var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 8:57 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

It sucks, but it can't be entirely unexpected. Almost all of the airlines are hemorrhaging money right now and I imagine they see these kinds of fees as a way to keep the base fares down and make up some money via fees imposed on a smaller portion of customers.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

lmarconi

September 27, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Aren't flights already more expensive on these holidays?

I think the product provided by most US airlines (with the exception of Southwest and Jet Blue, who I have always had good experiences with) has become so unreliable and overpriced that people are flying less and driving more, which just drives up the prices more and exacerbates the problem. Whereas at one point it may have made sense to fly from Boston to DC, now I'll just drive or take the bus. Their business model is only losing them customers.
It's another reason why a Euro style wide-reaching high-speed rail network is absolutely necessary. Give the airlines some real competition besides Greyhound.

$\"user-pic\"$

Difdi

September 27, 2009 7:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: If you're bleeding out, whether physically or financially, common wisdom is to apply a bandage to stop the blood loss.

Why is it, that corporations only treat the problem with transfusions, while refusing any offers of bandages?

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 27, 2009 12:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: One way they might not hemorrhage money is to charge a low fare and provide reliable transportation; that is, publish a schedule that's more than a suggestion. Southwest seems to be doing just fine without the nickel and dime stuff. I think people are getting so turned off by the air travel industry that it's no wonder the airlines are losing money and flying with empty seats.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion:
As far as the scheduling issues, I'd like to see you do it better. There are so many elements that go into a particular flight taking off on time that it's impossible for the airline to know when a flight will be on time and when it won't. Our air traffic system is starting to get old (and over-extended) and it is in need of overhaul. Unfortunately there isn't the political willpower to dedicate the funds to it.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I want to see Japan-like on-time rates, where the timetable is reliable to the minute barring typhoons and earthquakes and fares aren't too different from here. I really wish that wasn't so much to ask.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 27, 2009 6:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: If you're expecting me to do it better, you'd be a very old man by the time you saw any improvement. I can understand delays caused by weather. That's a safety issue and our planes are safe. I can understand delays caused by mechanical issues. Again, that's safety related and I'd rather the airlines continued their excellent reputation for safety at the expense of getting to my destination a couple hours later. What I don't accept is two airlines scheduling planes to leave at the same time. I don't accept jamming up the gates (the slots) so there is no realistic way all the planes which have been scheduled to leave are going to make it near the listed time. Same on landing. There has to be miminmum separation. To allow multiple planes to achieve their goal of landing at a scheduled time means that the schedule will become meaningless. Sitting on the tarmac waiting for a gate is just poor plannng.

I don't know who is responsible for this (and yes, I agree with you that the air traffic control system is in serious need of an upgrade) but whoever is allowing two airlines to advertise a scheduled departure of 8 AM is violating the laws of physics since two planes can't occupy the same space at the same time. Maybe a partial answer is to simply cut back the number of flights allowed out of an airport at a particular time. Actually plan a schedule that can be met with the understood exceptions of weather and mechanical integrity. I think it's doable and when we finally get the upgrade (which may take some horror stories from controllers in the media)I think we'll be able add back flights.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 4:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I think a lot of times when this happens it is due to other flights being delayed due to weather or mechanical, or maybe just someone being an ass who knows, but I don't think they are actually scheduled to be at the same gates at the same times. I've been told that's usually a screw up.

If it isn't - then a big WTF, since there are usually several open gates nearby - why not reassign?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: More runways also works. You can't have two planes departing off the same runway, but if you have four runways like Tokyo's domestic/regional airport is going to have (and JFK already does, but it serves the whole farkin' world, it really needs more or make Islip bigger instead if land is an issue) then it's possible to have four flights leaving at 8AM. But again, if land and ATC are issues then more separation and cutting back/shifting out departures is the best idea.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 8:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Hemorrhaging money? How so? Don't all the fees they tack on earn them billions?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 8:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Are there any other major airlines besides AA, Delta, and United?

alternatives from these money hungry companies?

