When comparing "flying then" to "flying now", you need to look at the real cost of the flights. Yes, the experience in economy class has got worse, but the cost of the ticket has also significantly dropped. In 2021 dollars, the cost of a round trip air fare has basically halved since 1979. You could buy a business class ticket now for a comparable price to economy back then.
> You could buy a business class ticket now for a comparable price to economy back then.
And if you buy business class, you end up with a lie flat seat that will likely be better than the economy seat you could buy at the time. In addition, the aircrafts now are more comfortable with much less noise and higher cabin pressures. In addition, flying is much safer now than it was in the 1960s.
That's the point, though - what you get has diminished, but the trade is that you pay substantially less. If you want more, you can still pay for premium economy or business. It's better to enable people with less money to fly, while still letting people get a better experience if they want to spend more.
Not to mention order of magnitude reduction of the amount of fresh air per passenger allowed to enter the cabin. Not to mention that the flight attendants used to be registered nurses; now they might not even know how to work the oxygen bottles.
This is a case where I wish society didn’t optimize for the lowest price and instead made it acceptable to pay more to make the default option more appealing. Yes, you can always pay for business class, but it’s framed as an upgrade, not the baseline standard.
Yes, but... today, if you don't need more than carry-on luggage and are ok with not getting anything to eat during the flight, you are able to afford flying, let's say, from Munich to Barcelona for a weekend, which you maybe wouldn't have been able to do when "paying more for a more appealing default option". Of course it's debatable if encouraging such flights is good for the environment, but purely from the perspective of having more travel options, I would say it's a win...
It's my understanding that most of these cheap flights are heavily subsidized to begin with.
But my point was more that just as we have certain expectations for other things, it would be nice if we had the same for air travel – and not just resign ourselves to "the absolute lowest price possible" as the defining characteristic.
If you mean "subsidized" because the airlines don't have to pay the kind of taxes on jet fuel that users of road (or rail) vehicles have to pay on gas, or that they only have to pay airport taxes, but can use the airways free of charge, then yes. But no-frills airlines like Ryanair are not in the charity business, so you can bet that their price calculation is economically sound on the whole.
Some countries (like the UK) even have additional taxes on flights that are not the lowest class available. I'm not sure if it is to discourage taking more comfortable travel options or just to scalp people with money.
After traveling through Europe and seeing the amount of "pay per use" bathrooms, I am torn.
On one hand, there are many more public washrooms than in North America, and they are generally much cleaner. On the other hand, paying to basically be a human being feels wrong and I refused to use them.
I've used the toilet on a plane maybe 2 times in my life, and I've fly quite a bit, so this probably wouldn't impact me much at all.
That would run into the FAA; there are a number of things that happen on flights that are mandated by the FAA, I suspect restrooms (and the drinks) are some of them for health reasons.
They didn't actually do it. The Ryanair CEO, Michael O'Leary, has a well-practiced approach of making outlandish claims about Ryanair's thrifty innovations that echo around the internet; discount publicity. About the same time he claimed that a standing-only section would be introduced for £1 tickets. Of course this also didn't happen.
> In 2021 dollars, the cost of a round trip air fare has basically halved since 1979. You could buy a business class ticket now for a comparable price to economy back then.
Business class is generally much more than double economy class right now.
Air Hollywood, which is a film set rental company, offers the Pan Am Experience.[1] For about $300, you get to sit in a 747 cabin on the ground and have the experience of a Pan Am dinner from the 1960s.
Even at the low end, air travel was impressive. PSA was a low-cost airline. SJC to LAX, every hour, for about $14, with a 59 minute flight time. The process was very simple. Drive up to terminal. Park. Walk up to cash register. Pay. The register receipt was the boarding pass. A 727 pulls up and lowers the rear stairs. People get off. After a few minutes, the person who ran the cash register leads everyone waiting out to the plane, and they climb the stairs. Stairs retract, and plane takes off.
PSA stewardess graduation pictures from 1974.[2]
It's another reminder that terrorists have won, and have ruined the flight experience for everyone. You basically get searched in order to board. Nobody agrees to have even the slightest risk of a a plane to be hijacked in exchange of not having all of these security measures (which, in a significant part, are a security theater).
