Take a look at this website to see how many airlines have gone defunct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_airlines

This gives a list of US airlines bankruptcies since 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...e_bankruptcies

American is the only major, traditional US airline that hasn't been thru bankrupcy court.

US airlines collectively have lost money in 5 or the 7 years since 9/11. After this year it will be 6 of 8.

Moan all you like but airfares will rise, there will be fewer flights, planes will be more crowded, flights will take longer in order to save fuel, FF seats will be more difficult to get, there will be more stringent regulation of baggage size and weight.

Airlines will make a choice whether to up ticket prices for everyone or to minimize overall increases and add fees for individual services. I'd prefer the latter.

So they up the ticket fee instead for everybody. Let the big bag toters pay.


It reminds me of a man with whom I once worked. He was fussy about his dress shirts. (This was before casual Fridays) He was also cheap. So he took his shirts to a Chinese laundry that was slightly cheaper than the other laundries around the area.

One day he did not like the way his collars looked. He complained to the Chinese proprietor.

The elderly gentleman held up both hands, palms up, shrugged his shoulders and said simply
No like, no bring.

Question..

International flights are immune from this hideous fee...you are doing say LAX-JFK-LHR...and you check your bag through to LHR...do you pay????

You of course are going to see more and more people trying to sneak over sized things through to the gate area where the gate agent will say it has to be checked...will they collect at that point?

And of course, then there is the inevitable annoucement, that I ignore, telling me to put my smaller objects on the floor in front of me so that people who bring stuff on the flight that should be checked have run in my overhead space.

Screw them.

(BTW I'm immune as I am AA gold...and inevitably board in group 1 so I should have no trouble finding space for my regular sized carryons.)

<i>International flights are immune from this hideous fee...you are doing say LAX-JFK-LHR...and you check your bag through to LHR...do you pay????</i>

No.

<i>You of course are going to see more and more people trying to sneak over sized things through to the gate area where the gate agent will say it has to be checked...will they collect at that point?</i>

Probably. My guess is that they will not slow down boarding but instead will make a note on your PNR (reservation) that you owe AA $15 (or $25 if you've already checked one) and ultimately a bill will be forthcoming. Coupled with staff reductions, I think it's things like these that will ultimately make them rescind this fee. Too hard to implement when pax don't know ahead how many bags they'll be checking, or else are falsely optimistic about carry-ons, with fee-collecting and policing falling to station staff and cabin crew, who will not be highly motivated in the face of confused, angry and delayed pax.

For crying out loud, get a bloody grip the lot of you.

Oil's going through the roof - mostly because the 5% of the world's population who are American guzzle up a quarter of it, and then have the bare-faced cheek to blame the poor Chinese.

Higher oil prices mean real poverty and misery for people who can't afford to buy a litre of kerosene to cook their rice with. Like the Bangladeshis, whose products YOU slap huge import duties on (The US Treasury makes more in tax on a Bangladeshi shirt than the poor sod who made it)

At the present rate, you won't have an airline industry by the end of the year. And what are you all doing?

Whining about a bloody luggage charge like a three year old who's not allowed enough sweets.

There IS a simple solution. Stop stealing the world's oil. Put a proper tax on it.

And get off your bums and do something about the problem, rather than sitting around snivelling you're having to pay the economic cost of an absurdly self-indulgent luxury,

According to their website &quot;luggage update&quot;, which I just looked at, it says that the first piece of luggage is free and the second piece is $25...my problem with this is that you can't carry liquids on the plane, such as shampoo, the basic toileteries, and now, god forbid if you want to have luggage, they'll charge you! I feel like next you'll have to pay to use the toilets...and hey maybe they could make money by charging us for having a seat belt?!?!

What I'd like to know is what was the bonus of the CEOs of the airlines? I have the feeling that despite the financial troubles the airlines are going through, the CEO still get their millions in bonuses in addition to their million salary..I don't begrudge them their salary, when you start nickel and diming me to death and I have no alternatives, it gets me annoyed!

So, $15 for a suitcase, 25 cents per bathroom trip, $50 for seatbelt, $10 for a lousy meal, $125 for a seat with a back, and $1500 for the airfare...come fly the friendly skies!

To date people who travel light subsidise those who *cannot* travel with anything less than 2 steamer trunks the size of a small country.

