21–30 of 72 posts
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.
A 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 3…
A 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.
A 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 3…
For me it works out like:
30 minute taxi to airport
2 hours ahead because its an international flight; checkin isn't even open if I arrive more than 2 hours earlier, I could get away with 1 hour or 1 1/2 hour, but I would get nervous.
1 hour delay on tarmac (b/c...Beijing)
11 hour flight
30 minutes immigration/baggage because Seattle is cool like that (unless our flight gets in early, then we have to wait for customs to open, curse that afternoon Beijing-Seattle flight!). On the other end, you have Heathrow, where the wait to get through customs is 4 freaking hours. I'm never flying to London directly from Asia again.
30 minute taxi to Bellevue if Seattle is my final destination (it often is), otherwise, hang out in the airport for a few hours waiting for whatever weird connection I have. Security in SEATAC is like 10 minutes, so no big deal there.
Bullet trains are great, until you realize that the bullet train station is farther away than the airport...on both sides of the trip! Given the distance, it's still much faster to fly between Beijing/Shanghai than to take the bullet train. Japan is completely different, of course.
I'd really like to hear if an Australian travelling to New York (or anywhere international but Bali/NZ) would prefer a faster plane.
A 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.
Give me a way to skip the whole "everybody is a possible terrorist" fiasco and now we're talking ...
Yes, I'd rather flights be faster than cheaper. But for most people, saving a few hours isn't worth spending a few hundred or thousand dollars extra on a flight. Which sounds kind of reasonable, to be honest.
I use Hipmunk to find flights, and by default they sort results by "Least Agony" -- which means least total flight time / stops. Those tickets are generally more expensive, and I often have to sacrifice agony for price.
Not everyone can afford fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
The worst part of my flight, and most of the time the largest part, is the Home->Gate->Plane part. Why would I pay to optimize the least unpleasant part of the journey? Give me a way to skip the whole "everybody is a possible terrorist" fiasco and now we're talking ...
It was that way for a long while.