Seat spacing in coach, re covid pandemic?

[crescent-zephyr]

The vast majority of airline passengers aren't taking day trips. Thus, they are carrying luggage of some sort. If the "low fare" doesn't include accommodation for luggage, then we're talking seriously misleading advertising. They could also make money by installing pay toilets. I'd like to see how well that works out.

How much accommodation for luggage should be included?

 

[PVD]

I'm unclear how you're adding this up. Wouldn't any government subsidy to Amtrak be reckoned per passenger or per train--not per seat, whether it's empty or full? So a single passenger paying double for an extra seat either decreases the subsidy required or (if every other seat in the train is already sold) doesn't change it. Or am I missing something here?

while not necessarily the most accurate way to present things, it is commonly reported as x dollars per passenger or "averages x dollars per rider" it is a perception that is hard to overcome. like cash payments to amtrak versus hidden subsidies that airlines receive....

 

[crescent-zephyr]

it is a perception that is hard to overcome. like cash payments to amtrak versus hidden subsidies that airlines receive....

This is getting comical. Amtrak is not getting “cash payments” any different than airlines, interstates and all other forms of infrastructure.

 

[PVD]

sure they are...there are budget lines that make cash payments to amtrak, but when I improve an airport, or improve air traffic control, people generally don't see it as a subsidy to airlines, even if it really is....

 

[caravanman]

The vast majority of airline passengers aren't taking day trips. Thus, they are carrying luggage of some sort. If the "low fare" doesn't include accommodation for luggage, then we're talking seriously misleading advertising. They could also make money by installing pay toilets. I'd like to see how well that works out.

My point is simply that if it "costs" the airline a minimum of say $10 each passenger to cover costs and make a profit, then it is simply a matter of how they recover that price. They may decide that the fare is $9, and baggage costs are $1, or they may say the fare is $10, and baggage is free...
Anyway, back to trains...

 

[MARC Rider]

How much accommodation for luggage should be included?

Oh, you want my opinion?
Ideally, two pieces checked baggage, just like it was before they started all this nonsense. However, at the very least you should be able to bring on a carry-on bag and another personal bag (pocketbook, laptop bag, briefcase, daypack, etc.) plus your coat and hat.

It's just my quaint, old-fashioned view that airlines should be in the business of providing air transportation, not cleverly figuring out how to squeeze as much money as they can out of their customers.

Also, the reservation websites that allow you to compare prices among airlines should allow the user to specify what services they want (checked baggage, meals, priority boarding, seat selection etc.) and display the actual fare in comparison to the fares for the same services among all the competing airlines.

It's not so much paying the price that bugs me. I accept that an airline company has to meet its expenses and make money. It's the "bait and switch" aspect of it. I'm sick of being quoted prices that end up being nothing like what I actually have to pay. I also believe there ought to be a law that requires all quoted prices to include all applicable taxes and fees. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[PVD]

"Resort Fees" are a similar game played by the hospitality industry. The nickel and diming is becoming increasingly widespread, but in the case of the airlines and baggage/carry-ons, it was pretty successful. Not popular with many flyers, but airline CFOs like it.

 

[MARC Rider]

"Resort Fees" are a similar game played by the hospitality industry. The nickel and diming is becoming increasingly widespread, but in the case of the airlines and baggage/carry-ons, it was pretty successful. Not popular with many flyers, but airline CFOs like it.

It's basically a strategy to bamboozle the customer and make it difficult to make price comparison of different vendors. I dealt with this in Japan in 1978, where they charged us for the hot-spring bath at a Japanese Inn, and they charged whether you used the baths or not. In order to ensure a properly functioning free-market economy, it should be made illegal.

 

[railiner]

Cao

It's basically a strategy to bamboozle the customer and make it difficult to make price comparison of different vendors. I dealt with this in Japan in 1978, where they charged us for the hot-spring bath at a Japanese Inn, and they charged whether you used the baths or not. In order to ensure a properly functioning free-market economy, it should be made illegal.

Unless you could declare that you don't want the 'resort' perks, and not pay for them, I would agree'

 

[PVD]

That is a major part of the problem, in most locations, it is not a "delete option" Another reason they do it is because they don't pay commission to consolidators or outside online services on resort fees , which they do on room rates. If they had a 150 dollar room, and company x sold it they owe commission on $150 but if they have a $100 room and an a $50 r/f they pay on $100. Almost as anti consumer as "Mandatory Arbitration Agreements"

 

[Coco Moffat]

I am not anti-mask myself, but I don't think they are honestly much use in offering protection. I hope I am wrong, and always wear mine when out and about, more as a lucky charm than anything!

The AZ *** seems to have been given the all clear over blood clots by the EU now...

The mask is not to protect you. It’s to protect others who unfortunately would be exposed to saliva droplets from you. It’s outstanding the amount of people who are still unable to grasp that one year on into the pandemic. It’s basic common sense.

 

[caravanman]

The mask is not to protect you. It’s to protect others who unfortunately would be exposed to saliva droplets from you. It’s outstanding the amount of people who are still unable to grasp that one year on into the pandemic. It’s basic common sense.

Ouch! I fully understand the theory of the mask purpose, no need to impugn my IQ.
My query is that the virus is so tiny, that the masks probably have minimal effect on restricting it's outward passage. I know it is contained in droplets. Folk who wear glasses and masks often complain of their specs misting up, so it seems to me that a large amout of moist breath is getting out over the mask, rather than being filtered through it? I wear mine because it may have some benefit to others, but I am unsure how much.

