 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Dave Burt, and carled, if it won't fit down the standard baggage conveyor, then it is outsized baggage, that's all they need!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Wear The Fox Hat, why does distance come into it? Be logical about this and read what I'm writing! It's NOT EXTRA BAGGAGE so why would distance or seat cost come into it? Once it's on the plane, it's not different to any other bit of luggage (it isn't any different anyway, to be honest). This isn't just in my case, but also for other sports stuff - Easyjet already say we're allowed extra for sports gear, so the charge isn't on weight, it's a "handling charge" according to them.
My £5 is still way too much, but I would grudgingly pay it. It's purely an estimate of the extra they would notionally have to pay a baggage handler to carry it. I'd happily tip the bloke a few quid/euros at each end for his troubles if it was free and the right person would be getting the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| carled wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat, why does distance come into it? . |
carled, I was just trying to work out where you came up with the £5.
| carled wrote: |
| it's a "handling charge" according to them.. |
What is "handling"? Is it just getting it to/from the plane, or does it also include carrying it on the plane?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
carled,
Not having a go, just trying to check your m8s reasoning.
As this line (which has the magic word "snowboard") is on their webpage, why does he think it's not applicable?
Bicycles, golf equipment, and skis/snowboards are subject to a handling fee of £15 per item, per flight.
regards,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| carled wrote: |
| If the baggage handlers can smash my snowboard by dropping something on it when I can hardly bend it with my 16 stone when jumping around on it |
Perhaps the airlines should impose an all-in weight limit, eg passenger AND baggage not to exceed, say 105kg. Any big lads (or girls) subject to excess baggage charges even if they've no luggage at all. As things stand, most of us are being charged more than our fair share 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
gregh, I say again... what webpage is it on? The FAQ? Doesn't count for a thing - has to be in T's & C's otherwise chaos would ensue the world over as you could negate any contract by a statement on your website!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red Leon, I knew someone would pick me up on that ... 
I am 6 foot 5 tall though!
(and my two daughters, for whom I have paid the same price as me, probably together weigh less than half my weight!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red Leon, I look forward to discussing this further on a chairlift at the Eosb. I would have to fill my luggage with helium balloons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
ok, that is the clarification I was hoping for, thanks!
So your playing on the fact the T&C's just say skis in this bit?
Bicycles (1), golf equipment, and skis, surfboards, wind surfers, hang gliders, and firearms (2)
An additional fee is charged per item per flight for the carriage of the above items as set out in the table below.
Will be interesting to see what happens.
However
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could a snowboard be considered as a board for surfing the snow i.e a surfboard
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| Could a snowboard be considered as a board for surfing the snow i.e a surfboard |
This is why lawyers make so much money!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
To be honest, I'm rather expecting them not to bother taking it to court for that exact reason. If they just pay up the £30 (for each of us claiming it) then it saves risking going to court and having it pulled apart legally. Yes, they might win, but for the risk of losing against just paying out £30 and not having their terms challenged? I know what I'd do in their place...
Taking advantage? Perhaps... but they've had plenty of my money as a customer though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've always noted that snowboards are omitted from the T&C's and thought about arguing the case but without a legal background didn't feel confident enough to argue it. It will be interesting to see what happens. My laymans view is that they can refuse to carry your baggage because it is unsuitable but can't refuse to carry it because you are unwilling to pay GBP15. My rationale being that they are carrying board bags for other fliers who have paid the money.
In the real world I'd call this quibbling - assuming if skis and surf boards require payment then so do snowboards. However, quibbling is what lawyers do and if the T&C's aren't clear then that is their look out.
Where's snowheads expert on T&Cs at the moment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| ashton parker wrote: |
| Where's snowheads expert on T&Cs at the moment? |
Best not go there
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Stop giving carled a hard time people! There have been loads of threads on the cost of ski carriage, and most of us have been moaning about it. So don't criticise someone who has the guts to stand up and do something about it, rather than just moaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
beanie1, doing something about it is taking your business to a company able to offer a better deal, not arguing the toss about the finer points of the business model and contract when there's a queue of people behind you at the check in counter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It's nice to see someone want to challenge the system in this country, There’s far to much compliance from the common man. That’s how governments & big companies get away with their crap.
