competitive rates

[Ryan]

TSA pat-downs only occur when somebody sets off the metal detector or AIT machine (which most airports don't even have).

False. You also get the pat down if you decline the AIT machine, and I've heard from several friends that they got the grope w/o having set off either machine.

From all of the negative publicity it received about the AIT machines, TSA started testing new software in February that will now display any potential threat items on a generic body outline (see towards the bottom of the page for revised images shown to screeners here and official press release here), which will address the complaint that you and hundreds of other travelers have had.

It still doesn't address the "shooting unnecessary radiation from an untested machine operated by people without the proper training to operate a medical device" complaint.
If you're going to be a TSA apologist, at least get your facts straight.

 

[BobWeaver]

TSA pat-downs only occur when somebody sets off the metal detector or AIT machine (which most airports don't even have).

False. You also get the pat down if you decline the AIT machine, and I've heard from several friends that they got the grope w/o having set off either machine.

I was assuming that everyone on here is aware that declining an AIT means a pat-down will occur. A passenger may also receive a random pat-down, which was just made public about a week ago so that's my error. Even with all of this, less than 3% of passengers receive a pat-down.

From all of the negative publicity it received about the AIT machines, TSA started testing new software in February that will now display any potential threat items on a generic body outline (see towards the bottom of the page for revised images shown to screeners here and official press release here), which will address the complaint that you and hundreds of other travelers have had.

It still doesn't address the "shooting unnecessary radiation from an untested machine operated by people without the proper training to operate a medical device" complaint.
If you're going to be a TSA apologist, at least get your facts straight.

If you're going to try and call me out, at least get yours straight as well. An AIT machine is most decidedly not a medical device. TSA didn't exactly just go down to the local hospital and borrow one of their x-ray machines and throw it in the airport. As such, AIT machine operators don't need any kind of medical training. Besides, the machines' processes are heavily automated. All a TSO basically does is look at a picture and click pass or fail (exaggeration, but you get the point). The amount of radiation from these machines is about as much as you receive during 2-3 minutes of flight at altitude, and less than 45 minutes' worth of every day background radiation. To put it in more perspective, one would need to be screened over 200,000 times for the amount of radiation to equal one CT scan. TSA also uses millimeter wave technology machines, which don't emit radiation since their process is different, so opt for those if you are concerned about radiation.

I know that debate over this exists and that personal preference of an individual may cause a person to opt out based on privacy issues, fear of radiation, etc. or in some cases abandon flying altogether. I am simply attempting to clarify the myths.

 

[Ryan]

The amount of radiation from these machines is about as much as you receive during 2-3 minutes of flight at altitude, and less than 45 minutes' worth of every day background radiation. To put it in more perspective, one would need to be screened over 200,000 times for the amount of radiation to equal one CT scan. TSA also uses millimeter wave technology machines, which don't emit radiation since their process is different, so opt for those if you are concerned about radiation.

I have yet to see a reputable study to back up any of those numbers. Not to mention, the lack of training on the operators part means that there's no way of knowing if the machines are actually operating correctly. The TSA's refusal to allow screeners to possess dosimeters really adds to their credibility as well.

I am simply attempting to clarify the myths.

You should do so with facts, not myths of your own.

 

[had8ley]

I'd like to...if we had high speed rail nationwide there would be a few less airlines and more frequent service on the rails. If only we could bring back the Slumbercoaches (the SCA could work two at a time and not have to make up beds unless the room is double or triple sold en route; the terminating station's coach cleaners could strip and re-make the beds)The Acela first class is the closest we come to parlor car service and every time I've ridden it has been full. How many non-NEC residents have ever ridden it let alone seen it? One thing I would do that a large majority of businesses have done for years~ put cameras in the diner and lounge car for the crews protection as well as the pax. If somebody calls Customer Relations and complains about the diner closing at 7 p.m. on a LD train there would be no room for error if the tape was reviewed.If the LSA says the pax was beligerent all that has to be done is re-play the tape. It's a win-win for both sides.I can hear the howls at the union hall now.....

Eh you wouldn't necessarily see a reduction in the number of airlines (currently 9 in the US, 2 of which are relatively small), but you would see a reduction of shorter regional routes.

Acording to Cha-Cha there are 14 US airlines. Ironiclly, one started service right here in Baton Rouge last week~ Vision Airlines. Its destinations? Fort Walton/Destin and Orlando. I just wonder how many of those pax would rather ride the train ???