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 7:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: Continental is a major airline, but they will probably follow suit.
My vote goes with Virgin. Love them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Amish Undercover

September 27, 2009 4:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: \"alternatives from these money hungry companies?\"

That is an oxymoron.

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

September 27, 2009 3:58 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: I'm a fan of Virgin. Also there are many international carriers that just happen to hop between major American destinations.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: They do? I thought Virgin was the only non-US airline (well, I guess technically Virgin America is as American as JetBlue or United) that can freely carry passengers between US destinations? For example, JAL has a Kona-Honolulu flight but you can't book it separately; it has to be part of a Kona-Honolulu-Tokyo itinerary due to US regulations.

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

September 26, 2009 9:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: Well you have Continental, Northwest (Branded as NWA), and US Airways along with Delta, American and United.

Then the \"value\" lines such as Southwest, Jet Blue, USA 3000, AirTran, Frontier, Spirit, Midwest....

Then there are tons of regional carriers like Comair, Mesaba and SkyWest. Those are usually owned subsidiaries of the larger carriers. For example, Comair and Mesaba and wholly owned subsidiaries of Delta Airlines.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AngryK9: scratch that, NWA is now a part of Delta. I say it's time to get the old Sherman Act out.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 9:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AngryK9:
The so called value airlines that serve DC always seem the same or more expensive rates as the large airlines.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 27, 2009 12:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@joshuadavis: If it's convenient for you, consider BWI. It's not really a DC airport but it's not all that far and the fares seem to be better.

$\"user-pic\"$

jeffbone

September 26, 2009 10:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@joshuadavis: I think fares out of DCA suffer from not having Southwest operate there. If you have the flexibility to plan ahead a little, you can save some money with the value carriers out of Dulles. I just pulled these numbers off the carriers' respective websites for an IAD to MCO round trip, leaving 19 Oct, returning 23 Oct (dates picked at random). Of all of these, Southwest is the only carrier that doesn't charge extra for bags, unless I misread one of the other sites.

Southwest: $130
Airtran: $140
Delta: $180
United: $200
American: $590

Someone hasn't caught the clue, I think.

YMMV if your travel requirements limit you to flying out of DCA or on shorter notice.

$\"user-pic\"$

wcnghj

September 26, 2009 9:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: JetBlue is getting pretty big. They have some south american destinations now.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

zentex

September 26, 2009 9:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why don't they drop the charade and just raise the price of the ticket instead of nickel-and-dime'n us to death with these \"surcharges\"?

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 3:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: because people have a tendency to shop for a low price and they've committed themselves to taking the flight, so nickel and dime-ing people later works more often than not.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 2:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex:It's like trying to call a system access \"fee\" a government charge. Another form of \"crap shift\", where lazy companies that don't want to actually do anything shift the work AND the costs onto the customer.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

September 27, 2009 4:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Crude oil prices are down along with oil company stocks and the best fee explanation they could come up with is fuel surcharge?

These are extra profit fees plain and simple and any other explanation by the airlines says they take us for fools.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 12:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw:
They're not calling it a fuel surcharge. The post here is inaccurate.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese

September 28, 2009 12:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: They should call it what it is: greedy. Yes, they're bleeding money but I believe it's their own fault. Stick it to the customers one more time, eh?

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

September 27, 2009 1:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: It's not quite a charade. Surcharges, as the article says, are included in base prices. You never see the fare without the surcharge. Basically, they raised the prices by $10 on certain peak travel days.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 27, 2009 12:48 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: So the consumer cannot easily do a comparison. It's the same as charging $10 for a ticket and then tacking on a $20 surcharge when you go to pick it up. It stinks but unless consumers demand it by disguising themselves as empty seats, or the government steps in, it's going to continue. The airlines believe they found the end of the rainbow in these nickel and dime fees. (Those nickels and dimes run into the billions.)

$\"user-pic\"$

tailstoo

September 27, 2009 12:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: I would much rather deal with an honest airline where I know what I would be paying as opposed to guessing what it will cost after the 800 fees.

