Which part of that wasn't entirely clear to you? Aren't you the people who scold EVERYONE ELSE for what you perceive to be overconsumption and overindulgence?

I'm sorry you bothered to go insane and have a long boring conversation with yourself prattling on about who the hell knows what. None the less, for air travel to make economic sense to someone, it's going to have to change its business model. They can't pretend to offer service to middle class tourists and expect to make any money at it. I'm sorry that clashes with your California Uber Alles mindset but there it is.

Also, driving is not a right, but a privilege. The automakers should make all cars ridiculously expensive to own, maintain and keep fueled (already doing the last one)...that way much less poor people will be able to drive, fuel will be saved, and global warming will go away!

Does Mr. fat stupid Yankee in a Hawaiian shirt want to visit Grandma in Kansas? Walk it, you non-wealthy, middle-class son-of-a-bitch.

Also, heating and electricity are not rights, but privileges. If the electric, coal, natural gas and other energy companies priced their utility costs so that only the rich could afford them as luxury commodities, all the poor people would not be able to waste the fuel used to create these energy sources! This would save fuel and reduce global warming.

Does Mr. Poor Trash in a Hawaiian sweater and his family want to stay warm in a Snow Belt winter? Build an igloo and make blankets out of deer hides, you non-millionaire, fuel-grubbin' son-of-a-bitch.

Use of petroleum-based products such as plastic is not a right, but a privilege. The Plastics manufacturers should price their products so that only the rich can afford them. This means all the poor people will not be able to use plastics...thus saving fuel and reducing global warming.

Does Mr. Barely-Living-Wage worry that Junior might break a glass baby bottle and cut himself, because the plastic bottle was just too expensive? Shouldn't have had kids, you non-yacht-owning, non-flying, non-driving, hypothermic-in-winter son-of-a-bitch.

Global food shortage? High food prices? How to solve it?

C'MON: Say it with me now, PEOPLE!!! Access to food is not a right, but a privilege...

***********

This Earth-Friendly green message was brought to you by the good people of today's Republican Party

It's just a transaction. I for one would love to have a live in staff tend to my needs. But I can't afford it no matter how much think it's my due. This is what I don't understand about the relationship between people and travel. You'll put up with endless shit and torture no matter what and then balk if anyone suggests it's not feasible.

Airliners would get smaller, and the passengers could set their own schedule and agenda (corporate jets for the wealthy, and nothing for everyone else), but the airlines cannot make money subsidizing air travel for people who cannot afford it. Farmers cannot make money feeding the poor, and people who don't pay taxes don't deserve police and fire protection, or any other government regulatory benefits. Throw out the EPA while you're at it, if you can't afford to pay for clean air, you don't deserve it.

This always happens during an economic downturn, and then some political opportunists come along and promise to make the airlines work, like they promised to make the rail system work, like they promise to repair the highways and bridge infrastructure. In the case of the last problem this is why people drive SUVs and Hummers, because America's highways are an adventure.

The politicians who fixed these problems in Europe in the 30's created worse problems. The populist uprising that Howard Dean suggested never materialized. So where do we go from here?

How many Rolls Royce's do you have to sell to break even? A few hundred at most ok maybe a few thousand. Point is that's what flying should be - a modern day luxury cruise like the days of the Astors. This way the airlines can charge Robin Leach bellowing 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' absurd prices, the volume of flights is way way way way down and everyone's happy. In essence turn the entire industry into a modified version of fractional ownership charter airlines. You know that in December 1999, for laughs I called British Airways and asked them what a walk up price for JFK to Heathrow, first class was. $21,400 or thereabouts. Now someone and I bet more than one person, probably paid something approximating that. In comparison the Concorde never made money with prices like that but that was a cost of operations problem not a revenue or passenger load problem. And since there are no more Concorde's and there never will be, the cost of operations to the airlines for conventional planes is lower, well known and manageable.

In the end, charging ever more prices for ever worse slower more awful service is just going to kill air travel for most people anyway. The airlines will cut back, lose money, fire people, get rid of capacity. All I'm suggesting is plan for it.

ElectroRobot, I don't think you were thinking too clearly when you wrote:

If airline travel were 10x more expensive than it is today, people who have 10x more money than I do would fly. Airlines would make MORE money not less as it would cost them far less to fly 1/10th the number of people around for roughly the same revenue.

That assumes the people who make 10x more than you outnumber you 10 to 1. For your sake, I sure hope not.

The income curve is a bell curve; if you're anywhere near the middle, which I assume you are, the number of people who make the same as you probably outnumber the 10x more folks by at LEAST 100 to 1.

As a previous commenter noted, the airline business is a commodity business; most airlines' business models require lots and lots of butts in seats, no matter that most are paying just barely over break-even.

A 1000% increase in fares would cut volume about 99.9%, which, if it needs to be said, won't be good at all for the millions of soon-to-be-unemployed airline employees, as well as everyone who owns airline stock.