Cut-Throat Competition --- De-Regulation Is Good (?)

Just a note to express my not unusual
second-guessing/ambiguity/ambivalence about de-regulation:

Discounter Air Tran has apparently vastly increased some of its
previous low fares .

Somebody yesterday tells me that a one-way Air Tran fare from Reagan
to Hartsfield-Jackson is around $150.

It was about half of that not many months ago, wasn't it?

Suddenly, it's deja-vous all over again, Yogi.

Not that I'm actually for unfettered competition, because the Delta
etal bankruptcies are not in the overall public interest imho.

This is not meant to be a complaint: merely my profoundly shallow
political-economic obsevation as a customer rather than airplane
employee.

On 28 Mar 2006 06:31:35 -0800, "Robert Cohen"
wrote:

Just a note to express my not unusual
second-guessing/ambiguity/ambivalence about de-regulation:

Discounter Air Tran has apparently vastly increased some of its
previous low fares .

Somebody yesterday tells me that a one-way Air Tran fare from Reagan
to Hartsfield-Jackson is around $150.

It was about half of that not many months ago, wasn't it?

Suddenly, it's deja-vous all over again, Yogi.

Not that I'm actually for unfettered competition, because the Delta
etal bankruptcies are not in the overall public interest imho.

This is not meant to be a complaint: merely my profoundly shallow
political-economic obsevation as a customer rather than airplane
employee.

On the other hand, it may simply be that as you get closer to the
desired departure date the prices go up. I find RT fares for
dates in September of $109, $114 and $154. Maybe you need to
deepen that shallow political-economic sense you have there.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

fares rise closer to departures

Yes:

I am told Air Tran's Savannah--Atlanta is for one way if purchased two
weeks advance approximately $50+, but approx $100+ on or near its
departure.

I realize the jet-fool price is wayyyy upppp, and that airplane
companies are in a difficult, crazy bidness, and I hope that
domestic-mined coal can be converted cleanly & cheaply into airplane
fuel, as per discounter Jet Blue is reported to be very much into
researching.

Here's what I candidly further feel/think:

If an airline were to publicize/advertise they are utilizing "clean
coal-derived fuel," I think I wouldn't mind (as much) paying a certain
"domestic coal fuel add-on surcharge," and I'm not kidding about such.

It would be the greatest gimmick since ...oh, I dunno, maybe the
Swanson tv dinner or the Sky Chef airplane food tray system...no...I'm
not joking about some breakthrtough or innovation that would break the
oil-derived jet-fuel monopoly/oligopoly.

If Aerona (just made-up silly name), The Deity of Flight really exists
up in the sky, then she'll facilitate competitive enough clean coal jet
fuel asap.

"Robert Cohen" wrote ...

If an airline were to publicize/advertise they are utilizing "clean
coal-derived fuel," I think I wouldn't mind (as much) paying a certain
"domestic coal fuel add-on surcharge," and I'm not kidding about such.


Jetfuel can be produced from domestic coal as we speak (and back during
WWII, the nasty Tschermans was even able to produce - a bit - an AVGAS
equivalent from that source). Texas A&M University, IIRC, possesses all the
research material for such production (which could come from any manner of
sources, including the grease tank at your local MickyDs.

There's a simple problem in the CoalJet Fuel process, the cost of energy to
do so, making the actual cost of the fuel much higher than the stuff off the
catcracker tower down at your neighborhood refinery.

Were oil to reach a $100 a barrel and other commodity prices stay close to
today's levels, oil from Canada's tar sands becomes the most realistic
energy source.

TMO

Tar Sands

Many years ago when I heard about the Alberta tar sands--and
subsequently heard of the Nevada--Wyoming (?) tar sands--I and others
thought: in order to get/melt 'em, nuke 'em.

If the nuke is not the kind that is radioactive, I'd be fer it.

I'm sure it's a lot more complex to distill/refine/separate than simply
heat-melting the stuff, because it woulda already be done, wouldn't it?

Oil a hundred dollars U.S. per 40 (44?) gallon barrel

Well, the financial cost itself of the Iraq war & the
war on terrorism seemingly make oil more costly than that $100 figure.

I know. I know. .

It's more involved/complex than merely about oil.

Nevertheless the afore concession:

There are not a few who think that o-i-l is actually costing much,
much , much more than that $50--$60 per barrel current spot market, and
I is included with them simplistic minds.

Robert Cohen wrote:

Oil a hundred dollars U.S. per 40 (44?) gallon barrel

Average them out and you will get the answer
42.

"TOliver" wrote:

There's a simple problem in the CoalJet Fuel process, the cost of
energy to do so, making the actual cost of the fuel much higher than
the stuff off the catcracker tower down at your neighborhood refinery.

Were oil to reach a $100 a barrel and other commodity prices stay
close to today's levels, oil from Canada's tar sands becomes the most
realistic energy source.

The economics I've seen suggest that coal liquefaction is competitive with
$40 per barrel oil. The state of Illinois is testing that assumption by
building a plant to boost the economy of the southern part of the state.

The governor of Montana is also a proponent of using coal to make liquid
fuels, and is stumping for support, both financial and political, to build
a plant in that state as well.

In article ,
TOliver wrote:

Were oil to reach a $100 a barrel and other commodity prices stay close to
today's levels, oil from Canada's tar sands becomes the most realistic
energy source.

Geologically, the Alberta tar sands are the same as the Orinoco oil sands,
whence most Venezuelan oil is pumped. The difference is the ambient
temperature.

Both are different from coal beds, where coal can be mined.

--
Randy Hudson