It's not transparent. Unless you have the ability to construct your necessities at your destination, you can't fly without your stuff. There should be a standard definition of what a flight should include (one checked, 1 person+1carryon). What would be more transparent is to discount those who aren't flying with a carry on or checked bag.

> we just didn’t know how much of the ticket price they really were.

We did realize how much they were apart of the ticket. The definition of what people brought on the plane was figured into by planning at the airline. You can't just pay for more carry-ons and bags than the airline allows. Right now what we have is an artificial price drop and it's being supplemented by fees. (Airlines are pissed that they can't hide the YQ from the price anymore)

Some people just bring less stuff, or have less in general. In general someone going for a shorter amount of time will take less stuff, why should they pay the same amount if they're not carrying the same amount?

I'm all for discounts for less bags. But there needs to be a standardized price to make comparisons on cost for travel.

> what a flight should include (one checked, 1 person+1 carryon).

This basically forces me (who never checks anything) to subsidize your (I assume) traveling habits.

What is wrong with that?

There are numerous entirely private systems that require such subsidy; are you claiming that any amount of subsidy for others' habits is objectionable (i.e. the libertarian hardline)? Or are you making some other point?

Ticket prices are lower now than ever.

Poorer people can opt out of checking luggage in order to make that visit to a dying relative possible.

Everyone here forgets what it was like when a domestic flight cost the equivalent of $600 - which is out of reach for a lot of people.

Charging for luggage and dining separate from the ticket makes that possible, in part.

Except now it'll be $540 while fuel is still low. It's going to go up even higher when fuel goes up.

I'm happy to subsidize, you know, low-income moms who need nutrition benefits. Why the heck should I subsidize people who pack too much on domestic trips?

What's your threshold for packing "too much"? Do you believe that everybody should be able to get by with an under-seat bag? Or are you pretending that the overhead bins are large enough for everyone to bring a standard piece of carry-on luggage?

Either way, it's still possible to check smaller pieces of luggage, and if most passengers could do that economically then loading and unloading the plane would be a lot quicker, saving the airlines non-trivial costs.

Without fees, the airline is minimizing the cost and you're cost averaging. With the fee-based structure, it's really a massive cost increase and a service/quality decrease.

From what you said it's abit like saying that you don't want to subsidize the police via your taxes because you never use them.

There are freerider benefits of having police. There’s no freerider benefits of other people packing more.

Spirit airlines makes like 10% profit margin. Forcing them to absorb baggage fees isn't going to come out of their margins, it's going to come out of increases in base fare.

As to subsidies: you usually can't control whether you need the police or not. You generally can control how much you pack. My wife and I didn't even pack a check-in on when we took the kid to Disney World recently. Why should I pay more for people who have to have … whatever the hell it is that people pack in a checked bag for a domestic flight.

I've never heard of a plane ticket that doesn't at a minimum allow you to carry on a bag that is small enough to fit under the seats for free. That is enough for necessities for a short trip.