
Why air travel hasn't gotten any faster since the 1960s - nmorell
https://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2014/03/19/airtravel/
======
chrisBob
Air travel has gotten MUCH slower in the last 20 years. I need to show up at
Logan about 2 hours before takeoff for a 90 minute flight to DC. The
terrorists slowed flights down much more than fuel economy on all but the
longest flights.

~~~
Tloewald
In the 60s and 70s every bag was searched by hand in front of you on
international flights. We're actually no _worse_ off than those days.

In the late 90s you could roll up to the airport 15 minutes before an
international flight, walk to the plane hardly breaking stride for customs,
fly to your destination, and walk out to the taxies -- again hardly breaking
stride for customs.

Then there was 9/11.

~~~
nknighthb
You don't go through customs at all for an outbound flight. If you're a non-
citizen/permanent resident, you just get an immigration officer to stamp your
passport.

If you're leaving the US, things probably aren't much more involved at the
destination. It's when you come back that you have to deal with pissy
immigration and customs officers.

~~~
rpledge
If you're flying from a Canadian airport to the US (from Ottawa or Toronto at
least) you actually clear US customs while still in Canada. This is actually
very convenient as before they started this clearing customs in the US would
involve a long line if many fights were arriving at the same time.

~~~
Hannan
>> (from Ottawa or Toronto at least)

FWIW, Calgary is this way as well.

------
k-mcgrady
I don't really care about going any faster. 8 hours to get from Europe to
North America is fine with me. The problem I find flying is comfort. Since the
60's it's got a lot worse. It seems every year they cram the seats closer
together and make the entire experience worse. As a tall - but not that tall -
person (6ft1") flying can literally be painful if I don't get an isle seat.
Obviously the issue is people want to fly cheaply. A good solution might be to
introduce a new 'mid-tier' class between economy and business. I would happily
pay an extra 10-20% for an extra bit of space.

~~~
bane
I fly to Europe and Asia at least once a year, and somewhere within North
America at least once a year. I've flown both coach and business class on all
of these.

Consistently, the US<->Asia flights are incomparably better. If I could pay a
little more and get a Korean Air flight to Paris, I'd do it. Coach on various
Asian airlines is about as good as some European and North American airline's
business class. Seat comfort, level of service, aircraft cleanliness, etc.

I'll add that my back is ready to go out on even a D.C. to Denver leg on
United, and I've almost never flown domestically and not gotten some kind of
upper respiratory infection as a final parting gift. Air France, Lufthansa,
KLM, British Air, United International to Europe is a similar experience, just
longer and more horrible.

U.S. East Coast to Seoul nonstop is one of the longest routes in current
commercial service, and I've hopped off the plane refreshed and ready to go do
things every time. The standard kit in coach even includes an eyemask to help
you sleep and the flight attendants bring around hot towels every so often so
you can wipe down your hands and face. Bathrooms are well stocked with
toothbrushes and toothpaste and getting water or snacks outside of regular
meal time has never been a problem. On some flights they'll even give you cans
of spray water to spritz on your face to cool off and refresh yourself. Food
is consistently "decent". And paradoxically, seats are wider, better cushioned
and more comfortable than the business class seats I've flown on to Europe on
flights half as long.

I wish there was some way to bring this level of service to Western airlines,
but to be honest, I count a domestic flight on United a success if all the
lavatories are in service and don't overflow into the aisle.

~~~
jmspring
Surprisingly, my last SFO -> Europe flight, the United plane was more
comfortable than the Lufthansa return (Economy Plus, vs. plain Economy for LH
-- but LH seats are very austere/lack padding it seems).

------
blackaspen
This article states the obvious.

I'm a little upset that there is no mention about fuel economy per passenger
mile as that's where the numbers get interesting.

Concorde got 14 passenger miles per gallon, a 747 gets 91
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)).
That's why planes are slower. I'd imagine that a 787 is north of 100(probably
120ish) passenger miles per gallon, but it too is slower than a 747.

Now, with current technology, we could build a plane that is as economical as
a 747 and much faster -- this would be the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, but cost
_still_ wins.

As far as the whole 2-hours-before-the-airport nonsense, I don't buy that
that's an issue. I haven't shown up at an airport more than an hour before my
flight time in a long time (and have yet to miss a flight). I walk right onto
the plane.

