AIRLINES GO GREEN
Jan. 31st, 2009 03:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mhuzzellBy actively discouraging people from flying!
Yes, you read that right. Apparently acknowledging that the only truly 'green' solution for the airline industry is dissolution, several major airlines have been heaping on the fees and surcharges for their passengers -- a move which, on top of all the increased and ever-increasing hassle of security checks over the last 7 years can only be interpreted as deliberate attempts to scare away their own business. A selfless, climate-saving gesture.
It may be old news to some but I found this out just recently, as I am currently on a 3-week visit to the US, my first trip back in over a year. I'm splitting my time between Massachusetts and North Carolina, and although I'd wanted to take the train down, my dad was pressuring me to take a plane instead, seeing as the train takes 15 hours and costs $95, and he'd found a flight for $60 -- though that flight turned out to stop over in Pennsylvania, and while I just barely managed to choke down my principles to take one flight, I could never have stomached two. Besides which, that $60 was actually $70-something with taxes; anyway I ended up getting a flight that cost $83 (with taxes), only $12 cheaper than the train.
Or so I thought. But no. With TSA anti-liquid regulations now making it pretty much impossible to fly without checking at least one bag, 5 major airlines are now charging $15 to check a bag on a domestic flight ($25 for a second)! Plus it costs $3.50 to even leave the Boston airport.
Well done, guys. Between this and the "security" shenanigans, people may just stop taking domestic flights. Why, just today I saw a local news report saying that the RDU airport is experiencing drastically reduced traffic. If this keeps up, it can only be a good thing for the environment. It could even be a good thing for the economy, if all those lost jobs and unrealised revenues could be redirected into high-speed rail...
P.S. To pre-empt you: yes, my transatlantic-travelling suitcase is small enough to carry on, were it not for the damn liquids ban.
Yes, you read that right. Apparently acknowledging that the only truly 'green' solution for the airline industry is dissolution, several major airlines have been heaping on the fees and surcharges for their passengers -- a move which, on top of all the increased and ever-increasing hassle of security checks over the last 7 years can only be interpreted as deliberate attempts to scare away their own business. A selfless, climate-saving gesture.
It may be old news to some but I found this out just recently, as I am currently on a 3-week visit to the US, my first trip back in over a year. I'm splitting my time between Massachusetts and North Carolina, and although I'd wanted to take the train down, my dad was pressuring me to take a plane instead, seeing as the train takes 15 hours and costs $95, and he'd found a flight for $60 -- though that flight turned out to stop over in Pennsylvania, and while I just barely managed to choke down my principles to take one flight, I could never have stomached two. Besides which, that $60 was actually $70-something with taxes; anyway I ended up getting a flight that cost $83 (with taxes), only $12 cheaper than the train.
Or so I thought. But no. With TSA anti-liquid regulations now making it pretty much impossible to fly without checking at least one bag, 5 major airlines are now charging $15 to check a bag on a domestic flight ($25 for a second)! Plus it costs $3.50 to even leave the Boston airport.
Well done, guys. Between this and the "security" shenanigans, people may just stop taking domestic flights. Why, just today I saw a local news report saying that the RDU airport is experiencing drastically reduced traffic. If this keeps up, it can only be a good thing for the environment. It could even be a good thing for the economy, if all those lost jobs and unrealised revenues could be redirected into high-speed rail...
P.S. To pre-empt you: yes, my transatlantic-travelling suitcase is small enough to carry on, were it not for the damn liquids ban.
