Does anyone remember when the airlines were deregulated, the story was that it would allow them to complete making airfares cheaper for consumers since those with the lower fares would get the most business?

Now they are using the same crappy argument about taxes for the rich and big business. Yes, that's going to work. Look how cheap airfares are.... Look at just how much competition there is.

Same deal with the ATM cards. They were a way for the banks to save money by cutting the teller pool and for the convenience of the customers. Then they got us all hooked on it and now whammo! their going to start charging us to use them....

But there is a solution.....Play their game, Go back to writing checks

I'd tell you guys in America to take the train. Here in Tokyo, if I need to go somewhere; I take the train! I mean, hey - if you don't like the way Airlines run their business, go to a different business!

Then I remember, back in America - our rail lines are total !@#$. We need to invest more on infrastructure. Of course, then the airlines will start complaining about rail service, and blah blah blah...

Isn't this called collusion or price fixing and isn't this illegal? Time to kick those silly asses taking our money as public servants and shake up the airlines.

But there is a solution.....Play their game, Go back to writing checks

But then they hit you up with the check writing fees. A better solution is to switch banks to a credit union, which don't typically have check card fees.

At least the airlines are making money and not demanding bailouts. There are choices you can make to save money flying. Southwest doesn't charge these ridiculous fees. Before you fly figure out what the price is after all the additional charges and take the cheapest flight. If you don't like the all of these fees fly airlines that don't charge for them and send the rest a message, you won't get my money if you are screwing me for a pillow and a blanket.

Trains in Tokyo. Japan is 2/3 the size of California, almost like S.F. to S.D. So of course it would make sense to use the high speed trains. However if you have to go a much longer distance---say LA to Chi., Boston, NYC. - Seattle to Atlanta, N.O, Miami--trains make absolutely no sense at all. Even at 200mph, with the number of stops a train would make---it would takes DAYS to get where your going.

Actually most airlines are not really making any money, they have just gone to ala carte pricing. Pay for what you want only. Or fly first class and don't worry about any of it.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- This year is going to be a tough one for the airline industry, based on a dismal profit forecast from the International Air Transport Association.

The group said that it expects profits to plummet 78% to $4 billion this year, compared to last year's net profit of $18 billion. This makes for a measly margin of 0.7% in 2011.

How much of these added fees are covering increased costs - fuel, labor, parts, etc. ?

Then don't fly, they are a business, in it to make a profit.

All this, and yet somehow we're still told that it's the teachers and firefighters who are the problem with America...

FYI for readers who are referencing the airline industry in the present as one that is "regulated" and reminiscing of the era when is was not (i.e. deregulated), the industry is presently NOT regulated and has not been since the 1970s. It is a perfect example of an industry where regulation should not even be in question. It would not only be advantageous to the consumer when it comes to the increasing fees and costs associated with flying but also (and almost more importantly) when it comes to safety. And not just for the consumer...for the pilots. Pretty sure more than 60% of them aren't the ones seeing your fees in their pockets. Deregulation in the airline industry = the ability for airlines to hire "Cheap labor" (the standard minimum flight hours are pretty "minimum") something that regulation could address while taking care of putting a cap on the fees and taxes that everyone is so concerned about (when it should probably be safety).

Southwest is far to limited in their services - I live in their base State and even it is very limited. You don't have an option not to fly in many cases - to save you have to take flights that land at 3am - you lose what you saved because now you have to rent a car, or burden someone on the other end by making them stay up all night, that is if you have someone on the other end to count on.

Never rent a car at the airport - cost me twice as much the last time I did that.

They didn't mention the drunks who can't go 4 hours without a drink - bet they account for a big chunk of those extra fees.

The only non stop from Tucson to Seattle is Alaska and you better travel on a week day or they get you again. Last time I took a transfer flight I spent 6 hours in Denver, and they lost my luggage.....time is money also.

And you wonder why I don't fly anymore?

OWS - Occupy Wall Street - All cities - where you live - Drive to Big Cities

I plan to drive 125 miles spend the night, visit family and/or at least donate some money if and when there is a large gathering planned for Los Angeles.

I think - I know people of every persuasion are not happy with cutting Social Security and Medicare increase of yearly fee and increase in co-pay plus a up-tick in co-pay for medications.

These are not ENTITLEMENTS - a lie repeated over and over this is your mony you deserve the portion allotted to you if the retirement age is 62 years and the little extra (Your Money) if you wait till 65 years not proposed to jack this up to 70 and 72 years of age. Get this - If I die (we both receive the sam per month) she gets none of my money from all of those years I paid she gets nothing and this money she would surely depend on she gets ZERO.

What happens to the possibly hundreds of thousands in my name all of those tens of thousands I and my employer put into the retirement account so my wife and I could live just comfortably in retirement that is my (our) money not the governments I put that money in trust....what happens to all of that money my wife needs it?......Guess What The Local Social Security clerk informed me of? All of those dollars under my name are taken over forfeited to the government my wife gets ZERO - they keep every penny of my money....is that fair?

Now what genius thinks once past 62 years of age corporations want to hire someone out the door in eight to ten years, at most, maybe less at this age? That is not how the job market works to bad if people are living longer I paid plenty so just give me my money as agreed and I retire while I can still enjoy life not 72 or 70 years of age in my sixties as agreed.

Do you know how hard it is to find a job after 60 years of age for the average senior let alone at 65 years and greater? We never did (hired).....unwritten policy.

We need to block every large financial institution in America it does absolutely no good to go to a city owned (The Capital) and operated by the Financial/Industrial/Military Complex (Washington DC.) - they (excepting a few and we know who they are) are the representatives of the three pillars of evil and those that control the levers of power that run your life as they see fit.

Such as delaying your golden years till the rust years of 70 and 72 years of age how more cruel can the system be?

If my wife and I did work all our lives and depend on our money paid into SOCIAL SECURITY (our money) after 35 years of paying into the system and our money gathering interest at 15% of gross income (7.5 we paid and our employer matched us at 7.5 for a total of 15% of each paycheck for all those years that has to be a tidy sum doled out to us in small fractions.

But, OK that was the agreement and the years to ask for a small part per month when we retired (retired by our corporation to make way for cheaper younger workers with much less benefits then we had) is the way to show profit and kind of what Mit Romney did but worse he raided" shuttered the doors sold off the assets he acquired for Penny's on the dollar and made millions.

Oh" the workers...oh yeah those people... I think they're retirement and any other benefits where wiped out as the old corporations was insolvent and Romney as others "raided" these failing entities which is to say bought them out at various stages of the slide to total bankruptcy some of these corporations I read are purchased in bankruptcy as say the Romney Group settles with each creditor after which the remaining assets as land, equipment, spin-offs and any thing of value is sold off and of course because the corporations were legally insolvent the new owners as Romney are not obligated to honor any pension plan that would be a liability "worked out" in the buy out plan and I gather whatever the court agrees is fair is doled out to the designated groups at a discounted rate or possibly there is no money in the accounts?

A general stretch of how a failing corporation with assets of value is bought out of bankruptcy and there is big money to be made by the group of "raiders" - these are not job creators and they are overwhelmingly job destroyers - I thought everyone knew that?

Good Night..........

There's nothing really wrong with ala carte fees. Its that the airlines make it difficult to understand the total cost of a flight beforehand and impossible to comparison shop between airlines.

gary-218,

"Then don't fly, they are a business, in it to make a profit."

Ya, just like the company that wanted to charge me $1800 to dig a trench 18 feet long, slap a cement coat over my basement wall (top 18 inches), put 60 mil thick plastic in this trench, a drain pipe in and back fill with crushed stone. By the way, this trench was to be only 18 inches deep while here (New York) the frost level is 48 inches deep.

Make a profit is one thing - gouging is quite another.

Trains in Tokyo. Japan is 2/3 the size of California, almost like S.F. to S.D. So of course it would make sense to use the high speed trains. However if you have to go a much longer distance---say LA to Chi., Boston, NYC. - Seattle to Atlanta, N.O, Miami--trains make absolutely no sense at all. Even at 200mph, with the number of stops a train would make---it would takes DAYS to get where your going.

My point still stands. If I wanted to go from Toronto to NYC, I could make it there rather quickly if trains went 200+ MpH... 2-3hours, Geographically speaking. Factoring in wait-times at airports, delays, baggage - it's pretty much the same time.

And yes, on long-domestic trips like NYC <-> LA it would be best to fly. But at least the competition with airlines would be evened out if we could all travel by HS-rail from NYC<-> Chicago. Or LA<->SF, Maybe LA<->Las Vegas, or Atlanta <-> Miami <-> Orlando

High speed rail is a possibility, and it would compete with the flights... not to mention its less prone to terrorism and getting groped by a security guard.

Although in Japan we have those stupid salaryman and their Chikan habit...

/gross.

Make a profit is one thing - gouging is quite another.

You could always save the money and do it yourself.

It isn't free enterprise - it's corporatism and monopoly. Corporations manipulate the market to their advantage, destroy competition and gouge consumers. That didn't happen when there was free enterprise; if it did, the free market took those vampires out. Now the vampires rule and everyone is sucked dry.

It's not free enterprise because the fast-travel method is only provided by the Airlines. If in America, we had better rail; domestically speaking - the Airlines would be in a vice-grip.

And I mean High-speed rail, ACTUAL high-speed rail. Not this '60MpH' BS that people try to pass off as 'high-tech'. I'm talking Shinkansen speeds; 149–186 mph.

Christ, I live 20m away from a Mag-lev Shinkansen in Tokyo that goes 361 MpH... 581 km/h. I mean, my God - you could make a day trip from Chicago to NYC... Boston to NYC...

Sure, it'll still be a lot longer to get from NYC - LA, but add some style, some bad!@# bento, and I'd totally enjoy the train over air.

Again, trains make no absolutely no sense on long trips. Even at 351mph (which would never happen in the US because we could not build the track strait enough nor long enough to attain those speeds for any length of time. Why---EPA studies, law suits over everything imaginable, etc,etc.. Add that to all of the stops that the train will be "required" to make (a lot of cities between the East and West, North and South and since their tax dollars will help pay for it---they'll rightfully demand that it stops.) So little hops from Boston to NYC---NYC to DC (with stops in Phile and Baltimore are fine. But it would take 3-3 1/2 days from NYC to SF, LA and 4 to Seattle. Now think how "Fresh" you feel after a 6-9 hr flight---then think how you would feel after 3-4 FULL days on a train!!!

Uh Jerry? Monopoly?

Uh lets see

Delta & Northwest

Continental and United

American

Southwest

USAir

Spirit

AirTran

Alaska Airlines

ExpressJet

JetBlue

Virgin America

Not to mention all the smaller regional airlines

Not to mention Charter Airlines

Not to mention hundreds of International Airlines

What Monopoly are you referring to?

And Airfares are way down (Even without adjusting for inflation, even when you add in fees:

CONSUMER WATCH -- Buying an airline ticket today is a lot different than it was 25 years ago. With websites like Orbitz and Expedia and low-cost carriers like AirTran and Jet Blue competing for your business times have changed. One thing that hasn't changed: it still feels expensive to buy an airline ticket. It seems we are paying more these days. But when you take inflation into account, flying is surprisingly less expensive. Booking an airline flight and searching for the lowest fare? You might be surprised to learn that in many cases, ticket prices have actually not kept pace with inflation. Air travel analyst Terry Trippler conducted a random survey of schedules and airfares comparing ticket prices of today with those from 25 years ago for 27 different cities. When 1982 prices are adjusted for inflation, Trippler found that today's prices are actually lower. In 1982 there were three roundtrip flights from Boston to Los Angeles, with the lowest fare costing $298. Adjusted for inflation, that ticket should cost $635 today, but Trippler found that, not only are there nine roundtrip flights instead of three, the lowest fare was just $199. Flying from New York to Miami? In the eighties there were 21 flights, with the lowest fare costing $188. That same ticket should cost $400 , but Trippler found that the lowest fare was actually $158 and there are now 25 nonstop flights. So take some comfort when paying for that ticket. You could be paying a lot more.

LOL @ mousetrap - so you are saying screw seeing the grand kids or friends. Must be nice to have an employer who gives you an extra week of vacation just so you can drive.

and this is how they thank us for bailing them out (more than once) with millions of our hard earned dollars?

there is no gratitude, there is only greed.

I say next time, and you know there will a next time, we let them go under like everyone else..............they want to bite the hand that feeds them then let them starve.

ungrateful cur.

This week's price of aviation jet fuel:

Percentage change vs.

14-Oct-11

Index*

$/b

cts/gal

$/mt

1 week ago

1 month ago

1 year ago

Jet Fuel Price

352.0

128.8

306.6

1014.9

5.4%

3.1%

32.5%

Sourced from Platts * 100 in 2000 (87 cts/gal)

Impact on this year's fuel bill of the global airline industry:

New fuel price average for 2011

Impact on 2011 fuel bill

$127.5/b

+$60 billion

How Much Fuel Does a 747 Jet Burn?

