No, I don't fly enough. When I do, there are no other alternative options to get me where I need to go. So I just deal with it, I guess.

I've been fed-up with flying for the past four years. If the trip is within a six to eight hour drive, I'll take the train. If no train service is available, I'll drive.

I avoid it because of surly airline workers, an utter contempt for the customer and TSA workers who are there because they failed to pass the entry exam at McDonald's.

No longer do I fly from my home in San Diego to Las Vegas. The 4:30 drive is more pleasant than the airport hassles, particularly the long security lines leaving LV. And when I fly overseas I now always drive to LA and avoid the short flight to LA or SFO for the international flights.

What kind of poll is that? how blandly generic.

Do you like puppies? Yes or No!

Yes I fly. Despite the process its still cool to sit in a plane, sit for 8-12 hours and wind up in a foreign country where I can see new people and cultures.

As far as traveling around my home in the west? Car works best...

I've been fed up with flying since they started keeping non-ticketed people off the concourse.
The shoes, lighter, and liquid bans have pretty much driven me to only fly when I absolutely have to.
That's been a grand sum total of 2 times since 2001.

I know when I visit my mom, it doesn't take too much longer to drive (10 hours). Once you add up the travel times to and from the airports, the security screening times, and the actual flight times, it takes about 8 hours to fly to see her.

Anything under 10-13 hours, I'll drive (most of the eastern US). I save flying for Europe or the Western US, out of necessity.

But my opinion has not changed on this in years--I've always disliked the airlines.

@cedarpointfan: When I need to fly, it's usually to visit family.. in which case, my two brothers out here would be going with. Rather than coughing up $500 in tickets each, we just drive now. It may be 2,300 miles each way but that's still much cheaper than flying three people, round trip when you can rotate drivers around and never stop driving.

Kind of a necessary evil, as Amtrak is even worse and gas prices are prohibitive at best.
Still, I make a concerted effort NOT to fly.

it just depends what is cheaper. If I can get a cheap train ticket that will get me where I need to go in a decent amount of time I'll take that over a double as expensive airplane ticket

@zentec: I've recently discovered the magic of trains myself: they're cheap, don't have crazy rules, you get your own power outlets, and have plenty of leg room. The only downside is they take a bit longer, but if you factor in the "get to the airport X hours ahead of time" and the time spent collecting your luggage post-flight it's actually not that bad. Flying is still the best way to get anywhere further than a state or so away though. The dozen or so extra hours I'd spend in a car are worth the security hassles to me.

We have to fly to visit family in Michigan. But we're eventually going to move back to the midwest and I can't wait to never get on a fucking plane again.

I've avoided flying lately more on the basis that planes, their seats, and airports in general are freakin' filthy.

Every time I fly I catch a nasty cold or some other virus, as well as feel totally disgusting.

Air travel has been dumbed down to be just like going on the subway. Which is fine, subways are critically useful too, but I'm not paying hundreds of dollars to feel like I'm in one in the air.

Trains rule - I just wish our rail network was more extensive so I could avoid flying all together...

Yep! I stopped flying when the TSA started dumping old white granny's from their wheelchairs for "extra screening".

Even with gas prices as high as they are (and probably going even higher) my destination would have to be more than 10-12 hours driving time away before I consider flying.

I'll now take the train to Boston from Wilmington instead of flying out of PHL. Luckily, Amtrak service on the east coast (esp. Boston to DC) isn't the disaster it is elswhere.

Last time I flew, the airplane flew to the wrong airport. And then, because we were at the wrong airport, the airline agents weren't around, so we had to sit on the plane for 30 minutes while someone called up the employees to come back in. And then we had to sit at the airport for 4 hours while they decided what to do (fly the 15 minutes to the right airport or get a bus for the hour and a half drive). So Northwest Airlines, I'll never fly on one of your planes again.

I'm more relative about it...

A few years ago, I could fly from Chicago to San Francisco for $200 round trip and Chicago to New York for $129 round trip. Back then, it was worth the hassle and (minor) delay because of the cheap fares.

Now, I'm not sure it's worth being treated like crap, getting delayed 2-3 hours (average) AND paying 2-3X what it cost a few years ago.

My view is that you can treat me like crap if I can get a dirt cheap fare. But if I'm paying a lot of money, I should be treated better and get to my destination on time.

Crazy, huh?

Really, where are you all living to get train service? From Kansas City to Chicago, its $10 more to fly than it is to take Amtrak.

Yes, of course we're all fed up with flying - and I avoid it when I can.

But,
"avoided some 41 million trips over the past year and that has cost the national economy $26 billion"

How do they figure that's cost the economy anything? Unless we're talking foreign tourists coming to the States, then that money was spent elsewhere.

Stop the pity for the poor old airlines - if an industrial sector can't compete anymore, it'll whither and die.

Every summer I go visit my best friend in NYC. Probably not going to happen this year with the high prices and the fact that all six times that I flew last year, my flights were delayed by hours or totally canceled, leaving me stranded twice overnight.

No thanks, airlines. No thanks.

