
Air travel is going to be very bad, for a very long time - smacktoward
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/james-fallows-flying-will-never-be-same/611413/
======
keiferski
No matter what the topic, there seems to be no market for writing articles
about minor changes or slight adjustments. The world is always ending, there
is always an impossible deadline, and the worst possible projection is
absolutely the most likely one. This state of affairs is a consequence of the
usual culprit: advertising. Society/the media needs to develop a new business
model, and fast.

In reality, airlines will probably have a tough year or two, airports will
adopt some new health measures, and things will mostly continue as they were
before.

~~~
ABeeSea
I think this is overly optimistic. I used to fly regularly and I have no
intention of getting on a plane anytime in the next couple years. Maybe we
will take a road trip in a year or two, but the idea of getting in a plane is
completely out of the question for the foreseeable future.

~~~
thedrbrian
I think this is overly pessimistic. I used to fly regularly and I have every
intention of getting on a plane soon. I’m booking extra trips so make up for
the travel I’ve not been able to do for the last few months and to make up for
missing things in the past.

~~~
michaelt
This is completely dependent on how the public health situation develops over
the coming months and years.

If the outcome is there needs to be six-foot distancing aboard planes, that's
not going to mean a 150-seat plane takes 100 passengers, it's going to mean a
150 seat plane takes 20 passengers. That would mean everyone paying first-
class fares.

And if some countries have different infection rates, different rates of
testing and tracing, and some less trustworthy reporting of those numbers? If
every international flight is subject to a mandatory 2 week quarantine in a
hotel, say goodbye to 98% of international business travel and vacations.

On the other hand, if there's 'herd immunity' or a vaccine, things could be
largely back to normal. I certainly know a lot of people who've been saving up
money and vacation days during the lockdown.

------
NikolaNovak
I understand this is asked every time, but honestly in the 2 months of Covid19
and 20 years of post-9/11, I still haven't seen an answer that makes sense:

Why are we obsessing over airplane security so much, but completely ignoring
ground transportation?

Never mind Metro/Subway/Underground, which we can claim not every city has
(I'd still imagine total number of subway passengers daily outweighs airplane
passengers or is at least comparable) - what about buses? Trains? Street cars
and trams?

Any airplane I've ever flown had better filtering and circulation, more
spacing and better hygiene, than any bus I've ever ridden in. Every airport
terminal was more spacious than every indoors bus or train terminal. Across
countries and continents this ratio has held true.

So why this _obsession_ with airplanes as the vulnerable part of the equation?
Is it all just... human inability to calculate risks and our focus on the
"flashy"?

I've done 50-75 flights a year over last 10 years; none last 2 months
obviously, and I don't foresee any soon; but I'm DEFINITELY not going to take
our friendly neighbourhood Toronto subway if I can help it, as much as it's
the key to fighting traffic and pollution.

This should be throwing our entire transportation industry into disarray and
restart fundamental discussions about urban planning and urban landscaping of
the future... and yet I only ever see the airline industry mentioned.

~~~
michaelt
Probably because airlines go bankrupt constantly, and are begging the
government for cash handouts right now?

Whereas busses and metro systems and roads are often city-owned, and them
being given taxpayer cash is just business as usual.

~~~
chasd00
Also, all the outbreak games, animations, and simulations show planes flying
everywhere spreading disease and not packed subways and buses.

finally, like you said, the airline industry is always living on the edge and
in the news.

------
Kifot
What I can't wrap my head around: how is being packed with 100s of people
inside of a plane a few times a year seen as more dangerous than being even
more packed with even more people in the metro every day during commute? I
feel like the risk of getting infected in public transport is undermined
comparing to planes/hotels/restaurants.

~~~
MattGaiser
Is anyone packing into metros anymore? I doubt this pandemic will be good for
public transit.

~~~
umanwizard
They will be once things open back up.

In non-car-centric cities there simply isn’t any other realistic way to get to
work.

~~~
dredmorbius
Bicycles, for many.

