When we purchase a plane ticket, we aren't given an option for speed; only price. Therefore, we optimize that variable.
Actually trip duration is an option, and one which I regularly prioritize.
You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
11–20 of 72 posts
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#12A big part of the problem is that it is not just about price. New York to London is 5-6 hours. But back when I did business travel regularly (SFO LHR), the door to door time for me on an 11 hour flight was 16 hours after a lot of practice. So on a 5-6 hour flight, half would likely be spent on either end (and this is without checked luggage). At that point saving 2-3 hours in-air is not making enough of a dent in the…
That's a really great point. After 9/11, it takes so damn long to get to your flight that cutting out an hour of travel time isn't as impactful as before.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#13Pick 2 out of 3: cheap, fast, good. I guess we've chosen cheap and good. That's why I don't fly United. :)
I used to always fly United between LHR and SFO when I flew regularly. Their standard in every class was poorer than Virgin Atlantic or BA for example, but contrary to those United at least had one big advantage:
To get upgrades with Virgin or BA was like winning a lottery. It happens rarely, and getting up in the frequent flier tiers takes a lot of flying and usually buying more expensive tickets. And the benefits are relatively limited. But when you get bumped up with either one it's the royal treatment.
United was more basic when comparing on a class by class basis: Crappier seats, not as good food, etc. But after two returns on a flight as long as LHRSFO I was at a sufficient tier in their frequent fliers program to get automatic free upgrades to premium economy, and a miles multiplier that meant I'd get a free business class upgrade every 3rd leg from then on (and often more frequently than that, if there were free business seats), as well as priority boarding etc.. I'd still pick Virgin or BA for "one off" occasional flights any day, but United was great for frequent long haul flights.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#14Pick 2 out of 3: cheap, fast, good. I guess we've chosen cheap and good. That's why I don't fly United. :)
I used to always fly United between LHR and SFO when I flew regularly. Their standard in every class was poorer than Virgin Atlantic or BA for example, but contrary to those United at least had one big advantage: To get upgrades with Virgin or BA was like winning a lottery. It happens rarely, and getting up in the frequent flier tiers takes a lot of flying and usually buying more expensive tickets. And the benefits a…
United has changed, and not in a way that would make this easier. Now they offer paid first-class and "premium economy" upgrades to passengers at or shortly before check-in, usually steeply discounted, and consensus from passengers with status seems to be that A) it's not offered to them and B) it's offered before status upgrades are applied, so if first class fills up from the cheap upgrades, there will not be any status upgrades on the flight.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#15Not only are we to cheep to fly fast but we've also banned supersonic flight over most "civilized" land masses. There are only three or so US mainland airbases where it is legal to break mach 1 due to the fact that the voting public doesn't want to listen to sonic booms. Thanks to relatively new "shaped sonic boom" technology it is possible to massively reduce the acustic profile of supersonic flight but the damage is done. We're too cheap to fly fast and the technology which we need to fly fast still doesn't come cheap.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#16Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#17We're not nearly cheap enough:
The plane ticket price doesn't capture the cost of flying, the majority of which comes from the greenhouse gas emissions. Further working in the wrong direction is the tax freeness of jet fuel and the 2-3x amplified effect of co2 when injected directly to the upper atmosphere.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#18Point well made. But I rather see efficiency in airport terminals immediately as compared to aeroplane speeds, at least right now. For international flights it's a norm to arrive ~1-2 hrs earlier. Sometimes this time is nearly 20-30% of the entire flight time and in some extreme cases, may be even more.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#19Shaving a few hours won't open new markets or otherwise fundamentally alter our relationship with distance. It's telling that "convenience" is the selling point, which implies a difference of degrees rather than kind, and shows a lack of ideas of what we could do with this technology.
The next great hop in transportation would have to be instant or near-instant teleportation. And faster jets don't meaningfully bring us closer to that.
Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster
#20A big part of the problem is that it is not just about price. New York to London is 5-6 hours. But back when I did business travel regularly (SFO LHR), the door to door time for me on an 11 hour flight was 16 hours after a lot of practice. So on a 5-6 hour flight, half would likely be spent on either end (and this is without checked luggage). At that point saving 2-3 hours in-air is not making enough of a dent in the…
Completely agreed. I mainly fly internationally, and while shaving 2 hours off a 8 hour flight would be wonderful, it doesn't help me, as the majority of my time is spent in airports between the flights.
For me to get to where my family lives (one layover), it takes me:
1 Hour drive to airport
2 Hours because it's an international flight
8 Hour Flight
2 Hours Immigration / Baggage
1 Hour Re-checkin
3-5 Hour Layover
30 Minute Commuter Flight
30 Minutes for baggage
30 Minutes drive home
So for my entire flight, the flying (even on a 8 hour flight) is less than half of my total time. By lowering the amount of time between connections, or lessening the amount of connections that need to be made, you can get greater gains than by flying faster planes.
Cheaper planes and cheaper flights could actually make overall flying time SHORTER, because there would be more planes in the sky, and less time between fights.
-----------------------
Long rambling story:
When I first rode the bullet train back in college, I thought it would be like riding an airplane, at least from a management perspective. My friends and I bought the ticket a week in advance, made sure we were packed, and got to the station a good hour in advance of my train leaving.
It was only then that I realized that the security for getting on a bullet train is "show me your ticket" and that if you miss your train, you can just sit in the non-reserved seating on the next available train that will be along in under 5 minutes. (Back then it was more like 10, but still)
While you can't really compare trains and planes (and automobiles) in these situations, it still makes me think that the solution to faster travel is not faster planes, but better infrastructure and administration for travel.