U.S. Airways to charge $2 for soda, juice water...

[B4UTRUST]

Link

Better get used to carrying lots of singles next time you fly. US Airways is now terminating free drink service. No, not free mini bottles of Jim Beam and cheap Chardonnay, we're talking about all drinks, including soda, fruit juice, coffee, and bottled water, which will soon cost $2 each. Presumably tap water, which may or may not be contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria, will still be free.

The move is the latest way airlines are attempting to fight rapidly rising fuel prices in a disastrous economic climate. In recent months, the extra fees have come fast and furious. First came extra charges for your second piece of luggage, then came a charge for your first bag. That's not to mention extra fees for choosing your own seat, curbside check-in, booking using frequent flier miles, and the cost of the Santa Fe chicken sandwich.

The beverage fee is even more annoying than most, since you can no longer bring liquids through security at airports. You are really at the mercy of buying them on the plane, or at least buying them once you're in the terminal (which is doubtlessly no cheaper than on the plane). Alcoholic drinks will also go from $5 to $7. That's a lot for a can of Budweiser.

The fee goes into effect August 18, leaving plenty of time for the airlines to come up with other fees to nickel and dime their way to profitability. Can pay toilets be far behind?

The shitty part about this situation is this: They will nickle and dime us to death. Then they will nickle and dime us to their death. They will eventually lose so many customers to cheaper airlines(not many of those left, though Southwestern is still cheap and doesn't charge for the 1st checked bag or water...yet) that they have to increase prices for everything else to compensate for the loss of income from losing customers because they jacked prices up sky high on all the shit. The cycle will break down and they will go bankrupt like so many airlines have in the past.

And here's the shitty part folks - the government will bail out the airlines again. And we'll be back in the same spot and they'll be doing the same shit because they keep getting away with it.

Honestly, just increase the price of air fare again. Add another $15-20 onto the ticket cost. People won't care and won't notice. We're already paying $450 for a fucking ticket, what's another $15? It makes a lot more sense and people won't mind nearly as bad as you going "Well, it's $2 for a drink, an extra $.50 if you want a cup, it's $1 to push the flight attendant button and $1 if you want ice in your drink. Headphones are of course still the conveniant price of $10 and now pillows are $1.50 per hour of use. Toilet fees do apply on this flight and for your conveniance we proudly accept Visa and MasterCard."

I fucking hate airlines....

[Rukia]

I heard that one of the airlines was going to start charging people for an extra seat if they are over like 230 pounds.... Guess who doesn't make the cut? Moi.....

[SirNitram]

I heard that one of the airlines was going to start charging people for an extra seat if they are over like 230 pounds.... Guess who doesn't make the cut? Moi.....

There's an actual reason behind this. Mass determines how much fuel is needed. Unlikely spiking up for soda or similar, you literally can't just pretend more weight isn't effecting the airplane's performance.

[LadyTevar]

Monday June 16, 2008
Dave Peyton: We took to the air, and now we're grounded
Nobody tries to get ordinary people to fly these days

A television pundit spoke the obvious late last week about airline travel: He said we are rapidly returning to those days when only rich folks will be able to fly.

That's the way it was from the years immediately following World War II all the way through the 1960s.

I remember as a kid that neither I nor any member of my family ever thought we'd fly. Tickets were simply too expensive.

And besides that, we didn't have the clothes for airplane travel. Men wore expensive suits and women wore the finest dresses, better even than go-to-meetin' clothes.

Eventually, however, the cost of airplane tickets came down, and by the mid-1970s, our family was able to take our first airplane trip to Florida and Disney World. It was exciting to say the least.

That's the day I realized that airline travel had truly opened up to the middle class, and it looked as if affordable airline travel for nearly everyone was here to stay.

Then came the current economic difficulties, with out-of-sight fuel prices and a weakening U.S. dollar. Suddenly, almost overnight, the cost of airline tickets skyrocketed.

Surcharges were compounded on top of surcharges. I heard late last week for example that one airline - I forget which one - will be charging $2 for a soft drink that used to be free.