$\"user-pic\"$

nybiker

September 27, 2009 12:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: IIRC, 'fees' are not subject to the taxes and surcharges the govt takes as a percentage of the 'fare'. Of course, it just makes it harder for all of us to figure what's what. Just so we're clear, I agree with you (& the others that have said the same thing). It's not like the person in an exit row is using more or less than the amount of fuel than someone in a window seat 10 rows behind him.

$\"user-pic\"$

mknoll1

September 28, 2009 8:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If \"fees\" are not subject to taxes why not make the ticket price $.01 for every flight and make the rest a fee of some kind. I heard an airline industry analyst on NPR state very clearly that fees are the airlines reaction to the price transparency created by the internet. These fees intentionally prevent you, the customer from knowing exactly what you are going to pay for a given service. Imagine if you were at the grocery store and every price had an asterisk on it to prevent you form knowing what you were going to be charged. You would never shop there. This is exactly why Southwest with their flat rate pricing are cleaning the clocks of the legacy carriers.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 9:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Its actually not a fuel surcharge, rather a travel day surcharge.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 9:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Three major airlines announced the exact same fees for the exact same reason within three days of one another? Does anyone else think this sounds like price-fixing?

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 29, 2009 5:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@greatgman: If not price-fixing they're at least telling each other what fee's they're going to invent... They would have had to have known about it at least a few days ahead of time because it takes a few days to get that kind of thing changed in a giant company like these. The days apart were just for show...

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@greatgman:
Parallel business conduct doesn't violate the anti-trust laws; you have to prove that there was an actual agreement between the airlines to institute this fee. The fact that one decided to do it opened up the doors for the others to do so without any real consequences.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

September 27, 2009 1:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@greatgman: No, this is the way the airlines do things. It's also happened where one tried to raise the price and the others didn't follow, causing the first to revert.

It's like when you have three gas stations on a corner. Most of the time, they have the same prices without any price-fixing.

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

September 29, 2009 5:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Not me, i've never seen the same prices with those gas stations. There's always one that's like 15 cents more than the rest and I'm always wondering, WTF. How are they still in business. Why would you pay 15c more per gallon to get gas from the yellow-colored station when the blue one across the street is less?

/tangent

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 11:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

No, price fixin is when I, the head of pricing at big-shot-airlines, calls my friend, the head of pricing at super-duper-airlines, and we talk for hours on how we can adjust our prices and/or surcharges to screw the customers out of a few extra bucks.

In this case a single airline set a policy to screw over the customers and 30 seconds later another airline followed. See, no conspiracy to fix prices.

Oh, in the old days, you would see brand A raise prices $50, brand B would follow with a $25 price increase at which point brand A would re-adjust their prices by $25 and announce a substantial price reduction. Of course all of this took place in less than 30 minutes of time.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mommiest

September 26, 2009 9:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I would be happy to pay a surcharge for service. It used to be included...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

next they'll start basing prices on the economy like cruise companies do

if the NYMEX fuel price exceeds $100 a barrel then Carnival will hike up the price of the cruise fare

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If people didn't bitch and freak out about plane ticket prices all the time, they wouldn't have these stupid fees and would instead PRICE IT INTO THE TICKET like they should. Instead, you guys can just complain about the fees while the tickets remain artificially low priced. Plane tickets are expensive. Blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 9:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx: I agree that they should just price it into the ticket . Hotels do it at peak season in most vacation areas . Try booking a stay during the summer holidays like July 4th and it will probably be much higher than if you booked for October 4 .

The problem with all these fees is that they are not reasonable . I'd rather see higher ticket prices and not have to pay 3$ for a drink or bag of peanuts you can get at 7-11 for a 1$ .

Just do it . Throw the costs into the tickets .

