Fuel prices seem to be the number one concern on just about everyone's mind lately, and it seems like things are not going to be getting better any time soon. As prices have risen to record levels, many of us have decided to cut back on our driving, especially on long trips in order to save a little on our fuel prices. Well, the airlines are no different, and there's an interesting report today in The Wall Street Journal showing how airlines are cutting back on long flights in order to save a little on fuel consumption.

It is a pretty nasty cycle we are seeing with the airlines. The higher fuel costs have led to higher tickets prices and extra fees. These higher prices have led to less air traffic, and that has led to an even greater need to find more ways to cover rising costs. Definitely a tough situation.

The new way they are starting to combat the high costs of flying is by cutting back, or postponing long international flights, in particular flights that are in excess of 12 hours.

China decided to raise the prices of gas and diesel by 18% last week. The theory is that this will cut into demand and help drive down the global price of oil. It will also save China money. The central government underwrites that cost of fuel by buying crude at high prices and selling the refined products below market.

Keeping fuel costs low is part of what allows the GDP in China to keep growing quickly. The country needs to move goods from the interior of the country ,where they are made, to the port cities for shipping. China's export success has some base in a low cost of shipping.

The China plan might work in the U.S., although it would risk harming many of the lower and middle class. The federal government has the opportunity to raise the taxes on gas and diesel enough to move the price of a gallon of "regular" to over $6. That would certainly cut consumption.

Or, the government can do nothing because gas may get to $6 all on its own.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

The U.S. government made the decision to offer tax rebates to help offset the economic slump. Based on recent unemployment figures, that may not be working.

Rising commodities and oil prices may be a more significant threat to consumers than the very modest growth in personal income.

That begs the issue of whether the U.S. is putting capital distributed to tax-payers in the right place. It may be that giving consumers subsidies to offset oil and gas prices is a much more effective way to keep the economy on track. And, that is what South Korea plans to do.

According to Bloomberg, the government in South Korea will put up about $10 billion "to help consumers and businesses cope with surging energy costs." These benefits will go mostly to those with modest incomes and small companies. Arguably, the rich and large corporations are better able to cope with high energy costs.

Estimates vary, but the U.S. economy is 10 to 15 times larger than South Korea's, so any similar program in the U.S. could cost $120 billion.

Not a ton of money to keep the skids greased.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

OPEC has repeated what it has said before, but with a little twist. It will not raise supply before its September meeting. That means that relief from $130 plus crude prices may not be coming.

But, the small addition to the group's comments is that "OPEC has no plans to meet to discuss oil's surge to a fresh record, and would need to see a real supply threat to gather before the next scheduled meeting," according to Reuters.

While it is not entirely clear what that means, it probably includes disruptions of oil production in areas that have little political stability, especially Nigeria and Venezuela.

In general, OPEC says that speculation and a weak dollar are driving oil up. That is a convenient excuse for a cartel that is making hundreds of billions of dollars while gasoline prices move toward $5.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Continental Airlines, Inc. (NYSE: CAL) is making cuts due to rising fuel costs:

Airline mergers no longer look like a panacea for the industry. They do not solve the problem of higher fuel costs. They often drive the ire of unions which do not want to lose any more jobs. And, integration problems usually make customers mad, which can send them off to fly other carriers.

Perhaps because of some of these factors, United (NASDAQ: UAUA) and US Air (NYSE: LLC) are cooling talks about a tie-up. Or, it may be that each airline thinks it can find a better deal. "Even as its talks with US Airways were continuing, United had begun talks with Continental for a possible alliance," Reuters reports.

The most likely case is that managements at airlines are looking for ways to stay out of Chapter 11. Rising jet fuel prices and the potential of lower passenger traffic in a recession have executives working overtime to keep losses from piling up.

A merger does no good if neither party in the marriage is in good enough shape to add much to the deal.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com and author of Ten Stocks Under $10 letter.

In a move that may be imitated by large US carriers like AMR (NYSE: AMR), Delta (NYSE: DAL) and Northwest (NYSE: NWA), British Airways will ground part of its fleet to save money because of the rising cost of fuel.

According to The Times of London, "The airline would park its oldest, least fuel-efficient aircraft."

Analysts are concerned that British Airways may loss money for the next two years. By taking some aircraft out of service, the carrier could ameliorate some of that.

Wall Street may watch to see if big American companies have the sense to do the same thing. Most have debt loads large enough to move them toward Chapter 11, if fuel costs stay high and a rough economy hurts passenger traffic. Major airline mergers, some of which are fairly far along, will not solve the gas price problem. Taking jets out of service may, at least in part.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Here are some highlights from this past week's earnings coverage from BloggingStocks:

• Abbott Laboratories Inc. (NYSE: ABT) first-quarter profit soared on overseas demand for Humira.
• Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE: AMD) posted a bigger-than-expected loss, its sixth straight.
• Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) posted better-than-expected first-quarter results on strength overseas.
• CSX Corp. (NYSE: CSX) first-quarter profit soared on strong demand for grain, ethanol, and coal.
• eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) beat first-quarter expectations but the outlook was uninspiring.
• Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) first-quarter profit soared 42%, beating Wall Street estimates.
• Intel Corp. (NASDAQ: INTC) first-quarter earnings slipped but exceeded expectations.
• Intuitive Surgical Inc. (NASDAQ: ISRG) beat first-quarter estimates and offered a disappointing outlook.
• J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. (NASDAQ: JBHT) missed first-quarter estimates on rising fuel prices.
• Nokia Corp. (NYSE: NOK) first-quarter profit missed expectations and it warned of a coming decline.
• Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) first-quarter profits fell and missed analysts' expectations.
• Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (NYSE: RS) lowered its second-quarter outlook.
• Royal Philips Electronics posted a bigger-than-expected fall in profit on weak North America TV sales.
• Wolverine World Wide Inc. (NYSE: WWW) beat earnings estimates but shareholders were not impressed.
• Xerox Corp. (NYSE: XRX) posted a first-quarter loss that matched analysts' estimates.

