Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

They wouldn't charge for carry-on luggage -- would they?

By Bob Greene, CNN Contributor
July 14, 2013 -- Updated 1501 GMT (2301 HKT)
Bob Greene says some have talked about adding a carry-on fee, and at least one airline has done it
Bob Greene says some have talked about adding a carry-on fee, and at least one airline has done it
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Bob Greene: Businesses exist to make profit. But would airlines stoop to charging for carry-ons?
  • At least one small carrier does, he says. Such a business move insults customers
  • He says Chicago bank once charged $3 to bank with a teller. They had to drop fee
  • Greene: For exasperated public, "We don't charge you to carry your bag" can seem a bargain

Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a bestselling author whose 25 books include "Late Edition: A Love Story"; "Chevrolet Summers, Dairy Queen Nights"; and "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams."

(CNN) -- Businesses exist to make a profit.

That's why they're businesses.

But, in their quest to make money, there are certain invisible lines they should be careful about crossing.

Making a profit is one thing. Going over the line and insulting your customers is another.

Bob Greene
Bob Greene

It's the kind of thing that can put a business out of business.

Almost every airline has been charging passengers to check bags for quite a while now. When the fees were first instituted, there was considerable grumbling, but travelers have become accustomed to it, even if they still don't much like it.

Executives who run the airlines know that passengers will always flock to a low fare. That's the primary reason the airlines began charging to check bags: Operating an airline is tremendously expensive, and to keep the basic ticket price as low as possible, the revenue had to be made up somewhere. Fees to change reservations, fees for meals, fees for early boarding, fees for pillows and blankets, fees for seats with a little extra legroom. . . .

Reporter Susan Carey of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote that "airlines are likely to keep looking for new ways to nickel-and-dime customers on formerly free items." She quoted George Hobica, an airline industry consumer advocate, as saying that "he wouldn't be shocked if big carriers eventually adopted fees for carry-on luggage."

That's not a typo. Fees for carrying on bags, not checking them.

Now, that could never really happen, right? That's just speculation, isn't it?

But in fact, there is already precedent in the U.S. aviation industry. Low-cost carrier Spirit Airlines charges its passengers a fee for their carry-on bags; based on when and where they purchase their tickets, the fee ranges from $25 to $50 per carry-on bag.

On its website, Spirit says that to provide "ultra-low basic fares," it gives its passengers "freedom to choose only the extras they value."

If the price wars continue to escalate, would the major airlines ever dare to tell their passengers that carrying their clothes along with them on a trip is an "extra" feature of flying for which the customers should be expected to pay an additional fee?

Because that's what the choice would come down to. If you buy a ticket and are told that you have to pay more to check your bags, and that if you don't check your bags you also have to pay more to carry them with you, your only alternative, if you object, would be to leave at home any clothes except the ones you are wearing.

That's where the invisible line between trying to make a profit, and insulting your customers, comes in.

More than a decade ago, First Chicago Corp., which became Bank One Corp., decided that it would be a bright idea to charge customers a fee -- $3 -- every time those customers interacted with a teller.

What is the future of aviation?
Touring Dubai's record-breaking airport
Don't get hacked on vacation

Banks were already charging fees to use ATMs -- people getting cash from the machines were paying a convenience fee.

But then First Chicago instituted the rule that, if customers with less than a certain amount of cash in their accounts went to a teller window, the conversation and transaction with the teller would cost them that $3. Customers with whom I spoke at the time said that even when they were making deposits, they would be charged for handing over their own money.

To some customers, that constituted robbery -- by the banks. There are a few things in this world, even in the world of business, that people should not be expected to pay for. When you walk into a bank, no matter what, dealing with a teller should be free. During the extensive public and media conversation over the issue, I expressed the opinion that any bank that charges any of its customers a penny to interact with a teller doesn't deserve to have any customers.

First Chicago became Bank One, and installed a new top man who had not made the original decision, but had inherited it. He was a fellow by the name of Jamie Dimon, who has, of course, since moved on to bigger things: As chairman, president and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Dimon is one of the most powerful and influential financial figures in the world.

Back when he was newly at Bank One, he called me, saying he wanted to explain the business rationale for the teller fee. If you should ever unexpectedly receive a phone call from Jamie Dimon, you will immediately recognize (at least I did) that he is smarter than you, that he is 100 % certain that his position is the correct position, and that he is confident that he can persuade you to come around to his side.

But, world-class persuasiveness notwithstanding, in the case of teller fees the policy was destined ultimately to fail, because it crossed that mythical line: It insulted the customers. Two years after that conversation, Bank One announced that it was dropping the fee. One of its top executives told a reporter: "Why have it? I wasn't here when we started it. I really don't understand why we'd have it."

(Yet, as some readers already are thinking, there are banks around the country that have figured out new ways to charge for dealing in person with tellers without using the label "teller fee." It usually shows up on the monthly statement, under some arcane heading. The desire to make that extra buck never seems to end.)

Will you eventually be paying to carry your bag onto a plane? Southwest Airlines has garnered a lot of good will, and a lot of business, by holding out against the movement to charge for checked bags -- Southwest still checks the first two bags for free. JetBlue doesn't charge for the first checked bag. If some major carriers announce that they are instituting a fee for carry-ons, the best counteroffensive will likely come from one or more of their competitors, who may choose to proclaim:

"Come fly with us. We don't charge you to carry your own bag."

For the beleaguered traveling public, that may even sound like a victory.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 29, 2014 -- Updated 0430 GMT (1230 HKT)
Les Abend: Before we reach a conclusion on the outcome of AirAsia Flight QZ8501, it's important to understand that the details are far too limited to draw a parallel to Flight 370
December 27, 2014 -- Updated 0127 GMT (0927 HKT)
The ability to manipulate media and technology has increasingly become a critical strategic resource, says Jeff Yang.
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1617 GMT (0017 HKT)
Today's politicians should follow Ronald Reagan's advice and invest in science, research and development, Fareed Zakaria says.
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1319 GMT (2119 HKT)
Artificial intelligence does not need to be malevolent to be catastrophically dangerous to humanity, writes Greg Scoblete.
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1505 GMT (2305 HKT)
Historian Douglas Brinkley says a showing of Sony's film in Austin helped keep the city weird -- and spotlighted the heroes who stood up for free expression
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1303 GMT (2103 HKT)
Tanya Odom that by calling only on women at his press conference, the President made clear why women and people of color should be more visible in boardrooms and conferences
December 27, 2014 -- Updated 2327 GMT (0727 HKT)
When oil spills happen, researchers are faced with the difficult choice of whether to use chemical dispersants, authors say
December 25, 2014 -- Updated 0633 GMT (1433 HKT)
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2312 GMT (0712 HKT)
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1914 GMT (0314 HKT)
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2027 GMT (0427 HKT)
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 0335 GMT (1135 HKT)
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1257 GMT (2057 HKT)
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 0429 GMT (1229 HKT)
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2115 GMT (0515 HKT)
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1811 GMT (0211 HKT)
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 1808 GMT (0208 HKT)
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 1853 GMT (0253 HKT)
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 2019 GMT (0419 HKT)
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 2239 GMT (0639 HKT)
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 0112 GMT (0912 HKT)
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2345 GMT (0745 HKT)
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
ADVERTISEMENT