Slashdot Mirror


Science Reveals Why Airplane Food Tastes So Bad

Hugh Pickens writes "At low elevations, the 10,000 or so taste buds in the human mouth work pretty much as nature intended. But step aboard a modern airliner, and the sense of taste loses its bearings. Even before a plane takes off, the atmosphere inside the cabin dries out the nose. As the plane ascends, the change in air pressure numbs about a third of the taste buds, and at 35,000 feet with cabin humidity levels kept low by design to reduce the risk of fuselage corrosion, xerostomia or cotton mouth sets in. This explain why airlines tend to salt and spice food heavily. Without all that extra kick, food tastes bland. 'Ice cream is about the only thing I can think of that tastes good on a plane,' says Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. 'Airlines have a problem with food on board. The packaging, freezing, drying and storage are hard on flavor at any altitude, let alone 30,000 feet.' Challenges abound. Food safety standards require all meals to be cooked first on the ground. After that, they are blast-chilled and refrigerated until they can be stacked on carts and loaded on planes. For safety, open-flame grills and ovens aren't allowed on commercial aircraft, so attendants must contend with convection ovens that blow hot, dry air over the food. 'Getting any food to taste good on a plane is an elusive goal,' says Steve Gundrum, who runs a company that develops new products for the food industry."

299 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. The good old days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    PanAm used to cook four-course meals on their flights. What happened?

    1. Re:The good old days... by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lawyers.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re:The good old days... by Dave+Whiteside · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they removed the kitchens to cram in more people

      --
      who where what when now?
    3. Re:The good old days... by maroberts · · Score: 2

      Well PanAm aren't around anymore - you have Southwest and Ryanair now :-)

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    4. Re:The good old days... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      What happened?

      Deregulation. Once airlines were deregulated, airlines were free to give customers what they wanted (low prices) instead of what the government thought they wanted (extremely expensive food).

      I have read that serving a meal on an airplane costs the airline about $50. I would rather save $50 on the ticket price and bring a sandwich and an apple in my backpack.

    5. Re:The good old days... by msobkow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The peanut farmers successfully lobbied management.

      Then when peanuts were proven to be fatal to those with allergies, and banned after the government was lobbied, the potato chip lobbyists stepped in, and the premade-sandwich-maker's union had a few things to say as well.

      In the meantime, the people kept demanding cheaper and cheaper air fares, until the airlines finally gave up on subsidized meals and just started gouging people the same as a sports arena with a game on. Captive audience, extortionate prices. It's an obvious way to boost profits, right?

      But in all seriousness, I never found airline food to be any worse than any other steamer-tray/precooked meals I've had elsewhere. But I am annoyed that so many airlines have dropped food from their services entirely. I've even had a couple short-haul flights where they didn't even try to serve beverages, so you were effectively treated even worse than cattle: you have to provide water and food to cattle or be charged with animal abuse.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:The good old days... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do they still let sandwiches and apples on? A determined terrorist could disquise plastic explosive as mustard and blow out a window.

    7. Re:The good old days... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happened?

      Flights that normal people could afford.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:The good old days... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do they still let people get on planes? What if one of them is a terrorist!?

    9. Re:The good old days... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the era of internet searches for flights basically the only thing you compete on is price and times. Everything else only matters to business customers who are contented with champagne and seats which don't jam their knees into their chins.

      And safety regulations, which, despite the talking points of some political parties, do exist for a reason.

      When the experience of travel matters (say a cruise) you can pitch a more expensive product than the next guy as a different experience that justifies a higher cost. But people view the air travel portion as an inconvenience (which I suppose it is) that must be endured rather than a value added part of the experience. No one likes flying anymore, and if you still do, there are some TSA screeners who will adjust your excitement to approved levels.

    10. Re:The good old days... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is quite understandable, if somewhat depressing. The bit I don't get is why so many airlines still insist on serving food which is never going to survive the cook-chill-reheat process properly - even a decent chef would have trouble making a chicken breast and steamed veg, or the vast majority of pasta dishes, taste good under those conditions. Shepherd's pie, or curry, or a burrito, on the other hand, will all come out just fine. It's not always the case, but even in business class, when they actually have put in the money and effort, there seems to be a surprisingly high chance of a menu that just isn't designed to travel.

    11. Re:The good old days... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      In the era of internet searches for flights basically the only thing you compete on is price and times. Everything else only matters to business customers who are contented with champagne and seats which don't jam their knees into their chins.

      I'd be interested to see how Pan-Am era ticket prices compare to business class today - idiotic security aside, is it actually the case (as many seem to think) that you got better service for your money back then, or do you still get the same service for a few grand, with the added option of shitty service for a few hundred?

    12. Re:The good old days... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This may be modded funny, but I was serious... this is exactly the type of 'well, it could happen' hypothetical attack that the TSA and it's counterparts around the world would take seriously. Recall that for a time (was it ever reversed?) passangers were forbidden from carrying their own drinks onto the flight out of a fear that the bottles could contain a liquid explosive?

    13. Re:The good old days... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People do not want to pay an inflation adjusted price of $10,000 per ticket. The olden day there was high service people people who flew would pay for the premium price.
      Now the price of Fuel is much higher, and more people are demanding to travel. And the price of any luxury adds a lot to the cost of the flight.

      Think about it, A full kitchen where you can put 30 more people per flight. Would add about $200 to the price of your ticket, Just due to the space. Then there is hiring people to do the work, store the extra food... It adds up.

      As customers we decided that we would prefer cheaper rates and be treated like cattle, then to pay a lot more and treated like a human.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    14. Re:The good old days... by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

      Every sandwich molested and/or scanned before it can get on that plane. Some are even taken out of their wrapper and humiliated if it suspected that there is extra spicy sauce between the bread slices.

    15. Re:The good old days... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it hasn't been reversed yet.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    16. Re:The good old days... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

      Never mind the terrorism; I wanna know how someone named Nestle got a PhD in nutrition!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    17. Re:The good old days... by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well some people have low tolerances towards spicy food, for them it isn't that it tastes bad, but it is painful to eat. Then you need to try to be respectful of religions, So Shepherd's pie with Beef and Milk in the Potato's Make goes against Hindu, Jewish and Muslims values. So you are better off serving food that doesn't really taste good but doesn't taste horrible either. Where people will eat it because they are hungry.
      The Idea to not serve food on these flights may be going too far. Because even a 1 hour flight without food/drink does get painful. I remember one time Going from Pittsburgh to Baltimore the flight was too rough that they couldn't serve drinks, (well it was worse the turbulence happened mid way so half of the people got drinks) I was quite miserable as I was very dehydrated at the time, and all I wanted was some normal water.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:The good old days... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If it was spicy mustard, sorry, that was my deadly gas you smelled which my in-laws refer to a "weapon of terror.". Spicy mustard does that to me.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent down.

      Serving a meal on a plane costs in the area of $10 (just because YOU read it, don't make it so). Most of the cost is do to deregulation (you need a franchise license from the particular airport, to operate on premise, and airports typically only issue one-- ah, free enterprise!).

      Please try again-- on another forum.

    20. Re:The good old days... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You could read the summary and answer that for yourself.

    21. Re:The good old days... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      You got dehydrated in a hour? Who are you, Sponge Bob Squarepants?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:The good old days... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that isn't true, or at least not everywhere and for everyone.

      My travel agency still routinely recommends me this or that airline for my holiday trips because it offers more leg space or some other advantage and they know from the many years I've been a customer there that I'm willing to pay a few bucks extra to have a good trip.

      And since I'm never the only person on the plane, I'm apparently not the only one thinking that way.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    23. Re:The good old days... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then normal people got on the airplane and everything went down hill from there.

      Seriously. It used to be coat and tie. Now it looks like "People of Walmart".

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:The good old days... by echucker · · Score: 1

      To be more specific, you can bring drinks on, but they have to be purchased after security check. Otherwise, they still have to meet the 3oz. rule.

    25. Re:The good old days... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Serving a meal on a plane costs in the area of $10

      The airline may pay $10 to the caterer for the meal. But that is only a small part of the cost. There is the cost of the ground crew to transport and load the meal. There is the cost of extra crew to serve the meals. There is the extra expense of running kitchens at 30,000 ft. There is the extra cost of buying planes that have those kitchens. And probably the biggest expense: there is the lost revenue from the passenger seats displaced by the kitchens and storage space for empty trays.

    26. Re:The good old days... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i inferred that he was dehydrated before he got on the flight. after all, about 75% of population is dehydrated at any given time. it's ironic that most people take some pill with water to cure a headache, when the water itself is mostly responsible for the cure. drink a soda. congrats, you're now dehydrated.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    27. Re:The good old days... by Malc · · Score: 1

      I would rather [...] bring a sandwich and an apple in my backpack.

      That's one step below enabling mobile phones on planes with regards to the annoyance scale. When I fly in N. America, it's already unbelievable how much crap people try to bring on as hand luggage. People sitting around with meals at boarding time are incredibly irritating. And then they have more crap and mess floating around. Most of my flying is long-haul though, and I really don't want to have to bring multiple meals on with me, especially as there's already insufficient space for storing things, or even to place feet and legs. Thankfully I don't have to fly on US airlines very often, and can still get a few complimentary bottles of wine and reasonable food service.

    28. Re:The good old days... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the 8,000' cabin pressure combined with the dry air makes sure any additional moisture you came in with leaves with your exhalations.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:The good old days... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry my eating my lunch prior to boarding irritates you. I promise the trash I threw away in the terminal before actually boarding won't follow you onboard and continue to annoy you.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    30. Re:The good old days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You got dehydrated in a hour? Who are you, Sponge Bob Squarepants?

      Or... possibly diabetic. I am and i am constantly thirsty.

    31. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh good grief. What a load of BS. The ground crew is provided by the caterer. And so on. You obviously don't know what the FUCK you're talking about.

    32. Re:The good old days... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the Pan-Am era, but in the late 80s, I did a search for tickets from New York to Europe, and the price was around $850. Last year, I flew from San Francisco to Spain, and the flight was also around $850, round trip. With inflation, I believe that means the price of a ticket has approximately cut in half over that time period.

      Of course with the recent rise in oil price, flight prices have also increased. This weekend a flight from LA to San Francisco cost me $375 round trip. Insane. Apparently that's a really expensive route, for some reason.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:The good old days... by nanoflower · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You were doing okay until that last statement. It's a popular myth that drinking a soda will dehydrate but studies have shown that the water loss due to the small amount of caffeine in a typical soda is greatly outweighed the water provided by the soda. So if you drink multiple sodas all day long you won't end up dehydrated due to the caffeine (though you may gain weight from all of the 'empty' calories.)

    34. Re:The good old days... by tomhath · · Score: 3, Funny

      A determined terrorist could eat burritos for a couple of days prior to the flight and blow out a window.

    35. Re:The good old days... by VeryVito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. You can pay top prices for these flights, and you're still on those same planes. Fact is, unless you rent a private jet, you can't buy your way to a pleasant flight any more.

    36. Re:The good old days... by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      Do they still let sandwiches and apples on?

      I think a peanut butter and jelly sandwich would probably set off the bomb detector and result in a rather vigorous body cavity search.

      --
      :wq
    37. Re:The good old days... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2

      ok, you're right about one soda, and you're right about multiple sodas in one (1) day. but a lifestyle where people only drink soda and very little actual water, like a vast majority of people apparently, those little bits of water loss aggregate. without a doubt, a person who drinks only sodas all day, everyday, is more dehydrated than someone who drinks the same volume of just plain water everyday. a soda by itself won't push you over the dehydration threshold, but it does cause some loss of water that wouldn't ordinarily be there. i admit my argument was a bit specious, but it was also more than a bit generalized. thanks for helping raise awareness.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    38. Re:The good old days... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried flying first class? You get a large seat, lots of space, a glass of champagne brought to you before takeoff, much better food.

      Of course, you're paying over $100/hour for the privilege...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    39. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Who mods down a depth-4 comment in a descending flame war? I was supposed to spell out each of the things he was wrong about? Sheesh. /. sucks these days. And I've got all the karma in the world.

    40. Re:The good old days... by hb253 · · Score: 1

      I flew internationally several times in the 1970's The service was way way better and the flight attendants were way better looking. Food? You got a menu at the beginning of the flight to choose from two entrees. Your food came on ceramic plates with stainless steel cutlery.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    41. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      >PanAm used to cook four-course meals on their flights. What happened?

      They went out of business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_am

    42. Re:The good old days... by VeryVito · · Score: 1

      "Large" is relative. Today's first-class is yesterday's baggage compartment. Yes, first-class is an improvement over today's steerage compartment, but yesterday's first-class simply doesn't exist anymore, and certainly does not justify the price differential.

    43. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 2

      >PanAm used to cook four-course meals on their flights.

      Airlines still do. Buy a business class ticket on Newark to Singapore, a 19-hour flight and the world's longest commercial flight, and the equivalent in time of a clipper trek from Newark to San Fran back in "the good old days." You still what you pay for.

    44. Re:The good old days... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A rule that does very little to prevent liquid explosives, but serves only to increase the profit for the retailers in the airport (who charge obscene prices).

      Vodka is sold in airports and is highly flammable, you could do plenty of damage with a bottle of vodka you bought in duty free before boarding the plane.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    45. Re:The good old days... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This will be changing soon. The 787 is the first airliner to be pressurized to 6,000 feet and the follow-up projects in the Yellowstone portfolio will have similar environments. It will also have a higher humidity level (up to 15%, around four times higher than other planes) because the carbon fiber will not corrode in the same way as current metal structures. It's still relatively dry air, but it won't be the moisture vacuum that are the current airborne environments.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    46. Re:The good old days... by Tom · · Score: 1

      This.

      Seriously, parent deserves a +10 insightful.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    47. Re:The good old days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually his point is that a single soda will give you a net gain in hydration. You're right that a full water diet is going to be better than a soda diet, but if a soda can hydrates you then I don't see how dehydration can be an issue.

    48. Re:The good old days... by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      You got dehydrated in a hour? Who are you, Sponge Bob Squarepants?

      No, he's the jellomizer. Have you never seen how much water jello mix sucks up?

    49. Re:The good old days... by DaFallus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shepherd's pie, or curry, or a burrito, on the other hand, will all come out just fine

      Good god man! Can you imagine the horror of being stuck on a plane full of people after they've all eaten curry and burritos? The only thing that food will come out of just fine is the microwave.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    50. Re:The good old days... by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      But breathing and perspiring are net losses in hydration. His point was that most people won't be drinking enough soda to keep up with their normal water requirements, and if they did, they'd be getting way too much sugar along with it.

    51. Re:The good old days... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Standard vodka is not at highly flammable. It is only 40% abv, so not even flammable at all without heating it.

      Double proof vodka sure is, but they don't normally have that in the airport dutyfree.

    52. Re:The good old days... by afidel · · Score: 1

      LAX or BUR? If you were flying out of LAX for a shorthaul domestic flight they've probably upped slot fees to push traffic out of one of the busiest hubs on the continent. I just checked and a month out you can get a BUR to SFO flight for $158 round trip.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    53. Re:The good old days... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      a person who drinks only sodas all day, everyday, is more dehydrated than someone who drinks the same volume of just plain water everyday

      Then they'd still be thirsty, they'd drink more and so make up the difference. So "same volume" is a bad assumption. And "less hydrated than someone else" isn't the same as "insufficiently hydrated" which is what "dehydrated" means.

      Personally when I used to drink soda I never found it to quench my thirst very well, so I drank quite a bit more of it than I would water.

      And I drink a *lot* of water. Different people have different hydration needs. My throat starts to feel parched after an hour, often less, even when no diuretics like caffeine or alcohol have been consumed. I always take a water bottle with me on airplanes because I'm usually miserable well before the drink service comes around and a piddling little cup of OJ doesn't cut it. It ain't because I'm dehydrated before walking on the plane.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    54. Re:The good old days... by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      Last year I flew into, within, and out of the USA. I had no problem bringing a regular 500 mL bottle of water onto the planes.

      I just made sure it was empty when passing through security, then filled it up at a water fountain while waiting to board. Security did see it and didn't care to say or do anything about it.

    55. Re:The good old days... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      I should note that I almost never buy bottled water and have no problem drinking from water fountains, air travel is one of the few exceptions (the other is clubs that obviously don't have fountains and don't allow outside drinks). Bottled water is great for transporting and distributing water to disaster areas, but is the biggest scam in the western world--people complain about $1/L for gas but happily pay $2-3 for a half-litre of water at the same gas station.

    56. Re:The good old days... by Quirkz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I look forward to this. My house is at 7400 feet, and my airport is at 6500 feet elevation. Once I get on the 787, I'll actually feel *invigorated* by the thick, rich atmosphere.

    57. Re:The good old days... by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much first class today. Only there are 3 selections usually, I suppose they added the vegetarian one since the 70s.

    58. Re:The good old days... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      I think that what you're trying to say is that the chronic ingestion of carbonated drinks changes our perception of dehydration: That when we become dehydrated we become hungry rather than thirsty.

      It's an interesting idea that's been studied in small mammal models but is difficult to study in humans.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    59. Re:The good old days... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      You used to get good meals at 56,000 feet on Concorde too...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    60. Re:The good old days... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      Then they'd still be thirsty, they'd drink more

      i'm not as comfortable making that assumption as you are. "same volume" is hardly an assumption, it's quite easy to compare water with stuff in it apart from just water. especially when some of the "stuff in it" contributes to water loss. another assumption you're making is that people easily identify thirst from hunger. most people don't realize they're thirsty, they feel hungry instead. http://www.pureandhealthy.com/blog/2010/08/hungry-you-could-be-confusing-it-for-thirst/

      so assuming people know when they're thirsty is not solid enough for me (get it? i kill me...).

      And "less hydrated than someone else" isn't the same as "insufficiently hydrated" which is what "dehydrated" means

      yes, i admitted that as well. last few sentences... it's what i meant by the arbitrary "dehydration threshold." as you put it, everyone's is different. if i eat a twinkie i'm not "not hungry" but i am "less hungry." someone else may be completely malnourished by it, while someone else may be more nourished than they were before eating it. but it's generally accepted that twinkies are not good solutions for hunger or nourishment. i hope you can see the distinction.

      thanks for the anecdotes. i have plenty myself. have a great day!

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    61. Re:The good old days... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Cost based accounting. Look it up or do an MBA class and learn about it.

    62. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      I'd don't need to look it up, asshole. The earlier poster is claiming $50. The added cost-basis is obviously less than $2. Done. Go back to middle school.

    63. Re:The good old days... by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      $375 would be nice. I fly Houston to Shreveport occasionally when my schedule won't allow daylight hours to drive. Approximately 1 hour trip on a prop plane most days for the low, low price of $747 no matter whether you book 3 months in advance or day of.

    64. Re:The good old days... by 517714 · · Score: 4, Informative

      75% dehydration in our population is an urban myth.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    65. Re:The good old days... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      To be more specific, you can bring drinks on, but they have to be purchased after security check. Otherwise, they still have to meet the 3oz. rule.

      Luckily, those little airplane bottles of alcohol which liquor stores also sale, are below the 3oz size (and cheaper than the drinks on American airlines).

    66. Re:The good old days... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They allow food on airplanes. You can even bring food through security. I usually end up travelling spanning at least one meal and refuse to eat airport food (much less airline food) and so bring a sub with me on the flight.

    67. Re:The good old days... by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I've never ridden a clipper before (I assume the sail ship?), but surely to sail from Newark to San Francisco is much longer than 19 hours?

    68. Re:The good old days... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Stewardesses with bouffant hairdos, heavy makeup, nice skirts, go-go boots... but then that was back when they served meals on airplanes. Now it is like transports in third world countries where you pack your own food (unless in first class).

      In the book TWA: The Howard Hughes Airline by Robert Serling, 1983 ( http://www.amazon.com/Howard-Hughes-Airline-Informal-History/dp/0312396317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332786396&sr=8-1 ), mentions in the early days with DC-3 some airlines would have co-pilot serve coffee and food (which many pilots didn't want to be bothered with someone in the right seat). However, these airlines lost travelers to other airlines as businessmen preferred being served by attractive ladies.

      Also from the 20th century, "Look, you used to be able to sleep in a bed on an aeroplane. Of course that was back when they also served food and changed the cabin air supply regularly." at http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r319/jej_wkrp/Picture12-1.png

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    69. Re:The good old days... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If you drank only soda all day every day, dehydration would be the least of your worries. I am thinking diabetes or heart conditions. But the whole soda/coffee/tea dehydrates you has been proven to be false. You still absorb a high percentage of the water in a soda, so if you drink multiple sodas a day you are still getting hydrated. The small amount that caffeine or sugar in the soda takes away from your hydration is moot if you are getting more liquids than you need anyway. Soda doesn't hydrate you AS good as water, but really nothing does. But saying it isn't as hydrating as water is not the same as saying it doesn't hydrate you at all.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    70. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 2

      FYI, "Clipper" was the nickname for Pam Am's service. My family was United Crew-- we still have a flight map signed by Bob Hope from a quick Newark->Denver->Las Vegas->L.A. tour mounted on the wall, so 19 hours is indeed about the flight time from the prop-plane, in-the-clouds & turbulence era.

      And in that era-- the big difference was that you couldn't get above the wind toss, so could wind up being buffetted at pretty much any time-- they darn well did everything they could to make flying more attractive than hopping the train.

    71. Re:The good old days... by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      If you re-read GP's comment, you'll find that he didn't say Newark to San Fran was 19 hours by sea. He said it was the longest voyage you could make on an oceangoing vessel, just as Newark to Singapore is the longest flight you can make on commercial airlines.

    72. Re:The good old days... by x1r8a3k · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression it wasn't the caffeine that caused dehydration, but the sodium.

    73. Re:The good old days... by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      You still what you pay for.

      I hope you were going for irony.

    74. Re:The good old days... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Well, in the 50s Pan Am advertised flights to Europe for $442 round-trip, which would be about $3200-$3900 today.

    75. Re:The good old days... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      I just made sure it was empty when passing through security,

      Web page of the airport in my capital city states: With liquids, it is not the actual volume of the liquid in the container, but rather the volume stated on the container that will be considered.

    76. Re:The good old days... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      As a travel agent, let me tell you: Travel Agents are going the way of the dodo.

      Why? Just as an anecdote, hardly a day goes by without a jerk calling to get recommendations on a flight or a hotel, and after I give them some prices and advice, I can hear them clacking on their keyboards and saying, "Ok, thanks, I got it three dollars cheaper on Expedia, Bye!!"

