Bought groceries in Santa Monica today... I try to remember not to do that. No plastic bags.

I love plastic bags! I use them like 3 times. (Groceries home, sandwich to work at least once [and sometimes then to wrap cheese or fruit in the fridge], and then garbage in the kitchen before it goes out into the bin.) Mother Earth shouldn't give me a hard time about this. She gets tremendous value from my thoughtful of plastic grocery bags.

No plastic grocery bags in Santa Monica, city rules.

Paper 10¢ each.

Also, someone here used to recommend sending luggage through Federal Express, even to international destinations: He said it was a reasonable price for a much more likely delivery.

I like the Federal Express idea. Every time I go to Asia, they fuck it up. Last time I was going to Japan and they sent my shit to China.

"sandwich to work at least once"

God damn. I really want a sammie now.

I like the Federal Express idea. Every time I go to Asia, they fuck it up. Last time I was going to Japan and they sent my shit to China.

"sandwich to work at least once"

God damn. I really want a sammie now.

Amy,

At it's briefest, I believe it's the commerce clause, correctly used for once, and it is right there in the Constitution, at least so far as Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce.

More deeply,

The airlines routes are deregulated, but the airlines themselves are still very close to monopoly/semipublic utility given that they largely exist solely due to:

a) taxpayer funded airports
b) taxpayer funded FAA
c) taxpayer funded airways
d) taxpayer funded NASA research

Lots of taxpayer funding in there.

There is probably no way to avoid that, and that IS the way our elected government on our behalf has decided to allocate the citizen's resources and so it does give the taxpayer a reason to say woah, we'd like a bit more truth in advertising.

I think Congress can reasonably determine that when citizens and business can accurately determine beforehand their ticket prices, that commerce is enhanced and increases.

Actually the (faux-)Nobel Prize in Economics went to George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph E. Stiglitz for their work in information asymmetry, similar to the intentionally confusing ways that airlines price tickets these days.

So that's my two cents, you folks can now call me a useful idiot commie, but I say screw Delta until they come up with their own airport, towers, controllers, airways.

If the airlines weren't so regulated, there probably wouldn't be a charge. If they could charge what it really cost to fly my fat ass around they probably wouldn't nickel and dime everything.

The People's Republic of Santa Monica plastic bag thing is annoying as hell.

"At it's briefest, I believe it's the commerce clause, correctly used for once, and it is right there in the Constitution, at least so far as Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce."

Jesus H. Christ, not this argument again. The intent of the Commerce Clause is to prevent states from taxing imports from other states. Period. It is not a blank check for Congress to do whatever the fuck they want.

And... it's not like all the airlines got together and decided that this was going to be the industry-wide rule. Southwest has made it a major point in their advertising that they don't charge baggage fees! Who wants to go tell them that they can't do that, because all airlines have to charge whatever the government says to charge?

"but I say screw Delta until they come up with their own airport, towers, controllers, airways."

This is precisely what the railroads did in their early days. Each major railroad had its own terminal, and it wasn't unusual for larger cities to have 4-5 railroad terminals in different parts of town. Guess who didn't like that arrangement? Government. They deemed it "inefficient", and cities like Chicago forced the railroads to consolidate their terminal facilities. That's why so many cities have a Union Station.

"...similar to the intentionally confusing ways that airlines price tickets these days."

It's only confusing because you don't know the model.

When margins are low - and they are, travel is the cheapest it's been in a long time, you can spend more on gas for your car taking some trips - you have to use a fancy scheduler to plan plane loading.

Obviously, the best arrangement is for every plane to be fully loaded on every flight. So, they sell by class and by immediacy of need. Leave one or two 1st-class seats open for last-minute fliers, charge a lot. Charge a little for economy class, less for booking long time in advance, oversell by a few to compensate for no-shows. Business class? Charge more for the guarantee of not being bumped. Matrix all this with the flight control center at the airline, which sets up who can fly from where to where and may cut or add passengers by changing routes, or reassigning planes.

If you think buying a ticket is tough, just get out a piece of paper and plot the movement of a hundred planes around several nations. Let a plane sit, or fly with an empty seat, you lose money. Airports close for the night, so look out.

And the plane can't leave the ground until it has a landing slot confirmed for it at the destination. The "flight plan" isn't even filed by the pilots.

Meanwhile, today you have more options to go more places for less money than ever before. See Salon.com, and Ask The Pilot.

