You wrote:

Unbundling can leave passengers feeling nickel-and-dimed, but it's a smart idea in that those looking for perks can have them, absorbing a higher share of increased fares.

It is never a smart idea to nickel-and-dime in this way. If they charged before the flight, then you wouldn't have people scrambling for cash, nor would you have flight attendants spending all their time waitrons instead of being, well, flight attendants! Nor would you miss getting any food at the back of the plane because they didn't have time to make change for everyone. Charging beforehand has been done for years; it's called "first, business, and coach." Even with unbundling, if you asked for an additional $10 "amenities" fee upfront, and I would bet that 75% of passengers would take it, and it would be less expensive to administer. Not to mention less annoying for travelers. If I forget to bring cash (and I have used my ATM card in over a dozen countries in five continents, so it's not a problem on the ground) I can get stuck on a six-hour flight with no food at all. I doubt they are making enough money to justify the effort, let alone the loss of customer goodwill.

How far can unbundling go, and have airlines crossed the line when it comes to generating revenue? It's a slippery slope. Air Canada charges up to $35 for a special, toll-free customer service hot line for use during delays or cancellations. The fee promises customers a quick connection to an agent who can assist with revised bookings, arrange for hotel rooms, etc. OK, but are these not "perks" that ought to be guaranteed at any fare?

When you charge extra for minimum service, you are in serious trouble as a service provider. 20 years ago, surveys of airline employees indicated they thought that what great service meant to passengers was on-time departures and arrivals, luggage arriving, and so forth. In fact, those weren't on the list for real passengers, because those are assumed. Flying someplace with your bag is what you are paying for; succeeding in this is minimum performance, not outstanding, because if you miss any piece, you have failed. Customers cited things like "courtesy," "explaining the reasons for delays" and all the things you have observed directly in your column. Sadly, few airlines in the US seem to have figured this out in the past two decades, despite shining examples like Virgin, Midwest, Singapore Airlines, and so forth.

It's no wonder US airlines are failing right and left - if someone like Virgin starts going large in the US, I'll cheerfully trade in my platinum American Airlines, gold United Airlines, and silver US Airways and Delta frequent flier cards. I love airlines and flying, and my mother used to work for the late, great Eastern Airlines and Pan Am, but I've come to hate getting on a US plane.

What's in store for long-haul transport? Back to the future. Fifty years ago only the "jet set" could fly. Everyone else traveled by auto (not such a good option with $4/gallon gasoline), or train. My prediction: Salon will have a new column entitled "Ask the Engineer". How long till we have intercontinental rail-service between North and South America? and a rail link crossing the Bering Strait?

In the short term, we can expect nickel and diming. In the longer term, we might see real changes in aircraft design to improve economy.

At the moment, high-subsonic turbofan airliners are the best compromise for most people's travel over most routes. If oil went down to $5 per barrel and greenhouse concerns went away, that would hypothetically change - at some point something like the Sonic Cruiser, or even supersonic airliners, would make a comeback, because the extra fuel cost would be outweighed by the convenience for passengers on long-haul flights, and the reduced costs for maintenance and crews because you'd get more flights in a set amount of time.

If fuel continues to rise, the set of tradeoffs changes and people might be prepared to put up with slower and possibly less comfortable flights to save money.

Particularly on short-haul routes, therefore, you might see big turboprop airliners make an appearance. They're slower, but they're much cheaper to run. Further down the track, you might see propfans, which are half-way between a turbofan and a turboprop (at a first approximation) and offer performance and economy somewhere between the two.

Furthermore, we might see the end of tube-with-wings designs and a switch to the blended wing body design, which offers substantially more fuel efficiency than conventional airliners, but means the passengers can't look out the window. But if fuel gets expensive enough, I suspect most people will be happy with the cheaper flights.

I notice one of our letter writers was a Phd and he might have been used to traveling on his universities dime or whatever but for the great mass of us recreational travelers who don't want to watch a crappy movie on a crappy tv or eat crappy airline food and are happy with a sandwich even on a 10 hour flight unbundling makes a lot of sense. The big question I have is why the airlines persist in using jet aircraft when they could save tons of money by using prop jets and running 100 MPH slower. When you consider the transfer time at the airports an extra hour on a five hour trip seems rather miniscule. Even an LA to Munich run which I do quite a lot would take but two hours longer which is dwarfed by the stop on the way.

So Mr. Smith.....please tell us why they don't just go to prop jets with huge bypass ratios???? Would they save fuel?? Would they save enough fuel to make it worth while?

Flying will turn into the full contact shopping 'experience' everything else has. Or, people will simply take more cruises where for the most part your vacation/travel dollar is price-fix (sans booze). Or, what you will see is Disney and similar companies branding their OWN airlines for one price bundled pricing to select destinations. And to be honest, I'd rather be flown by Disney which DOES customer service, than Air-Sobibor Airlines. I'd even pay more if it meant I didn't arrive somewhere in a homicidal funk.