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    77. Re:The good old days... by hb253 · · Score: 1

      I've never flown first class, so I wouldn't know :-(

      Also, although service was better, I'll be the first to admit the experience wasn't without fault. The major negative back then was smoking. They had smoking sections, but what was the point? The planes always stank of cigarettes.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    78. Re:The good old days... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a lousy Continental mechanic killed Concorde. #TrueStory

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    79. Re:The good old days... by Mac+Scientist · · Score: 1

      This may be modded funny, but I was serious... this is exactly the type of 'well, it could happen' hypothetical attack that the TSA and it's counterparts around the world would take seriously. Recall that for a time (was it ever reversed?) passangers were forbidden from carrying their own drinks onto the flight out of a fear that the bottles could contain a liquid explosive?

      You must not fly anywhere, or are not paying attention. No food or liquid can be brought inside the airport secure areas (outside of packaged trail mix, etc.) The only food or drink available to bring onto the plane is the over-priced, fast food and bottled drinks available from the airport shops inside the inspection sites. (It's hard to bring a cup of something on board without drinking it quickly, since there is no place to set it during takeoff.) A lot of people do bring a meal and bottle of soda onto the plane to eat immediately, or they spend the time waiting to board by eating something.

      As for everyone bringing their own dinner, try that on a long trans-ocean flight. Maybe some people like to eat a room temperature sandwich of stale or soggy bread, processed meat, and limp lettuce some 24 hours after it was pre-packaged by the local fast food processor shop, or 8 hours after being "hot-off-the-grill". The heated airline food may not be 5-star, but the sandwiches in the "box lunch" are nearly inedible.

    80. Re:The good old days... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I got a nearly-spent tube of toothpaste confiscated one time because of that retarded rule.

      Whatever the reason, I haven't had a problem with empty water bottles the last half-dozen times I've flown, even though I go through security expecting them to raise the issue. That's why I use the disposable bottles, not a solid plastic one or a thermos. The bottle's in the see-through mesh on the side of my carry-on bag, impossible to miss.

    81. Re:The good old days... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      If you're using a travel agency you're in as a business customer usually. Some people do care about the experience of flying, or have a relationship with a travel agent through a business already, but now days just about everyone is booking flights online, by hand, which was sort of my point.

      And even then, the travel agent is doing to some degree the same thing, they check price as one of their factors, and lower has it's advantages from being top of the list.

    82. Re:The good old days... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I took a load of sandwiches across the atlantic from Florida to the UK and they tasted fine to me. I don't think food is a problem for airlines as it get's x-rayed the same as the rest of your hand luggage.

      The only places I've seen any kind of restriction on food was in Australia and New Zealand. They are really strict on the possible import of seeds and organisms that could affect the local flora and fauna. Even so, you can take stuff onto the plane; you just have to dump it before going through Passport control. They've got lots of notices and big fines if you try to smuggle fruits in. Packaged and cooked food tends to be fine with them though.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    83. Re:The good old days... by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      I have to look up the article, but I did read a few analyses on this. They all came to the same conclusion: that the price of a ticket from the 1960s and 1970s is equivalent to about a Business or First class ticket today. We get less service today because people have expressed through their wallets that they would rather pay less for their ticket than have the extra frills.

      That being said, some argue that foreign airlines have better service than US domestics. That is true due to two reasons. One, foreign airlines tend to do more international travel which is much more profitable than domestic routes. Two, their labor costs are significantly cheaper.

    84. Re:The good old days... by dead_cthulhu · · Score: 1

      Hate to be pedantic, but Shepherd's pie is made with lamb, not beef. Cottage pie is the one with beef in it.

    85. Re:The good old days... by fast+turtle · · Score: 2

      15 percent humidity!? I'd consider that to be high as my normal humidity ranges between 7 - 12 percent. Anything over 20 percent makes me sweath like a leaky faucet. Of course, I live in the desert and have adjusted quite nicely to the dry air.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    86. Re:The good old days... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Why would the caterer provide the ground crew? The airline already employs a ground crew to stock their planes. Another group of people just to stock a single item would just get in the way and almost certainty require all of these other workers to get security screenings.
      And of course the caterer is not providing the extra space on the air plane. They might provide the Stuards, but since serving food is only a part of their job I doubt it.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    87. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Because they do. Take a look out the concourse windows next time. The food service provides and loads the food, just the same as the baggage carriers are not employed by the airline but the airport. Jeez.

    88. Re:The good old days... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Maybe he went to Hamburger University?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    89. Re:The good old days... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Why so angry (this and other comments)?

      The added cost-basis is obviously less than $2. Done.

      You missed a bit. The backup reference. You can't just say "obviously" and wave your hands and say "done" and expect to get away with it. And from your comments, I'm still not convinced you understand what is meant by cost-based accounting.

      Finally, if you're going to complain that "/. sucks these days", how about raising the tenor by justifying your ranting and not being so nasty in your responses to people?

    90. Re:The good old days... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      "She", but probably. :)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    91. Re:The good old days... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Yes I can. Because it's obvious that it's far far closer to $2 than $50 (even if it reaches $2, which I really doubt), and that people who are posting (such as in regards to how catering is handled at airports) just don't know what they're talking about, having never bothger to simply observe. The point is that I'm right, and don't give a flying fuck if a bunch of trolls want to assert x,y, or z in response.

      Am I supposed to take a test here on whether I know what cost-based accounting is? Frack you troll, that's not the point-- that's the essense of trolling. The point is to have a forum that rewards good/valuable knowledge, over pointless and inexperienced speculation and trolling, ie, signal above noise. And from the upvoted comments on this thread, that's clearly not the case on /.

    92. Re:The good old days... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You got dehydrated in a hour? Who are you, Sponge Bob Squarepants?

      The atmosphere in an plane is very dry. People do dehydrate quicker when flying. I dont normally drink on planes but if I dont keep my fluids up on a 5-6 hour flight, I'll walk off with a hangover like headache. I've learned to drink a lot of water on longer flights.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    93. Re:The good old days... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      PanAm used to cook four-course meals on their flights. What happened?

      You may have noticed it no longer costs an arm and a leg to fly these days.

      There's the cost of it.

      BTW, does PanAm even exist any more?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    94. Re:The good old days... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a horrible price.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    95. Re:The good old days... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ah, so the trick is to fly to Burbank. Thanks, I'll remember that for next time.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    96. Re:The good old days... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      PanAm used to cook four-course meals on their flights. What happened?

      Pan Am (and every other airline) figured that the average American consumer chose their flights like they do pretty much everything else - strictly on price.

    97. Re:The good old days... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Except you didn't provide any good/valuable knowledge yourself. Using the words "obvious," "trolls," and a variety of derogatory terms over and over again do not make good posts.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    98. Re:The good old days... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Too true.
      Between '98 and 2003, my (large international) company went from calling the travel office for places to stay in someplace you've never been to, to "so which hotel do you want us to make reservations for?" They were only there so the company could get the discounts; you had to do all the legwork. Same with flights. As long as you didn't pick 1st class, they didn't even check if your route was $10 or $1200 (depending on the airports used). They didn't care, so I didn't care, so I took what was the easiest route for me. Often cost much more. Sorry, but I have a job to do, and I don't get paid to spend 4 hours optimizing my air travel costs.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    99. Re:The good old days... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Simplifying a bit, maybe?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    100. Re:The good old days... by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. You can pay top prices for these flights, and you're still on those same planes. Fact is, unless you rent a private jet, you can't buy your way to a pleasant flight any more.

      Course you can. I used to fly business class throughout Asiapac as part of my job. Some of the benefits I received as part of the ticket: Airline limo to the airport. Check-in in the car, delivered to the business class lounge with a chef cooked meal and free alcohol, preferential entry and exit on and off the plane, champagne in a glass on boarding, a large seat that folds to a fully flat bed, mid-flight massage by hot hostee, much higher hostee to passenger ratios in business, and the quality of service is much higher too. Now when I travel on my own coin, it's back cattle class and it hurts even more now that I know what I'm missing out on.

    101. Re:The good old days... by Tom · · Score: 1

      I doubt this. But travel agents have to adapt, just like the music and movie industry.

      The times where you needed a travel agency to book your holidays is past. You average, standard "fly me to the beach and give me some hotel I don't care about" traveller is going to get his trip online, no doubt.

      But you still have customers like me. I spend a few thousand Euros on a two-week holiday, because I'd rather do that and have a really, really great time then spend half of it and hate it. Plus I very much love that I can call my travel agency, be greeted by name, and tell them that I'm thinking about my next holiday, give them a few items (beach or no, culture or relaxation, which continent, etc.) and then drop by a day or two later and they have a couple recommendations for me.

      I know that I have booked several trips there that I would have never found online. A fantastic tiny hotel in Bali's Ubud, 10 bungalows, incredibly friendly staff, almost certainly in no catalogue. An incredible summer cottage on St. Lucia, our own pool and outdoor BBQ, our own private beach, for the price of a good hotel room. My honeymoon trip on exactly the day we wanted, even though it was on short notice to a very popular location, with a luxury flight (premium economy class on Garuda airlines, if anyone remembers) for a fantastic price.

      No, travel agents won't go the way of the Dodo. But the market segment will change. Your average mass-market customer will book online. But there's plenty of people like me who want to walk in to someone who knows what they want (because you've known me for years) and simply say "I want another holiday, I have no idea where, throw me a few suggestions."

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    102. Re:The good old days... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yep and when I fly to Chicago I always use MDW since OHR is more expensive and about 10x as likely to result in delays. Of course from the West coast there will be few (if any) direct flights into MDW so that might not help you.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    103. Re:The good old days... by danaris · · Score: 1

      Plus I very much love that I can call my travel agency, be greeted by name, and tell them that I'm thinking about my next holiday, give them a few items (beach or no, culture or relaxation, which continent, etc.) and then drop by a day or two later and they have a couple recommendations for me.

      That's...not what travel agents are like around here.

      They're a bunch of bored-looking middle-aged ladies with spray tans and too much makeup and hair dye, who can barely be bothered to stop playing solitaire and/or talking on the phone to their friends to pay attention to you long enough to show you the fliers they have that cruise ship companies have given them. Getting them to actually do a search for something is only possible with persistence and a willingness to sit through eye-rolling and a great deal of one-fingered typing.

      If the travel agencies in this area were anything like the one you described, I would gladly go talk to them any time I was thinking about a vacation. As it is, I'd rather go to the dentist.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    104. Re:The good old days... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Sure, but this is Slashdot!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    105. Re:The good old days... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Why would a shepherd's pie have beef in it?

    106. Re:The good old days... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Today's first class has a bed and a shower. What golden era are you thinking of that compares with that?

    107. Re:The good old days... by binarybum · · Score: 1

      I think that means $50 for the airline to serve a meal to everyone, not $50 a head. Airlines would have stopped serving meals long ago if they were losing that kind of money on feeding you. What is your source?

      --
      ôó
    108. Re:The good old days... by binarybum · · Score: 1

      More importantly we decided to accept the TSA and the cost of housing all of their employees to bump around the airport, airport security upgrades, and the cost of lost time due to increased airport inefficiency. All of these costs get passed on to the airliners too. Cuts are made in your legroom and your tv dinner.