Consumption of fuel is one of the largest costs of operating a large commercial airliner, making it a major concern to the airline industry. The weight of the fuel at the beginning of a flight adds to the consumption since the airliner will have to burn more fuel to take off, climb to cruising altitude and reach cruising speed. Fuel consumption also varies by altitude. By design, jet engines are most efficient at higher altitudes and thus burn more fuel at lower altitudes to perform the same amount of work.

1. Jet Fuel Facts

   • Jet Fuel for commercial and private aircraft is a kerosene based fuel. In the United State, the standard fuel is Jet A. It is lighter than water and has a clear or straw colored appearance. Outside the United States, Jet A-1 is the standard jet fuel and has slightly different characteristics than Jet A. Jet A freezes at -40 F and Jet A-1 freezes at -52.6 F. Jet A and Jet A-1 are interchangeable for most purposes. Military aircraft use a JP designation and there are various types for use depending on the aircraft.

   Flight Considerations

   • The amount of fuel loaded onto an aircraft is carefully calculated. Fuel must be allotted for the taxiing to the runway, take off and climb to altitude, the flight, descent and taxiing to the gate. A reserve that would allow the aircraft to change airports is added to the total fuel load. The airliner cannot be simply "filled up" as the higher weight of the aircraft would increase fuel consumption.

   Boeing 747 Fuel Facts

   • The Boeing 747 is available in four basic models, the 747-100, 747-200, 747-300 and 747-400. Each of the four basic designs uses four engines which consume Jet A or Jet A-1 fuel. The 747-100 carries a maximum of 48,445 US Gallons of fuel, the 200 and 300 each carry 52,410 and the 400 carries 57,285 US Gallons. Boeing lists maximum ranges as 6100, 7900, 7700, and 7260 statute miles respectively for each 747 model. Fuel capacity is calculated in gallons, but fuel consumption and planning are calculated in pounds. Jet A and Jet A-1 weigh 6.84 pounds per gallon.

   Fueling a 747

   • Typical fueling considerations in a 747-200 or 300 allow for 2200 pounds of fuel to be used for taxi to take off. A fully loaded aircraft will use 33,000 pounds during take off and climb to cruising altitude. During the first half of the flight, the aircraft will consume an average of 28,000 pounds of fuel per hour. The aircraft lightens as it burns fuel and at the end of the trip, the fuel consumption drops to about 21,000 pounds per hour. Descending and landing consume the least fuel, around 6000 pounds. Unburdened of its fuel load, the aircraft will consume only 1000 pounds of fuel, less than half what it needed to taxi before take off. A reserve of 25,000 to 40,000 pounds is loaded to allow changing airports should it become necessary.

   Fuel Burn

   • Fuel burn is affected by a number of factors. At sea level, the dense air negatively impacts the efficiency of the jet engines and at any given engine speed, they use more fuel compared to what they would use at a high altitude. Waiting in line on the taxiway to take off burns fuel that just goes to waste. At take off the engines are working the hardest, carrying the greatest load and consume the most fuel. Once cruising altitude is reached, the engines are throttled back a little and less fuel is consumed. The plane lightens as it burns fuel and therefore uses less and less as the flight progresses. Descent and approach use very little fuel. The engines are cut back to nearly idle with the aircraft in a glide.

Average mileage a Greyhound bus gets, is 6 mpg. PLUS you now pay extra for more than one bag going into the bay, and make sure your luggage gets transferred to the next bus, AND smell the puke from the inebriated passenger in the back, AND get wedged in by some big ole fat momma. LOL

I'll stay home, or maybe drive. Better yet, let my friends and relatives some visit me!

Oops, the graph was intact until I posted it. DRAT!

Frankly True

Uh Jerry? Monopoly?

Uh lets see

Delta & Northwest

Continental and United [...]

"Cabal" would be a better word for to use than "monopoly" (even though there is little difference when a service/product industry gangs up together like the oil industry). That isn't to say that there aren't "dark horses" out there who go off the track and succeed, but those within the cabal will do what they can to take them out. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. Southwest still provides as least a first-checked-bag free service to all its customers and it's been successful and is trying to expand its market. There are always exceptions to the rule. But virtually all other airline businesses go in lock-step to lower service and raise prices. It's all a part of the you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours mentality in corporatism today. And we're paying the price while a relatively insignificant number of CEO's, directors and major shareholders are raking it in.