BASICS indeed! I have decided that upon my ascension to Congress I will vote against any bill with a Cute Acronym.

The precedent for federally mandating prices is fairly old, which does not mean it's right, just that the Constitution stopped mattering to Democrats a long time ago.

[lemme quote here]
A more dramatic jailing was that of 49-year-old Jacob Maged of Jersey City, New Jersey. Maged had been pressing pants for 22 years, and his low prices and quality work had kept him competitive with larger tailor shops in the better parts of town. The NRA Cleaners and Dyers Code demanded that he charge 40 cents to press a suit. Maged, despite repeated warnings, insisted on charging his customers only 35 cents. “You can’t tell me how to run my business,” he insisted.
http://tiny.cc/s5nmy
Apparently they can tell you how to run your business. "Not only was Maged thrown in jail, he was also slapped with a $100 fine."

(ouch, that spam filter is a beastly little thing.)

Many airlines consider checking a bag not to be a right, but a privilege - and one with a hefty fee attached. The Airline Passenger BASICS Act will guarantee passengers one checked bag without the financial burden of paying a fee

Are these people *really* that stupid? Pass this law, and the airlines will include bag fees into the fares they charge. Then everybody pays the fee, even those who don't check bags.

Unless the airlines have found a way around the laws of physics, it costs money to transport bags. Saying that "Bags fly free" is not the same as actually being able to do it at no cost (I'm looking at you, Southwest).

""but I say screw Delta until they come up with their own airport, towers, controllers, airways."

This is precisely what the railroads did in their early days. Each major railroad had its own terminal, and it wasn't unusual for larger cities to have 4-5 railroad terminals in different parts of town. Guess who didn't like that arrangement? Government. They deemed it "inefficient", and cities like Chicago forced the railroads to consolidate their terminal facilities. That's why so many cities have a Union Station."

Like it or not Aviation and Air Travel are heavily depending on government/taxpayer subsidized research, implementation and control.

Do you like safe airplanes? Well constructed runways? Well designed runway lights?

Radio communications? VORs (radio beacon)? GPS? Radar controlled airways? Glideslopes?

Research into icing? Research into flutter? Research into how to keep your flesh relatively safe while screaming along at 600mph and 30,000 feet?

Cause if you're flying today, that's a small part of the infrastructure you're flying with.

Moreover, if you're building an airline flying in that infrastructure, that's the kind of public investment and public subsidizing you're relying to make money. Seems a bit peculiar and lazy for you to only accept some of it, and not the rest.

No one forces Delta to fly planes. If they have better things to do with their money, they should go and do them.

If they want to fly planes, for profit, in the nation's airspace over our houses, they can accept some limits on their abilities to gouge the customers that pay for their infrastructure.

I'll put you down as advocating for laissez faire airlines flying over our houses using the invisible hand to efficiently sort out who knows how to run an airline and who knows how to buy a ticket on a safe airline from everyone else.

Should make for an upmarket for backyard bombshelters.

I'll put you down as advocating for laissez faire airlines flying over our houses using the invisible hand to efficiently sort out who knows how to run an airline and who knows how to buy a ticket on a safe airline from everyone else.

Should make for an upmarket for backyard bombshelters.

But I don't know what it will do to the airline market itself -- I suspect with no limits on what the airlines can do to get their rust buckets into the air, few people will want to fly.

"Do you like safe airplanes? Well constructed runways? Well designed runway lights?"

First of all: Listen, you dumbass punk. I've got 30 years in the aerospace biz. I know more about airplanes and airlines and flying than you ever will. I talk to FAA people and military fliers on a weekly basis. If it flies, and it's not a bird or a thrown rock, I know more about it than you. Period. So you just keep right on exposing your ignorance by lecturing to people who are smarter than you. That's the OWS spirit! Right?

Now let me ask you a question. Which government agency invented the airplane? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Two guys who repaired bicycles did that, without a dime of government money. You know who invented all of the basic concepts of routes and air traffic control? The airlines and the pilots did. The FAA only came along later. Airstrips? All privately owned in the early days. Government wanted them consolidated, so they started closing down private airstrips and opening government-owned ones. And of course, once they started doing this, they had to re-learn everything the industry had already learned about how to build airstrips, because in their infinite "we're the government and we know better" arrogance, they ignored a bunch of knowledge that had been paid for in money and blood. Find one of Gann's books and see what he had to say about Idlewild Airport in NY. The history of aviation has shown this time and time again. Don't even get me started about the time that FDR nationalized the airmail industry -- a lot of brave young men paid for that with their lives, all for the aggrandizement of a narcissist of a President.

