Thoughts on airline baggage fees and taxes

For those choosing to travel by commercial airline, whether for business, pleasure, or for personal matters, the past decade has been marked by a flood of inconvenient policy changes implemented by leaders in the airline industry. With security threats, weather delays, and flight cancellations overwhelming the mainstream travel conversation, an infuriating phenomenon has occurred directly under our collective noses. These pesky “baggage taxes,” which popped up in response to high gas prices in 2008, have effectively gouged travelers out of billions of dollars over the past three years. In addition, traditionally included amenities, such as beverage service and snacks, are disappearing in favor of increasingly expensive, nickel and dime styled “a la carte” cabin services.

On top of the baggage and a la carte fees, the airline industry taxes its customers at a rate that averages nearly 20% of the cost of a ticket to fly. The average cost in taxes for a $300 dollar flight is approximately $65, which when you add that to the cost of checking bags, makes traveling by air in 2010 a modern day exercise in being ripped off. Consider that as of today there are four separate taxes on a typical flight within the United States. There’s the standard 7.5% Federal Ticket (Excise) Tax, which should really be where the taxes end, the Passenger Facility Charge, the Federal Flight Segment Tax, and the Federal Security Surcharge. All of these taxes are applied at the time of purchase, adding a sting to any great deal one might find online or through a travel agent.

To make matters worse, the increasing bag fees and taxes only mark the beginning of the hollowing out of the intrinsic value of a plane ticket. For example, Spirit Airlines is pondering charging for carry-on baggage, and Ryanair, based out of Dublin, Ireland is planning to charge 1 Euro or 1 British Pound (about $1.33 or $1.52) for using the bathroom on flights lasting one hour or less. If, as was the case with checked baggage fees, other airlines follow suit and start charging for every amenity in the cabin, there will be a huge devaluation to the value of a ticket. The ticket used to mean a beverage and a meal, and one bag checked with no charge, now the only aspect of travel covered by an airline ticket is the travel itself. Only a few airlines, such as Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue, seem to truly value their mission statements, and the implicit services that should come with the price of a ticket.

Going forward, other airlines need to take a hard look at what they stand for. Are they just buses in the air, with peddlers for crews? Or is quality of service still important? Do they value the experience of the passenger, or just the zero’s on their bottom lines? Is a once great industry becoming trivialized by the in air gimmicks of its leading airlines? Going forward, the future of the airlines depends on their willingness to return to an era where the trust of the customer matters. As is the case with many aspects of our society, the time has come to end the worst practices of the airline industry.

Thoughts on President Obama's decision to reduce the role of nuclear weapons...

Nearly 15 years after the indefinite ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by 189 nation states in May of 1995, The United States and Russia are now on the verge of taking a substantial step in reaching the second major pillar laid out indirectly by the original NPT protocol. On April 8, 2010, President Medvedev of Russia, and President Obama of the US, will sign the newest version of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), effectively calling for the reduction, by nearly a half, of the nuclear weapon stockpiles of each country, as well as setting a new limit of 1,500 deployable warheads starting in 2017. These steps fall in line with the NPT’s non-proliferation and disarmament pillars, essentially paving the way to achieve the treaties ultimate goal for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Today the Obama Administration announced the findings of the Nuclear Posturing Review (NPR), which puts the nuclear policy consensus adopted by the United States Department of Defense on the table for the entire world to see. Essentially, the NPR report states that the United States will not seek to expand on, nor create new stockpiles of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In addition, the United States will not seek to deploy nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear nation which has signed on to the NPT. However, the report also acknowledges the need for the US to maintain a trimmed down, yet deployable stockpile of nukes in the case that a non-treaty abiding nation should attempt to proliferate with their own weapons on the United States or its allies.

These sentiments were shared in President Obama’s comments on the findings, where he stated “we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” and on our readiness to respond to military threats; “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the United States, reassures allies and partners, and deters potential adversaries.” Also confirmed by the President’s statements was his continued support of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, pledging to uphold the guidelines of the ban on testing nuclear weapons systems, despite the opposition by some that the treaty is being abused by countries like North Korea and Iran.