 

[BobWeaver]

The amount of radiation from these machines is about as much as you receive during 2-3 minutes of flight at altitude, and less than 45 minutes' worth of every day background radiation. To put it in more perspective, one would need to be screened over 200,000 times for the amount of radiation to equal one CT scan. TSA also uses millimeter wave technology machines, which don't emit radiation since their process is different, so opt for those if you are concerned about radiation.

I have yet to see a reputable study to back up any of those numbers. Not to mention, the lack of training on the operators part means that there's no way of knowing if the machines are actually operating correctly. The TSA's refusal to allow screeners to possess dosimeters really adds to their credibility as well.

I am simply attempting to clarify the myths.

You should do so with facts, not myths of your own.

I think the American Medical Association is fairly reputable, don't you? Study is here. I am not fabricating numbers. Don't confuse myths with your selective acceptance of facts.

Acording to Cha-Cha there are 14 US airlines. Ironiclly, one started service right here in Baton Rouge last week~ Vision Airlines. Its destinations? Fort Walton/Destin and Orlando. I just wonder how many of those pax would rather ride the train ???

I was referring to mainline domestic carriers. I left out Hawaiian, Alaska, Vision, Allegiant, Spirit, and USA3000, which brings the total to 15. I don't know who/what Cha-Cha is, but they probably didn't combine AirTran and Southwest like I did prematurely.

 

[Ryan]

I think the American Medical Association is fairly reputable, don't you? Study is here. I am not fabricating numbers. Don't confuse myths with your selective acceptance of facts.

Did you even read the study?

This looks real reassuring:

Estimating the risk associated with these extremely low dose exposures is more difficult than quantifying the exposure. Published studies that have demonstrated an association between radiation exposure and cancer risk have been performed at doses that are much higher than the levels emitted by the scans.11 To estimate the risk of these scans we must rely on extrapolation from these higher-dose studies, yet extrapolation of cancer risks from high doses to the exceedingly small doses of these scans is questionable and may be inappropriate. Specifically, it is usually assumed that a "linear no-threshold" model applies (ie, the risk is directly proportional to the dose) and that there is no threshold, meaning every exposure carries some risk, even the exceedingly small doses of the airport scans. However, this may not be accurate. Even so, no alternative model exists.
Second, the exposure from these scans is concentrated in the superficial tissues, primarily the skin, and there is no accepted mathematical model for understanding the relationship between skin exposure and risk of skin cancer.11 Thus, the available models that can be used to estimate future cancers are inaccurate, since the distribution of the exposure from these scanners to the skin is different than the distribution of exposures to the whole body assumed by these models. The backscatter x-rays will be concentrated in breast tissue, so the breast exposure from these scans can be used to accurately predict breast cancer risk.11

The doses of ionizing radiation emitted by these backscatter x-ray scans is exceedingly low—so low that it is really not known whether there is any potential for causing harm. The TSA considers the risk for causing harm trivial. Even though the doses are low, the cancer risk merits consideration given there are 750 million passenger enplanements a year, and even a small risk per person could potentially translate into a significant number of cancers.

Don't just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about here.

You've still also failed to address any concerns about the ensuring that the machines are in proper working order, and you've already admitted you were off the mark about pat downs.

So, yet again. If you're going to attempt to "clarify myths", bring facts.

 

[BobWeaver]

I don't have the audacity to read just the first line of something and post it. Yes, I read the study, and I find this very assuring:

The radiation doses emitted by the scans are extremely small; the scans deliver an amount of radiation equivalent to 3 to 9 minutes of the radiation received through normal daily living. Furthermore, since flying itself increases exposure to ionizing radiation, the scan will contribute less than 1% of the dose a flyer will receive from exposure to cosmic rays at elevated altitudes. The estimation of cancer risks associated with these scans is difficult, but using the only available models, the risk would be extremely small, even among frequent flyers. We conclude that there is no significant threat of radiation from the scans.

And

Based on what is known about the scanners, passengers should not fear going through the scans for health reasons, as the risks are truly trivial. If individuals feel vulnerable and are worried about the radiation emitted by the scans, they might reconsider flying altogether since most of the small, but real, radiation risk they will receive will come from the flight and not from the exceedingly small exposures from the scans.