Do you really think that government is the only entity capable of accomplishing anything? Yes that probably is what you think. But if you really think the FAA is the font of all knowledge in the aviation industry, I suggest you do a Google on "designated engineering representative".

By the way, Jerry, as it turns out, we could have all been driving hybrid cars 30 years ago had it not been for one single asshole EPA bureaucrat. So how great is government now?

Most of Amy's ire is directed at the TSA which is a government agency, not an airline so further regulating the airlines won't solve all of her woes. When I flew to Florida for vacation 4 months ago, we went on Jetblue which had 1 free bag per person (4 total) and we used every one. However, if another airline had been cheaper I would have considered consolidating our bags and then using just one 50 pound bag. If the airlines are then using the extra space to either save money on fuel or sell to the postal service, good for them. Regarding Amy's rather petite frame compared to someone such as me: They wanted to prorate passenger fees per pound but were shot down as discriminatory.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: fraud
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin fraud - fraus
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction...

"When an airline advertises a flight, that is how much it should cost, plain and simple."

That about says it all. I don't know why so many self avowed libertarians are so quick to rationalize fraud. I'm all for Capitalism, but; fraud has no place in any free market system. It's also worth noting that if airlines didn't use fraudulent advertising, and lie about ticket prices, the government wouldn't have taken action in the first place.

"That about says it all. I don't know why so many self avowed libertarians are so quick to rationalize fraud."

What's fraudulent about saying it costs $X to fly from here to there, but if you want to check a bag, there's an additional charge?

I'm sorry Dave, I never said Government was great.

I said, like it or not, our civil aviation industry was built hand in glove with enormous amounds of taxpayer assistance.

I understand you think it should all be privatized starting now. Take it up with NACA and NASA and the FAA and NHTSA and taxpayer subsidized air mail routes.

Your view, while obviously correct to you, is ahistorical and has no context, whatsoever.

Moroever, you haven't suggested any way to get around the lack of a free market here since there are not infinite numbers of runways, infinite air traffic control resources, or any of the very limited resources taxpayers have spent.

You merely whine and whinge that somehow my showing you how things came to be means I am a socialist against hybrid cars.

I'll call you a waambulance.

The actual 'flying' part of the cost of flying has actually become very cheap over the past few decades ... unfortunately every decrease in cost from the airlines has been matched by ever-increasing costly government regulations and higher taxes.

"I don't know why so many self avowed libertarians are so quick to rationalize fraud"

Someone who truly rationalizes fraud is not really a libertarian. But really, come on, are the airlines really "lying"? Who doesn't know there might be additional charges for excess baggage? If I asked if there were such charges, would they lie to me and tell me 'no'? Would it really not be in the 'fine print'? I suppose you're also one of those people who think it's "fraud" when a restaurant advertises 'all you can eat' and you don't get to share one order with three friends and also take some home.

"It's also worth noting that if airlines didn't use fraudulent advertising, and lie about ticket prices, the government wouldn't have taken action in the first place"

Bullshit. If that's all the government is worried about, then ALL they need to do is make it illegal to commit "fraud" and "lie" about ticket prices, as you claim - right? Right?

Why would they need to go further and dictate by force exactly what actual product configurations must be provided? That's like dictating to a restaurant what meals they must offer.

(Actually, I'm pretty sure fraud is already illegal, so tell me why haven't the airlines been sued to shreds for all the lying you claim they are doing? Start a class action and make millions yourself.)

It's actually the other way round, if governments weren't over-burdening the highly competitive airline industry with so much regulation and taxation, there would be less pressure to do things like charge for every bit of baggage.

"The Airline Passenger BASICS Act will guarantee passengers one checked bag without the financial burden of paying a fee"

So this act will override the laws of physics that make a plane require more fuel for more baggage? Impressive.

Actually, it will force the airline to raise the cost of ALL tickets to cover increased load costs, thereby increasing the 'financial burden' of every passenger (even more than it would have otherwise, as distributed payment responsibility of non-evenly-consumed resources results in higher individual usage), never mind cost of compliance.