------
MattGaiser
People are treating the pandemic as over where I am. They are having friends
over, booking cruises, ignoring distancing in grocery stores, etc. Plenty of
social media chatter about bargain air tickets for August. Carnival is
reporting a 200% surge in bookings over August 2019.

[https://www.fastcompany.com/90503385/what-pandemic-
carnival-...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90503385/what-pandemic-carnival-
cruise-bookings-soar-600-for-august-trips)

You ask them about it and they say that the pandemic is an old person's
problem. "if I get corona" guy has lots of friends it seems.

~~~
foobarian
Hopefully it won't mutate and this is just overblown:
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/new-york-
mys...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/new-york-mystery-
coronavirus-illness-three-children-die)

~~~
yardie
Mutation is held in check with immunization and herd immunity. We have a bunch
of politicians who couldn't pass a highschool biology course acting as
contagious diseeases experts.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
Contrarian opinion. Air travel may actually get better for the first time in
decades.

Ever since 9/11, there was a steady decline in comfort of regular passengers.
Now airlines actually have to court those few remaining passengers. I fully
expect to see of the room to come back ( even if it is with a fee ).

~~~
binarymax
I agree with this - fares should increase by 3x at a minimum, more room given
to passengers, and way way way more focus on customer service.

While what’s going on is terrible, personally I’m much happier that I don’t
need to get on a flight every couple weeks. We’re finally realizing that being
in the same room for certain meetings offers little value when compared to the
cost of personal and environmental health incurred by a flight.

Remember 3 months ago when everyone was worried about global warming? We
really need to take this as a forced opportunity to actually do something
about it. We should not return to “normal” because normal was disastrous for
the environment.

~~~
bbv-if
What you say sounds more like "to hell with those beggars who can barely
afford current fees. Air travel should become a luxury as it used to be in the
past". Go buy a ticket in business class if you want a better service and leg
room. It also goes with that warm "I'm better than the tramps several rows
behind" feeling.

~~~
metalliqaz
Flying on planes isn't a right.

If planes are going to be empty anyway, and the ticket prices have to go up
anyway, the airlines may as well differentiate themselves with better customer
service.

Sheesh. I'm a lefty too but not everything has to be class warfare.

~~~
bbv-if
Food isn't a right. Let's produce only organic super healthy food for 3x the
price and save the planet from the global warming, pollution and everything.
Everyone would win, right?

~~~
metalliqaz
No, that's stupid and does not follow from the above discussion.

------
exabrial
I really wish as consumers we could just pay the actual cost for air travel,
rather than it being hid in smoke through all sorts of subsidies.

~~~
sesuximo
To "pay the actual cost" you'd need to get rid of subsidies and the financial
instruments/overhead that airlines have.

without these things airlines would go out of business even more often than
they already do

------
smileysteve
The article mentions Zoom, but a major change is going to be in on-site sales,
contracting, and representation.

Much like commercial office space, companies have just paid all of the fixed
costs for remote work, their employees have adapted their home offices.

Before, you were paying a global consulting firm to fly to your office to have
an occasional meeting with your employees up to 3 days a week; now you get 5
days a week, no flight or hotel expenses, and 60+% of your employees are
happier and more productive.

------
bencoder
I feel like there's a huge amount of delayed demand. A lot of people I know
are pretty desperate to travel as soon as it's safe to do so (without
quarantine after each leg).

I don't think demand will take such a huge hit. It just depends on whether the
airline industry can ramp up supply again quickly or if it will take a long
time.

But I could just be in a bubble of people who still have jobs and I suppose
that might all change as the true economic effects settle in

------
drewg123
I honestly think there are 2 ways this can go. Either very badly, or very
nicely.

If the airlines insist on running full planes, then things are going to suck,
and its going to take a long time for them to recover. Nobody is going to want
to be smashed up against a stranger for seconds, much less hours on end. And
if people fear this, no amount of procedures are going to change there minds.

