Is airline travel for leisure going to remain possible/practical . . .

[defendandprotect]

considering Global Warming and/or oil prices ---

Crisis-hit airlines to lose 2.3 billion dollars this year: industry body by Celine Le Prioux

"The industry is in crisis, perhaps the biggest crisis we have ever faced," said IATA secretary general Giovanni Bisignani at the start of its general meeting in Istanbul.

"Our industry is like Sisyphus: after a long uphill journey a giant boulder of bad news is driving us back down," Bisignani said.

He warned that losses this year could total 6.1 billion dollars if oil stays around 135 dollars a barrel. The figure of 2.3 billion dollars was based on oil averaging 106.5 dollars over the year.

On Monday, oil changed hands at around 126 dollars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080602/ts_afp/airlineiataearningsoil

[defendandprotect]

1. My son and girlfriend are booked for a vacation in July ... had to pay in advance . . .

and is subject to other surcharges which may become necessary/???

[Solon]

2. Jet aircraft travel is going to become impractical for anything beyond military and emergency...

applications probably within the next 5 years, if not sooner.

[skooooo]

3. Planes are filthy places...

...I'll only go on them if I have to. This summer, I'm taking Amtrak across country. With sleeper car, it's no more expensive than a plane, you get to see the scenery and have room to move around. Can't beat it.

[onehandle]

8. Trains are pretty dirty too, but I am with you on the moving around and scenery part.

I hope the fuel prices drive interest in train travel. They could easily run more trains and modernize with investment.

[skooooo]

11. with your own little train cabin, you can...

...wipe it down and at least know that no one will be coughing all over you. I'm looking forward to it.

[onehandle]

15. That's true. The cabins are cleaner than the common areas and seating.

That's part of what you get for the extra expense.

Sounds fun!

[flowomo]

4. I just wrote my weekly newspaper column about that; take a look:

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/06/02/opinion/columns/rich_lewis/doc483c13450798c050465951.txt

[defendandprotect]

22. Train travel could be fantastic --- in fact, I doubt many people understand how great it was

post-WWII and before ---

I road the trains again in the 1970's and near had a heart attack at the condition of them
and the condition of the tracks ---

Much of America today is the GOP's "third world America" and it's been coming on since at least
the mid-1960's . . .

Imagine we don't even have mass transit for commuting that really works well ---
and look at what people are paying for it!!!

[marmar]

5. I think for average people, pleasure trips will become more of an "event".....

..... The frequent weekend getaway hops (speaking for myself especially) to places like New York, Chicago and D.C. are going to become very infrequent.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. It might bring back train travel

The airlines could save a lot of money if they eliminated most of their short-hop domestic routes and left them to the trains and buses.

[yellowdogintexas]

14. I've traveled in Europe enough to truly appreciate truly efficient train

travel.

I would love to go by train to places but trains don't go to the places I want to go!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Amtrak is treated like a prisoner in a Siberian labor camp

fed just enough to keep it alive but not enough to keep it healthy.

[defendandprotect]

23. Here in NJ, you basically have to go backwards to go anyplace you want to get to by train ---

it's ridiculous --!!

[defendandprotect]

24. The European trains I was on were great --- and the counryside wonderful ---

watching them serve pasta on a train going thru Italy!!!

And, in France, the flower plantings right up to the train rails --- !!!

[LeftyMom]

19. Train travel still costs more than flying

I keep looking, thinking I'll take a train someplace now that airfare deals are few and far between, and they still cost more than flying. It's pretty hard to justify the added expense when the travel time is so much longer, and vacation time is limited.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Our train system is ridiculously skeletal

I mean, ONE train per day between Seattle and Los Angeles? ONE train between Chicago and points west?

If this were most countries, there'd be trains at least every hour on both routes.

What trains lack in speed they make up for in comfort.

[supernova]

7. Leisurely airplain travel has been off limits for me

for the past 10 years, so :shrug:

[maxsolomon]

9. I'd rather do the following to preserve jet travel for long distance leisure:

1. improve passenger railroad service to european levels, eliminating the need for a lot of air routes (i.e. seattle-portland service).
2. stop driving personal vehicles around cities.