I have a 6 hour rule (which is stretchable to 8 depending on the length of stay. My feeling is, if you can drive there in the same amount or less time than flying, I just drive. 40 mins to airport, 2 hrs before flight, length of flight, 1/2 hr to get checked baggage, 1/2 or more to rent a car, vs. 5-7 hr drive and not having to rent a car. Since I am within 6 hrs of Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, DC/Baltimore, Indianapolis, etc. I really need to fly when going further than the Mississippi.

It's not so much that I am fed up with the airlines, it's that ticket prices have gotten expensive enough (even on Southwest) that I can't afford to fly as often as I would like.

@Skiffer: Agreed. Are they honestly claiming that consumers threw $26 billion in the trash rather than spend it on airlines and hotels? It just went somewhere else - most likely gas and groceries.

Trains are great, if you're lucky enough to live on their sparse routes.

So Chicago and the northeastern seabord are perfect, but most of the nation is SOL. Just check out Amtrak's pdf route map--Chicago is the hub in the spokes.

@monkey33: I'm in central Florida, to go to south Florida it costs like $30, whereas flying costs like $70+ and driving costs like $50 (excluding wear and tear on my aging car). The best part about taking a train over driving for me is that I can get work done on my laptop, so it's either 4 hours of staring at the road, or 6 hours of being productive/being entertained.

A lot also depends on how many you have traveling, at least as far as comparing airline fares to driving.

For me, I've got a family of five. My upcoming trip to Dallas is about a 15 hour drive, for about $450 in gas. Airfare for all five of us is $1665 (AA, economy, about $333 per person). Which one is the obvious clear winner for me?

But that's not actually why we are driving. It's the aforementioned hassles, getting kids through airports, airlines that have no respect for the value of my time, etc. Avoiding that is worth the drive. Saving money is just a bonus.

I fly constantly for work and I'm pretty much fed up, at least as far a North American carriers go. I fear if oil keeps going up however, none of us will have to worry about flying much longer. It'll be the dominion of the rich once again.

I don't fly that often - maybe once a year. So I'm not fed up with it. But every flight I have been on has been fine minus a couple delays due to weather. The only major delay I had was due to 9-11 (stuck an extra week in the UK).

It really was a tough call between driving 700 miles (10 hours) or flying. I mean really tough. I mean, even all the inconveniences aside, there is a large element of risk. All it takes is a spot of bad weather, my flight is canceled, and I'm stuck at the airport with hundreds of others and I am at the mercy of surly agents. Wheeee!

I am based in Montreal and now drive to any destination 700 miles or less from me. This will get me as far as DC in the South and Buffalo to the SW.

This is the only way I can acuratly predict my arrival time to within 4 hours.

The airlines are dying of their own stupidity. Southwest, Jet Blue, Virgin and other modern airlines will do just fine. Delta, American, US Airways, Northwest etc are too old and too set in their ancient cultures to adapt to new business realities. These old dinosaurs need to die and be replaced by something that works.

Personally, I hope the price of flying quadruples. This should discourage my employer from making me endure two days of flying to attend a four hour meeting.

We were faced with this very choice recently. My partner doesn't really like long car trips, but at the cheapest it was going to cost more for *ONE* of us to fly for our memorial-day trip than it cost to put gas in the car for the round trip, and we'd still have needed a car at our destination. So, we did the 9+ hour drive each way through less-than-stimulating country (through the TX Panhandle to Alburquerque.) We got to take one of the dogs (saving on boarding) and had his car to drive there (avoiding car rental.) It was the absolute distance limit for a 3-day weekend but more economical and less stressful than flying.

I usually take the train, even for longish journeys (1000 miles). Granted it's pretty much guaranteed to not be on time, but at least the employees are courteous and I don't have to empty my pockets to get on. It's as though I'm a customer, not a criminal. Imagine...

It goes beyond a mere "yes" or "no," but for the most part when considering travel for the past couple of years, destinations that don't require air travel have appeared much more attractive to me both in terms of cost and not having to deal with air travel shenanigans from both government and airline people and policies.

Personally, I'm getting ready to dump 1600 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere on some upcoming flights.

Is flying annoying? Sure. But there are worse things and I have a voucher to use, damnit.

@BelBivDevolkswagen: I am in constant envy of the other parts of the world with well-developed rail systems. It sure is nice to travel without a virtual strip search.

I canceled a planned trip to Europe this spring because flights were too expensive. I did fly halfway across the country to join family at the beach, but that was nonstop.

I've been staying away from connecting flights since 2001 when security first tightened after 9/11. The only non-nonstop flights I've taken since then were in 2005 for a family wedding when nonstops weren't available and in 2006 for work. We have driven twelve hours each way lots of times to visit family members rather than take a three-hour flight that requires a connection.

I see the house of cards is showing signs of collapse.

@eelmonger:

Living out west (aside from the California Surfliner route,) Amtrak is completely impractical.

I have relatives that a trip between Denver and SLC is a hop over a few mountains and you're there in a couple hours.

The west is BIG. Unless you have plenty of time - or your trip is SEEING the west rather than getting from one city to another - flying is the only way to go.

I've only flown once before 9/11, and twice after. The airline industry is a disaster. While trains can often be delayed, they are much more relaxing and productive -- the ability to watch movies, meet people and see the US is far worth the extra time involved.

