Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#51

Post by ams6110 »

yew wrote: post #42
zanny wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to think the only reason trains pretty much died as an industry in the last hundred years is due to government fiddling or poor infrastructure maintenance. In a trifecta of balancing cost to time to carrying weight, trains should almost always win, with cars never winning in any of them and planes winning only at time investment. Yet we all drive cars (which win in being personal transport where free wheels in…

Trains didn't die as an industry. Actually the US has an exceedingly good (privately-owned) freight rail system, compared to the rest of the world (assuming you're talking about the US from the Amtrak reference). What did happen is that Amtrak was displaced by said freight rail system. It doesn't really own any rail - everything is under contract, with freight getting first priority contractually. Though it also has…

Moving freight by train is also a lot more efficient than moving people by train. Freight doesn't need room to walk around, doesn't need to eat, doesn't need to sleep, doesn't need bathrooms.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#52

Post by yew »

ams6110 wrote: post #51
yew wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains didn't die as an industry. Actually the US has an exceedingly good (privately-owned) freight rail system, compared to the rest of the world (assuming you're talking about the US from the Amtrak reference). What did happen is that Amtrak was displaced by said freight rail system. It doesn't really own any rail - everything is under contract, with freight getting first priority contractually. Though it also has…

Moving freight by train is also a lot more efficient than moving people by train. Freight doesn't need room to walk around, doesn't need to eat, doesn't need to sleep, doesn't need bathrooms.

I agree. I'm quite happy with the current freight rail system, though I'd enjoy more passenger rail for mostly aesthetic reasons.

I don't think that's a good reason to be too disruptive towards the freight industry.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#53

Post by rogerbinns »

philsmith35 wrote: post #4

When we purchase a plane ticket, we aren't given an option for speed; only price. Therefore, we optimize that variable.

That is the airline's fault. Their revenue optimization means that everyone on the plane gets essentially the same experience, but pays differing amounts through mechanisms that make car dealers seem delightful. Since the airlines made it all about the price, people responded.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#54

Post by rationalthug »

atdt wrote: post #19

Shaving 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…

While cutting time in the air by half may not make a fundamental difference, cutting it by five or six times could. Point-to-point sub-orbital services have the potential to do this, though there are challenges for this type of flight that bring its difficulties closer to orbital operations than the (mostly) straight up and down trajectories that will be flown by Virgin Galactic, XCOR, etc.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#55

Post by waps »

atdt wrote: post #19

Shaving 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…

I think that the big win in convenience would have to be found in fundamental airport redesigns. The way they move people around is just terrible.

One huge problem I see is that the security is government-based. Getting of a plane, HAVING TO GO THROUGH SECURITY and boarding the same fucking plane takes 30+ minutes. Why does it have to happen at all ? Of course, the reason is government regulation : "security", so that it costs millions of people hours of inconvenience regularly is no argument. Can we please just get rid of this entirely ?

Walking around in airports, well I just really hate it ... why are we having these distances (I've walked 3 km already to get to a flight). Why the constant breaks ? Why don't we have a baggage drop off (without people, and enough to not have lines) that checks you in, gives you a "flasher" token, then 20 cafes to choose from (ideally complimentary, but I wouldn't mind paying that much). 5 minutes before the flight that token starts flashing you walk up to an elevator, and you walk out of the elevator into the plane. And security figures out how to "scan" the elevator in .001 second without any visible change to the people inside. Bonus points if these checkin stations are simply in the middle of parking space.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#56

Post by newbie12 »

zanny wrote: post #33
harisenbon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wish we had more trains. Not just for passengers, but in general. They just get the best cost per mile per pound were gonna get on planet Earth, since the physics of cars requires constant acceleration / deceleration and 2 dimensions of movement, and planes require lift. I'd love a train from Miami to Boston that hits all the major cities and averages something between the terrible 80 mph Amtrack trains and the way…

The fundamental problem is that the ground experience is managed by the airports, which are usually unionized governmental entities with little concern for the customer's time, and by the TSA. Similarly, despite very compelling economics, interstate passenger rail is a failure in the US because the government corporation Amtrak has a monopoly, deals with some of the most absurd unions in America, and doesn't seriously innovate.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#57

