Soldier Charged $100 to Fly Gear

Wretched Wrench

Veteran
Apr 21, 2003
1,626
12
A soldier traveling with Serrano had three extra bags and was charged $300.

http://www.military.com/news/article/soldi...o-fly-gear.html

Soldier Charged $100 to Fly GearJuly 31, 2008
Knight Ridder/Tribune

EL PASO, Texas -- After adding all the extra equipment -- boots, foul-weather gear, uniforms and the like -- required to train before deploying to Iraq, Staff Sgt. Ashley Serrano had filled three bags.

That was one more than American Airlines was willing to let fly without an extra baggage charge of $100.

Many airlines, faced with the rising price of jet fuel and other costs, have instituted luggage fees. And now military officials are having to re-evaluate policy as soldiers, many of whom are at lower pay grades, face significant charges to haul equipment required by their jobs.

Serrano said he was confronted Friday at El Paso International Airport with a demand for $100 for his third bag. When he mentioned he was headed for Camp Bowie -- where Texas Army National Guard soldiers train before deployment -- he said they told him, without a smile, that the Army should have

given him a voucher. A soldier traveling with Serrano had three extra bags and was charged $300, he said.

"I have flown Southwest, Continental, and when they saw me in uniform, they didn't even ask," Serrano said. "I flew American a couple of times before, but I never had this problem."

American Airlines' baggage policy allows service members one checked 100-pound duffel-type bag, one standard checked 50-pound suitcase and one standard carry-on suitcase of up to 40 pounds, "for a total of 190 pounds of free luggage," airline spokesman Tim Wagner said in an e-mail. Wagner said the policy has been in effect for at least five years.

Since June 15, civilian passengers pay a $15, one-way fee for the first checked bag, a $25 fee for the second checked bag, and $100 each for the third, fourth and fifth bags, according to the American Airlines policy. Other fees are charged for additional luggage and overweight and oversize bags. Military service members are allowed larger and heavier bags, according to the policy.

"I am not aware of any ability by our agents to waive an excess-baggage fee, even for military personnel -- since they already have the common checked bag fees waived in our policy," Wagner said. "Otherwise, our policy is very generous, as you can see, and intentionally so. We're very proud of our military forces -- and many of our employees began their flying careers with the military -- so we're pleased to be able to help."

Wagner offered to look into the case if the soldier thought the policy wasn't properly applied.

Said Serrano, "You couldn't fit it all into two (checked) bags if you tried."

In the past, troops carrying equipment needed for their specialized jobs would get authorization for reimbursement of excess baggage fees that would be included in their orders, said Col. Bill Meehan, spokesman for the Texas Army and Air National Guard.

"We have had over 15,000 deployments in the past five years," Meehan said, "and this is the first time I've heard about it."

Meehan said National Guard soldiers carry the same equipment as deploying active-duty soldiers. He said Serrano can go back to the unit and request reimbursement. But it wasn't clear whether that kind of request would be granted, Meehan said, adding that Texas military forces officials are looking at the reimbursement policy in light of airline policy changes.

Fort Bliss officials also said they were looking at their policies on deploying soldiers' baggage.

"We are making sure orders are clear about what they carry and what they don't," post spokeswoman Jean Offutt said. "We are looking to see if they can be reimbursed and whether orders can be amended" to allow reimbursement after the trip.
 
Showing once again that 'We know why you fly' is a big steaming pile of cow manure.

“We sincerely appreciate the courage, dedication and sacrifice that our troops and their families exhibit on a daily basis, and all of us at American look forward to seeing them on one of our flights very soon.â€￾

Unless that member of the service is traveling with 'excess baggage' then we'll have to get that extra hundred bucks.

aa.com
 
I'm confused.

Two soldiers headed to a predeployment training exercise brought more cargo with them than AA's already-generous military luggage allowance. AA charged them the $400 that AA's policies say is due AA. And so far, two employees complain. Complain about revenue. :huh:
 
I'm confused.

Two soldiers headed to a predeployment training exercise brought more cargo with them than AA's already-generous military luggage allowance. AA charged them the $400 that AA's policies say is due AA. And so far, two employees complain.

I don't think you're confused. I think you know exactly what you are about.

And, FYI, I didn't complain. I just posted the article. But you knew that, as well.

But, I am unhappy because it puts AA in a bad light, particularly when compared to the other airlines mentioned. We really would like more people to see AA in a good light and give them money so we can share it.

The military who sent it to me did not think it put AA in a good light, either.

I fear it will cost AA in the long run. It is bad PR.

When I got the first forwarded e mail, I immediately checked it on Google, and it is all over.
 
And so far, two employees complain. Complain about revenue. :huh:

Not complaining about revenue, merely pointing out the difference between the flag waving pat ourselves on the back version of American Airlines for "Supporting the troops" and the "We don't budge from policy" version of American Airlines you get at the counter and at the boarding podium.
 
I don't think you're confused. I think you know exactly what you are about.

And, FYI, I didn't complain. I just posted the article. But you knew that, as well.

But, I am unhappy because it puts AA in a bad light, particularly when compared to the other airlines mentioned. We really would like more people to see AA in a good light and give them money so we can share it.

The military who sent it to me did not think it put AA in a good light, either.

I fear it will cost AA in the long run. It is bad PR.

When I got the first forwarded e mail, I immediately checked it on Google, and it is all over.

What do the corporate elite have to say about this? Those charges the company was "entitled" to will cost American millions.

The flight 'benefits' being what they are (a poor joke now), if I wanted to go somewhere, I'd purchase a ticket, albeit reduced fare, on American and go. No more. I'll be using some other airline until this policy gets straightened out to the benefit of our military members and restitution is made to those service members who got/are getting hosed by this low-life policy of American.