These moves by the Obama Administration are part of a broader goal of ridding the world of nuclear threats. The policy changes also acknowledge the shift in concern from nation against nation proliferation, to a focus on disarming rogue states and removing potential nuclear terror threats. The questions raised by more hawkish lawmakers revolve around whether we will be perceived as weak due to the slimming down of our warhead stockpiles. Will rogue nations feel more empowered by our decision to pursue a non-nuclear based national security strategy? Or, as many centrist believe, will this action by the United States move to further isolate nations, such as Iran, who have non-peaceful nuclear ambitions? Though many will say we are made weaker by participating in the NPT and other global anti-proliferation efforts, an argument can be made to the contrary which leads us to rediscover our core values and the ultimate purpose of our military.

If we are to emerge as the 21st century’s leader in core democratic values, as well as in pure military might, we may want to consider the impact of being a believable role model for other emerging democracies and rogue states. Those nations who seek to become part of a nuclear weapon free union of nations should be able to look to the United States as the ultimate example of nuclear responsibility. By setting a new precedent for non-nuclear engagement, and by relying on our powerful conventional arsenal of weaponry and drone technology, we can effectively position ourselves to move forward the pillars of the NPT in the years to come.

We should ask the bigger question of whether today’s action, coupled with a return to the pre-Bush principals of not pursuing conflict preemptively, will ultimately lead rogue nations towards the pursuit of peaceful nuclear ambitions. Only time will tell if this will be the case, and our future actions will dictate whether we can truly lead this effort going forward. Still, there is now a chance that we will look back in great pride to the historic events of today and April 8th as unifying landmarks in the ongoing pursuit of global peace and prosperity by the United States and its partner nations around the world.

Thoughts on human space flight, the NASA budget, and our exciting travel future…

Today’s successful launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery marks the fourth to last journey in the storied, yet costly history of the NASA Space Shuttle Program. The current mission’s primary destination, the International Space Station (ISS), awaits the American crew and their Multi-Purpose Logistics Module in low earth orbit (LEO). Operating at a staggering cost of nearly a billion dollars per launch, the Space Shuttle Program will be retired later this year in favor of the newer, more cost effective Russian Soyuz spacecraft as a means to visit the ISS. Following the September 8, 2009 findings by the Augustine Commission on Human Space Flight, President Obama announced budgetary decisions had been made that would focus on bringing down the cost of LEO space flight, along with renewed interest in private sector development of the next generation of spacecraft. Therefore, we are now at an important crossroads for both NASA officials and those who will ultimately decide which direction to take our LEO space program.

Currently, the cost to hitch a ride to the ISS on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft is approximately 50 million dollars per seat. This puts the cost for six astronauts at between $300 and $400 million per trip, or what amounts to nearly a 600 to 700 million dollar savings from the current cost of launching astronauts and scientists via the Space Shuttle. Since there will likely be a minimum five year gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the anticipated initiation of the next generation Orion spacecraft program (Run by Lockheed Martin), NASA will most likely choose to team up with the Russians for rides to the ISS in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, private sector space companies around the world, such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, may offer NASA intriguing, cost effective, alternatives and models for successfully transporting mission crews and equipment to and from the ISS; and eventually to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

This collaboration will need to be accelerated should Russia, as expected, decide to hike up the price per seat for a ride on the Soyuz given our demand and the gap between now and the proposed Orion launch in 2015. As mentioned above, NASA’s future collaborations with the private sector will be of vital importance for the development of future means of human and robotic space flight. In November of 2009, Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo had its impressive model debut at the Mojave Air & Spaceport. Launched from a specially designed transport plane called a “MotherShip”, SpaceShipTwo will prelude the larger SpaceShipThree and will break ground in the testing required to allow civilians to travel to and from other spaceports via sub orbital space in the near future. Based on the surprisingly low current per person cost of $200,000 for a test ride on SpaceShipTwo, it could be feasible for NASA, and other national space agencies, to significantly lower their mission costs in the future by adapting these new found forms of space travel to low earth orbit space flight.