I still recall a trip our family took from Huntington to Los Angeles in the late 1970s on Piedmont Airlines - remember Piedmont? - during which we were given a delicious midday meal free of charge as part of the ticket.

t was served by flight attendants who were actually happy. Well, that's not likely to happen again.

Class envy is as American as apple pie. A little class envy may be a good thing. It makes us want to work harder and earn more so we can feel more comfortable about our current and future status.

I see class envy increasing in the months and years to come.

I recall those days of childhood when I knew a few people who had actually flown in an airplane. In fact, I knew a few who had flown for pleasure.

Someday, I thought, I would make enough money to fly, maybe even take a vacation.

And when that day arrived, I felt good about myself and my economic standing. Today, I have lost that feeling as well as class envy, but it's OK.

My son points out that the irony about all of this may be that, in light of the failing U.S. dollar on the world market, the middle class in other countries is more likely to be able to afford airline travel and we may see an increase in foreign tourists coming to America to sample life in this once-great country that appears to be in decline.

So be it. We will welcome them with open arms and wish them well. And when they get on the big jetliners to return home, we can fondly recall those days when we could afford what we can no longer manage to pay for.

[Cynical Cat]

Airline's have been marginal businesses for years and the rising fuel costs aren't helping. They have to charge more. The only reason prices haven't gone up earlier is the shear amount of competition.

[B4UTRUST]

Charge more for rising fuel costs, etc, sure. But who the fuck travels and doesn't bring a suitcase? So now I have to pay for the ticket to fly, then pay $15 to check my suitcase and gods help me if I've got a second suitcase... Now I can't even get a glass of water in the overly dehydrated overly recycled plague air that is the aircraft's air supply without it costing money.

There's a difference between charging more for what needs to be charged for, and charging to nickle and dime.

[Cynical Cat]

Charge more for rising fuel costs, etc, sure. But who the fuck travels and doesn't bring a suitcase? So now I have to pay for the ticket to fly, then pay $15 to check my suitcase and gods help me if I've got a second suitcase... Now I can't even get a glass of water in the overly dehydrated overly recycled plague air that is the aircraft's air supply without it costing money.

There's a difference between charging more for what needs to be charged for, and charging to nickle and dime.

Because they don't want to raise ticket prices, because that's what gets compared with other airlines when customers are shopping. I agree that simply raising ticket prices makes things easier for the customer, but the airlines are trying to survive. They can get killed either by not raising prices or by raising prices and dying faster as no one flies with them.

[B4UTRUST]

That would make sense, however we've already seen multiple times that whenever s big airlines die, the US government is right there to pull it out of bankruptcy. So really, what's the risk to them?

Like I said, they're going to nickle and dime themselves to death. They'll charge so much for such stupid shit that use to be free or so low cost as to be inconsequential that nobody will fly with them anyhow and they'll end up in the same spot they would have if they had slapped a $100 misc. costs fee onto tickets. Probably worse, because then people would have shrugged their shoulders and flown anyway because it's the cost of the ticket, not the little shit.

[Cpl Kendall]

Welcome to Canada circa 2000 which I think was the last time I got a free anything on a flight, they even charge for pillows now.

[Ace Pace]

Thats kinda odd. Outside the cheaper contract flyers in Europe, we still get mostly free stuff. More interestingly, your prices are still damn low compared to european flights.

Maybe it's just the north american market catching up to the European one in terms of pricing?

[Derek Thunder]

My guess is that the price of fuel in Europe has always been high, and that airlines operating in the Eurozone have factored in high prices as a core part of their business model, whereas U.S. airlines have only recently been faced with rising fuel costs.

[Cynical Cat]

That would make sense, however we've already seen multiple times that whenever s big airlines die, the US government is right there to pull it out of bankruptcy. So really, what's the risk to them?

The US government might save you from bankruptcy isn't the model for a profitable business. They've bailed some out before, but not all and they might not do so again. And that's after taking staggering losses. They want to be profitable. I agree with you its a shitty way to go, but the way the airline industry is so fucked up and unprofitable, desperation moves like this are going to be more common.