Post by newbie12 »

yew wrote: post #42
zanny wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to think the only reason trains pretty much died as an industry in the last hundred years is due to government fiddling or poor infrastructure maintenance. In a trifecta of balancing cost to time to carrying weight, trains should almost always win, with cars never winning in any of them and planes winning only at time investment. Yet we all drive cars (which win in being personal transport where free wheels in…

Trains didn't die as an industry. Actually the US has an exceedingly good (privately-owned) freight rail system, compared to the rest of the world (assuming you're talking about the US from the Amtrak reference). What did happen is that Amtrak was displaced by said freight rail system. It doesn't really own any rail - everything is under contract, with freight getting first priority contractually. Though it also has…

Amtrak is actually a creature of the federal government that does own the northeast corridor rail lines. There's no reason Amtrak can't run bullet trains on the NE corridor except that they lack the capital needed for the track upgrades, and likely are incapable of executing on the project.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#58

Post by starpilot »

ajhit406 wrote: post #43

The article is correct to a large extent. But I'm surprised it didn't mention the elite group who fly considerably faster: private jet owners and corporate jet "beneficiaries". These individuals are not nearly as price sensitive as the average consumer, and face much larger opportunity costs when sitting around at the airport or moving slowly in flight. With some of the newer (and very expensive) private jets like th…

> It would be interesting to see airlines' market research around higher speed aircraft, and whether there was enough demand for super sonic flights. My intuition tells me they did perform this research, and the data told them that it wasn't economically feasible.

This is why Boeing's Sonic Cruiser (mentioned in the article) was canceled. The jump in drag approaching the sound speed cascades into more complex and costlier aircraft engineering, which ends up in the fare. Lockheed's Skunk Works also shopped around a quiet supersonic platform (not subject to the sonic boom flight restrictions in the US) biz jet to Wall Street banks in the early '00s, who were the most avid flyers of the Concorde, but there wasn't enough interest to fund it.

> there are some companies who are innovating on the fringes to make private jets more accessible

This would be air taxi companies like DayJet, which went bankrupt due to the late '00s recession. In an age when most people comparison shopped for airfares $20-50 cheaper, offering a seat costing $200+ more for slightly shorter flights wasn't a great value proposition, and still isn't. Better preboarding and seating on the planes is somewhat taken care of already by business+ class (you also get those airline clubs in the departure areas). This small chunk of benefits still costs too much for most consumers, with the vast majority of first/second class tickets acquired through flyer miles or corporate sponsorship. Air taxi seating would cost even more than first class due to reduced economy of scale. Would this be worth it to skip the TSA line? I'm not sure. Kavoo is a new air taxi operator that flies (slower) turboprops though.

> I for one would love to travel out of smaller airports if there were more options...

This was the original goal of Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 (in fact the EA logo depicted travel between regional airports like Van Nuys, bypassing hubs such as LAX). I think the higher energy requirements and generally greater distances of air travel magnify cost differences in small transit vs mass transit (taxicab vs. bus), making jet air taxis cost prohibitive at this time.

Disclosure: Former Eclipse Aviation engineering intern

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#59

Post by harisenbon »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #25
harisenbon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do you have to re-checkin? You can just drop your bags off after customs in most airports unless your commuter flight is > 4 hours away. 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 ho…

Depending on the airport, you need to re-check in & go through security when going from International to Domestic. This is true at LAX which is the main hub that I go through.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#60

Post by natrius »

zanny wrote: post #39
zurn wrote: post #17

We'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.

I have to think the only reason trains pretty much died as an industry in the last hundred years is due to government fiddling or poor infrastructure maintenance. In a trifecta of balancing cost to time to carrying weight, trains should almost always win, with cars never winning in any of them and planes winning only at time investment. Yet we all drive cars (which win in being personal transport where free wheels in…

The market for train travel from New York to Austin is pretty much non-existent because it just doesn't make any sense unless you can't fly for some reason. Even with high speed trains, it'd be a ridiculous choice. With demand so inelastic, you get exorbitant prices and no reason to invest in improvements. Neither are Amtrak's or Congress's fault.
Post reply on HN