

Fly Like You're Rich With Social Flights (And Private Planes) - valish
http://www.fastcompany.com/1753756/social-flights-puts-private-flying-within-reach-of-the-everyday-traveler?partner=homepage_newsletter

======
blhack
The article is a bit disingenuous. While this might bring the cost down, it's
certainly not going to be an alternative to commercial flights.

Let's look at a flight that I would love to take right now: Phoenix to
Seattle.

Here is a map of the route you [could] take for this flight:

[http://wh98.fltplan.com/mapgenerator/index.cfm?UdTimer=40838...](http://wh98.fltplan.com/mapgenerator/index.cfm?UdTimer=40838&MapServiceName=fltplan&lon=-117.1&lat=40.44&wid=11.379&ht=16.515&iwd=928&iht=696&ZOOMTO=12345678&showmapmethod=imgsrc&mark=-112.011,33.435,red,;-111.97,33.4333,vor,;-112.48,34.7033,vor,DRK;-114.863,35.995,vor,BLD;-116.748,36.8,vor,BTY;-117.77,38.0033,vor,OAL;-119.656,39.5316,vor,FMG;-120.506,42.4933,vor,LKV;-122.31,47.435,vor,;-122.311,47.45,vor,;-122.311,47.45,red,KSEA,standalone;-112.011,33.435,red,KPHX,standalone)

This 1028 miles, but lets say (for ease of calculation) that it's 1000
exactly.

Now for an aircraft. The Citation V is a nice plane, holds about 7 people, and
is something that would be appropriate for what the article seems to be
describing. Cruising speed for this aircraft is 495mph[1], but again, for ease
of calculation, say 500mph.

Flight time is 2 hours each way, for four hours total. The citation 5 burns
210 gallons of fuel per hour of flight, so this means that round trip (4
hours), you're burning 840 gallons of fuel.

Current fuel cost at Cutter Aviation in Phoenix is $5.58/gallon, so total fuel
cost for this trip is 840 * 5.58 is $4687.

That's _just_ fuel. If there are 7 passengers, that is $669.6 per person.

You still have to pay a crew, pay maintenance on the jet (which is an enormous
cost), pay airport fees, pay administrative overhead, etc.

[2] Estimates that cost/mile on a Citation V is $3.81 - My trip to Seattle
costs $7620.0, or $1088 per person ($952/person if we use the jump seat). This
now includes maintenance, but not administration, pilots, etc.

I don't know about you guys, but that's not even remotely close to something
that I can afford.

According to hipmunk[3], even a super-short-notice flight to Seattle that
leaves tomorrow is only $500. Even a first class flight is only $700. $700 is
getting _close_ to something comparable, but implying that this is something
that is for more than just "the wealthy", is kindof wrong.

Cool, but there is a reason only the very wealthy fly privately: flying
privately is an absurdly expensive thing to do.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_V\>

[2][http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:edFt-3bDiGgJ:w...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:edFt-3bDiGgJ:www.sterlingaviation.com/Group/PopularAircraftPDFs/Citation_V_specs.pdf+%22Citation+V%22+GPH&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESibEv814UmXQ3Uhp04uw4ONX_vGAaTE5HUXW1HPOW6xNI7KfoigPzl2OkDx-
uuW177c28QYs8wnEqCT--
dVQzDtUDjkw8cmmb7ptdLC5rab8EjQ6F1ka6Gmrc8XaFRta3VVx4Ia&sig=AHIEtbSxOvDElCOVYjY0tQTRrWtIRi0FKA&pli=1)

[3][http://www.hipmunk.com/results?to=SEA&s=swz7fkx5vev&...](http://www.hipmunk.com/results?to=SEA&s=swz7fkx5vev&from=PHX)

edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea. The aviation
industry has been screaming that this is the direction that commercial flight
is going to take for quite some time now. I'm saying that the article's
implication that the everyman can now fly "like you're rich" is a
misrepresentation of what this service is actually aiming to do.

~~~
rdl
Phoenix to Seattle is not the market. Even if I owned a private plane, I'd
probably fly commercial for hub to hub flights like that. (and almost
definitely for super long haul point to point like SFO-HKG; it's reasonable to
own or charter a Caravan or King Air or Citation II or something if you fly a
lot with a group of people, but a G650 or BBJ3 is an order of magnitude more.
I've been a passenger on a moderate number of business/corporate/government
vs. super-rich-person jets, and a top quality commercial business class or
most first class products are actually a more comfortable experience, at a
much lower cost).

A better market is for something like rural Texas to rural Montana; not hubs,
and might require 3 flight segments each way (get to nearest hub, hub to hub,
hub to destination); these can easily make a ~1000 mile flight into an all-day
fiasco (plus, driving to the nearest commercial airport vs. a general aviation
airport).

Flying 4-6 people on those flights might be $2500/day per person, plus $1000+
in last minute tickets, plus hotel.

