|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Flying is overrated (AKA: Northwest Airlines YOU SUCK!)
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-09-2012 08:00 PM
One of the fun parts about online airline reservations is the completely insane routing that sometimes results. Here is one that a friend of mine found:
Boston (BOS) to Portland, ME. (PWM). This is approximately a 2 1/2 hour drive or train ride, if that. Sane people would not fly between these two cities. But if you have nearly twelve hours and $1158 (one way), you can:
Sat. Apr. 14 Boston, MA to Portland, ME
Boston (Logan Intl.) to Minneapolis (Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl.)
Delta 829
Economy / Coach Class (B), BOEING 737-800 (WINGLETS) PASSENGER
Depart 11:30am Arrive 1:44pm
Duration: 3h 14m
Layover: Minneapolis (Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl.) 1h 16m
Minneapolis (Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl.) to Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl.)
Delta 8770
Economy / Coach Class (K), MDC MD90
Depart 3:00pm Arrive 6:32pm
Duration: 2h 32m
Layover: Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl.) 2h 3m
Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl.) to Portland (PWM)
Delta 704
Economy / Coach Class (K), BOEING (DOUGLAS) MD-88
Depart 8:35pm Arrive 11:15pm
Duration: 2h 40m
Total trip time: 11h 45m | 3,058 miles
Edit: my personal pet peeve at the moment is the gradual shift towards smaller aircraft. As recently as the late 1990s, a typical cross-country flight would typically be on a DC-10, L-1011, 767, or some similarly large aircraft. I even remember taking a TWA 747 from LAX to JFK in the early 1990s. Now, such flights are often on 737s or A320s (usually with one or more stops). Ugh. What's next? Cross-country travel on turboprops in two-hour segments?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-09-2012 09:07 PM
I guess I don't understand the economics here (other than that airlines in general are lucky to break even).
Let's say that the average 737 has 130 seats and costs $X per hour to fly. Let's further say that the average 767 has 260 seats. Shouldn't the larger aircraft cost less than $2X per hour to fly? After all, the 767 still only requires two pliots (vs. four for two 737s), one landing fee (vs. two), one airport gate (vs. two), and (I would hope) has some fuel efficiency improvements as well.
Logic would dictate, then, that flying one 767 with twice as many passengers should be cheaper than flying two 737s with the same number of passengers. So why isn't this done more often?
Similarly, if the average 747 has 390 seats, there should be even more of an advantage on the per-seat cost. I can't believe that it really would cost $3X the per-hour cost of a 737 (does it?). And it has the side benefit that many passengers feel safer and more comfortable on a large four-engine jet, vs. a twin (despite all of the technical reasons why a twin-engine aircraft is actually safer).
Obviously, I'm missing something here. Is it that having twice as many smaller planes allows for more flexibility when demand for a particular flight increases or decreases in different seasons or for other reasons?
[ 04-10-2012, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-10-2012 06:56 AM
So, on August 17 (arbitrary date), I have my choice of 13 different nonstop flights from BOS to LAX. All are on either 737s, A320s, or 757s. Am I really all that much better off in this situation than I would be if I had a choice of seven flights, all on larger, more comfortable aircraft, and with somewhat lower prices?
A related issue is cruse speed; in the 1980s, this would have been a 5 1/2 hour flight on an L-1011. Now, it is a 6 1/2 hour flight. I am sure that some of this has to do with increased air traffic and such, but larger aircraft do tend to cruise at a faster speed than slower aircraft.
Same for movies; is there really any benefit to having enough prints to have start times spaced out fewer than 30 minutes apart? Hell, people will wait that long to get into a restaurant. I would expect that people who do not plan ahead for when to arrive at the theatre would be willing to wait 30-45 minutes for their movie to start. They could even go in early and "enjoy" the commercials^W pre-show entertainment in the theatre.
Are people really this pathetic and lazy? (Maybe I should not try to answer that one.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-12-2012 02:09 PM
quote: Scott Norwood
One of the fun parts about online airline reservations is the completely insane routing that sometimes results.
My guess is that there is some sanity from the airline's perspective, but not from the customer's; the idea being to fill seats that would otherwise fly empty.
I make between 3 and 5 round trips from MME (Teesside, north-east England) to ONT (Ontario, California) each year. Typically, the routings that involve four flights in each direction are a lot cheaper than those that involve only three (the theoretical minimum, given what flights actually exist). Occasionally, Orbitz or Expedia offers me one that involves five, and that's even cheaper still! Basically, the more miles you fly, the less you pay.
On my New Year trip, ended up with the most insane to date: Teesside-Amsterdam-Minneapolis-Memphis-Seattle-Ontario. I left Teesside at 6am local time, and arrived in SoCal at 10.50pm local time, after 24 hours and 50 minutes being processed as human cargo through KLM's and Delta's route network!
That was £440, and there was nothing quicker on offer for less than £650. I suspect the reason why was that the Minneapolis to Memphis flight was virtually empty - 30 people in an A320. So my guess is that Delta's computer was probably trying to take people off more popular flights and on to that one. Add to that the fact that the more flights in your routing, the more miles and level flights you accumulate in your frequent flyer account, and it all adds up to an incentive to be in the air longer than you need to. I'd also speculate that senior business executive types whose time is worth more than their money are willing to pay top $$ for short and direct flights, hence the airlines need to incentivise people to use the longer and more convoluted routes.
As for aircraft types, personally I don't think there's much in it comfort and speed wise. My only rule of thumb is to avoid regional jets where possible, because the legroom isn't as generous and you may end up having to check your carry-on (not something I'm keen to do with a laptop in it). The legroom is also slightly more generous in Delta's A330s than 767s (plus the A330s have seat-back screens and most of the 767s don't), and so with all other things being equal I'd try to get on an A330 flight from Amsterdam across the pond.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic