Airlines Prepare To Impose Takeoff and Landing Fees!

Several days ago Delta Airlines offered an upgrade fee of $80-$160 for 4 inches of additional legroom on overseas flights. But in a move that has surprised many airline analysts the major U.S. carriers are instituting two new controversial fees. According to a statement released by the U.S. Air Carriers Alliance the fees will be taking effect June 1, 2011. Excerpts from the official statement:

"USACA Press Release, May 22, 2011. Due to current market conditions we will be offering the following optional upgrades for flights originating within the U.S. beginning June1, 2011:

1. Priority Takeoff Fee ($45) - Flights will be given a "priority number" once they pull away from the gate based on the percentage of passengers who take advantage of the Priority Takeoff Fee (PTR). Air traffic control will be informed of the flight's priority number and will clear flights for takeoff on this basis. Flights with low passenger participation and therefore a low priority number will be held short of the runway as higher priority flights are allowed to takeoff. This may result in significant delays for some flights and this is why we strongly suggest all passengers participate in the new program to insure timely arrivals at their final destinations.

2. Targeted Landing Fee ($60) - Due to changes in passenger load demands we anticipate infrequent instances where it would be in the interest of the carrier to land at an alternate nearby airport rather than than the original ticketed destination. On these flights when the captain is made aware of the situation he will be obligated to land at the alternate airport unless 50% or more of the passengers elect to pay the Targeted Landing Fee (TLF). Flight attendants will make an announcement informing passengers of the new landing location. At that point flight attendants will collect the TLF fee if it appears that a majority of passengers would like to continue on to their original destination. If not, passengers will be responsible for all costs associated with getting to to their original destinations."

Liz Cheney Denounces Obama for Shooting Bin Laden In Left Eye Instead of Right Eye!

Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe Foundation issued a statement immediately after the killing of Osama Bin Laden which essentially credited the torture that occurred during the Bush Administration for the successful mission. That claim has been been largely discredited as more information of how U.S. intelligence got on the trail of Bin Laden's courier comes to light. And more recently Senator John McCain made the definitive statement on the matter in which he unequivocally stated that enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) did NOT provide the critical intelligence in the hunt for Bin Laden.

In an apparent attempt to distract from the mounting evidence that torture did not help locate Bin Laden, Cheney and the Keep America Safe Foundation issued another statement today. It says in part "It is obvious the Navy Seal Team 6 was instructed to shoot Bin Laden in the left eye. Is this just a coincidence? We think not. By shooting him in the left eye instead of the right eye it is clear that President Obama wanted to send a subconscious message that it was the "left" who got Bin Laden. Why not shoot him in the forehead or between his eyes? The symbolism of Bin Laden being shot in the "left" eye might provide President Obama with the slight edge he needs going into the 2012 election. It is a backhanded slap in the face to all those on the right who aided in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and we think President Obama needs to be called out on it"

And finally there was criticism of Obama's environmental policies in the statement: "The left and President Obama pride themselves in being stewards of the environment yet they see no problem dumping a decomposing corpse into the Indian Ocean. Is it OK because it is not not in U.S. waters? This is the height of hypocrisy and we believe it calls into question President Obama's supposed commitment to protecting the environment. Convenience seemed to trump principles in this case."