~~~
jonnathanson
_I've been a passenger on a moderate number of business/corporate/government
vs. super-rich-person jets, and a top quality commercial business class or
most first class products are actually a more comfortable experience, at a
much lower cost)_

True in many cases, though not always. I think there are a lot of variables at
play, all of which need to be accounted for: wait time and hassle at
commercial airports vs. private jet strips; minimal to no risk of delays; and
so forth. I agree that corporate private jets hardly offer anything
approaching a luxurious in-flight experience, but in those cases, luxury of
in-flight experience isn't the goal. Rather, the goals are roughly a)
mitigation of delay risks; b) ease of travel and convenience; c) provision of
a sterile, noise-pollution-free, whining-baby-free flight environment in which
to conduct business and get stuff done in the air.

An uber-rich-person jet, on the other hand -- assuming we're talking about one
owned purely for convenience and/or vanity, and not for corporate purposes --
is a more luxurious experience, with luxury as one of the core goals. True,
most of these jets are too small to offer the day bed or stewardess service
you'd get in first class on a major international flight. But I'd argue that
those benefits of commercial are outweighed by power and freedom to fly at
will, private catering on the flight, etc. Also, the most comparable use case
is private jet vs. first class domestic, rather than private vs. first class
international. International fist class is where all the bells and whistles
come into play. Domestic first class is a pretty unremarkable experience; it
is debatably the coach experience of 10 to 15 years ago.

~~~
jsavimbi
> it is debatably the coach experience of 10 to 15 years ago.

Not even remotely. I'm going to argue the contrary, that coach-class flying
reached its race to the bottom about 10-15 years ago and didn't begin to
recover until discount airlines became mainstream and started to compete
directly and profitably with the traditional airlines. yes, they've actually
improved, believe it or not. the other variables not so much.

Flying coach in the seventies would be akin to flying business class these
days, but still not there in terms of seating space or convenience. Those who
remember the days before airline deregulation can attest to that.

~~~
jonnathanson
I'll concede that my dates were totally arbitrary, but I believe my overall
point still stands. That point, btw, was more about the relative decline of
First w/r/t Coach than about the absolute decline of either. As far as I'm
concerned, domestic First is nowhere near what it used to be, and it's
currently approximating the Coach experience of X years ago, where X is an
imprecise but extant number.

Coach, as well, is certainly nothing like it used to be. It's been getting
better in recent years, to your point, but only very slightly. I think it's
still somewhere in the basin of an overall historic trough, though perhaps
with upward direction.

(Full disclosure: as a very tall person, I feel changes in seating
configuration, etc., a lot more accutely than most people do. So it's possible
my opinions are either amplified by, or colored by, my individual
perspective).

~~~
rdl
Efficiency has increased in coach -- tighter seat pitch, extra revenue charges
for exit rows, etc., but for me, video-on-demand (or, portable video devices
and in-ear-monitor headphones) makes up for a lot.

Pre-deregulation, they couldn't compete on price, so they competed on quality
of perks (free food, service, etc.). Once they deregulated, they competed on
price, but then started cost cutting on perks to make earnings. It was only
after LCCs and the "premium experience LCCs" were successful that airlines
both eliminated bundled perks and provided for-fee superior quality products
for sale.

The "economy plus" type products for frequent fliers also go a long way to
make economy tolerable for larger people.

I think air travel will continue to improve -- the biggest setback has been
the 9/11 security increase, but other than that, the legacy carriers seem to
be getting better.

I still try to drive whenever possible.

------
jasonkester
I've got a better idea in the same space.

I've always wanted somebody to take the idea of "leave when full" minibuses in
the 3rd world and apply it to popular airline routes.

How cool would it be if there was an operator running flights from Los Angeles
to San Fransisco using small commuter jets with no fixed schedule and plenty
of planes. You'd just turn up, buy a ticket, make your way to the gate, and
get on the plane. When it filled up it would taxi away and another one would
fill its place.

Average wait time: less than 15 minutes. No more showing up at the airport 2
hours early.

Naturally, you'd have to charge a premium, but if you pick your routes
correctly and target people with more money than time, you would clean up.

The only downside is that you couldn't do it from actual commercial airports
like LAX and SFO because you'd never get a slot to take off. You'd need to use
smaller airports such as Boeing Field in Seattle. It still seems pretty doable
though.