The fact that websites like Expedia, Travelocity, etc., can find cheap ways to travel and have accommodations proves that the airline (and over-all travel) industry is gouging us. If one does his/her homework using these sites, one can get a very affordable vacation. The last time I (and a friend) went to Europe, we did it through one of these sites. We got a $400 ticket for airfare from Detroit to Venice. Once there, we got a five-star hotel, right on the grand canal (even featured on the Travel Channel) for thirty bucks a night (normal cost closer to ten times that much). We stayed there for ten days and managed to get trips from Florence down to Assisi (we've done Rome many times before). We then got a train trip from Venice all the way to London for about $80. From there, we sailed back to America on a luxury liner for six glorious days for $900 (sounds expensive? - don't forget, that included everything, except for hootch and soda, and were pampered all the way rather than being cramped in tiny seats in a flying tube). At NYC, we got airline tickets back to home for a hundred bucks.

And still everyone that got our money made a profit, otherwise those prices we paid wouldn't be there. Once it again, it just goes to show that the airline (and other travel) industries are gouging us and crying crocodile tears that they have to pay so much (for fuel, labor, etc.). It's all a racket, part of the corporatist mentality, but while a tad of true free enterprise still exists (allowing websites like Expedia, etc.), we can make them pay a reasonable price. Don't be fooled. When an airline charges for your checked luggage, it isn't trying to make up for "lost income" - it's gouging you.

Amen to that. Imagine how much faster planes would board if everyone were allowed one carry on item at no charge. Charging less for checked baggage than carry on bags will free up the overheads real quick.

No it doesn't cost the airline $15 dollars to give you a seat on the window or aisle. The point is someone is willing to pay that extra fee.

If you are so sure you know how to run an airline, go ahead and start your own. I wish you luck.

Maybe you should be looking at it the other way, would you like to pay $15 less to sit in a middle seat?

Hint they really are not fees, they are discounts or vice veers, depends on how you look at it.

Gas station discount for cash? Nah, it is really just a charge to use a credit card. Just sells better that way. They are SAVING you, not harding you.

It costs the movie house no more for you to go at night, so the matinee is not a discount as they attempt to sell it as, they are just charging more for seats at night.

Pizza Delivery is free? HA! When you can get the pick up special for $2 less, that is really a delivery charge dressed up as a discount

Wake up--you are being sold a bill of goods. I know, I work in the ad industry. Never charge more for XYZ...give a discount if they buy ABC...it is all in how you write the ad copy.

They will quit charging when it makes sense to not charge otherwise pay the freight and shut up!

Agreed, Frankly True. If the airlines had been smart, they would have done it that way. Basically, saying, "The fare from Chicago to Las Vegas is $240, but if you don't check a bag, you can knock $30 off the fare. If you don't require headphones or an in-flight meal, you can knock off another $15." That way you look at as "getting a $240 flight for only $195," which is much more palatable than thinking of it as getting gouged for $240 for what you know is a $195 flight.

By the way, at least some fares ARE cheaper than they were 2-3 years ago. Not necessarily across the board, but in my experience, some are. I save all my travel-related emails, and looked at a flight I took on Southwest two years ago from Los Angeles to Denver (and back) and it was $341.20. Now, two years later, that same round-trip flight cost me $160.40. That's amazing. (Disclosure: I booked the 2009 flight three weeks in advance, and booked this year's flight six weeks in advance, which may account for some of the difference.)

Bob---did you really think this out? It's not just about you Bob. If you want to go somewhere and look like a "Thrift Store" kind of guy, that's cool, but what about families--- Family's with kids! How about people who are going on a vacation to someplace nice? I could go on and on--- but Bob, your comment did make me laugh

Have to agree with Larry.

Dude I would not be caught dead in a $3 shirt or a thrift store. Hell make it a $30 shirt and I still won't wear it.

But I sm "grand' that way Armani please

Guys, you wouldn't believe the high end clothing that ends up in thrift stores. A thrift store near an affluent community.... contemporary Brooks brothers tuxedo in its dry cleaner bag, $7? Dry clean it again if you have bug anxieties. I like good threads but am no snoot about where I bought it. Money for wine w/those snacks.