There are lots of public places/events that don't require any searches/background checks and where a bomb would yield a significant number of casualties and terror to blowing up a regional jet, yet we don't seem to be having explosions every other day.
Maybe the terrorist threat is overblown and is merely kept around as a convenient excuse for more surveillance/repression?
Yes and no? Terrorism is generally used against an enemy when actual military action is not possible. The intent would normally be to steer government action via basically public pressure. So the purpose is not the inconvenience or intrusiveness of counter terrorism precautions, that is just a side effect. Though most modern terrorism is likely a weird edge case rooted in an overly literal interpretation of a certain book which did not consider the case of a distant empire when it was designed, and therefore the terrorism has no logical game theoretic explanation (unlike, say, the IRA).
Exactly I live 600km from the capital. 1 hour flight. Still takes me more then half a day to get to my destination.
I ride my motorcycle most of the times 6 hours door to door. With pit stops on the way. Trains are slow here but I take the sleep train. Get on train 10pm go to sleep and arrive at 5am in the morning :)
Trains can be and have been blown up. But that's mostly harmless compared to the horrors that could be done to a fully occupied road tunnel with a few well coordinated trucks. Should we stop building roads?
Planes are an exceptional target because they can be deviated to foreign countries or to dramatic impact sites and because are so isolated while in the air. Neither applies to trains.
Also perfect train security doesn't protect against something on the track, and you can't adequately protect thousands of miles of track. You can reduce, but not eliminate, the risk.
A plane is a self-contained system and most people don't have access to surface-to-air missiles.
Sleeper trains are absolutely the superior choice. Instead of wearing yourself down from the journey, schedule it so you wake up at your destination in the morning.
I dream (heh) of a proper pan-european sleeper train network.
It's probably better for our habitable ecosystem though so in a backwards way anything that makes plane travel less of a convenient no-brainer is good.
I'm right there with you. I'd go as far as 14 hour drive before I start thinking I should fly instead.
It wasn't always like this, flying was bearable even as far back as 2002-2008 even counting the post-9/11 stuff. I think a most of it has to do with cost-cutting. The second they find an efficiency they cut staff and hire cheaper workers. The whole culture around airports, even expensive ones, has started to resemble bus stations.
I preferred the private Amtrak compartment. Overnight trip, bring your own snacks and beverage. Eat a meal or two with other people in the dining car. Read a book and be left alone in your room. Best part was being able to ride a bicycle right to the station and pack it my way. No luggage or boarding anxiety. Arrive and depart from the city or town center. After you pay the airline's extra luggage fees for a bicycle, the cost is comparable.
That's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it. Yes there's bag scan, and yes you need to buy in advance not to have exorbitant prices. Apart from that the experience seems the same.
And you shouldn't be taking 1h flights anywhere of course x)
While PSA operated within a single state, there were no training requirements for its flight attendants. They were recruited by a lucky fellow who walked up and down the beach on weekends making offers. The recruits could be working on actual flights as soon as the following Monday. The airline had a discount flight from LA to SF around midnight on Friday night that was a couple of dollars less than the standard fare you mention. And the passengers on that flight could fly assured that the flight attendants had a week's experience.
I remember flying PSA between Oakland and LAX in 1972. $16 each way and you could pay the flight attendant after boarding. The "meal" was a choice of "coffee, tea, punch or boullion".
It probably actually tastes good too. Iirc, taste buds don't work so well at altitude so all that fancy food prep was wasted on the passengers of yore. Might be worth revisiting on the 787s though since those are pressurized to 1km? Or something
These kind of articles are always dumb and never make an apples to apples comparison.
It talks about Pan Am in the 1950s.
In May 1952 Pan Am tickets for New York - London roundtrip in economy class were $486. And that was the minimum legal price. Presumably you could find yourself paying more depending on demand.
That's equivalent to $5,584 today.
Google Flights tells me I can get a first class ticket on that route for $4,700 today.
So you're paying almost $1,000 more than a modern first class ticket and wondering why the food is pretty okay.
And yet the article says the reason is basically "capitalism bad":
> you had airline deregulation by a guy who was an acolyte of Ronald Reagan.
