying that carry-on bags are not a necessity, and so can be subject to an extra fee.
And, the Star Tribune writes, “Spirit spokeswoman Misty Pinson said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press on Wednesday that the airline is reaching out to all the senators' offices to clarify information that Spirit believes has been misrepresented in the media.”
- KC's View:
-
Sure. Blame the media. Because it is all our fault that Spirit has its head up its tailpipe (or whatever you call the rear end of an airplane).
I do have a thought about this that may surprise you, however. I’m not sure I love the idea of legislation. Isn’t this one of those cases where the market ought to determine whether or not this idea works? I have no problem with legislative solutions to certain problems, especially those in which people’s health and well-being are at risk, but this seems like small potatoes that would be better solved by people just refusing to fly on Spirit.
There cannot be that many cities to which Spirit is the only airline that flies there. in fact,. there probably are none. (I’ve never flown them. Ever. And won’t, if I can help it.) So let the market sink them.
