=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SF Gate. The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2003/11= /16/TRG3P2TBFP1.DTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, November 16, 2003 (SF Chronicle) Off-peak holiday fare savings sometimes not worth trouble Ed Perkins Any traveler knows that travel is very heavy before and after Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day. These holidays present a double challenge: a shortage of available seats and higher minimum fares. There are good reasons why peak days are peak days and off days are off days, and if you have flexibility, you can cut travel costs by sticking to off days. But, at least according to a study by Priceline .com, the cost penalty for flying on peak days isn't as high as I thought it would be. Priceline identified the peak travel days as Nov. 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30; Dec. 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28; and Jan. 2, 3, 4 and 5. No surprises there; those are the days everyone wants to travel. Similarly, the off-peak days this year will be Nov. 2 and 27; Dec. 3, 4, 24, 25, 29, 30 and 31; and Jan. 1 and 6. Although the dates don't surprise me, Priceline's fare comparisons do. According to the report, Priceline's average national price for an airline trip departing and returning on peak days -- Nov. 25 and Nov. 30 -- was $294.40. The price for an off-peak trip -- departing on Nov. 21, returning on Dec. 5 -- was $194.35. Although that $100 difference would certainly be enough to make some people alter their travel plans, I think many people would happily pay an extra $100 to travel when they really want to, especially during the holiday season. The difference was even less for the December holidays. Priceline's average price for a peak-day airline trip, departing on Dec. 22 and returning Jan. 2, was $316.66, compared with an off-peak price of $271.54 for a trip departing on Dec. 19 and returning Dec. 31. To me, that $45 difference is hardly worth traveling on a day I'd really rather be at home or at my destination. Keep in mind that Priceline's fares are apt to be considerably lower than the airlines' posted "retail" prices. Even so, the study tells us is that if you want to travel over the holidays, start by checking options on the days you really want to travel. Then, check around to see how much you can cut the cost by traveling on off-peak days. If the difference is substantial, consider making the shift. But don't accept an unattractive schedule just to save a few bucks if it means you won't be able to make the most of your holiday time. From what I've read recently, the travel writers' union seems to have decreed that every member in good standing write an epitaph for the supersonic Concorde. OK, here's mine. And instead of the tears that most of my colleagues have shed, I offer more of a shrug. The two overriding facts about the Concorde are (1) it was very fast, and (2) it was very expensive. After some early worldwide explorations, problems with sonic booms, limited range, small size and high fares restricted the Concorde to flights from London and Paris to Washington and New York -- and, most recently, just New York. On those few routes, the supersonic plane quickly became the toy of celebrities and very self-important business travelers who thought their travel time was worth several thousand dollars an hour. Quite a few of the tearful farewells bemoan the loss of Concorde's "luxury," and that's just plain wrong. First class and even business class on a subsonic jet are far more luxurious than the Concorde, where the seats were only a little better than those on the two-seat side of a Coach MD80. Sure, the meal service was elaborate, but larger galleys allow subsonic jumbos to do even better. Unless someone manages to repeal the laws of economics, physics and aerodynamics, chances are that travelers of our generation will never again ride in a supersonic plane. That's too bad, since getting from New York to London in about three hours was great. But it simply takes too much energy to push a plane along at 1,200 miles per hour to make supersonic flight economical for ordinary travelers. Anyone who is rational about travel costs will be happy to fly below the speed of sound, at well below the price of Concorde. E-mail Ed Perkins at eperkins@xxxxxxxxx=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2003 SF Chronicle