In 2007, realizing the need for a genuine collaborative effort going forward, NASA and Virgin Galactic entered into a symbolic memorandum of understanding regarding the need to work together to progress human space flight and to share their meaningful innovations with each other. Along with the continuing Lockheed Martin Orion/Altair project for an LEO springboard to the Moon and Mars, payloads, and ISS missions which would launch from the Ares I rocket vehicle, NASA will one day have the welcomed alternative of launching to LEO via a “MotherShip” for crew trips only, and larger robotic payload transport missions. This exciting future for human space flight is expounded by the prospect of a two hour flight from London to Sydney via the proposed SpaceShipThree from Virgin Galactic. It’s not a science fiction movie anymore; in the next twenty years we will more than likely see both commercial and government spacecraft traveling from destination to destination in sub orbit in the same fashion as jet liners today. The anticipated ability of spacecraft to cruise into LEO in the future, launched by the much less expensive MotherShip method, has the incredible potential of transforming space travel from both a budgetary and practicality standpoint.

Given the promising future of the international Spaceport concept, the impending retirement of the US Space Shuttle, and the newly outlined objectives for NASA under the Obama Administration and the Augustine Commission, the critical next steps in human space travel and exploration are most likely to be dependent on effective collaboration through contract work with commercial space travel companies and space agencies across the globe. No matter what direction the President and Congress decides to take with regards to future human space travel, we can at least rest assured that there is a conscious effort to lower the blinding cost of spaceflight without compromising the future of space exploration. By looking to the ingenuity of the less budget restricted private sector for the future development of multifunctional spacecraft, there is no reason to believe that NASA will have any trouble accomplishing its long term goals in spaceflight and exploration. In the short term, the reality of the current budget situation dictates that we transition to more cost effective methods of achieving our goals in space. We’ll have to do this by taking our fiscal medicine, launching ISS missions with the Russians, with the knowledge in the back of our minds that the next generations of US spacecraft are on the verge of usability. This knowledge, and the important fact that modern technology is quickly catching up with the costs of reaching space, give great hope to the prospects of both astronauts and civilians in their quest to reach new heights, achieve great things, and visit distant destinations that will transform the way we think of the universe and each other.

The above revelations about future space flight lead us to bigger questions about the future of humanity as it relates to visiting other worlds; will the international nature of space exploration lead to a more “world based” view as opposed to “nation based” viewpoints? Will the next generation of Americans actually get to fly on these proposed spacelines such as Virgin Galactic, taking hours out of international travel? And finally, are we closing in on a need for an increased focus on international space regulation, given the prospect of increased security concerns for satellites and other low orbit communication objects? The next two decades are sure to provide the answers to these important questions; in the meantime, let’s take some time to appreciate the ever expanding nature of human intelligence and scientific innovation.

Thoughts on the politics of fear and homegrown militant groups…

Over the past few weeks, there has been a sharp increase in the mainstream media’s coverage of domestic born militia groups. These fringe groups have existed for some time, tending to loom in the shadows while leaders they support are in charge, only to pop up when leaders they perceive as a threat to their liberties are in power. The 2008 election of President Obama has fueled the fire for some of these mainly conservative militias and impressionable activists who fear that the end of times is coming, and that a socialist big brother type government is coming to get them. Recent action from groups such as the “Hutaree” and the “Guardians of the New Republics”, have reopened the conversation on the cause and effect of militia groups in modern day America.

On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss the members of such organizations as crazy, confused, and mostly talk, but when a militia begins to act out on their credos, we must remember our not so distant past and apply the lessons we learned from domestic based terror incidents such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. With political conditions that are all too similar, if not more intense, the time has come to put a collective clamp down on these groups before their radical messages reach the wrong ears.

The fact is that none of these armed militias are truly capable of individually or simultaneously challenging the United States Military in a fire fight, but their calls to action are a cause for concern to those whose jobs it is to protect our elected officials and government workers in the workplace. These groups tend to do all of the talking, but none of the action, relying on lone wolves to carry out their dirty work. Militia leaders prey on these fearful souls, and are actively looking for those who will take the fall in order to become a “hero” of their particular cause. Fanning the flames of these types of movements, though indirectly, are certain political leaders who have chosen to use hateful discontent for political gain. This is not only irresponsible and borderline illegal under the Smith Act, but extremely dangerous given our fragile history.

Though it is not scientifically provable, the provoking actions of the past year by Republican members of Congress, along with targeted fear speak from primarily Conservative talk show radio hosts, has no doubt indirectly resulted in a call for action to paranoid homegrown extremists. Given today’s revelation that the GNR sent letters to 30 US Governors, telling them to “leave office within three days or be removed,” and the recent arrest of the Hutaree Militia in Michigan, the responsible action by political leaders and talk show hosts is to condemn these actions, not to promote them through dangerous rhetoric.

