Sky High Fuel Surcharges Mean Profits for Airlines

If anyone doubts that the airlines are making money on fuel surcharges, take a gander at an article on international travel in the October 3 issue of USA Today's Money section.

The article quotes aviation consultant Michael Boyd, who says at $94 a barrel, about $80,000 of fuel is consumed on a one-way flight on a Boeing 777 from Newark to Shanghai. Now, given that a 777 can carry around 400 passengers, a $200 per passenger fee would completely cover the cost of filling up. So how can a carrier possibly justify a fee upwards of $200? And why should passengers cover the entire "tankful", anyway? After all, fuel surcharges were designed to have passengers cover the extra cost of fuel, given recent price increases. So, in reality, the fee shouldn't cover the entire fuel bill--just the additional expense created during this last year of price increases.

Fuel surcharges vary (randomly) by destination. FareCompare.com has compiled a chart of average international fuel surcharges based on data from nearly 620,000 round-trip airfares between the USA and foreign cities.

According to FareCompare.com, the highest average round-trip fuel charge from the U.S. to an international destination is $500 to Tel Aviv, Israel. Next on the list is Tokyo ($474), Hong Kong ($465), Sydney ($448), Dubai ($440) and Beijing ($409). Fuel surcharges for most European destinations fall within the $330 to $360 range.

Given the discrepancies in fuel surcharges among international carriers (American's fuel surcharges vary on each route depending on flight length and competition, while Air France has a standard $165 fee and Lufthansa has a standard $105 fee on one-way flights to the U.S.), it's important to consider more than the base fee when comparing the cost of international tickets.

Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum Part VII

Oh, Canada. American airlines could learn so much from you. Here's why.

As of this week, Canada's two major airlines have adjusted their baggage fees and fuel surcharges to reflect the recent drop in oil prices. Air Canada has dropped its $25 fee to check a second bag on North American flights (there was never a charge for a first bag). Canada's largest carrier has also reduced its excess baggage fees for oversized and overweight pieces.

Meantime, West Jet has stopped assessing fuel surcharges on its North American flights. Those fees had ranged between $20 and $45 for a one-way flight.

How very Canadian to be fair about all of this. After all, there's logic in the idea that if airlines impose surcharges when costs go up, they should drop them when costs go down. But somehow, I doubt American carriers will take a cue from their Northern neighbors. Instead, after having used the fuel price increases of the summer as an excuse to tack on extra fees, the U.S. airlines will somehow find justification in continuing those fees, even after fuel prices have dropped.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Seeing Stars in Hollywood: Olympian Tips for Conquering Jet Lag

I was in Hollywood yesterday for a series of interviews, via satellite, about planning vacations during hard economic times. More on that in another post. This post is about that favorite Hollywood activity--star-spotting.

After my seven-hour (2 AM to 9 AM) gig in the studio, I was chatting with some people in the green room when Olympic gold medalist Nastia Liukin wandered in. Given my prospensity for play-by-play sports commentary (I was a sports broadcasting major back in college), I noted her mount (as they would say in the gymnastics world) by saying, "An Olympic champion has entered into our midst." No sooner did the words come out of my mouth (while shaking her hand) then a second gold medalist, the perky Shawn Johnson, appeared on the scene. Both young ladies are composed (as one might expect from girls who can fling themselves high into the air and still land straight up on a four-inch balance beam), well-mannered, and cute as can be.

Being quick-witted, I immediately donned my journalistic hat to ask the girls a few questions. You see, I have written several stories on how top athletes, from tennis players to baseball stars, deal with jet lag during their respective seasons. After all, if world-class athletes can perform at top levels while circling the country or the globe, the average person might be able to pick up a good tip or two for conquering jet lag.

And so I asked how the two teenagers managed to overcome jet lag. Liukin immediately asked the question with one word. "Water," she said declaratively (meaning drinking lots of it--as opposed to swimming in it, a la Michael Phelps). Johnson concurred, while also stressing the importance of setting one's watch and mindset to local time right away, and then putting in a full work day starting on Day One. Being able to arrive in Beijing ten days before the gymnastics competition was also crucial to achieving peak performance levels.

So, while most of us will never win an Olympic medal, nor take a spin on the uneven parallel bars (heck, I can't even manage to hoist myself to the upper bar), we can certainly learn the lessons of international top performance from the two Olympic champions. Whether you are heading overseas for work or pleasure, drink lots of water and adapt yourself to local time ASAP. You won't win a gold medal for your efforts, but you will likely find it easier to maintain your equilibrium on the road.

Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum: Part VI

United Airlines has a very special present for its passengers, right in time for the holiday travel season. Just when people are most likely to be loaded down with baggage, the airline is doubling its fee for checking a second bag. The $50 one-way charge kicks in November 10. The fee applies to coach passengers traveling within the U.S. or to Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Passengers who purchased tickets prior to September 15 may be exempt from the charge.

But here's some good news for United customers. The airline has decided that feeding the masses is a good idea after all. The airline has backed off of its much-criticized plan to stop serving free meals for transatlantic coach passengers. But United continues to tinker with its onboard menu. Starting October 1, business class customers flying on any of the airline's domestic routes with three-cabin service will find there's no longer a free hot meal. Instead, business class customers will be treated with a tasty box lunch. Upgrading to a hot meal, even for a price, will not be an option. As for those in the back of the bus, cold box lunches will be available only for those willing to pay cold cash.

