Everyone's trying to lose weight these days, it seems. For some, it's all about bathing suit season. For others, it's done in the name of fuel economy.
While drivers are trading in SUVs for compact gas-sippers, airlines are doing what they can to shed some pounds. No, not by imposing weight limits on passengers (yet). They're lightening up by taking away things like phones and magazines.
Yes, magazines.

Britain's Sunday Times reported earlier this week that Emirates Airlines, based in Dubai, will stop stocking seatbacks with magazines, reducing planes' weight and thereby shrinking fuel costs.

Last month, Bloomberg had a nice story on other unusual ways airlines are cutting fuel costs, including Southwest's version of hypermiling: flying more slowly.

(BTW Southwest also insists that "Customers of Size" must buy two seats, though it refunds the cost of the second seat if the flight isn't full.) I applaud airlines' attempts to lighten up wherever they can. But there's a limit. One blogger lists different ways airlines are cutting weight, one of them involving flushing toilets on the ground. Huh?

Anyway, while I'm all for fuel economy, some of the changes seem like they'd be counterproductive. For instance, when U.S. Airways cuts in-flight videos, people may bring their own entertainment, including heavy books, portable DVD players and the like. Wouldn't that actually weigh more in the end?

What do you think? Do you agree with some of these weight-reducing efforts? What else do you think airlines can do to slim down?

If you think Washington's hot, try New Orleans in July. When the Museum of the American Cocktail reopened its doors on Monday in that city, the temperature hit 96 degrees -- plus humidity.

It may seem fitting that a town legendary for its raucous Mardi Gras celebration would house a museum about drinking, but it makes even more sense when you see the list of NOLA-born cocktails: the hurricane, mint julep, grasshopper and the Sazerac, which Louisiana lawmakers just named New Orleans' official drink. (Ah, Louisiana politics.)

And my favorite theory about the etymology of the word cocktail involved the Americanization of a French word, a regular and colorful occurrence in Louisiana. The story goes that the first mixed drinks, poured in New Orleans in the early 19th century, came in egg cups called "coquetieres." Over time, that word got sufficiently mangled to become "cocktail." Voila. The cocktail is sometimes called America's first culinary creation, and the museum chronicles the evolution of the ingredients (from bitters and bathtub gin to Red Bull and Tanqueray) and displays an array of mixologist tools (antique shakers, swizzle sticks) and recipe booklets as old as 1862.

The MOTAC is housed in the Southern Food & Beverage Museum on the riverfront, just a few blocks from the French Quarter. Visitors can follow a visit to the museum with a Gray Line walking tour in the French Quarter called New Orleans' Original Cocktail Tour, a 2 1/2-hour visit to famous bars and restaurants (drinks included).

What I find strange is that Gray Line is also one of the companies still offering Hurricane Katrina tours, at $35 a pop. But it shouldn't surprise me: That capitalist spirit is, like the original cocktail, 100 percent American.

Less than five years ago, you could fly to Europe for $298 round trip off season, including taxes. And, in 1977, I flew the now defunct Peoples Express, one of the first post-deregulation discount carriers, for $99 each way from New York to Los Angeles: I paid a similar price just last year.

Until recently, sales were a staple of the airline world, and the flexible traveler could still be amply rewarded for spending time scouring various Web sites for a deal. Lately, however, even the most diligent shopper is having a difficult time finding a wow fare.
We all know about rising jet fuel prices, etc., but now the Air Transport Association, a trade organization for leading U.S. carriers, has released some stats that may bolster the airlines' case for not offering as many deals.

According to the ATA, first-quarter 2008 costs for U.S. passenger airlines grew at the fastest pace since the second quarter of 1980, up 31.3 percent since the first quarter of 2007 (compare that to the 4.2 percent increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index). Fuel and labor saw the largest increases. And even though passenger yield (the number of seats filled) went up by 2.6 percent to 77.2 percent, airlines need to fill 83.5 percent of the their seats to break even.
Should we feel sorry for the airlines? Did constant price wars cause them to cut their own throats? Should we ever have been able to fly to England for less than $300 round trip? Does it make sense that a trip that cost $99 each way is still the same price 30 years later?

