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

21–30 of 51 posts

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

#21

Post by guard-of-terra »

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…

What you actually need there is sleeper cars.

Imagine getting on the train at 7 in the evening, lying on your own bed reading books and drinking tea, sleeping actually then getting off the train at 9 in the morning at the railway terminal in another city.

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

#22

Post by justincormack »

ApertureHour wrote: post #20
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.

No, lower profit margins will kill it. With current enterprise software pricing you can afford lots of flights as part of the sales process. With SAAS type models you can't.

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

#23

Post by kngspook »

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".

No, there are guests allowed. I asked if I could fly someone to visit me instead of me going to them, but the account manager said I had to accompany all guests. =\ Understandable, but less useful for me.

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

#24

Post by objclxt »

tptacek wrote: post #5
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 fly a fair amount and don't find that I wait significantly longer for airport security now than I did before 9/11. I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but I don't think they're the major cause of commercial airport delays.

In the case of California and the SFO-LA route, isn't it pretty much universally acknowledged that SFO is one of the better airports for security, precisely because it's not run by the TSA but out-sourced instead?

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

#25

Post by sjtgraham »

rdl wrote: post #9
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…

Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft; it's just that passengers strongly associate turbofan aircraft with "quality and comfort", so the commercial market loves those. And, for commercial service under some parts, you're forced to use twin engines. Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways, and on par for overall safety (it's better to…

> Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft.

> Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways.

Do you feel like giving us any reasons? :)

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

#26

Post by Recoil42 »

sjtgraham wrote: post #25
rdl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft; it's just that passengers strongly associate turbofan aircraft with "quality and comfort", so the commercial market loves those. And, for commercial service under some parts, you're forced to use twin engines. Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways, and on par for overall safety (it's better to…

> Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft. > Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways. Do you feel like giving us any reasons? :)

I don't objectively agree with the latter point, but rdl is correct about the former. It takes high altitudes for tubofans to come into their element in the efficiency gradient, and short routes don't really stay in that area of altitude long enough to give them an advantage. Turboprops are more efficient at lower altitudes, which is perfect for short hop flights -- where you're spending half of the time climbing/descending anyways. This is partly why Porter Airlines in Toronto flies Q400s.

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

#27

Post by rdl »

sjtgraham wrote: post #25
rdl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft; it's just that passengers strongly associate turbofan aircraft with "quality and comfort", so the commercial market loves those. And, for commercial service under some parts, you're forced to use twin engines. Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways, and on par for overall safety (it's better to…

> Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft. > Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways. Do you feel like giving us any reasons? :)

Turboprops (and some pistons) are way more efficient at low altitudes. For a short route, most of your time is spent a lot altitudes, so the prop is going to be a lot more efficient. Saves fuel, makes it cheaper to fly, thus lower fares.

Single engine aircraft have been shown to be essentially as safe as twins, at least on light aircraft like these. Engines very rarely fail, and a twin engine light craft failing often fails in a way where the plane still is unflyable, or the pilots of those aircraft aren't able to recover (more of an issue for private single pilots vs. a charter with two). There are some ways where it doesn't matter how many engines the aircraft has, and the twin engines add complexity which increase the odds of problems (which generally cause ground stops or non-crash incidents, but which could possibly cause crashes). Twins also cost more per hour to operate (in fuel, and especially maintenance), and cost more to buy. Inexperienced pilots also manage to crash aircraft with two working engines by doing stupid things with the engines, where they may not in a single, although this is less of an issue with FADEC I think.

For a long flight over the ocean, a big twin turbofan ETOPS certified or maybe even a trijet or 4-engine aircraft is the way to go, but for short domestic flights over land, a single (turboprop, ideally, but even some pistons) would be my choice. My dream aircraft is a CH801 (kit) with a diesel engine (super slow, ~$100-150k), or a Cessna Grand Caravan ($300k and up to low millions if new and highly outfitted).

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

#28

Post by rdl »

Recoil42 wrote: post #26
sjtgraham wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft. > Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways. Do you feel like giving us any reasons? :)

I don't objectively agree with the latter point, but rdl is correct about the former. It takes high altitudes for tubofans to come into their element in the efficiency gradient, and short routes don't really stay in that area of altitude long enough to give them an advantage. Turboprops are more efficient at lower altitudes, which is perfect for short hop flights -- where you're spending half of the time climbing/des…

They're clearly objectively better in a lot of ways; you could just argue that they're not net-better overall, since there are also advantages to twins. Single is undeniably cheaper to buy/operate. Since you never push off without both engines good, there's no way a twin would have higher dispatch rate than a single (since there are ~twice as many parts to deadline your aircraft).

You may still value "has extra engine in case one dies in flight" more than this, though. (and I did, until I saw how singles actually had approximately the same safety stats as twins, at least for private pilots most like what I'd be.)

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

#29

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

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…

I find the railway network in the US simply deplorable. In most of Europe, people complain if they miss an hourly connection, and we have night trains on most days to most large cities.

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

#30

Post by temphn »

tptacek wrote: post #5
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 fly a fair amount and don't find that I wait significantly longer for airport security now than I did before 9/11. I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but I don't think they're the major cause of commercial airport delays.

But of course they are, or more general the web of DHS/TSA/FAA/etc. regulations is the reason why commercial air travel has not advanced in door-to-door speed.

Without the regulations you could imagine an airport that pre-screened travellers. You roll up to the curb, get valet parked, and your bags checked, and then you get on the flight. You'd build the entire airport around this rapid on/off experience. You could have an airline that would run an Uber-style service to pick you up at your door. You'd solve the whole problem.

But there's no Toyota-style optimizations applied because these optimizations are illegal. Prime among them is that efficiency of this kind would make the airport more of a target IF it was also prevented by law from discriminating against potential dangerous passengers, which it would be.

And that's why when you ban selectivity at the federal level the necessary consequence is mediocrity.

Post reply on HN