Happy to sad in 10 seconds BA rant.

VTech

Just at the airport about to catch a flight and there was a family in front of me who were real happy, looked like it was the first family holiday with 2 very young kids.
They were laughing, taking pics etc then when they get to the desk to check in, their bags were 24.5kg and 25kg. Only 1.5kg and 2kg over and they were charged £141 per bag in overweight charges.
The woman at the desk took great happiness at the extra charges with the only advice offered as "you really should have checked the weight before arrival"

I realise added weight costs fuel but this takes the mick, that could really hinder the holiday for these guys and whatever reasoning behind weight, £141 per bag is way out of line and totally uncalled for.

desweller

The charges are in the T&C. If you don't get it right you can hardly blame the airline.

danlikesbikes

I do agree that it is a rip off how the charges are calculated, but to be fair BA give much higher allowances & its not that hard to weigh your bags is it? I'm sure yours were not over weight?

Frank the tank

They should have checked it's the customers fault.

OLD CHESTNUT ALERT!!!!

However IMHO there should be a change, if it's truely about weight it should be about gross weight of passenger and luggage. 12st man has luggage 2lb overweight incures penalty, 20st man luggage on the top limit doesn't. Seema a bit unfair to me, the aircraft cant differenciate between luggage and lard. :x

Mikey23

I think I would be inclined to take 3.5 kg of crap out of the two suitcases (im sure it would have there) and dump it in the nearest bin. Anything that was vital to the holiday could have been replaced at the other end cheaper than £280...

danlikesbikes

Frank the tank wrote:

They should have checked it's the customers fault.

OLD CHESTNUT ALERT!!!!

However IMHO there should be a change, if it's truely about weight it should be about gross weight of passenger and luggage. 12st man has luggage 2lb overweight incures penalty, 20st man luggage on the top limit doesn't. Seema a bit unfair to me, the aircraft cant differenciate between luggage and lard. :x

Would make traveling a much better deal for me - you'd get my vote if your going into politics

VTech

I knew more people would agree and yes, BA give 23 whereas some give 20 and yes, there are t's and c's but £141 is out of order. Kids need a lot of things as you have to pay or them, they don't get free seats. If disabled they dont charge for a wheelchair so if kids need nappies, food, clothing changes etc why charge so much.
I didn't winge about the charge for overweight, it was the extortionate fee.
BTW, a case was £20 per journey.

danlikesbikes

But to be fair to BA its not just that they give a higher limit they also don't apply the limit to each bag. So if traveling in a group they will allow one bag to be over as long as the others are under.

Dont get me wrong I do think the price is out of proportion, but its not that hard to make sure that your luggage is under the limit I know I do & am assuming you did too, plus I assume the other passengers who are on your flight managed it too.

desweller

I'm just embittered cos it happened to me once.

I wonder if they had any spare space in their cabin baggage? That's usually a 7kg limit, but airlines rarely check.

chrisaonabike

Frank the tank wrote:

Seems a bit unfair to me, the aircraft cant differentiate between luggage and lard. :x

+1

And unless the guy next to me has paid for two seats, he can get his overflowing lard the f*** out of my seat.

danlikesbikes

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

And unless the guy next to me has paid for two seats, he can get his overflowing lard the f*** out of my seat.

You could always sit on his knee sounds like it might be a comfortable alternative

rolf_f

I flew Jet 2 to Amsterdam late last year. I've got into the habit of carrying on board an overhead locker case plus a shopping bag with book, camera and the odd snack item onto the plane - and, despite this being technically two items of luggage, never had a problem.

So last year, I managed to pack down a bit more and spare the hold any luggage at all. But this meant that instead of a shopping bag, I had to take a small rucksack because the rucksack would have taken too much space in the case for the rest of the luggage. So I asked if I should put the bigger case in the hold when I got to Leeds Bradford and they just said I shouldn't bother and if I had hassle with security, I could just come back and check the bigger case in. Anyway, it was all no problem at all.

On the way back however, it was no go. I had to put the rucksack into the case or be charged 50 Euro. So, I put on my spare pair of trousers over the first, then I put on two shirts, two jumpers a jacket and a rainjacket and just about managed to squeeze everything in. I then went through security and made my way to gate 457 where Jet 2 go from. At the departure gate, in a state of mild overheating I remove all the extra layers, take the rucksack out of the case, put the clothes back in and board the plane. Case goes in overhead locker, rucksack under seat.

I'm not sure really what any difference it would have made either way except that had we crash landed on water, I'd have sunk more quickly with all the extra layers on...... It all seems a bit random at times.

