What makes me mad isn’t that the airlines want to shrink our carry-on luggage. It’s that they think we’re complete idiots.
In case you haven’t run across this little firestorm, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has announced a new standard. Conforming luggage will be about 20% smaller than what you’re used to carrying on. The IATA’s spokespeople say, “… it will lead to an improved passenger experience.”
Not content to insult our intelligence with that little gem, the IATA went on to say, “The Cabin OK initiative does not require passengers to buy new baggage. Cabin OK is not a revenue generating scheme for the airlines.”
Okay, let’s get this straight. It won’t require us to buy new luggage, because … we can shrink the luggage we own with a hacksaw and duct tape to make it fit?
And if passengers can’t pack as much into their carry-on luggage, none will have to check larger bags … for a fee … to bring enough clothing and shoes for trips our old carry-on luggage was big enough to handle?
I’m surprised they aren’t calling it “best practice.”
Passenger demand for overhead space has increased. The airline industry’s response is to reduce the supply. If you were running a business, would you reduce the amount of something your customers were demanding more of?
This is a clear case of market failure. Among the causes of market failure, in addition to monopolies, tragedies of the commons, and the dollar auction, we can add the failure to think like customers, I guess, or maybe simple denial of the obvious — characteristics with which the airlines long-ago proved they are amply supplied.
For example: With approximately one exception, air carriers argue they have to change ticket prices every 37 milliseconds because the laws of economics compel them to do so.
That this is insane was pointed out quite a long time ago by C Alan H. Hess in his brilliant “If Airlines Sold Paint” (if you haven’t read this, stop now and click the link — you’re in for a treat). That it’s completely wrong is evidenced by which carrier is the most profitable in the industry — Southwest, which doesn’t do this.
And now, not content with pricing that’s merely insane, some carriers now offer multiple pricing tiers, based on position in the plane and whether they provide enough legroom to avoid the need for amputation.
To be fair, position in the plane and amount of legroom are attributes fliers value. But there’s an attribute we all value more: Not being crammed into the furschlugginer center seat.
Do you know of any carriers offering a center seat discount? Me neither. And if any carrier did figure this out, you can bet they’d offer aisle-and-window-seat premium pricing instead … exact same thing, only most business travelers would not be allowed to book a seat labeled “premium.”
Talk to any experienced traveler about their preference for not checking luggage and you’ll find price has little to do with the choice. Most of us are frequent fliers on at least one airline, but still carry our luggage on board, even when the first bag is free.
Why? We both know the answer. We carry our luggage on board to make sure it (1) arrives at our destination; (2) undamaged; and (3) with its contents undamaged, too.
Which leads to the KJR solution: Charge ten bucks per carry on bag — enough to make money; not enough for business travelers to care — and in exchange do what Domino’s Pizza does: Guarantee fast delivery, with the goods in good condition.
If I was confident my bag would be waiting for me in baggage claim when I got there, in the same condition it was when I handed it over, I might even start checking my computer bag, too.
What does this have to do with running IT? Not much. The IATA just ticked me right off and KJR was waiting here for me to write about it.
But there is this, which you can take to the bank: If IT wants its users to behave in a certain way, the starting point isn’t to set and enforce standards.
It’s to look at the world through their eyes, not IT’s, setting standards and writing policies that are more attractive than the alternatives.
Most of the time, in most situations, enforcement is the lazy alternative to empathy.
Whenever I hear the words “to better serve our customers”, I am immediately certain of two things:
1. No customers whatsoever will have been consulted in reaching this decision; and
2. In some small, undefinable way, my life is about to become a little worse.
Yup. I was about to say it’s one of the three great lies, except that by now there are so many more than three that things like this get lost in the noise.
Loved the Hess piece! And you are so right about the airlines (and IT)
Consistency itself is not the demon.. it’s a “foolish consistency” that’s the hobgoblin of little minds.
Standards fit 95% or more of situations. Not recognizing the other 5% for having business value and therefore needing something other than the standard is what we fail to train/educate our folks to be able to do.
Policy-wise, every policy book needs a policy exception process requiring just enough effort to keep it focused on exceptions that bring value. I can’t remember when we failed to approve a policy/standards exception request – but we don’t get all that many of them. We take business stakeholders through the exception request process and sometimes during the process we figure out a non-exception way to meet their needs that’s satisfactory to them. I agree, the focus has to be on the consumer.. but policies and standards in and of themselves are tools, not the devil.
Hi Bob … sounds like you had a rough week – I don’t travel much myself anymore but surely can empathize. I also listen to my wife grinding her teeth as she works to organize air travel for various artists taking part in the summer classical music festival she runs.
Anyway – enjoyed the column and thanks for voicing these common frustrations so wittily.
IT has much to answer for in the area of enabling such idiocy – a multiplicity of choices and micro-choices in infinite permutations. We’ve made a lot of progress since the days of the Ford Model-T which came in black … but it’s hard to feel sometimes that we’re better off because of it.
Thanks for your insights and wisdom.
regards, Rob
> center set discount
seAt
Thanks – fixed.
Looks like the link to “if Airlines Sold Paint” is dead
Strange. I just tried it and it worked fine. Here’s the URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/airlines.txt .
The reason it’s hard to apply this lesson to IT is that the insanity comes from multiple prices for the same product, while in IT you’re never (OK, rarely) doing the same thing twice so you don’t know the correct price.
“Most of the time, in most situations, enforcement is the lazy alternative to empathy.”
It was worth reading to the end just for this little gem.
Hi Bob,
I did share your column with IATA along with my pointed commentary and observations. I noted that, while they don’t think they’re creating a standard, they are, in fact, allowing their airline members, a very shifty bunch of businesses, to use them as protective cover and assume this proposal as a new standard.
I further suggested that whoever created this proposal might be better off working for Spirit or RyanAir, preferably in their baggage handling areas.
Always enjoy your columns, commentary and wit!
mark.
Great column, Bob.
“Do you know of any carriers offering a center seat discount? Me neither. And if any carrier did figure this out, you can bet they’d offer aisle-and-window-seat premium pricing instead … ”
American now does this. Yesterday, I booked a flight on an AA 787, which has 3-3-3 seating. The premium for Main Cabin Extra seats was dependent not only on your row, but your location on the row.
Screenshot: http://www.grunnah.com/downloads/787-seating.jpg
Thanks Bob!!!!!! This was brilliant!!!
I was actually wondering if it would be possible to sue George Bush for the amount of hours of my life (or actually days) I have wasted in security checks ensuring people’s toothpaste tubes are in transparent plastic bags.
Or I could also start ranting about how airline meals have degenerated from a nice warm meal to what seems to be a competition amongst airlines to have the smallest unhealthiest snack.
Not quite the same but it seems somebody somewhere really doesn’t want us to enjoy flying…
Of course, the sad thing in part is that we have brought this on ourselves in large part because passengers focus not on comfort or anything but getting there cheap. If you want to get there cheap, your service and amenities are going to be cheap too.
If you are an occassional traveler, as I am, you really get nothing because the only loyalty the airline provides is in the form of frequent flyer miles are pretty much worthless if you aren’t a frequent flyer.
For years I wouldn’t fly any place that I could drive in 5 hours or less. After 9/11 that moved up to 8 hours or less. After a horrible mess trying to fly from Chicago to Dallas this year, I’m considering moving it up to 10 or 12 hours. If I drive, I don’t have to rent a car and I’ve got plenty of room for my luggage. I also void the hassle of squeezing my over 6 ft tall body an airline seat.