 

[Ryan]

The mask is not to protect you. It’s to protect others who unfortunately would be exposed to saliva droplets from you. It’s outstanding the amount of people who are still unable to grasp that one year on into the pandemic. It’s basic common sense.

It actually serves both purposes. If you're going to show up and insult someone one within your first 10 posts here, it's basic common sense to make certain that you're correct before you do.

 

[Exvalley]

sure they are...there are budget lines that make cash payments to amtrak, but when I improve an airport, or improve air traffic control, people generally don't see it as a subsidy to airlines, even if it really is....

Airport improvements are mostly paid for by passenger fees. Trust me, you don’t want to transfer that model to Amtrak. Just think of what the fees would have been to pay for Moynihan Hall.

Also, scientific research has shown that the air on airplanes is the cleanest of any form of public transportation, at least at altitude. Because of that, it is reasonable that the distancing on airlines would not be the same as on a train. I’m not saying cramming people into the airliners is a good idea, but the mistake people make on this forum make is to compare trains and planes as if the air quality is equivalent.

 

[Exvalley]

My query is that the virus is so tiny, that the masks probably have minimal effect on restricting it's outward passage.

I think it’s fair to say that most people over estimate the efficacy of cloth facemasks.

Here is a relevant study: A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers | BMJ Open

 

[Ryan]

If you could provide a citation on air quality, that would be helpful. I recall something similar, but I'm going to need chapter and verse.

The other stuff? Well, sure. We'll just take your word for what funds airport improvements.

 

[PVD]

Some airport improvements are covered by passenger fees, but I would bet the greatest majority of the money is bond issue paid back by us. But I do agree with you that modern airplane cabin air has proven to be very effectively filtered.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Some airport improvements are covered by passenger fees, but I would bet the greatest majority of the money is bond issue paid back by us. But I do agree with you that modern airplane cabin air has proven to be very effectively filtered.

From the Orlando Sentinel on the 1.1 Billion expansion that began in 2015-

“
Brown said the airport is financing all the work through a combination of selling bonds that typically are repaid over 30 years; grants and loans from the federal and state governments; and an extension of a $4.50 fee on every ticket into and out of the airport.

That fee, called the passenger facility charge, can be levied for a variety of airport improvements and would not expire until 2038, if all the construction occurs as proposed.
“

 

[PVD]

The Airtrain at JFK is also PFC financed, but the PFC collections pale in comparison to the amounts spent.

 

[jis]

Some airport improvements are covered by passenger fees, but I would bet the greatest majority of the money is bond issue paid back by us. But I do agree with you that modern airplane cabin air has proven to be very effectively filtered.

Airport bonds are very often paid off mostly or wholly through the PFC. Just like Brightline bonds will be paid off by revenues. Neither is supposed to dip into general tax funds. But of course, one needs to carefully look at each bond issue document to see how it is collateralized and how its is retired.

There are often additional funds used from outright grants for various purposes. For example, I believe the multi-modal station at OIA is partly funded through such grants.

 

[Siegmund]

How much accommodation for luggage should be included?

Oh, you want my opinion?
Ideally, two pieces checked baggage, just like it was before they started all this nonsense. However, at the very least you should be able to bring on a carry-on bag and another personal bag (pocketbook, laptop bag, briefcase, daypack, etc.) plus your coat and hat.

I am of the same opinion.

I think that the post-9/11 rule changes should have required providing free checked baggage service on every flight. They claimed at the time that they wanted to reduce congestion, both at the security checkpoints and while boarding/deboarding, as well as reduce the number of dangerous items people carried into the cabin. They wound up increasing both, as people carried everything they could with them.

 

[hlcteacher]

Outside of Covid19 sitting next to strangers wouldn't be so bad in the daytime if only there was an armrest in between the seats.

sometimes, sometimes not

 

[Deni]

The vast majority of airline passengers aren't taking day trips. Thus, they are carrying luggage of some sort. If the "low fare" doesn't include accommodation for luggage, then we're talking seriously misleading advertising. They could also make money by installing pay toilets. I'd like to see how well that works out.

There was a story a few years ago that Ryanair (naturally) was studying the idea of paying to use the bathroom. Supposedly the CEO thinks he could get the bathroom usage down enough to be able to remove some to have space for more seats. Some didn't think it was ever a serious proposal but with Ryanair you never can tell.

https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Green...-call-ryanairs-fee-inhumane/story?id=10355139

 

[Deni]

I am of the same opinion.

I think that the post-9/11 rule changes should have required providing free checked baggage service on every flight. They claimed at the time that they wanted to reduce congestion, both at the security checkpoints and while boarding/deboarding, as well as reduce the number of dangerous items people carried into the cabin. They wound up increasing both, as people carried everything they could with them.

I've always thought they should have free checked luggage but have to pay to use the overhead bins. Boarding and deplaning has gotten so ridiculous with the amount of crap people take on board.

 

[Deni]

Cao

Unless you could declare that you don't want the 'resort' perks, and not pay for them, I would agree'

Therein lies the problem. You can't not pay them. Everybody gets charged but it's not in the price when you book. That's the scam.