Like a lot of people, I have a relationship with Amtrak that's straight out of "Codependent No More": can't live with it, can't live without the hope that America will someday figure out how to have a passenger rail system.

On the one hand, I can certainly understand why Amtrak gets no love from some folks. It's on-time percentage is abysmal, track conditions are often terrible and many of the trains are in desperate need of refurbishment or replacement.

But at a time in which gasoline prices are unspeakably high, as are airfares, and when ridership on the trains is up 11% this year, is it really possible that the White House is threatening to veto the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act?

Indeed it is.

In fact, President Bush, somewhat unbelievably, has recommended that Congress cut Amtrak's budget by $525 million in 2009. To its credit, Congress is not only interested in not cutting that budget, but the Senate at least would like to increase it by $225 million.

It was just three years ago that Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding of Amtrak, which was something of a head-scratcher even then. But now, with the transportation woes that our country is facing, isn't anything less than lukewarm commitment to Amtrak ludicrous?

Or am I missing something? Is this the time to abandon funding a rail system? Amtrak may not hold a candle to the glorious trains elsewhere in the world, but it's all we've got.

What's your take?

Today's Friday Photo, by Cathy Sampson of Shrewsbury, Mass., has a story behind it that's more about a photo not taken. Let's let her tell it:

"I took this photo while scuba diving in Grand Cayman this April. Our son's friend, Brian Sklut, was completing his checkout dives to earn his scuba certification. His divemaster, Elliott, was offering him a handshake to congratulate him on completing all of his skills. I had completed my certification the year before in the same spot, but with a reef shark circling overhead. A camera would have been fun then!"

Now it's your turn. Some guidelines for our Friday Photo contest:

1. Email ONE photo per week to us travel@washpost.com. Put "Friday Photo" in the subject field, and include your name, address and phone number.
2. Write a paragraph like the one above explaining what's going on in the picture, when you took it and why it's significant to you.
3. Photos should be from a recent trip, voyage, getaway . . whatever you want to call it. But try to keep it within the last month or two or three.
4. Winners will receive a Travel totebag; allow four to six weeks for delivery. Winning entries are subject to editing. Employees of The Post and their immediate families are not eligible. No purchase necessary.

Or rather, to be completely truthful, I've just returned this morning from a trip I took there for an upcoming Travel piece. Everyone knows that Europe's expensive -- which may be why I saw a rather startling lack of Americans in Denmark -- but just how out-of-reach is it?

The answer, as usual, depends on your idea of a vacation. I found it almost impossible to locate hotels charging less than about $150 a night (although deals do often crop up on Priceline and Expedia, where it's not unusual to find properties for less than $100, especially when they're not in the center of town).

Food-wise, be prepared for some shocking revelations. I know no one goes to Copenhagen for its plethora of McDonald's, but for comparison's sake, consider this: A Big Mac meal on the Radhuspladsen in the center of town goes for 49.50 kroner. At today's exchange rate, that burger, fries and drink would cost...

$10.54.

A pint of the city's beloved beer, Carlsberg? $9.79.
One small cup of hot tea, to go? $3.40.
Admission at the Dansk Design Center? $10.60.
Tivoli Garden? $18.10.

In short, expect a certain amount of sticker shock wherever you look. But in the end the prices are more shocking than prohibitive (not exactly a ringing endorsement for a European vacation, I admit). As long as you stay away from those Big Mac meals, that is.

Anyone else out there been to Europe of late? How much did you find things cost?

Carol's recent blog about the low numbers of visitors to the United States suggested some reasons why foreigners are staying away, but she neglected to mention one possibility: deadly snakes in our hotels.

As an animal lover, I'm saddened by the wanton disregard for these creatures, but I also cringe when I think about the poor housekeeping staff. What might a chambermaid have thought when she heard a rattling sound coming from one of those vinyl bags against the wall? And what if one of the snakes had escaped?

I watch enough TV to know that strange things happen in hotel rooms, but the only thing close to strange and scandalous behavior I've ever encountered in a hotel was hearing an amorous couple in the room next door.

We've heard horror stories about hotel room disasters (screaming kids, rude staff, theft), but I want to know: Have you ever witnessed bizarre activities at a hotel?
Or has anyone actually stayed at the Hy-Way Motel?