The fact that you can get on a plane in Seattle & be in London or Costa Rica 10 hours later is amazing & i'd rather not lose that. I'd rather give up other things to save that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. That's how I feel, too

I NEED to go to Japan to keep my language skills fresh. Reading newspapers or watching movies helps, but nothing beats actually spending time in a language's natural environment.

Fortunately, as a free-lancer, I could go on a sailing ship if I had to.

[shanti]

10. air travel

will revert back to the way it used to be - only for people with means.

[yellowdogintexas]

12. hard to say... cost effectiveness would vary and requires continual comparing

for example, to fly to Nashville with a 21 day adv purchase is still under $300

I would need approximately 6 tanks of gas to drive there and back, plus whatever local driving I might do while there. At $3.80 (lowest local price) a gallon x 14 gallons = $53.20 per tank x 6 = $319 to drive.

plus meals on the road, etc.

So for traveling alone flying is a break even on a trip that I can make in one day w/o a hotel stay.

Add in hotel stay for a longer trip, plus additional meals, etc. and flying is cheaper.

NOW for a family? Definitely going by car is less expensive.

It remains to be seen how long this will hold true.

[Speck Tater]

13. First of all...

probably 90% of the small airports that now have commercial flights will, in the next two years, not have any commercial flights as airlines cut back on routes in a desperate attempt to merely survive the rising cost of fuel.

Secondly, even if you can find an airport close to where you want to go the cost of a ticket will be ridiculous by today's standards.

[tomreedtoon]

16. Bad news: trains will be obsolete too.

Here in Florida, the legislature has effectively killed the one proposal for commuter trains. A majority of Floridians have begged and pleaded for them, but they would rather spend their money on legislature raises and sucking up to Big Oil.

You won't have trains to ride. You won't have busses, either, with Greyhound being a monopoly on intercity bus routes and a miserable way to travel. Face it, people, you ain't goin' nowhere. You're going to have to hold your nose and spend your lives with your spouses and children.

[GoesTo11]

20. Economics will be bad, not that bad

Airlines get about 50 passenger miles per gallon, so flying 1000 miles would be 20 gallons.

At $4/gal that's $80 dollars, vs. at $1.50/gal it's $30, so right now fuel costs are probably increasing the cost of the average domestic flight by $50 more than a couple years ago. For international flights, a couple hundred extra.

That will make a difference on some flights, but probably not that much. Business travel will be unaffected, and wealthy traveler too. Weekend travelers might feel it, but I doubt their numbers will decrease that much - especially since the alternative of driving vacations has gone up too. If gas goes to $15.gal, then we're talking something close to doubling the price of travel.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. A B747 gets about 5-7 mpg but carries 500 people

Transatlantic jets burn between 2.5 and 3 tons of fuel per hour. In 1988, commercial aircraft consumed an estimated 70 percent of all jet fuel (with military and business craft accounting for another 24 percent). The world's aircraft currently produce about 3 percent the carbon dioxide (CO2) gases attributed to human activity.

During takeoff, a jumbo jet can devour 2 million liters (528,344 gallons) of air per second. In the first five minutes of flight, a commercial airliner can burn as much oxygen as 49,000 acres of forest produce in a day. According to Department of Transportation figures, flying a Boeing 747-400 from Washington, DC to San Francisco burns 17,232 gallons of jet fuel. (Fuel efficiency: 6.7 mpg). A Boeing 747 averages 32 minutes taxiing, taking off and landing. During this time, it can generate 190 pounds of NOx — equal to the amount produced by driving a car 53,500 miles.

http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=219&journalID=47

[El Pinko]

26. None of the Above - More effecient planes are coming online...

...I think that eventually the airlines will be the only ones consuming much petrol as cars, etc. increasingly move towards other forms of energy.

In order to be even remotely viable, passenger planes need to carry a lot of passengers to recoup the costs of fuel. So there is a limit to how high the price of tickets can go. So I think newer more efficient planes as well as making sure to not fly planes when they are half full are going to be crucial in the future.