A recent report I saw on TV said that people in the Bay Area are driving less due to the price of gas. I know I am, I'm telecommuting whenever I can get away with it (at $4/gal, my daily commute costs about $8.50), and taking bus or BART to SF when previously I would have driven (although the pain of parking is mostly responsible for that). That report also noted increases in bus, BART and CalTrain ridership.

What's that line about experience being a dear teacher, but that a fool will learn from no other?

As air travel gets more expensive people will turn to ground transportation and we'll be treated to a whole new generation of train songs. Boxcar Willy, where have you gone?

You read enough real facts about Peak oil you know the system is gonna crash in the next 50 years.

There are far more important questions like how we are going to feed most of the people. Airplanes are sort of a thing of the past in 200-300$ a barrel oil. But we are really getting ahead of the curve here.

I still think this is just masive devaluation of the dollar. Isn't gold still tracking oil?

I thought you were going to say something about how charging per bag actually reflects the real cost to the airline of the fuel necessary to carry those bags. And that pricing in those costs will change customer behavior in an environmentally friendly direction.

Back in college I carried 2 suitcases full of 70lbs. of books on a plane, because it was cheaper than trying to ship them.

Hopefully with per-bag charges, people like the younger me will make the rational decision to ship their non-necessities by ground instead of carrying them along for "airmail" delivery.

Whether humans will be a part of the future is another story.

Peak Oil will doom almost all airlines and American will be one of them. The world economy is in for a radical restructuring and the countries and companies that get ahead of the curve will be best positioned to make this transition. Some industries, like the airlines, are however in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I've been wondering when people would connect the dots and realize that carbon emissions are unlikely to stay at the same level if we run low on fossil fuels.

But as I understand it, we have plenty of coal to burn, even when the oil fields dry up. In any case, the current clot of carbon in the air might be enough to do the damage.

I'm not a climate scientist, obviously.

Fossil fuel prices aren't rising because we are running out of the stuff, at least not yet. They're rising because worldwide demand is increasing. So even though US airlines may do less flying, that's just because other fuel users (many of which are in other countries) are buying and burning the oil -- not necessarily more efficiently. I don't see the positive effect on climate change.

Global oil production has plateaued since 2005. Global oil demand is increasing at about 1.8% per year. Flat production and increasing demand has caused the price increases we see today. As soon as production declines in 2009 we will see $500 per barrel oil. Air travel and long distance car travel get very expensive and then end. Bus and train reservations will man travel in months or years. Where will you be when the music stops -- that is when travel ends? It is an important question, because that is where you will stay. Families will be separated by distance. It is all about Peak Oil: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

We could start working on alternative energies for everything BUT the airline industry so they can have the lion's share of oil. As was said in the 'Ask a Pilot' column recently, what works for hybrid cars won't for airplanes yet--they still need the traditional engines with real oil and lots of it. The course of action should be reducing need for oil in everything else, which will also do much to reduce carbon emissions. 1.5-2% of a whole hell of a lot isn't too much. 50-75% of not too much sounds better to me.

American Airlines charging for luggage is purely to save their butts. I fly cross-country several times a year. This is hurting.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Obviously, passing on the increased cost of fuel to the customer who packs for a weekend in Miami as if she's going on safari for three weeks will help the airlines keep their cost structure (somewhat) in line, but in the end, that plane, loaded with people and even minimal luggage, will need X gallons of jet fuel to fly from Boston to Orlando.

A better solution would be as the Ask the Pilot guy put it: fly fewer, larger bodied planes. Serving Miami ten times per day per carrier, with 2/3 of the plane empty, is worse for global warming than six full flights.

One last point: the previous poster who stated that the planet will take care of itself was correct; originally Earth went from a CO2 rich planet to one with a balance of O2-CO2 by evolving oxygen-dependent animals, all without our help. Our role as I see it is to use the natural processes we are aware of to restore the balance--replanting rainforests while cutting hydrocarbon emissions, and in the process developing renewal-sourced forms of combustion fuel.

Charging for bags is not a bad idea. This means that if you want to travel as cheaply as possible you can still go with a carry on, and personally I find I can survive for a week away from home perfectly well with a carry-on.

What would be even better for the planet would be to charge passengers by weight of the passenger progressing geometrically in 50 lb increments. This would be very fair as you fare you paid would be related to your individual carbon footprint.

It would give frequent fliers a great incentive to lose weight, thus reducing demand for food and benefiting the planet, the individual, and the airline. Win-win-win.