> The more horrible you make it to fly coach, the more business people will demand to fly business and first class. The airlines make a bucket of money off people traveling up front, which is why they make coach as oppressive as possible.
Yeah no, deregulation made it so the average person could travel by plane at all.
Recently there was a great episode on the Freakonomics podcast, actually the final episode in a three part series on airline economics. It talks about the history of airline price regulation and the related economics. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-your-plane-ticket-too-ex...
> Back when the industry was regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board, or C.A.B., airlines were not allowed to lower prices to win customers. So they had to find other ways to compete.
> They would compete against each other by adding more flights on the route. Since you couldn’t cut the price, what you would do is say, “We have the most flights.” And that really mattered to business travelers who wanted to be able to, if their meeting ended early, to go to the airport and quickly catch a flight home. So they were competing on frequency, and in other ways in service quality, by offering piano lounges on 747s. And they were gradually driving down the share of seats that were filled by adding more and more flights. And they would eventually get back to the point that they weren’t earning a great rate of return on their investment. So they’d go back to the C.A.B. and they’d say, “We need higher fares.” And the C.A.B. would say, “Yeah, okay, we’ll give you higher fares.” Eventually, in the mid-1970s, people at the C.A.B. figured out that this was just an endless loop, where we were raising fares, and the planes were getting more and more empty, and this was very inefficient. That’s where we had gotten to — pretty empty planes with very high prices.
The Asian airlines I've used (JAL, ANA, Singapore, AirAsia) have been pretty damn good. It's hard to mess up curry and rice; you get salad, side dishes, bread, ice cream and alcohol. Many of the dishes are designed by famous chefs, even in economy.
1) 200 people with diarrhea and vomiting. Can't imagine how the plane smelled.
2) JAL's catering manager committed suicide after hearing about this.
3) If the pilots had eaten the food the plane may not have even landed safely - at the time pilots did not eat different meals to the passengers, but this is now commonplace.
4) Ultimate cause was actually American - Alaskan cooks in Anchorage prepared the food, and one had infected blisters on his hand.
5) Could have been prevented if the food wasn't stored at room temperature for 6 and then 8 hours. Matches my experience with Japanese people who have no problem leaving cooked food out in supermarkets all day long, or leaving leftovers overnight at room temperature without chilling it, very different to the US or UK.
Recently did London to Auckland (via SF) with United and selected 'Asian Vegetarian' as my meal. Best decision I've ever made travelling long haul: curry wins hands down over bad pasta or the grim 'chicken or fish' options.
The golden age they refer to is a very brief period of time in a now long history of flight. From almost every possible perspective, flying domestically within the US has more in common with taking a bus than with international aviation.
When it's an option, fly Lufthansa. At least in their transatlantic flights, the food was excellent even though I was in cramped economy class. As I recall I had a type of beef stew, potatoes and carrots, salad, bread rolls, butter, and a nice ice cream for dessert.
On domestic flights, I miss Southwest Airlines pre-9/11 snack packs. They had cheese, crackers, cookies, and fruit like apple sauce. Nice pick-me-up in the middle of a three hour flight.
It of course also most likely depends on what kind of food do you like. Imho, Lufthansa food is better than UA or some other equivalent US airliners, but lags significantly behind Qatar airways, Emirates, Thai or even Turkish Airlines.
back in the day i saw an airline ad about how their chefs specially plans each meal and the flavors etc and how much research goes into it (like adding more salt because our taste-buds are less sensitive at high altitude).
I now know it is BS because bringing takeaway on the plane I felt it taste the same if not better than any airline food I've had.
It looks nice, but personally, I'm ok with the change. I'd rather pay (much) less and not get the fancy food on a flight I'm probably going to sleep through anyway. And, as the article says, the current first class experience still offers an upgrade.
NY to LA is ~ 5 hours, which is about as long as you get on the continental USA. Do you really need to eat? Chicago to NY is just over 2 hours - not really enough time for a 3 course meal.
If you are doing the 19 hours from NY to Singapore ... the food is pretty good!
People who have planned the trip might no need to eat on the plane, but business clients who might have a tight schedule or hopped onto the flight last minute certainly need the onboard dining
https://www.airlines.org/dataset/annual-round-trip-fares-and...
https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/history-o...