[frigidmagi]

Bailing out the airlines may not be something that the government can politically afford after recent flare ups. It seems to me that the voter is losing tolerance for that.

Granted the voters may not do shit about it, but will Congress risk that?

[B4UTRUST]

Maybe, maybe not. The excuse, if I recall correctly has usually been somewhere along the lines of "they provide a invaluable service that we depend on and absolutely need and without them would be at a catastrophic disadvantage economically as well as globally and internationally (yes, that was intentional). So we're helping out the airlines so they in turn can help us."

And no, they don't bail out all of them, just the bigger ones. U.S. Airways is one of the bigger ones, as is United, Delta, and American. So chances are they're probably a good bet to get pulled out.

However, it doesn't mean they will, you're right. *shrugs* We'll see. For the time being I'm going to hold by my statement that when they're done nickle and dimeing us to death they'll find out they've nickled and dimed themselves to death too. We've seen that the breaking point for regular gas is about $4 a gallon here in the U.S. I'm sure we'll find the breaking point for what we let the airlines take us for soon enough.

My biggest fear, however, is with the uprises in fuel surcharges, ticket costs, and all these little fees of $15 here, $5 there, $10 over there that the total cost to fly will get so outrageous that only the businesses that truely need to do it and the rich will be doing it, just like it was in the beginning. May not mean much to a lot of people who live closer to home, but I know I'm a 5 hour flight from where I live to my parents house if I wanted to go visit. That's about 17-18 hours in a car. Not exactly something easy to do in an emergency and not cheap to do for a trip. I'm afraid it'll get to the point where driving or flying anywhere far is so expensive in overall costs that people won't be able to do that. That sounds like some paranoid wackjob statement I'm sure, but seriously. I make decent money ofr someone of my age and my education and I know I sure as hell couldn't afford to go do those things anymore without quite a few months of saving and putting shit back.

[The Cleric]

I heard that one of the airlines was going to start charging people for an extra seat if they are over like 230 pounds.... Guess who doesn't make the cut? Moi.....

One, fuel costs, and two, it's very uncomfortable to sit next to someone who's half into your seat (not to mention the excess heat radiating off of them) for an 8 hour flight.

[Hotfoot]

I clock in at 6'1" and 250 pounds. I fit just fine into one seat on an airplane.

And excess heat? Really? Come on.

[Derek Thunder]

And excess heat? Really? Come on.

Intense emission of infrared radiation. It's the reason why fan conventions are used as a standard method of calibration for thermal imaging cameras. For example, the thermal emission spectrometer used on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was calibrated at Anthrocon '04 before being attached to the orbiter platform.

[B4UTRUST]

And excess heat? Really? Come on.

Intense emission of infrared radiation. It's the reason why fan conventions are used as a standard method of calibration for thermal imaging cameras. For example, the thermal emission spectrometer used on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was calibrated at Anthrocon '04 before being attached to the orbiter platform.

Humor aside, no it's not. We use specially designed collimators that allow us to precisely control the internal temp of the air in relation to the standing room temp which allows the camera to pick out our alignment targets. Just pointing this out since I do work on them for the military.

And yeah, Hotfoot, you ever sat next to a huge fat guy for hours? One side of your body is fairly warm and the other side isn't... Take a guess as to which side is which.

However, the Airlines trying to base ticket prices on weight are opening themselves up to discrimination lawsuits. All it takes is one McLardass blubbering to his lawyer about how the nasty airlines charged him for two seats due to a 'legitimate medical problem' and youv'e got yourself a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

And that aside, weight of passengers does factor into fuel efficency and other things on aircraft. We have to do weight and balances on every aircraft prior to take off and account for ever piece of baggage, every person and every piece of equipment installed on board and you have to write up the aircraft for a weight and balance check every time you pull a piece of equipment for servicing or replacement. So there is some truth to a person's weight affecting the plane.