      --
      ôó
    109. Re:The good old days... by dodobh · · Score: 1

      A reheated curry? *ick*.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    110. Re:The good old days... by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree that people won't always drink more of a soda even when thirsty.. I know for myself that there are times when the acidic content of a soda can be a problem, and some sodas have enough sugar to feel sickly sweet too me (so I wouldn't drink as much of the soda compared to water even if I'm thirsty.)

    111. Re:The good old days... by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      Except that isn't always the case. It depends on the airplane and the length of the flight. No one is going to bother with those enhancements (bed/shower/closed off area) on shorter flights but for overnight flights it can make sense to provide such services as options.

    112. Re:The good old days... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The comment was that today's first-class is yesterday's baggage compartment. What baggage compartment had the facilities of today's top first-class cabins?

  2. First diarrhea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just finished my airplane meal.

    1. Re:First diarrhea by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      No wonder food tastes bad with so many stinking, sweaty feet in the plane. I wonder, why on earth would anyone want to load 30.000 feet aboard a plane?

  3. Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to 8k by gavron · · Score: 5, Informative

    The modern airliner cabin is pressurized to a pressure altitude of 8,000ft.
    That means that as you go from airport altitude to your cruising altitude the cabin only increases
    in pressure to feel like 8,000ft.

    That's below the 10,000ft where the OP claims cotton-mouth, and below the 14,000 where you
    can't breath, and well below the 35,000 OP cites as cruising altitude.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/brmpv3j

    The original article is just pure hogwash.

    E

  4. Sure blame the taste buds... by hal2814 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Blame the taste buds? That's like blaming the controller when you suck at video games.

    1. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

      The usefulness of your analogy gets a score of 2 pencil sharpeners out of 89.4 green elephants.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      And there is a whole industry built up around thumbstick extenders and rapidfire controllers.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      try to find the episode of Heston Blumenthal mission impossible series where he looks at airline at why food doesn't taste as good in the air and how to improve it
      he's a michilin star cook so I think he knows thing or two about taste

    4. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I had a TI 99/4a. 10 minutes of TI Invaders would lead to hours of painful mussels.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by ChipMonk · · Score: 2

      Just be glad you didn't have a case of the crabs!

    6. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by politkal · · Score: 1

      I had a TI 99/4a. 10 minutes of TI Invaders would lead to hours of painful mussels.

      -> Do these painful mussels *taste* good? Or is it a sore topic? Btw, I didn't know TSA-approved plastic knives can open mussels... Learn something new every day...

    7. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      You don't eat the closed ones. If they don't open when steamed, you chuck them away. That's my understanding.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by wazza · · Score: 1

      A myth. Whether a mussel opens or not depends solely on how strong the adductor muscles are, on the hinge of the shell, and has nothing to do with the meat inside.

      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/29/2404364.htm

    9. Re:Sure blame the taste buds... by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      Good episode. I looked it up after you mentioned it and learned a thing or two. I know that Top Chef (US TV show) did an episode where the competing chefs had to make food that would be served on an airline. The main thing the airline (or maybe it was a catering chef for the airlines) told the chefs was that in preparing food for the airlines they needed to make sure their food was spicier than normal because of how the food would be prepared on the airplane.

  5. Really now? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    Food I've bought in the terminal and brought aboard tasted just fine to me. Way too expensive, but that's a different story.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Really now? by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      $15 duty free BigMacs are the best.

    2. Re:Really now? by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

      But it's not that kind of "duty" free if you catch my drift...

      --
      Previewing comments are for sissies!
    3. Re:Really now? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      For anyone who likes to fly with their own food, I recommend Calvin Trillin's lovely story "Fly Frills to Miami", which is from his book Alice, Let's Eat.

  6. But Wait... by sfhock · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why is it that food I bring on board with me still tastes good given all these environmental factors? Oh yeah, cause Airline food just plain sucks...

    --
    "Let's go find some Turian and beat the shit out of him ... That always cheers you up!!"
    1. Re:But Wait... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The summary blames that on lack of diversity of cooking methods and the food preparation. On the ground, they can boil, steam, fry, whatever to cook food. In the airplane, they only have those convection ovens to reheat food. On the ground, they can use fresh ingredients to cook. On the airplane, they have to use pre- cooked, pre-frozen, pre-packaged meals. The airline can be diligent about making it as fresh as possible but it can never really be fresh.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Alternative Solution by No,+I+am+Spratacus! · · Score: 1

    It seems there is an alternative solution to this problem - don't serve food, and airlines have adopted it for flights that are not at least several hours long.

    1. Re:Alternative Solution by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      I'd rather them take the cost off the ticket (somewhere around $50 a person apparently) and bring my own cheaper yet much better food on board or just not eat (I can go a surprisingly long while before I actually get uncomfortably hungry).

    2. Re:Alternative Solution by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that if they were to remove meal service, the price of the ticket would remain the same. Kind of similar to what happened with checked baggage.

    3. Re:Alternative Solution by Anrego · · Score: 1

      True enough, but a man can dream ;p

  8. Alternatively: sweets, raw veg and fruit by fleeped · · Score: 1

    Can't people survive without cooked food for a flight's duration? Unless you're crew, the current solutions for cooked food look appaling.

    1. Re:Alternatively: sweets, raw veg and fruit by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For flights up to about 5 hours, most do indeed go without as these flights only offer a drink and your choice of overpriced candy bars. After that, people start to get antsy for some free meal of some sort (more so if they have some form of diabetes which you can be sure makes up a good sized contingent on any flight these days.) Why the airlines don't just offer meals that are intended to be cold (a nice chicken salad, a cold-cut sub sandwich, wrap, etc.) is beyond me.

      When I travel, I just buy one of these from the dozen or so places in any airport that vends them and don't worry about what (if anything) is going to be served in flight. The airlines really should just forgo any hot meal kind of options completely and just give food vouchers at the gate for any flight that included a meal, and the passengers can just go get the food they actually want and bring it with them.

    2. Re:Alternatively: sweets, raw veg and fruit by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is a cost if people are too grumpy especially if they are hungry. Fruits and Vegies are healthy but for some people it makes them go. Which is bad. It is usually better to put them in a food coma, to keep us passive during the flight.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Alternatively: sweets, raw veg and fruit by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Quite a few airlines offer something cold like a sandwich on short flights...
      In Europe especially, you have a choice between the budget airlines (where you pay - a lot - extra for any kind of food), and the proper airlines where you typically get a sandwich or salad on a short flight.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  9. What a load of BS! by na1led · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it hard to believe that because of high altitude, the food is going to taste bad, yet they can send food into space that astronauts say taste just fine. IMO, the reason the food tastes bad, is because the Air Lines are too damn cheap to provide good quality food!

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:What a load of BS! by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it hard to believe that because of high altitude, the food is going to taste bad

      Winter in Denver above 5000 feet simply can't be that much different than a pressurized cabin, yet people in Denver don't starve to death.

      Some of my best meals have been eaten while wearing snowshoes on the side of a mountain/hill. Builds up an appetite, I'm having fun, etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:What a load of BS! by AC-x · · Score: 2

      They keep the air pressure in ISS higher than they do on an airliner. Pressure in ISS is equivalent to sea level pressure while an airliner is only pressurised to the equivalent of 8,000 ft.

    3. Re:What a load of BS! by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a slight difference between 5000 feet and 30000 feet.

      Likewise, there's a slight difference between the outside and inside of the cabin at 30000 feet.

    4. Re:What a load of BS! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When I was in Boy Scouts I hiked the Rocky Mountains... After hours of hiking any food tastes good.
      If the food was served slightly better then others then it really tasted good.

      A little while I bought some beef jerky (something I really liked to eat during that trip) it didn't taste as good as I remembered. Because I wasn't as hungry as before.

      For airline flight you are being rather passive, for most people they are eating as it is something to do, and less because they are starving for food.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:What a load of BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The food provided tastes good enough. But you can try to pressurize your mouth while eating, just blow some air and try to chew!

    6. Re:What a load of BS! by Bobtree · · Score: 2
    7. Re:What a load of BS! by mycroft16 · · Score: 1

      But that's not what the article really says is the cause. The cause is the environment in the plane. Specifically the incredibly low humidity and the method of reheating the food further drying it. Food on the ISS and on the Shuttle before retirement, was dehydrated and then rehydrated and heated remedying this problem. The atmosphere is also kept humid at a very specific level for comfort and safety. The environment and cooking methods are both far better on the ISS than in a commercial plane. And that sort of makes sense as they live there for 6 months as opposed to half a day travelling.

    8. Re:What a load of BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Food tastes shit, because it is. I always take on a large sub and eat that instead of the airline food. It tastes exactly like it would if I were on the ground or in an office. That's on transatlantic flights too, not little pond hopper trips.

  10. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 4, Funny

    The original article is just pure hogwash.

    Indeed, some of the best peanuts I've ever had were on airlines.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  11. Yeah, I bet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Ice cream is about the only thing I can think of that tastes good on a plane,' says Marion Nestle

    And only chocolate ice cream at that, eh Nestle?

  12. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

    If cottonmouth tales away your sense of taste, then why does everything taste so much better after a big doob?

  13. Psychological effects by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought it was psychological effects? Being molested by federal agents, being treated like a terrorist, being herded like cattle at a slaughterhouse, mind numbing boredom waiting around, late of course, sounds like a fun date, what could possibly go wrong? Doesn't everyone else look forward to a full body cavity search before a gourmet meal?

    Also only a tiny fraction of my travel, on ground or in airplane is for fun. Mostly its because I have to meet someone at work, training, fix something, somebody far away croaked, etc. Its almost never involves good news. Flying home because granny died last night is going to kind of ruin the dining experience regardless what they do. Or traveling to the worlds most boring, tiring, and pointless meeting while in a bad mood ruins the dining experience. I have traveled for fun, its just that I make 5, maybe 10 business-related trips for each vacation.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Psychological effects by radaos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Previous research has linked high noise levels, such as found on aircraft, with the perception of blandness in food. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11525897

    2. Re:Psychological effects by kimvette · · Score: 1

      If that were true, then food would taste lousy in every pub or sports bar & grill in existence.

      Wait, on second thought, you might be on to something!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  14. Different airlines by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whenever I fly Singapore, Thai or other Asian airlines the food is fine. However, on Western airlines.......Delta, KLM, BA, etc, the food sucks. Different philosophies maybe?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Different airlines by will_die · · Score: 1

      One major difference is the price they charge.
      Transatlantic flights on my own dime I go with the cheaper airlines and get small food snacks, when on someone else dime I go with the higher priced airlines, all economy, and get better food.

    2. Re:Different airlines by berashith · · Score: 1

      This is even true for a Delta ticket that uses an AirFrance plane. The Air France flight has great food and flight attendants that are under 45 years old.

    3. Re:Different airlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. When I flew Air France, the flight crew started breaking out the champagne as soon as they were allowed to unbuckle their seat belts and move around. And it was the best type of champagne: complementary champagne. As a matter of fact, all of the beverages were free, as best I could tell. Then they served 2 meals on an overnight flight (real time ~8 hours but clock time ~15 hours): a dinner and a light breakfast. The dinner was a TV dinner, choice of beef or chicken IIRC (I think there was a 3rd vegetarian option); nothing special but not anything I'd complain about. (But it was also served along with a single serving bottle of your choice of wine.) I was less impressed with the French idea of a breakfast: a yoghurt, a fruit cup, a cracker, a rectangle of cheese, and a muffin. The cheese was about the only thing I liked of that, and I can definitely say that the flavor didn't suffer any from being at cruising altitude when it was eaten. And of course all the smaller regional airlines stocked beer in their complementary beverage cart.

