Posted on 07/30/2010 11:24:14 AM PDT by Willie Green
Domestic airline fares across the U.S. jumped 4.7 percent in the first quarter of 2010, compared with the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported on Wednesday.
The increase only includes the airline fares and not baggage handling fees or extra fees paid to take carry-on items onto the aircraft.
In the first quarter of 2010, prices were down around 25 percent compared with an inflation-adjusted average price of $435 during the first quarter of 1999—the all-time high for airfares, the Bureau said. Without inflation, the average price in 1999 were around $332.
Unadjusted for inflation, airline fares peaked in the third quarter of 2008 at $333. Related Articles
Average airline fares were up 2.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2009.
The Air Transport Association (ATA), a group which represents U.S. airlines, released a statement which said that consumers are getting a deal with today's relatively low prices.
The trade group noted that airlines have been hurting in the past decade, which in a statement, they dubbed the “lost decade.”
ATA President and CEO James C. May said in a statement that “for airlines to add jobs and develop new and improved service, it is critically important that they return to profitability.”
The highest average fare during the first quarter of 2010 could be found in Hunstville, Alabama and the lowest was in Atlantic City, New Jersey, the BTS report noted.
It is much more sensible for us to build passenger rail systems to more efficiently travel those "short hop" trips of less than 600 miles.
Maybe we could paint choo choo trains on the sides of airplanes and call it them high speed trains. Can you imagine the money we would save?
NC to MA by train takes all day and costs around $400. I can fly for $200 and it takes about 4.5 hours and that includes a layover in Charlotte. Flying also starts in my home city and ends where I am heading. For the train I must drive 2 hours to Raleigh, then drive an hour to my destination from Boston.
It's not worth it.
This has been a summer of flying for us - a wedding in OKC; college orientation in Denton; new grandbaby in Dallas. Flew into DFW each time - one ticket was over $300 cause my son had to fly back for school after the wedding fromOKC.
Just bought hubbie oneway to fly down and drive back with me after taking son to UNT - $114 on Delta 3 weeks advance purchase. I’m just not seeing all the increased fares - or I’m just good at shopping!
Who's "Us"... You have a mouse in your pocket,,, I'm not riding a train!
Unless I win a trip somewhere in a contest, I don’t think I’ll bother flying anymore. I’m done.
NC to MA by train takes all day and costs around $400. I can fly for $200 and it takes about 4.5 hours and that includes a layover in Charlotte. Flying also starts in my home city and ends where I am heading. For the train I must drive 2 hours to Raleigh, then drive an hour to my destination from Boston.
Both Raleigh and Charlotte are greater than 600 miles from Boston, so your objection is pretty silly.
Heck, even Lynchburg Va is 628 miles from Boston,
but even from there, Amtrak passengers can relax and enjoy a direct, 12½ hour ride to Boston for only $68. ($136 round trip.)
And with the "shovel ready" improvements currently underway, that travel time will certainly improve.
That's less expensive than competing airfares, and since none of the flights are non-stop and require making connections, the airlines don't enjoy much of a travel time advantage.
But with additional improvements to the Amtrak rail network, perhaps there will come a time (hopefully sooner than later), when you too will enjoy efficient Amtrak service from NC all the way to Boston.
You and me both. I haven’t flown since June, 2002.
RE: Airline Fares Increasing, Report Says
Let them TRY to increase airfares, as long as the government butts out of competition, I still believe it isn’t going to amount to much.
Competition will ensure that airfares remain stable or flat long term.
You missed my point. Trains don’t go from where you are to where you want to go. Aircraft and cars do.
Trains don’t go from where you are to where you want to go.
They do if you build them that way.
aircraft and cars do.
Those use too much gasoline.
Trains are more energy efficient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.