Airline Fees Will Rise July 21

[Tinkerbell58]

I posted this on the Transportation Board; thought I'd post it here too. Book your flights soon.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post--airline-ticket-prices-will-rise-on-july-21

 

[Epcotfan64]

Talk to your lawmakers about implement high-speed rail in the US as an alternative to short- and medium-haul flights. Who enjoys flying anymore anyway?

I just booked a flight from Melbourne, FL to Philadelphia, PA on Delta--it cost $318. It should be no more than $220.

With HSR, I could go from Orlando to Philly in about 5 hours, city center to city center, at 200 mph.

Google TGV est and see what the French have enjoyed since 1981.

 

[EMode]

Talk to your lawmakers about implement high-speed rail in the US as an alternative to short- and medium-haul flights. Who enjoys flying anymore anyway?

I just booked a flight from Melbourne, FL to Philadelphia, PA on Delta--it cost $318. It should be no more than $220.

With HSR, I could go from Orlando to Philly in about 5 hours, city center to city center, at 200 mph.

Google TGV est and see what the French have enjoyed since 1981.

Talk to the lawmakers, why do they have free money to implement a high speed rail system? Either way we will pay, I'll just stick to flying.

 

[cmwade77]

The problem with high speed rail is it just doesn't work in the U.S. We are too big for it to be feasible and for those shorter distances people prefer to drive their own car as a general rule.

While you could potentially get there in 5 hours, it wouldn't really be the case because you will most likely just miss the train that runs every two to five hours. Then there's the issue of not having privacy that a car would afford. Yes, driving takes slightly longer, but it's what American's prefer as a whole.

Now the reality is those fee increases aren't as bad as the OP makes it seem; although, I don't like to see the price increase at all.

 

[JillianMarie]

I would LOVE a high speed rail option. It works in Europe, which is the same size if not bigger than the US, so there's no reason it can't work here. Just because Americans are in the habit of taking their cars doesn't mean we should discount the possibility of an alternative. Driving is basically the worst and we're going to spend obscene amounts of money of stuff anyway, we might as well spend it on something that might have a long term benefit both environmentally and economically.

 

[megsoro]

While I love high speed rail, it would really only work on small areas.

 

[tinkerone]

good heavens, if you want to talk about fees try booking a Canadian flight. it costs us less to pay for an entire flight from our closest u.s. airport than it does to just pay the fees from any Canadian airport. that's just the fees. add the flight to that and we have to pay double what it cost for us from your airports.
i'll pay the $2.50 and say thanks.

 

[JillianMarie]

Damn. I even looked up the comparable square footage of the US and Europe before I made that claim and everything. That'll teach me to use at least 3 sources when I google.

Still - I think it's worth at least talking about instead of dismissing outright on the grounds that 'americans like cars'. Because, while probably true to an extent, demographics of this country are shifting and just clinging to the way things have always been done simply because they've always been done that way doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time.

 

[Epcotfan64]

The problem with high speed rail is it just doesn't work in the U.S. We are too big for it to be feasible and for those shorter distances people prefer to drive their own car as a general rule.

While you could potentially get there in 5 hours, it wouldn't really be the case because you will most likely just miss the train that runs every two to five hours. Then there's the issue of not having privacy that a car would afford. Yes, driving takes slightly longer, but it's what American's prefer as a whole.

Now the reality is those fee increases aren't as bad as the OP makes it seem; although, I don't like to see the price increase at all.

Then let those afraid of an increased airline ticket price drive,then.

 

[Epcotfan64]

Talk to the lawmakers, why do they have free money to implement a high speed rail system? Either way we will pay, I'll just stick to flying.

Maybe because we have free money to invade countries?

 

[crisi]

Talk to your lawmakers about implement high-speed rail in the US as an alternative to short- and medium-haul flights. Who enjoys flying anymore anyway?

I just booked a flight from Melbourne, FL to Philadelphia, PA on Delta--it cost $318. It should be no more than $220.

With HSR, I could go from Orlando to Philly in about 5 hours, city center to city center, at 200 mph.

Google TGV est and see what the French have enjoyed since 1981.

I'm curious on why you think that flight should be no more than $220?

 

[Epcotfan64]

1. Based on what I've paid before (when there was more competition).
2. Based on the cost to drive back and forth, including the cost to transport the weight of my suitcase in the trunk, vs the weight of my suitcase in the plane's cargo area. The total ticket price would have been $368 if I didn't have a Delta Amex CC (1 checked piece of luggage is "free".)


If taxpayers fund runway airport/runway construction, why shouldn't they fund high-speed rail construction?

 

[crisi]

1. Based on what I've paid before (when there was more competition).
2. Based on the cost to drive back and forth, including the cost to transport the weight of my suitcase in the trunk, vs the weight of my suitcase in the plane's cargo area. The total ticket price would have been $368 if I didn't have a Delta Amex CC (1 checked piece of luggage is "free".)


If taxpayers fund runway airport/runway construction, why shouldn't they fund high-speed rail construction?

So the criteria for what an airline should charge should be based on not how much it can get for that ticket, or how much the service costs to provide, but how much you've paid for it before and how much it would cost you to drive? That isn't the way companies price their products.