Any drive less than 3 hours doesn't even matter to me, and 6 to 9 hours straight is no problem. I'm even considering taking a boat to Europe because the airline industry is in such shambles.

I'm fed up, not with the procedure, but with the prices. I can go without peanuts and sit in a small area for 3-4 hours no problem. Taking off my shoes is stupid, but I can cope. It's all worth it to get to where I'm going.

I don't like paying $300+ for the privilege of going 500 miles. It's 2008, efficiency of air travel should be peaking, not waning. I don't like getting nickeled and dimed. I want to pay a reasonable fare and get to where I'm going. End of story.

Yes. I actually switched jobs so I could travel less.

Oh, and rail travel? I've got a finger for whoever pushed the U.S. away from rail travel and towards an all-car system. In much of Ohio, they've gone so far as to remove the railroad tracks, so now there's years of building before any sort of rail system could get moving.

I'm not necessarily fed up with it, but then again I've only flown twice in the last 8 or so years. FWIW, I flew out to Vegas for Memorial Day weekend through Southwest and the trip was flawless both ways. No problems with security at the airports, no "weather" delays, nothing. If things are as bad as some folks say they are I must have just been incredibly lucky or something.

Mrs. DaveBG5 travels a bit for work. Normally, when she's got a trip out to CA I'll meet her out there for a long wekeend where we can reconnect w/some friends we have on the left coast. Not this summer. I find the flying experience so distateful these days (not to mention expensive) that I refuse to fly anywhere unless it is for a full week-long trip, as I find that I now need an extra day or two to decompress, unwind and relax on a vacation thanks to the craptasic treatment that I get from the airlines.

I'm never flying again, at least if I can help it. Southwest was HORRIBLE to me, and left me and my girlfriend to sit in the airport all night because of a mistake they made, and them refusing the put us up in a hotel until the next flight came in almost 24 hours later.

Take a train or drive. At least with trains you KNOW they will run late and don't have nazi security.

I used to fly 16 times a year with 3-4 international legs. This year, I only have 1 flight booked. The hassle and numerous cancellations made it not worthwhile.

Ever since my first (pre 9-11) trip to Asia.

It is just a night and day difference. It was even then. Of course, it's worse now. So if I can drive it, I won't fly it.

Airports:
You can get money changed at rates comparable to banks.

Here, it's usually Travelex or nothing, where their rates are like 20 percent worse, PLUS they charge...what was it, a 7 dollar fee? So if you've got less than a few hundred bucks in foreign currency, you may as well just keep it as a souvenir.

They don't price-gouge you on EVERYTHING there. A big mac (or whatever) costs the same a Osaka-Kansai or Seoul-Incheon as it does in Osaka or Seoul. The convenience stores (yeah, they actually have those, not just a soda cooler in the book store) charge the same as the ones in town. Even inside the security area prices don't double like they do in the US.

Faster baggage return. I've never had a bag lost anywhere, but I've also seen fewer disturbing signs of lost luggage there.

Generally, more stuff to do at the airport, and a cleaner, more pleasant environment. (in Japan and Korea at least, my trip to China was an exception) There are some US airports that can compete on this, however.

Immigration is better organized. They actually have pens, forms, and places to write conveniently located well before the queue area. It also tends to go a bit more smoothly.

Customs...well, most of the time I've just been able to walk right through customs with no one checking me. I'm not sure that is ultimately a good thing, but it is convenient.

All the security theater bullshit that has been enacted is either because of flights to the US, or applies only to flights to the US. They make sure to point this out on the signage.

Airlines:
Better food

No surly flight attendants (I'm looking at you, United). No flight attendants too obese to fit through the aisle without ass cheeks brushing up against passengers on both sides (ahem...United). Also no old/ugly flight attendants, but ultimately I'm not sure that policy is entirely productive.

Fewer fees

The down side is higher prices, but most of that is made up for by fewer gotcha fees.

Actually, yeah, most of the unpleasantness is in the airports.

I have flown on: JAL, KAL, Asiana, ANA, and I forget shich chinese airline, but I think it was China Southern
To or from: Chitose, Narita, Osaka-Kansai, Seoul-Incheon, Nagoya, and Shenyang; Sea-Tac, San Francisco, and Las Vegas McCarran

The only airport I'd like as much as any in Asia if it were run more like ones in Asia would be Phoenix Sky Harbor.

@Michael Belisle:
That isn't even the half of it. You can leave your car at home. Walk to the train station, take a train to the main station, be on a bullet train 10 or 15 minutes after that. No driving out to an airport on the edge of town, no worrying about ground transportation, because you're integrated into the ground transportation system (some high speed systems even use the same rails once they get into the city: Korea). You have more leg room. The air is better. It's quiet. The view is far more interesting (see one sea of clouds, seen them all. Doesn't compare to the countryside passing by 50 feet away at 200 mph.)

@V-effekt:

Oh yeah...I completely forgot the fact that...you go through all that rigamarole, and at some airports, you either add on enough time in ADDITIONAL delays that you may as well have just driven, or you don't get to fly at all! It's like winning the lottery...Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery!"