      Then we landed and I discovered that just about anywhere you went, you had the options of: bottled water (buck fifty) or beer (buck fifty). Tap water? What, you want you should wash your hands with it? Here, have a damp napkin. They don't drink tap water. Stateside that's water (free, and if you're lucky it isn't tap water; they'll pull it from the soda machine - Coca-Cola has spent millions making sure that every drop of water that comes out of a Coke machine tastes exactly like every other drop of water, whether it came from the plumbing in Seattle, Minneapolis, Phoenix, or Taipei), and beer (six dollars or more).

    4. Re:Different airlines by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2

      It's a need for a different marketing demographic.

      US airline consumers shop purely by price.

      Asian airline consumers shop by airline food quality and stewardess attractiveness, and are willing to pay for these qualities (as idiotic as it is). It's not unusual to hear Asian people talk about preferring one airline to another because of these two factors, and they don't blink an eye even if they have to pay an extra $200USD for these perceived differences.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    5. Re:Different airlines by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I agree. Thai airlines has had the best food I've found on planes. They also come round with plenty of free alcohol (after dinner brandy, anyone?) even on the cheap tickets.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    6. Re:Different airlines by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's a need for a different marketing demographic.

      US airline consumers shop purely by price.

      Asian airline consumers shop by airline food quality and stewardess attractiveness, and are willing to pay for these qualities (as idiotic as it is). It's not unusual to hear Asian people talk about preferring one airline to another because of these two factors, and they don't blink an eye even if they have to pay an extra $200USD for these perceived differences.

      Asian airlines are not that expensive. A flight on Singapore on sale is about $100 more then Air Asia's regular price. It all depends on when you're flying. Try getting a cheap flight on a budget airline on any kind of holiday. Recently I tried to get a cheap flight out of Thailand over Easter. Tiger wanted A$500, Cebu Pacific wanted A$350, I got a flight on Philippine Airlines for US$395 (A$370) and they were the only airline who was not flying in the middle of the night.

      Asian airlines are quite cost competitive.

      Also, Asian people tend to be more price conscious then westerners.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  15. Sounds like a perfect application for sous vide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sous Vide would seem to be near perfect (with proper engineering of the water bath).
    Precooking is trivial as is a cook/chill process.
    With precooked packets all that is required is a reheat which is not terribly time consuming, especially if the meat is cut thin.
     

  16. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I almost always bring my own homemade food on the plane (nothing complicated, just sandwiches and a fresh fruit), and it tastes perfectly good in the air -- basically the same as it does on the ground.

    I maintain that the problem with airplane food is that it is shit.

  17. Excuses by lfp98 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sounds like a lot of lame excuses for cheap tasteless food. Why is it that, whenever I take my own sandwich onboard, it tastes just fine?

  18. Re:Old news? by neokushan · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was just about to post the same thought. I remember the show, it was about a "crazy" TV Chef Personality trying to tackle places where food was notoriously bad.

    Chef in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heston_Blumenthal
    Show in question - http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel4.com%2Fprogrammes%2Fhestons-mission-impossible&ei=Q4hwT8GrEsii8QPNhay_DQ&usg=AFQjCNFV9XA0VmmjP41FvOGX8fjKBTKZig

    I can't find any links that go into detail about what the program found out, but this isn't a bad place to start: www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEoQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.terminalu.com%2Ftravel-news%2Fheston-blumenthal-proves-that-british-airways-can-improve-inflight-food-standards%2F6728%2F&ei=ZYhwT83XNsr_8QPLmJ2_DQ&usg=AFQjCNGkMupkhlsjgyVT2VRbmVFHAThPGw

    All of the reasons in the summary are gone over - dried out senses, pressurised environments etc. except Heston went a step further and discovered that certain flavours aren't as affected by the different atmosphere. This show aired over a year ago.

    Old news indeed.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  19. olds by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, and? This has been known for many years. Most airlines have special kitchens for their chefs to work in which artificially create in-flight atmosphere (pressure, humidity, etc.) so the chefs can taste what their food is like to the passengers.

    I don't see any recent breakthroughs mentioned. So what the heck is this blogging nonsense doing on the frontpage?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:olds by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I remember learning about this at high school (or was it college) 15-20 years ago.

    2. Re:olds by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read an old magazine from 1720 that was talking about this too. Old news.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  20. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by PPH · · Score: 3, Informative

    The cabin is pressurized to 8,000 feet but with very dry air from outside. Humidifying the air would require carrying many extra gallons (hundreds?) of fresh water.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Ginger-ale at 30,000' by Y-Crate · · Score: 2

    Nothing tastes better. I'm not entirely sure why. But it's never quite as good back on the ground.

    1. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I agree about ginger ale, but diet coke and V8 also taste great when you're in the air. I like diet coke on the ground, but not so much V8. The only part of the article that seems factual is the part about the air being pretty dry, so i expect that anything liquid seems a lot better than it would under "normal" circumstances

      Like everyone else commenting on the article i've found that any food i bring with me tastes pretty much the same as it does on the ground. The airlines may have trouble _preparing_ food at altitude, but there's nothing magical happening to your taste buds. If the airline food tastes bad it's either because they can't cook properly during the flight or it was just bad food to begin with.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by Malc · · Score: 1

      Ginger ale has no flavour to begin with, least of all any ginger content. On the occasions I want a fizzy sugar loaded drink, I do quite like a ginger beer though.

    3. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Ginger ale most certainly does have flavour. Club soda is the carbonated water with no flavour.

    4. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Um, whoosh?

      Side note: I have had ginger ale which had plenty of flavor - and even that actually tasted like ginger. Try finding it in a health food store. Of course it'll be more expensive, but you'd expect to pay more for something that tastes better, right?

    5. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Also, you'd not necessarily be correct about club soda having no (added) flavor. It often has an alkaline salt added to it to offset the acidity (and the accompanying slightly-sour taste) of the carbonation. While it's not exactly a flavoring agent (other than its saltiness), it's added to improve the flavor.

    6. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      There's no whoosh to be had from Malc's comment, which still reads as was a non-sarcastic opinion. If you care to point out what I missed, feel free.

    7. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      He means seltzer. No sodium.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      I read it as an opinion which had been rather blatantly exaggerated for humorous effect. He thinks ginger ale is bland.

      Replying with "no, it actually has a flavor" just makes it look like you missed the joke. He knows it has a flavor; he just doesn't think it has much of one.

    9. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia entry doesn't differentiate between carbonated water, club soda, soda water, sparkling water, seltzer, or "fizzy water". I assume the composition will depend on the brand name you're buying.

      (Tonic water, by contrast, is not the same: it contains quinine.)

    10. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      I still don't read it that way. Chalk it up to sarchasm.

    11. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      The bit about ginger content gives it away, IMO. We all know that ginger ale technically has a little ginger flavor. He thinks it's terribly bland, and said so rather dramatically.

      And, like I said, typical ginger ale is pretty bland. I've had some spicy ginger ales, but Canada Dry is basically Sprite with a negligible amount of ginger flavor.

    12. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Tonic water also contains a lot of high fructose corn syrup, unfortunately.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    13. Re:Ginger-ale at 30,000' by Malc · · Score: 1

      You got it. I do find it incredibly bland. :)

  22. Who needs airplane food to taste good by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    Not being a blue blood accustomed to first class travel, I see airplane food strictly as something to sustain me through a long flight, and relieve the boredom.

    On shorter range flights (such as across much of Europe), only drinks are necessary, and anything is vastly better and more convenient on the ground, even in airport restaurants. Short layovers when connecting flights may be a problem, though, so it's good to be able to get a meal sometimes. Low cost carriers know all this, so they offer in-flight food for an extra charge.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  23. OP talked about HUMIDITY by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    OP says that the ten thousand taste buds (i.e. notice how there was no mention of pressure at that point) work fine as long as there is humidity. Whether at 8 thousand feet or 35 thousand feet, what the OP says is that the really low humidity inside the plane (to guarantee its structural integrity on the long run) is bad for the taste buds and thus for the taste of food.

    The article may be crap, but not for the reasons you point!

    1. Re:OP talked about HUMIDITY by ryanov · · Score: 2

      The 787 will have a more humid cabin. Will be interested to see if it makes a difference in the food.

    2. Re:OP talked about HUMIDITY by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      My opinion... most likely it won't. I do think the article us (partially) crap. Food sucks up there, because the same food actually would suck down here. It's not something I'd want to eat if given a choice. And the times it actually looked like proper food, it tasted like proper food. Humidity may contribute to it not being great, but it won't make it the crap it looks, tastes and feels like most of the time. And having flown low-cost airlines where you pay for the food and it actually tastes good (because they want you to pay for it) I know it's not the addition of salt and tons of pepper or whatever that makes it edible.

      In the 787 at first it may taste like good food because it being a new plane the companies will want all the publicity they can get, but after a while the dust settles and the same crap food you get on other planes you'll get on the 787. And then no humidity in the world will make a difference...

      And saying they add too much salt to compensate for the lack of taste completely ignores that lots of other prepackaged and fast food options have the same problem. They do it because our brain is wired to love salt and won't care about the crap we're eating. Not because there's no humidity in the restaurant you're in!

  24. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

    Cottonmouth doesn't affect your brain's chemistry.

  25. Cheapskates! by fleeped · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA, 2nd page, shows the mentality:

    FOR airlines like Delta, these are not trivial matters. A decision a few years ago to shave one ounce from its steaks, for example, saved the airline $250,000 a year. And every step of kitchen labor increases costs when so many meals are prepared daily. An entrée accounts for about 60 percent of a meal’s cost, according to Delta, while appetizers account for 17 percent, salads 10 percent and desserts 7 percent.

    Delta also calculated that by removing a single strawberry from salads served in first class on domestic routes, it would save $210,000 a year. The company hands out 61 million bags of peanuts every year, and about the same number of pretzels. A one-cent increase in peanut prices increases Delta’s costs by $610,000 a year.

    The tastebud stuff sound like pathetic excuses..

    1. Re:Cheapskates! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I buy stuff at the airport, and eat it on the plane. It tastes fine.

    2. Re:Cheapskates! by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      The tastebud stuff sound like pathetic excuses..

      They are.

      Years ago I got tired of airplane food and started carrying my own stuff - granola bars, cheese-n-crackers, nuts, dry stuff. I noticed zero difference in how it tasted.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    3. Re:Cheapskates! by idontusenumbers · · Score: 1

      What misleading statistics. If Delta spends 10 million dollars on peanuts a year, a cost inrease of .6 million dollars is practically insignificant. With absolute figure like the ones used in TFA, Why not fire their CEO and save ~10 million dollars a year. That would save 100 times as much money as cheating their paying customers from an extra strawberry, a berry that costs the company a few cents from the $500 ticket the customer purchased.