The researchers published that six additional cancers will occur over the lifetimes of 100 million people who represent 750 million boardings a year in the U.S.. Still, I'm not sure why the agency would be ok with radiation-generating screening machines, especially when there is a demonstrably safe option available, and I find it pretty bold that any additional cancer is seen as "acceptable." Try telling that to the victim! There must be a reason why the millimeter wave machines haven't been purchased as the primary machine.

I was off the mark about random pat-downs because that detail was just released 4 days ago on the TSA blog.

We'll agree to disagree. Back to Amtrak!

 

[had8ley]

The amount of radiation from these machines is about as much as you receive during 2-3 minutes of flight at altitude, and less than 45 minutes' worth of every day background radiation. To put it in more perspective, one would need to be screened over 200,000 times for the amount of radiation to equal one CT scan. TSA also uses millimeter wave technology machines, which don't emit radiation since their process is different, so opt for those if you are concerned about radiation.

I have yet to see a reputable study to back up any of those numbers. Not to mention, the lack of training on the operators part means that there's no way of knowing if the machines are actually operating correctly. The TSA's refusal to allow screeners to possess dosimeters really adds to their credibility as well.

I am simply attempting to clarify the myths.

You should do so with facts, not myths of your own.

I think the American Medical Association is fairly reputable, don't you? Study is here. I am not fabricating numbers. Don't confuse myths with your selective acceptance of facts.

Acording to Cha-Cha there are 14 US airlines. Ironiclly, one started service right here in Baton Rouge last week~ Vision Airlines. Its destinations? Fort Walton/Destin and Orlando. I just wonder how many of those pax would rather ride the train ???

I was referring to mainline domestic carriers. I left out Hawaiian, Alaska, Vision, Allegiant, Spirit, and USA3000, which brings the total to 15. I don't know who/what Cha-Cha is, but they probably didn't combine AirTran and Southwest like I did prematurely.

Cha-Cha.com has a wealth of info much like Google. BTW, did you count Virgin?

 

[BobWeaver]

Cha-Cha.com has a wealth of info much like Google. BTW, did you count Virgin?

Yep!

 

[chandj]

90 percent of the time if I'm on a train it's just because I would rather ride a train than fly or drive. We often spend most of our vacation riding the train and we love it. We're not bothered about getting to our 'real' destination! The only time I consider whether train or plane is most cost-effective is for business travel when my company is paying. However, I do find Amtrak pretty pricy for some routes if you are in sleeping accomodations. As some PP's have pointed out, it's capacity and the law of supply and demand.

 

[dlagrua]

Interesting debate so lets just keep trusting the government to give us a potentially lethal dose of radiation in order to keep us safe. Just ask the American Indian how trusting the government worked out for them. Government is supposed to be a body that works for us and not rule over us.

 

[transit54]

I agree with most of what's been posted above. Sleepers aren't cost competitive to flying, but taking an LD train isn't a comparable experience to flying. I don't take long distance trains to save money or time - I take them because I enjoy seeing the country, meeting other people, and experiencing everything that LD trains offer.

That being said, I just got off the northbound Vermonter. The day before I took the Silver Star from Miami into New York, then spent the evening visiting family in CT. I could have easily flown JetBlue back from NYC and been to Burlington an hour after I took off (I actually could have skipped the trip to CT and flew back the night before). Why didn't I?

The Vermonter fare was $40. JetBlue was around $95 with taxes and fees, not including the $14 it costs me to get to JFK between Metro North, the subway and the Airtrain. So I took the train instead at a huge savings. I'm fortunate that I have the ability to work from the train - I have cellular internet and much of my job can be done with a laptop, internet and a VPN connection. Sure, it was an eight hour trip, but I was able to put in a full day's work on the rails, saved myself money and got a lot done.

I have an upcoming trip to Alaska in June that requires me to fly both ways out of JFK (primarily because JetBlue doesn't book three stop itineraries). Again, I could fly from BTV to JFK, but I'm taking the Vermonter (and maybe the Adirondack depending on when the ferry opens) almost exclusively because of the cost savings, which are in excess of $110 for that trip. As far as I'm concerned, train time is productive time, so the substantially longer travel time isn't an issue. In past years I've mostly flown these types of segments, but this year the prices have gotten high enough to push me to rail for practically all of my BTV-NYC area trips.