If the airlines decide to continue blocking off the middle seat and _raise
prices to compensate_ , then this could wind up making flying much more
pleasant.

------
frankbreetz
Seems like an obvious time to invest in long distance passenger train
infrastructure. Speaking for my self personally I would rather take a longer
more comfortable train ride, then a plane ride anyway. Construction of train
system would help the economy, emissions go down, less cars on the road.
Everyone wins. This is another area the US is behind the rest of the world on.

~~~
sokoloff
A mile and a half of road/rail takes you a mile and a half. A mile and a half
of runway takes you anywhere, including over oceans.

I don’t see rail as a particularly viable replacement for air in the US.
Intercity Europe for 200-300 miles? Sure; it’s great. 2000 miles across the
US? No thanks.

~~~
mytherin
The majority of flights in the US are relatively short distance. The top ten
most popular flights in the US are [1]:

1\. LA to NYC (2800 miles)

2\. SF to LA ( __350 miles __)

3\. NYC to Chicago ( __800 miles __)

4\. LA to Chicago (2000 miles)

5\. Atlanta to Orlando ( __440 miles __)

6\. LA to Las Vegas ( __270 miles __)

7\. LA to Seattle (1100 miles)

8\. Denver to LA (1000 miles)

9\. Atlanta to NYC ( __850 miles __)

10\. Atlanta to Fort Lauderdale ( __640 miles __)

Many of those flights would benefit from a high speed rail connection. Modern
high speed trains can travel at around half the speed of passenger planes, and
save around 2~ hours traveling to/from the airport, checking in, security
checks and boarding. That means the __break even point __in terms of time is
around 800~1000 miles. Anything below that and a modern high speed trains are
faster than airplanes.

That means that high speed trains are a competitive (and for many, faster)
alternative to __8 of the 10 most popular flight routes in the US __. On those
lines alone, they can replace ~200K flights __per year __in the US. They are
also generally much more comfortable, because space and weight is much cheaper
on trains than it is on airplanes.

Another very important consideration here is that we know how to make
sustainable train travel; we have no idea how to make sustainable passenger
air travel.

[1] [https://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/44259160/these-are-
the-...](https://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/44259160/these-are-
the-10-busiest-air-routes-in-the-u-s/)

~~~
sokoloff
Keep in mind that, because of the hub and spoke route system, that the most
popular _flights_ don't match the most common _tickets_. 6 of the top 10
routes touch LAX and 3 are from ATL. I haven't been outside the airport to Los
Angeles in over 35 years, but I've been through LAX probably a dozen times
since then.

I wouldn't be surprised if more pax buy tickets from NYC to the Miami area
(FLL above) than originate in the Atlanta area and fly to Miami area. If
that's true, they're not likely to be happy with high-speed rail replacing
their NYC3-ATL-FLL travel.

I agree with you on the sustainability point, but it's not at all clear to me
that rail is _the_ answer.

~~~
mytherin
That's a good point, but airplane transfers are pretty bad in terms of time
efficiency. Every transfer adds at least another 1.5~2 hours to your journey,
and is very uncomfortable because you need to get out and switch airplanes.

For your example, NYC to Miami, the distance is only around 1200 miles in
total. Once you add in the extra time taken to travel by airplane _and_ extra
hours to make the transfer, the total time taken for the trip easily reaches 7
hours. And those are not a very comfortable 7 hours, with many stops, a lot of
waiting in lines, etc.

A high speed train could make that same trip in 6 hours, and it would be 6
hours you can spend working in relative comfort. I know which option I would
_heavily_ prefer.

~~~
sokoloff
How long until you realistically believe we could have actual track in place
allowing a 6-hour city-center to city-center NYC to Miami journey?

I think the answer is "not in the next 50 years".

~~~
mytherin
This attitude is very common in the US, and it surprises me. The US has done
magnificent things. When did the US become a country that couldn't, rather
than a country that could?

Building a rail network of that size is also not unprecedented. China is the
same size as the US, and is a country with much fewer financial resources.
They started construction on their high-speed rail network in 2006, and now
that network covers almost half their country.

