Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gHx4 t1_iquu502 wrote

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

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