PS the plane was half empty.

EKIMIKE

If the charge was say £5/10 what are the odds that a significant percentage of the passengers just pay the fee and travel heavy?

The rules are the rules for a reason. True it sometimes gets taken to the nth degree like with Rolf F but that's the price of enforcement. This is a bit like moaning for getting a speeding fine. Everyone knows the rules, they're easy to follow. Most people follow them. In fact even when people get lax and get caught out they admit that THEY were careless.

Frankly, I think it's good that airlines are allowed to enforce rules that make their business viable and efficient.

VTech

EKIMIKE wrote:

If the charge was say £5/10 what are the odds that a significant percentage of the passengers just pay the fee and travel heavy?

The rules are the rules for a reason. True it sometimes gets taken to the nth degree like with Rolf F but that's the price of enforcement. This is a bit like moaning for getting a speeding fine. Everyone knows the rules, they're easy to follow. Most people follow them. In fact even when people get lax and get caught out they admit that THEY were careless.

Frankly, I think it's good that airlines are allowed to enforce rules that make their business viable and efficient.

The only downside with that comment is that i TRULLY believe that had I argued the opposite side you would have argued against the cost. The fact is, they were hit and hit hard, the punishment far outweighed the crime and anyone who really does think different needs their head looking at. This type of harsh treatment can destroy a family holiday, not all families have the benefit of a yearly holiday so may save for ages to be able to afford them.
Also, the government are very often quick to step in when companies overcharge for certain things, like clamping where extortionate fees were charged to release cars, it was so outrageous they outlawed it so please, dont say its fair game, its out and out appalling.

desweller

VTech wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

If the charge was say £5/10 what are the odds that a significant percentage of the passengers just pay the fee and travel heavy?

The rules are the rules for a reason. True it sometimes gets taken to the nth degree like with Rolf F but that's the price of enforcement. This is a bit like moaning for getting a speeding fine. Everyone knows the rules, they're easy to follow. Most people follow them. In fact even when people get lax and get caught out they admit that THEY were careless.

Frankly, I think it's good that airlines are allowed to enforce rules that make their business viable and efficient.

The only downside with that comment is that i TRULLY believe that had I argued the opposite side you would have argued against the cost. The fact is, they were hit and hit hard, the punishment far outweighed the crime and anyone who really does think different needs their head looking at. This type of harsh treatment can destroy a family holiday, not all families have the benefit of a yearly holiday so may save for ages to be able to afford them.
Also, the government are very often quick to step in when companies overcharge for certain things, like clamping where extortionate fees were charged to release cars, it was so outrageous they outlawed it so please, dont say its fair game, its out and out appalling.

Really? I don't think they did, you know, I think they just introduced legislation around the readability of the warning notices.

It's worth noting that crashes due to planes being overweight used to be far more common...

chrisaonabike

VTech wrote:

dont say its fair game, its out and out appalling.

If they didn't do it like that, they'd increase the costs for the people that are perfectly happy to weigh their luggage and travel a bit lighter. Like me. Why should I subsidise the people who are too stupid to weigh their luggage?

VTech

im not asking you to do that, they should pay for being overweight but the punishment outweighs the crime.
A full suitcase is £25/£30, 1.5kg over is £141 !

sungod

i loathe ba, i fly a lot and will use almost any other carrier in preference, of the non-budgets only usa carriers are consistently worse than ba

the excess policy may well be documented, but the charge is exploitative

if there were a technical justification then passengers would be weighed and the obese charged extra or extra charges would made for taking on bottles of duty free booze, but of course there is no justification, it's simple gouging by ba

given the weight involved, it's odd they didn't just put items in carry on, or take out clothes and put them on until the weight was under, once through security just stash them in carry-on bags, but under pressure at the check-in they caved in, which is what ba relies on

EKIMIKE

VTech wrote:

The only downside with that comment is that i TRULLY believe that had I argued the opposite side you would have argued against the cost.

Shame about the spelling. Generally, when you emphasise things you may want to ensure that they're correct. (I wouldn't normally play the spelling/grammar card but this is funny because VTech pulled this card in another thread).

Unfortunately you're wrong in your assertion (that i'd argue against you regardless of your position). I don't actually care about you as a poster. I only look at what is actually posted. In this instance i disagree with you. The enforcement is not proportionate. But sometimes effective enforcement requires proportionality to be subordinate to practicality and effectiveness.

Gabbo

Frank the tank wrote:

They should have checked it's the customers fault.

OLD CHESTNUT ALERT!!!!

