When Flying Was a Thrill

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Bob Greene writes that flying, with jammed-to-the-groaning-point cabins and torture-rack legroom; fees for everything from checking your bags to being handed a paltry package of food; and the endless, we'll-X-ray-you-to-within-an-inch-of-your-dignity security lines, is too often such a dreary, joy-sapping slog that it's difficult to remember that it was ever any other way. But back in the 1930s, '40s and '50s — even the 60s, flying was a big deal. When a family went on vacation by air, it was a major life event. 'Traveling by air in those years wasn't like boarding a flying bus, the way it is today,' says Christopher Lynch, author of "When Hollywood Landed at Chicago's Midway Airport," a celebration of the golden years of commercial air travel in the United States. 'People didn't travel in flip-flops. I mean, no offense, Mister, but I don't want to see your toes.' The trains were still king in those years and the airlines wanted to convince people that flying was safe. 'People were afraid to fly,' Lynch says. 'And it was expensive. The airlines had to make people think it was something they should try.' That's where Mike Rotunno came in, photographer-for-hire at Midway Airport in Chicago where cross-country flights in those years had to stop to refuel. His pictures of Hollywood stars as they got off the planes made air travel seem to be glamorous, sophisticated, civilized, and thrilling. 'Think of his photos the next time you're shoehorned into a seat next to a fellow who's dripping the sloppy innards of his carry-on submarine sandwich onto your sleeve,' writes Greene. 'Air travel was once a treasured experience, exciting, exotic, something never to be forgotten. You, too, could travel like Elizabeth Taylor.'"

Comments

You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Just buy a ticket for business class.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dintech]

Louis CK - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

Flying is the worst one because people come back from flights and they tell you their story. And it's like a horror story. They act like their flight was, like, a cattle car in the '40s in Germany. That's how bad they make it sound.

They're like, "It was the worst day of my life. First of all, we didn't board, for 20 minutes. And then we get on the plane and they made us sit there, on the runway, for 40 minutes. We had to sit there."

Oh really? What happened next?

Did you fly, through the air, incredibly, like a bird? Did you partake in the miracle of human flight, YOU NON-CONTRIBUTING ZERO?

You got to fly.

You're flying!

It's amazing!

Everybody on every plane should just constantly be going, "Oh my God! Wow!"

You're flying.

You're sitting in a chair in the sky. . . .

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The only people who flew in the 1930s to the 1960s were the rich. Why are we surprised that they flew in luxury?

The fact the the middle class can fly today only means that the price to fly has dropped dramatically.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Just buy a ticket for business class.

You still get groped by the US-STASI department of sexual assaults. And get x-rayed to death.
So no, buying first class or top class tickets doesn't save you. You're still being treated like shit at the airport.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can afford a first-class ticket, you can also afford to look too rich to bother. I'm betting Donald Trump doesn't get groped, and not just because nobody wants to touch that.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Richard_at_work]

Its worth noting that one of the biggest changes between then and now is ... deregulation!

Up until 1978, airlines in the US were heavily regulated due to competition issues - routes were controlled, prices were controlled, even the level of service an airline can give was controlled. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 removed these controls, allowing freer competition between airlines in the US.

What effect did deregulation have? Catastrophic - ticket prices have fallen by 40% since 1978, but at the same time service levels have also fallen dramatically, resulting in todays airlines.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't get groped because he flies in private jets. The TSA doesn't screen the filthy rich.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[roca]

A 40% reduction in ticket prices in exchange for reduced service is only catastrophic if you're relatively wealthy. For most of the population, it's a vast improvement.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[SpzToid]

Maybe I am wrong, and I'm too lazy to Search The Net, but I think flying is much safer now too.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Richard_at_work]

Its not a reduced service, its a dramatic reduction in service levels - the two are not the same, as noted by the abundance of people willing to decry "cattle class".

The reduction in ticket prices have also slashed airline profit margins, to the point where in the past decade all major US airlines have declared bankruptcy at least once - consider that also in the wake of deregulation, the US has lost pretty much half of its major carriers, and the remaining carriers are still struggling to survive...

Hardly sustainable!

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[LurkerXXX]

You know, just because lots of things have happened IN THE LAST 34 YEARS doesn't meane they are all due to deregulation.

You'll find that lots of other big companies have bought up or weeded out most of their competitors in other fields too. Back in the 90's I used to buy Computer Shopper magazine, where there were thousands and thousands of companies building PCs for you to buy. Today almost all those companies are gone. I guess that must be due to some deregulation. That or maybe, just maybe business fields tend to change over time even without deregulation being the cause.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

... even the level of service an airline can give was controlled.

On this point, you are wrong - and this point is the crux of the entire article. Airlines were NOT regulated on the level of service they could provide - service was the ONLY discriminating factor when prices were controlled. So pre-regulation airlines competed on service. And since they were competing for customers with service, obviously the level of service then is inconceivable today: linens, silverware, individual salt shakers, "wings" for the kiddies, playing cards, cabin tours, adequate legroom. Flying was special.

I should also briefly mention the Convair 990 - for a brief blip, the airplane makers tried to foster competition through aircrarft performance. Powered by derated versions of the same J-79 engine that powered the B-58 Hustler and the F-104 Starfighter, the CV-990 was a hot ship, cruising at Mach 0.90+ (a feat only now business jets are meeting). With its commercial failure, the entire subsonic commercial fleet seems to have settled into acceptance of Mach 0.82 cruise for perpetuity...

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[aaarrrgggh]

For the price of losing the illusion of privacy, you can sign up for the pre-check program with the TSA, which eliminates the need for the most annoying practices they have.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[hrtserpent6]

That's a valid point, but in the case of airlines, it *is* specifically because of deregulation.

The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act removed government control over airline fares. Up until that point the only thing airlines had to compete with was amenities, since they all had to charge the same price. With that cap removed, there began the classic free--market 'race to the bottom'. Ask any long-time industry veteran and they will tell you the same.

In your example of PC builders, I'm pretty sure that has to do with supply chain dominance by a few players, and the inability to survive off margins that become thinner every quarter. Not anything to do with regulation, but more about the market adding customers at a pace that could not help but attract serious dollars in an attempt to carve out a large portion of market share. "Hey, I'm middle class, so I better go out and get one of those computa-ma-jingies, hurr durr!" Cue Gateway, Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. to sell crappy components in a shiny box to people who have trouble using an ATM.

I'm pretty sure there's a lesson in here about: "lowering the barriers of accessibility past a certain point leads to the complete commoditization of your market, eventually turning it into a public toilet", but it's Monday, so fuck it.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dj245]

Catastrophic? I hardly think you can blame all the airline troubles on deregulation. Read up on what it meant to fly before deregulation- routes pricing was set by the government. It is a clear example of government price controls of a service commodity. Some people would call that communist. I would only call it unnecessary.

Talk to anyone in the airline industry and they will tell you the unions are the problem. Airline unions, especially pilot and flight attendant unions, are crazy. Just in the last couple weeks the pilot union of bankrupt American airlines rejected an arguably reasonable offer (given the circumstances), which was designed to keep all the pilots onboard. Since the union can't agree, now it gets litigated and many pilots will probably lose their jobs. And they will probably take the concessions they were asked to take anyway, since their company is bankrupt.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dywolf]

I love flying. sure I hate it when some sweaty fat guy/gal didn't buy two tickets or get put next to an empty seat and is half in my lap. sitting on the tarmac in the heat, sucks too.

But its got its good points too.

Always get a window seat. I stare out the window. I watch the towns drift past. I name the cities and geographic features I see. If I spot something interesting one of the first things I do once i get to a computer is fire up google maps and figure out what I saw.
-Did you know the Mississippi river is down so low, the river thats a mile wide for a huge portion of its length, is down so low right now from teh drought, that flying over memphis and other portions of it, it looks like over half its width was dry as bone sandbars? Thats the drought were in right now....the mississippi, the river that drains ~80% of the entire countries watershed.
-approaching Pheonix on a lfight from 29 Palms to Dallas, about 30 minutes west of pheonix (at altitude and speed, so ~300 miles or so, near the border with cali) was a quarry/pit mine in the middle of the desert. One that was absolutely HUGE from 30000 feet up. Dont know what theyre mining, but from google, and flight, it appears to be over a mile deep, the central pit. And a few miles wide. The civil engineer side of me looks at that and thinks, wow, thats a feat. Thats awesome.
-I see hidden lakes and rivers and creeks near places Ive lived for years, that I never knew existed.
-On flights out of San Diego, LA, and San Fran, when they have to loop out over the ocean before turning back inland on takeoff, I've seen whales, scores of them, swiming along. Big ones (grey or fin?) and small (dolphins and orca). Often only a mile or so from shore.
-Flying into (and out of) turkminstan and afghanistan on my deployment, I swore I was flyinig across portions of nevada, the desert terrain is so similar. And again, there is no much hidden greenery around little water seeps, rivers and lakes. Bagram is in the middle of nowhere, thats why theres a base there. Just a few ridges over its like a huge valley oasis (relatively, for a desert), and naturally that's where the people, mostly farmers, are concentrated. They dont show you much of the rugged beauty and scenery of the place when they show the news. Everyone thinks its just sand and camels, but its familiar territory for anyone who's lived int eh southwest.
-Flying across the desert of new mexico, I seen white sands test range
-flying across so cal, i seen the muroc dry lake, with its giant rose compass, and the dry lake "runway" the shuttle landed on. as a aviation buff, that place is magic land anyway
-had a flight once fly over near the tonopah test range and airfield due to storm forced divert. didnt cross the airspace, but apaprently we got pertty close to their flight paths over there, cause in a couple successive flashes of lightning, i saw a flight of F117s crossing our line of flight, a few thousand feet below us.

There's magic out there still in flying.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[JoeMerchant]

Just buy a ticket for business class.

Not entirely, yes, the service is nice, the executive lounges are much nicer than the general airport, but you still have to get through the crowds of unhappy people to get to business or first class.

Back in the day, the whole airport was a happy place.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[JoeMerchant]

It's dropping from middle class to working poor. You've got to be really dirt poor to benefit (economically) from taking a bus across country compared to flying.

4 days lost productivity is more than airfare, even at minimum wage.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dywolf]

The natural tendency of any system where "conflict" occurs is to merge into fewer and fewer parties. True for politics, true for business.

Its only true that it happened to airlines because of deregulation because the industry was so heavily regulated the companies literally could not take a dump without the fed's approval. Want to buy a competitor? Want to change or add a route? Want to drop a route cause its unprofitable? Not saying removing service is good...that caused a lot of airports to shutdown, and led to the mega airports we have now..but frm a business standpoint having to get Every Single Thing approved is a hassle. Complete deregulation, too far. Total regulation like they had....also too far. But such is politics and lobbying.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[JoeMerchant]

The european national carriers resisted deregulation for a couple of decades... they're basically going to tatters now without massive governmental support.

I'm not saying government support of air travel is a bad thing, God knows we support road travel with our taxes, and not just gasoline tax. But, just try to sell a Billion dollar airline industry bailout at election time.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[nedlohs]

Its not a reduced service, its a dramatic reduction in service levels - the two are not the same, as noted by the abundance of people willing to decry "cattle class".

You ignore the abundance of people who don't whine about it and instead just travel by air that they couldn't afford under the old system.

For those who want to return to the glory days just fly business class - which a quick search on orbitz now shows I can buy a NYC-LAX business class ticket for less than the minimum the regulators allowed back then (after adjusting for inflation). If you can't afford to always fly business class than you couldn't afford to fly at all in the good old days so don't fly and you've returned to them.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[smooth wombat]

Except for the fact you are still being treated like a criminal. You have to give up your information so they can run background checks on you to make sure you're not a t'rrist. Which is just as bogus as the TSA procedures because there is no way for them to know if you're a new member of a group and aren't on their radar.

Further, it's none of their business who I am or where I'm going. As has been repeatedly pointed out, every time since 9/11 someone decides to go nuts on a plane, the passengers take care of things, not the government and their vaunted TSA agents.

Flying used to be tolerable, not it's an outright hassle. If I can't walk up to a counter and plunk down a pile of cash to buy a ticket to go somewhere without being subject to the third degree, I don't fly.

So yes, the terrorists have won. Their actions have now led everyone to be considered a criminal and forced to prove their innocence with the strongest proponents of these procedures being the same people who were touting how free this country was back in the 80s as compared to the Soviet Union. Now these same people are using the KGB handbook to cudgel the public into believing these measures are "for their protection".

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Alioth]

Southwest is a major US airline. They have never reported a loss in their entire history, and have never gone bankrupt. They were the only airline that didn't knee jerk slash schedules after 9/11. Their planes were still pretty full in the aftermath, too.

Perhaps it's because they understand how to run an airline, instead of whine that the old business model doesn't work anymore.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[ColdWetDog]

Flying used to be tolerable, not it's an outright hassle. If I can't walk up to a counter and plunk down a pile of cash to buy a ticket to go somewhere without being subject to the third degree, I don't fly.

Oh, you can do that these days. Takes a wee bit more work. Either go down to the General Aviation area of a larger airport and hang around and try to get a pilot to give you a lift in exchange for some cash (actually works better if your female, sadly) or hire an agent to charter an appropriate aircraft and off you go.

Not as cheap by a long shot, but charters are much more fun and much less hassle. TANSTAAFL.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[CelticWhisper]

Except that PreCheck doesn't guarantee anything at all. They still say "we reserve the right to harass you and shred your 4th-Amendment rights just because we can. But if we decide not to, we're giving that special privilege to those who have already forked over cash and information."

No, a better plan is to make TSA-sympathizing political suicide and force Congress to abolish the agency and take all their jobs away. "But creating jobs looks good and I have to create jobs to get reelected!" Nope, not if we fire you based on the kind of jobs (TSA) you're creating/preserving, you don't.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[tibit]

I'd think a lot of people who fly recreationally and are not commercial pilots, have licenses that don't allow them to do any sort of for-hire work. They'd lose their licenses if it ever came out that they did. So that's not quite nice to those pilots, it's like waving a lollipop and enticing them to do stuff they shouldn't.

There must be some local airlines though, where there is no security circus. I was in Vancouver, BC, and it takes about 5 minutes to get a joyride on a DeHavilland Otter. It's a piece of history, too. If wherever you're going has water nearby and a dock, you can get there. Well worth the price -- it's almost hard to believe you can be up in the air in under 10 minutes since walking in from the street, never having even been to the city in the first place.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[tibit]

A major part of their business plan is capping the growth, IIRC at 8% of capacity. They have, correctly, figured out that growth brings wide internal changes that can only happen at a certain pace and no faster, and just because you've got more passengers that you can carry, passengers aren't everything. I can't but admire their leadership's business acumen. All that in spite of fierce opposition from various parties who did everything they could to keep them from surviving as a business in their early years. Their first few decades are eye-opening, it seems they faced what is, effectively, an airline mafia in action.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[tibit]

They are paid silly money anyway. I think any concessions are just a slap on the face. An entry-level U.S. pilot job with a legacy carrier earns less than a fresh school bus driver gets in the school district where I live. If that's not fucked up, I don't know what is.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

I also like how they don't have a built-in class struggle on every flight.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is American Airlines bankrupt? Maybe because they were more worried about killing off their competition then making a sustainable business model? They couldn't afford the %40 cut in prices, none of the airlines could. This kind of monopolistic behavior is ILLEGAL and would have been called out in any other industry, the only reason it wasn't is because they were all doing it. A union trying to fleece a bankrupt company is just standard union stupidity, you'll see that behavior anywhere you look but the fact that AA is bankrupt to begin with is their own damn fault not that of their employees.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[h4rr4r]

So the unions held a gun to the execs heads when those deals were made?

Don't blame a union for the stupid decisions of management.

Bankruptcy is the right course for this, keeping all the pilots is pointless.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Greyfox]

You can just spring for your pilot's license and buy a Cessna or something. It's pricey, but you can park it down at the local airport and basically do what you're talking about. A lot of municipal airports have a car you can borrow and not so much traffic that it's usually taken.

And, by the way, THIS is your flying car! Sure you can't drive it on the road, but anyone who wants to do this can, and it won't cost more than a somewhat nice sports car. I live about 10 minutes away from the local air port and can walk in there and catch a ride with a friend without anyone so much as giving me a second glance. If you own your own plane, you could fly to pretty much anywhere in the country from here in not much longer than it'd take a commercial air liner (Once you factor in all the security bullshit and delays that you normally go through on one of those.)

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[fustakrakich]

Very much so. Wrecks are very few and far between. If you want a thrill, go fly in Africa in some overloaded 727

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[nelsonal]

Correct, the price of a NY to SFO ticket in the 1960s was $363 (today it's still $320). But keep in mind that in 1960, the median home cost $13,000; a new car was $2500; and gas was $0.25/gallon. The new prices are approximately 13x higher (thanks inflation). Which means that relative to other goods, the current price of a ticket would be about $5000-6000!

If the mandated lowest price for a round trip cross country flight was $5500, and airlines could only compete via what services they offered, how much service do you thing they would offer to get that business and most of the $5,000 premium? It turned out that most people didn't place anywhere near $5,000 on those services (it's only people who weren't paying anywhere near that price to fly (like travel agents and family of airline employees) who miss the old days.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA has also played a major role here. In the face of deregulation, the government has come back and added new regulation by means of the FAA. This in turn has forced higher costs and actively prevents free market competition on most aspects of aviation. Flying as never been more complicated and heavily regulated than it has been in this point in time.

The FAA is in dire need of overhaul. Its been repeatedly estimated the FAA is responsible for doubling the cost of every aspect of aviation. Ponder that.

Furthermore, its actually pretty easy to prove the FAA actively makes the skies more dangerous by preventing newer, safer technology from entering the cockpit as would otherwise happen if free market competition were allowed to exist.

Lastly, its easy to prove the FAA actually hinders the economy specifically because they prevent free market economics. The FAA prevents hundreds of billions of dollars in business which would otherwise exist if free market economics could only be allowed.

First and foremost, if you want to fix aviation and allow airlines to grow, you must fix the FAA. They are a bloated, costly sore on the face of all things aviation.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[fustakrakich]

Um, I thinking you're forgetting about the price of fuel in '79 and its effect on profit margins. I would like to see how it would have been had kerosene remained at 10 cents a gallon

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[fustakrakich]

They have never reported a loss in their entire history...

They haven't killed any passengers yet, but they've had a couple of mishaps. http://www.rapp.org/wp-content/121305-southwest2.jpg (direct link didn't work. hit "enter" in the address bar - sorry 'bout that) You will notice in the photo however, that driving is still quite dangerous

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[operagost]

The cost of a ticket from NY to SF is NOT $363. It's at least $500 when they're done charging you for your two bags and the drink you had to pay for because they wouldn't let you bring one on board.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[operagost]

Service levels were fine until 9/11.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[operagost]

Yup, you're totally correct. Ever since deregulation, frequent flyer clubs and first/business class have ceased to exist.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dj245]

An entry-level U.S. pilot job with a legacy carrier earns less than a fresh school bus driver gets in the school district where I live.

I know that is true, but the senior crew (pilots AND flight attendants) fly once or twice a month, and make a healthy 6 figures for their trouble. No exaggeration. The most senior crew get themselves the long trans-atlantic or trans-pacific routes and work 4 or 5 days a month.

What encourages or demands that kind of policy? It seems to be the union interactions. You can blame the union leaders or the execs at the company, but I don't see that kind of pay lopsidedness vs experience in most other industries. In my industry, a senior guy might make 3-4 times what a junior guy makes, if he is really experienced. In the airline business, a senior crew member can make 10x what the junior guys get.