However, I think it's more of a thing of fat people taking up too much room on planes in comparison to other people who aren't obese cows. If you need the extra room, make em pay for first class where it's four seats per row, two per side and spaced fairly far apart considering and fairly roomy between you and the seat back in front of you. Because gods know I don't want to sit next to Patty Pregosaurus who's smuggling a bathtub of jello under her mumu while claiming it's A) Glandular B) big boned C) Thyroid or D) pregnant with triplets. or E) all of the above. Because then I'm stuck on a flight next to a revolting wheezing disgusting fatass who's blubber is rolling over the armrest, who cant get the seatbelt over her three stomaches and then has the nerve to try to 'squeeze' past you to go to the bathroom every 20 minutes when all you want to do is close your eyes, listen to some music and try to sleep and ignore the beached whale flying next to you. Getting smacked with what I could hope was a mammoth double-T breast and not a 30lb roll of chest fat that was confined in one of her three bras but had somehow escaped the girdle as Shamu tries to 'squeeze' (read: roll/waddle) is disgusting and just wrong. Though there is some redeeming qualities to this via the entertainment of watching her dining room table of an ass scrape the sides of both aisle seats as she waddles. And then the Fatty McFucktons have the gall to get pissed when you try to forcefully push their flab into their own seat and out of yours.

Honestly, I'm all for charging extra for large people. You can't do it by sheer weight but you need to do it by dimensional size. You can be 6'1 - 6'3, weigh 250lbs and be healthy and in great shape and fit into an averaged size seat no problem and you don't have to pay for two chairs. But if you need a seperate chair for each half of your ass then you need to pay for two seats instead of making the guy next to you suffer. But like I said, as soon as it happens there'll be a lawsuit more likely then not.

[Hotfoot]

All people throw off body heat. Christ, I've felt more body heat from a 5'4" skinny rail of a girl than a 6'4" 290lb man. I'm not attacking the increased cost for body weight (though it can be insulting, that's not a reason NOT to do it), I'm attacking the idea that someone can't be over 200lb and not fit in a coach seat on a plane, which is retarded, or that sitting next to someone who is overweight but not obese is such a horrible affront to someone. That's retarded bullshit. You might as well charge extra for kids that kick the chairs in front of them, or stupid motherfuckers who don't shut up about their business deals.

And yes, if you're so fat that you literally cannot fit into a normally sized chair, you should be charged more, because that's a seat you can't sell to someone else.

So here's the next question: if they charge more for overweight people, shouldn't they charge less for people who are underweight? It's academic, because flight is going to go down a very deep hole very shortly as people give the airlines the big middle finger, and tourism industries all over the world tank.

[B4UTRUST]

You might as well charge extra for kids that kick the chairs in front of them, or stupid motherfuckers who don't shut up about their business deals.

I could get behind that. If your fucktrophy can't behave you should be penalized for your inability to properly raise and correct your mistake when it acts out. I hate when this happens in restraunts and I hate it more when it's on planes. At least in a restraunt I have the option of leaving. Hard to leave a plane at 30,000ft up. As for those constant assmongers who won't shut the fuck up, sure charge them more too. Then maybe we could have some peace and fucking quiet on the plane.

So here's the next question: if they charge more for overweight people, shouldn't they charge less for people who are underweight? It's academic, because flight is going to go down a very deep hole very shortly as people give the airlines the big middle finger, and tourism industries all over the world tank.

But they won't be charging for overweight, they're charging based on size (or should at least). Basically if you're flab fills a seat and a half you have to pay for both seats. If it doesn't, you pay for the one seat you occupy. Like I said, you can be in great shape and weigh 250lbs. But oh well. One lawsuit will end that and drive prices up even more.

[Hotfoot]

I'll tell you what will end this faster than any lawsuit from someone who's too bulky (which probably won't happen, this practice has been in place for a while), it's the charging for WATER. We're not allowed to bring drinks with us (3 oz. limit) and now they're charging us for FUCKING WATER. In a place where we can't get a sip of anything other than what they serve us for hours on end.

One health problem from that, even a minor one, and there are grounds for a lawsuit that could very well end a company.

[Rukia]

I heard that one of the airlines was going to start charging people for an extra seat if they are over like 230 pounds.... Guess who doesn't make the cut? Moi.....

One, fuel costs, and two, it's very uncomfortable to sit next to someone who's half into your seat (not to mention the excess heat radiating off of them) for an 8 hour flight.