Obviously many people are not in the position I am in terms of being able to work remotely, but for those that are able to turn the train into productive time, train travel can represent a tremendous value.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

It goes back to the old question about whether trains are primarily transportation or recreation. Be careful about emphasizing the "journey is the destination" point of view; taxpayers aren't so keen to subsidize peoples' rolling vacations.

Plus, I don't think most of the population is very interested in spending half their vacations on trains instead of at the real destination with the family and friends they were traveling to see, especially if they have to pay the same or more to get there.

So what's the solution for Amtrak? There may not be one.

The taxpayers seem more than happy to fund the dinner theater security theater that goes on in the airports to the tune of a buncha billion dollars.

A lot of people are fed up with the airlines and the stress of air travel, myself included, and will now only fly as a last resort. Observe both the capacity issues on Amtrak and the sudden surge in discount bus carriers... it's not always about "price" it's also about "not having to fly"

Airfare is actually relatively cheap right now because there is a lot of competition and the airlines have to keep the price low for the amount of abuse they subject their passengers to. That's why they nickle and $20 passengers for travel "extras" like legroom, luggage, zone 1 boarding, and on RyanAir - using the bathroom. RyanAir is even trying to get permission to allow standing passengers for short haul flights. Yes, I know RyanAir doesn't operate in the U.S., but how long till a carrier emerges here that tries that?

 

[BobWeaver]

A lot of people are fed up with the airlines and the stress of air travel, myself included, and will now only fly as a last resort. Observe both the capacity issues on Amtrak and the sudden surge in discount bus carriers... it's not always about "price" it's also about "not having to fly"

Is that why passenger enplanements, revenue passenger miles, and available seat miles are all up over 2009 levels? Don't be so quick to conclude that the capacity issues on Amtrak and the rise of companies like Megabus are solely driven by trends in the airline industry, an industry that still carries the largest bulk of paying travelers. Let's not ignore the price of gas, which is the main culprit behind these recent shifts in consumer preferences. Amtrak ridership has been growing steadily for quite some time; the recent gas price spikes only amplifies an existing issue.

Airfare is actually relatively cheap right now because there is a lot of competition and the airlines have to keep the price low for the amount of abuse they subject their passengers to. That's why they nickle and $20 passengers for travel "extras" like legroom, luggage, zone 1 boarding, and on RyanAir - using the bathroom. RyanAir is even trying to get permission to allow standing passengers for short haul flights. Yes, I know RyanAir doesn't operate in the U.S., but how long till a carrier emerges here that tries that?

The airlines have shifted to an "a la carte" system because of cost, largely due to the price of fuel. In order to keep base fares low, airlines have adopted this model because it enables each passenger to pay for exactly what he or she desires instead of bundling it into one fare. There are flyers who are not interested in advanced seat assignment, do not carry checked bags, don't care to access airport lounges, and who don't want to eat onboard, just as there exists the opposite. The latter will pay more. Baggage fees were the predictable first salvo, since a baggage fee not only increases revenue, but it also decreases aircraft weight and speeds turnaround times. Airlines are for-profit businesses, and as such, they can charge their passengers however they want. The public is not somehow entitled to cheap fares, free luggage, and free meals. It is very unlikely that Ryanair would ever get regulator approval for such a seating setup. The concept isn't new, and it is possible that Ryanair announced it simply for publicity purposes like it has done so many times before. Commercial aircraft have maximum seating capacities set by the manufacturer, a capacity that is closely tied to the amount of emergency exits. An airline simply cannot go over that number. A Boeing spokesman was quoted as saying, "We are not considering standing-only accommodations, nor do we have any plans to do so. Among other things, stringent regulatory requirements - including seats capable of withstanding a force of 16 Gs - pretty much preclude such an arrangement."

Airfare is actually relatively cheap right now because...the airlines have to keep the price low for the amount of abuse they subject their passengers to.

Likely story. Airlines don't price their fares based on an abuse factor. :lol: Aside from bag fees and the recent changes in airport security, tell me, how has airline service deteriorated to the point where they now "abuse" their customers?

 

[Anderson]

Bob,

I think at least some of the frustration isn't just due to "the fares are too high"...it's also due to "the airline doesn't allow me a ready calculation of my total cost". Moreover, there are a lot of charges that make some sense (I can "get" the checked bag situation)...and some that don't (or some that are unavoidable...in some cases, it's a charge of $5 for one option or $20 for another while no option is free...the base option should be included in your fare). And of course, there's disSpirit Airlines' carry-on bag fee.