This just starts to redress the balance

not that I travel with more than 1 suitcase in general, though often on my way home, I do have an extra duffle bag type for dirty laundry/maps, misc....so that i can put my purchases in my suitcase...but if having 2 suitcases is causing so much more cost due to fuel, then I agree with the person who mentioned that heavier people should pay more. Why should I be penalize for having 2 suitcases if the total weight of myself and my suitcases are still than the person who is sitting next to me without even counting their suitcase -- if you're going to use more room, than pay more!!!

An open letter to flanneruk:

Would you just shut up? Frankly, you sound like a small, pathetic man. Ask yourself this: &quot;if I were to substitute Chinese or Africans for Americans, when I spew my poorly-informed venom, would it be okay?&quot; It is trolling, plain and simple and I ask that you take it somewhere else.

From what I can tell, you don't visit the US with any regularity. Your hostile attitude suggests you don't have any American friends. You don't seem to be especially conversant in US history. But you hold yourself up to be all-knowing, and want to pass judgment on all things American.

It is tedious. And you look like an idiot.

The sad thing is, that I gather you are actually a pretty smart guy. For some reason, you have decided to present a face to this board of a rude, poorly-informed bigot. And I can't figure out why.

BTW, depending upon how you measure it, the UK (and the whole of the EU) actually uses oil less efficiently than the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrole...sumption_rates

Those consumption rates support flanner argument, which is (of course) mostly correct.

(barrel/person/year)
European Union 29.70
United States 68.81

<i>Those consumption rates support flanner argument, which is (of course) mostly correct.</i>

Only in a superficial way. The most significant problem with the consumption per capita measure is that it is basically a proxy for income. By this measure, then the EU is downright rapacious compared to the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is why the GDP-to-consumption ratio is offered.

Even more damning, to my mind, of the consumption per capita measure is that it informs us very little if we want to predict future oil consumption. Relying on such a measure, for instance, would lead to grossly underestimating the growth in demand from China and India.

Think about it this way. Suppose you had to estimate the total oil consumption of a country, without reference to the actual numbers. What would be the independent variables in your model? I would likely start with the following:

- GDP
- population
- overall population density
- % of population in urban areas with populations above 1m
- % of population in urban areas with populations above 500k
- % of population in urban areas with populations above 250k
- consumption of coal
- consumption of natural gas
- % of population below poverty line
- Farm production
- % of population in rural areas

You and flanner seem to be proposing that we add some sort of &quot;cultural proclivity to consume oil&quot;. But how would you measure this? And assuming you could measure it, do you think it would actually contribute to the model? Indeed, wouldn't it be more likely that this proclivity would be dependent upon the same independent variables? Isn't it just a replacement for consumption per capita, in which case it isn't independent?

It isn't enough to claim that Americans are &quot;greedy&quot;, unless you can show that they are more greedy than &quot;like&quot; countries, or that the US consumption is not predictable by the same model as the EU, that doesn't rely on value judgments. Unfortunately, with GDP per capita of roughly 72% that of the US, the EU isn't that alike. Canada, with a GDP per capita roughly 83% that of the US tracks more closely.

&gt;But how would you measure this?
In Barrel per Person per Year.

Well logos, it must be nice living in a world where circular logic is the only &quot;logic&quot; you need.

Come on....how many people are really going to cut down on the amount of luggage they bring...the charge is not meant to save money on fuel costs...it is to raise money to pay for fuel costs just like any other fee they impose....sometimes, of course in many situations, fees may seem well justified but the hassle of collecting them and other down the line problems caused by impositions of such fees, cause them to be rescinded.

This fee is almost in that category....it will slow up checking in (how can it not?); it will slow up boarding as people struggle to put their oversized cases into the overheads, it will cause friction as noted when people put their own carry ons into the overheads and are told to remove them (it's happened to me) so somebody with a case that should be checked tries to stuff it in over my smaller carryon...and by itself, it won't save any fuel costs although of course any fee helps defray them......

As as for our friend flanner, if you want to have a dialogue, you might try lighten up a bit...many many of your fellow countrymen are grabbing up property in the USA to live there part time (see many Florida communities which have many British snow birds)...see the New York City area which, despite what is happening in the rest of the country, is having a housing boom as millions of foreigners, including tons of Brits, are taking advantage of the weak USD and don't seem to share the hostility you throw out at every last bit...unfortunately for us, we've had a mental midget running the country who has put it into a serious problem thanks to his lack of understanding but, and I've used this line before, after my latest bout with kidney stones, my urologist told me this too shall pass..