  26. I'm one of those weirdos... by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

    ...who LIKES airplane food. Why? Dunno. The only thing I don't like is that out of the two choices they give, the best one is always taken by the time they get to my priceline-cheap-assed seat. If it's 'beef or fish', I resign myself, sadly, to the latter before they even get to me. But on the return flight home on my first international flight, they started handing out these pretty boxes to everyone. I thought they were gifts people could buy, as they'd just mentioned the duty-free abilities we had. But the guy comes over and hands me one. Is it stupid that I got all bright-eyed, saying "What... I get one?" when all it was was a boxed lunch of a sandwich, fruit and this ridiculously-delicious shortbread cookie? I need to get out more, I suppose.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  27. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by MisterMidi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because your appetite is regulated by cannabinoid neurotransmitters. Your brains can't tell the difference between the external cannabinoids (from your doob) and the ones it produces itself. Maybe they should start handing out space muffins on board :)

  28. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    The cabin is pressurized to 8,000 feet but with very dry air from outside. Humidifying the air would require carrying many extra gallons (hundreds?) of fresh water.

    Or, cramming in a few hundred mouth breathers who are stoked on either starbucks (intensifying the dehydration) or fiji water (intensifying rehydration and wallet depletion)... Then again, the real substantial humidity bump happens after they all start complaining about their lousy in flight meal so i can see where the article has a point.

  29. Solution by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The industry for the most part has solved this problem by simply not feeding people any more.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  30. Keep the plane pressured then by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I know this is easier said then done and they have reasons for skimping on the pressure. BUUUUT it would be more comfortable if the pressure slowly transitioned from the take off pressure to the landing pressure with no consideration at all for the exterior pressure.

    I'm assuming the reason they don't fully pressurize the plane is that it puts strain on the airframe or the cabin or it's hard to keep the plane pressurized. If that's the case just consider making that a feature in future plane designs. Passengers would prefer it. No screaming children clutching their ears.

    Just an idea.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Keep the plane pressured then by dlgeek · · Score: 1

      The new 787 is supposed to have a much higher internal pressure for a significant improvement in passenger comfort. (link)

    2. Re:Keep the plane pressured then by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Go the other way. Lower the pressure. Everyone passes out and you wake up at your destination. Would be nice if they could figure out how to prevent the headache though.

    3. Re:Keep the plane pressured then by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I heard that. Good progress I guess... though I want it to hold it's pressure so well that people can't tell at all. No popping ears.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:Keep the plane pressured then by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      how about you keep the pressure but release a little laughing gas into the air...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb8fWUUXeKM

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  31. Presentation is just as bad by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    I'd prefer a cold bento-style lunch over the hot gloopy running-together mess they server on planes.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Presentation is just as bad by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Automatic writing slip - serve, not server. My fingers automatically add in the R whether I intend to or not.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  32. Etihad has great food by ehiris · · Score: 1

    Great food in economy and they even give you metal butter knives so they might actually cook it because they're not a bunch of wusses.

  33. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by mspohr · · Score: 2

    I live at 6500 ft.
    Food tastes great!

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  34. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by ultranova · · Score: 2

    Humidifying the air would require carrying many extra gallons (hundreds?) of fresh water.

    If you use a heat exchanger to warm incoming air with outgoing air, it should be possible to recover and reuse the moisture.

    Alternatively, you could just give up and give people military rations.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  35. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by ibwolf · · Score: 1

    The cabin is pressurized to 8,000 feet but with very dry air from outside. Humidifying the air would require carrying many extra gallons (hundreds?) of fresh water.

    As I understand it, the main reason for the dry air is that it reduces metal fatigue (via oxidization). Planes made of carbon fiber (e.g. the 787) should (or at the very least could!) have less dry air.

  36. Lies, damned lies by guyniraxn · · Score: 1

    I've bought sandwhiches prior to flying and eaten them on the plane numerous times, they still taste delicious. I don't know what they're doing wrong but it isn't the altitude.

  37. Step-Mother by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 1

    I was so sure about that bad food came from my step-mother. I'm surprised she isn't responsible for the diarrhea too :)

  38. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    ...just give up and give people military rations.

    One MRE should be enough to frighten the entire plane into fasting.

  39. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by tunapez · · Score: 1

    The original article is just pure hogwash.

    That's what I came to say. I try to bring food on-board whenever I'm aloft for multi-hours, most recently National coney dogs(yes I always bring extra for my seatmate/s discretion). The vote was unanimous, they tasted awesome at 30,000ft. If at all possible, I suspect they tasted better at altitude, but I am extremely biased when it comes to coneys.

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  40. food is bland on planes by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    maybe that's why they serve salted peanuts.

  41. Re:Bad taste, or just tastes bad? by tibit · · Score: 1

    That was deliberate, AC, very deliberate. Alas, I have two decent trouts in the fridge, time to bake them tonight!

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  42. Aegean Airlines by pz · · Score: 1

    Aegean Airlines serves (largely) excellent food. There has been the odd exception, but generally, their food is really quite good in my experience.

    The issue is the amount of money the typical airline meal costs the airline to produce. I can't locate the page at present, but recall that among domestic US carriers, Alaska Air spent the most on its food. From what I recall (take that with necessary salt), the overal industry average was below $2 per meal. The average first class meal cost something like $5.

    Note that I'm talking about the cost of producing the meal, not the amount that gets charged to the customer now that meal fees have been unbundled from transportation fees.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  43. uh, no just no... this is drap. by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    I typically get take-out the night before (Chinese, Indian). Tastes just like it does one the ground-- usually with anyone around me complaining that they didn't bring their own. The OP is crap.

  44. On The Ground by eljefe6a · · Score: 1

    I have eaten airplane food on the ground and it tastes the same (bad).

  45. I don't buy this at all... by Roogna · · Score: 1

    Back when I was flying a lot still, the airline food tasted like crap. The fruit or snacks that I'd bring in my bag? Tasted just fine.
    If it was some weird thing with the tastebuds wouldn't my own food taste weird?

  46. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Southwest does have some good Honey Roasted Peanuts.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  47. Collusion by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

    'Ice cream is about the only thing I can think of that tastes good on a plane,' says Marion Nestle

    Isn't Nestle a major seller of ice cream products?

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    1. Re:Collusion by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      First of all, I've never ever seen ice cream on an airplane, or any other frozen food, because they don't have freezers.

      I find it highly likely this is just another somewhat half-assed attempt at a slashvertisement.

    2. Re:Collusion by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      I had ice cream on a plane about 20 years ago. It was a pre-packaged sunday. They have ice for the drinks, where are they getting that if they don't have freezers or refrigeration of some sort?

    3. Re:Collusion by joelsherrill · · Score: 1

      I had a cup of ice cream on a flight last earlier this month from Munich at Atlanta. Standard kind of cup with a flat wooden spatula/spoon/shovel many Americans will recall from grade school. Few Delta domestic flights are long enough to hit their meal provided cutoff anymore.

  48. Oversalting by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 1

    Oversalting and spicing processed food has nothing to do with it being airline food. All processed food is heavily oversalted and often overspiced no matter where you get it.

    1. Re:Oversalting by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      You may be right about processed food in general, but wrong about airline food. The problem of airline food is the opposite, it tastes like nothing, is certainly not salty and is not spiced at all. At least that's the case with the European airlines I'm frequently flying with. And the bread is disgusting. Perhaps there is a difference between US and European airline food?

      Or, wait... when you say 'spices' do you mean artificial flavors and preservatives? Then you might have a point. When I say spices of course I mean rosemary, thyme, oregano, sage, parsley, savory, and so on...

    2. Re:Oversalting by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Processed food doesn't have to be oversalted and overspiced.

      Pick any product on here. Say, Tesco Finest Chicken Pancetta & Mozzarella -- 1.5g salt per portion, which seems reasonable for a main meal (daily recommended maximum is 6g). However, others do have a lot of salt.

      The government is still in the process of asking/hoping food manufacturers to further reduce salt content of processed food. (If they don't, they'll eventually make a law/official guidelines. Or, more likely, mandate a big red sticker on anything containing to much salt).

    3. Re:Oversalting by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2

      You're correct. The recommended daily intake of sodium is 2300 mg (2.3 grams). 1.5g is about 65% of that. Unless you are on a low-sodium diet, it is not completely outrageous for a single meal on a rare occasion, so long as you typically watch the amount of salt you'd consume in your other meals. The problem is that nobody does. Typical salt intake is ~5 grams per day.

    4. Re:Oversalting by xaxa · · Score: 1

      There's no way in hell the recommended amount of daily sodium is 6000mg, are you freaking insane? People with high blood pressure must limit their DAILY intake to 1500mg!

      I wrote "salt", and quoted the value for salt. The value for sodium on that ready meal is 0.6g.

    5. Re:Oversalting by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The meal I linked to contains 0.6g of *sodium*, or 1.5g of *salt* (or salt equivalent).

      Typical *sodium* intake is ~5g/day, typical *salt* intake is (with that figure) 12g. I saw 9-11g earlier, but that was a British article.

  49. Heston Blumenthal already found this out by jonwil · · Score: 1

    He carried out experiments on a number of British Airways flights to see if he could come up with new food that tasted better without adding more sugar, salt and bad things, without requiring anything new on the airplanes and without adding anything to the preparation time or to the cost of the food.

    The best thing he came up with was a new way to do Shepard's Pie.

    As for the solution to the problem, I recon they should require that the people who design/approve airline food have to taste it after its been through the same cooking process as it would undergo in the air and under the same atmospheric conditions as an airplane. That way they can come up with dishes that wont suffer so much in an airplane setting.

    One thing they could do to make the food not taste so crap is to re-think the way the food is packaged and prepared so that it doesn't loose most of its moisture in the process (it IS possible to freeze e.g. a serving of mince+tomato based pasta sauce+pasta and have it taste just as good after re-heating as it did before it was frozen but if you take too much moisture out of the food and dont put it back, the flavor will suffer).

  50. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    Honestly the new MREs aren't that bad. I've had worse airline meals.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  51. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    >The modern airliner cabin is pressurized to a pressure altitude of 8,000ft.

    And moreover, the majority of metal parts subject to deterioration are not exposed to the pressurized air, and the exterior surfaces are exposed to a great deal of moisture (condensation and other environmental).

    >The original article is just pure hogwash.

    Agreed.

  52. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Aside from all else, someone writing "1/5rd" has no room to call anyone an idiot.

  53. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    I've heard they have improved. My memory of the 1985 MRE was a packet of meat paste frozen by the German winter and some nasty crackers. That makes me think of the Fifth Element line "meat popsicle".

  54. All of you saying "my sandwich tastes just fine" by kiwimate · · Score: 2

    I see a bunch of posts stating:

    • I bring my own food on the plane and it tastes just fine; or
    • I always eat my food in Denver/on the side of a mountain and it tastes just fine

    The summary (not even the article!) makes it clear it's more than just the altitude/pressure. There's cabin humidity, for starters.

    cabin humidity levels kept low by design

    As well as all the packaging, preprocessing, etc., that goes into the cabin food.

  55. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Leebert · · Score: 4, Funny

    Southwest does have some good Honey Roasted Peanuts.

    Careful. They were processed in a facility that processes nuts.

  56. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by PPH · · Score: 1

    warm incoming air with outgoing air,

    That would be nice if you could direct the outgoing air through an exchanger. It leaks out through bad door seals and other unintended openings. And it takes the moisture with it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  57. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Leebert · · Score: 1

    If you use a heat exchanger to warm incoming air with outgoing air,

    My understanding is that exactly the opposite happens. Because of adiabatic heating, the air being compressed into an aircraft cabin actually needs to be cooled (it's bled off of compressors for the jet engine). At least, that's what I've been told by a few people.