Unfortunately, airlines aren't exactly struggling to find young pilots either, despite the low pay. It is a lifestyle that appeals to some people despite the poor compensation, and you have the chance to make big $$$ later in your career if you keep at it. Junior pay is set by the market. Senior pay is set by ??? Since there are plenty of junior guys chomping at the bit to take their place, I can only assume the union is responsible for the imbalance in pay.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[metamatic]

As far as I can tell from the TSA web site, PreCheck still requires that you go through the rapeyscan machine. So that's no solution at all.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dmmiller2k]

They don't screen them because they are flying their own planes, not commercial aircraft (which of course is because they are filthy rich, but that's secondary).

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[spaceyhackerlady]

I'd think a lot of people who fly recreationally and are not commercial pilots, have licenses that don't allow them to do any sort of for-hire work. They'd lose their licenses if it ever came out that they did. So that's not quite nice to those pilots, it's like waving a lollipop and enticing them to do stuff they shouldn't.

Sharing expenses is OK for a private pilot. Making money is not. Be careful how you divvy up the bills and you'l be fine.

...laura

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Richy_T]

Have you considered getting your private pilot's license?

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[nelsonal]

That was the price in 1960. Even at a modern price of $500 it's still way, way below the rate of price increases for other goods (like homes, cars, and gasoline).

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Richy_T]

You don't have to be filthy rich to fly your own plane (though it surely helps)

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Richy_T]

A standard PPL allows you to split the costs only. That could be a significant amount though (or, as I'm sure many pilots see it, more hours in the air). Of course, no one is standing there watching so unless you were doing some serious abuse...

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[DesScorp]

Just buy a ticket for business class.

This is basically what it comes down to. If you don't wanted to be treated like freight, then don't pay freight prices. All that glamorous air travel of the past? Hey, I romanticize it too... especially the flying boats that worked Pacific routes. But when the article says that it was expensive, I dont' think you get the picture of just HOW expensive it was: "In 1939, a one-way ticket from San Francisco to Honolulu cost $278, and a one-way ticket to Hong Kong cost $1,368. In 2010 dollars, these were $4,317 and $11,803.

Even paying for first class is nothing like that today.

The fact is, when something becomes cheap and common, then it loses its glamour.Flying was glamorous preciesely because only a few could do it. Space tourism is much the same way right now. If it ever becomes common and affordable, in 100 years you'll read stories on Slashdot's MegaNet page about how much the Space Travel Security Agency sucks, and how they groped grandma and held up her sub-orbital flight to Europe, and what a ripoff it is to charge for blankets and Tang on a 15 minute flight.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[tibit]

If you don't know the person, and just happen by the airport, it's hard to argue the pilot would not be performing service in exchange for something. The payment doesn't have to be monetary, it can be in kind -- say you buying the gas, paying for a scheduled maintenance, etc. Myself, I tend to think of it from a immigration and tax law perspectives: they have a fairly broad definition of performing/providing a service, to a point where it's technically not legal to do volunteer work without a green card (or outside of campus in case of F-1 students).

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[tibit]

Even then it's a gamble. If something bad happens, your life insurance policy may not pay out, or it will cost your heirs a significant amount in legal fees :(

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of all the generations of humanity that struggled and grubbed in the dirt for the chance to live a short, brutish life. Now here we are (in the first world), in a technological wonderland, surrounded by plenitude and luxury. My biggest problem is I consume too many calories. Too many calories! Can you imagine? And I can hop in an airplane and be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. It's fucking incredible.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Louis CK

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[OhSoLaMeow]

Been there done that. It's too expensive now. Don't get me wrong. I LOVED flying my wherever I wanted to, just for the hell of it. Heck, I even took a girl hitch-hiking at the Aspen airport to Denver (and no, there was no mile-high club on that flight). Wonderful times *sigh*

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[RespekMyAthorati]

It's the same in medicine. Junior docs (interns) make shit pay (45K a year @ 100 hrs/week = $8.70 an hour). Even senior (4th year) residents only make about $12 an hour.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[lightknight]

Someone had to bankroll / bootstrap those industries, and it certainly wasn't the skittish middle class. Look at early aviation history, it was filled with accidents and horrors of every kind. Now take a look at the modern space industry. Now bitch about how only the rich can afford it, and how they're "riding in luxury" to higher orbits; only, they're not. Someone has to pay the hideous price for some of these advances, with sometimes includes death.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Cyberax]

Can somebody filthy rich drive their plane into the Congress building, pretty please? That way maybe they'll get to be groped and that FINALLY might cause changes in the TSA security theater.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Cyberax]

Their actions have now led everyone to be considered a criminal and forced to prove their innocence with the strongest proponents of these procedures being the same people who were touting how free this country was back in the 80s as compared to the Soviet Union.

Heck, you didn't even need to show your ID to fly in the USSR. You just needed to show your ticket and that's it.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

But ultimately that's why this kind of thing gets regulated as much as it does. In a free market scenario a few plane crashes would occur and companies would either change or go out of business. That's great - but the dead people are still dead.

The idea of regulation here is to ensure that the deaths don't happen in the first place.

As a recovering free marketeer myself, I know the concept that the most significant value of a human life is not monetary... is a tough one to grasp.

Until you're willing to make that leap of understanding, you'll continue to have no idea what I'm talking about.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that, brother.

My most memorable one was my first flight out of my home country, right halfway across the world to LAX. This was one flight when I got to experience:

• Taking off to Led Zeppelin's When The Levee Breaks (OK, I have violated the passenger safety regulations that one time).
• The hobbitish feeling of "this is the farthest away from home I've ever been" when crossing a border accordingly to the IFE map.
• Mountains and glaciers of Norway below, then behind, receding from view to give way the vast ocean. Small specks of shipping.
• The White Silence, the ice cap of Greenland.
• Icebergs drifting in the Baffin Sea.
• The vast uninhabited stretches of northern Canada. I was excited to spot the first road, which went on alone for what seemed like hundreds of miles before meeting any sizable settlement.
• Sierra Nevada mountains and farmland in San Joaquin Valley.
• Descending over Los Angeles.

I enjoy most of my flights, and I hate it when it's overcast all the way, so basically only the boring is left.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason we (humans with brains) are complaining is that flying is becoming less comfortable and convenient than it used to be. The wait times at the airport are longer. You have to pay exorbitant fees for everything that used to be included in the ticket price. Luggage gets lost or molested more frequently. Even compared to the 1990's when I started flying semi-regularly, things are clearly worse. And I flew economy class back then too, it's not like air travel has been some kind of an elite hobby of the jet set in recent decades.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[demonlapin]

If you can't afford to always fly business class than you couldn't afford to fly at all

This is still my motto. If I can't swing a business class ticket, I haven't saved up enough money for that vacation. Fuck coach. I'll still get stuck in it from time to time on short-hauls to a hub, but I'll be damned if I'll ever do more than an hour and a half in the prole pens again.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[demonlapin]

The problem with the unions and airlines is that there are three separate unions, any one of which can paralyze the company. This effectively transfers money from creditors to union members, as the unions serially absorb any earnings, eventually pushing the whole thing into bankruptcy when the company has a few off years. Even GM only had one union to deal with, really...

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Alimony Pakhdan]

Economy class on Braniff Air back in the 70s beat business class of today.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Try flying transatlantic, or worse yet, transpacific during a night flight. You'll be stuck at your window seat for hours seeing absolutely nothing outside the window but black ocean.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[h4rr4r]

The companies can just not give the unions what they want. Sure they will lose some money during a strike, but union members have to eat.

The reality is the modern corporation is mortgaged to the hilt, and thus in a situation where any lockout could put it in to bankruptcy as it can no longer service its debts. That is again not the fault of the union but of the executives.

If I lose my job or are forced onto a unpaid leave I will not be expecting my landlord/mortgage company to lower their charges nor will the electric company do that either.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[poptropicagamer]

what do you really mean?

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[airdweller]

Just checked - the cheapest is $358. Who says you absolutely have to bring two bags? And if IIRC you can bring drinks on board as long as you bought them at the airport.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[airdweller]

That's a huge oversight! Terrorists can hijack those planes too and fly them into something! I say the TSA should check those passengers too! Just imagine what they can load on the planes when no one's looking!!! Will someone think of the children?!

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[dywolf]

Yes. Cannot afford it at this time. Soon maybe. Already used up my GI Bill or I'd use that to get one. One of my life goals though.

Re:You can still fly this way if you want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Or unemployed.

Toe bigot

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many places in the world where toes are part of the average mundane daily life. There is no need to pick on them.

Re:Toe bigot

[adolf]

If you judge me by my appearance, I will judge you for being judgmental.

Re:Toe bigot

[Anonymous Coward]

If you judge me by my appearance, I will judge you for being judgmental.

Yes, but you will be judging me from outside the opera.

Re:Toe bigot

[Overzeetop]

That's fine, but please don't pick you toes in public.

Re:Toe bigot

[fustakrakich]

Flip-flops and all ? It is disgusting.

Easier to accommodate the TSA, my dear...

Re:Toe bigot

[lurker1997]

Sorry, I modded you overrated instead of funny by accident. Funny how I get a big warning about how if I comment my moderation will be undone, but I get no warning when I accidentally let go of the mouse button over the moderation dropdown box.

Re:Toe bigot

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Opera? No thanks. But I can get into any concert I actually want to be at dressed exactly how I like to dress. Decent restaurant? I've never noticed much of a correlation between a stringent dress code and how well the food is cooked. I think you're talking about a decent social preening ground that happens to serve food.

The thing is, I don't respect your "right" to have me dress up to sit in an uncomfortable chair next to strangers for hours on end. If I look like I just came out of the shower, chances are good that it's because I just came out of the shower. I do respect your right to not smell my BO (or gallons of awful cologne). If you're so disgusted by it, maybe you should charter your own flights so you don't have to deal with the rabble like me.

Re:Toe bigot

[hand_of_lixue]

I've been to the Sydney Opera House, and then out to eat, in sandals...

Just fly emirate

[aepervius]

Or fly business / first class, and that from any point on earth except the US. The US is the only country AFAIK which use nude scanner.

Re:Just fly emirate

[darkfeline]

I'm embarrased of this country, but what can I say? We like our nude pictures.

Re:Just fly emirate

[stoolpigeon]

This isn't true - just went through scanners in Amsterdam last week. I was flying between Europe and the US - and only went through scanners in Europe.

Re:Just fly emirate

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the 'clearing' is happening at the entry airport, and in some cases transfer airports. (Depending on the QC they assume from the airport you're incoming from.)

Carribean to Puerto Rico to Texas, on a trip back to California I went through scanners twice: Once in the Terminal in the Carrib, and again as part of the 'border inspection' in Puerto Rico (Which due to being a US territory, basically has the same clearance as a stateside airport for inspection purposes.)

Long story short, other than the really quiet transfer hallways between the incoming and outgoing terminals in PR, and the sedate but slightly noisier DFW ones, there was no further checks of me or my baggage all the way home.

Re:Just fly emirate

[isorox]

Or fly business / first class, and that from any point on earth except the US. The US is the only country AFAIK which use nude scanner.

What are you on about? They're all over the place. This year alone I've had to tactfully avoid them at 3 U.S airports, half a dozen European airports, Moscow and Erez (and that's not even for a plane!).

Re:Just fly emirate

[aaarrrgggh]

You can dodge them at many airports, but then there are the real thug outfits like Phoenix that push everybody through them.

Re:Just fly emirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info. I'll mark it as terrorist area too on my world map and avoid it from now on.

Re:Just fly emirate

[isorox]

You can dodge them at many airports, but then there are the real thug outfits like Phoenix that push everybody through them.

In the U.S. you have the right to opt out. You don't in the UK, nor I believe Russia. I did hear of someone refusing to go through the Erez one coming out of gaza, and she was strip searched instead.

Re:Just fly emirate

[Cyberax]

There are no X-ray scanners in Moscow airports, there are metal detectors that look like X-ray scanners, though.

Re:Just fly emirate

[isorox]

There are no X-ray scanners in Moscow airports, there are metal detectors that look like X-ray scanners, though.

DME has a MMW scanner (same as Erez, or LHR T1, or BWI). Not dangerous like the ionizing cancer-causing backscatter machines in places like IAD and MAN, but do fall under the category "nude scanner"

Re:Just fly emirate

[Anonymous Coward]

The only flights that have to go thru the scanner are those that go into the US.

I fly from cities within Canada often, and security takes 3 minutes. Flying direct to Europe involves 5 minutes of security and 10 minutes at customs.

But as soon as I have to go to the US (often a shorter flight), I need to plan an extra 2 hours for security and customs, sometimes 3+ hours (like Monday mornings).

Win

Re:Just fly emirate

[SwedishPenguin]

The US requires any passengers going to the US to be scanned, the airports had to install these contraptions specifically for US flights. US-bound flights have their own "secure" area in which passengers can board. I would be curious to find out who pays for the scanners to be installed specifically for US-bound flights, my guess is not the US..
Admittedly I don't fly much, but I didn't see a single scanner on my trip from Stockholm to Tokyo via Helsinki last month, although I know they have them for US-bound flights.

mostly because there wasn't room for 3rd class

[Trepidity]

Sure, rich people looked rich back in the good old days. Same thing with the ocean liners in 1st class: very upper-class, luxurious, glamorous. But most people who traveled on ocean liners didn't travel in 1st class, so it was hardly the norm. The difference with early planes was that there was basically only a 1st class, due to a lack of room to include a 2nd class or steerage section.

Re:mostly because there wasn't room for 3rd class

[Vintermann]

Even more so with LTA flight, which this article fails to mention at all. The fact that there is zero mention of Zeppelins - the real, obvious parallel to ocean liners which first sold the public on the dream of flying - suggests to me that this is a bit of free airlines advertising.

Re:mostly because there wasn't room for 3rd class

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point of the article is that the airlines today try to go for quantity instead of quality. Hence all the cost reductions in comfort.

It works. However, only to a point. They'll find it hard later on to increase prices back up without increasing comfort by a large margin.

Too bad trains need such an extensive infrastructure, otherwise they would have easily taken up the slack in these past 12 years.

Re:mostly because there wasn't room for 3rd class

[Trepidity]

They're increasing comfort at the high price point quite significantly as well. Most major airlines have lie-flat seats in international first-class now, which used to be uncommon. Some of them have private first-class suites. Of course, you're going to have to pay a hefty multiple of an economy-class ticket to get that kind of luxury. But then you had to pay a high price if you wanted to fly in 1970, too.

Re:mostly because there wasn't room for 3rd class

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody actually pays for those seats. They are full of frequent fliers who got there through using miles and airline employes.

I don't want thrills...

[isaac]

I want safe, quick transportation from point A to point B at a reasonable price. Modern air travel mostly delivers this. It didn't use to.

Air travel was of dubious safety and blinding expense in the '30s, '40s, '50s - and wasn't particularly comfortable either. I don't wish to return to that era, one bit.

-Isaac

Re:I don't want thrills...

[ccguy]

I want safe, quick transportation from point A to point B at a reasonable price.667 Modern air travel mostly delivers this.

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

Also, why isn't a 'medium' class anymore? One would think that any company that provided decent legroom at a reasonable price would make a killing. Seriously, I don't want to pay business fares just so I can have a flight in which I'm not worried about the retard on the front row putting their seat all the way down (at the risk of breaking my knees), but I'd be happy to pay twice the coach fare if I could have the legroom from the seat in front on mine (ie half the rows at twice the price).

A flight from Madrid to New York costs 400 euros in coach, around 3000 in business. Damn, give me something decent for 800! I don't need champagne, I don't need slippers, I don't need a private selection of movies. I just need the legroom.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[martin-boundary]

I want safe quick transportation for free. We should be aiming for social improvements, and getting out of the mindset that everything must be nickel and dimed. Let's think big, figure out how to capture the sun's energy from orbit, and make transportation systems on earth that are literally free to use by all inhabitants.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[drsmithy]

A flight from Madrid to New York costs 400 euros in coach, around 3000 in business. Damn, give me something decent for 800! I don't need champagne, I don't need slippers, I don't need a private selection of movies. I just need the legroom.

Most airlines have a Premium Economy option these days. Expect to pay about twice as much as regular Economy.
It's roughly equivalent in terms of legroom and service as Business Class was ~20 years ago.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[pspahn]

Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

Eh? Door to door, flying from Denver to San Francisco, it's about half a day. 2.5 hour flight, an hour and a half on each side for getting to/from the airport, boarding, etc. Toss in some random stops to 7-11 or something and you're looking at spending about 6-8 hours of travel time.

On the other hand, the fastest I have ever done the same driving was approximately 17 hours, which included driving 85+ MPH across most of Nevada/Utah (my digital speedometer only went to 85.. then it just blinked, so idea my actual speeds).

A more realistic amount of time for that drive is a day and a half which includes a proper rest stop and not driving like a crazy 18 year old.

Am I missing something?

Re:I don't want thrills...

[ccguy]

Eh? Door to door, flying from Denver to San Francisco, it's about half a day. 2.5 hour flight, an hour and a half on each side for getting to/from the airport, boarding, etc. Toss in some random stops to 7-11 or something and you're looking at spending about 6-8 hours of travel time.

Am I missing something?

Yes, high speed trains, but of course they may not be available in your country or for your desired trip.
When available it's a no brainer. The total time is roughly is same (for distances up to 1000 km), and they go from city center to city center, and they're a lot more comfortable.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

Seriously?

Yes of course it's still faster! What's your alternative?

Driving? Let's say I AVERAGED 70MPH (meaning most of the time I'm breaking the limit)... in 8 hours I can make it 560 miles, and that's a stretch because it assumes no stops for gas, food, etc...

Train? High speed trains average 125MPH--leaving out the fact that you can't always get a high speed train, or that the speeds are greatly affected by weather, etc)... in those 8 hours you're going to go 1000 miles--and I'm not factoring any time for stopping at various stations, or even any time for waiting for the train at the station, etc...

Beyond 500~1000 miles air travel will always be faster than trains or cars.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[91degrees]

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

For longer journeys (more than 3 hours), this is still faster than any other means of transport could reliably provide.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[demonlapin]

High speed rail will not work in the US outside of the Northeast Corridor because nowhere else has the kind of density needed to make it work. 1000 km in the US is a quick trip - the example he gives, Denver to SF, is more than double that. And rail requires a large and expensive infrastructure, one which is going to have to be duplicated (because our existing rail system is optimized for freight hauling, at which task it is one of the most efficient in the world). It's a cool idea, and in some places it makes sense. But not here.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[geoffaus]

what about premium economy?

Re:I don't want thrills...

[AmiMoJo]

Seems to work well in Japan over similarly long distances and much more difficult terrain. They initially started building Shinkansen (bullet train lines) in response to demand but then realized that actually if you build it they will come. Rather than just looking for existing demand they partnered with developers and retailers to create new destinations between big cities, or to create business by giving people the opportunity to travel to places that were previously inaccessible due to long travel times or high flight costs.

I know someone who travels from Tokyo to Osaka and back just to visit her preferred dentist. Towns and cities are desperate to get on high speed rail routes, much likes how in the US they want to be on the interstate roads.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[dkleinsc]

That's simply not true.

There are many serious proposals of high-speed rail lines in other areas of the country where there are cities spaced no more than 100 miles apart, or about an hour by high-speed rail. To get an idea of how fast it would be, take driving times, divide by two, and add 40 minutes to get to and from the train station (which will probably be near the middle of the city). Then compare that with flight times + 1 hour on each end to get to and from the airport.