&gt;In Barrel per Person per Year

Think about it, this actually includes all relevant data like imports or exports of manufactured goods. When a piece of plastic is made in China and exported to the US, it's part of US oil consumption, not of the Chinese, as is all the oil used for producing it.
So that's a pretty accurate and fair figure.

<i>So that's a pretty accurate and fair figure.</i>

Do you not understand the difference between independent and dependent variables? If one is trying to explain consumption of oil for a country, you can't point to consumption per capita as a determining factor.

And, as I clearly stated, consumption per capita quickly becomes a proxy for GDP per capita. And it does not address differences that are completely indpendent of any social proclivity to consume the oil. How is this a causal mechanism? How does this measure make you better able to understand the issue at hand?

My issue isn't with the statement that the US consumes a lot of oil, my issue is with claiming that such consumption is abnormally high. It is quite in line with the economic production of the country, geographical distribution, and agricultural production. Oil is nothing more than an input. The US doesn't consume oil because we are wasteful or callous, as flanner wants to imply, we consume more because that level of consumption is consistent with the increased productivity of the US economy.

Nope, you're wrong here.
GDP is not a factor or reflected in those figures. Think it over! Consumption is what is measured, not production, since the economic output is consumed somewhere, no matter where it was produced. (There's the flaw in your argument). When the US exports products made from oil to Europe that consuption would count for the European consumer, not the US consumer. Even though the US has imported and used that oil in the first place.

Those on the planet that consume more, use more oil per person, no matter for this countries economic structure or GDP etc.

But it still wouldn't address differences in geography or the fact that rich people consume more, and whether rich people in the EU consume less than a similarly rich person in the US.

My question was how you would measure &quot;cultural proclivity to consume oil&quot; and clearly differentiated this from economic or geographic measures. You answer that cultural proclivity = consumption per person. Since we are trying to measure consumption, how is this not circular logic?

You can say that you are measuring consumption and not productivity, but since the two are so closely tied, I fail to see how this really makes a difference.

When the standard of living is &quot;about similar&quot; in Europe and the US, how can it be that a US consumer uses more than twice the amount of oil than a European consumer? (It is understandable that poor people consume less oil, what is not understandable is that consumers in one country use twice as much as in another country with a similar living condition.

The answer can only be that is is wasted because it's so cheap! In inefficient cars or poorly isolated houses. It can't be only conusmer goods that make a difference that big.

Oh, my! I just woke up to a terrible dream. Several Fodorites, myself included, had crash landed on a desert isle. We were having a discussion that had grown a little nasty.

I grabbed the conch shell, which signaled my intent to speak, but just then, someone bashed me in the skull with a big rock. Was it travelgourmet, flanneruk, or someone else? Maybe it was the Lord of the Flies?

Is this what happens when children are allowed to live without adult supervision?

But wait. We aren't children. We're well-traveled and (presumably) well-educated adults.

Oh, well. I really wasn't trying to start a fight.

But productivity (GDP) is not similar between the EU and the US. EU GDP per capita is only 72% that of the US. I think that is a pretty big gulf. Throw in higher population densities and the impact is only intensified.

Canada, on the other hand, has GDP per capita that is over 80% that of the US. They consume more oil per person than the US, consistent with their lower population density. Australia, too, has a GDP closer to the US and higher oil consumption than the EU. That their consumption is lower than the US is further consistent with the higher population in large cities of over 1m people, with over 60% of Australia's population concentrated in the capital cities. This compares with something around 45% of the US population living in similar-sized communities.

GDP isn't a factor as noted. (The differences are already compensated in the figures, consumption counts, not production)
Less people per km2, maybe. Enough to justify a consumption twice as much?

Let me put this in simple terms. What variables would you use to explain increased oil consumption in one country over another? We agree on population distribution. How about some more?

And why would GDP per capita not be one? If GDP per capita is a measure of output, why would we not expect higher inputs (of which oil is one) to be required to sustain a higher level of output?

GDP is a factor in consumption since bigger economies consume more, howerver this doesn't count for the figures.

Whatever oil is consumed in a country partly goes into production, this partly goes into export. These exports don't count in the exporting country, but are are accounted in the recieving country. That way production is out of the equation.

