Baggage fees

Problem:
So, we all know that airports charge baggage fees, which has resulted in people trying to cram as much as possible into carry-on bags.  Despite the lack of upper luggage space, this is not the problem that I want to address.

What bothers me is that I recently found out that an airline charges $25 per bag. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but... something interesting recently happened to people I know who were flying.  Traveling together, they saw an on-line deal with the airline where you could check two bags for $35 total.  Apparently there were no restrictions.

When they got to the airport, they decided for one person to have zero checked bags, and for the second person to pay $35 for the two bags.  This sounds cost effective because instead of paying individually ($25 a pop for a total of $50), they would pay $35 and save $15.

When they arrived at the airport, the check-in screen did not allow them to check in two bags for one person. Furthermore, when they told the airline worker about the deal, the person did not simply say it was only available on-line...  instead they blatantly denied the deal.  


In my opinion, this is just horrid.  I understand that with increasing costs of fuel, airlines have to adjust prices, but come on.  To offer something as an option then to deny it is simply ridiculous.

Solution:  Instead of alienating your customers, how about putting back "service" into "customer service."   Instead of just fishing for things to charge for (I'm talking about you, Bank of America), why not follow in the footsteps of Southwest Airlines (http://www.southwest.com/html/cs/landing/bags_flyfree.html) and show some decency in how you treat customers.

Digital Cameras without viewfinders

Problem: Camera companies are phasing out viewfinders on their cheaper cameras.  Why have camera companies decided to get rid of viewfinders for the lower end models?  A screen is nice, but it is almost impossible to see a screen when it is a bright and sunny day.  But seriously, I guess no one wants to take pictures when it is beautiful outside.

A viewfinder on a digital camera is now rare, but such a feature allows you to actually see/frame the picture without battling the awful outside glare on LCD screens.

And some of these wonderful LCD-only cameras have some wonderful features, especially since they are not in the SLR category, but why not include the viewfinder so that you can USE the features when it's bright outside?

You camera companies baffle and disappoint me.  Obviously the solution here is simple: Bring back some of the R&D in past models, and incorporate the viewfinder for newer models.  People who are amateur photographers but want some control in their photos will probably pay a little bit more for such a feature.