I say go for it carled, unless I am in the que behind you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Nick_C wrote: |
| It's nice to see someone want to challenge the system in this country, There’s far to much compliance from the common man. That’s how governments & big companies get away with their crap. |
And what is "the system" that needs challenging? Only a few years ago the kinds of prices that were being charged for short haul flights meant that skiing was well out of reach of many people; one trip per year if you were lucky. With the advent of the lo-cost airlines that is no longer the case, and we have the lowest prices for flights in Europe. Is that the "system" that needs challenging?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
no rob@rar.org.uk, the system I am taking about is the excessive screwing of the working man for the gain of profits.
for example
A guy at work today was moaning about BT messing him around on his BB connection, he has been told in the past that all they can offer out of the exchange is 1mb, so ok but they just upped his bill to £34 a month.
So I said look around for a cheaper supplier of 1mb he rang around and found out that ukonline have that exchange at 8mb for £10 less. And then had to go through 20mins of phone hell to get BT to cancel his connection, they even offered him 1mb at a special rate of £27  before they would cancel.
Stupid money grabbing company and they think people will be happy to accept a poorer service for more money because they are a big named company and the problem is they do get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Nick_C wrote: |
| no rob@rar.org.uk, the system I am taking about is the excessive screwing of the working man for the gain of profits. |
So shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that the advent of lo-cost airlines has meant cheaper flights for all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Nick_C, the "system" meant that your friend could shop around and find a better alternative to BT. I think you should distinguish between individual companies that can be good, bad or indifferent and the free-enterprise system, which gives you the ability to select the good companies and which provides constant pressure for the bad to haul themselves up to the level of the good. Various alternatives have been tried in different times and places, and the outcome is generally not happy. Perhaps you're old enough to remember when there was a waiting list for a plain old telephone connection, when BT was a nationalised monopoly supplier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, no, it appears not, now we get greedy and want more for nothing (or next to nothing), after all, we are sticking it to the system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, from my experience BT has got no better they will have to, to survive I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Good grief there are some people with some very rose coloured spectacles out there. It's all well and good saying, "take your custom elsewhere, my good fellow..." if the places you can take your custom to don't do exactly the same bloody thing! Which low-cost carriers don't charge for ski carriage now? I'm not objecting to the cheap flights and I'm not (if anyone bothers to actually read my posts properly) objecting to paying extra for taking EXTRA luggage on board. What I do object to is this flimsy excuse for loading extra cost on to people regardless of whether it is actually extra or even "inconveniently shaped" luggage at all. If my single piece of luggage happens to come in under the airline flight limit and is reasonably easy to move around (I say again, if my 8 year old daughter can move my packed snowboard bag around without trouble then you can hardly argue it is an inconvenience to carry around) then I should not have to pay a bean extra to get it transported.
The problem is that there is no (with this airline) defined size limit for baggage, therefore there is a grey area and that is always where the disputes happen. It is almost, but not entirely, unique to snowboarding - to my knowledge you get very few combined ski bag/luggage holders as you do with soft board bags, so maybe that's where the distinction lies. This nonsense being spouted about "if it doesn't fit down the carousel, etc..." is a pointless argument as the oversized baggage handlers have always been there at the airport, purely and simply because of the fact that people did occasionally take odd-shaped things with them that wouldn't fit down the standard luggage routes, they haven't introduced manual baggage handling just to handle skis and snowboards you know! If these people are already there and are already being paid for a job, why then start charging extra?