As to Ryanair...they're in the habit of doing attention-grabbers that turn into actual fees later. Remember the "spend 50p to spend a penny" bit that has come to fruition? That was initially just a "gimmick" that they "backed off of"...until they didn't.

 

[BobWeaver]

Bob,

I think at least some of the frustration isn't just due to "the fares are too high"...it's also due to "the airline doesn't allow me a ready calculation of my total cost". Moreover, there are a lot of charges that make some sense (I can "get" the checked bag situation)...and some that don't (or some that are unavoidable...in some cases, it's a charge of $5 for one option or $20 for another while no option is free...the base option should be included in your fare). And of course, there's disSpirit Airlines' carry-on bag fee.

As to Ryanair...they're in the habit of doing attention-grabbers that turn into actual fees later. Remember the "spend 50p to spend a penny" bit that has come to fruition? That was initially just a "gimmick" that they "backed off of"...until they didn't.

I agree, but research shows that consumers prefer knowing exactly what they're paying for, even if the fee is mandatory. Similarly, I don't get why one airline (eludes me right now) requires online checkin but charges a $5 fee to do it. If it's not in place already, it's coming IIRC.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

A lot of people are fed up with the airlines and the stress of air travel, myself included, and will now only fly as a last resort. Observe both the capacity issues on Amtrak and the sudden surge in discount bus carriers... it's not always about "price" it's also about "not having to fly"

Is that why passenger enplanements, revenue passenger miles, and available seat miles are all up over 2009 levels? Don't be so quick to conclude that the capacity issues on Amtrak and the rise of companies like Megabus are solely driven by trends in the airline industry, an industry that still carries the largest bulk of paying travelers. Let's not ignore the price of gas, which is the main culprit behind these recent shifts in consumer preferences. Amtrak ridership has been growing steadily for quite some time; the recent gas price spikes only amplifies an existing issue.

"Up over 2009 levels"? That is a Toyota level of PR spin that you don't see on this board. Toyota issued a bunch of press releases in January 2011 congratulating themselves on a 1.1% increase over 2009 sales. 2009 is when their sales plummeted due to the sudden acceleration PR disaster.

I didn't attribute the increase in Megabus and Amtrak ridership solely to air travel fatigue, but it is still a large part of it. The door to door times for airlines have been increasing mostly due to the security theater.

Airfare is actually relatively cheap right now because there is a lot of competition and the airlines have to keep the price low for the amount of abuse they subject their passengers to. That's why they nickle and $20 passengers for travel "extras" like legroom, luggage, zone 1 boarding, and on RyanAir - using the bathroom. RyanAir is even trying to get permission to allow standing passengers for short haul flights. Yes, I know RyanAir doesn't operate in the U.S., but how long till a carrier emerges here that tries that?

The airlines have shifted to an "a la carte" system because of cost, largely due to the price of fuel. In order to keep fares low, airlines have adopted this model because it enables each passenger to pay for exactly what he or she desires instead of bundling it into one fare. There are flyers who are not interested in advanced seat assignment, do not carry checked bags, don't care to access airport lounges, and who don't want to eat onboard, just as there exists the opposite. Airlines are for-profit businesses, and as such, they can charge their passengers however they want. The public is not somehow entitled to cheap fares, free luggage, and free meals. It is very unlikely that Ryanair would ever get regulator approval for such a seating setup. The concept isn't new, and it is possible that Ryanair announced it simply for publicity purposes like it has done so many times before. Commercial aircraft have maximum seating capacities set by the manufacturer, a capacity that is closely tied to the amount of emergency exits. An airline simply cannot go over that number. A Boeing spokesman was quoted as saying, "We are not considering standing-only accommodations, nor do we have any plans to do so. Among other things, stringent regulatory requirements - including seats capable of withstanding a force of 16 Gs - pretty much preclude such an arrangement."

What I found funny is that when those extra charges rolled out, the ticket prices did not appear to reduce by a corresponding amount... or any amount for that matter. How is it that US Airways can get me from Pittsburgh PA to Frankfurt Germany in 14 hours for about $750 ... and that includes two meals and handling my luggage, yet it costs $350 for a 2.5 hour jaunt to Ft. Lauderdale and they won't even touch my bags or offer me more than a warm coke? Either U.S. Air is overcharging for the PIT - FLL flight and then attempting to charge me extra for luggage/legroom/early boarding, or they are losing vast amounts of money on the PIT-PHL-FRA flight that I do twice a year.

