Originally Posted by
RogerIrrelevant69
When the baggage charges were being introduced MOL made it very clear that pax not checking in baggage would pay less than they were currently paying.
I believe this is wishful thinking, Roger. I interpreted Molly's statements as quite the opposite, but perhaps that is because I am a cynical old sausage who treats most of the '
PR' given out by corporate execs to be nothing but flannel and cleverly-worded mis-truths designed to fool us unsuspecting public into believing we're getting a good deal, when in actual fact, we're about to get ripped off.
I believe in the marketing world they term it 'The Big Lie' (in all seriousness).
I expect, if you are able to lay hands on the exact words that Molly said, you'll probably find that it is worded in such a way as to be ambiguous,
precisely with the intention that (unless your cynicism gland was at full strength and pumping), one might reasonably believe that one was getting a "new and good deal". When of course, the harsh reality (as we all now know, and you have found out first-hand), is that nothing's really changed, except that the baggage-checker-inners are being stiffed.
Ain't that always the way in this modern world, alas?
Please don't take my use of the word 'naive' as an insult or nastiness... it really wasn't meant to be so, and I just couldn't think of another way to put it. Replace it with 'innocent', or 'trusting', or simply 'human'... it amounts to the same thing. The real trouble is that corporate execs are usually NONE of those things, and a lot more besides... we just need to expect that, I'm very sad to say.
Pax? (as in 'Peace?' rather than 'Passengers')