Friday, March 28, 2008
The cost of a plane ticket should be related to how much fuel it will take to get you to the destination, shouldn't it?
Not when you're looking to fly to some destination that is off the beaten path.
Anyone flying out of Des Moines, IA would be looking for a place to go that's not so dull and rural. The nearest big city is Chicago, therefore, the bean counters at the major airlines know that the average Iowan would pay well to get down off the farm to see the bright lights and tall buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan.
How much would it take to get that same Iowan to another backwater sort of place? After all, who in their right mind would travel to a place like Milwaukee, Wisconsin?
Want to go to Chicago? Save up your egg money, because a flight will set you back nearly $400, and that's flying on the cheap. Forced to go to Milwaukee to visit some ancient relation who might or might not keep you in the will? $240 and you're there.
The funny thing is, you'll fly into Chicago on your way to Milwaukee, and then you'll have to get on another plane for the last leg of the journey. You'll burn up more jet fuel, but you'll pay less money.
The citizens of Milwaukee are being insulted by this financial slight. If the tourism bureau was alert, they'd be trying to capitalize on this cost-saving feature to promote the inexpensive beauty of Wisconsin to the potential visitor who wants to go on vacation but is strapped for cash.