The bigger problem with travel speed is the last mile. It may take me two
hours to go from Denver to San Francisco, which is 967 miles, but it takes me
an hour to get from SFO to Palo Alto on public transit at the least -- in the
same time I could already be in LA.

~~~
lostlogin
Have you tried entering or leaving the US when only showing up an hour before?
I'd like someone else to try that and let me know how it goes. With
international travel, it isn't the last mile that's the problem IMHO. It is
security checks and customs and it is awful.

~~~
saryant
The US doesn't have exit immigration or customs, departing the country is the
same procedure (airport-wise) as taking a domestic flight. Same security and
often the same terminal.

I rarely show up an hour before a flight (including international) and I've
yet to have an issue. Even United says that an hour is sufficient for
international flights, even less if you aren't checking bags and can print
your boarding pass at home:

[http://www.united.com/web/en-
US/content/travel/airport/proce...](http://www.united.com/web/en-
US/content/travel/airport/process/default.aspx)

~~~
dodyg
Then how do you check whether somebody has overstayed their visa?

~~~
saryant
The information is forwarded to DHS but there is no formal exit process in the
US.

------
JoeAltmaier
All to do with cost. Fuel indirectly - going faster for shorter hops requires
flying lower, with geometrically increasing air resistance and thus fuel
expenditure. Going higher takes time on takeoff and landing, and requires
pressurized cabin, oxygen etc. Making the plane heavier and costing fuel
again.

So we're at a carefully calculated sweet spot. Until physics changes, we'll
stay here.

------
onuryavuz
So if the main issue is fuel economy, then we can assume that the future of
air travel is an electric aircraft. I think weight is a major issue in
electric aircraft design, how many batteries does it take to get an airplane
off the ground ?

~~~
bluedevil2k
Electric cars and batteries are by no means my area of expertise, but I'd have
to believe that the size and weight of the batteries needed for an electric
plane would be totally unfeasible for efficient flight. Just for a comparison,
a Tesla Model S weighs 4600 pounds, while a BMW 5 series weighs 3900 pounds,
so the Tesla is about 20% heavier.

Plus, Jet A (kerosene) is relatively cheap compared to the cost of electricity
and batteries.

Finally...imagine the range anxiety of a battery powered 777.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Some ideas I've seen involve microwave power beamed down from space and/or up
from ground stations. No batteries.

~~~
higherpurpose
That sounds like a lot of birds would be wiped out, if it's adopted at scale.

------
zacinbusiness
My wife and I frequently travel to London (we go each summer, and in fact are
in the process of planning this year's adventure today because we've bought
tickets to the Monty Python show at the 02!).

The first time I got on an international flight I was actually surprised that
it wasn't more uncomfortable. There was some space for my elbows and I could
comfortably use my iPad. That was for the first 4 hours. After that I was
extremely uncomfortable and unable to sleep and I felt like I had been kicked
in the face by the time we finally landed at LHR.

I'm a pragmatist, however, and so I don't complain too much about the cost
(1300 or so each for a round trip isn't really all that bad). And I also
understand that more comfortable seats take more space and use more material,
which increases weight and thus cost. And at the same time, spending less time
in the air means going faster, increasing speed and also cost.

Thus, it seems to me that the advancements need to come in the areas of
materials (lighter, stronger build materials for the amenities) and in
aerodynamics (which I'm sure are limited by safety requirements and the
problem of getting that many people across the pond at one time).

------
PeterisP
It's important to note what are the long-awaited features in recently released
aircraft models and the models currently in development - pretty much the only
thing the're advertising is various factors that decrease fuel consumption -
lighter weight by advanced materials, more efficient engines, etc.

------
alphaBetaGamma
I can't seem to be access the article, and so don't know if it focuses on
waiting at the airport or the air speed of planes. Regarding the latter, for
physics minded people, I recommend David McKay chapter on air travel[1] in his
book "Without the hot air" \-- actually I recommend reading the whole book,
it's free.

You need to spend energy to counterbalance the drag on the airplane (which
grows as speed^3) and to providing lift (which grows as 1/speed), so there is
an optimal speed (if you are optimizing fuel efficiency). So you don't expect
to see major increases in speed unless you are ready to burn much more fuel.

[1]
[http://www.withouthotair.com/cC/page_269.shtml](http://www.withouthotair.com/cC/page_269.shtml)

~~~
chrisBob
The article is about air speed and explaining it with fuel efficiency. I don't
think a 10% bump in cruising speed matters all that much in the total door to
door time though.