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx: i wonder if people would bitch and freak out less if the cost of the tickets just went up instead of the increased smorgasbord of semi-hidden fees?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 3:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@339point4: I would prefer it. Then I can simply decide if flying is worth it or not.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx: \"Surcharges must be included in base prices listed in advertisements and on Web sites\"

RTFA

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I agree with xthextanternx: the unfortunate situation with plane ticket prices is that the airlines are attempting to use WalMart tactics (underpaying their \"suppliers\" - in this case pilots, maintenance crew, etc.) to increase their bottom line. Flying is serious frikkin business, and those responsible for keeping the planes in the air and the passengers alive should be paid well for doing their job. In a perfect world, tickets would cost more and more of that money would end up going to pilot and crew salaries. If airlines are adding fees to recoup the costs of running safe flights, I'm more than willing to pay them. If they are going to some Senior VP's holiday bonus check, I think that's horrible.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 29, 2009 5:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FiddleDemon26: I guess you don't understand how businesses work- the owners get all the money and the workers get squat. It's been that way for thousands of years.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ShariC

September 26, 2009 11:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This happens in Japan all the time, and it's not as small as $10, but more like price increases of between 25-50% during the holiday seasons (New Year's, Golden Week and O-bon/summer holidays). It's worse for people here because the Japanese take their vacations all at once (because taking it when others are at work means they have to work harder to cover your job and that's not seen as acceptable).

American is actually late to the show on something like this, and paying a pittance.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShariC: Only for domestic flights, it seems. Kansai Int'l-Shanghai and Haneda-Shanghai, for instance, have lower prices during holidays. Same for Narita-Hangzhou, and in fact, plenty of Japan-China routes (the only lines that don't do this are the Osaka-Shanghai and Kobe-Shanghai ferries, it seems).

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 5:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShariC: I don't know, it's always seemed to me that prices around holidays have always been spectacularly high. I used to have no problem finding a flight to Boston or Hartford any time of the year for $200-300 but no matter when I priced out holiday tickets, they were always at least $500 and usually up to $700-1000. And this didn't seem to depend on when I checked the prices, whether it was 9 months out, 3 months, 2 weeks, etc... I guess now they'd be $510 at the least.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

cromartie

September 26, 2009 11:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As usual, I'm prompted to ask why people fly American and United under any circumstances, ever? Any flight through O'Hare is destined for a delay.

Frontier, JetBlue, AirTran all offer better service at a more reasonable price. Southwest does also, as long as you aren't obese.

Unless the trip is overseas, fly a \"discount\" carrier.

Don't fly anything smaller than a Boeing 717 under any circumstances.

That's all you have to do to keep your sanity.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

FatLynn

September 27, 2009 4:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cromartie: American and United use a hub-and-spoke system that allows them to reach FAR more destinations in the US than point-to-point carriers like Southwest. They also let you fly stand-by, something that SW doesn't let you do.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 4:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cromartie: @jamar0303: Meh, having been in Miami for a while and now LA (two AA hubs), and having to travel to Central / South America several times / year, American was generally the best option. There was Taca/Lacsa, but if you want an airline with bad service, wow. I don't think I know anyone with a good story coming off that airline. I tried each airline going to Costa Rica, and there's really no big difference. So I eventually just stuck with AA to start racking up miles - now I have a ton and can actually afford a flight for a vacation.

...If I could ever take the time for one.

Just saying, sometimes, there are good reasons for taking AA. Out of Miami, I never had a problem with AA. It's less great out of LA, I'll admit.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 5:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog: Uh, LAN Chile for South America? I guess if your only other option is TACA then yeah, go for American for the safety factor.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 5:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@jamar0303: I did fly Lan quite a bit when I was going back & forth to Peru. They're a great airline once you're in the air, but I had a lot of grief with airport crap with them, state-side. In Peru, never an issue. Of course, they did stupid shit like route me Iquitos - Lima - Santiago - Caracas - Miami. I did it because the alternative on Lan was Iquitos - Lima - Miami for twice the price.

