Florida-based Spirit Airlines has announced it will charge a $5 fee for passengers who ask an agent to print their boarding pass at the airport.
You can bypass the fee by checking in online and printing your own boarding pass, or by checking in at an airport kiosk — for now. (Starting next summer, boarding passes at airport kiosks will cost $1.)
How about we go back to rail?
I don’t really say this in jest. Let’s slow down, go back to rail and good by to TSA.
‘fraid TSA would just follow us.
And I I seriously doubt that a short-on-funds monopoly would forget any fund-raising add-on fee tricks learned by those struggling in a semi-competitive market.
[blockquote] How about we go back to rail?
I don’t really say this in jest. Let’s slow down, go back to rail and good by to TSA. [/blockquote]From your keyboard to God’s in-box. Air travel is one of the most uncivilized methods of transportation ever invented.
Ah, TSA and Homeland Security, the American Gestapo. Ben Laden truly did win. We sacrificed our Constitution and set up a police state.
Actually, if we’re eight to ten hours from our destination, my wife and I prefer to drive……and experience some spectacular scenery, some lighthouses, and good food along the way. Nice!
I took the train for my vacation by in May, and it was fabulous. If I never have to fly again, I’ll die a happy man.
C’mon people. There is a reason that airplanes did away with passenger trains. You can wax nostalgic all you like about train travel, but in short order you would hate the extraordinary waste of time. Trains are too slow. Trains are too restricted in where they can travel. I can get pretty much anywhere in the US inside of 8 hours using air travel. That will never be duplicated with trains. Trains are on fixed two-dimensional routes and have to make frequent stops. They all have to use the same rails. There is limited space on which to build rails. Trains simply cannot provide the speed and flexibility of aircraft, and that is why airline industry killed the passenger train inside a decade.
carl
OK, then my wife and I will fly…….but mainly in a Bonanza owned and flown by a good friend of ours, who, BTW, flies for both United Airlines and the California Air National Guard (he flies C-130s). Needless to say, he has 10,000 hours of flying time. And we can still see the scenery! We pay for the gas and oil.
And I know the controls and the radio.
Let’s see — they charge for baggage, they charge large sums if you need to change plans or if you buy a refundable ticket, they charge for refreshments, and now they’re charging for a simple boarding pass. What on Earth is next? Pay toilets on the aircraft?
Heh, which reminds me of a funny story. I was somewhere in London and really had to go. i found public toilets but there was a turnstile and you had to deposit (I believe it was) 20 pence. It had to be the exact amount and no one was on duty providing change. As I danced around fit to burst and tried to find the correct amount in my purse, a sympathetic British woman came up to me, handed me the 20 p, and said sympathetically, “Go on, luv. Have a pee on me!” Was I ever grateful. She then proceeded to apologize for the “bloody stupid” practice of charging to use the facilities and how off-putting it must be to visitors. I assured her that I wasn’t offended but it did catch me off-guard, lol.
I really love the English! Lovely, helpful people.
It’s true that trains are slower, but you also know that going in. It’s more leisurely. There’s a diner car with excellent food. Porters that help carry bags. There are no security pat downs. You get breaks at various stations to get out an smoke, if that’s your thing. And I got to my destination as quickly as if I had driven.
Now, it is true that there are limited destinations you can get to by train, and if you are in such a hurry that you need to be there yesterday, then trains probably aren’t for you. However, trains are much more environmentally friendly than planes or cars. Let’s face it, jet fuel is extremely expensive to make and produce and creates huge pollution per capita. I’d highly recommend trains myself, but they aren’t for everyone.
[blockquote]Trains are much more environmentally friendly than planes or cars.[/blockquote] Trains and planes both suffer from the same defect. They can only take you to a terminal. They cannot take you to your destination. Once you arrive at the terminal, you must acquire some other means of transportation. Typically this means a rental car, or perhaps a taxi depending upon your requirements. So the train does not eliminate the need for a car. It simply keeps you from using the car on long-distance constant high-speed travel where the car is most efficient.
Transportation is a cost. There is usually no value accrued in transit. People travel to a location for a purpose. Long transportation times simply delay achievement of that purpose. On rare occasions people will travel for the experience of the trip, but travelers are typically not willing to sacrifice time at the destination for the experience of traveling. This is why trains gave way so quickly to aircraft. Planes allow passengers to travel directly to their destination. They allow one departure terminal to offer direct flights to many different destinations. They travel at better than ten times the speed and do not suffer from the need to stop at intervening destinations. All in all they are a much more economical means of transportation.
carl
[blockquote]They travel at better than ten times the speed and do not suffer from the need to stop at intervening destinations.[/blockquote]
I’ll remember that the next time I have a 6 hour layover at a cramped airport in the middle of nowhere.
I gotta go with carl on this. I’d LOVE to take the train, but from Atlanta (one of the great rail hubs, at least for freight) taking the trai to one of the two direct destinations, New Orleans or Washington DC, is more expensive than flying and slower (though not by much) than driving. To go anywhere else I have to pass through one of those cities. My wife and I went to NOLA a few months ago, and have a wedding in DC this fall. I thought what a perfect opportunity to travel by rail. Ha! Even with all their wretched fees, air travel was cheaper than AmTrak. But we’re driving which is cheaper still, doesn’t require us to rent a car, and avoids all the TSA hassle too. And faster than the train. Train beats car going much further than DC, but at that point airlines become a no-brainer.