However IMHO there should be a change, if it's truely about weight it should be about gross weight of passenger and luggage. 12st man has luggage 2lb overweight incures penalty, 20st man luggage on the top limit doesn't. Seema a bit unfair to me, the aircraft cant differenciate between luggage and lard. :x

That's discrimination!

VTech

EKIMIKE wrote:

VTech wrote:

The only downside with that comment is that i TRULLY believe that had I argued the opposite side you would have argued against the cost.

Shame about the spelling. Generally, when you emphasise things you may want to ensure that they're correct. (I wouldn't normally play the spelling/grammar card but this is funny because VTech pulled this card in another thread).

Unfortunately you're wrong in your assertion (that i'd argue against you regardless of your position). I don't actually care about you as a poster. I only look at what is actually posted. In this instance i disagree with you. The enforcement is not proportionate. But sometimes effective enforcement requires proportionality to be subordinate to practicality and effectiveness.

Im on a PDA that self types words, you on the other hand made your own pic which I would guess you had total control over. Anyway, I can accept that you think it fair, I on the other hand feel it disproportionate.
If you dont mind me asking, what would your take on someone having drugs (lets say 5 speed tablets) found in their case and being caught, would they deserve the death penalty ? After all, they were carrying. It doesnt matter that they were foolish and only wanted to take their own drugs, feck em, hang em high !

EKIMIKE

Did you miss the part where i said:

EKIMIKE wrote:

The enforcement is not proportionate

???

Now reconsider your entire response (even though I might be inclined point out that the issue of the death penalty is a complex and emotive legal issue that should not be trivialised with a comparison to standard business terms and conditions and their enforcement).

VTech

Your lack of emotion was my reference point as well you know.

EKIMIKE

There's nothing to be emotional about unless you prioritise money above all else. Oh yeah, i forgot who i'm talking to...

VTech

EKIMIKE wrote:

There's nothing to be emotional about unless you prioritise money above all else. Oh yeah, i forgot who i'm talking to...

Your an odd fella, its a struggle to argue with you, your as thick as sh!t.

MattC59

VTech wrote:

im not asking you to do that, they should pay for being overweight but the punishment outweighs the crime.
A full suitcase is £25/£30, 1.5kg over is £141 !

The high additional cost isn't a punishment, it's a deterrent, and I cant believe that they were unaware of excess baggage charges. If people ignore this then they can't blame BA if this additional cost 'ruins their holiday'.

VTech

MattC59 wrote:

VTech wrote:

im not asking you to do that, they should pay for being overweight but the punishment outweighs the crime.
A full suitcase is £25/£30, 1.5kg over is £141 !

The high additional cost isn't a punishment, it's a deterrent, and I cant believe that they were unaware of excess baggage charges. If people ignore this then they can't blame BA if this additional cost 'ruins their holiday'.

I dont think anyone argues the fine, its the amount that is wrong.
sungod so eloquently explained above.

EKIMIKE

VTech wrote:

its a struggle to argue with you, your as thick as sh!t.

Interesting line of reasoning

You're still forgetting that I agree with you in that the fine is dis-proportionate. The thing is, in my opinion, there is a set practical justifications that are commonplace throughout the industry and in general within enforcement paradigms.

alihisgreat

VTech wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

VTech wrote:

im not asking you to do that, they should pay for being overweight but the punishment outweighs the crime.
A full suitcase is £25/£30, 1.5kg over is £141 !

The high additional cost isn't a punishment, it's a deterrent, and I cant believe that they were unaware of excess baggage charges. If people ignore this then they can't blame BA if this additional cost 'ruins their holiday'.

I dont think anyone argues the fine, its the amount that is wrong.
sungod so eloquently explained above.

The amount isn't wrong or it wouldn't be a deterrent would it?

We get fined £50 if we're caught eating in the Library at Uni... definitely makes sure no one eats in the library.

MattC59

VTech wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

VTech wrote:

im not asking you to do that, they should pay for being overweight but the punishment outweighs the crime.
A full suitcase is £25/£30, 1.5kg over is £141 !

The high additional cost isn't a punishment, it's a deterrent, and I cant believe that they were unaware of excess baggage charges. If people ignore this then they can't blame BA if this additional cost 'ruins their holiday'.

I dont think anyone argues the fine, its the amount that is wrong.
sungod so eloquently explained above.

What does the amount matter ? If you've read the rules and agreed to them, you know the consequences. A deterrent isn't a deterrent if its affordable.

VTech

Get caught speeding @35 in a 30 and get a 3 year ban and you would think it fair ?
Every society need comparatism.