Lan isn't always competitive for prices in S. Amer, though, so, when on a grad student budget, if the prices are that different, I go with the cheaper of Lan and AA. I do have a fair amount of km languishing on Lan at the moment, though.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cromartie: And if your trip is overseas, fly an international carrier. If you want service you won't find it on UA or AA, that's for sure.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 27, 2009 12:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cromartie: Isn't the 717 just a rebadged DC9?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Rebadged MD-90.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

September 26, 2009 11:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Airline pricing is getting closer and closer to infomercial pricing everyday. Buy one amazing doo-dad for $9.99, get a second free, just pay shipping and handling. Except shipping and handling is $7.99, so your $10 purchase becomes $26.

Airlines should get in on this. Sell flights for $10, just pay taxes and surcharges, plus get the return ticket FREE (just pay the taxes and surcharges again).

Really, is raising prices such anathema to airlines that they've resorted to this?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 3:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nakkypoo: Isn't this exactly what's going on now?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Etoiles

September 27, 2009 12:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Flying the day before Christmas or the day before Thanksgiving already costs $50 - $200 more per ticket than the same routes on the other day, anyway. (Which is fair; supply and demand.)

So if I just paid, say, $219 for a $59 flight (which was the difference in IAD -> BOS for a flight I ended up not taking last year), why do they need to charge me an extra $10, again?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

tailstoo

September 27, 2009 12:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The airlines really are going too far with this whole fee thing.

If you need a spreadsheet to figure out what a trip is going to cost you, then it's clear that that airline is try to screw you.

Other businesses might take a page from the airlines. $1.00 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but 50 cents for the service fee, 25 cents for the lid, 20 cents for access to the fixin's bar, 35 cents surcharge for rush hour brewing.

Or a gas station - $1.50 a gallon, but 50 cent self servicing fee, 25 cent pump reset fee, 50 cent payment processing fee and 50 cent surcharge for access to the window washer.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 12:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Read the article. The surcharge is included in the published fare.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

bloggerX

September 27, 2009 2:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"Why the hell not?\" Made my day, Laura, made my day!

Seriously, though, enough with these bullshit fees, airlines!

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I can't afford to fly. The last time I flew anywhere (family reunion in Texas) my parents paid. I don't know what I'm going to do if I ever have to travel for business. I don't even have a credit card and even if I could come up with the fare, the fees would kill me.

It's just too expensive.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Pretty soon American, Northwest & Delta will be charging a fee for flying on a legacy airline - it'll be called the \"Legacy Airline Fee\" or LAF fee.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

tartis

September 27, 2009 7:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I was robbed $20 each way flying Northwest last week just for checking a bag. The rip off fees should be included in the ticket price. What happens to people that don't know about these hidden fees and have no way to pay while you are standing in front of the ticket agent with your baggage in tow? \"Sorry Mam, you and your children cannot board the plane because you cannot afford the $80 in fees for a family of four each way, with one bag each.\"

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

September 28, 2009 1:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm traveling on Nov. 29th this year, and I'm glad that I booked the tickets before this fee went into effect. Although I will have to play the \"Can I fit four days' worth of stuff for two people into two carry-ons so we don't have to pay fees for checking bags\" game.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ironchef

September 28, 2009 3:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: I've started packing laundry detergent into my longer trips now. Washing clothes in the middle of the trip pretty much sucks but does save a ton of space and weight.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 5:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

DAMNIT. I need to book a flight from LAX to ORD for Thanksgiving to see my new niece. I hate you, airlines! Hopefully JetBlue has something going out of Long Beach.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

September 28, 2009 6:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

hmm I wonder if gas stations will follow suit and start charging $7 a gallon on predictable high-traffic road periods...

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 29, 2009 8:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: They do. Gas prices tend to be higher at the end of the week than mid-week.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

magnes

September 29, 2009 7:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well at least prices didn't increase $10 more everyday of the year... just a matter of time I suppose. Everyone is trying to make an extra dime these days, so it's no wonder that once one goes, they all follow suit. Too bad all the airlines weren't lowering their prices instead... hmm...

","");