This is a relatively recent phenomenon and it has "caught on" because each airline successively has realised there is easy money to be made. They all used to cope quite happily with carriage of all sorts of odd shaped things, they haven't recently reduced ticket prices to offset against the cost of manual baggage handling or anything, it's purely an executive idea to make extra money from what is NOT a free market anymore! If every low cost carrier flew to the same destinations from every airport in the UK... perhaps then we would have this utopian system that several of you seem to think exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carled, there's a myriad of ways of getting from any A to any B: you don't have to use the closest airports or even fly at all. The fact is that the low cost airlines have substantially reduced the cost of air travel. If they choose to pare prices to the bone for carrying 'standard' passengers, and make a little extra on odd bits of baggage, that's their business: no one's compelling you to play along. No business is under any compulsion to make offers that every potential customer finds acceptable. It's impossible anyway; if they dropped all baggage charges, they'd have to increase the standard fare to make ends meet - which might p... off someone with nothing more than a carry-on bag.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Fri 10-03-06 10:37; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| Nick_C wrote: |
| no rob@rar.org.uk, the system I am taking about is the excessive screwing of the working man for the gain of profits. |
So shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that the advent of lo-cost airlines has meant cheaper flights for all? |
Definitely. I'm flying to Switzerland this weekend....total cost (return inc. ski carriage) £63. Ten years ago, the cheapest that I could get, on a similar route was £230.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Elizabeth B, you should complain! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
| This is a relatively recent phenomenon and it has "caught on" because each airline successively has realised there is easy money to be made. They all used to cope quite happily with carriage of all sorts of odd shaped things, they haven't recently reduced ticket prices to offset against the cost of manual baggage handling or anything, it's purely an executive idea to make extra money from what is NOT a free market anymore! If every low cost carrier flew to the same destinations from every airport in the UK... perhaps then we would have this utopian system that several of you seem to think exist. |
Carled, as I said earlier, it isn't that recent, Tour Operators have been doing it for at least the last ten years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I dread to think what you'd be like as Ryanair move to their cabin bags only policy.
These airlines make their money not from passengers, but from hold space. The more parcels they can carry, the more freight, the better. And when someone turns up with a bag which is longer than standard, that reduces the amount of standard space they have.
Oh, and I love your argument about outsized baggage staff are there, so it should be free. Perhaps you should direct your complaints to the BAA, or whoever runs the airport, or the baggage handling company. Ask them what they charge the airlines, and how long they have been charging them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
laundryman, you're missing a part of the point.
I am extremely grateful for the existence of low cost airlines, I use them all the time.
I only occasionally take my snowboard bag.
I have never previously been charged for my snowboard bag.
Low-cost air tickets have been substantially the same for the last 4 or 5 years.
Most low-cost airlines didn't use to charge for ski or board carriage.
Almost all low-cost airlines now DO charge for ski or board carriage.
Low-cost air ticket prices haven't changed with the advent of the carriage charge for skis/boards.
Therefore the point I am trying to make is that they are making an unnecessary charge!
Why is this so difficult to comprehend? If they had suddenly dropped their prices when they brought in the ski/board charge, then great, I agree with you but they didn't! They all used to cope quite happily with skis and boards and suddenly they didn't. One airline starts charging, the others see this, think, "I'll have a bit of that action" and pile on in as well.
Ryanair are now bringing in the "you get a reduction if you don't bring any hold luggage" ticket... how much are they knocking off the price of the ticket? £15 is it? Oh no it isn't...
All this talk of "there are other ways to get to the alps" is fine and dandy if you're travelling on your own or with just one family or whatever, but when a group of 15-20 people go every year, it's not quite so easy to organise.
My objection is to the introduction of a charge for things where there didn't used to be one and the service or pricing has not changed one little bit to reflect the "handling charge".
Furthermore if the luggage itself doesn't contravene their written policies, then once again, why shoul dI be charged for it to be carried? You are confusing me turning up with two suitcases AND a set of skis or a board with me turning up with a padded board bag containing my luggage, weighing less than their weight limit and measuring not too much more than a big suitcase in length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, so you seriously reckon that the baggage handlers have suddently slapped in a £15 per set of skis or board handling charge to the airlines? Get your bumps read...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| carled wrote: |
| My objection is to the introduction of a charge for things where there didn't used to be one and the service or pricing has not changed one little bit to reflect the "handling charge". |
It's not an introduction of a new charge. PLEASE read what I have said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
carled, no, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had slapped a fiver on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| carled wrote: |
laundryman, you're missing a part of the point.
