Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ProfessorrFate t1_iqrfdut wrote

Reply to comment by imakenosensetopeople in [OC] Supersonic Inefficiency: Why the Concorde Was Decommissioned by haboo213

Agree. But it’s often hard to embrace the message of “yeah, this is pretty much as good as it’s ever gonna get.” Not exactly an uplifting message the media might like to sell or that people want to hear. Especially in aviation, where the gains over the past 100 years have been mind-blowing (though in fact most of those gains occurred between 1903 and, say, 1973).

Since the 70s commercial aviation flying technology has mostly been about better safety and fuel efficiency. The first time I flew to Europe was on a 747 in the early 70’s. Now, some 50 years later, the typical economy class passenger experience is pretty much the same (if not worse).

11

Kev_Cav t1_iqurmj8 wrote

Maybe it's just an impression, but didn't air travel become much more affordable over the last 20 years? I remember when I was a kid, going to Japan or Thailand was a whole endeavour, you saved for it for years, it was the adventure of a lifetime, now it feels like any reasonably affluent middle-class couple can afford it without much fuss...

4

gHx4 t1_iquu502 wrote

Yes, there are more airlines doing flights more efficiently. The default package is about the same with a few corners cut. Planes are bigger and there's more routes to choose from, but the price of a ticket hasn't changed a lot.

Flights like LA to Chicago haven't changed price, but flights like LA to Osaka have. In other words domestic flights cost about the same after inflation, but international flights are now almost as cheap as domestic.

You can read a bit more here; the efficiency and selection are vastly different from the 40s.

3

ProfessorrFate t1_iqvgls8 wrote

Different market dynamics. And just looking at cost/distance doesn’t work well. Many short haul flights in the US are crazy expensive because of supply and demand (regional service on UA out of DEN or ORD is a good example).

Also: in Europe, the LCCs have to compete w railways — not so in the US, where airlines largely don’t compete w Amtrak (except in the Acela corridor).

Competition, supply/demand, AND distance (which is a cost function) all impact pricing. And of these three factors, distance is often the least significant variable in the model. Example: the ASM costs in the NYC-LA market are higher than, say, Denver to Billings, MT. But the amount of competition and demand/supply in these two markets varies dramatically, and therefore there are often cheaper fares to fly 2,475 nm from NY to LA than 455 nm from Denver to Billings.

1

HurlingFruit t1_iqv33gy wrote

What I cannot explain to my satisfaction is why airfare here in Europe is so much cheaper than back in the US. For example, I excluded LCCs because of their nickle-and-dime add-on fees and compared legacies, non-stop, coach, round trip, daytime departures of roughly the same distance. MEM-DEN United 872 nm, €616; MAD-DUB Iberia 902 nm, €133.

That is a ridiculous difference for essentially the same flight. Fortunately I'm taking the less expensive flight next month.

1

surreal_mash t1_iqvts3p wrote

You must have been trying to book during a holiday or other price surge; you could book MEM-DEN right now for under €100.

1

iinavpov t1_irjwl5w wrote

The EU is serious about fighting monopolies, the US not.

1

donaldduz t1_iqvbn3u wrote

Covid seems to have reversed this and air fares are crazy expensive. Hopefully this is a short term problem while the supply side is sorted out. What do y'all think?

1