Southwest/JetBlue are looking better with every passing moment.

That isn't to say that those two airlines won't add on those fees as well, but if you're going to be nickel and dimed to death for domestic flights, might as well start off at a low price.

I can see it now
50.00 fuel surcharge
50.00 landing surcharge

They need congestion pricing. You will see downtimes or slow times for flights- so why not discount price these times and have prime time flights required to pay a fee.

Wait a minute -- the airlines already charge based on the time of the day (which is why the cheapest flights are the early morning and late-night ones). So they've been charging us in the past without having any reason to, and now that they''ve got one they'll charge more?

Spacing planes out a bit more will also lead to longer layovers at hubs, which some will hate and some (like me) will see as a good thing. I personally get nervous whenever I have a short layover, because the first flight is always a little late and then you wind up running franticly through the airport to make it to the second flight, and then you get to your destination and discover that your checked bag wasn't running as franticly as you were.

@yendi: Now it's the airports charging these fees rather than the airlines, or I should say, in addition to the airlines doing so.

Sounds good to me. I've already quit flying in the evening--just too unreliable--so I might as well get a price break as compensation for having to get up early in the morning.

@FLConsumer: The airports will charge the fees to the airlines, who will likely pass on the fees to customers.

@yendi: Airlines currently charge based on time of day for other reasons, such as market factors. Now this will be an additional fee based on congestion.

I heard about this on the radio this morning. I was infuriated. Nice to see the airlines want to curb that cost. Maybe it'll keep them competitive.

For instance on this short trip (200 Miles)- I looked up flights Huntsville (home) to Atlanta (nonstop). Total $338 per person. Driving takes 3.5 hours. I'll need to fill the tank once there, once back. Should be about $55 total no matter the occupancy by car. I Time saved by flying can be 2.5 total hours including ticketing and flying. So the question remains, is saving 2.5 hours worth $283?

@quellman: yup, it's worth it.

Unbelievable. Obviously, airports should be charging more at times of highest demand. That's what any business would do. Not doing so leads to shortages (i.e. overcrowded airports). And here the DOT has been standing in the way. What else is the DOT screwing up? It would be nice if government agencies never told anyone how much to produce or what to charge.

@yahonza: Airlines are already charging more at times of highest demands. This just means there will be an additional airport tax. What this really means is that airlines will pay less fees per passenger if they use larger equipment. So they will be able to charge lower ticket prices if they move to bigger planes with less flights during peak times.

@Geekybiker: err lower ticket prices relative to the competition that is.

@yahonza:
Yeah, it's the DOT's fault. They've been proposing this for awhile. The airlines and the airports have been fighting it. The DOT finally got tired of the foot dragging and went ahead and did it. Here's a quote from this [www.nytimes.com] article

"The airlines and the Port Authority have opposed federal transportation officials' proposals to limit flights during peak hours on the grounds that doing so would create more delays and harm New York's economy. According to participants on a committee that advises the Department of Transportation in Washington, the Bush administration has backed away from the idea of charging more for landing and taking off during peak hours and now favors auctioning off landing slots to the highest bidder, which the cash-poor airlines oppose."

@yahonza: Somehow I always got that it was more profitable in the long run to charge higher prices where costs are higher, unless there are intervening factors like trying to incite growth by lower prices on a leg of a route. I would assume that there are less costs to have more people on a plane and you do not want to discourage them by pricing too high - but at just the right amount. Obviously though this does depend on whether your airline or the general market is the factor causing the demand.

@Quellman: for a 3.5 hour drive, it would be close to a wash. After all, you have to go to the airport, park, check in, wait... board plane, fly, land, taxi to gate (at ATL no less), deplane, find either the people you're meeting or ground transport or a rental car, etc. etc.... I'm guessing that door-to-door you're looking at a similar amount of total time invested between the drive and the flight.

@Quellman: If it takes 3.5 hours to drive, and you estimate you'll save 2.5 hours driving, then you're effectively saying you can drive to airport, check in, do security, wait for plane, fly, get bags, and drive to destination (in ATL traffic) in 3.5 - 2.5 = 1.0 hour??? :-O

I'll second what gearheadgeek said. But good luck!

The way that the airlines will screw up the potential good that COULD come of this is that they'll charge it as a surcharge applied at ticketing rather than as a factor in the advertised price. So, both the flight arriving at Major Hub International at the peak traffic time and the one at the minimum traffic time will be advertised at $275, but if you book the one that arrives at the peak time (which would be more convenient for you, most likely) you'll be charged the surcharge (along with the $50 fuel surcharge that wasn't advertised in the fare.) If the actual cost is advertised up front, then some people will BUY the tickets at the trough times because their arrival time is less important to them than saving a few $. The business travelers who aren't paying for their own tickets will continue to buy the higher-priced tickets that are more convenient to them because they don't have any incentive not to.

OK I think I understand what you are saying.

TSA\Overbooking\Weather\etc. causes airlines to spend more time on the tarmac and now the airlines are passing the bill to us consumers.

Got it. Flying with crooks. Message received.

Oh good, another thing that'll make airline travel more miserable/expensive. That'll make an excellent companion to the $50 fuel surcharge. But wait, no "takeoff fees?" There's still an untapped source of revenue here!

"This is your captain speaking and welcome to United Airlines flight 305. We're flying at 30,000 feet today...oh, and by the way, we're not landing this crate until every passenger forks over fifty bucks. Wrap it in the barf bag and leave it by the cockpit door if you ever want to see the ground again."

@GearheadGeek: Or it could backfire, and the tickets for any possible convenient times will be so expensive, any of us that can't fork over the $$$ for the good tickets will be forced into flying out of the airport at 4 AM and getting back home at 1 AM.

Does this mean we'll have a new "sub-coach" class of seats, where instead of paying the $50 airport use fee they'll just hand you a parachute and kick you out of the back of the plane?

And does this mean we'll see a new wave of Consumerist articles where people complain that their 80 year-old grandmother couldn't pull the cord and all they got as compensation was a $5 off in-flight meal voucher?