I am extremely grateful for the existence of low cost airlines, I use them all the time.
I only occasionally take my snowboard bag.
I have never previously been charged for my snowboard bag.
Low-cost air tickets have been substantially the same for the last 4 or 5 years.
Most low-cost airlines didn't use to charge for ski or board carriage.
Almost all low-cost airlines now DO charge for ski or board carriage.
Low-cost air ticket prices haven't changed with the advent of the carriage charge for skis/boards.
Therefore the point I am trying to make is that they are making an unnecessary charge! |
Have you looked at the price of aviation fuel lately? They need to recoup those increases somehow, and I guess charging for baggage is part of that. Whatever, you're deep in the trees, and you need to look at the wood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
| Whatever, you're deep in the trees, and you need to look at the wood |
No I don't! You're all mad, mad I tell you!
Wear The Fox Hat, It IS a new charge for the low-cost airlines. TO's have been ripping us off any way they can for years. they charged the fee because they objected to losing their commission on ski hire packs - it isn't the same charge at all. Clear now? Good.
IF the baggage handlers want to charge extra for oversized/awkward luggage then let them charge it! Don't let's have the low cost airlines charging three times the amount (notionally) and try and fob us off with lame excuses. It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to instigate a pay system at the oversized luggage section, would it? I still maintain that they will not have changed the rules one little bit.
laundryman, that's hopeless. Aviation fuel price rises being paid for by handling charges on luggage? Yes, extremelly likely. What are they going to do if no-one turns up with boards or skis? Oh no! We're never going to cover our costs now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
carled, instigate a pay system at the oversized luggage? Are you mad? Have you ever seen what it's like when you have 20 people waiting to put their bags through at T3 Heathrow? If you add in to that that they all have to pay, both on the way out and the way back, it will mean bringing check in times forward at least half an hour, or further delayed flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
| laundryman, that's hopeless. Aviation fuel price rises being paid for by handling charges on luggage? Yes, extremelly likely. What are they going to do if no-one turns up with boards or skis? Oh no! We're never going to cover our costs now! |
They sell off the extra space to freight companies and recover more than your £15.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
| laundryman, that's hopeless. Aviation fuel price rises being paid for by handling charges on luggage? Yes, extremelly likely. |
I said "part of".
| Quote: |
| What are they going to do if no-one turns up with boards or skis? Oh no! We're never going to cover our costs now! |
Rethink, if necessary. Or possibly celebrate. Who knows? Who cares? As long as there's competition, you should be able to find some kind of a reasonable deal that meets most of your requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| carled wrote: |
| Why is this so difficult to comprehend? If they had suddenly dropped their prices when they brought in the ski/board charge, then great, I agree with you but they didn't! |
Didn't they? If you can manage to explain lo-cost pricing well enough to know that they aren't charging less, then you're a mathematical genius
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, but it only affects those that want to take the outsized baggage, doesn't it? And that's what you're advocating. I've never seen a queue of any description at outsized baggage at Luton, Stansted, Birmingham or East Mids.
If it takes some people a few minutes extra to check in because they're carrying extra baggage and they have to pay, what's the problem? Fits in with your arguments?
So because it will be difficult to implement, we instead have to go through the airline and pay their mark-up price, yes? Their very own "handling charge" for the "handling charge"? Well, for those with more money than sense, it might work...
This is a generalised discussion now... don't lose sight of the fact that my argument is to do with the fact that I am not, in fact, taking any extra baggage. I am, in fact, taking less than my allowance in weight and your spurious claims that I should therefore pay £15 each way because someone has to take my snowboard bag from me, walk 10 feet and put it on a luggage carrier at outsized baggage as it won't fit down the carousel is, I'm afraid, complete pants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