I bet you travel alone because no woman is going to bang a guy wearing a $3 shirt.

LMFAO @ tmstz! Funniest thing I've read all day!

As long as people see value in their time, there will always be a demand for airlines, even for leisure travelers.

I can't pictures too many people from MN driving 2 days to FL and 2 days back, using up 4 days of a weeks vacation... bottom line, time is money.

Imagine how much the airlines would be better if all the seats in a praticular class were the same price. If you were allowed only two of the following on a plane, a purse, electronics bag, brief case, diaper bag, etc all other bags are checked maximum of two. More than two $35 a bag. No reservations without actually purchasing the ticket. The same price online, on the phone or at the gate. No frequent fliers miles at all. If they want to compete it should be on seat price and SERVICE. They keep it so confusing so you can't price compare without a PHD and two hundred hours of shopping around.

Hey Devil's Son, I fly quite often and I enjoy my FF miles. I earn them due to my loyalty to a specific airline. I am guessing you don't fly much so why should we change the system for someone like you who flies infrequently?

Devil's son -- It would never work. And, there's nothing wrong with FF miles. No different that earning points at the grocery store. Now, I WOULD say that FF miles should be clearer and easier to use.

However, my "menu" idea would make it easier to shop around.

Why don't you do some research on SWA's average ticket price when they first enter a market & years later after they have grown into dominance in that particular market. I guarantee they won't seem as wonderful once you find the answer.

It's a big world out there Ourdoc, and you can only go so far by car

Or get your own pilots license, get instrument rated, and fly a rental, or buy a nice little affordable single engine plane of your own. Who knows, it may even start a new business for you. (My uncle did it many years ago after the war)

American Airlines (or any other airline) has only itself to blame for being $162 million in the red. It sells a cruddy product that people don't want to purchase. It can't deliver, its service is horrendous and it charges gouging prices. Why would anyone want to buy junk like that? If it charged the lowest possible price with none of those "add-ons" and gave the best possible service, it would've been filled at 100% and made a nice profit.

As for the airline moguls being "pretty smart," if they were so smart, then why are their businesses making little in profit or even running in the red? Are they worth the massive salaries, benefits and golden parachutes (which they get when they screw up and get fired, and they all screw up) they receive? They think the best way to make money for their business is to offer the worst possible product at the highest (and impossible) price. No one's going to open their wallet for that. Yet, they do it again and again.

If they can't sell 100% of their seats, there's something wrong with them. We already know what that is. Can I apply for a job as an airline CEO and get tens-of-millions a year in salary and benefits (and my golden parachute)? I can't do any worse than them.

Not really Gary. If AA cannot fill all of their seats or planes then they are not maximizing their profits. Even if they charge less if they have more business they will recoup the cost of having charged less for flights. It is simple economics, if a store is selling 5 apples for 6 bucks (hypothetically), the bought 500 apples at a price of 1.50 an apple, and at this particular store they only sell 20 of these deals then they have a loss of profit:

Total cost of apples: 750

Number of apples sold: 100

Income from sales: 100

Profit: -630

Now say they reduce the price per 5 apples to 3.50 and now they sell out:

Apples sold: 500

Income from Sales: 350

Profit: -400

While still a loss in profit they made more money by lowering their prices.

Jerry was suggesting something similar in the case of airlines.

Their CEO Mr. Arpay made $5.9 mil while his company posted a loss. Therein lies the problem. The corporate greed is everywhere. Occupy Wall Street. Occupy the Airlines.

Sally

Jerry you are a dummy

gary-2180038, you are suspended for a month for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

This is your third suspension. Last chance.

Sally, thanks for defending my honor, but don't suspend him on my account. I'm just fine. I've posted comments that were not exactly civil regarding the personality characteristics of other contributors myself and should've been suspended for a great deal worse. As a matter of fact, I'd like to ask "Gary" about what I said that makes me a dummy (and I ain't sayin' I ain't) to get his clarification, and once he responds it would afford the chance to disect his arguments and positions (and maybe not only from me but from others). So, if you want to let him back on the play, please go ahead and do so, so that he can provide a full retort to defend his position in defense of the airline business. In the back-and-forth of debate it can easily be revealed who is a dummy (and it still might be me - I'm trying to learn all that time and have changed my views and positions when they've been challenged).

Got to love the landing and departure taxes. WHAT BS!!!