Read Me

Greetings one and all. It's back to school time. For me, it's back in print time.

Check out my special Going Green section in The Washington Post on September 3. It's filled with interesting eco-information and all sorts of ways you can save money on energy bills while reducing your carbon footprint.

In the October issue of National Geographic Traveler, look for my brief on Albania.

And if you are in the mood for a chuckle, check out the Jane Air archives at www.wyndhamworldwide.com/women_on-their_way/jane-air/archives. The most recent post deals with how hotel guests can green their stay. Sense a theme here?

Term Limits

Thank goodness summer vacation is over. Maybe it means that I won't have to endlessly hear two of the most obnoxious marketing terms the travel industry has ever come up with. The two terms that have me vocabularily vexed are "stay-cation" and "girlfriend getaways." IMHO, stay-cation is simply an oxymoron of the most annoying sort, while girlfriend getaways just sounds so darn condescending.

Hear me out. Let's start with girlfriend getaways. Admittedly, sometimes girlfriends do travel together. In fact, they do so in far greater numbers than male friends. There is, by the way, a term for the latter as well. It is man-cations. Somehow, that term hasn't caught on like its female equivalent, perhaps because it sounds too much like man-scaping, and well, much as metrosexuals may partake in said ritual, it's unlikely they enjoy it. Equating vacationing with getting a chest wax--well, I can understand why my male friends haven't bought into the man-cation concept.

But I digress. I can't exactly put my well-manicured finger on it, but girlfriend getaways just irks me. Perhaps it's because, even though some women do refer to their gal pals as "girlfriends," for the travel industry to refer to female friends as such sounds demeaning. After all, we are not girls. We are women, hear us roar. (Even the recently-evolved Chris Matthews would agree. When Pat Buchanan was rambling on about what a great "gal" and "girl" Sarah Palin was, the verbose Hardball host interrupted to remind Pat that the term for a 44-year-old female was "woman"). But I digress. The point is, women have money to spend, grown-up thoughts in our mind (even as we seek fun vacation destinations), and, by golly, we deserve to be treated with respect. The industry doesn't call vacations for men "boyfriend getaways" (can you imagine?) or "boy-cations." Why are women getting the diminutive treatment?

Stay-cation, on the other hand, is simply, as previously noted, an oxymoron. One goes on vacation to get away from the stresses of everyday life. Yes, one can hang out at home and have fun. But staying at home is not a vacation. Vacation = to vacate, no? Indeed, a vacation is the chance to leave behind the hum-drum of daily existence. If you are surrounded by your stuff, if your regular grocery store and dry cleaner and bank are all within striking distance, if your home office is footsteps away, how can you truly get into the vacation mindset? After all, if you are at home, there's always an errand to be run, a desk to be dusted, a meal to cook, an e-mail to send.

So, girlfriends and all others, no stay-cations for you this year. And if your fall vacation plans do include going away with your buddies, please boycott the term "girlfriend getaways." It's just not womanly.

*The original version of this post can be found at www.wyndhamworldwide.com/women_on_their_way.

Apropos of Nothing But Skinny Politicians

The Wall Street Journal recently graced its front page with an article asking if Senator Barack Obama is too skinny to be president. Actually, the premise was that Joe and Jody American, who are likely to be out of shape or hefty (the article notes a statistic that 66% of the voting-age population is overweight), are unlikely to vote for a beanpole. Anecdotal evidence might suggest, absurd as it may seem, that the article isn't far off the mark. After all, the last rail-thin dude to be elected president was one Abraham Lincoln, circa 1860.

But I wonder what would happen if the politician running to be leader of the pack were a woman? Would tall and skinny, the hallmark of success in Hollywood, work? Well, judging from the bulk of the females who are world leaders these days, when it comes to politics, there is not a gender double-standard when it comes to weight. Tall and skinny--definitely not in vogue among men or women politicians.

Being in vogue when it comes to fashion is also not stylish among female politicians. Look at Germany's Angela Merkel, who, when it comes to fashion, could be dubbed Fraulein Frumpy. IMHO, even though they've been made over, Hillary Clinton and Condolezza Rice lack in sartorial splendor. The president of Finland, Tarja Halonen, is best known in this country for being the doppelganger of Conan O'Brien, complete with a similar hair-do. Not the stuff of high fashion.


W. recently published a piece about stylish women in politics. Other than a few Italian and French (naturally) parliamentary ministers, the writer was hard-pressed to find chic politicians. He ended up citing French First Lady Carla Bruni Sarkozy, who is Italian by birth and a supermodel by trade. So of course she's stylish. But she's not a politician. She's just married to one. And certainly, there is no shortage when it comes to fashionable first ladies. Look at Jordan, where Queen Rania follows in the fashionable footsteps of her predecessor, Queen Noor. The wife of Russian president Dmitry Medvedev is heavily involved in fashion, promoting Russian designers around the world. Potential first ladies Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama are both striking women.

Why is it that being stylish and/or tall and skinny is fine for a first lady, but is anathema for a politician? Would it be impossible for a modelesque woman to become a successful politician? Underneath it all, do we believe that someone who can do style surely must lack substance? Please weigh in with your thoughts.