Winter photography tips from a pro

As noted in this previous blog post, Skybus airlines is expanding. In January, it will add 11 daily flights from Greensboro, N.C., serving eight other cities. (See the full Skybus route map.) But if history is any guide, many of you will not fly Skybus. And because you don't step up, Skybus will fail. Here's how travelers typically ruin new low-cost airlines: Travelers rejoice when a discounter arrives on the scene. They love it because the discounter usually sparks a fare war with the well-known major airline that serves their hometown. But as fares drop, many travelers simply fly the major airline, taking advantage of its lower fares. Few fly the new discounter. Then, the discounter fails because of lack of business. And the major airline hikes its fares back up, hurting consumers. A classic case: Years ago, AirTran began service to Pittsburgh, challenging US Airways on many routes. But over time, US Airways matched AirTran's low fares, and customers flocked to US Airways. AirTran has since withdrawn almost entirely from Pittsburgh. Folks in Washington, D.C., witnessed this pattern when scrappy newcomer Independence Air challenged United on various routes, such as one to Burlington, Vt. That airline was forced to shut down within two years of challenging United on these routes. Frontier, which charged relatively low rates without being a true discounter, also lost its battle against United when it challenged the dinosaur on its prized San Francisco to Denver route. While other factors were involved in the above situations, the trend is fairly well-established. People don't support the low-fare airlines as much as they should. Southwest is a rare exception and it grew partly by avoiding competition with the major airlines during its early years. Here's my plea: If you live where Skybus flies and you like the low fares it has brought to your area, then you owe this airline your business. Otherwise, you are partly to blame for high ticket prices. Feel free to post a comment with your thoughts. EARLIER: Skybus expands its routes and $10 fares. ELSEWHERE: As much as we like Skybus, it's wrong to say that Portsmouth, Mass., is "near" Boston, says Jaunted. Photo by the inimitable Jessie Barber, via Flickr.

I just attended a round-table discussion on "sustainable travel." Ask ten people to define this and you'll get ten different answers. But for now let's just call it travel that, at the very least, doesn't hurt the environment, and at best, helps it. I love that this is finally a hot topic among travelers and that businesses are responding. For example, Vail Resorts is doing some pretty great things in this area, including serving hormone-free meats and poultry and organic dairy products in its 40 restaurants spread across five resorts. At the discussion, we spent a lot of time talking about where the readers of travel publications stand on the issue. There are oodles of statistics, of course, but it seems to me the best way to find out what readers think about something is to ask the readers themselves. (I know, crazy idea.) Here are the questions: Would you be more likely to pick an airline, rental car company, or hotel that uses environmentally friendly products over one that doesn't? Would you pay a little more for a flight, rental car, or hotel room if it was better for the environment? In general, do you consider sustainability when planning a trip? EARLIER Budget Travel's coverage of eco-tourism and "sustainable travel." Photo by WoodleyWonderWorks on Flickr via Creative Commons

I need to fly to Boston, one-way from New York, with my pug, Howard. Adam has a conference there and we're meeting him. Any guesses which airline we'll be flying? On Delta, it'd cost me $324.01 (or $218.50 if I fly through Charlotte and Atlanta), and that's not including the $75 fee to carry Howard on. The fare is $74 on JetBlue, not including the $50 pet fee. When you buy a ticket for a pet, you have to call, and normally JetBlue charges $10 for buying a ticket over the phone--but they waive it when you're buying a pet ticket, because there's no way to do it online. (That's just common sense, but I can't count the number of times airlines have charged me a fee even though I had no alternative way to avoid it. And I don't know if Delta would charge for the phone call, since I had to hang up after waiting on hold for 10 minutes.) I've never found JetBlue's loyalty program very appealing, but when the airline has service and prices like this, it doesn't have to be. My loyalty continues to grow anyway.

I've been quiet on the topic of the "passenger's bill of rights," because I'm a cynic about it passing in any worthwhile form; the airline lobby is pretty strong. But I've come to believe in one part, and am ready to shout about it: The federal government MUST declare a maximum time that passengers can be held on the tarmac. How long should that be? I say three hours. At which point, the pilot should be obliged to drive the plane back to the gate, where passengers can get off if they choose. Just because you pay for a ticket doesn't mean that you can be held against your will for time on end. It's unfortunate that the government has to get involved, but if the airlines had behaved better, we never would have reached this point. EARLIER: In June, Delta kept passengers of flight 6499 on the tarmac for seven hours. How bad was this experience? You can get a sense by watching this seven-minute video, filmed and edited by a passenger. Photo by TylerDurden1 (we hope he's no longer a member of Fight Club) via Flickr and Creative Commons.