Even more egredious is the $900... $900... Air Canada tries to charge me for a ticket to get me from Pittsburgh to Toronto on a direct flight.... it's only a 5.5 hour drive yet flying takes longer than that due to security, customs, getting to YYZ, etc. Amtrak might take 9 hours to get you to Toronto from Pittsburgh via Cleveland, but they'd only charge you $120 for it round trip.

Furthermore, there is substantial reason to believe that the checked bag fee arose only because the TSA began banning liquids over 3 ounces in carry-on bags. The fee was introduced as yet another way for the airlines to abuse their passengers..... they do it because they can... and because people are too dumb to understand that buying liquid personal care items at their destination is far cheaper than paying for the checked bag fee.

 

[Anderson]

Bob,

I think at least some of the frustration isn't just due to "the fares are too high"...it's also due to "the airline doesn't allow me a ready calculation of my total cost". Moreover, there are a lot of charges that make some sense (I can "get" the checked bag situation)...and some that don't (or some that are unavoidable...in some cases, it's a charge of $5 for one option or $20 for another while no option is free...the base option should be included in your fare). And of course, there's disSpirit Airlines' carry-on bag fee.

As to Ryanair...they're in the habit of doing attention-grabbers that turn into actual fees later. Remember the "spend 50p to spend a penny" bit that has come to fruition? That was initially just a "gimmick" that they "backed off of"...until they didn't.

I agree, but research shows that consumers prefer knowing exactly what they're paying for, even if the fee is mandatory. Similarly, I don't get why one airline (eludes me right now) requires online checkin but charges a $5 fee to do it. If it's not in place already, it's coming IIRC.

I think that's Spirit...they've got the more infamous ones, and that's what I was thinking (I thought there was a far more expensive check-in at the airport option). Perhaps a better way to put it is that when I click on the fare, I'd like to see, instead of "$99 from A to B" and then a list of fees, "$129 from A to B; includes the following mandatory fees" and then the list of fees...or at least the "$129 minimum after fees; here's a calculator for the fees you may end up paying".

 

[Anderson]

I'll actually say that I think we need some form of price controls on drinks at the airports...not because price controls are good (I think they're generally a very bad solution, only workable as a last resort for a short period or in very limited circumstances), but because you have a government-created market distortion inside the airports with the TSA rules on liquids.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Likely story. Airlines don't price their fares based on an abuse factor. :lol: Aside from bag fees and the recent changes in airport security, tell me, how has airline service deteriorated to the point where they now "abuse" their customers?

bag fees, extra leg room fees (hear of "coach plus" yet? it gets you a vast 3 more inches of room), Other "premium seats", Zone 1 and 2 fees (which is just a way to get people who won't pay the checked bag fee to pay more since they'll get first dibs at overhead bins), termination off beverage service on many shorter flights, extra charge for pillows/blankets/etc.)

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Bob,

I think at least some of the frustration isn't just due to "the fares are too high"...it's also due to "the airline doesn't allow me a ready calculation of my total cost". Moreover, there are a lot of charges that make some sense (I can "get" the checked bag situation)...and some that don't (or some that are unavoidable...in some cases, it's a charge of $5 for one option or $20 for another while no option is free...the base option should be included in your fare). And of course, there's disSpirit Airlines' carry-on bag fee.

As to Ryanair...they're in the habit of doing attention-grabbers that turn into actual fees later. Remember the "spend 50p to spend a penny" bit that has come to fruition? That was initially just a "gimmick" that they "backed off of"...until they didn't.

I agree, but research shows that consumers prefer knowing exactly what they're paying for, even if the fee is mandatory. Similarly, I don't get why one airline (eludes me right now) requires online checkin but charges a $5 fee to do it. If it's not in place already, it's coming IIRC.

I think that's Spirit...they've got the more infamous ones, and that's what I was thinking (I thought there was a far more expensive check-in at the airport option). Perhaps a better way to put it is that when I click on the fare, I'd like to see, instead of "$99 from A to B" and then a list of fees, "$129 from A to B; includes the following mandatory fees" and then the list of fees...or at least the "$129 minimum after fees; here's a calculator for the fees you may end up paying".