Representatives Boehner, Cantor, and Bachmann in particular, along with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and other fringe feeding radio and TV hosts, are increasingly guilty of fueling the fires of domestic discontent. From drastic claims of Armageddon and “death panels” during the lead up to the passing of health care reform, to the inciteful waving of “don’t tread on me” flags in front of an angry mob-like crowd in the capital by Republican members of Congress, the first year and a half of the Obama Presidency has been marked by increased fear mongering by fringe activists and pundits. Distorted political scare tactics fed by irresponsible elected officials and media people in a position to reach millions of Americans every day, who put their stamp of approval on the behavior of the radical few.

We don’t want to see a repeat of our tragic history, and lose more of our best leaders due to unfounded fears and hate. If we see a friend, family member, or colleague engaging in incendiary or hateful commentary, we should let them know that we have already traveled down this path, and the results were devastating to our country. In 2010, we must be smart enough to realize the amazing power of our words. Whether you do or don’t support a politician, policy decision, or certain ideology, we must all agree that violence and hate are not the answer to attaining a better union. Let’s hope that our leaders in Washington DC, state capitals, townships, and in the media will take heed of their responsibility in keeping the discourse of our debates and conversations civil. Only then can we avoid the same tragic consequences suffered by generations before us.

Thoughts on the 2010 United States Census…

With regard to the powers granted to the Congress as they pertain to counting the total population of the United States, Article 1, Section 2 states that for determining the number of Representatives and Electoral College Votes for the individual states: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." Therefore, as we discuss the various details of the 2010 Census, we must be mindful of both its intended and unintended purposes.

The Congress, through these above mentioned powers, can decide what questions are asked of the people, while also determining the budget of the Census Bureau. They also dictate the detailed terms of each conducted survey. The Census, like many other parts of the Constitution, has evolved to include previously excluded populations; such as American Indians, women, and African American’s. The Census Bureau is ultimately in charge of executing the enumeration process. In addition, under privacy laws, Census data does not become part of the public record until 72 years after the date of a given Census. Therefore fears of private information being made public are completely unfounded. To put this in perspective, consider that the results of the 1940 Census will not be made public until April 1, 2012.

Still, many people continue to give in to misinformation fermented mainly by fear of government intrusion. Some members of Congress, such as Rep. Michelle Bachmann, said they would refuse to fill out the entire 2010 Census form because of dreamed up fears about the role of the now non-existent ACORN in the door to door counting process; stating in June of 2009: “I think what the threat of ACORN would be the deluding of the ballot box and the effectiveness of our vote," she said. "They will be in charge of going door to door and collecting data from the American public, this is very concerning.” Ironically, despite her apparent fear of ACORN foot soldiers, she voted “Aye” on H.R. 1096: A measure encouraging individuals across the US to participate in the 2010 census. It’s this kind of obvious, fear driven cynicism that is dangerous to the integrity of our government, and a giant disservice to the information seeking citizens of that official’s district or state.

The fact of the matter is; in order for our elected officials to effectively garner the appropriate level of funding for national, state and local projects, an accurate head count of the number of individuals in a given district, state, and the nation must be done as required by the Constitution, and for responsible democratic governing. Without the Census to guide money streams, there would essentially be huge disproportion of funding for communities across the nation. In addition, the future funding of local schools, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, and more, are at stake.

There are only two reasons not to fill out the Census; fear and laziness. As of the writing of this article, only 54% of Americans had mailed back their Census form. This low level of initial participation is both costly and inexcusable. There are only 10 simple questions to answer, and it takes you no more than 10 minutes. There is a even a return envelope with free postage included with your Census package. Those who are a frugal, yet still hesitant, should take note that it will cost an additional allotment of taxpayer funds to foot count those who refuse to mail in their forms.

The information we gain also allows us to know more about ourselves as a people, and provides agencies with valuable demographical information that we can use to improve the quality of life for all Americans. If you truly care about your community, and feel vested in the future of your state as well as your country; do the right thing, be counted, fill out and mail in your 2010 Census form today.