Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 September 13

= September 13 =

Checked baggage fees in non-low cost carriers in America and elsewhere
I've read that in America, while legacy carriers generally allow one free carry-on baggage per passenger, similar to low-cost carriers (LCCs), the legacy carriers charge for checked luggage (even the first bag), especially for domestic flights (certain international flights, mainly trans-Pacific, do include one complimentary checked bag; ironically, Southwest and JetBlue, two LCCs, allow one or two free checked bags per passenger). I'm aware that this is mainly the case with so-called discount tickets; a full-price ticket includes baggage fees, but the latter ticket doesn't appear to be mentioned as much on websites. However, for the most part, outside of the United States, legacy carriers charging for checked luggage is pretty much unheard of, and is mainly common only with LCCs. The question: how come the practice of charging for checked baggage among legacy carriers caught on in the United States, but not in other countries? As in, why in America, most legacy carriers charge for checked luggage, a practice frequently associated with LCCs, and why hasn't this practice caught on among most legacy airlines in the rest of the world? Apparently, even Air Canada allows one complimentary checked bag, depending on the destination. This question refers to the practice of charging for first checked bags; it does not refer to excess bag fees, or fees regarding bags that exceed size or weight limits. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably part of a much larger pattern of nobody standing up for US consumers. Being more conservative than most developed nations, there are fewer regulatory restrictions on "ripping off customers".  And US customers themselves take a more individual attitude, that they will try to protect themselves from being ripped off, but not anybody else.  The US also has all sorts of hidden banking fees.  For example, US banks find ways to maximize overbalance fees, say by reordering your charges so the last (large) charge, which put you over your balance, is charged first, then all the smaller charges will happen after you are over your balance, and then they can charge you for those, too.  This type of rip-off is perfectly legal in the US, with nobody calling for laws to prevent it. StuRat (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had about a $100 balance in my chase checking account. I had placed six very small (less than $5 each) orders with Amazon over Christmas.  The order had not been filled and it was now March.  Amazons policy says orders not filled in one month are cancelled.  Those orders all came through, then I overdrafted on the $100.  So Chase charged me 6 $35 overdraft charges on the 6 items all of which had priority and would have been covered as well as on the seventh.  When I had set up the account all overdrafts were to be denied on the checking card anyway.  The rep I got told me they had made a change in policy to cover such overdraftsand charge the fee in order to "help customers".  I said, yeah, help yourself to customer's money.  I did eventually get $210 waived, then closed the account. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Business ethics in the US has degraded to the point where "if we can rip off the customer, and it's not illegal, or even if it is and we won't get prosecuted, then we have an obligation to the shareholders to do it". StuRat (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand StuRat's sentiment, but there do not seem to be any EU regulations requiring legacy carriers to accept baggage without fees. In fact, this is probably a matter of different market structures and consumer expectations. In Europe and perhaps other markets, "legacy carriers" may have adopted a business strategy of convincing consumers to pay higher prices for a higher level of service than is provided by discount carriers. Presumably, that strategy has not failed, or they would have abandoned it. (Though, according to this source, KLM and British Airways have already begun charging fees on checked bags on short-haul flights.) In the United States, the distinction between legacy carriers and discount carriers is little more than historical. When a legacy carrier and a discount carrier share the same route, their fares tend to mirror each other. The reason is that airlines in the United States compete mainly on price for the coach class market segment (as opposed to the premier classes), and to a lesser extent on passenger loyalty stimulated by award programs. I am not familiar with the short-haul air travel markets in countries other than the United States, but some carriers may be competing on the basis of quality of service in those markets, which would cause them to continue to waive fees on the first checked bag. In the United States, one or two "legacy" carriers introduced fees for the first checked bag, and other carriers watched to see what would happen. The carriers with fees did not see a significant loss of business where their fares were otherwise competitive, and as a result other carriers followed suit. Perhaps legacy carriers in other countries are reluctant to take this step because they perceive that it would erode a market advantage, which apparently did not exist for such carriers in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing that might play a role is that in Europe, on many routes there is a lot more competition from the rail network, where, in general, one can take whatever luggage one can haul into the train. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet another factor is that European countries generally provide more Annual leave to workers, so they are more likely to be able to take holidays of a length where a checked bag is a necessity, rather than a luxury. MChesterMC (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Debts to USA
How many billions of bucks do thirdworld countries owe the United States government? --112.198.79.8 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This 2011 report from the McKinsey group says U.S. holdings of foreign assets total $15.3 trillion (see here ; the figure is from page 34 of the full report), which makes the U.S. the largest creditor in the world; however, as the U.S. debt at the time was $18.3 trillion (also the largest in the world), the balance was largely negative. This is for all countries, not just third world ones. More recent figures from the Congressional budget office put those numbers at $21 trillion versus $25 trillion at the end of 2012 (see page 4 of ). These numbers are significantly higher than the 2010 figures cited in Financial position of the United States. The best breakdown by country I could find is the table for U.S. Direct investment abroad in 2007, in the 2009 edition of the U.S Statistical Abstract, table 1256, available via google books. Out of total investments of $2.8 trillion, European countries represented $1.5 trillion, Latin America and Asia $0.5 trillion each, Canada $0.3 trillion and Africa and the Middle East $0.03 trillion each. Most of the Asian countries are places like Australia, Japan and Singapore. Foreign assets are not debt, but the breakdown provides an idea of how the pie is divided. You can use the table to tally the figures for third world countries according to whatever definition you use. --Xuxl (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently the UK still owes the USA $4.4 billion at 1934 prices for debts incurred during the First World War. Hopefully, they won't ask for it back anytime soon. Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Section 9 of Article I of the United States Constitution allowed a tax of ten dollars on each imported slave. Has anyone calculated a financial reparation to Africa for guest workers in US plantations? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See Reparations for slavery debate in the United States. --Xuxl (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The original question was about money owed to the U.S. government. In fact, the U.S. government is a debtor, not a creditor, and according to this table from the U.S. Treasury Department, the "third world" or developing countries, as defined by the International Monetary Fund, owe a net amount of zero to the U.S. government.  Meanwhile, according to the same source, the U.S. government owes at least $2.4 trillion (or $2,400 billion) to developing countries. Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)