Another interesting thing I found, apparently they are now prototyping trains
that run at 400 mph [1], which is 75% of the speed of a passenger airplane. I
wager we will see trains that are as fast as airplanes long before we see
functional sustainable airplanes.

[1] [https://asiatimes.com/2019/05/chinas-600km-h-train-set-
for-2...](https://asiatimes.com/2019/05/chinas-600km-h-train-set-
for-2020-test-run/)

~~~
sokoloff
Well, for the NYC to DC corridor, that passes through some of the most built-
up areas of the country and someone already owns all of that land. Some of the
best land for placing a rail network there already is owned by freight lines
and has rail installed.

It's not that hard nor expensive to put 400 miles of new rail across Nebraska.
It's quite a bit harder and much, much more expensive to buy all the land
needed to put 400 miles of new rail between DC and NYC.

------
pluc
You mean it was good at some point?

~~~
ghaff
Honestly, pre the current situation, it wasn't bad if you spent the money.
Enrolled in whatever priority security and immigration is available, airline
clubs, business/first class seating. It's (mostly) unpleasant if you're trying
to save money.

And, yes, if you go back a few decades, planes were generally less crowded,
there was less security, etc. Though, in some respects, travel is actually
more comfortable today if you spend the money.

------
moron4hire
If the post-9/11 hysteria is any indication, it will _never_ get better.

~~~
analognoise
That's what I don't get. 9/11 caused us to embark on a 20 year war effort.

This is like a 9/11 every other day, but it's over and we should all get back
to work to keep the economy going - what?

~~~
WJW
Who would you declare on? Nature for evolving new viruses every few years?

Some people really want to blame China, but it's not as easy to invade a
global superpower with a permanent seat on the UN security council, nuclear
weapons and super intricate ties to the world's economy as it is to invade a
few underdeveloped countries in the middle east with barely any air force.

~~~
nl
I don't think that comment is a call for war or anything like that.

They are expressing amazement at those saying "it's all fine - lets go back to
normal". The "9/11 everyday" is referring to the daily death toll (it's
slightly lower now, but the point is well made).

~~~
analognoise
Yeah I definitely wasn't calling for war or anything of the sort.

------
tonyedgecombe
I stopped flying about 18 years ago, mostly because I was taking too much
business travel but also due to the environmental impacts and general
unpleasantness of it all. I've never regretted that decision.

------
znpy
Yeah shit's fucked up and stuff.

When will we just start telling people "deal with it" ?

------
lifeisstillgood
The simple answer is, enclosed spaces breathing strangers exhalations are
going to be very risky till we hit vaccine / herd immunity.

Will your business insurance cover that?

~~~
_Microft
Herd immunity is an illusion.

It would require that around 70% of people had been infected already. Using
the USA as example: 70% of 328 million would be 230 million people. At a rate
of 20000 new infections a day, as it currently is, it would take approximately
11000 days to reach that. That's 32 years. Let us assume ten times this rate
was possible and this would still mean over three years. We do not even know
yet if people will stay immune for an extended period of time at all after
having gone through the illness.

All this still ignores that even in a country like Germany that dealt pretty
well with the situation so far, the death rate is at approximately 4%. 4% of
230 million people means 9.2 million would die.

This also ignored any lasting damages to lungs, heart, nervous system and
kidneys as they have been reported.

There will be no herd immunity as long as the disease progresses as it
currently does.

~~~
umanwizard
The low rate of spread is due to lockdowns. Once things start opening back up,
herd immunity will happen quickly.

I don’t understand the rest of your post. Why does the fact that herd immunity
will cause deaths and other health effects mean that it’s not going to happen?

(Edit: also, I don’t think it’s relevant, but FWIW that 4% number is CFR, not
IFR. The best estimates of the true death rate are under 1%.)

------
amelius
Well, perhaps flying _should_ be unpleasant, given its negative externalities.

------
sheeshkebab
germaphobery in overdrive...