So, for example, Boston to Chicago, currently a 27 hour trip by rail or road, would become something like 8-9 hours, with stops in Springfield MA, Albany, Syracuse NY, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, and South Bend IN. That's not as fast as the 3 hour flight, but it's a lot closer to competitive, and very competitive if you're going on a shorter segment, say Boston-Buffalo.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

High speed rail will not work in the US outside of the Northeast Corridor because nowhere else has the kind of density needed to make it work.

The killer application for high speed rail in the US may be for extended commutes. From Bremen to Hamburg is 130 km or 80 miles. That's pretty comparable to LA-San Bernardino, LA-Ventura, Chicago-Milwaukee, or New York-New Haven. It's just at the edge of what people are willing to do as a daily commute. Reasonably priced, high speed trains in those markets would dramatically expand the practical commute zone, let people live in more comfortable, open housing, and still access the high-density job market.

Building 600-1200 km of high speed rail is a major undertaking. A big risk on an uncertain market. Building 'commuter' high speed rail is a lower initial investment for a more clearly defined market. A 200 mph train from Ventura to LA would take 20 minutes. Even if you add ~2 minute stops in Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, and Encino, it's worlds faster than the 90 minute drive. "Inter-city" in the US means something very different than it means in Europe, and we shouldn't be tied to the European model for high speed rail economics.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

High speed rail would be pointless with high density - everyone would want it to stop every 50kms.

It seems to me that high speed rail would work absolutely best on long haul trips from one population centre to another.

And even if it wouldn't work outside of the Northeast. Why not actually _put_ it in the Northeast? It would be a start!

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

Also, why isn't a 'medium' class anymore? One would think that any company that provided decent legroom at a reasonable price would make a killing. Seriously, I don't want to pay business fares just so I can have a flight in which I'm not worried about the retard on the front row putting their seat all the way down (at the risk of breaking my knees), but I'd be happy to pay twice the coach fare if I could have the legroom from the seat in front on mine (ie half the rows at twice the price).
 

There is a "medium" class. Delta has Economy Comfort, United has Economy+, and many other airlines have similar. On Delta, it's a $20-$100 option depending on the length of the flight, and you get regular economy seats with economy service but extra legroom. On international flights they throw in free booze for EC customers.

And even door-to-door, the fact that I can leave my house and be in London in less than 12 hours seems pretty quick to me.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[GNious]

Precisely:
Flight Brussels-UK, incl check-in time and security and whatnuts: 2.5-3 hours
Train Brussels-UK, incl everything: 2 hours

Difference: Train takes you from central Brussels (Zuid) to more-or-less central London (St Pancras).

Why anyone wants to fly between places connected by highspeed trains is beyond me, yet I see people doing it regularly.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Virgin Atlantic premium economy is pretty much what you are talking about. But obviously only London to New York, but it maybe a model that catches on. It is basically wider and longer leg room seats with a slightly better service level as well. http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/us/en/the-virgin-experience/premium-economy.html. Currently for mid September 1 week trip length fixed date return economy tickets are 500 GBP return in economy, and 800 gbp in premium economy. That ratio of price difference is pretty consistent across different ticketing options.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[isorox]

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

So, last week, which included a change in London
06:15 depart home
06:30 arrive airport (Manchester)
06:32 check in (straight to front of queue obviously)
06:35 arrive security
06:40 arrive lounge, pick up newspaper, get some cereal and OJ
07:15 depart for plane
07:30 wheels up
08:15 wheels down
08:30 leave plane
08:35 arrive lounge, proper cooked breakfast, get on with emails
09:45 leave for plane
10:00 on plane
10:30 wheels up
19:30(UK) arrive Delhi
19:45 collect suitcase, get in taxi

Thats 12h30 minutes to cover 4,243 miles, an average of 338.5 mph. How is that not fast?

And for comfort?

Also, why isn't a 'medium' class anymore? One would think that any company that provided decent legroom at a reasonable price would make a killing.

I travel in BA Premium Economy, a hell of a lot nicer than the back - I'd never fly coach for more than about 3 hours. For Manchester to New York on the cheapest non-flexible tickets with about 5 months notice, BA charge £464 in economy, £782 in premium (£2465 in business)

Premium (World Traveller Plus) is actually a lot more consistent with the prices too, you'll almost always get the £782 fare if you can book 3 weeks in advance with a Saturday night stay.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Kjella]

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

Depends on where you are, going 5-600 km here in Norway my choices are:
1. Airport express + airplane + airport bus = 3.5 hours
2. Train: 6.5 hours
3. Bus: 8 hours

Could it be done in 2-3 hours if we had 250-300 km/h rail? Yes. But we're not going to get that because it'd cost billions of dollars building tunnels and bridges and keeping it clear of snow and ice in the winter. And dealing with a moose impact is a big problem at 300 km/h. But we can build airports on each end, ignoring the whole problem.

Also, why isn't a 'medium' class anymore? One would think that any company that provided decent legroom at a reasonable price would make a killing.

I know at least some airplane companies have this, search for "Economy Comfort", KLM, Delta and Iceland Air do at least. And many companies now let you pay your way to the emergency exit seats that have extra legroom.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[SonnyDog09]

Seems to work well in Japan over similarly long distances and much more difficult terrain.

Where do you get the idea that distances are similar? Japan is the size of California. Your trip from Tokyo to Osaka is a whopping 318 miles. A trip from Detroit to Denver is 1200 miles. That's only a two timezone trip. If I wanted to go to the west coast a trip from Detroit to LA is 2200 miles.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[isorox]

When available it's a no brainer. The total time is roughly is same (for distances up to 1000 km), and they go from city center to city center, and they're a lot more comfortable.

Well walking is faster than a high speed train (for distances up to 4km). Not much use.

However, high speed train for 1000km. From my house in Manchester to Brussels. 334 miles (534km) as the crow flies.

Last trip on the way back. We both departed the bar^H^H^H office at 20:00.
Me
Arrive Brussels airport 20:15
Depart Brussels airport 21:15
Arrive Manchester airport 22:45 (Brussels time)
Get in car 23:00
Home 23:15

Him
Arrive Brussels Midi 20:20
Depart Brussels 21:10
Arrive London St Pancras 23:15
(he had immigration problems for 30 minutes, but we'll ignore that for fairness)
Get in taxi 23:25
Home 00:20

That's a 300km/h train that arrived an hour later than me, and only 2/3rd the distance.
Had he flown, he'd have been in the taxi at Heathrow at 22:20 and home at 22:50 - 90 minutes earlier.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[d3ac0n]

That's simply not true.

Yes, it is true. You just proved it with your own example.

If you haven't done any rail travel lately in the US, please be aware that a train ticket for the normal, slow train costs about as much as a coach class airplane ticket for the same trip.

Let me repeat that for emphasis; A round-trip train ticket from (for example) my hometown of Buffalo NY to Albany NY (a trip my wife has had to take in recent years) on Amtrak (ordinary train) costs almost exactly the same amount (about a 20 dollar difference) as a plane ticket. This is for the same class of ticket and roughly the same amenities (coach seat, no bed, no meal included). The train trip takes about 8 hours, the plane trip about an hour.

So, given that they aren't receiving significantly superior service, why would people want to spend significantly more TIME on a train? Particularly business travelers, who make up the bulk of most continental commercial airline flights in the US today. These are people who want to get to their destination as quickly and safely as possible, get their business done and get home in the same manner. They don't have time to waste riding a train.

Now, with that in mind, remember that passenger trains are LOSING MONEY and being propped up with taxpayer dollars. the Airlines are largely solvent and at least semi-profitable, despite the hits they have taken in recent years.

Train systems cost more to deploy, more to maintain, and more to run than airlines. This is a known fact, and not arguable. They simply have more equipment and material to deal with.

Even if you were able to cut all train travel time in half with "bullet trains" your maintenance costs would go up, the costs for the trains themselves would go up and these super fast trains need special tracks so the upfront cost is immense. And even then airline travel would still be faster, more flexible, and cheaper. The cost for a bullet train ticket in the US would be impossible to make work in the free market. Which is probably why people that put forward these plans ALWAYS do it as a giant government project. Yet another waste of taxpayer money we cannot afford and there is no significant public outcry or political will to do.

Simply put; High Speed Rail is a pipe dream. A stupid, inconvenient and costly pipe dream at that. Unless we have some kind of crazy oil cost spike as in the Atlas Shrugged movie, trains will NEVER be able to compete with air travel. Which is as it should be. I love trains as much as the next person, but they are yesterday's technology. it's time to let them go. We have tomorrow's transport technology to work on.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on missing the entire point of his reply: If you build it they will come.

Let's face it, America has abandoned all hope of improving any of its infrastructure. It's not profit conducive in the short term. And since the entire country is run by the markets, shareholders short term gains are king. Everyone loses in the long term. Everyone is too blindingly stupid and/or ignorant to care.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[isorox]

High speed rail will not work in the US outside of the Northeast Corridor because nowhere else has the kind of density needed to make it work. 1000 km in the US is a quick trip - the example he gives, Denver to SF, is more than double that. And rail requires a large and expensive infrastructure, one which is going to have to be duplicated (because our existing rail system is optimized for freight hauling, at which task it is one of the most efficient in the world). It's a cool idea, and in some places it makes sense. But not here.

High speed rail relies on long distances to make it worthwhile -- at 200mph you need a good 200 miles between stops to be of any use. Each stop tends to add 10 minutes. Paris to Strasbourg is 300 miles with no stops. It doesn't matter how dense the middle is, it's

Boston-NewYork-Washington, NewYork-Cleveland-Chicago, Vegas/Phoenix-LA-San Francisco-Portland-Seatle-Vancouver-Calgary
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=bos-nyc-was,nyc-cle-ord-den-las-lax-phx,lax-sfo-pdx-sea-yvr-YYC

A modern high speed train (200mph) will do New york to LA in 13 hours, (leave down town Manhattan at 9PM, arrive LA at 7AM, depart LA at 6PM, arrive Manhattan at 10AM, quick shower and in the office at 11AM), a bit too long. However Chicago-LA in 9 hours with a sleeping car (11pm-5am) is certainly viable from a timetable perspective, but wiht only a couple of trains a day over 2000 miles of track it's not financially sound. The coasts (East and West) though can certainly support high speed trains.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[oobayly]

I did exactly this Eurostar trip a couple of months ago and it was an absolute pleasure. Think I might take the TGV to Bourg-Saint-Maurice next year.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[JoeMerchant]

I'd be happy to pay twice the coach fare if I could have the legroom from the seat in front on mine (ie half the rows at twice the price).

That option is available for you today, buy two seats and reserve the one in front.

Actually, if you're a seat reservation ninja, you know which rows don't recline (and thus, you want to be behind), and also other rows like first behind the bulkhead and on the exit doors are usually deeper than normal coach. These don't cost extra money, but you do have to reserve your seats early.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[d3ac0n]

Would you like that mythical magical transport system powered by Unicorn farts or Pixie dust? Because that's what it's going to take.

There is NO FREE RIDE. Free is a myth, it doesn't exist and never will. Even if we were to have "free" transport provided by the government you would still pay. You would pay in higher taxes on everything else in your life. And in my life, and in everyone else's life, making all of life that much more expensive for everyone.

Stop putting forward communist ideas. They don't work and they hurt people.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[JoeMerchant]

Depends on how far you're going.... Atlanta to Jacksonville, the 5 hour drive is quicker, Atlanta to Miami (10ish hours drive) the plane starts to win.

In the "good old days," especially with 55mph speed limits (effective 70mph average) and no 2 hour pre-flight check-in requirements, commercial air travel would win over most 3-4 hour drives. Regulation also meant that the smaller regional airports still had decent service schedules, even if the planes couldn't be packed like sardine cans.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no it won't. There will be no non-stop NYC to LA train. Even if you don't have stops to board passengers, you're going to have a lot of slowing down to switch to avoid other trains on the line, and most likely stops due to other trains on the line.

When sleepers on the train cost more than flying, you're not going to beat flying. Flying to chicago is faster and cheaper than a sleeper, and doesn't include the extra day of per diem or the non-monetary cost of not sleeping in your own bed. It's a nice theory, but this country is damn big. The place where trains could work well is integrated into the airline system, so you could take a reasonably fast train from not-quite-podunkville directly to the regional airport hub. Think san antonio and austin to DFW or Houston, and sacramento to SFO.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[CelticWhisper]

Well, granted this is anecdotal, but I just did (almost exactly) that a few months ago. Chicago to Philadelphia and back via Amtrak, and it was all because of the TSA. 36-hour round trip when I've made the same journey by plane in the past and had it take only about 1:45. $300 train fare (after route 42 business-class upgrade and tax) when, due to family members working for Southwest Airlines, I could've flown free.

I'm far from the only one, too. Amtrak's ridership is at a record high and there are a lot of people saying it's all because airports are the worst places in the country now, due 100% to TSA.

And you know what? I'd do it all again. Traveling by train, aside from respecting my rights and dignity, was just plain nicer and more fun than flying. Better legroom, the most polite and friendly staff I've ever interacted with, amenities worth taking advantage of, and the ability to actually look at scenery and pick out interesting detail instead of saying "oh, look, another nondescript dot 35.000 feet away."

So don't write off rail just yet. Air travel sucks enough to push people toward it and make it economically viable. Hell, if they sold it solely on the premise of "speed-competitive with flying, but no TSA" they'd pick up customers in droves. The one bad thing about abolishing TSA is that it would hurt rail travel as people once again became willing to fly.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want thrills either, but as a 6'4" person not having my knees jammed into your back would make both of our flights more tolerable. Not getting groped by the rent-a-cop would be an added bonus.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[drinkypoo]

And dealing with a moose impact is a big problem at 300 km/h.

It seems to me like this is a problem which really could be solved technically. We can make mine-clearing trucks that look like farm equipment, why can't we strap a great bloody blade on a shock absorber onto the front of the train and simply cleave moose in twain?

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

People often forget just how insanely large our country is. We stretch an entire continent. It's nothing against Europeans but I find they often underestimate the sheer size of our country. It similarly puzzles them that Americans tend not to travel outside the country. Going to another country (depending on your origin) is quite a trip. An American could only travel within the US and travel farther than most Europeans travel. The only difference is people here mostly only speak 1 language (maybe 2 if you count Spanish in some areas).

Re:I don't want thrills...

[demonlapin]

Acquiring land for a new right of way would be astronomically expensive and require coordination across at least seven governments. Not a good choice.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[jonwil]

NYC to LA wont work, true.
But NYC to Washington DC makes a LOT of sense (both logistically and financially), especially if you copy Europe (TGV, ICE, Eurostar etc) and build dedicated high-speed track for it.

Plenty of reasons why high-speed rail between NYC and DC would be better than flying:
1.No spending ages in a security line or passing through body scanners and stuff.
2.The list of prohibited items is much smaller (no liquid bans on a train, no having a TSA goon single you out for extra checks because your car key happens to pop out like a switchblade knife, no more having to hand over that nail clipper you forgot you had in your bag)
3.You dont need to arrive at a train station 3 hours before your train leaves like you do when flying.
4.You get a lot more leg-room on a train than you do in the affordable seats on any US domestic carrier.
5.You dont have to worry about people trying to fit massive suitcases into small overhead lockers because they are too cheap to pay to have that bag checked in. On a train, they dont have anywhere near the size and weight limits for baggage that airlines do.
6.The main train stations (where the high speed trains would probably go from) are much closer to the center of town than the airports are.

Thats just the advantages I can think of off the top of my head, there may be others too (I dont know the math for time or price on train vs plane on this route so I cant comment on those)

Re:I don't want thrills...

[blueg3]

they may not be available in your country

Is there another country with a Denver and a San Francisco?

Re:I don't want thrills...

[jonwil]

When you have airlines offering flights from as low as 18 pounds (random price I found on the site of one of the UK discount airlines), it can be harder for someone to justify the extra cost of the high speed trains no matter how much better they are.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you haven't done any rail travel lately in the US, please be aware that a train ticket for the normal, slow train costs about as much as a coach class airplane ticket for the same trip.

Apples and oranges. Slow-speed trains are to high-speed trains as horses and buggies are to cars. Your're right, they are yesterday's technology.

High speed rail is not a pipe dream. It's actual, established technology that really exists all around the world. And everywhere it does, it competes successfully with airlines. Even in the USA, in the form of the Acela Express, which has blown away the Delta and US Air Shuttle routes with which it competes.
And you know what?

Even government-owned, bureaucratic, couldn't-find-wipe-its-ass-without-congressional-assistance Amtrak can't help but earn a profit on the Acela high-speed routes. Because there is demand for them, and because passengers are willing to pay for them.

Airlines get federal bailouts and transfer their benefit plans to the government. The budget for the TSA and FAA depend on allocations from the General Fund. And despite this federal support, airlines go bankrupt whenever the price of oil surges. (But, of course, in your mind, oil spikes are "crazy" and presumably never happen in real life. I wish I bought gas where you do.) In a free market, airlines would be limited to serving a handful of transoceanic and transcontinental routes, but the US government has chosen to bear the cost of supporting these money-losing corporations rather than investing in infrastructure.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[GNious]

I expect that the 18 GBP is without taxes and airport-fees and luggage-fees and booking-fees and online-fees - I see this regularly from some companies such as Ryan Air, and this behaviour is part of why we're not even able to book them through official channels: We don't get the real price until it is too late, and then it quickly becomes as expensive as the regular companies. ...and I always remind my boss that time wasted in a queue in security is costing him money - I count it towards my 38 hours/week, and he cannot bill it to the customer as a service.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

:-) Nice idea... but the truth is that high speed rail in the US will have to be done on elevated (or submerged) track. Moose aren't the only problem. There's always some idiot driving across the track trying to beat the train.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

You're right, the GP forgot about that. I guess cross-continent travel (let's just pick... oh... Louisville, KY to San Francisco, CA) by train or bus really shaves off those one or two hours of prep time, huh? Discounting the drive to the airport, that's about ten hours to check in, fly some two thousand miles from SDF to SFO, get your baggage, and take AirTrain to the car rental facility at the end of the line at SFO. I'm certain a train stopping at every major city on its route or a bus driving down highways at speeds limited by the laws of physics and commercial ground transportation safety laws could do that in HALF the time! After all, we ARE discounting the drive to the train station/bus depot!

Re:I don't want thrills...

[kiwimate]

Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.

snip

A flight from Madrid to New York costs 400 euros in coach

How long would it take you to get from Madrid to New York if you didn't fly?

The time going through security, etc., adds up, I agree. If I can drive there in, say, five hours, I usually won't bother flying. But when I'm going from Philadelphia to Texas, or Denver, or California, it's a no-brainer.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[tlhIngan]

When you have airlines offering flights from as low as 18 pounds (random price I found on the site of one of the UK discount airlines), it can be harder for someone to justify the extra cost of the high speed trains no matter how much better they are.

That's a price that's basically following hte American tradition of charging for everything. It basically gets you a seat. Carry ons beyond your jacket? Well, if's another few dollars (each). Can't control yourself? Five pounds per toilet visit. Not during a slow part of the week? Pay up. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's a brilliant system much in the tradition of the US - offer a very compelling price, but forget that taxes/fees/additional amenities will cost extra so by the time the nickle and diming is finished, you'd pay the same as a normal economy seat. Very few to none at all pay that rate in the end. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they charged fuel as part of that (not fuel surcharge, but *fuel*).

Re:I don't want thrills...

[delt0r]

Most Europeans travel well outside Europe. For example, USA is a popular destination as is Canada. Of course so is the rest of the world. In fact out of the 20 people working with me, every single one as traveled 5000 miles or more at least once (mostly to the US). I guess i could dig up real stats.. but meh.. it doesn't really matter.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[dkleinsc]

If you haven't done any rail travel lately in the US, please be aware that a train ticket for the normal, slow train costs about as much as a coach class airplane ticket for the same trip.