~~~
hyperbovine
I routinely have my flights into SFO delayed hours in advance due to weather
and traffic considerations. The ATC system doesn't seem like it's set up
handle such an arrangement without major changes being made to the way flights
are programmed. Just a guess.

~~~
lucasjung
You are more or less correct about the ATC system. You have to file IFR flight
plans ahead of time because it takes time for the system to process your
flight plan, grant you a clearance, and assign a release time. As the ATC
system becomes increasingly saturated, this process takes longer and longer.
The system has to plot out every flight and schedule departure times so that
you don't get too many airplanes in the same general area at any given time.
Even more importantly, they have to make sure that the airports don't get
inundated with too many planes at once becuase they only have so many ruways
and only one plane can use a runway at a time.

Commercial airports deal with that last problem by selling time slots for
passenger flights, which are generally auctioned off at long intervals (e.g.
anually), which is not compatible with a "leave when full" business model.

------
tgraydar
A long time ago, some friends and I rented out a wave pool at a Disney water
park so we could have the waves all to ourselves. So after the tourists were
kicked out, we put on our own music on the sound system and shared waves, a
group of 10 friends. I think it cost $100 each. This is the same thrill, I'd
imagine.

------
tekgnos
You guys are missing the major cost savings while pouring over the numbers. It
all comes from empty private jets as loarabia pointed out.

Private jets fly empty all the time. This would be additional revenue for the
owner/operators of the private jets. Notice that most of the flights are one
way. That is because the jet is flying empty to pick up the real passengers,
who pay, essentially, for the jet to come get them and take them where they
are going.

The real problem is what happens when wealthy people who fly private realize
that poor schmucks are flying on their dime.

------
graupel
Our company (based in Cincinnati) uses a scheduled service charter that flies
from a secondary airport to Chicago, NY and DC on great, 30 seat jets; it's a
great business model and we love using it - <http://ultimateairshuttle.com/>
\- we feel rich flying it but it's cheaper than United or Delta for the same
route + no TSA.

~~~
jamesbressi
That is impressive. I cannot find one for here in Philadelphia!

------
loarabia
For those of you analyzing costs -- it seems to me that some lower costs might
come about for dead heading (flying empty somewhere else for a pickup of a
full price charter). Presumably a given charter was going to require the
aircraft to do that route anyway so they may as well get some cash for it.

------
jdh
Woo -- 12 whole flights completed. Yawn, until we see something scale.

It's easy to overrate the savings opportunities in private air travel: there
are empty seats! there are deadhead flights with no passengers!

But hard to realize those savings. You need enormous scale. And most private
jets would be far less comfortable than an MD80 or 737 if all the seats were
full and it wasn't your friends or family -- loud, no headroom, no service,
tiny bathroom. They make up for it by flying where you want, when you want --
but we lose those a lot of those benefits with this "solution".

As said, this makes no sense hub to hub. Flying from Lubbock to Springfield?
Maybe. Good luck filling those other six seats, and also filling that deadhead
flight back.

------
thesheenamedina
I checked out their website and found a lot of deals on international flights
as well. This isn't just something to consider for quick flights within the
U.S.

------
edanm
I don't understand this article. What does the "social web" have anything to
do with why this is now possible?

Even their example, flying three planes of sports fans out to another city,
seems like something that could easily be arranged by the president of the fan
club or something.

If what they mean is that the "social web" makes this easier, then firstly,
I'd love to know in what way exactly (they don't really describe how this
works at all), and secondly, there's a big difference between making this
easier, and making once impossible things possible (which is what this article
claims).

All in all, looks like I'm missing something

~~~
gaius
It means a dozen random strangers who happen to want to do the same itinerary
can now meet each other and get a Learjet. It's a matter of scale.

------
hammock
One benefit of flying on a private/charter plane - you don't have to go
through security.

~~~
tlrobinson
In the past that's true because why would you want to hijack/blow up your own
plane with your business partners / family / friends... but will that remain
true if you're booking a private jet with 7 random strangers?

~~~
Eliezer
Yes, because inconveniences aren't for rich people. It's sort of like how kids
in college don't get drafted.

------
Vivtek
Direct link for the tl;dr crowd: <http://socialflights.com/>

------
timclark
Or maybe give the world a break and don't fly!

~~~
danssig
You would rather we drove?

------
pitdesi
A bunch of people have tried this before... I can't think of the names off-
hand, but names in a similar space that I've seen recently are
<http://www.emptylegmarket.com/> and <http://www.flyruby.com/>

I don't see how this will work - you need a huge marketplace, and even then it
will generally be a lot more expensive than flying commercial. There are some
limited uses like bowl games that I could see, but even then, why do you need
socialflights? There are plenty of travel agents that charter flights for bowl
games.

What I don't get is how a site like this got in Fast Company, and what's up
with that "baked in" image? (it's part of this series
<http://www.fastcompany.com/tag/baked-in> but why?)

~~~
gaius
The economics of "luxury" travel are less than you think. Example: in my last
company, we had an office in London and an office in Nottingham (northern
England, the place where Robin Hood comes from), and people frequently
traveled between the two. Well if 6 people needed to travel, it would have
been _cheaper_ to hire a fancy stretch limo and driver for the day and cruise
around like rockstar pimps than it would be to take the train - and we'd have
gotten more work done on the journey too! We never actually did of course, but
only for appearances sake, financially it made perfect sense.

~~~
r00fus
I know that the UK trains (actually the tracks) are not as good as in France
or Germany, but when I did stay in France, I often traveled from Paris to
Tours.

On a train (TGV), this takes about 1.5 hrs. By car it can take upwards of 3
hours on a good day. Variance in arrival time for the car was high, on the
train, it was rather constant.

Of course, if you don't have good point-to-point transport (ie, taxis,
walkable) at either destination then all bets are off.

------
clistctrl
I wish they had prices, and was less specific. Sometimes it will be Friday,
and I'm like "Man i don't care where I go, but I want to go on a weekend
vacation."