Does the taxometer go backward for sitting on the runway 2 hours?

Those landing fees are going directly to the Federal Government to pay for the TSA. Not one penny goes to the airline's pockets, they are forced to collect it for the Gov't, much like taxes at a retail store.

If they want to have separate fees for everything that's fine with me. I will gladly pay a cheaper ticket price and not pay any of their fees. I never check luggage and don't buy anything on the plane. I don't want to pay good money to walk into the plane three minutes before everyone else (which is half the plane these days).

Chris you make too much sense. The back shots want to see a lot of numbers and people running around thinking up ways to screw the customers!

chris were you bored? you did airline fee research? really? lmao

Chris,

This is because 2000-2008 American's did not give a fluff about "fees", it was an easy way to squeeze their passengers for more money and because higher ticket prices drive sales down.

Now the airline industry is in a pickle because we are now smarter and are investigating all of these fees and finding that a lot of them are bogus. Airlines are now stuck either raising their ticket prices or adding more fees, both of which result in less sales. This is what you call a cluster **** and they brought it upon themselves for taking advantage of their customers.

Geowil-

How much money did the airlines make from 2000-2008 when charging those "bogus fees"? I'll save you the time: NONE, they lost huge amounts of money from year to year, even with all those fees.

How many fees did the airlines charge before the oil companies started jacking up their prices?

blinkin,

isn't is a popular ideal that businesses that cannot sustain themselves should go bankrupt? That is free market principle after all.

The main point of my post was not if they did or did not make money, it was that they hid their fees until recently instead of charging that price on the tickets because they know higher ticket prices mean less business. They were charging these fees in obscurity because they were allowed to hide them and American's used to be in the mindset of fine, whatever I will pay it so I can get on the plane.

Doing this drove down ticket prices because these fees were no longer included in those prices. Now they cannot raise their ticket prices because they have itemized their fees.

Thee days even fees are under scrutiny and business can no longer bury them in their legalese TOA. This problem was manufactured by the industry so I have no sympathy for them, if they had just done the ethical thing and left "fees" attached to ticket prices they would not be having a problem with their fees now because they would not be itemized for all the world to see but still be hidden in the ticket prices.

Because of this they cannot justify to their public fliers a raise in ticket prices when fees are also tacked onto their trip's cost on the back end instead of being a cost of the ticket itself. If the fees are hidden within the ticket price they can raise the ticket price and people would be more receptive (generally, although in this economy probably not)

Maybe slightly convoluted but it makes some sense.

No, but you can collect a bundle if you have flight insurance on someone if that flight goes down. Not the way I would choose to get a chunk of money!

I still get snacks and drinks from other airlines, just very meager amounts.

Also I always assumed that the luggage fee was simply added into the ticket amount. I never knew that Airlines had to tell you that luggage fees are separate, I always assumed that the cost of moving luggage was automatically in the ticket.

If I am wrong, than you can still save a little. If I am right, screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

The greatest trick Southwest ever pulled was brain-washing the American public into believing they are the cheapest airline, which is simply not true.

The bags fess that you say they don't charge are just calculated into the ticket price. The only difference is everyone pays a bag fee whether the have a bag or not, you just don't know it.

Ever tried booking a SWA flight on Expedia, Travelocity, etc? You can't and SWA wants it that way, because if you could compare their prices side-by-side with other airlines, even with calculating in bags fees, you would find the SWA is absolutely not the cheapest.

copy ,save in your pics then edit it so you can zoom in and you will beable to read it... it says something like if you cant read this then we are doing our job since it is our job to add in fees and such to people that they cant understand what we are doing so we can profit more in the long run..

what profits?

I don't know what airline you fly but I can take any food including drink (never tried a beer though) on US Airways (purchased at the airport). Pizza, McDonald's, Ruby Tuesday and on and on. I know people that "stock up" before they board just for the simple fact they can. Not necessarily going to get that hungry on a 3-4 hour flight, just makes them feel better somehow I guess.

Yeah, what are you talking about not bringing in "outside food"? If you want to cook a Thanksgiving meal and bring it through you are more than welcome.

LIQUIDS & GELS are not allowed, so leave the gravy at home, but why do people seems to think that food is not allowed through?

And as far as needing clothes at your destination- my wife and I both carried-on during our week-long honeymoon, guess what no fees! Maybe you should leave all your manscaping products at home for a few days!