Airports and runways cost a lot less than high speed rail lines. I have a friend who has been working on light rail for thirty years - its very expensive - and its very time consuming because you need to get land use rights. And land use rights are a whole different ball game in the 21st century than they were even in the middle of the 20th.

I agree, we should have it - but the pragmatist in me says "we won't spend for it, there will be huge "not in my backyard" problems with getting the land, and IF we were going to spend money on something, there are a dozens of wants on my list from the federal government before I want tax dollars to go for long range high speed rail so middle class people can take vacations for less with more convienence and its cheaper for companies to move their employees around for meetings."

 

[EMode]

Maybe because we have free money to invade countries?

If you think that is free money you should educate yourself

 

[EMode]

and IF we were going to spend money on something, there are a dozens of wants on my list from the federal government before I want tax dollars to go for long range high speed rail so middle class people can take vacations for less with more convienence and its cheaper for companies to move their employees around for meetings."

 

[Epcotfan64]

So the criteria for what an airline should charge should be based on not how much it can get for that ticket, or how much the service costs to provide, but how much you've paid for it before and how much it would cost you to drive? That isn't the way companies price their products.

Airports and runways cost a lot less than high speed rail lines. I have a friend who has been working on light rail for thirty years - its very expensive - and its very time consuming because you need to get land use rights. And land use rights are a whole different ball game in the 21st century than they were even in the middle of the 20th.

I agree, we should have it - but the pragmatist in me says "we won't spend for it, there will be huge "not in my backyard" problems with getting the land, and IF we were going to spend money on something, there are a dozens of wants on my list from the federal government before I want tax dollars to go for long range high speed rail so middle class people can take vacations for less with more convienence and its cheaper for companies to move their employees around for meetings."

"So the criteria for what an airline should charge should be based on not how much it can get for that ticket, or how much the service costs to provide, but how much you've paid for it before and how much it would cost you to drive?"

Yes, of course. Airlines aren't a pure business model. They are subsidized by taxpayers. Who do you think moves the US mail? It's right there in the cargo that contains your suitcase. Besides, the Northeast to Florida is a busy route. Why not remove some cars from the road at 75 mph when you can get to Orlando at 200 mph? One twin TGV can hold 1,000 passengers, more than any commercial aircraft.

"Airports and runways cost a lot less than high speed rail lines."

No they don't.

Just for the middle class, huh? Don't worry--HSR has first class for you.

Convenience and at a lower cost? Isn't that the purpose?

 

[NotUrsula]

Which is part of the problem; airlines and airports are subsidized, but traditionally, rail travel infrastructure is not; unlike interstate highways and airports, railway right of way and track are privately-owned. The vast majority of it is owned by freight companies, who, surprise, want to use it to move freight.

Actually, I am ALL for rail travel for short-run intercity routes, but if you are talking about going to Orlando, from say, Atlanta, you are not looking at that. Miami to Orlando, sure, but Atlanta is too far away in that model. Efficient intercity rail won't have in-between stops, it will only go point to point in major central cities that are no more than about 300 miles apart, unless there is a large market for business travel on a specific route.

 

[crisi]

Which is part of the problem; airlines and airports are subsidized, but traditionally, rail travel infrastructure is not; unlike interstate highways and airports, railway right of way and track are privately-owned. The vast majority of it is owned by freight companies, who, surprise, want to use it to move freight.

Actually, I am ALL for rail travel for short-run intercity routes, but if you are talking about going to Orlando, from say, Atlanta, you are not looking at that. Miami to Orlando, sure, but Atlanta is too far away in that model. Efficient intercity rail won't have in-between stops, it will only go point to point in major central cities that are no more than about 300 miles apart, unless there is a large market for business travel on a specific route.

Amtrak was subsidized for years - still is, but in a minor fashion (less than a billion and a half dollars a year). But part of the issue with Amtrak is it really only works for certain routes - the vast majority of Americans find Amtrak to be pretty useless - it would take me about two days to reach Orlando from St. Paul on a train - I have to go through Washington DC and then South from there. And I can catch a train from my city.

High speed rail would make that faster, but then you'd have to have high speed rail lines running across country. If it costs us a billion and a half dollars just to keep Amtrak running on its limited routes, imagine the cost of new high speed rail lines that service the majority of Americans. New rail lines criss crossing the plains states. And until more people can answer "what's in it for me" with a positive "I'd make use of that" than "nothing at all" it isn't going to fly. And right now, the billion and a half we spend on Amtrak is controversial in part because it services so few.

I'm also a fan of rail, rail has been very good to me over the years - from vacations due to a friend whose great grandfather built the Great Northern Railroad to investment in railroads to taking trains throughout Europe. But I just don't see it happening.

In Minnesota there is a lobbying group trying to get high speed rail between St. Paul and Chicago - and suggesting we use the state's billion dollar surplus to do it. But our school districts are going bankrupt because we cut their funding, they've been operating off loans and prayers. The elementary school my kids went to had their cafeteria flooded by sewage TWICE while they were there because the pipes were so old. A billion dollars only gets you about 60 elementary schools (or 18 high schools) This state has higher priorities than light rail to Chicago.