  58. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Nursie · · Score: 2

    Yup. It's bullshit.

    1. Food in the business cabins still tastes how it should.
    2. Food I've taken on board still tastes good,
    3. The food budget per meal, per seat in economy is around $1-$2

    1 and 2 put the lie to the premise, 3 is just the reason why. Price competition has driven airlines to cut every last cent they can. Me, I'd rather have an option to pay ten bucks more for my ticket and not get fed recycled rat-shit.

  59. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Between ROTC and 10 years in the Guard I've experienced the last four generations of MRE. The late 80's / early 90's version was worthy of all the disdain ever heaped upon them. They've gotten progressively better though. Other than a residual slight metallic tang to the meat, current generation MRE's are by and large no worse than most fast food (which is not to say that they're good, just not nearly as awful). The vegetarian one's are actually better IMO, the lack of meat completely removes the metallic taste and they always have fruit and granola bars as extras. The fruit is no worse than any canned fruit and the granola bars don't suffer from the heat as much as a lot of snacks.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you want a regular diet of the things; but living on them for a couple of days isn't unpleasant anymore. No worse than a travel day where you're forced to eat more fast food than you'd like.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  60. Am I the only one... by pulsar5271 · · Score: 1

    ...who thinks "blast-chilled" sounds awesome?

  61. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by mycroft16 · · Score: 1

    Just as a point, you can breath just fine at 14,000 feet. Born and raised in Colorado and it's a state past-time to hike the 54 mountains that are over 14,000 ft tall. I've personally stood atop a number of them in shorts and a tshirt and breathed without problem. In fact people have summited Everest without oxygen assistance (29,029 ft).

  62. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, and they come with chemical heater now. Activate the heater with a quarter cup or so of water and no more cold/frozen food. The second and third generation had the heaters as an optional extra item the unit could get along with the MRE; but now they're packed inside the bag. There's less chance of a screw-up or sadistic supply sergeant that way.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  63. Food? On an airline? by VeryVito · · Score: 1

    This article was surely published in 1965, right? I can't even get the attendants on AirHate to whip a bag of soggy pretzels in my direction these days. What's this nonsense about actual food on a modern aircraft?

    1. Re:Food? On an airline? by WDancer · · Score: 1

      I know. I wonder why there is even a galley on aircraft anymore. I usually just bring my own meals and snacks from home. Pretty much any food will get through security, even sandwiches.

  64. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

    That would be nice if you could direct the outgoing air through an exchanger. It leaks out through bad door seals and other unintended openings. And it takes the moisture with it.

    The vast majority of air "leaks" out through cabin pressurization valves near the back of the plane - it's designed that way since air has to be let out in order to let fresh air in (as well as to not keep the cabin at the same altitude as the departing airport - to climb up to 8000' requires releasing air).

    My understanding is that exactly the opposite happens. Because of adiabatic heating, the air being compressed into an aircraft cabin actually needs to be cooled (it's bled off of compressors for the jet engine). At least, that's what I've been told by a few people.

    Correct. The pressurized air for the cabin comes from the jet engine's bleed air (located after the compressor section). It's quite warm because of the compression (from -30-50C to +50-60C), so it needs to be cooled down via air conditioners to levels humans would prefer.

    It's also one reason (among many) to keep the cabin at 8000' and why air quality has declined - using the bleed air saps power from the engine.

  65. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

    I am always happy to see peanuts on Southwest since it means they haven't caved to the nut allergy crowd that gets up in arms whenever a product containing nuts makes it within 100 feet of them.

    --
    this is my sig
  66. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Malties · · Score: 1

    mmmmm... meat paste on cardboard

  67. Re:All of you saying "my sandwich tastes just fine by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    "I bring my own food on the plane and it tastes just fine"

    So the only reasons left are packaging, preprocessing, etc. So in summary, airline food tastes like crap because it is.

  68. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by PPH · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's correct in the vast majority of cases. The 787 being an exception, using dedicated electrically driven air compressors instead of bleed air to supply the cabin.

    The problem with outside air at 35K feet is that it is cold. So its absolute humidity is very low. Warming it up lowers its relative humidity even lower.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  69. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You know... I think your reply is insightful and appreciated. But I can't help but think your parent won't get it. Just typing "doob" to most doob-partakers makes them partake. Just know your reply was appreciated anyway. :)

  70. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by svirre · · Score: 1

    Air in planes are dehumidified to minimize the amount of ice and condensation that forms on the inside of the airplanes pressure skin. If this weren't done you might literally get a shower during landing.

  71. Total BS by no-body · · Score: 1

    Corporate greed is the reason.

    - ahem, it's the system people live under.. continuing accumulated linear growth leads to exponential increase in a limited space.
    That's what's happening - scrambling for continuous ROI with decreasing value delivery.

    One can fly different airlines under the same booking airline by choosing a codeshared flight and experience different service (and food quality) of other airlines, example below, when booking under codeshared airlines the flight happens under the operating carrier.
    Flying codeshared and non-codeshared identical routes allows 1:1 comparison - UA food sucks!

    (UA) United Airlines 8826
    Operated by (LH) Lufthansa 419

    This flight marketed as a codeshare flight by the following airlines:

    (UA) United Airlines 8826
                (AI) Air India 8644
                (TG) Thai Airways International 7711
                (AC) Air Canada 9450

  72. Booze is the solution by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    Give me enough booze and the quality of the food becomes less relevant.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  73. Ready meals by xaxa · · Score: 1

    I haven't flown with a US airline, so I can't compare, but my experience of BA food is very positive. I think it comes from the *massive* increased popularity of "ready meals" (microwave meals?) in the UK in the last decade. All supermarkets now have a whole aisle of them, including the luxury ones -- Marks & Spencer were behind it, and their ready meals cost at least £5 a portion.

  74. What about the airport food? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    So we have an excuse for the in flight meals, what about the lousy taste of the food in the airport itself?

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:What about the airport food? by j4w7 · · Score: 1

      Take a deep breath. Smell that gross smell? Taste is part smell. Mmmmm... Airport B.O. + food.

  75. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by kenmtraveller · · Score: 1

    I agree...The original article is definitely BS...I've spent months at high altitude (13000ft+) in the himalayas, and food tastes great there. Cabins are indeed pressurized to 8000ft, I've verified this with the altimiter on my watch (which works off barometric pressure) while flying.

  76. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I, for one, have eaten quite well on an airplane. I flew Turkish Air to Istanbul and Beijing, and I must say their food is awesome. The Chinese airliner I flew afterwards also had decent food.

    Good food on an airplane isn’t an impossible feat. My taste buds work just fine on all altitudes I’ve tried them on. Food quality primarily depends on how little the airliner is willing to spend on it.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  77. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Pope · · Score: 1

    Ah, Taco Bell! Coming right up, sir!

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  78. Re:Old news? by Pope · · Score: 1

    WTF is with you people posting Google search links instead of the damn actual page URLs?

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  79. Re:Old news? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    If Google wasn't fucking retarded and hiding the link behind a counter/redirect, maybe that wouldn't be a problem.

    Personally, I'd be happy if he could figure out how to use <a> tags.

  80. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

    Yup. And backing you up is the claim that the only thing that tastes good is the Ice Cream . . . which is prepackaged by not_the_airline. That and the peanuts. Airplane food isn't good because they don't make it well. They don't make it well because it cuts into profits. Just that.

  81. Re:Old news? by neokushan · · Score: 1

    Apologies, I did that stupid thing of right clicking and getting the target of the search result rather than clicking the link and THEN getting the URL. Still, both links will take you to the same place.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  82. Re:Old news? by neokushan · · Score: 1

    However, if it pleases you, feel free to think about it as a euphemism for trickle-down economics. By posting links, I get moderated positively for being helpful. Likewise, by those posting the unobfuscated links below me, they also get a share of some moderation points. Everybody wins!

    Here's a link to explain what I'm talking about: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTrickle-down_economics&ei=7qxwT8jVF8Hq8QPjzLG_DQ&usg=AFQjCNEKrPDk6MfpMhBcd_9VTKBTjnqj_w

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  83. First Class food tastes good... by j4w7 · · Score: 2

    I had the happy accident of being placed in First Class and had a meal there. It tasted great -- not by comparison, but it tasted great all on its own.

    The food in coach tastes like crap because it tastes that way at any altitude.

  84. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Anymore odds are you're going to have at least a few military types well used to MRE's on board.

    Of course, an MRE could keep me entertained for a couple hours of flight...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  85. Then why isn't food on all flights equally bad? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Then why isn't food on all flights equally bad? I haven't flown in about 10 years, but 10 years ago everything I ate on a domestic US flight was pretty bad. During the same time period, everything I ate on a flight to Europe or Asia was really good. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure everything the article mentions (taste and smell changes due to elevation/pressure/humidity) was roughly the same on all of those flights. So while the explanations in this article may be based on scientific facts, the claims they make based on them are blown way out of proportion.

    In my experience, the changes in personal smell/taste on flights is not significant enough to make a real difference. It's all about the food served. I'm not certain whether the international flights I took spent more on the food, or whether they simply assumed that international travelers had a broader palate and would accept more "interesting" foods than the average American. It may have been both.

  86. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    That's what I was going to say.

    Despite all their excuses, the food that's served in first class is actually pretty decent.

    After all, it's not just a question of food preparation, it's also a question of saving space, using cheap labor/ingredients, cleaning stuff up, and cutting the number of trips the passenger wants to use the restrooms (without making him/her sick).

  87. Bullshit by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Oops, you are out of date, another company is trying all business air travel again. Nobody really managed to do it but somewhere in Asia someone is trying... the US? Sorry, to poor.

    It would be REALLY humiliating for the west if an Asian company succeeds in luxury air travel. Time to learn Chinese.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  88. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by bcrowell · · Score: 2

    and below the 14,000 where you can't breath,

    This is incorrect. People in good health can breathe just fine at 14,000'. You will definitely feel more aerobically challenged for a given level of exertion. Many unacclimatized people will experience mild altitude sickness (headache), and a few will get sick enough that they need to descend immediately for safety.

    People routinely summit Kilimanjaro, which is 19,000', without supplementary oxygen -- in fact, I've never heard of anyone using oxygen at that altitude. The altitude where it's really impossible to breathe, even if you're healthy and thoroughly acclimatized, is more like 25,000' to 29,000' (the top of Everest). Some people do summit Everest without oxygen.

  89. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    Oh. And now TWO people have -1 -ed the parent because I typoed "1/5th" (originally thought 1/3rd, but then considered better) and called a poster an idiot?

    The interior airspace of a plane is extremely limited and easily served by a small humidifier and, in all likelyhood, you could grab the small amount of water necessary to operate from the outside air via condensation on the plane. Anyone who calls that "hundreds of gallons necessary" deserves a mocking and being called an idiot for posting it here before thinking. -1, poster is being a jerk is not an option :P

  90. You are the one who is to cheap to pay for good quality food. Everything in life costs money and if you want the cheapest possible ticket, you get the cheapest possible food. The food budget in the cattle section is that of the cheapest deep frozen micro-wave meal you can find. Really 2 bucks would be on the high end.