My daughter (Navy) will be interested to hear about this type of corporate abuse toward service members, as will her friends and local command.
 
Sure, AA supports the troops. Admirals Club access plus deep discounted fares for personal military travel.

But what's that got to do with hauling US military cargo for free? In my view, nothing.

There's a world of difference between supporting the troops and providing free cargo service to National Guard units. The other soldier mentioned in the story - the one with THREE extra bags - does anyone seriously believe that soldier needed six total bags (the three they're allowed plus three extra) for their own personal stuff?

And if they did need it, then their employer can pay the freight. The military has already negotiated air fare that includes a baggage allowance more generous than AA grants to its other customers. These bumpkins show up with four extra bags between them, not having prepared by getting the military vouchers that AA would have accepted, and one of them whines to the Fort Bliss, err, El Paso Times about it. If I were Staff Sergeant Ashley's CO, I'd chew him a new one for embarrassing the military the way he did. There's a reimbursement process if the military agrees that all this extra cargo was necessary.

AA supports the troops, but needn't grant charity to the troops' employer. That employer can pay the bills.
 
snip ...

AA supports the troops, but needn't grant charity to the troops' employer. That employer can pay the bills.

I haven't any problem with the "employer paying the bills", but that's not the point here. Even though the servicemember was under orders and the government should have been paying, there was no attempt to do anything but extract the fees from the most available source.

Is there some reason the baggage couldn't have been loaded and the "employer" charged rather than extracting the cash from the sevicemember? Yes - the military dropped the ball here - why are there no procedures to deal with this?

I'm sure you've been filthy rich all your life and never had a problem coughing up an extra $100-$200 bucks for incidental expenses, but some of us who have been military remember what it's like to part with the lion's share of our paycheck for a simple necessity of life knowing full well the next check is 2 weeks out.

This is the lowest action yet by American Airlines.
 
I'm in the middle on this one. If it's a soldier on leave or personal travel, I'm all for letting him bring what he wants.

My experience with the military is if you don't have the proper forms, payment won't get processed.

I suspect there are enough people moving thru ELP that they don't have the same level of understanding anymore. That said, you'd think they would have a contact on-base at Biggs or Bliss who they could work with when this happens.
 
I'm in the middle on this one. If it's a soldier on leave or personal travel, I'm all for letting him bring what he wants.

My experience with the military is if you don't have the proper forms, payment won't get processed.

I suspect there are enough people moving thru ELP that they don't have the same level of understanding anymore. That said, you'd think they would have a contact on-base at Biggs or Bliss who they could work with when this happens.

According to the article http://www.military.com/news/article/soldi...o-fly-gear.html ,the soldier was enroute to pre-deployment training. All "stuff" goes along for the ride.

It's not like the aircraft are 75% full of military personnel wanting a lift for themselves and baggage.
 
True, but the airlines aren't a public transit system.

If this had been a NPS ranger or CDC researcher being asked to pay their excess (also traveling at the same contracted government fare), would you be as hard-line in your insistence that AA not try to collect the excess?

Again, I don't think it should ever come out of a soldiers pocket. Nor should it come out of the ranger or researcher's pocket. The fact that the agents asked for a voucher might indicate that other soldiers before them had been given vouchers in advance by the base travel office.
 
If this had been a NPS ranger or CDC researcher being asked to pay their excess (also traveling at the same contracted government fare), would you be as hard-line in your insistence that AA not try to collect the excess?

No. Having a grandfather's, father's, son's and my own military service as background, I have much more empathy for a soldier than for a well-paid, well-benefited government employee who sleeps safely in a warm dry bed every night. In addition, the employees in your example have to do little more than turn in an expense account for reimbursement. Getting money from the Big Green Machine after the fact is well nigh unto impossible, particularly for an EM.

And, by saying "your insistence that AA not try to collect the excess?", you are attempting to redefine the issue. The issue is not whether AA should collect the excess, but from whom. Certainly, most of us can agree that the Army should pay. I suspect only a few flacks and shills would expect the soldier to pay for AA shipping Army gear.

However, to a degree, your point is valid. There is no doubt that AA should be paid for excess baggage. But they should hook the Army for carrying Army gear. Asking the poor enlisted man to pay out of his pocket with little chance of recompense goes beyond greedy.

Perhaps some of the AA cheerleaders here could offer their service to AA on spin control for this. They need help to try to undo the damage this has done. So far, all AA's mouthpieces have done is dig the hole deeper. Of course, a policy change could prevent a recurrence, if AA is able to recognize that they made a mistake.
 
I'm confused.

Two soldiers headed to a predeployment training exercise brought more cargo with them than AA's already-generous military luggage allowance. AA charged them the $400 that AA's policies say is due AA. And so far, two employees complain. Complain about revenue. :huh:
Those men should be treated like royalty by corporate america. After all, it is to expand the american corporate empire that they are fighting for.
I am not mocking the troops. I know most of the troops are well intentioned and many actually believe they are fighting for the american people. They do not know its for the corporate empire.
 
Just send the Bill to AA's fellow Texan, George W. Bush, I am sure he'll pay for it. What's another $400 to the National deficit!
 
Bush would probably pay for it out of his own pocket. So would McCain.

Obama? He'd probably pull out a hundred dollar bill and point out how different he is from that former President. ;)


Wrench, you need to spend a week with the NPS rangers around places like Everglades in FL, Big Bend in TX and Organ Pipe in AZ who now have to wear the same body armour the troops do because of all the crime and drug trafficing going via National Park lands. It is by no means a cushy office job. It's almost as risky as Border Patrol now, and the CBP guys are typically paired up; NPS rangers are usually alone...

Again, I don't think I'd try getting the cash from soldiers with orders. I'd photocopy the orders, and leave it for a CSM to deal with it after the fact.
 

Latest posts