I recently talked to an airline pilot who was telling me some of the different tricks of fuel conservation. But the main point of his conversation was that the airlines EXPECT pilots to conserve fuel.

The weight of an airplane, and the role is plays in the business of airlines, is little understood by either the media or the public. Let's start with a couple of obvious points: 1) if a plane is overweight it can't fly safely. 2) There are three main weight variables that an airline deals with on every flight: the weight of people, the weight of fuel, the weight of baggage.

How does this affect you? Here's an example: pilots calculate the combined weight of these three variables before take off. If the math says the plane is overweight, the airline might have three passengers (and their luggage) get off the plane. But there are other, less obvious, things that this math affects...

Here's an example: for the past few years the airlines have mostly flown regional jets (RJs) into markets our size (they've done this for economic reasons that you're about to get a taste of). RJs are small; usually 40, 50, or (if you're lucky) 70 seats. The fact that most of our service is on RJs makes it extremely hard for us to convince an airline to provide direct service to either coast. Why? In a word...weight.

Suppose we're talking about a hypothetical flight between Springfield and Los Angeles on a 50-seat RJ. To fly that far the plane has to carry A LOT of fuel—so much fuel that 50 people, plus their baggage, makes the plane overweight. So what does the captain do? He might make ten people and their bags get off. Now here's where the math gets nitty-gritty. With only 40 paying passengers onboard the flight can't make a profit.

Doesn't airline math make your head hurt?!

The up side: the new technology should speed up the security screening of checked bags (assuming the TSA delivers what it's promising). The down side: who wants to pay another fee?

Read more from the Federal Times.

Our passenger numbers tend to bear out this prediction. January thrugh April our numbers are down two percent over last year. The more telling statistic is the decline in flights. In April of last year we had 944 scheduled flights. This April the number was down to 890. This is a direct reflection of "airline capacity cuts."

We've added another set of images to the midfield terminal photo album—the link is on the right, under the heading "Pictures."

Any feedback you have on the album would be appreciated. We're mainly concerned with how well it works. The slide show feature seems to be a bit finicky with some web browsers and download times are definitely on the longish side. Too long?

Still tweaking!

Several months ago Air Midwest said it was leaving many of these markets. Now, we're finding out who will replace them in Columbia. The Columbia Tribune  reports that Mesaba Airlines will provide service between Columbia and Memphis—three flight a day.

Mesaba is a subsidiary of Northwest Airlines. It's interesting to note that Mesaba is pursuing EAS markets—even in the shadow of the pending merger between Northwest and Delta.

"Only at Allegiant Air ticket counters. Seats are limited and fares may not be available on all flights. All fares are one-way. Must be purchased by May 10, 2008 for travel to be completed by Aug. 31, 2008. 7-day advance purchase required. Prices do not include PFC, segment tax or Sept. 11 security fee of up to $10.50 per segment. A convenience fee of $11.50 per traveling customer will apply when booked at www.allegiantair.com or through an Allegiant Air call center. Travel purchased through an Allegiant Air call center will cost an additional $10.00 per segment. A checked baggage fee will apply per bag, per segment. A segment is defined as one take-off and one landing. Fare rules, routes and schedules are subject to change without notice. Restrictions apply."

So come on out to the airport and buy those Florida tickets now!

DHS keeps on saying it's going to fix the problem, but keeps failing to do so. A Washington Times  story brings us the latest news in the saga:

"Sen. Russ Feingold wants the Bush administration to explain why federal air marshals were prevented from boarding some flights because their names matched those on the terrorist no-fly list, and whether the problem has been solved. Air marshals familiar with the incidents say the problem has persisted for years because some names are either exact matches or similar, prompting airline boarding agents to refuse admittance even after they present their credentials."

Read more about it from Forbes.