Well, waddaya know, I've done quite a bit of it, including the trip you've described, and can tell you you're only partially right:
1. The train is vastly more comfortable than flying: Your seat in coach is about the same size as First Class offers you in the air,and you're free to go up and hang out in the lounge car if you'd rather.

2. A trip from Albany to Buffalo in 8 hours is too slow. A trip from Albany to Buffalo in 2-3 hours, on the other hand, is a lot more competitive with flying. (The main reason for the slowness is actually because Amtrak has to compete with freight traffic across New York, while in the Northeast Corridor it has complete control of the tracks.)

3. As a sibling poster pointed out, Amtrak ridership is increasing, particularly in the high-speed corridor from Boston to Washington (which is running a profit). The market is in fact saying that the public wants high-speed passenger rail.

4. In addition to getting you there faster, it means Amtrak could run more trains with the same number of cars and engines. For example, right now there's 1 westbound trip per day across upstate NY: With high-speed rail, you could easily have a morning train and an evening train in both directions.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[excelsior_gr]

If you are given the choice (e.g. when you check-in on-line), pick the seats next to the emergency exits over the wings. You have about 20 cm more space between your knees and the seat in front of you, which is a lot. The cherry on top is that, for safety reasons, the backs of the seats in front of the emergency exits cannot be leaned backwards. So all the extra space is just for you! Your timing must be accurate though, because there are only 6 seats like that in a medium plane (e.g. a Boeing 737) and they cannot be booked early (for safety reasons I guess).

Re:I don't want thrills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Communist ideas like Universal health care?

It's more expensive for everyone, but it's called society. If you don't like it, go the USA and die if you're poor.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[fiannaFailMan]

I want safe, quick transportation from point A to point B at a reasonable price. Modern air travel mostly delivers this. It didn't use to.

Air travel was of dubious safety and blinding expense in the '30s, '40s, '50s - and wasn't particularly comfortable either. I don't wish to return to that era, one bit.

-Isaac

That was the secret of Cunard's success, their steamships were more reliable than the sailing vessels that went before. While their contract was for carrying mail, it was passengers that tagged along that made them profits and they came in big numbers because of the safety factor.

And interestingly the ocean passenger shipping lines used the same tactics as the early airlines in using celebrities to endorse the experience. They'd publish passenger lists so that the papers in London and New York would know "who's arriving this week on the Mauritania", and they'd go down to the docks to get their photos into the gossip section with the huge Cunard or White Star vessel looming proudly over them.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[fiannaFailMan]

So many fallacies in there it's difficult to know where to start. Trains partly compete with roads in terms of the long haul 6-hour drives that people in America seem to think are a logical way of getting around. Last time I checked, the car-road combination doesn't work in the free market. You have to install huge expensive-to-install and expensive-to-maintain infrastructure as a government-run project. Gas prices in America are so pitifully low compared to the rest of the developed world ($4/gallon would be a bargain in the UK where it costs over twice as much) that they come nowhere near close enough to covering the cost of maintaining road infrastructure. As for the profitability of car ownership, let's not go there. And don't get me started on GM and Chrysler's bailout.

Airlines are solvent? I suppose they are now after getting bailed out. Airlines would not be able to do much business without runways, taxiways, terminals, access roads, and the enormous air traffic control infrastructure and the FAA that has to regulate the crap out of it to keep it safe. Who do you think pays for all that? The airlines? If you want to find an example of pure free-market ideology then the aviation industry is the wrong place to look.

And the reason Amtrak is so laboriously slow on most of its lines is because it has to make do with the primitive tracks that are privately owned by the freight companies. The infrastructure is just not designed for carrying passenger trains, hence people have a negative view of passenger trains in America which is totaly bemusing to anyone from Europe. Don't get me wrong, America's freight rail companies are great at what they do. But to suggest that passenger trains are crap in America because that's the verdict of the free market is completely untrue. Trains have simply been squeezed out by special interests. Road and air travel get huge government subsidies and people have been conditioned into thinking that this is normal, but as soon as mass transit tries to get its fair share of the infrastructure pie then the special interests pop up from their government-funded comfort zone and decry this "wasteful spending".

American values are supposed to be about letting people have a choice. In terms of transportation Americans have less choice than people in Europe.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[fiannaFailMan]

Also, why isn't a 'medium' class anymore? One would think that any company that provided decent legroom at a reasonable price would make a killing.

United Economy Plus. Economy class but with that crucial extra bit of legroom for something like $40 more. I usually get it if I'm on any flight longer than 4 hours.

Re:I don't want thrills...

[demonlapin]

Oh, just wait until the first time some attractive young mother dives to push her child out of the way of an oncoming train and is herself cleft twain! What a harvest of blood shall you have then! No, you must pancake your moose on a hard nose, then dispose, not carve it in half to leave two twitching halves swiftly bleeding out as the sky.... gets.... darker....

Re:I don't want thrills...

[drinkypoo]

Well, perhaps alongside the blade you could have conveyor belts which carry the parts of the uh, moose, past the rotating knives.

Isnt it better now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that many people can afford air travel at 2-3 weeks notice, or even at a few days notice and use it on a regular basis? why is it a negative that it has become something commonly used?

Re:Isnt it better now?

[stoolpigeon]

Absolutely right. I found out a friend was very sick just a few weeks ago - I bought my ticket on-line for the next day, checked in on-line immediately after and was on a different continent the following evening. I am not wealthy (by developed world standards) and it'll stretch my budget a bit but it was completely doable. I made it home before my friend died and was able to see her and the family.

I found out she was ill via a call on our Vonage phone - no additional cost to my friend calling me.

I have no desire to go back to an earlier time when I probably would not have found out until after she had died and not been able to afford going back - and even if I could it would have taken a lot longer than a day.

Re:Isnt it better now?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry about your friend.

It was a tremendously big deal.

[dtmos]

We would look forward for weeks to a flight, and wear our best clothes. There was no security hassle, and you waited in the departure area for your flight to be called, then walked outside to the gate in the chain-link fence that led to the planes. Somebody pointed out which one was yours, and you went up the stairs and got in. The rest of your friends and family who were there to see you off stayed behind the fence, and waved at you, and watched the door close, the engines start, and your plane taxi away. If it was a reasonably small airport your friends could wait and try to identify your plane as it took off.

Ah, those were the days. (Sniffle.)

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats how you still do it at smaller airports in India
Security is just for the sake of it, you walk out onto the runway and they point you to which of the 3 ATR's (sometimes a 737-900 though) is yours

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[ccguy]

We would look forward for weeks to a flight, and wear our best clothes.

Yeah, I remember visiting the deluxe sweatpants section in my local department store the day before flying. Those were the days.

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away
If you can use some exotic booze
There's a bar in far Bombay
Come on and fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away

as sung by Frank Sinatra
words by Sammy Cahn
music by Jimmy van Heusen

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[Yvanhoe]

You can still have the same experience today, by paying an amount similar to what the ticket cost in those days. Fly in first class, the experience is totally different.

Ah, and in those days, I think that most international trips required several refueling stops. The plane had to be comfortable because you were there for 2 or 3 days.

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[isorox]

Thats how you still do it at smaller airports in India
Security is just for the sake of it, you walk out onto the runway and they point you to which of the 3 ATR's (sometimes a 737-900 though) is yours

Yet at Delhi you won't get into the terminal without a ticket, and occasionally a baggage search (or in my case, two last year)

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

First Class? You peasant. You need to look at chartered/semi private planes. That is living.

You drive up to the general aviation side of the airport get out of your car, someone grabs your bags out of your trunk and puts them on the plane. You walk on board, they close the door, taxi and take off.

First/business class still puts you on the same plane as the riff-raff and their smelly-ness and their crying spawn.

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[CompMD]

As a private pilot, I try to use some of the old romanticism of flying for friends and family that have never been on a small airplane before. It definitely relieves their tension.

Re:It was a tremendously big deal.

[cpm99352]

And all the bozos who upgraded w/ their frequent flier points.

Alternatively

[Anonymous Coward]

"When flying was too expensive for most people and planes were orders of magnitude more dangerous"

Still is for some of us

[mdsharpe]

Maybe it's just me, but I still think of flying as a big deal. I don't go on aeroplanes much, but when I do, I always remember to appreciate it for the marvel it is. I still find the acceleration of takeoff to be pretty exciting as well.

No one could afford it.

[brillow]

It was also incredibly expensive.

The reasons travel today sucks is because its cheaper and thus more people do it.

Also, what kind of elitist prick wishes people would "dress up" to go on a goddamn airplane? How about I wear whatever I want and you shut up?

We don't need the pretension of fancy clothes in this millennium. By these standards Jobs and Gates are both slobs.

Re:No one could afford it.

[Vintermann]

Who wants us to feel special and mushy when walking onto an airplane? Probably someone involved in the airline industry...

Re:No one could afford it.

[ZankerH]

By these standards Jobs and Gates are both slobs.

Yes, yes they are.
Is it really too much to ask that people dress in a way that makes it possible to estimate their financial standing without direct contact?

Re:No one could afford it.

[ccguy]

Is it really too much to ask that people dress in a way that makes it possible to estimate their financial standing without direct contact?

It works that way already, just not in the way you seem to expect. If there's a meeting with IT people, the guy in the suit is sucking up to the guy in jeans, turtleneck shirt, or whatever. Not the other way around.

Or, if they're consultants working in the same company, the guy in the suit is telling the other guy why he should dress like him even if it's the fucking summer, there's 40 degrees C outside and you need to have the AC wasting lots of energy so that the suit guys are comfortable, at the expense of course of the people who dress appropriately (for the weather at least) sneezing non-stop. The other guy in the meeting is the one who doesn't give a fuck.

Re:No one could afford it.

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It is one of those kind of "author reminiscing about flying in a time when he would never have been able to afford to do so" stories.

Re:No one could afford it.

[91degrees]

When you're paying as much as flights cost back then, you could afford to be elitist.

Re:No one could afford it.

[ZankerH]

It works that way already, just not in the way you seem to expect. If there's a meeting with IT people, the guy in the suit is sucking up to the guy in jeans, turtleneck shirt, or whatever. Not the other way around.

You realise there are different tiers of "guys in suits", no? A business suit isn't like a T-shirt, there's a lot more complexity and room for diversity.

Or, if they're consultants working in the same company, the guy in the suit is telling the other guy why he should dress like him even if it's the fucking summer, there's 40 degrees C outside and you need to have the AC wasting lots of energy so that the suit guys are comfortable, at the expense of course of the people who dress appropriately (for the weather at least) sneezing non-stop. The other guy in the meeting is the one who doesn't give a fuck.

Think of it as a uniform. Your opinion about it is entirely irrelevant.

Re:Slow-flying news day

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is powered by your submissions. What have you submitted lately? If you don't like what's being submitted, submit something better yourself or go into 'recent' on the right hand side and down vote the crap. Stop whining about something you have control over.

It's pretty thrilling now

[Grayhand]

Having Otto with the big hands and fat wrists checking my prostate for explosives is right up there with the most thrilling experiences of my life. Every time he asks me to grab for my ankles I channel Ned Beatty and go to my happy place. It's still better than flying Jet Blue.

Just watch Pan Am

[opus_magnum]

(the tv series) if you want to see what it was like.

Okay

[tadekd]

Okay, what is it all about?????

You can still fly that way

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called first class. The authors should try it. Most people just want no-frills transportation, they don't want to pay for the experience of travel, they just want travel. I think the airlines do very well this day and age offering as cheap of flights as they do. The only real problem with flying nowadays is the TSA.

Re:You can still fly that way

[mikael_j]

Except you're full of shit. Most people don't want "no-frills transportation", it's just that the options tend to be "Cattle class: $200", "Business class: $4000" and "First class: You can't afford it".

And a lot of times there simply isn't an option for "premium economy". Sometimes there is but a lot of times, no.

As someone who's 193 cm tall (6'4") I hate flying. There is no leg room to speak of and the seats themselves aren't exactly perfect for someone taller than average either. For me and others who are the least bit taller than average it's not about being a little more comfortable, it's about actually having enough room that we don't have to force ourselves into extremely uncomfortable positions just to be able to sit down (unless I'm lucky enough to grab a seat near an emergency exit most economy/coach/whatever you want to call it class seats have less leg room than the average bus which means I can only sit if I force at least one of my knees into the space in front of a neighboring seat, and even then I'm going to be uncomfortable for the entire flight since I can't really move, I'm forced to sit in the same uncomfortable position in a seat designed for a much shorter person for several hours).

Re:You can still fly that way

[nelsonal]

Pre-regulation all classes were basically: you can't afford it. Flying was a once in a rare while treat prior to deregulation in 1978, unless you had family that worked at an airline or were a travel agent.

Re:You can still fly that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you're full of shit. Most people don't want "no-frills transportation" [...]

...using the solipsistic definition of "most people", right?

No, seriously. Most people really, actually DON'T mind a service that does little more than safely fling them across the continent or around the world. They don't need to be pampered and waited on for around eight hours in the air. They want to walk into a metal tube, sit down, and later walk out of that tube alive, well, and in another part of the country/world.

Maybe if you actually talked to people outside the echo chamber once in a while, you might realize this.

Re:You can still fly that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Then how come the majority of people complain when the topic of air travel comes up?

Re:You can still fly that way

[Anonymous Coward]

You're in the top percentile for height; you are not typical. OP said "most people", not "all people". And stop being so damned confrontational; it's not his fault you're a member of an under-served minority as far as air travel goes, and it doesn't affect the validity of his point. Don't Americans get taught to play nicely with others any more?

Not all that long ago

[NetDanzr]

You dont have to look that far into the past. Back in the 1980s, I was flying about once or twice per year between Prague and Lisbon and back. Always used Czechoslovak Airlines. The plane was largely empty, so I got to sit in the front, in facing seats with a table between them. Even when I had to sit in the "regular" class (I hesitate to call it economy, because it was nothing like today's cattle pens), we got a stewardess taking orders for drinks and snacks. And we got linen napkins with the main meal...

Ok, enough nostalgia. I'm now at the stage where speed is secondary to comfort. I want my zeppelins back!

Re:Not all that long ago

[Lieutenant_Dan]

Just curious, what sort of business would cause you travel between Lisbon and Prague? Such distinct destinations.

Re:Not all that long ago

[NetDanzr]

I lived with my grandparents who worked at the Czechoslovak embassy in Lisbon. Spent my vacations and occasionally Christmas back home with my parents.

Re:Not all that long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I too was there, the free Czechvar Pilsners were awesome, and some delicious Prague flight attendant would fawn over me, they typically were models who worked on the side for the Czech airline. It was great. I was only 5.

Re:Not all that long ago

[Lieutenant_Dan]

Ahhh ... pretty cool. I've been to both places; lovely and beautiful cities with tons of history.

James bond

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first times you hear the James Bond theme is when James... gets off a plane and walks out of the airport. That's it.

Damned if he doesn't look like the king of the universe doing it.

Space

[StripedCow]

I'm not sure about the flip-flops part, but one day, space travel will be pretty much like this.

Re:Space

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure about the flip-flops part, but one day, space travel will be pretty much like this.

Space travel ? Ha!

The end game is personal transporter devices.
Go where you want, when you want with no fucking harry/sally using his/her hands to feel over your penis/balls or vagina before the trip.

Unfortunately by that time I'll be long dead.
So today I just travel in trains. Fast and easy, city to city. No bullshit TSA or equivalent to deal with. Of course this is in europe.

Re:Space

[Anonymous Coward]

The nice thing about space travel is that it's feasible according to the known laws of physics.

Re:Space

[Anonymous Coward]

The nice thing about space travel is that it's feasible according to the known laws of physics.

Space travel perhaps, but I think getting to the nearest galaxy will still take so long that nobody survives it (accelerating to the speed of light in time would generate too much g-force).

Re:Space

[isorox]

The nice thing about space travel is that it's feasible according to the known laws of physics.

Space travel perhaps, but I think getting to the nearest galaxy will still take so long that nobody survives it (accelerating to the speed of light in time would generate too much g-force).

Actually you'll get to Andromeda in 28 years. You'll need a fair amount of fuel on the way though, especially if you want to stop.

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

you can still have that

[kenorland]

If you're willing to pay as much (in constant dollars) as people paid decades ago, you can fly business or first class, or even hire an air taxi. What you can't do is get 1950's style at 2012 prices. And once something becomes as cheap as air travel has become, people wearing flip-flops will use it. You'll just have to live with it, or pay the price of exclusivity.

Re:you can still have that

[foniksonik]

I wear flip-flops because you have to take your shoes off at security. Yes. For that convenience alone. When they stop making us all remove our damn shoes I'll wear shoes.

BTW, I've never been pulled aside or made to wait for a review. Flip flops tells security you've got nothing to hide, you're not going to run and that you are relaxed and comfortable.

Re:you can still have that

[Anonymous Coward]

Flip flops are not the thing to have on your feet when you have to tip-toes through the wreckage. of your plane on it's belly at the end of the runway or floating in Boston Harbor.

I don't wear a suit or even a tie much anymore but dressed neatly and asking nicely I do get an upgrade more often than not.

formal != thrill

[gargletheape]

So let me get this right. Once upon a time, people treated getting into an aeroplane as a formal occasion, wearing suits and ties for a simple transportation event. Whereas we now treat it like any other instance of being out in public: it's fine to wear jeans and a teeshirt in a park or the subway, so it's fine to do the same in a plane. This is an argument for the old days?

And in which demented world is pressuring people to wear leather shoes instead of sandals or flip-flops on an intercontinental flight a "thrill"? Isn't there enough socially required formalwear at work?

Re:formal != thrill

[dtmos]

Formal dress was de rigueur because, at the time, it wasn't a "simple transportation event." You were flying, something that only the upper class did, so you dressed as if you were a member of the upper class (or as close as you could get). Once jets came in in the 1950s, you were not only flying, you were part of the "Jet Set"!

Besides, you were being seen by the public, and who wouldn't want to make a good first impression on someone you just met? After all, this was an era when people wore suits and ties to baseball and football games.

Re:formal != thrill

[Anonymous Coward]

In the demented world where I do not want to smell your sweaty socks you filthy bastard.

Re:formal != thrill

[LQ]

So let me get this right. Once upon a time, people treated getting into an aeroplane as a formal occasion, wearing suits and ties for a simple transportation event. Whereas we now treat it like any other instance of being out in public: it's fine to wear jeans and a teeshirt in a park or the subway, so it's fine to do the same in a plane. This is an argument for the old days?

And in which demented world is pressuring people to wear leather shoes instead of sandals or flip-flops on an intercontinental flight a "thrill"? Isn't there enough socially required formalwear at work?

There are still some folk who moan that people don't dress up for theatre or restaurants, that it lowers the tone. My father wore a jacket and tie all day, every day of his life, weekends and vacations included. I wear cargo pants and t-shirts for office, evenings and weekends. Things change.

I think this sums it up

[dnaumov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

This sums up pretty well the general population's attitude towards both air travel and technology in general.

Re:I think this sums it up

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add "... in the USA".

All you ever need to know about cheap flights

[cjellibebi]

...can be summed up in this video-clip by Fascinating Aïda.

you say flipflops like it's a bad thing

[Chewbacon]

I refuse to wear socks or toed shoes outside of work unless absolutely necessary (i.e. mowing lawns, lifting heavy shit). Always have. So when the airport started demanding that I remove my shoes, I smiled and said no problem. I really wanted to say "catch!" as I'm pretty accurate kicking them where I want them to land, but figured TSA wouldn't get the humor in it.