Teatime2 regarding post #9, [url=http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/not-an-april-fools-joke-ryanair-moving-ahead-with-pay-toilets/]yes[/url].
By the way, Spirit Air is mentioned in this story too for charging for carry-ons.
Archer_of_the_Forest
Assume three men want to travel east from Los Angeles. One man wants to go to Chicago. Another wants to go to Washington DC. A third wants to go to NYC. If they were to travel by train, they would each purchase a ticket on the same train. The trip would take two days to reach Chicago, and three days to reach NYC. All passengers would have to stop at all intervening destinations. The man going to NYC must first travel to Chicago whether he wants to or not. By plane, each man purchases a ticket on a separate airliner. One man arrives in Chicago three hours after departure. Another arrives in DC six hours after departure. A third arrives is NYC six hours after departure. Each man’s schedule is independent of the others. This is the efficiency that is purchased by air travel.
Now, you are correct that you might have an extended layover when you have to change flights. But those layovers are short compared to the travel time on rail. In addition, airliners have much greater flexibility in re-routing passengers when problems arise. A few days ago, my flight into Chicago was canceled by severe winds at O’Hare. The Airline simply re-routed me through Dallas and I got home about seven hours later than planned. It was not a pleasant day, but a train could not have matched that flexibility. They simply cannot offer the volume of trips to the varied destinations that airlines can offer.
carl
Teatime, greetings from London. This comment takes me off-piste, I know, but I could not resist it. Glad a lady came to your help. We Brits when caught short like that tend to look for a pub or a McDonalds. McDonalds loos (ie toilets): a great public boon.
This is an interesting conversation.
Over the past four years my “drive time radius” has increased from 8 hours to between 10-12. If a destination is within a 10-12 hour drive radius, I’ll drive rather than fly — and I’ll get there in the same time as it requires to get to the airport an hour early [not the two hours that are usually required], do a stop at a hub, then fly again, then rent the car and get to the actual destination. Not to mention the 40% chance [this is my own “personal chance” — not the airport stats] that there will be a significant delay on the tarmac or with the plane that will cause an immensely inconvenient and horrific delay.
None of the above includes the fact that the transit experience is much more refreshing for driving and my arrival is far far more relaxed.
Nevertheless, anything that is 12 hours or more is a lost cause — I gotta fly unless I have time to spare. And even then I’ve lost “work time” unless I go by train.
I think the alternative “competition” to traditional airline travel is going to eventually be the charter/commuter jet alternative. Just as FedEx/UPS/couriers have battle-axed the Post Office, I think that commuter jet travel is going to end up being a HUGE competitive option to the airlines in the coming 10-12 years. Right now, the cost is a bit too high — just as UPS and FEDex were 25 years ago. But the costs will come down and more and more people will be willing to pay the higher cost in exchange for less time, more convenience, directer flights [some of these places specialize in *any* regional airport], and no TSA, which is basically a repulsive activity that people endure in order to fly via government-regulated airspace.
The trip I took this week was very typical.
1. Depart for the airport at 2:55 pm for a 4:20 flight.
2. Two hour flight. Arrive at hub about 6:20 pm
3. Two-hour lay-over. Depart at 8:20 pm.
4. Arrive at destination at 9:55 pm. Get luggage and rental car.
5. Check in at the hotel about 10:30 pm.
Total time: 7:35
The driving distance for this trip would be around 720 miles, which Goggle maps lists as a 12:30 drive time not counting stops. My return trip was colossally impacted by weather. My early morning morning flight was delayed until noon, and my 1:30pm arrival time at home was extended to 8:30 pm. If I had started driving at the time I would have originally departed for the airport (5:30 am), the drive time home would have been about a push – perhaps still favoring the airline if you count stops for restaurants and gasoline stations. On average, an airline will significantly shorten your travel time over a twelve-hour drive.
If you are traveling to a destination that is not a hub, then the optimum cross-over point should be somewhere around 450 miles. (7.5 hours x 60 mph) If you are traveling to a hub, then there really is no trade. You would have to be so close to the hub that you wouldn’t even consider flying.
carl
Thank God I don’t have to fly anywhere on business! I’ll stick with my nice comfortable minivan and an occasional flight with our friend and his Beech Bonanza. Avgas is cheaper than jet fuel, too.
You are lucky with that friend. A quick search shows Bonanzas run around $200,000 and up.
Carl, I would say this for railroads, stations tend to be in the historic heart of each community rather than on the edge like airports. Take Sacramento for example. The airport is several miles north of town with no reliable public transportation. The historic Amtrak depot is in the center of downtown, walking distance to hotels, the state capitol and the Old Sacramento historic district. There is a similar dynamic in many other cities as well. So it isn’t necessarily the case that you have the same ground transportation issues as with air travel. It depends on the nature of the destination. For many tourist and business destinations, the train puts you right where you want to be, downtown.
Ultimately I’m with Sarah, a day’s drive away and I’ll make the drive. Much further and I’ll fly, unless I’m in the mood (as I frequently am) for a road trip or rail travel. Amtrak and Greyhound are unfortunately not nearly as practical or as cost efficient here in the West. But when I lived in the Northeast, I frequently took Amtrak between Boston, NYC, and DC.
The wild card is conservative’s favorite punching bag high-speed rail. If it ever comes to fruition in California, it could be a tempting alternative depending on ticket cost.