These types of regulations further damage the industry by pushing smaller airlines out of business, resulting in a cycle of consolidation, reduced competition and higher prices .. unintended consequences which lead people to cry for even more government regulation to 'protect' them from the 'evil' airlines. It's the downward spiral of interventionism.

Next up, new laws compelling McDonalds to provide drinks for free with any burger.

Your view, while obviously correct to you, is ahistorical and has no context, whatsoever.
- jerry

Holy shit, congrats jerry I think you are the new winner of "The Dumbest Thing Ever Written On This Blog Award"

"correct to you"? Are you fucking kidding me?

Sorry buddy boy, facts are facts, their 'correctness' does not vary based on whether or not the person hearing them believes in them

Be thankful stupidity isnt a capital offence

"By the way, Jerry, as it turns out, we could have all been driving hybrid cars 30 years ago had it not been for one single asshole EPA bureaucrat."

This isn't all nasty. What we have been spared is the disposal of millions of main propulsion hybrid batteries - an issue I haven't seen addressed yet. They are hideously toxic.

By the way, the "Atkinson cycle" differs from the Otto cycle only in that the intake valve is allowed to let the intake charge escape back into the intake manifold. As valve and ignition timing are very carefully controlled now by microprocessors not available then, it is not reasonable to suggest that either the advances apparent today would actually apply then or that the market would support it.

It remains that the engine management computer is the reason a Prius gets good mileage. How, really, does it compare with a Corvette's ~28 MPG from package that will propel the car to 205 MPH?

A short story about what you car really does can be found here.

Manufacturers want you to buy new cars, not maintain the one you have, so the designs haven't been optimized yet. I don't think they will be.

"Your view, while obviously correct to you, is ahistorical and has no context, whatsoever."

Congratulations, Jerry. You have achieved the supreme combination of arrogance and utter stupidity that only a true Cluster B can pull off. How many hours a day do you spend looking at your reflection?

"Moroever, you haven't suggested any way to get around the lack of a free market here since there are not infinite numbers of runways, infinite air traffic control resources, or any of the very limited resources taxpayers have spent."

Umm... how about, "Because the number of people wanting to fly at any one time isn't infinite?" Your statement makes as much sense as saying that because there aren't an infinite number of Wal-Marts, the government should take over the retail sector. Do you understand anything about economics at all? Look, first of all, I am hard pressed to find anything "fraudulent" about the way airline tickets are sold today. I can go to, say, Delta's Web site, punch in my itinerary and the type of fare I want, and it gives me the price to the penny. And the bag fee is fully disclosed. I don't see anything fraudulent there. (If anything, it was worse back in the days when you had to book tickets through travel agencies. You didn't know for sure the exact fare until after the tickets had been purchased, plus some travel agencies were sly about disclosing their commissions and fees.)

If I'm going on an overnight and I can stuff everything I need in a carry-on, I don't have to pay the bag fee. If the BASICS bill passes, Delta will just raise all fares by $25, which means I'll be paying that bag fee whether I check a bag or not. It eliminates my choice.

"So this act will override the laws of physics that make a plane require more fuel for more baggage? Impressive."

It's always amazed me that transportation is one particular area where politicians always think that they can alter the fundamental economics by simply decreeing that it be so. This goes back to the days of stage lines and turnpikes.

I'm with you on bags, but not on drinks, thats a health issue on long flights..

The one thing about bags is it is beginning to be a safety hazard with the overstuffed overheads. Also, since toiletries are limited sometimes you're forced to check in. If you're going to be forbidden to bring stuff carry-on, seems a bit unfair to make you pay to check it...

"Also, since toiletries are limited sometimes you're forced to check in. If you're going to be forbidden to bring stuff carry-on, seems a bit unfair to make you pay to check it..."

That is a bit of a racket. However, if you go to some place like Target, you can find a whole bunch of stuff sold in 2-ounce quantities that are legal for carry-on. I've got a plastic bag that I keep loaded with travel-sized containers of toothpaste, hair stuff, deodorant, etc. When I'm doing an overnight trip, I grab that bag. If I'm going for more than two nights, I'm probably going to have to check a bag anyway, so then I just take my normal stuff.

The problem is that airlines are a confusopoly. When I buy a ticket, I want to know how much it costs. The airlines are deliberately gaming travel websites and misleading consumers. This is has become standard operating procedure for many large businesses.

I am not sure if this is illegal but it is certainly immoral.