I like the one where there is a "checked bag fee" but it's more expensive to do it at the airport... as if there was an extra cost to the airline for swiping your card at the kiosk instead of online.

 

[leemell]

Bob,

I think at least some of the frustration isn't just due to "the fares are too high"...it's also due to "the airline doesn't allow me a ready calculation of my total cost". Moreover, there are a lot of charges that make some sense (I can "get" the checked bag situation)...and some that don't (or some that are unavoidable...in some cases, it's a charge of $5 for one option or $20 for another while no option is free...the base option should be included in your fare). And of course, there's disSpirit Airlines' carry-on bag fee.

As to Ryanair...they're in the habit of doing attention-grabbers that turn into actual fees later. Remember the "spend 50p to spend a penny" bit that has come to fruition? That was initially just a "gimmick" that they "backed off of"...until they didn't.

I agree, but research shows that consumers prefer knowing exactly what they're paying for, even if the fee is mandatory. Similarly, I don't get why one airline (eludes me right now) requires online checkin but charges a $5 fee to do it. If it's not in place already, it's coming IIRC.

I think that's Spirit...they've got the more infamous ones, and that's what I was thinking (I thought there was a far more expensive check-in at the airport option). Perhaps a better way to put it is that when I click on the fare, I'd like to see, instead of "$99 from A to B" and then a list of fees, "$129 from A to B; includes the following mandatory fees" and then the list of fees...or at least the "$129 minimum after fees; here's a calculator for the fees you may end up paying".

I like the one where there is a "checked bag fee" but it's more expensive to do it at the airport... as if there was an extra cost to the airline for swiping your card at the kiosk instead of online.

Delta just added what I consider the first reasonable baggage fee I have seen, $5 gets you tracking of your bags. You are emailed the location of your bags as they pass through the system. Just like package tracking.

 

[amamba]

Bob,

I think at least some of the frustration isn't just due to "the fares are too high"...it's also due to "the airline doesn't allow me a ready calculation of my total cost". Moreover, there are a lot of charges that make some sense (I can "get" the checked bag situation)...and some that don't (or some that are unavoidable...in some cases, it's a charge of $5 for one option or $20 for another while no option is free...the base option should be included in your fare). And of course, there's disSpirit Airlines' carry-on bag fee.

As to Ryanair...they're in the habit of doing attention-grabbers that turn into actual fees later. Remember the "spend 50p to spend a penny" bit that has come to fruition? That was initially just a "gimmick" that they "backed off of"...until they didn't.

I agree, but research shows that consumers prefer knowing exactly what they're paying for, even if the fee is mandatory. Similarly, I don't get why one airline (eludes me right now) requires online checkin but charges a $5 fee to do it. If it's not in place already, it's coming IIRC.

I think that's Spirit...they've got the more infamous ones, and that's what I was thinking (I thought there was a far more expensive check-in at the airport option). Perhaps a better way to put it is that when I click on the fare, I'd like to see, instead of "$99 from A to B" and then a list of fees, "$129 from A to B; includes the following mandatory fees" and then the list of fees...or at least the "$129 minimum after fees; here's a calculator for the fees you may end up paying".

I like the one where there is a "checked bag fee" but it's more expensive to do it at the airport... as if there was an extra cost to the airline for swiping your card at the kiosk instead of online.

Delta just added what I consider the first reasonable baggage fee I have seen, $5 gets you tracking of your bags. You are emailed the location of your bags as they pass through the system. Just like package tracking.

But why should you have to pay for that? They are probably just allowing consumers to access the baggage tracking software that they already have, and they probably don't add anything extra to your bag to track it.

 

[nferr]

Amtrak coach is usually pretty competitive with airline fares. You can't compare sleeper fares, it's simply in another class of travel IMO. And comparing the time factor - well duh - it's a train versus a plane, come on. Only in a few cases is it going to be competitive time wise, like in certain circumstances the Northeast Corridor when you factor in time getting to the airports, etc.

 

[nferr]

Interesting debate so lets just keep trusting the government to give us a potentially lethal dose of radiation in order to keep us safe. Just ask the American Indian how trusting the government worked out for them. Government is supposed to be a body that works for us and not rule over us.

Let it go already. Geez.....