I fit just fucking fine in ONE seat thank you very fucking much. I shouldn't be charged for two seats because I weight 235.

And yes, if you're so fat that you literally cannot fit into a normally sized chair, you should be charged more, because that's a seat you can't sell to someone else.

That I can agree with, because that makes sense. But if you are going to charge more because the plane will be heavier, then charge every fucking person the same. This is a big problem waiting to happen, because the first time they try and charge me for an extra seat that I clearly do NOT need, I will throw a fit. Keep your eyes out for me on the news there will be blood.

[B4UTRUST]

That I can agree with, because that makes sense. But if you are going to charge more because the plane will be heavier, then charge every fucking person the same. This is a big problem waiting to happen, because the first time they try and charge me for an extra seat that I clearly do NOT need, I will throw a fit. Keep your eyes out for me on the news there will be blood.

If they are doing it based on weight it probably won't be a case of charging for an extra seat, but rather an additional fee for every x amount of pounds over a certain weight. Which might open it up for a 'discount' to underweighted individuals but not likely because it still takes a minimum amount of fuel/energy to achieve and continue flight, however additional weight increases the requirement. They could use this as a justification to charge x amount per weight grouping, however it would be very unpopular as it affects the extremely tall as well as the fatasses of the world though it doesn't discriminate against either really as it's not based on age, sex, religion, etc. It'd be labeled as a 'weight to fuel ratio requirement' fee or some such nonsense.

[frigidmagi]

BBC

US carrier United Airlines has said 950 - about 14% - of its pilots will lose their jobs as spiralling fuel costs and weak consumer spending hit earnings.

The job cuts are in addition to existing plans to eliminate 1,600 positions from the firm's workforce.

Staff numbers must be scaled back as United Airlines reduces the number of services it offers, the firm said.

Since oil prices passed $135 a barrel, jet fuel costs have sent the whole airline industry reeling.

Many airlines have made a series of radical moves to survive, including charging passengers to check in their first piece of luggage and raising the price of air fare tickets.

A number have already collapsed, including UK airline Silverjet and budget carrier Oasis Hong Kong.

Earlier this month, United it said it would ground 100 planes, leading to a 17%-18% cut in domestic capacity and a 4-5% reduction in international capacity.

"As we take actions to enable United to compete in an environment of record fuel prices, we must take the difficult but necessary step to reduce the number of people we have to run our business," the Chicago-based carrier said in a statement.

Yep they're using all the pages of the handbook here. Raise prices, cut costs. I wonder if it will be enough?

[Ace Pace]

Slashdot is carrying a review of a pretty timely book, Terminal Chaos, about the current state of U.S. air traffic control and through it, air traffic.

I'll quote snippets of the review.

The reasons for the meltdown in the air traffic system are complex. The book names a number of reasons for today's chaos. Some of these include airline deregulation, multiple governmental agencies with no central oversight or responsibility, multiple corporate entities with conflicting agendas, an air traffic controllers union resisting change, a technologically outdated air traffic control system, and more.

While the public perception in the US is that somewhere out there, government officials are looking out for passenger's rights, the reality is there is no one looking out for them. Unlike their European counterparts, air travelers in the US have very few rights. This lack of passenger advocacy along with the other reasons has a huge impact on the economy, in addition to the costs that flight delays and cancellations cost U.S. travelers, which are estimated annually at over $3 billion.


The government regulated business model is unstable and irrational and planes are purposely overbooked, flights are cancelled for no publicly explainable reason, and no one will offer the flier a sound reason for why these events occur.

Other research shows that slot exemption, weight-based landing fees and other issues combine to lead to inefficient use of airport capacity, especially as slot-controlled airports, such as O'Hare, Kennedy, Newark, LaGuardia and Atlanta.

Ultimately, the book notes that the air traffic control problems exist in the fact that there is a perfect storm of airlines, airports, government agencies (FAA, DOT, OMB, DHS), White House and Congress, all of which seem to believe that they don't have the responsibility to fix the problem. Each seems to be waiting for someone else to take charge.