Idiots on Airplanes and Other Travel Commentary

[downer]

One some planes (maybe it on Easyjet in Europe) you can get out both the front and the back. Of course, that requires going down stairs to the ground and walking to the terminal outside, rather than being protected from the elements.

I recently learned that planes could be more than 50% lighter if they didn't have passenger windows. Will an airline ever offer that option for a lower price?

I've flown a few times in the last year. I can't say that I've had any terrible experiences, though I am miffed when I'm told to be there 3 hours before the flight leaves and I get through to the gates in about 20 mins. However, that is better than waiting in the security lines for a horrendously long time. I generally suspect a plot to make me spend more time at the gate in the hope that I will buy some item of food or drink at twice the regular price. But I bring my own snacks.

[ab_grp]

A friend posted this story recently about an airplane seat innovation (double decker seating!): http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/chaise-longue-double-decker-airplane-seat/index.html  Anyone think this is an appealing solution to seating issues? I wouldn't trust it from a safety perspective, in any case.  At least, I wouldn't want to have to wriggle my way out from a lower seat if something bad were happening.

As for flight annoyances, I had some jackass yelling at me on a jam-packed late-night flight out of DFW that I couldn't put my suitcase in the overhead bin because he had a couple bottles of liquor from the duty-free shop up there.  It isn't okay to take up a huge part of a bin on a packed flight for a couple bottles.  And, I couldn't see his stupid bottles from the aisle because I am not a giant.  I honestly thought he was going to jump out of his seat and hit me.  I wasn't in a particularly good mood myself, having had to run through that airport from my previous flight and having barely made it before doors closed.  And I wasn't going to get home until nearly 3 AM.  And it was hot.  But, somehow a street fight did not break out.  I'm not sure I could say that these days with the seemingly worsening tempers on flights.

[mamselle]

Yeah, it was up to him to protect them/cushion them/whatever.

And then wake up to the fact that he wasn't the only person on the plane, probably.

Hope you did get home OK.

M.

[Harlow2]

I always wait  patiently -- seated -- until the morons in a hurry, causing their own congestion, and hence delay, have finished torturing each other trying to get off the plane first.

The fundamental problem is the absence of property rights. The English solution is to have a queue. But how are places in the queue to be determined?  Have an auction -- buy your place in line! :-)

Or mosh pit.

[Puget]

I hope to have no contributions to this thread on the 4th, when (1)  I have to catch a 6 AM flight from BOS to SLC, while (2) simultaneously my 93 year old grandmother takes a flight from TUC to SLC, where (3) if neither of us is delayed we meet up so I can keep her company, wrangle her carry-ons and fetch her refreshments, before (4) we fly together to SUN, where (5) my uncle who will have arrived from yet another destination a few days before will pick us up for the drive to our mountain cabin, where (6) we will be joined by my parents who will fly from SEA to BOI and drive up from there. Why yes, this did take about a week of family texting and zoom calls to sort out. It's like a bank capper movie, except instead of robing a bank we're attempting a family vacation.

Surprisingly one of the fastest is to have seating be nearly random, perhaps with a weighting of window seats at the beginning. That pattern means that people are getting into their seats along the whole length of the plane. Another is not to assign seats, as Southwest does, and it goes very fast.

I think the Southwest system goes fast precisely because it is "nearly random, perhaps with a weighting of window seats at the beginning" (though isles are also probably weighted at the beginning, which is suboptimal). I remember reading an article where they had done a controlled experimental simulation and the absolute fastest was window, then middle then isle, with a random order within each, but of course that doesn't work in the real world with people traveling together (although you could fix that to a large extent by having parties board together in the earliest category for which they had adjacent seats). No one will do this though because then they couldn't sell early boarding as a perk of rewards program status and "premium economy" seats.

[Juvenal]

Outside of attendance at certain distanced gravesides, I no longer think that I will ever be boarding an airplane again.  With luck, I will die before those others do and the need for air travel (save with my angelic wings) moot.

[downer]

It used to be rather eccentric to never fly, especially if it wasn't due to finances.

More often these days I hear people saying they won't fly either due to the anticipated unpleasantness or possible dangerousness of the trip, or because of the carbon footprint. There's even now moral condemnation of those who fly.

I'm guessing though that it won't be long before the numbers of people flying are back to pre-COVID levels. There are strong incentives to see the world and visit family. Even corporate travel is steadily returning to its old levels.

[apl68]

It used to be rather eccentric to never fly, especially if it wasn't due to finances.

More often these days I hear people saying they won't fly either due to the anticipated unpleasantness or possible dangerousness of the trip, or because of the carbon footprint. There's even now moral condemnation of those who fly.

I'm guessing though that it won't be long before the numbers of people flying are back to pre-COVID levels. There are strong incentives to see the world and visit family. Even corporate travel is steadily returning to its old levels.

For me it's mostly a matter of finances (My flying has always been school or work-related, plus one short-term foreign mission trip), and anticipated unpleasantness.  I've never been afraid to fly.  Flying has always seemed fascinating to me in principle.  Private flying has always been out of the question for me, though--that finance thing again.  Even if I were rich, I can't see well enough to be a pilot.  And I've never known any rich people that I could fly with.  Well, there was that one cousin of Dad's who had the Cessna, but I never got a chance to go up with him.