Re:you say flipflops like it's a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hawaiian shirt and about 100lbs overweight I assume?

Re:you say flipflops like it's a bad thing

[Hatta]

Flip flops are bad. Wear some decent sandals with some arch support.

#firstworldproblems

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sorry that something I would have to save up to for a year is no longer a fun weekend activity for you.

Travelling ruined by flying

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm transiting through the US in a couple of days. Originally I only had a 2h 15m stop over, but now I've been bumped onto a later flight because that's not enough time to get through security, check my cargo bag back in (seriously, WTF is that all about?!) and get on the connecting flight.

So now I have a 5h 30m stop over instead. 4h 30m of which will be wondering around an airport because I got through security in record time...

Re:Travelling ruined by flying

[tibit]

You have to go through the customs, and they want you to do that with all you possesions in tow, understandably enough. The checking in of your bags is someone's fantasy. Normally you hand them to a person who puts them on a conveyor belt after you've exited the customs, or you do so yourself. It takes a few seconds at most. International arrivals choke at immigration, usually, and if you're unlucky you may be standing in line for 1h. Customs will be quick once you find your bags, who might be still on the carousel, or may have been pulled off by someone. Once out on the U.S. soil, you may need to go through the security brouhaha to get on the connecting flight, or you may be lucky enough to stay in the secure zone, depending on the airport and where you're coming from.

Those were the days...

[ickleberry]

"When sex was safe and flying was dangerous"

Um, no.

[dtmos]

If you think today's US domestic First Class is the same as flying in the 1960s, you need to go back to the 1960s and have another look. Stewardesses called you by your name -- "Mr. Smith, Mrs. Jones." It was a different era -- and not only because one had "stewardesses" instead of "flight attendants."

The last time I had service similar to 1960s US domestic First Class was on the Concorde, and we all know how that turned out. The closest thing now is international First Class on some of the Asian airlines, like Singapore Air and Malaysia Air.

Re:Um, no.

[CGordy]

That level of service is normal on long haul flights, even in business. I have to travel between Australia and Europe regularly, and the attendant always memorises my name, takes my order at the start of the flight and ensures that my drink is topped up until I say stop.

Flying with Qatar it's even possible to make the whole journey without seeing an economy class passenger.

Re:Um, no.

[dtmos]

Yeah, I know, having done the same myself, but I was trying to think of the reason it felt much more exclusive to be flying in the 1960s than it does to be flying international First Class today, and I guess I didn't hit it. Maybe it was that in the 1960s there were no class upgrades, so the people in First Class paid for their tickets? Or that fewer people flew, so that First class was a small fraction of a smaller fraction of the population (the rest of which could be seen down below, traveling on the ground)? Or that you were in such luxury, even though you were only flying from Cleveland to Chicago?

Flying with Qatar it's even possible to make the whole journey without seeing an economy class passenger.

That was one of the amusing things about flying the Concorde out of Heathrow: Concorde-only ticketing, Concorde-only security station, Concorde-only gate area -- you made the whole journey without seeing so much as a BA First Class passenger on any other flight. It was like you had your own private airport (which, I suppose, was the intent).

Re:Um, no.

[isorox]

That level of service is normal on long haul flights, even in business.

I get it even further back. Hell I got name recognition on Singapore Airlines yesterday in economy without and status, and only 2 previous SQ flights under my belt.

In my experience, far eastern carriers > Gulf > UK > European > American > Indian

Flying with Qatar it's even possible to make the whole journey without seeing an economy class passenger.

I know Lufthansa have a dedicated terminal for First Class in Frankfurt, but you generally see the riff-raff queueing up off to the side at security or something. At bad times at Manchester I have to duck under the barrier to get into fast track while the ryanair lot glare, and feel smug they "saved" £10 on their flight.

Re:Um, no.

[airdweller]

"I know Lufthansa have a dedicated terminal for First Class in Frankfurt, but you generally see the riff-raff queueing up off to the side at security or something. At bad times at Manchester I have to duck under the barrier to get into fast track while the ryanair lot glare, and feel smug they "saved" £10 on their flight."
Yes, your Highness, they are smug indeed.

Re:Um, no.

[airdweller]

"Flying with Qatar it's even possible to make the whole journey without seeing an economy class passenger."
Well, that's what so called "middle class" has to live with - seeing their poor brethren up close. No difference if you ask me - the same schmucks - some just with little more money than the others. Normal people just fly their own planes.

the USA needs high speed trains

[circletimessquare]

if the tea party losers would shut up for a moment, you can get DOWNTOWN point A to DOWNTOWN point B in very fast time, faster than a plane taking into consideration the taxi to the two airports of point A and point B, and very luxuriously since the cost of another 5 feet of leg room contributes negligibly to the cost of moving the tons of steel

asia, europe, beyond the idiots in my country who want to live shorter lives and pay more for healthcare insurance so some insurance asshole can make more crony (not capitalist) profit, your high speed trains is what i admire about you the most. rail used to be something amazing in my country. we let it rot

granted, the USA is a lot less sparsely inhabited in the middle, but on the East Coast, and on the West Coast, it's dense enough to warrant high speed rail. hmmm.... and that's not where the tea party losers dominate, there's a chance just yet...

you want to talk about China beating the USA? salivate over this:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-19/news/33273369_1_bullet-train-train-crashes-wenzhou

BEIJING - With its sparkling domed skylight, polished granite floor tiles, grand piano, and string of retail outlets such as Timberland and Nautica, the Beijing South Railway Station could compete with the world's finest for modernity and cleanliness.

It was here in December that we boarded China's new high-speed bullet train that whisked us off to Shanghai, more than 800 miles to the south, in just five hours. For efficiency and comfort at a relatively low price ($185 round-trip for second-class seats that were nicer than those on Amtrak's Acela), you can't beat it. Cruising at about 185 m.p.h., the bullet train provides a smooth, quiet ride through China's eastern industrial corridor as it snakes south through four provinces before reaching its terminus at Shanghai's Hongqiao Rail Station. This is like leaving Philadelphia's 30th Street Station at 10 a.m. and arriving in Atlanta by 3 p.m.

tea party morons: please shut up and die and allow the USA to become a modern country. thanks

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[Overzeetop]

Ahhh, and you've put together a coalition of friends with land stretching from major city to major city who are willing to have one of these lines fly through their backyard every 40 minutes, 24 hours a day?

Even ignoring the property acquisition cost, these things are expensive. Standard rail is several million dollars per mile, high speed rail is more expensive (debatable on how much more, but we can pretty much guarantee it's not cheaper).

The US has a fantastic train system, it's just not economical to move humans on it. I would push for autonomous cars at this point.

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[circletimessquare]

eminent domain has it's place. the community good is a valid concept for condemning private property

that it gets abused due to the relationship between corporations and government in this country should not mean that other countries get high speed rail while Americans get to sit in grid lock or cattle car airplanes

look, this shit is evil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

so is China herding poor people to open train lines

but Europe can do it fairly

i don't want to hear about eminent domain evils, i know about them. i want some assholes to admit that the community good is a valid concept and eminent domain does have it's rightful LIMITED place, such as high speed rail lines

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Couple of things, one virtually no one living in the philly region wants to go to Atlanta. Two, there is Wilmington, Baltimore, DC, Richmond, Norfolk, Raleigh, and Charleston between those two cities. So I highly doubt you'd be able to maintain that 185 avg speed. Three, eminent domain has it's place. the community good is a valid concept for condemning private property
Ah, yes community, identity, stability. Words to build a society around, by Ford!

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[circletimessquare]

there's a certain deluded individualism in this country that would cut off the tree limb they are sitting on to spite the tree, thereby dooming themselves and the tree

yes, eminent domain has it's limited place. really

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to Beijing South Railway Station 10 or 20 times. I've lost count because it's nowhere as memorable as your quote. The experience is almost identical to an airport, down to the security checks. The blast doors in the parking garage are a weird addition. I like rail travel in China, but they subsidize the hell out of it.

It's not the tea party that's holding up rail here. It's economics. Huge capital expenditures plus the prospect of subsidies make it a low priority in the US. I wish it wasn't so (I really do love rail travel), but it's the sad truth.

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[circletimessquare]

well said. it would be immensely expensive, financially and socially, to destroy the neighborhoods you would have to to create the straightaways you need for high speed rail between major urban centers

however, it is the future of any modern country to have such connections between major urban centers. there is nothing superior in convenience and speed and cost (for commuter). the subsidies pay themselves off on the order of generations

the real problem is no one thinks long term, every political decision and opinion is short term

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[DerekLyons]

if the tea party losers would shut up for a moment, you can get DOWNTOWN point A to DOWNTOWN point B in very fast time, faster than a plane taking into consideration the taxi to the two airports of point A and point B

Sure, if the downtown's are fairly close to each other... Say, less than 300 miles apart. Much beyond that, and the 200mph train starts to lag more and more behind the 500mph plane. The problem is, outside of the Bos-Wash corridor - there's practically no place in the US where there are major cities that close together. (Not that most destinations are downtown anyways. Nowadays it's just as likely to be further out toward the fringes where costs are lower.)
 

rail used to be something amazing in my country. we let it rot

Sure, we used to have "amazing" passenger rail systems in the country (if you could afford to travel in a compartment, otherwise it was not all the comfortable)... but it bled money from every pore and opening. The railroads only ran passenger services as long as they did because they believed the loss leader served as valuable advertising for the freight services. It rotted because nobody could afford to maintain it. The only reason Amtrak makes any money at all is because of a loophole - it's limited by law to intercity trains, and the Northwest Corridor is dense enough to allow it operate "intercity" trains that are actually commuter trains.
 
And that's another huge problem with high speed passenger rail in the US - it's simply going to be too expensive to build to recoup the costs from ticket revenue.
 

This is like leaving Philadelphia's 30th Street Station at 10 a.m. and arriving in Atlanta by 3 p.m.

Current flight times between the two cities can be as low as two hours and a handful of minutes according to Expedia - three hours faster than your much vaunted train. (And of the longer flights, the majority are still faster than the train.) If you make the minimal effort needed to avoid traveling at peak/rush hour times.... you don't actually save any time on the train. Except for flying the first day planes were flying after 9/11, it's never taken me more than forty five minutes to park and get through security, usually it's under half an hour. (And if we build high speed rail, security is going to be there.)
 

tea party morons: please shut up and die and allow the USA to become a modern country. thanks

No, the morons are those who insist that high speed rail is the solution while ignoring (or being blithely ignorant of) the actual facts.

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are missing a point around here somewhere. I don't know anyone who thinks eminent domain should go away entirely. I don't know where you got that, I don't see it in the post above. The poster even said "ignoring the property acquisition cost" so I don't know what you're on about.

Now that said...

Almost everyone is for eminent domain for one thing or another... Freeways, schools, airports, railroads, military installations, etc (as long as it affects someone else)... It doesn't give the the government the right to confiscate the land. Even under eminent domain the government still has to compensate the owner for the "fair" value. The purpose of eminent domain is not to steal it from the owner and give it to the collective. The object is to prevent people from holding up public works projects because they are sentimental, stubborn or they want a big payday. So, there would still be an acquisition cost of the land, not to mention the legal fees from defending against people fighting it.

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[garyoa1]

Yes we let it rot. But only because we didn't need it. And IMHO, still don't unless we are trying to keep up with the joneses. Even tho we arguably passed them by transportation wise decades ago.

From what I understand it won't be cheaper than flying nor quicker. (I sure can't argue with more comfortable tho!)

Remember, this is a young country. Way back when, rare was the person who traveled more than 100 feet from their house. :) When we started to build rail systems some fool came along and invented the car. Then we spent more on roads than rail. Then another idiot came along and invented the "aeroplane". We invested in airports.

So as far as hi speed rail... really depends on where it's set up and cost. A fun vacation? Sure. Unless you want to get there as fast as you can to enjoy your destination. For business... time is money.

There's at least one airport in virtually every major city and a pile of smaller airports in between them. Some smaller European countries may only have major airport one in the whole country. Rail works for them. And they're more used to mass transportation since they didn't have the luxury of auto's back when it all started.

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[fustakrakich]

well said. it would be immensely expensive, financially and socially, to destroy the neighborhoods you would have to to create the straightaways you need for high speed rail between major urban centers

What, they can't go underground? Tunnel boring machine are getting better, and I hope the process is getting cheaper.

Re:the USA needs high speed trains

[Anonymous Coward]

high speed rail is presumably more expensive

There, compressed that for you.

Attention Kmart Shopper

[jamesl]

You too, could travel like Elizabeth Taylor.

If you had Elizabeth Taylor's money. Today, if you have Elizabeth Taylor's money, you charter a jet.

That is the cost of discount travel

[damn_registrars]

Pretty well nobody is willing to pay for better seats on the plane. Everyone wants to pay as little as possible because air travel stretches the budget of most people quite a bit, even when they get less expensive fares. To save money we have accepted less legroom, less customer service, less respect, more delay, etc. I've paid fees to check bags, I've been on planes where the bathroom is so tiny I could barely stand up. I've been on planes so small - on major carriers - that my carry-on bag had to be gate checked because it wouldn't fit in the bins.

These are the costs we agree to when we pay less for airfare.

Re:That is the cost of discount travel

[Richy_T]

No one (almost) wants to pay more because the utility of doing so is pretty small. It'll all be over in a couple of hours and you would have to pay a pretty serious amount extra to actually have a pleasant experience. An extra two inches of legroom might be "nice" but it will still be cramped, you won't really be able to move around freely, the food will still be uninspiring (if nothing else, due to the effect of altitude) and the baby two seats over will still be crying.

The only place I can see it would be worth it would be on longer flights (say 3-4 hours plus) and then it would be even more expensive and the bigger planes tend to be a little bit more comfortable anyway. My cousin and her husband did pay for one of those private cabins on a recent trans-pacific flight, that looked like it would have been nice (he's fairly loaded though)

Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes normal

[Viol8]

Otherwise we'd all still be staring at a wheel or a flint axe and going "Woooow!" So its rather unfair to blame people for complaining about flying conditions when its a normal part of life no matter how amazing flying is technically.

1995 - Sabena

[spectrokid]

1995 Sabena from Leeds to Brussels. Tiny little plane, you couldn't really stand up. Plates in real porcelain, glass in real glass, cutlery in steel. Hot food, prepared on board. Some champagne before we even got in the air. A Belgian chocolate served separately as a desert. Now get off my lawn!!

Re:1995 - Sabena

[Pete (big-pete)]

Ahh, I remember Sabena, I flew with them on fairly frequent flights from Brussels to UK in 2001, tickets were cheap as dirt, and the plane was almost empty as no-one trusted that the airline would still be in business the next week. I didn't mind one bit (I saved more than enough on my flights, and paid via credit card in case they went bust - if I lost a flight it wouldn't be the end of the world) - on a couple of flights the flight attendants outnumbered the passengers, so there was excellent service.

Of course they did eventually go bust in November 2001, and SN Brussels Airlines rose from the ashes, later becoming Brussels Airlines.

-- Pete.

Re:1995 - Sabena

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah Sabena - they used to say it stood for "Such A Bloody Experience - Never Again"

Re:1995 - Sabena

[Alioth]

Sabena: Such A Bloody Experience, Never Again

Re:1995 - Sabena

[ballpoint]

Also middle/late 90'. Sabena Oslo Fornebu-Brussels. I was alone in the plane but for the crew (2 pilots, 2 stewardesses). The ladies gave me a bag full of Neuhaus chocolates to take home. Yes, those were the times.

Re:1995 - Sabena

[ColdWetDog]

Funny. Your sig really works with that post ....

Who gives a crap if you want to see my toes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to see your ugly face and disgusting hands either. Doesn't mean I get to be a dick about it.
Wearing shoes when there is no need for them, is like wearing gloves when there's no need for them. You're fucked-up if you do it.
The only cases where you need shoes, is when it is too hot/cold, (>30-35C or <10-15C ground temperature) or there is a hazard, like a risk of injury or infection/poisoning. And in a normal place where humans live, that is rarely ever the case. (Arizona doesn't count as a place where humans should live. Neither does the nasty toxic dump some call their home town. ;))
So how about you getting rid of your delusions instead?

(And: Yeah, if they don't keep their feet well-groomed/clean/nice, they should not be allowed to even leave their house [except to buy stuff to do that].)

Do you want thrill or confort ?

[GuB-42]

If you miss the high class, comfortable way of flying, just go first class. It won't change the fact that flying is now mainstream but at least the on-board service won't be that of a "flying bus".
If you miss the thrill of early flying try to make a trip in a small aircraft like a cessna. Not very comfortable but it is certainly a thrill. No airport security, no luggage check, it's just you and the pilot.

You don't want to see my toes?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No offense, miss, but I don't want to see your hair. Please wear a veil." To be fair, for some people only a burqa will do. But is it my right to subject people to my quirky aversions when I could just look away?

All driven by price, duh

[argStyopa]

When it costs the same as bus fare, the experience is much like, well, a bus.

The fact was that air travel used to be extraordinarily expensive. IIRC a Washington-Cleveland ticket was around $100 in the new, cheap "coach" class...which is like $900 today.

Now I can get that flight for $100 2012 dollars.

I guess my comment to the writer is that if he wants to travel comfortably, then he needs to pay for first class flights which have surprisingly not changed much over time (aside from inflation). Of course, most people think those are stupid expensive.

I'll settle for pre-TSA days

[bradley13]

I'll settle for days not so far in the past. I used to fly out of Dallas Love Field, which is a fairly small airport. Park you car, walk to the check-in counter, walk to the gate, get on the plane. Somewhere in there you walked through a metal detector. Total elapsed time: 30 minutes.

Now, in the US with TSA security theater, you have to allow 90 minutes. An entire extra hour, times 600,000,000 flights per year: TSA costs the equivalent of more than 1000 lifetimes of time each and every year. Add to that the monetary and social costs of paying an army of morons to humiliate everyone, and you can only shake your head in disgust...

I want to go back to simple security measures, run by the airlines, who presumably have some interest in (a) efficiency and (b) customer service.

Re:I'll settle for pre-TSA days

[Anonymous Coward]

Just move to Europe. From one single spot in the airport I can see the check-in counter, the arrivals hall, the security checkpoint, the gate, and the airplane standing outside. If I arrive 30 minutes before departure, I will make it through security and onto the plane in 5 minutes total. If I need to check in my baggage I need to arrive 15 minutes sooner.

Re:I'll settle for pre-TSA days

[Anomalyst]

have some interest in (a) efficiency and (b) customer service.

Name one US airline that even closely approximates this gift of unicorns farting rainbows.

ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

I want safe, quick transportation from point A to point B at a reasonable price. Modern air travel mostly delivers this.

If there's ever a perfect time to use "ROFL", this is it.

Quick? Even if your flight is perfectly on-time (a miracle), you still spend hours slogging through the hellhole they call an "airport"

Safe? Let's talk about those unregulated X-ray machines. And what about the out-of-control pickpocketing that happens at every major airport?

Reasonable price? You've got to be kidding me. Even if you're lucky enough to get the lowest possible price (another miracle), by the time you're out of the hellhole (airport), they've slammed you with 10 other fees.

Again, I'm not one to use "ROFL" often, but in this case, there is no other suitable response.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[ciderbrew]

That bit was the build up to the punchline sort of pointing out how the cutting edge always becomes normal. We just put a nuclear power car on Mars and 100 years ago we could hear air and hope for not death. A chair in the sky is amazing and the phone in your pocket makes Kirk's look like a pile of crap.
Adult should take stock and go WOW! Only children can say all your old stuff is shit.

Oh, The Stewardesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices were high because they were regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), which Jimmy Carter killed (with the help of Congress) in 1978. Airlines competed on the level of service they provided instead of on prices. One form this competition took was in the aesthetic qualities of their stewardesses. Betty Draper on "Mad Men" in its first season was typical of what 1960s era stewardess looked like, basically a Hollywood actress who liked to fly. Each airline was "cast" differently. Most notably, American Airlines seemed to have a C-cup or better requirement for its stews. Other airlines were blondes only. Pilots were also cast based on their looks to instill confidence in the passengers. A pilot who looked like Don Knotts just won't hack it.

Plagiarism is a bit too strong

[ThatsNotPudding]

Not exactly plagiarism, but Patton Oswalt already did a chunk on this a few years ago.

Flying is still a thrill

[gelfling]

If your plane isn't cancelled or you're not bumped or it gets to where it's supposed to less than 5 hrs late, it's amazing.

Just some unwanted advice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, what kind of elitist prick wishes people would "dress up" to go on a goddamn airplane? How about I wear whatever I want and you shut up?

Yes, indeed. Although, I try not to look as neat as I can: shaved, button down shirt, and no flip-flops. Because when you're traveling, you never know who you will sit next to and it helps if you don't look like a slob - especially when you are trying to get a business of the ground.

When yo hit it big, then you can walk around dressed like a slob. As Felix Dennis says: Later on they can walk around in negligees in the office, when they're hugely successful.

Aside from looking slobish, flip-flops are damn uncomfortable! I walk fast and those things are dangerous unless you walk slow like you just got out of bed - which is what folks look like when they wear those things.

Wearing a T-shirt, shorts, and flip-flops will not attract many opportunities unless your face has been on the cover of Forbes, Fortune, Inc. and all over the Web.

But if you don't give a shit; it's none of my business.

Shutting up now.

Re:Just some unwanted advice.

[Anonymous Coward]

I started wearing flip-flops when they started requiring that I take off my shoes at the security checkpoint. The "get your shit together" area beyond the checkpoint just wasn't designed for everyone to screw around with shoelaces. Hell, it was already strained by everyone putting their belts back on and re-packing their laptops and such. Flip-flops and sweatpants let you breeze right through that crap, and I'll continue wearing them at the airport until the security rules change.

Re:Just some unwanted advice.

[Millennium]

This. If you want to see fewer people flying in flip-flops, then lobby to make other forms of footwear practical again. This requires a degree of courage to which our culture has sadly become accustomed, but there comes a time when one has to make tradeoffs like these.

SEe the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

For a glimpse of flying when it was fun check out the John Wayne movie "The High and the Mighty".

Thrills?

[AmiMoJo]

Isn't a TSA groping thrilling enough for this guy?

Someone should start an online database of where the hot TSA employees are. If you are going to get felt up you might as well get your money's worth.

Re:Thrills?

[drinkypoo]

Someone should start an online database of where the hot TSA employees are. If you are going to get felt up you might as well get your money's worth.

That works fine if you're queer, but what's a straight guy to do? I don't think they'll be amused if I insist my rubdown comes from the perky female employee.

Re:Thrills?

[AmiMoJo]

Just say you are gay and don't feel comfortable being touched by a man.

The past sucked - time to admit it

[captainpanic]

Exactly. The only people who flew in the 1930s to the 1960s were the rich. Why are we surprised that they flew in luxury?

The fact the the middle class can fly today only means that the price to fly has dropped dramatically.

Of course, that is obvious... this article just complains that we still don't have flying cars, free energy and everlasting happiness. So far, every article that claims that the past was better has been full of logical fallacies. Usually they compare a romanticised past with a pessimistic view of the present. The past sucked for most people, but some are reluctant to admit it.

I have had lovely flights quite recently. Friendly stewardesses, nice view, decent seat with leg space (not too much, but enough), and a free drink + lunch + coffee. A minimal chech-in time (30 min before departure), only a metal detector as a security and very quick bagage handling. Also, public transportation to and from airports has vastly improved (in Europe, at least).

And all that for 100 euro for a 2 hrs flight (i.e. 1200 km), which I booked online in a matter of 10 minutes.

No way that was better in the 1960s.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[mcwop]

Could not agree more. I fly 50,000 miles a year. I don't mind it, but I am not a fat heifer either. You want a comfy seat go first class, or get extra legroom, then you can pay up for it. Virgin America is awesome and like Jet Blue you have satellite TV, and movies. I watched the NFL playoffs last year on my Virgin flight. I can imagine the 30's on a 10 hour, bumpy-assed flight that needs to refuel, and I would have missed the playoffs. And the security is no big deal, just follow the freaking rules, and you breeze right through. Give the TSA lip, get the cavity search.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[JoeMerchant]

Energy isn't free, but it costs some fraction of 1% compared to the pre-oil days.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[CelticWhisper]

"The freaking rules," however, are in flagrant violation of at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the biggest "freaking rule" in the nation, the Constitution. Some of us take issue with this and so security becomes a big deal.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tapspace]

And all that for 100 euro for a 2 hrs flight (i.e. 1200 km), which I booked online in a matter of 10 minutes.

No way that was better in the 1960s.

See there's the difference right there; you're in Europe. I have flown all over in Europe, Asia and North America. The US is, without a doubt, the least pleasant place to fly (I'm a US citizen), with China taking a very close second. Korean Air is my favorite. In the US, free meals have all but disappeared on domestic flights (which are often longer than intra-EU flights). Flight attendents are NOT nice on US airlines. Free drinks are gone too, and on some airlines that includes non-alcoholic drinks. We're now looking at baggages fees for both carry on AND checked luggage. 30-minute check-ins are gone as well (you will not be allowed through security that close to your flight in some cases). Long check-ins and lines is a large reason why China is another crummy place to fly (as well as terrible airline food).

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the TSA lip, get the cavity search.

USA!

USA!

USA!

Let me guess, you also drive a Hummer with a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker still proudly affixed to the rear bumper.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tapspace]

I might also add that ~100 euro flights are EXTREMELY rare in the US, not impossible to find, but not plentiful like in Europe.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[fustakrakich]

Give the TSA lip, get the cavity search.

Yep, head down, eyes forward. Be a good servant. Ask no questions, and we'll tell no lies.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[mcwop]

No, I do not own a Hummer. In fact, I do not even own a car. Bike, and public transit for me.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[mcwop]

Disagree. You do not have a right to fly or be at an airport. Just like driving, flying is a privilege. IMO this is settled case law. Its an administrative search, and I prefer my planes bomb free. Don't like it, don;t fly.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[captainpanic]

To argue whether it is legal just misses the point: does it make sense?

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[mcwop]

If the searches are not efficient or accurate, then the way they conduct the searches should change. But, there are reasons for scanners, because people are wise to metal detectors, and now building weapons that those cannot detect. Things made of ceramics, plastics etc...

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tapspace]

I know everyone says this, but why is driving a privledge? Do I get tax breaks if I don't drive, even though I am paying for the roads? Do I get real public transit? Maybe in other countries driving is a privledge, but in the USA, it is a necessity, and therefore better viewed as a right with some caveats.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[kiwimate]

free meals have all but disappeared...

free drinks are gone too...

baggage fees

This was regarded as novel when Freddie Laker started it back in the, what, 70s? You paid a bottom-line, no-frills price, and you could pay extra for a meal, or you could bring on your own sandwiches. "We're a transportation company, not a restaurant" was the prevailing opinion. People flocked to it; flying was finally within reach of the common man.

I've been flying since the late 70s, and I used to get nice wines and hot meals (Air New Zealand). I miss those days. But I'm sure my employer likes the much, much, much cheaper fares. If you want the nice wines and hot meals and free bags, you can pay 70s and 80s prices and fly first class. Alternately, you can pay a much, much cheaper fare, accept that flying has now become common-place and accessible (which is a good thing), and accept the trade-offs.

I still love flying. There's another post from someone who talks about gazing out over the scenery from a window seat and what amazements there are. I'm with you. I still get excited just to see the lights stretching off into the distance as we're approaching a city, or the plains and mountains below. I love the sights of the massive highways with cars moving like miniature toys, laid out for me to see like a king in the sky.

Maybe I'm just naive. Or maybe I just have chosen to enjoy everything, to retain a sense of amazement at the magic of a bird's-eye-view. It's so much more fun than being bitter and angry at everything.

P.S. - a lot of people will say flying is very slow, with masses of delays, and dreadful experiences going through security. I fly a lot on business, out of Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the U.S. It's an extraordinarily busy airport. I usually am through security and at my gate in less than 30 minutes. The last time I had a delay was two years ago, when I was stuck in the Las Vegas airport for a couple of hours. I could've whined and railed. Instead, I found a nice restaurant and had a relaxing & delicious meal. I read my book. I got some work done on my laptop. Yes, I was lucky that I didn't absolutely have to be somewhere. Usually, most people don't HAVE to be somewhere. Very few journeys are a matter of life and death. And when they are, if you're travelling more than a few hours, flying is still the best chance for getting there quickly.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[delt0r]

You seriously think the monkeys at TSA can keep a plane bomb free? The reason they are bomb free is that no one brings on bombs. The few that have tried, succeeded. First time.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tapspace]

I don't know what 70s and 80s prices were, but a normal fare across the US is ~$500 vs ~$130 for accross Europe. My girlfriend recently decided against flying to paris when she was in prague. The flights to and from were 30 euros and 64 euros respectively. We found the flights through hipmunk.com, not a special deal site. This is unheard of in the US (unless you find an amazing deal, and you have to take that exact flight and book at least a month in advance).

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[greenreaper]

Public transportation actually isn't all that terrible in many parts of the U.S. either, but people often don't take it anyway.

It took me two hours to get from one side of Indianapolis to the other, but it would have taken 45 minutes in a taxi, and cost over 10x more ($45 vs. $3.50). There was nobody else on the bus when it got to the airport.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[mcwop]

Start here http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[RespekMyAthorati]

Same experience. I recently flew from Vancouver to Rome, and back via Venice. Every flight was comfortable, good food and good service. Munich airport was a nightmare (way too big) but the security was always fast and polite.
Of course, I was careful to choose flights that did not overfly U.S. territory.

The U.S. has gone totally fucking insane since 9/11, just as Bin Laden predicted.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[CohibaVancouver]

I don't know what 70s and 80s prices were, but a normal fare across the US is ~$500

I don't have any 70s figures close at hand, but in 1958 a roundtrip ticket between New York and Los Angeles was $208 - So that's about $1600 today.

I know in general air travel is 'on average' about a third less in cost than it was in the 'golden age.'

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[nmb3000]

Disagree. You do not have a right to fly or be at an airport. Just like driving, flying is a privilege. IMO this is settled case law. Its an administrative search, and I prefer my planes bomb free. Don't like it, don;t fly.

This is completely false , and I'm tired of people parroting it, as if we should be on our knees, grateful that the TSA allows us passage through their holy halls.

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[mcwop]

You do not have a right to do it on someone else's plane, at someone else's airport. And your findlaw statement clearly states the Sec of Transit can regulate it. You have the right to flap your arms and fly, yes. You do not have teh right to demand United airlines take you somewhere on your terms.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tftp]

It took me two hours to get from one side of Indianapolis to the other, but it would have taken 45 minutes in a taxi, and cost over 10x more ($45 vs. $3.50). There was nobody else on the bus when it got to the airport.

And that's why people buy their own cars in the USA. They can make this trip in 45 minutes, like in a taxi, for a couple of dollars, like in a bus.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[Cyberax]

Scanners are LESS safe than metal detectors: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/technology/gadgets/video-engineer-jonathan-corbett-shows-how-beat-tsa-body-scanners

They are designed to protect against an imaginary threat (there are no real-life ceramic guns) while missing very real-life good old metal guns.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[greenreaper]

Bear in mind that I was going to the airport. Parking there will easily cost you almost as much as a taxi for most trips, unless you're being dropped off by someone else (and then there's their time to consider). Usually you take a car there because time and/or greater certainty over timing is a concern, not for cost purposes.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tftp]

Back when I was flying I took my car to the airport and left it at the long term parking lot. $15 per day, paid by the employer, is hardly an expense worth mentioning - but the convenience is very valuable. You may return at random time of the day, and assured availability of a familiar vehicle is nice.

Other people have family members who can drive them to the airport. If that's not the case, take a taxi - it makes sense.

Airports are a special case anyway because this is a one-way trip, and it's a rare destination too (one out of a thousand drivers heads to the airport at any given time, I guess.) What does not make sense is to take a bus across town on a two-way trip. One of my friends wanted to visit a store about 30 miles away, on the other end of the city. He took public transit about 2 hours before the store was supposed to close. He didn't make it! Talk about waste of time. Taxi is OK if you are Bill Gates or the like; but they are enormously expensive for casual use. A car may cost me $2,500 per year in original purchase cost (amortized over 10 years of use and then written off.) But I would pay the same $2,500 to the taxi companies within a couple of weeks, if not sooner. Hell, any working stiff would have to pay $50 twice per day, 5 days a week - that would require only 5 weeks for the personal car to become a better proposition even if he does not go shopping or visiting friends.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[greenreaper]

I think we are both dancing around the core issue: time vs. money. How much is your time worth? If you can take the bus, it may be "worth" it even if it takes twice as long, if your time is not worth $20/hr - especially for trips such as your daily commute which can be planned. For those with no assets even the cost of a car plus insurance may be too much, but a weekly or monthly travel-pass may be an option.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[Anonymous Coward]

You apparently have not flown in America, then. Compared to the past, it's fucking crazy what people will put up with.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tftp]

True, cost is an issue. But also time is an issue. Life is short. You cannot spend three days to walk to the other end of the city to buy flowers for your GF because when you are back the flowers will become straw and the GF will have a new BF. In middle ages most people lived sedentiary lives because going somewhere was a costly and risky affair, and they didn't really have a good reason to go.

Today if you look at who rides buses it's exactly who you said would be - students and poor people. Bus passes are expensive -- very expensive. I used to ride a bus when I worked, back in 1995, but the pass was $100/mo or something like that. Here is what the local bus company says:

VTA's Adult Express Pass, which is equivalent to Eco Pass, costs $1,540 a year per person.

Hey, you can buy a nice junk car for this money and go anywhere you like! Most people in the market for bus trips will need to take a loan to buy such a pass. I'd have to be insane to buy one. I'd rather buy a cheap scooter or an electric bicycle.

Today a single fare on a bus here costs $2 or $4. Since most trips are both ways, you are looking at spending $5 to $10 per day at minimum if you go somewhere on a daily basis. Over the year it will be $1800 to $3600, with nothing to show for it. These monies can buy you a very decent car, and you will keep it - so that the next year you only pay the maintenance (insurance and fuel) and not the capital cost.

For those with no assets even the cost of a car plus insurance may be too much, but a weekly or monthly travel-pass may be an option.

As the numbers above prove, that person should be taking those trips rarely - certainly not every day. Only then he can save money on taking the bus. He still loses time, but people without a job usually have time. People with a job can afford a car.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[demonlapin]

For better or worse, roads are largely financed in the US through fuel and vehicle taxes. So yes, you do pay in proportion to use. (Although a lot of your "use" may be 18-wheelers delivering products to your nearest grocery store...)

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[demonlapin]

That's about a third more than a first-class ticket today. Makes sense.

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I fly a lot on business, out of Philadelphia

Ugggg! I have nothing but bad memories of Philly airport. I specifically avoided it because of the horror stories at work, but my flight through New York (on Continental) got cancelled, and I was rebooked on US Airways through Philly. They decided to tell us an hour after our connecting flight was supposed to land, that it wasn't even going to take off from the origin airport before getting to Philly! Fortunately I was with my manager who once spent two days in Philly, and knew where the ticket counter was, and knew where the hotel shuttle was, so we got rebooked on the first flight the next morning. Which meant I was half a day late for my conference.

Not surprisingly, ever since, every single friend I know that has gone through Philly has had nothing but clusterfucks.

And I made the foolish move of thinking I was saving the company money by prepaying my Continental luggage fee. But I ended up having the pay again for US Air, and then waste company time going after the refund, only to not get the total back due to exchange. Last time I do that!

Re:The past sucked - time to admit it

[tapspace]

From the unnecessary, obvious department.

I know the prevailing legal opinion, but I disagree with it, evenmoreso in modern North America.h

Here's An Idea

[BlueStrat]

How about we use this wonderful network of tubes to set up a method and system for organizing and grouping people who want to fly from point A to point B and combine their travel money to schedule/hire chartered flights?

A project for Kickstarter, maybe? Crowd-sourced?

I'm not sure precisely how it would work, but I see this system where you can use your phone or computer to post proposed charter flights and/or browse existing proposed charter flights by origin/destination/schedule/price looking for one that fits your travel plans that has openings.

Handle the airlines (and the TSA) like how the internet was originally designed to handle damage...route around them.

Strat

Re:Here's An Idea

[foniksonik]

It might work for a year or two then it would flip around and the charter companies would become the airlines.

They'd get bigger jets to accommodate all the new demand. Then to maintain profit margins they'd have to cut down service, etc etc.

Re:Here's An Idea

[BlueStrat]

It might work for a year or two then it would flip around and the charter companies would become the airlines.

They'd get bigger jets to accommodate all the new demand. Then to maintain profit margins they'd have to cut down service, etc etc.

Unlike the situation with a handful of airlines, there would be hundreds of charter services all fiercely competing for the passenger's dollars. If some of the services started down the path you describe, the competing services will eat their lunch, as passengers will bypass signing on to those flights in favor of the competition.

Besides bypassing the TSA, the entire point is to use competition among the various charter services to ensure the highest quality service for the lowest possible price.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to choose a flight that suits you individually, like say "smoking" or "non-smoking" flights, cigar aficionado flights, wine/whiskey/scotch aficionado flights, even topless/nude female exotic dancer flight attendant flights for bachelors.

The single largest unpredictable future problem would be government jumping into the middle and screwing things up with regulation and legislation like government usually does, or even outlawing the practice entirely to protect the airlines/unions and make certain that no US air passengers miss out on being irradiated/groped by a minimum-wage TSA goon.

Strat

Re:Here's An Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure if serious...

Re:Here's An Idea

[BlueStrat]

not sure if serious...

Serious enough to throw the idea out there and see if anyone has any good reasons why it wouldn't work, at least in the short-term.

I can't think of any immediate reasons why it couldn't possibly work, and I have worked as an avionics tech for many years in General Aviation, including working at an FBO that handled avionic maintenance/certification for a couple of charter services as part of their customer base. I'm no expert, but I'm probably a little more knowledgeable than most average people, for what it's worth.

Like I said, I was interested in seeing if anyone could come up with an immediate "show-stopper" reason for the idea to be a non-starter.

The government could mandate that charter flight passengers must pass TSA screening like airline passengers which would pretty well decimate the US air-charter business except possibly for one or two of the largest, or try to forbid people from jointly scheduling a charter flight together, which would be almost as bad, maybe worse.

Strat

Re:Here's An Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier just to buy your own plane. I haven't flown commercially anywhere except Hawaii in over a decade. Route around the airlines, indeed.

Probably asked by the US

[aepervius]

I flew FRA-AMS more than once this year , and also FRA-ZRH, MUC-CDG, LON-FRA, not even counting a holiday trip to FCO and at no point whatsoever I ahd to go thru an x ray scanner. I did not even *see* one.

Re:Probably asked by the US

[stoolpigeon]

Here's a link to the Schiphol page that talks about the types of scanners that they have.

http://www.schiphol.nl/Travellers/AtSchiphol/CheckinControl/SecurityChecksUponDeparture/SecurityScan.htm

I went through one right after passport control (I was leaving EU) and one at the gate.

I did not go through one at Liszt Ferenc here in Budapest and I didn't go through one in Minneapolis - which was my point of entry into the US. I also did not have to go through one in Phoenix, though I know they have them. My return trip was Phoenix, Detroit, Amsterdam, Budapest and I can't remember for sure if I had to go through one in Detroit. I don't think I did. I did in Amsterdam though - on my way back though not at the gate, just at customs.

Re:Probably asked by the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so you went through millimeter-wave scanners, same stuff, different tech.

One would think

[wiredog]

that any company that provided decent legroom at a reasonable price would make a killing.

And one would be wrong. There just aren't enough customers willing to pay a premium for a couple extra inches of legroom.

Peak Oil

[iONiUM]

Well, to all those who miss the days, just wait 5-10 years when oil becomes substantially more expensive and flying is no longer a means of transportation for the "normal" people.

Since we have no alternatives to flight that don't use fuel, and we aren't really investigating anything seriously, it will mean a return to "local is good" mentality, and a lot less air travel.

Re:Peak Oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to all those who miss the days, just wait 5-10 years when oil becomes substantially more expensive and flying is no longer a means of transportation for the "normal" people.

Um, where have you been the past 5 years? Peak Oil is dead. Fracking killed it. The US is now the largest petroleum exporter in the world. There is six times more oil in the North Central US and Canada that there ever was in the Middle East. The only difference now is that we have the technology to extract it at a competitive cost.

Re:Peak Oil

[iONiUM]

Uh, no, the US is not the biggest exporter.

Fracking bought time, nothing more. If you require more evidence, look at oil prices. They are still at a very high level. If fracking had somehow magically increased the provable discoveries, there would have been a massive drop in the price.

Re:Peak Oil

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect oil companies to lower the price at the pump when they find more of the stuff?

How cute!

Re:Peak Oil

[iONiUM]

I said the price of oil (Brent and WTI), not refined gasoline.

You seem to think I don't know what I'm talking about. You are mistaken.

it's dense enough to warrant high speed rail

[wiredog]

Step one: Double everyone's taxes.... Because, you see, rail costs money. Yeah, I wish we had a TGV on the DC-NYC run. But, given that 20 miles of rain from Falls Church VA to Dulles VA is costing $4E9, I don't want to think about the cost of a new rail line from DC to NYC.

Re:it's dense enough to warrant high speed rail

[circletimessquare]

Step one: rational analysis not trumped up low iq hysterical lies

Flying is better now

[DL117]

Flying isn't that special anymore. That's a good thing. It's affordable and accessible. You're not expected to dress up. You can buy a ticket without too much money and cross an ocean in half a day, or the continental US in less than that. Airlines are remarkably safe. No one feels obliged to buy life insurance at an airport anymore.

It's remarkably odd to see an article, on Slashdot of all places, complaining that a piece of technology has become affordable and accessible. No one here is going to say "Open source sucks, now ANYONE can code/draw/etc, it's not SPECIAL anymore".

It's progress.

(oh, and fuck trains and buses. Don't spend money and resources trying to make ground transportation equal aviation. Spend money and resources making aviation less expensive.)

Full disclosure: I was born in the 90s and did not experience the early days of aviation. I'm also pursuing a career in aviation, so I do have an interest in disagreeing here.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[Viol8]

The human brain makes any of our technology look like amateur rubbish so do you spend your day looking in the mirror thinking how amazing you are? Unless you're a complete narcissist I suspect not but compared to it your smartphone and an aircraft are like childs lego bricks. So no , adults shouldn't take stock and go wow all the time - you deal with the world the way it is.

It was a hell of a lot more expensive

[InterGuru]

In 1965, I got a bargain round trip to London from a student association charter on Icelandic Airlines. It was the first time I ever flew . The cost was $600, 18% of my graduate student yearly stipend. In today's dollars that is $4300.

If you want old fashion service, take your dollars and fly first class. It is still less than I paid.

I refuse to fly

[p51d007]

Why? Several reasons, the biggest is the TSA. I am an American citizen, and with that gift comes basic rights. I have the right to NOT be molested, not to be groped, x-ray'd and to be thought of as a criminal just to make some statement. Instead of focusing on 80 year old grandmothers, they should be PROFILING those that want to kill us. But, in our politically correct world, that isn't possible. Two, flying use to be an experience, people would dress up, people would be friendly, kind, but now the seats are so jammed together, it isn't anything more than a bunch of cattle jammed together. Sorry, I don't want to show up at least an hour or more early, strip down, take off my shoes, be groped, fondled etc....just for a 2-3 hour trip. I'll just DRIVE and save the money.

Passengers are just an inconvenience

[Anonymous Coward]

that have to be dealt with in order to transfer money to the airline CEOs

Flip-flops

[lessthan]

I just wanted to sound off about the "horror" of people flying in flip-flops. Everybody should be doing it. It is dumb that security insists that you take your shoes off, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for it.

Flip-flops are the quickest way through security. Get over it. If wearing them bugs you, have a pair of shoes in your carry-on. Nothing drives me more crazy than seeing someone who is unprepared to get through security. Some guy who has a laptop in a case, wearing a big metal watch, with a big belt buckle still strapped to his waist as he tries to walk through the scanner. Security is the biggest bottleneck in the whole flying situation. Why aren't you doing everything you can to breeze through it? There are notices everywhere about what to expect!

Re:Flip-flops

[thelexx]

"Why aren't you doing everything you can to breeze through it?"

Because it's not right that I should have to.

Re:Flip-flops

[Greyfox]

I usually wear ninja tabi boots and security never seems interested in asking me to take them off. They're comfortable and you don't see my toes. The hook-up clasps take a little getting used to though.

I went through security wearing all black, a black leather duster, a black hat and tabi and security hardly glanced at me. My bag was selected at random for a bomb screening though, so while the security lady was waiting for a result, I asked her why no one bothered me, looking as I did. She said something to the effect of I was far too attention-getting to be a potential security problem. Anyone intending foul play would have dressed down.

AMTRAK

[sycodon]

I think that AMTRAK is missing the boat here and there is a big opportunity for other companies to bring back traveling by train big time.

First, there is a constant drone of opinion and advice to slow life down.

Second, as mentioned in the summary, traveling by air is a giant PINA.

I think that if done right, rail travel could be cheaper than air travel and much more pleasant.

Done right =

1. Non-stop routes.
2. Good food at normal restaurant rates.
3. Technology accommodations (Wireless, chargers, etc.)
4. Of course sleeping accommodations.

I've looked at traveling by rail instead of air before but at the moment it is much more expensive to go the same distance and includes and unreasonable number of stops (they have it like a stupid commuter bus). I seem to remember that I could have driven and saved almost two days over AMTRAK.

Now, where can I get a few billion dollars for start up costs (not including the money to buy off politicians)?

Re:AMTRAK

[wulfhere]

Man, I wish I had mod points. This is completely true. I recently looked at taking a train to Florida (family trip, thought the kids would enjoy the train, good for the environment, etc). It would have taken us over 2 days to get from Chicago to Jacksonville, and been more expensive than flying.

Re:AMTRAK

[Qzukk]

Non-stop routes

Not going to happen. Since Amtrak is government underfunded and mismanaged it uses freight rails and has to pull over for any freight traffic, and every congressdick in the country makes sure that it stops in their district so they can tell their constituents that they're bringing home the tax dollars.

Aside from that, rail will probably never be fixable. The environmentalists pushing it live in abject terror of cars, and the people they want to use it live in abject terror of having to walk 10 feet unaided. Despite the fact that the Chunnel seems to operate just fine, the two groups won't meet in the middle with drive-on carriages, because of course that would come from them evil european socialists.

Re:AMTRAK

[Coffee Warlord]

Short answer: Yes, rail travel, with vast investments, could truly do wonders.

Long answer: Vast, VAST investments. It would require much, much faster trains, and new rail tracks...everywhere. The biggest problem with Amtrak is the fact they don't own the rails - they have to yield the right of way to freight, which causes an already Not Too Fast train to be even slower. So, yeah. You'd need more than a few billions, you'd need a complete redesign of the entire county's rail system. Not happening.

Re:AMTRAK

[Migraineman]

AMTRAK's Auto Train is probably their best competitor to air travel. Unfortunately, it only runs between DC and Orlando, FL. Unfortunately, it takes an eternity to load and unload the train. Unfortunately, it costs about as much as airfare - unless you're staying at the far-end for a month, where car rental costs start to be significant. Unfortunately, you can drive the route in about the same time as taking the train.

If you get the sleeper cabin, you're effectively traveling first-class. It's not a bad way to travel, but it certainly isn't significant competition for the airline industry. Further, AMTRAK presents the Auto Train as the most profitable route they have - in FY2006, they reported $49M revenue against $62M operating costs ... sheesh. The FY2011 revenue was up to $68M, so maybe they're in the black now. Maybe.

Re:AMTRAK

[sycodon]

I don't think it would be a good idea to try to compete with airlines in the sense that they would be pressured or put out of business altogether.

  I would expect that there would be a tsunami of political pressure to avoid affecting the airline business.But the volume trains could do now would be a pin prick compared to airline volume.

Re:AMTRAK

[atriusofbricia]

Non-stop routes

Not going to happen. Since Amtrak is government underfunded and mismanaged it uses freight rails and has to pull over for any freight traffic, and every congressdick in the country makes sure that it stops in their district so they can tell their constituents that they're bringing home the tax dollars.

Aside from that, rail will probably never be fixable. The environmentalists pushing it live in abject terror of cars, and the people they want to use it live in abject terror of having to walk 10 feet unaided. Despite the fact that the Chunnel seems to operate just fine, the two groups won't meet in the middle with drive-on carriages, because of course that would come from them evil european socialists.

Actually, being one of those people who despise socialism and everything it stands for I still think drive-on carriages would be absolutely awesome. Drive on in Indiana, ride an Amtrak train down to the Gulf Coast, drive off down there. Awesome.

The real problem is that Amtrak blows for various reasons which have already been covered here. It's slow and expensive outside the commuter lines of the north east.

Re:AMTRAK

[jhecht]

Amtrak is doing fine from Boston to New York and New York to Washington, account for more trips on both those routes than the airlines according to a recent report http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2012/08/20/amtrak-flying/ Amtrak is not just more comfortable than flying. It's also about as fast, if you account for the overhead time in getting to the transportation and waiting for it, especially if you are going downtown to downtown.

Re:AMTRAK

[darkHanzz]

MMm, both the German ICE and the French TGV work just fine, allowing one to quickly travel large distances in comfort. Comparing that to Great-Brittain, it seems that railway systems fare better in 'socialist countries with strong government.

Re:AMTRAK

[Cid Highwind]

Amtrak has one roll-on-roll-off train, appropriately called the Auto Train. It runs from just outside DC to Orlando.

Unfortunately, everywhere else the policy on bringing your own vehicle seems to be "We'll transport the disassembled pieces of your bicycle (as long as they're in an approved cardboard container), but we won't like it."

Re:AMTRAK

[Snotnose]

5. Let me bring my car with me so I don't have to rent a crappy one at exorbitant prices at my destination.

Re:AMTRAK

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T "reply" to a completely unrelated post!! Start a new thread, danggit! A userid in the 100k's? You should definitely know better!

Re:AMTRAK

[ah.clem]

I recently took a 1st class coach out of London - 5 hour day trip, 2 stops. 1st class lounge at the station, on the train I enjoyed linen tablecloths, china plateware, actual silverware, excellent food, excellent wine, excellent service, very comfortable seats, free wi-fi, etc. IIRC, I paid around 80 GBP per ticket on advance (much cheaper to book rail travel in advance). I took a bunch of pics as I knew no one back in the US would believe it. Lucky Brits!

It's sad that this way of travelling will never be available in the US. We get what we will put up with, I guess.

Re:AMTRAK

[Richy_T]

Yes. Anything fares better when it can be funded with apparently unlimited funds coerced from the taxpayer.

Re:AMTRAK

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, you are right. In practice, you might as well post anonymously. No one will see it.

And judging from the mod and responses, the poster did well to post where he did.

Re:AMTRAK

[dgatwood]

Trains are great for short runs. What's missing are the high-speed long-range runs, e.g. San Francisco to Chicago. That route takes a little more than two days. The only way it isn't faster to fly is if you decide to fly to Hong Kong on the way. Twice.

Trains are inefficient because there are too many stops, and the longer the trip, the more obvious that inefficiency becomes. For rail travel to be efficient, you really need are two separate trains for each route: a slow train that picks up passengers along the way and carries them to specific pick-up points along the route, bouncing back and forth between those pick-up points, combined with a high-speed train that runs much more frequently and stops at only a handful of stops, all timed precisely so that a high-speed train arrives just a few minutes after the slow train arrives.

This is important even for short runs, if you want to compete with cars. Average travel time from San Jose to San Francisco ranges from about 45 minutes to an hour, depending on traffic. By train, it takes anywhere from 59 minutes for the bullet train (limited stops), up to an hour and 31 minutes if it isn't—twice the commute time by car. Once you factor in travel time at the other end, even the bullet train isn't all that efficient, and the normal train is horrible. The only reason anybody takes either of them is that the SF Bay Area has a lot of tech folks who can work during their commute (and, to a limited degree, because parking fees in San Francisco are extortionate).

Re:AMTRAK

[srmalloy]

Second, as mentioned in the summary, traveling by air is a giant PINA.

I think that if done right, rail travel could be cheaper than air travel and much more pleasant.

Much more pleasant... right up until TSA makes its VIPR program mandatory for trains and buses nationwide, at which point it loses the cachet of not subjecting you to a cavity search to travel.

Re:AMTRAK

[srmalloy]

Second, as mentioned in the summary, traveling by air is a giant PINA.

I think that if done right, rail travel could be cheaper than air travel and much more pleasant.

Much more pleasant... right up until TSA makes its VIPR program mandatory for trains and buses nationwide, at which point it loses the cachet of not subjecting you to a cavity search to travel.

Re:AMTRAK

[roc97007]

's a good idea. Possible problems include:

TSA establishes the same long security lines and anal exams to get on a train. (While leaving gaping holes like physical access to the train without going through security.)

Wireless will be made available at a premium price.

Food prices and quality will "be designed to be cost-effective while meeting the expectations of travelers"

The number of cars will be precisely calculated for cost-effective reasons, causing crowding and travelers occasionally being bumped off a route.

sleeping accommodations will be priced out of the range of most travelers

...and we could very well be left with the same experience as flying, only it'll take longer.

But it's still worth a try; who knows? With trains competing with planes, maybe we'll arrive at some middle ground. The only alternative currently is driving, which has its own set of problems.

Re:AMTRAK

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in Hawaii seeing movies about trains and stuff but never rode one myself. Now in my 30s I decided I wanted to go on a train ride and hang out in the bar/dining car with whatever sleazy lounge lizard was in there and laugh my ass off. It turns out trains aren't very glamorous at all anymore. I was terribly disappointed.

Re:AMTRAK

[sycodon]

Alright...you can't respond to my saying it could work if they do it right by saying it might not because they won't do it right.

Re:AMTRAK

[sycodon]

Political Conventions are where you want to hang out if you are looking for sleazy types.

Re:AMTRAK

[demonlapin]

Well, it runs from lovely Lorton - which is really almost halfway from DC to Fredericksburg, FWIW - to Sanford, which is slightly farther northeast of downtown Orlando than Walt Disney World is southwest of it. So unless you live in some of the less desirable NoVa suburbs, you're going to burn about an hour driving there, and you'll have an hour (at least) drive at the end of it, and at that point you've saved yourself 13 hours in the car with the kids. It's not cheap, though, and if you've got plenty of money you'd fly and rent a car there. It's one of those things that's really a decent idea in search of a market.

Re:AMTRAK

[demonlapin]

Protip: get a shuttle (not a taxi! those are expensive! and we already know you don't value time all that highly on vacation!) to take you to a normal off-airport car rental.

Re:AMTRAK

[demonlapin]

The problem is that the UK is a very physically small country with a very dense population. Take the longest imaginable drive in the UK - without getting on a ferry, that would be roughly from Porthcurno in Cornwall to Canisbay in Scotland. It's 836 miles, which is about 100 miles shorter than the commute I made several times a year to go to college. Assuming the non-freeway portions aren't just awful, you could easily do it in a day.

Re:AMTRAK

[roc97007]

Alright...you can't respond to my saying it could work if they do it right by saying it might not because they won't do it right.

Wait let me parse that... Yes, I think that's what I was saying. Or, to take it up a level, it's not the mode of transportation per se, it's how the traveler's experience is managed. It could potentially be better, but any airline could potentially be better in most of those factors also. Maybe all of them, if TSA is replaced by reasonably competent private security.

Re:AMTRAK

[mug funky]

when i was in France they didn't complain a lot about taxes.

and they were dressed very well and their cheese and wine were amazing.

Re:AMTRAK

[mug funky]

all that says to me is that the roads must be very good between San Jose and San Fran.

i live 12km from my work, and the car trip ranges from just a bit longer to twice as long as the train trip. and the rail system here is moderately fucked.

doesn't help that Australian drivers are probably some of the worst in the world (certainly of anywhere i've been, except Adelaide where they're daft and aggressive as hell instead of just daft and a bit aggressive).

Re:AMTRAK

[mug funky]

exactly.

also, UK is more kind to the operating temperature ranges of rails. snow will cause delays, sure, but the US has some places that are so hot the tracks will just buckle.

Re:AMTRAK

[Polo]

You are probably not the target market for train travel. It's like asking why the Louvre takes so long to get through. "It takes too long to wait in line to get to the good exhibits in the Louvre, so I'm not going!"

So, train travel costs a little more, and takes a little longer. So what?

I have done it a few times, and it was great experience. The observation cars have tables that seat four people and huge windows. The snack bar is open most of the time. There was a wine and cheese car on one train I took. You have dinner at tables for 4 with linen tablecloths. If you don't have four people at your table, they assign people there, so you end up talking to other travelers. At first this was strange, but later came to be a highlight of the trip.

Even the "normal" things are cool. The seats are very big. You can easily walk around while the train is moving. They have bathrooms with tables and chairs. You can walk to the last car and look out the back window at the tracks receding. You can get off at each station they stop at and stretch your legs. The scenery can be spectacular. It's wonderful even in urban areas because the tracks go through much different areas than the crowded interstates.

And luggage... wow. I think three of us traveled and we were "limited" to 750 lbs of luggage in 15 bags. We could have paid $90 to get up to 24 bags and 1200lbs total. (That just cracks me up)

If you spring for a sleeping car, you can sleep and shower on the train. That would be cool.

I say... Slow down, relax... Spend the extra time and money.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[ciderbrew]

Years of playing games and drinking beer cured me of being a complete narcissist. Now, I just recant how handsome I was to myself. You're right "adults shouldn't take stock and go wow" >>> all the time , They also shouldn't add bits to try to make a point - its really really bad syence!

Stupid typo...

[Millennium]

...err, make that UNaccustomed.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[dave420]

The human brain is incredibly complex, but it's unlike anything we've ever made. There is nothing in our technology even like it, as humans simply prefer reproducibility to performance. The human brain makes a fantastic amount of mistakes every second, and is prone to all sorts of diseases - two aspects of technology humans tend to shy away from.

Rose colored glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

The old piston powered jobs flew through turbulence that today's planes fly over or around for the most part. Long haul non-stop? Most planes didn't have the legs. when they did, try 350 mph cruise speed. And they were cramped and noisy. 707s were not the paragon of luxo space either.
The best one could say for back in the day? No groping at check-in.

Re:Slow-flying news day

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is powered by your submissions.