    People have made it amazingly clear by voting with their dollars that they want cheap, cheaper, cheapest but then whine their ass of when there are no "free" luxuries. You have to wonder if these people ever had any education involving complex math like sums. When an airline ticket costs less then dining in a decent restaurant, how can you expect decent food? What next, you pay a dime for the toilet and wonder why virgin handmaides don't clean your ass with their silky tongues? PAY up and they will, don't pay and you can eat with the rest of the cows in a space smaller then a real cow gets when it needs to be moved.

    Consider yourself lucky, you might live. The cow does not.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  91. Not a problem I've ever had... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I have never been on a flight that has fed me anything beyond a bag of pretzels. Even longer flights I'm lucky to get pretzels and a can of soda. I don't know who these yuppies are that are bitching about airline food, but really that is not a problem that (at least) 99.99% of the world and 99% of the USA will never, ever, encounter.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  92. Do you know what the prices of those spices are?

    Airlines are operating on a hairline profit margin and often go below. When you buy in bulk prices QUICKLY add up into gigantic figures. Really, basic stuff as a cherry on top is a HALF MILLION DOLLARS in hard costs on the scale of airline food for a single airline. Fresh herbs? An airline meal is 2 bucks.Maybe 3 if you are at a small airline. How much does a ground served meal cost you to get fresh herbs? I know, a microwave steam meal starts at 4.50 euro maybe 4 with a discount bought at a local low rent supermarket.

    The food you get in cattle class is the cheapest food you can get. There is a reason business class is so much more expensive. People really just don't seem to get that there is a price difference between small can of soda and a small bottle of decent wine. Between a piece of meat that has to come out of 2 dollar budget and a 50 or even 100 dollar budget.

    I don't get what is so hard to understand. Do the same people that complain about a airplane food while bragging about how cheap a ticket they got also complain that a free coffee refill does NOT include an Irish coffee?

    Nothing you get as part of your airplane ticket is "free" EVERYTHING cost money. Free headphones? They cost money, yes, it is just a few cents but it all adds up. That is the reason when you buy a 500 dollar iPad it barely comes with anything and a cover costs an insane portion of the price considering the tech difference.

    If everyone was willing to pay twice the price for a ticket, the service would be a lot better. But people are not. An asian company is trying again, many others have failed, with business only travel. Very nice seats. Good luck getting people to pay for it.

    When people book a ticket, they only see the price. They don't realize just how bad 14 hours of misery is. I have told employers to either pay up for business class or forget it. I also want a day before and after off. Anything else, and you might as well get roaring drunk before going to work. Actually, that is a lot more fun but you will be just as effective.

    But then someone finds out that someone bucking for a promotion is willing to sacrifice comfort and sleep and alertness and they can save a few bucks and voila, an industry that was known for luxury is now known for discomfort. All to squeeze just one more penny of the ticket price and end up at our destination more wrecked and miserable then ever before.

    Good luck. Because even business class is not all that comfortable, I am perfectly happy for a younger person to go instead and save some money.

    Travel has always been about paying through the nose for barely reaching the comforts of your own house. I even travel in private jets as a guest in the past. It is exciting the first time, the second time you just want to sleep in your own bed without a horrid atmosphere cramped roof and noisy engine. If you were to put a child raping puppy kicker kitten eater in couch, even the most right wing politician up for re-election would cry foul. Did it a couple of times and stopped when I learned that it was not the norm to have an entire row to yourself because it was off season... ONE seat is what you get on a normal flight? ONCE, 1 hour flight. NEVER EVER AGAIN. If I have to board a tram for 5 minutes that is that crammed, I walk.

    But hey, you gotta travel and you gotta save money. Enjoy being miserable, would be fun to actually do the math of just how badly cheap air travel affects people and costs them in cranky holidays or lost productivity during business travel.

    In Europe? I take the train. Yes, it is slower on many routes but the difference in comfort is worth it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  93. Okay, go shop by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Give me an appetizer, a main meal including meat, a dessert and some fruit. 2 dollars. DOLLARS, not pounds.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Okay, go shop by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Give me an appetizer, a main meal including meat, a dessert and some fruit. 2 dollars. DOLLARS, not pounds.

      $2 ~= £1.60.

      The cheapest main course would be something like this (1.1g salt). Looks awful. A cheap apple will be about 16p. I'm now bored looking, you can spend the other 53p ;-)

      (I haven't bought a readymeal for ages, over a year. They're a lot better than they used to be, and better than the description here of typical American airline food, but they still taste like factory food -- the ones that aren't healthy are often oily or sugary, the ones that are "healthy" taste of starch. Plus, I'm pretty active, so one "portion" isn't enough -- and eating two or three portions worth is a lot of salt, and is quickly more expensive.)

  94. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Abreu · · Score: 1

    As always, McGrew is the real reason to come read Slashdot! He provides the armor-piercing questions!

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  95. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    One MRE should be enough to frighten the entire plane into fasting.

    If it's one of the new ones with chemical heater in the box, it'll sure keep them... entertained.

  96. Don't eat the fish, whatever you do. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1
    DR. RUMACK All right, now we know what we're up against. Every passenger on this plane who ate fish for dinner will become violently ill within the next half hour.

    Oveur looks down at his dinner tray and sees skeleton of the fish he just ate.

    ELAINE Just how serious is it, doctor?

    DR. RUMACK Extremely serious. It starts with a slight fever.

    Oveur experiences what the doctor is describing.

    DR. RUMACK Then a dryness in the throat. As the virus penetrates the red blood cells the victim becomes dizzy and begins to experience a rash and itching. From there the poison works its way into the central nervous system causing severe muscle spasms, followed by the inevitable drooling. At this point, the entire digestive system is rendered useless, causing the complete collapse of the lower bowels, accompanied by uncontrollable flatulence...until finally the poor bastard is reduced to a quivering, wasted piece of jelly.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  97. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    You mean a facility that may process nuts.

  98. Only US Airline food tastes like crap by Tree131 · · Score: 1

    I flew Swiss Air and Scandinavian Air. The food tasted just fine, in fact it tasted really good.

    The author should try flying a non-US airline.

  99. Spoilers by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    No, not the ones on the plane, but what I remember from the programme.

    Heston is unbelievably awesome and the ONLY chef worth watching so if that doesn't convince you...

    Yes, Heston found that the air in aeroplanes kills our sense of smell and somewhat interferes with our sense of taste too. He found that the one tastebud type which still works is umami (savoury).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

    He also found the food was perfectly prepared on the ground. However, the ovens on the BA flight had two settings: keep warm and incinerate. Furthermore, the food was sealed for freshness/safety without air vents for steam produced while cooking to escape -- so any 'crusty' food would turn soggy.

    Also, the 'kitchen' was only about 3x the size of the toilet with no dedicated chef. All of this seriously limits what you can do when you have to feed 300+ people in under an hour.

    He ended up cooking a savoury lasagne I think.

  100. Orwell didn 't see Google et al coming by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    Yes but then they couldn't keep track of your search habits.

    "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

  101. I dont buy it. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I have been on private jet flights and the in flight food was fantastic. No "hot air ovens to re heat" they used a microwave and a toaster oven. the steak done in the toaster oven was actually very good. They had them in aluminum foil pouches that they open the top on.

    this sounds like airline executives trying to CYA as to why the food sucks.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  102. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Yup. It's bullshit.

    1. Food in the business cabins still tastes how it should.
    2. Food I've taken on board still tastes good,
    3. The food budget per meal, per seat in economy is around $1-$2

    1 and 2 put the lie to the premise, 3 is just the reason why. Price competition has driven airlines to cut every last cent they can. Me, I'd rather have an option to pay ten bucks more for my ticket and not get fed recycled rat-shit.

    This depends on which airline you fly. I understand most posters are American and have never flown a proper premium airline but on airlines like Singapore, Emirates and Thai the food is actually quite good, and they hand out extra bread rolls.

    However travelling on Singapore, Emirates or Thai costs a bit more then budget airlines like Easyjet or Air Asia but you get what you pay for.

    Even Air Asia X's food is OK, not the best but still quite edible. You pay an extra A$7 at booking though. Up to you if you want to eat on a 5+ hour flight to Kuala Lumpur, keep in mind the best restaurant the KLIA LCCT (Low Cost Carrier Terminal) has is a Micky D's.

    Oh, avoid QANTAS's food. It really is shredded arse.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  103. Who wants food anyway? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    If it's a long flight, take some sandwiches or something. On an 8 hour flight you only need one meal.

    If you're on an extremely long haul flight of 18 hours, I can only feel sorry for you, but I think the lack of tasty food would be far outweighed by the sheer numbing tediousness of the experience anyway.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  104. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by bronney · · Score: 1

    Yup last time I tried it was awesome actually. Much better than airplane food. The carrot cake was nice, and heated soup is love. Damn why don't they serve soup on the plane but cup noodles are fine? I wish they serve soup in a coffee cup or something.

  105. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by wazza · · Score: 1

    Just a point about LCCT - there's also a KFC, and the Old Town White Coffee isn't too bad for food either. There's another place called Taste of Asia which is also OK, in a pinch.

  106. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Warning on a bag of mixed nuts in my local pub: "May contain traces of nuts."

    I shit you not.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  107. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Heh, stoners should stay away from my science fiction then. They have stratodoobers!

  108. Re:Yeah... except at 35,000ft it's pressurized to by Nursie · · Score: 1

    I fly Singapore whenever I can, because the food is good, the service is good, the in-seat entertainment units are modern and there seems to be a reasonable amount of space.

    Yeah, you pay a bit more, but on a 12+ hour trip it's worth it.

  109. Airline Food by ncberns · · Score: 1

    So why is it that the food I bring aboard tastes just fine...? I think you'e being far, far too generous to the airlines.

  110. I can't remember the last time I had a meal by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    on a plane.

    Oh, wait, yes I do; it was on a flight from Boston to NC back int he late 80's. There was a just HORRIBLE smell filling the cabin, it stank like wet dog. It was the cheese omelette.

    1. Re:I can't remember the last time I had a meal by sudonymous · · Score: 1

      You really shouldn't post things like that in-between mealtimes. You're making me hungry.

  111. i would prefer it taste like nothing by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    I guess this explains why the food always tastes like a salty mess. I would prefer the airline doesnt over salt their food in an attempt to bring out flavor. If Im hungry then tastless food would still satisfy me, but the food is always too salty and taste like junk food for me to actually eat.

  112. It's got to be a joke right? by davesag · · Score: 1

    Early April fool perhaps?

    I mean “ 'Ice cream is about the only thing I can think of that tastes good on a plane,' says Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health” — seriously?

    Food tastes crappy on planes because it is crappy. The food in business class tastes better because it is better. It's still for the most part closer to crappy however than better, but it's better than it used to be I think.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    1. Re:It's got to be a joke right? by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      It's certainly true that crappy food will taste crappy no matter how the airline treats it, but that isn't the only problem. If you watched the Heston Blumenthal video that was mentioned earlier where he worked British Airlines to see if he could improve their food they found that the biggest problem is that all of the food comes into the airline in decent shape but then goes into their limited ovens (only low and high temps.) That means food often ends up overcooked.

      So the problem is likely just in how the food is treated once it gets on board. It's just that the airline has provided limited means of cooking and limited staff so they don't have the time to properly cook each meal. As shown in the video and as others have confirmed elsewhere in this forum the first class food turns out okay. That's because the flight attendants are given time to individually cook items so you are unlikely to be given food that's been cooked a few minutes too long.