Getting moralistic about people who fly a lot doesn't seem very fair, but it would be better for the environment, etc. if there was less flying going on.  As with so many popular diversions, those who have the means to do an exceptional amount of discretionary air travel would be doing the environment a favor if they were content to fly less and put the savings to other causes that could use it.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Flying is much safer than driving or really any other method of travel. Carbon footprint is an issue, but would 200 people driving across the country instead of flying be better (maybe so, I'm sure there have been studies on this)?

[downer]

Flying is much safer than driving or really any other method of travel. Carbon footprint is an issue, but would 200 people driving across the country instead of flying be better (maybe so, I'm sure there have been studies on this)?

It's an interesting question. There are a lot of variables -- on the whole, planes seem to be emit more CO2 per person traveling than cars. Not however if a plane is full and a car has just one person in it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

The contrast to be making could be traveling vs not traveling at all. Staying home reduces your footprint.

[dismalist]

Flying is much safer than driving or really any other method of travel. Carbon footprint is an issue, but would 200 people driving across the country instead of flying be better (maybe so, I'm sure there have been studies on this)?

It's an interesting question. There are a lot of variables -- on the whole, planes seem to be emit more CO2 per person traveling than cars. Not however if a plane is full and a car has just one person in it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

The contrast to be making could be traveling vs not traveling at all. Staying home reduces your footprint.

A sufficiently high carbon tax would solve the decision problem of how often to travel, how far to travel, and by what mode [plane, car, bike, on foot] to travel.

[Anselm]

I did just hear a news story about how alcohol sales were suspended for Covid reasons and are now being resumed so we can expect more idiotic behavior on planes.

[dismalist]

I did just hear a news story about how alcohol sales were suspended for Covid reasons and are now being resumed so we can expect more idiotic behavior on planes.

A sufficiently high alcohol tax would solve that problem, too.

Come to think of it, higher excise taxes on many things would go a long way to solve lots of public problems. :-)

There was a quite famous Canadian economist, Harry Johnson, heydey from the '50's to the mid '70's [when he died after multiple strokes], perhaps the world's first trans-atlantic commuter, and an alcoholic. He would get a bottle of whiskey at duty-free and take it on board the plane.  When the stewardess came around with drinks, he would ask for one -- to get the glass! Then he would settle in, and write a paper while sipping his whiskey. The bottle was empty upon arrival. No, his later papers were not as good as his early papers!

[Wahoo Redux]

I did just hear a news story about how alcohol sales were suspended for Covid reasons and are now being resumed so we can expect more idiotic behavior on planes.

A sufficiently high alcohol tax would solve that problem, too.

Come to think of it, higher excise taxes on many things would go a long way to solve lots of public problems. :-)

There was a quite famous Canadian economist, Harry Johnson, heydey from the '50's to the mid '70's [when he died after multiple strokes], perhaps the world's first trans-atlantic commuter, and an alcoholic. He would get a bottle of whiskey at duty-free and take it on board the plane.  When the stewardess came around with drinks, he would ask for one -- to get the glass! Then he would settle in, and write a paper while sipping his whiskey. The bottle was empty upon arrival. No, his later papers were not as good as his early papers!

That actually sounds like a pretty good flight, however.

[Tee_Bee]

I recently learned that planes could be more than 50% lighter if they didn't have passenger windows. Will an airline ever offer that option for a lower price?

Emirates is one airline that floated this idea, suggesting that video screens could be used instead of windows. One of the few remaining joys of flying is looking out the window, so I am not a fan. Per some article I just read, the advantage of a truly windowless plane is that the structure of the fuselage would be less complex without window openings. If you want to know what poorly designed windows (or, to be more fair, windows designed before the stresses of pressurizing and depressurizing cabins were well understood), look into the fate of the de Havilland Comet. I do like planes that have cameras that you can call up on the entertainment screen, and if I were in charge there'd be all kinds of cameras for cool views. Who needs an inflight movie when you can see the cool views the pilots get?

The idea that the airlines, once they implemented such a plane, would lower fares because their costs have declined is fantasy. Airlines will charge what they can. Case in point: Fares are very high this summer, due both to higher fuel costs and insanely pent-up demand. I was thinking of popping up to Alaska this summer, but at $1200 to Anchorage r/t, I'll wait. Last I checked, it's a lot cheaper in October. Downside: It's October. Even then, inflation adjusted airfares now are still no where near what they were when I was a lad growing up in Alaska in the early 1970s.

Flying is sometimes frustrating, and it used to terrify me. Now I quite like it, I find airports fascinating for people watching, and once the plane is in the air and I can look at the window (if it's not cloudy/dark) I find it really relaxing. It's the getting on and off that's stressful. And while the golden age of steaks, smoking, and nonstop booze (and remarkably frequent crashes) are behind us, I will note that a six-hour cross country flight beats the hell out of riding the train cross country (I've done that three times, and it's really fun, but it's slow) or driving cross-country (ditto) or, honestly, crossing in a covered wagon. If our biggest problem is the lack of seat recline and that our favorite brand of gin isn't on offer, we really don't have much of a problem at all.