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

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#61

Post by breser »

mortenjorck wrote: post #47
omni wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of at least 113 other reasons as well. I'd imagine a fatal crash would have had much more impact on consumer attitudes towards the Concorde than it would towards other, more "conventional" plane models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

It's strange. The Concorde crash was clearly due to a cascade of safety protocol violations, from Continental's runway debris and subsequent skipped runway inspection, to Air France's overweight takeoff, yet the Concorde itself, despite a spotless record, became the target of public outrage.

The safety issues were not the full reason that the Concorde was grounded permanently. It was grounded temporarily until the design issues raised by the crash were resolved by design changes (Kevlar lining in fuel tanks, burst resistant tires). If safety was the real driver, the improvements would never have been made and deployed.

The real problem was that the Concorde was a 1960's design in 2003 with only 20 units produced. As such it did not continue to receive upgrades and other refinements that other aircraft do. Compare what a 737-100 looked like and what a 737 you'd fly on today looks like. That's just the visual changes, think of the improvements you can't see. Like improved cockpit controls. With only 20 units parts were expensive. Airbus didn't want to support the aircraft either.

I'm sure there was some decrease in passengers after the crash. But I don't think there was a public outrage. With time the numbers would have recovered. They retired the plan not even a full year after restoring service.

As I understand it Air France was selling tickets at less than their cost to operate it. While both BA and AF announced the cancelations at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if Air France was the group that decided to pull the plug first. Taking out half the planes would have made the maintenance even more expensive for BA.

Finally, Richard Branson tried to buy the BA Concorde fleet and continue operating it. Branson is not an idiot at business, he obviously thought there was a market there. For some reason that's not clear BA refused to sell to him. Which leads to the other possible reason for retirement, the airlines figured out they could make more profit selling subsonic first class than Concorde tickets. Not selling to Branson prevented him from having the supersonic competitive advantage.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#62

Post by venus »

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.

The tohoku shinkansen in Japan can have trainsets with up to 1600 people in one 16-car train, and can slam them down the line at 250+kph, one every 3 or 4 minutes. A couple of E5s could do 1400 people at 320. If that isn't efficient then I'd love to know what is!

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#63

Post by seanmcdirmid »

harisenbon wrote: post #59
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure you have to hit security again, but most airports have a bag recheck counter after customs, you just drop it off after you pass the customs checkpoint. Security isn't much of a problem at seatac.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#64

Post by seanmcdirmid »

newbie12 wrote: post #56
zanny wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 seriousl…

This post is drool. "Blame the unions" is the new right wing "blame Jews" I guess.

Most airports in the states are reasonably run and don't waste our time, compared to many other European and Asian countries.

Passenger rail doesn't work well in the states given the distances involved, we just aren't that dense. Where it does make sense in the eastern corridor, Amtrak is able to make a profit. Amtrak long haul routes however exist only for those afraid to fly.

Long haul routes in china only make money because they have much more volume than us, and people who don't mind traveling 2 days from shanghai to urumuqi to save on a 6 hour flight.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#65

Post by seanmcdirmid »

venus wrote: post #62
ams6110 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The tohoku shinkansen in Japan can have trainsets with up to 1600 people in one 16-car train, and can slam them down the line at 250+kph, one every 3 or 4 minutes. A couple of E5s could do 1400 people at 320. If that isn't efficient then I'd love to know what is!

Japan is a very compact country. Lovely for anyone in the DC-Boston corridor, doesn't scale to most of the states however. Consider how there isn't much of anything between San Francisco and LA.

Love the Shinkansen though. My preferred method of travel within Japan.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#66

Post by delinka »

magic_haze wrote: post #49
delinka wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Trek's transporters would be excellent. We could recover all that land that's covered in paving, no longer care about location, eliminate the pollution of today's internal combustion engines... The sad thing is that if this could happen in the next decade, I fear it would quickly become a target of the entire transportation industry as they scramble to lobby for laws to prevent its use. And the same thing would…

_If_ we manage to create transporters at all (never mind the next decade), the impact on religion and legislation would be far greater than on the transportation industry. If your body is destroyed and reconstructed, are you still the same person? What if you could make copies? It's just information, after all. And so on... Do any of the Star Trek episodes investigate this aspect of the transporters?

I do not recall any real attention paid to such aspects of the transporter. I do recall, however, the inventor of the device showing up in an episode of Enterprise[1] and referring to all the dialog that came up when the device was new; his comment? "Metaphysical nonsense."

[1] - Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Daedalus" - Dr. Emory Erickson according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_(Star_Trek)

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#67

Post by cafard »

newbie12 wrote: post #56
zanny wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 seriousl…

You don't suppose US population density has something to do with this, do you? Rail does well enough in the Mid-Atlantic and NE states, between Boston and Washington.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#68

Post by cafard »

I would also point out that the US considered and rejected the notion of building a supersonic passenger plane, in part because of concerns about its effect on the upper atmosphere, in part because of the economics. The debate about building took place about the time that the Concorde was under development, i.e. well before much of the HN readership was born.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#69

Post by nijk »

magic_haze wrote: post #49
delinka wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Trek's transporters would be excellent. We could recover all that land that's covered in paving, no longer care about location, eliminate the pollution of today's internal combustion engines... The sad thing is that if this could happen in the next decade, I fear it would quickly become a target of the entire transportation industry as they scramble to lobby for laws to prevent its use. And the same thing would…

_If_ we manage to create transporters at all (never mind the next decade), the impact on religion and legislation would be far greater than on the transportation industry. If your body is destroyed and reconstructed, are you still the same person? What if you could make copies? It's just information, after all. And so on... Do any of the Star Trek episodes investigate this aspect of the transporters?

Spock Must Die, the first novel, was about transporter duplication.

Mirror Mirror was a wackier plot.

Re: You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster

#70

Post by venus »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #65
venus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tohoku shinkansen in Japan can have trainsets with up to 1600 people in one 16-car train, and can slam them down the line at 250+kph, one every 3 or 4 minutes. A couple of E5s could do 1400 people at 320. If that isn't efficient then I'd love to know what is!

Japan is a very compact country. Lovely for anyone in the DC-Boston corridor, doesn't scale to most of the states however. Consider how there isn't much of anything between San Francisco and LA. Love the Shinkansen though. My preferred method of travel within Japan.

The "compact" excuse is a cop-out, IMO. LA and SF are two massive cities well within high speed train range. Of course there's nothing in between them - there's no transport! You're thinking backwards. Put a station 150km outside of SF with a 30 minute commute and do you think there'll still be nothing there in 5 years?

My point is that these lines would be considered viable in Japan - more than viable; completely obvious. The fact we can't seem to build them - can't even take the idea seriously - is more about the nature of our society than anything to do with geography.

Post reply on HN