<i>Whatever oil is consumed in a country partly goes into production, this partly goes into export. These exports don't count in the exporting country, but are are accounted in the recieving country. That way production is out of the equation. i&gt;

Which figures? The only figures cited so far (the ones I linked to) most certainly do include consumption related to exports. This is made clear with regards to Singapore:

<b>Note: The figure for Singapore is skewed because of its small
population compared with its large oil refining capacity.
Most of this oil is sent to other countries.)</b>

Care to try again?</i>

Well, then give the correct figures instead of this crap. :D. It may only be 50% more in the US compared to Europe.

Compared to a country more than 3 times the size, I think we can afford the 25% less total. :-)

The amazing thing is the twists and turns and post can take. Who would have guessed this started with an OP about $15 baggage charges?

Good God, travelgourmet, you cite a website to validate your statement &quot;BTW, depending upon how you measure it, the UK (and the whole of the EU) actually uses oil less efficiently than the US&quot;.

Another poster, logos999, points out the reference provides the opposite view.

You then question the validity (and methodology) of your own reference and accuse logos999 of &quot;circular logic&quot;.

Very good!

jsmith: Actually, I was citing the chart on the same page that shows the consumption as a factor of GDP (hence the emphasis on 'efficiency', rather than on the gross usage). Though, looking back, I think I had sorted the column wrong. And I may have to say something I never thought I would say:

Logos looks to have been right all along.

Ooops, how could that have happened :D.

Anyway, I suffer from intense sunburn, too much gelato and cheap pizza. 1.10&euro; a slice. Don't tell me Italy is expensive :-).

This thread has certainly taken a detour from its' original topic.

For what it's worth, it's easier to voice your opinion by emailing AA thru their website vs. calling them. I'm not gold or platinum, simply one of the plebes with an Aadvantage No. who usually flys on American. It may not make a difference; however I think it's important to share one's opinions WITH AA, in addition to a kvetch-fest on this forum.

I heard that UA is now considering this $15 baggage charge, as are the other major US carriers.

I agree with Underhill, &quot;On balance, I'd rather the airfares reflected the actual cost, given the increase in jet fuel prices, rather than all these extra charges.&quot;

I purchased an AA ticket last month for June domestic travel. They were over $100 cheaper than the other majors. Rather than charge nickel and dime fees, why did they not simply raise the price of that ticket by $30?

maybe the airlines actually think that when we're purchasing the tickets we'll actually think it's $100 cheaper than an other airline and not be smart enough to realize that if we want to bring anything with us for a 2 week stay we'll have to pay for it. Absolutely ridiculous... it could also be a legal matter, I don't know but perhaps they have certain regulations concerning airfares..this way, the charge is not against the airfare but for 'extra' ???

&lt;&lt;&lt; while nations with large economies such as the United States would tend to promote the GDP based metric &gt;&gt;&gt;

I'm fat therefore I'm allowed to eat more than someone who isn't fat

I don't think there is any law about what they can charge for an airline ticket. Upon hearing more about this charge, I think I figured out one reason why they are doing it separate from the ticket -- this way they can assess it on people at the airport who already bought their tickets some time ago. So they will start getting the fee immediately on all the tickets (I think it starts mid-June) they've already sold. Also, I'm sure part of it is just trying to be sneaky and hoping people don't know about it when they are comparing airfares.

I did send American Airline an email through their website and of course, only got the following generic reply - which I didn't expect more...just wanted to add to the hopefully many emails showing displeasure to the nickel and diming us.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Dear Ms:

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate hearing your perspective about a price
increase in fees for some services and products. Please know that this was a
difficult decision but reflects the reality of our business. We are taking direct
steps to ensure the long-term success of our company in the face of unprecedented fuel
prices. We hope to have our customers' understanding.

Sincerely,

Diane Hill
Customer Relations
American Airlines

I personally am in favor of the fee.

I am in favor of anything that makes the airlines turn a PROFIT! LOL!

My theory is that I perfer to fly on airlines that are not bleeding red ink. Generally things tend to run better if you have cash to pay the bills, the employees etc.

I think this is only the beginning. If you book the 'el cheapo' fare be prepared for nickle and diming... Don't want a middle seat in the back, pay. Want anything to drink, pay. Want to check luggage, pay. And so on.....

Notice this fee is waived for the &quot;full fare&quot; tickets and those who bring in a lot of revenue!

If you don't like the fees the only EFFECIVE way to protest is to STOP buying tickets on AA. But I will bet that most folks will go with &quot;cheapest&quot; on the first line and then discover &quot;opps&quot; I owe extra!