Not really. This site just aggregates stories "from the wire" like everybody else now. They usually pick the one with the most advertising. I've submitted stories where I post a link to the source of the story, and Slashdot changed it to a wired article on the same subject. Back in those thrilling days when Slashdot was a tech site, most of its audience was actual techies, submitting cool, nerdy articles, which included plenty of politics also, of course, and the editors were more picky. Alas it is no more. Now it's about page hits.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[Anonymous Coward]

The human brain makes any of our technology look like amateur rubbish so do you spend your day looking in the mirror thinking how amazing you are?

I'm Julian Assange and yes, yes I do spend my day looking in the mirror because I am simply amazing and a strikingly handsome man to boot. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go look in the mirror some more because I'm so incredibly fabulous and astoundingly good looking that I can't bear to take my eyes off myself.

Those were indeed the days

[Anonymous Coward]

And I miss them. My first flight was from Cincinnati to Tampa in 1953 aboard a TWA Constellation. I was 13. The following year, I had polio and I went straight from the hospital to the Richmond, Indiana airport for a commercial flight in a DC-3 tail dragger that took me to Indianapolis to catch a Connie to fly to Tampa. I had my first drink in 1960- on an Eastern flight to Chicago after the stew said, "Those laws about being 21 don't count up; here." My first flight to France in 1967 was on Air France and although the company bought me a steerage ticket, I was treated like royalty.

Even the car hauler freighter to take our car from France to England, had extra cushy seats above the freight deck in 1968.

We dressed up in suit and tie, although I still wore my cowboy hat and boots. It was a pleasure to travel. Today, flying commercial is a royal pain in the ass!

people dressed up for flying too

[peter303]

A minimum of business casual. More often a coat a tie than not. Ladies wore dresses and jewelry. These days I adult men board planes in slobby gym clothes.
But then people wore jackets to college classes and dressed up for cultural performances too.

Re:people dressed up for flying too

[Anomalyst]

They took their hats off at the table when they sat down to eat and the hat rarely had a bill or had the bill facing backwards or some at some other doofus angle.

Oh, the irony

[vonhammer]

Those problems coalesced on the night of July 23, 2011, when a high-speed train rear-ended another train that had lost power during a storm and stalled on an overpass outside the southern coastal city of Wenzhou. Six train cars derailed, some of them falling 50 feet off the overpass. Forty people, including two Americans, were killed and 191 were injured. Graphic images of the accident, which outraged the Chinese public, were beamed around the world.

This from your article.

Yes and No

[scharkalvin]

Flying reached it's peak in the late 70's and early 80's with lots of cheap (actually in-expensive) airlines coming on line. After 9-11 the added security, higher fares for everything (mostly thanks to rising fuel prices) have made things worse. If the GOP takes over the white house next year you can expect it to get WORSE as the government cuts back on the FAA and air traffic control to save money. You'll have fewer flights, higher fares and more delays. It will be a boast for Amtrak and Grayhound though.

One of my fondest memories of the '70s was the Eastern Airlines Air shuttle between Boston and NYC (also NYC to D.C.). For $20-$25 you could buy a ticket at the gate. If you got there before boarding started you got on the plane. If the flight got sold out they would either change to a bigger plane or add a second flight. Planes left every hour on the hour (or half hour depending which way it was going). I remember going to Boston for a bit of business. (I needed to register an automoblile I bought in NY in Boston before moving to MA to take my first job. NO WAY I was going to pay the sales tax TWICE!) The usual DC-9 was sold out and we ended up on an L-1011 instead. I was told once they had a very large crowd waiting at the terminal and they rolled up a 747! (They would usually grab a plane they would have needed to dead head anyway). Those were the days!

Re:Yes and No

[steve6534]

The shuttle actually still flies hourly today (although with the same security theater and other hassles) but it now operated by US Airways - http://www.usairways.com/en-US/traveltools/intheair/shuttleinfo.html

It still is a thrill - for kids

[mveloso]

My kids love to fly. If you want to re-experience the thrill of flying, have kids. For them it's a blast.

For everyone else, well, it's called AirBus for a reason.

Re:It still is a thrill - for kids

[PPH]

If you want to re-experience the thrill of flying, have kids.

If thrill is listening to some 6 month old baby shrieking for 4 or 5 hours because its suffering intense ear pain, then fine. Fly with kids.

When I was about 6 years old (in the '60s), our family took a trip to Europe by plane. Years later, my folks told me that the airline asked them (when buying my ticket) if I could handle the flight and would be 'well behaved' (I was. They let me sit in the flight deck for a while). Back then, the airlines had the option of saying 'no kids'.

I yearn for those days.

Sex used to be a thrill too

[JoeyRox]

But now when presented the choice between sex and a sandwich I usually go for the sandwich.

California's PSA - budget luxury

[Animats]

California in the 1970s had Pacific Southwest Airways, which flew only in California and was very informal. They had flights every hour on most routes. No reservations. I'd park next to the San Jose terminal, about 100 feet from the building, and walk up to the gate, where there was a PSA attendant with a cash register. A flight to LA was about $13. The register receipt was the boarding pass, and the waiting area was behind the cash register. After a while, a 727 would pull up, they'd lower the built-in stairs, and everyone would get on. It was all so simple.

PSA was famous for painting a smile on the front of their aircraft, and for their stewardesses. They really did wear red boots and miniskirts, those are real PSA stewardesses, not models, and the women who did that job were fiercely proud of their airline.

Free drinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to let everyone know one way of making flying a bit more "luxurious." On delta at least, though I expect it's all airlines, if you're sitting in an emergency exit row you get free alcohol.

Re:Slow-flying news day

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

If you're going to complain, complain about the four links in the summary, with no indication as to which one is actually TFA.

The 70's Too

[g0bshiTe]

I remember my first flight back in the late 70's I was no older than 10. It was exciting. The airline gave me a deck of cards and a set of pilot wings, as well as let me tour the cockpit and talk to the cockpit flight crew. I mean I felt like I got the royal treatment short of getting to sit in the pilot seat and flip switches it was like they were letting me run rampant. Of course back then even if the flight was 2 or 3 hours if it was 6 or 7 pm you got served a meal, and not some crap from a bag, it was an actual meal.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[dgatwood]

That bit was the build up to the punchline sort of pointing out how the cutting edge always becomes normal.

That's not it. The reason we are no longer impressed by it is not that merely that it has become normal. Even when the shuttle program eventually got scrubbed, you can't tell me that anyone in those record crowds watching the last few takeoffs thought of it as normal. Even the folks who live down there were always impressed.

The reason we are no longer impressed with most technology like airplanes and cell phones is that we have come to depend on it, and it has let us down. When airplanes were relatively rare, you didn't have people depending on them for most of their travel. People drove cars. An airplane was an exotic experience because you didn't have to depend on it to get you somewhere that you had to be. In much the same way, nobody cared about dropped calls in the early days because they weren't using them for the bulk of their communication. It was too expensive.

As soon as any piece of technology becomes a regular part of your life, however, anything that goes wrong becomes a road block for you. Now that people depend on air travel for much of their work and pleasure travel—now that people have grown to depend on being able to readily go long distances for work and vacation—the delays and other problems have more of an impact because they don't build in that extra day to accommodate things going wrong. Similarly, now that many people use cell phones as their primary means of communication, dropped calls are a frequent hassle that bothers people more.

If you want people to be impressed by something that they actually depend on, you have to do the right thing every time. It has to "just work". Every time. As soon as that consistency starts to falter, people quickly lose patience. And for good reason. A flight delay can cause them to miss the next flight, which puts them stranded in an unknown city halfway across the country from home. That didn't happen nearly as much in the early days of flying, back when on-time performance was less important than getting you there. If your flight was late, to the extent possible, they held the next leg. Now, on many airlines, they're forbidden to do so, and as a result, there's a lot more uncertainty about the ability of air travel to get you where you're going, so when things go wrong, people get edgy. In short, people can't count on the airlines to do the right thing every time. Ditto for the cell phone companies who frequently seem to be in a battle to see who can screw the customer hardest while making it as hard as possible to get justice when they do so (with mandatory binding arbitration clauses, for example).

And this, in a nutshell, is why technology ceases to thrill—not because it has become commonplace, but because what was once optional has become essential, and because the companies that provide the technology invariably take advantage of that fact to let them get away with poorer service, poorer quality, poorer longevity, etc.

Fly much?

[erp_consultant]

I take it you haven't flown Business Class on a US based airline recently? It's not that great, certainly not what it used to be. Sure you get a bigger seat and you get to board first and you get a drink. On the airline I normally fly (admittedly out of convenience) there is no meal served in business class unless the flight is 4 hours or more. Basically you have to be flying cross country to get as much as a salad. No more free movies either, at least on domestic flights. We have WiFi now but you have to pay for it - even in business class.

It's the continuing nickel and dimeing of the airline passenger. Some airlines make more money from the fees than they do from the airline ticket. The glamour is gone from airline travel. It started with Southwest promoting low, low fares. Then the other airlines all followed in lockstep. I really believe that there is a market out there for a business class airline. Every seat would be like the seats in business class now - wide, spacious and comfortable. They would serve good meals, not a bag of peanuts. It would mean fewer seats on each plane so they would have to charge more per seat. I, for one, would be more than willing to cough up more money for a comfortable plane flight.

Air travel is by far the worst part of my job. The hotels treat me well, the rental car agencies treat me well..the airlines treat me like cattle.

Just give me a parachute option

[ffflala]

...that's the only thing I want, now. Not more legroom, not a selection of entertainment, not boarding priority. I want to be able to wear a goddamn parachute. Just in case. Or, alternately, have a parachute attached to my seat. Or hell, a whole airplane parachute system that would allow a broken fuselage to gently drop from the sky; they already have these for small planes. http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/How-Things-Work-Whole-Airplane-Parachute.html

I am still wowed by flying, I spend most of my time in flight glued to the window. And most of the rest of the time I spend imagining how many thousands of variables need to operate properly for our flying vehicle not to plummet down 30,000 feet and crash.

We have seatbelts, oxygen masks, floatation devices, but no backup safety device for the obvious risk of traveling at 30k+ feet: plummeting from the sky.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[lightknight]

Me thinks companies did not cook up the TSA.

But on another topic, there's a reason technology has stopped progressing in some areas (or at least, the gains are not as large). The same disease affecting the airline industry is affecting the auto-mobile industry, and possibly spreading to the technology industries themselves. Here's a hint -> when you convince an entire generation of people that despite mankind's ability to pilot aircraft in excess of 600 MPH, and a space shuttle in excess of Mach Ridiculous, that there is such a thing as 'going too fast while still being completely in control of the vehicle,' that it's not do to shoddy manufacturing processes that their vehicle starts shaking when it goes over 50 MPH, you create a barrier. It's simply not profitable to build a car that is safe to drive at 300 MPH, as there isn't anywhere to drive it; there still is a market, I grant you, for driving it on back-roads and racetracks, but again, why invest the money? As Aladdin said to the Ja'far genie, you want the power to set policy for things you can't comprehend, you get all of the trappings associated with it. You want to make things "safe" for everyone? In a few generations, we'll be driving cars that go 20 MPH, with giant rolls of styrofoam attached to every corner of the vehicle, and noisemakers going off continuously. And even then, there will be plans for a 10 MPH vehicle.

Technology, like love, has to be free. Chain it up, treat it like a b*tch, and we all suffer.

     

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[dgatwood]

Me thinks companies did not cook up the TSA.

Airline travel sucked and made people grumpy well before the TSA.... :-) But yeah, they definitely made it worse.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[EricScott]

..and the phone in your pocket makes Kirk's look like a pile of crap.

Um, Kirk's had this special "light" that would make people disappear. Sometimes even heat up rocks in a frozen wasteland. And it could call Enterprise. Just saying.

It is still thrill.

[CondeZer0]

The thrill of the TSA circus!

Still a thrill for me...

[NateTech]

Because I fly my own (co-owned) aircraft.

Haven't dealt with any airlines for other than two flights in the last decade. One was a trip to an aera forecast to have weather beyond the capabilities of my aircraft on a tight schedule. The other was Hawaii.

It's similar to a lot of other things in life. Might get it cheap having someone else do it for you, but while it's great to let professionals drive the bus, sometimes it's more fun and a lot less hassle (read: TSA) to just drive yourself. Stop off at a few small towns along the way maybe even. Pop over to another State for lunch with a flying friend or two.

Not cheap, but neither was air travel in the 1930s.

Go find out. Head to a local airport and take lessons.

Re:Still a thrill for me...

[RockDoctor]

Go find out. Head to a local airport and take lessons.

Taking a pinch of "ha ha, but serious" with that ...

• How much does getting a private pilot's license cost? In terms of hours of classroom, hours on the throttle, and medical checks ; not just lucre?
• How many hours/ year do you need to fly to retain your PPL?
• How many passengers can you fly on your PPL?
• How many "hire plane" companies are there at a typical airport?
• How closely does the plane "type" that you're licensed for have to correlate with the type that's on the tarmac and available for hire tomorrow. (Otherwise we get into the economic insanity of having a transport device that only gets used every few months - which is why I didn't get a car until my wife got her deriving license, because I'd only use it every few months.)
• How many hours a year do you have to log flying to retain your PPL?

It's not that simple.

I had some vague thoughts in the direction of flying for myself, for fun, a few years ago. Then I realised that hours at the control of a glider contributed to your annual log-book hours (a friend was into gliding), though not at 1-for-1. A little more thought reminded me that learning how to parachute would also be a good idea, before trying to learn how to fly. I like to have an escape route planned - it's part of fire survival training.

Re:Still a thrill for me...

[NateTech]

All good questions... while I'm not much impressed with the latest leadership of AOPA, they have a website that may answer some of the questions you pose.

http://www.aopa.org/letsgoflying/

Many of the items are "unanswerable" because while there may be regulatory minimums, say on how much one has to fly to maintain currency to carry passengers, the rules may be completely different if one is by oneself in the aircraft. Aviation is mired in regulation but most of them track back to something that makes sense, like... higher standards if you're flying passengers other than yourself.

It's not cheap, and it's not always convenient... it's more a lifestyle than a replacement for the airlines for everyone. But for the few who enjoy the challenge, it's pretty sweet to just open the hangar door with a key and head off somewhere.

Like a lot of things in life, the resources to do it must be taken from somewhere else, so not too many active pilots are driving new cars, buying the latest gadgets, etc... sure there's always some in any group that are wealthy enough to do that, but most sacrifice significant things to do it. Same thing with race car aficionados, computer geeks who need the latest-and-greatest, campers who buy house-sized motorhomes and the fuel to operate them, etc. Similar fiscal discipline required.

Re:Still a thrill for me...

[RockDoctor]

campers who buy house-sized motorhomes and the fuel to operate them

Oh tempora! Oh mores!

How the language shifts. I can remember back to last week, when "going camping" meant putting your tent into the rucksac with a week or two of food, and walking (or cycling) off into (what passes for) the wilderness of Britain.

the rules may be completely different if one is by oneself in the aircraft.

If you're on your own in the aircraft, then it's vanity flying, not anything practically useful.

I can see the benefits of a pilots license for some degree of mobility - I rely on helicopters for getting to and from many of my work sites. But for regular use ... it's far too much like hard work to be a convenience. "A hobby, which has useful side effects" I can see (I have several myself). But I don't really see it as being any stronger than that.

If nothing else, any significant uptake of private air transport is going to clog the air traffic control system absolutely solid. We already get up to an hour of delay getting to work because of ATC issues (25 helicopters queued for take off at 06:00 when the airport opens, and in competition for the single runway with the red-eye shuttles to the outlying heliports, capital cities, etc.) If we had to add a dozen private pilots going home / arriving for work ... that'll be the airport just chock full. The next nearest airfield is 40-odd miles away, an hour's drive, and was decommissioned in the 1950s, so it's only fit as an emergency touchdown point for helicopters these days. I don't see the place ever being re-built as an airport.

smoking

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't tell you how much I miss sitting between to chain smokers. The ashtrays were right there on the arm rests.

Steerage in flight

[ebvwfbw]

I remember flying in the 1970s. Very cool. One time I flew with a celebrity. Today I fly by my own private plane. No stinkin' security line, no asshole next to you. No crazyness getting off the plane when you're there. When I fly in the car is waiting for me, often driven right up to the plane. Luggage is transfered, I check in and I'm on my way. Sometimes I meet celebrities who are flying in with their own airplane. Once you're up around 12,000' it's magical. The USA looks so nice. Somtimes I realize that I'm looking at probably a dozen counties. It's peaceful up there, usually. I fly when it's nice. There are conditions that I'd much rather be on the ground of course.

Not cheap. My 1950s era Beechcraft Bonanza costs me around $6,000 a year before I even fly it. That's for the hanger, insurance, annual, etc.. Age generally doesn't matter, as long as it's airworthy and kept in good condition. How much have things changed? There's a picture of my plane in an early 1950s Beechcraft Plane-O-Rama. One million dollars worth of aircraft. There must be two dozen or so aircraft from singles to twins to a small airliner. Today 1 million would cover probably 1.25 of a new single engine Beechcraft. That's how much the USD has gone down.

1960 - 70's

[Dabido]

Ah, yes, I often tell the young whipper snappers at work what it was like flying in the 1960's (and early 1970's), when I myself was a young whipper snapper. For instance, we were given FREE playing cards, a chess set and colouring in books and pencils. All had the airlines logo on it etc, so was free marketing for them. One of the guys at work got back from London the other week and was saying how he bought a model plane for $80 on the flight ... a model with the airlines logo etc on it. You can also buy other 'marketing' items, like playing cards etc, but now the 'Free' in 'free marketing items' means the airline gets the 'free' bit, not the passenger.

IT wasn't always fun

[pgdave]

I'm old enough to remember flying in the days before the jets took over entirely. It was a great adventure,, but it wasn't fun. Aeroplanes still have sick bags, but you don' see them used these days. Back in the day, you could more or less guarantee that all the kids on the plane would use theirs, and a fair few adults, too. I can still remember filling up a few of them myself. Elizabeth Taylor wouldn''t have been quite so glamorous if she'd been photographed barfing into hers...

FLYING IS NOT A THRILL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gosgog:
No Flying Airlines is not.... its just another Bus Ride....But FLYING IS A THRILL if you learn to do it yourself and then GO TAKE AEROBATIC LESSONS..... 1/. you'll become a hell of a lot better pilot and 2/. you get to have a lot of fun in the sky....be bird and not only that you'll have a way better chance of making it back to mother earth if you ever have a mechanical problem! Remember 90+ air accidents are caused by "Pilot Error"....and you will most likely not be one of them.

Re:Yes, except the cutting edge always becomes nor

[nobodie]

As an old geezer, I remember, vaguely of course, flying in the fifties and sixties. In fact, my earliest memory is of switching planes in Shannon (Ireland) airport coming back from Germany when I was 5 or 6 years old. I got my first Coca-Cola at the airport and it was amazing. It is my earliest "memory" (quotes because I no longer actually remember the event, I just remember the story).

My mom traveled by air to Japan in the early fifties, with my older brother who was 4 or so. She couldn't remember the exact places it stopped, but it took more than 2 days, just in airports and army bases. Coming back, she was 6 months pregnant (with me) and my brother was 5 years old and ... active. Again it took forever for her and my brother and her (was it 3?) footlockers of stuff, all she had from 2 years in Japan. My dad flew back separately on army transport planes to save money.

Three years later she did it again with 2 boys and footlockers to Europe.

In her later years she traveled extensively, amazed at how easy it had become in the 80s

Ah, the old days! So glamourous.

good very

[Anonymous Coward]

cheap nike nfl jerseys cheap nike nfl jerseys cheap nike nfl jerseys cheap nike nfl jerseys