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. . 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 .

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!