A team of Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) analysts keeps track of the price of oil going out four years. They are beginning to revise their forecasts upwards.

According to MarketWatch,"Tacking on $15 a barrel to all of its oil estimates, Goldman now sees average selling prices of $95 a barrel for 2008, $105 a barrel for 2009 and $110 a barrel for 2010. The high end of its range is now $135 a barrel -- but Goldman hinted that prices could be headed even higher." Obviously, the brokerage thinks oil will come down some, at least for a time, but the overall trend will stay up.

One of the analysts' biggest concerns is what will happen when the U.S. economy begins to grow rapidly again. Worldwide supplies will likely still be at current levels, but if a environmental disaster or political upheaval at one of the big oil producers cuts supply, Goldman predicts that prices could hit $150 to $200 a barrel.

It is hard to imagine with crude at that level that several large American industries would survive, at least with their current cost structures. Foremost among those would be the automotive and airline industries. Retail outlets would also be hurt by less frequent traffic caused by an attempt by customers to cut the miles traveled in their cars.

What could the government do if gas prices rose sharply from their current level of about $3 a gallon? It would cost states and the federal government billions of dollars, but they could eliminate the tax on gas consumption. Of course, they would probably have to raise taxes somewhere else to make up for that.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

The Ford (NYSE: F) F-150 has been one of the best selling vehicles in U.S. history. It is one of the most profitable products that the company produces.

A new version of the F-150 is one the way. According to Reuters, "the automaker, which has said its turnaround efforts hinge on exciting new products, is counting on the new trucks to help stem its protracted decline in U.S. sales."

Even if the truck has very little competition, it would not be likely to sell well. Pickups consume a great deal of gasoline. High fuel prices make the F-150 unattractive from that standpoint. And, Americans will probably defer new car buying due to tight credit and a bad economy.

In addition, Toyota (NYSE: TM) has entered the full-sized pickup market with the Tundra, and Chrysler has been in the business for year. GM (NYSE: GM) has a large line of light trucks. Each of these companies want the profits that come from selling a lot of pickup trucks.

If the F-150 is critical to Ford's fortunes, the company has a problem.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

I'm as guilty as the next American, but as far as fuel costs are concerned, it seems that we've become a nation of folks who love to complain about $3.00 gasoline but are doing little to actually fuel up less frequently. If public transportation isn't a viable option and carpooling doesn't make sense, one option could be a change in your current ride.

Some consumers have moved to smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles, but this shift is impacting the mid-sized market, rather than the hulks of the highway. Since 2000, the market share for small cars (and compact trucks) has risen to 31.8% from 21.5%. The mid-sized market, on the other hand, including models such as Toyota Motor's (NYSE: TM) Camry and General Motors' (NYSE: GM) Chevy Malibu, has seen market share sink to 40.1% from 51.3%.

Now on the other hand, some drivers don't think an extra $10 or so every time they fill up is worthy of a lifestyle change. Large vehicles, including luxury SUVs, remain as popular as ever. At the turn of the millennium, these vehicles accounted for 27.2% of all sales. In the first quarter of 2007, large vehicles earned a 28.1% share.

While models such as the Cadillac Escalade and Land Rovers are still in high demand, an overall move to fuel efficiency has become a matter for Capital Hill. The Senate is deliberating on a bill that would force automakers to raise their average fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) from the current 27.5 mpg by 2020. If high gas prices or the threat of a struggling planet don't force us to consider more responsible vehicle choices, maybe the nation's lawmakers will leave us no choice.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

This post is based on an article written by Alexander Green, Investment Director of The Oxford Club. My thanks to Mr. Green for his straightforward insight.

Let me begin by stating that my only argument against the oil industry has been their "the only game in town" attitude. Never have I complained that oil companies show too much profit. I have never accused the oil industry of gouging or unjust profiteering. With that stated, let us continue:

Oil companies DO NOT set gasoline prices at the pump. Those prices are dictated entirely by supply and demand economics. The single biggest driving force in the economics of crude oil today is the increasing demand by growing industrialized nations, China being the biggest by far. Even the United States Supreme Court declared that they find no evidence that oil companies are manipulating oil prices in any undue manner. This issue will, of course, remain in hot public debate.

It was June. I was a little broke. And my Mercedes SUV, that I'd purchased when I was single, young and foolish, got a flat tire. The tires were ready to be replaced anyway, and there was no "patching." It was dead.

That wasn't all that was wrong; I'd done a mental list of nits and major issues (like, the front windows wouldn't go up or down; the windshield was leaking; the rest of the tires were pretty shot) that added up to between $1500 and $3500, depending on how far I wanted to go. Really, it was $1000 to get the car in working order again.

I had two children, ages four and one. My house was within a few blocks of three bus lines. The whole family had bicycles and we live in a city that values alternative modes of transit. I was starting to really freak out about global warming; would my kids even have wineries nearby by the time they reached the age of consent? The papers said no.

The next day, a friend emailed. "Would anyone like to participate in a car diet?" There were freebies; a bus pass, use of a Flexcar, some goodies for our bike. We handed over our keys a few weeks later in a ceremony, with the mayor and the Channel 8 news crew standing by.