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

All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#11

Post by vacri »

natnat wrote: post #3

It's funny that a huge part of the reason that a business like this exists is the TSA. If flying commercial airlines didn't require an hour and a half of waiting in line for security and a fair dose of humiliation, I think people would be much more willing to fly from SFO to LAX. Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some a…

I was in California in 2009 and found it weird that there was no daily train between LA and SF - it only runs (ran?) every second day. The day I left, I had to get a bus to Bakersfield to connect to the train.

The other striking thing was train travel in the South being heavily subsidised - huge distances travelled for not much money, with power for your laptop and lots of space to move around. If the train schedule was appropriate for you, you'd be crazy to fly instead.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#12

Post by russell_h »

United857 wrote: post #7
jpatokal wrote: post #2

Fascinating! Although, as a cautionary data point, selling "all you can fly" didn't work too well for American Airlines: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/05/business/la-fi-0506-...

That was because the people were allowed to fly with a "guest", and started selling their seats to strangers in violation of the rules. With this airline, everyone will be required to buy a membership -- no "guests".

Also, this seems to be month-to-month as opposed to a lifetime deal. "Unlimited" for a month could be true. "Unlimited" for life isn't.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#13

Post by coin »

davidwihl wrote: post #10
natnat wrote: post #3

It's funny that a huge part of the reason that a business like this exists is the TSA. If flying commercial airlines didn't require an hour and a half of waiting in line for security and a fair dose of humiliation, I think people would be much more willing to fly from SFO to LAX. Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some a…

The Pilatus PC12 single engine turboprop is far more efficient for this sort of mission than a twin engine turbofan jet. This lowers operation and maintenance costs which this airline is passing onto consumers.

Yup, turbo props are far more efficient than turbo jet at low altitudes.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#14

Post by [deleted] »

davidwihl wrote: post #10
natnat wrote: post #3

It's funny that a huge part of the reason that a business like this exists is the TSA. If flying commercial airlines didn't require an hour and a half of waiting in line for security and a fair dose of humiliation, I think people would be much more willing to fly from SFO to LAX. Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some a…

The Pilatus PC12 single engine turboprop is far more efficient for this sort of mission than a twin engine turbofan jet. This lowers operation and maintenance costs which this airline is passing onto consumers.

[deleted]

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#15

Post by ChuckMcM »

natnat wrote: post #3

It's funny that a huge part of the reason that a business like this exists is the TSA. If flying commercial airlines didn't require an hour and a half of waiting in line for security and a fair dose of humiliation, I think people would be much more willing to fly from SFO to LAX. Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some a…

And the economics of air travel, such as they are, make a round trip flight to Santa Barbara $500 as the 'cheap' fare [1] in coach. If you fly four times a month you save money with this plan.

But the TSA thing is a real pain too. A friend of mine who has his pilots license requires all passengers have at least 16 oz of fluids and a knife with them when they fly :-) We joke but he did point out that if you were in flight 214 trapped under a stuck seatbelt or malfunctioning escape slide with no pocket knife you could have died.

[1] Plus fees of course

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#16

Post by neurotech1 »

rdl wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he ran the numbers and picked single engine aircraft for safety (but with two pilots); this seems correct from what I've seen of small aircraft stats. If you look at successful dispatch rate, it's even more clear that single engine is the way to go. I'd do something like this if they covered Seattle, SF, Reno, Portland, and central-WA (datacenters) and central-OR (datacenters). Throw in SB/LA/SD…

Light twin piston engine aircraft have can be difficult to control on one engine, and may not even maintain altitude in some conditions. A PC-12 uses a PT6 turboprop engine, which is one of the most reliable turboprop engines available.

Light twin piston aircraft are not exactly cheap either.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#17

Post by rdl »

neurotech1 wrote: post #16
rdl wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he ran the numbers and picked single engine aircraft for safety (but with two pilots); this seems correct from what I've seen of small aircraft stats. If you look at successful dispatch rate, it's even more clear that single engine is the way to go. I'd do something like this if they covered Seattle, SF, Reno, Portland, and central-WA (datacenters) and central-OR (datacenters). Throw in SB/LA/SD…

Light twin piston engine aircraft have can be difficult to control on one engine, and may not even maintain altitude in some conditions. A PC-12 uses a PT6 turboprop engine, which is one of the most reliable turboprop engines available. Light twin piston aircraft are not exactly cheap either.

Indeed; I've had this conversation (in favor of a Grand Caravan) with lots of crappy C-23 (Shorts 330) military pilots. And the "oh, let's put fuel above the passenger compartment in a plane we're flying in a warzone" question, too. The C-12 King Airs were somewhat better, but tiny. I'd take a PC-12 > King Air anyday, and a Caravan or Grand Caravan in general (due to superior cargo capability, even at the cost of range), but that's my preference.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#18

Post by rdl »

russell_h wrote: post #12
United857 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was because the people were allowed to fly with a "guest", and started selling their seats to strangers in violation of the rules. With this airline, everyone will be required to buy a membership -- no "guests".

Also, this seems to be month-to-month as opposed to a lifetime deal. "Unlimited" for a month could be true. "Unlimited" for life isn't.

I wonder how the duration-limited "all you can fly" JetBlue deals worked out for them.

"Unlimited airpasses" for international visitors to places like Southeast Asia are pretty common, combined with long-haul international flights, too.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#19

Post by britta »

vacri wrote: post #11
natnat wrote: post #3

It's funny that a huge part of the reason that a business like this exists is the TSA. If flying commercial airlines didn't require an hour and a half of waiting in line for security and a fair dose of humiliation, I think people would be much more willing to fly from SFO to LAX. Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some a…

I was in California in 2009 and found it weird that there was no daily train between LA and SF - it only runs (ran?) every second day. The day I left, I had to get a bus to Bakersfield to connect to the train. The other striking thing was train travel in the South being heavily subsidised - huge distances travelled for not much money, with power for your laptop and lots of space to move around. If the train schedule…

The Coast Starlight (http://www.amtrak.com/coast-starlight-train) has been running once a day between LA and Oakland for years, with a connecting bus to SF - here's its schedule: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/935/314/Coast-Starlight-Schedule... It takes about 12 hours if there are no delays. It's a lovely and relaxing trip, but that's a long time compared to flying or driving.

If you want to leave SF/Oakland later than 9 am or LA later than 10 am, you have to take some long bus connections (which aren't very fun) and the San Joaquin or Pacific Surfliner.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#20

Post by ApertureHour »

OldSchool wrote: post #6

I've never quite mentally reconciled the idea that people whose industry is built on telecommunication should have to spend hours and days traveling to talk about it.

I suspect that might change in the near future if telepresence with large, 4K screens showing life-sized, full body representations of people became commonplace. It seems like a lot of the necessity of in-person conferences and meetings is still things like realistic eye contact and subtle body language cues.
Post reply on HN