EU to ban carry-on baggage fees

Price transparency vs. “choice”

• Many see the ban as forcing airlines to fold a de‑facto mandatory cost into the ticket, improving price transparency and stopping “semi‑deceitful” advertising where a low headline fare hides common add‑ons.
• Others repeat airlines’ line that this removes “choice” and is government‑mandated bundling, making people who travel ultra‑light subsidize those with cabin bags.

Minimum standards and “enshittification”

• Several argue that basic needs (bathrooms, water, a reasonable carry‑on) should be part of a ticket once passengers are in the airline’s custody.
• The rule is framed by supporters as drawing a line against continual “enshittification” and extreme price discrimination.
• Others think government should focus only on competition and information, not dictating what’s included in a fare.

Costs, pricing, and fairness

• One camp argues that bags consume limited space, weight, and fuel, so it is rational to charge separately; some even suggest weight/volume‑based pricing for passengers and bags.
• Counterpoint: airlines already use average per‑passenger weight assumptions; if a 6 kg bag is monetized but a 100 kg weight difference between passengers is not, the fairness logic is inconsistent.
• Several note that prices will adjust, but not necessarily by the full previous fee, because of demand constraints; others expect the cheap fare “floor” (e.g., €20–€30 flights) to rise.

Overhead space, 7 kg limit, and practical travel

• Frequent travelers highlight that many already travel with only a backpack/7–10 kg carry‑on; for them, “free” cabin bags might change little except how the cost is presented.
• Some worry that making a small cabin bag universal will push more people to bring larger bags, exceeding limited overhead space and forcing more gate‑checks.
• The 100 cm / 7 kg standard is seen as an opening for airlines to sell 8+ kg options as new upsells.

Dark patterns and specific airline behavior

• Strong criticism of dark patterns: forced bundles (priority + cabin bag), late‑stage fees, punitive boarding‑pass printing charges, and restrictive online check‑in windows.
• Some think the EU should have directly targeted dark patterns and fare‑comparison transparency instead; others see this rule as a practical proxy for that goal.

Environmental and modal-shift angle

• A minority welcomes anything that raises flying costs, arguing air travel is “too cheap,” distorts competition with rail, and harms climate goals.
• Another comment suggests the EU prefers to make flying more expensive (raising rivals’ costs) rather than fixing cross‑border rail’s ticketing mess.