from the Airbus-Wants-Your-Flight-to-Suck-Even-More dept.
Airbus has been working on making the economics of the A380 even better for airlines who buy it: pack 11 seats into a row:
Airbus has found a way to make flying economy even worse. That’s quite a feat, given how crummy the experience is these days. The trick, it turns out, is eliminating one the few remaining saving graces of air travel: better than even odds you won’t be squeezed into a middle seat. Generally, you’ve got a two in three chance of landing an aisle or a window.
But now, airlines flying the Airbus A380, the largest commercial jet on the planet, can reduce those odds. The European plane maker announced this week that it will offer a 3-5-3 cabin configuration, creating rows with 11 seats.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the future of civilized air travel lies with airships.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:10PM
No, the future of civilized air travel does *not* lie with airships, at least not as long as US corporate culture continues as it is. They're simply too slow. We Americans only get a small amount of vacation time every year, so we don't have days and days to spend in an airship flying at a lackadaisical pace across the Atlantic or Pacific. Or, if we're flying for work, our employer sure as hell isn't going to put up with us taking 4 times as long to get there, and getting paid straight time for this low-speed method of travel.
No, as wealth continues to funnel upwards to the 0.01% and the rest of us are taking any job we can get just to get by and pay today's high rents, we're going to see more and more moves like this to improve efficiency and reduce costs as much as possible, even if it drives us mad.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by CRCulver on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:51PM
While slower means of travel may indeed not appeal to travelers in the United States, I'm impressed by how popular alternatives to flying are in other parts of the world even as air travel has become commonplace. Europe has seen the development of new longhaul bus networks that have adopted some of the nice aspects of flying (1st class-like spacious and plush seats, stewardesses bringing food and drink). Some Asian and South American countries have sleeper buses. South Africa has its Shosholoza Meyl trains running from Cape Town to Johannesburg, taking a whole day when a flight would take just a couple of hours. The Trans-Siberian still draws people, whether tourists or locals, who don't mind taking 5 days to get from Moscow to Beijing. People (from many walks of life, it seems) continue to choose these alternatives even when a budget airline flight might be just as cheap – or even cheaper.
Now whether that continuing interest in slower forms of travel is enough to introduce a new method of travel like airships, is of course another story.
(Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Sunday April 19 2015, @05:44AM
Some Asian and South American countries have sleeper buses.
And let me tell you, they can be awesome if you know what to look for.
First of all, I really, really dislike airplanes, buses and all other kinds of transportation where I have to squeeze in and can't stretch my legs. Considering the trains here in Japan, I'm lucky I don't need to commute :)
I used a "sleeper" bus a few times before, and it was even worse than a plane, the only saving grace being that you could stretch your legs every few hours. But the last time I found something called "yuttari seats" (um... comfortable/spacious seats?), and it was glorious. First, you get two seats for yourself... and second, the distance between rows is doubled! I don't remember if there was any price premium, so even if there was, it wasn't much. But 10 hours in a bus without banging your knees in the seat in front of you, and no problems with lowering your seat back? Priceless, lemme tell you.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2, Insightful) by theronb on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:01PM
More reason for telecommuting as an alternate to work travel. I completely understand the advantages of being there in person to press the flesh and many service calls will always require a hands on presence, but I've been on way too many trips where the purpose was just to attend a meeting. As company budget reductions limited travel expenses, we found that remote meetings worked almost as well with the bonus that I get to sleep in my own bed. This prospective development makes telecommuting look better and better. I'm retired now and so less time constrained; this also makes train travel look like a better option - or airships.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:07PM
More reason for telecommuting as an alternate to work travel.
You're absolutely right about travel just to attend meetings being a waste, and better done by Skype. This is already happening to a large degree, and the whole airship vs. airplane argument is really irrelevant to it: Skype is going to be much cheaper (free in fact) and faster than either form of travel.
However, there's still a good amount of business travel, either for things which can't really be done by Skype, such as engineers working on-site to resolve problems or do testing, or executives who just feel like traveling and seeing other employees and managers in-person at other work sites.
this also makes train travel look like a better option
Trains are probably a decent option in Europe with the Eurorail, but here in the US they totally suck unless you're traveling along the Northeast Corridor or along the west coast, and even there it depends on how far you have to go. Amtrak is actually not very cheap, and while it is wonderful to ride on it (I've used the NE corridor route a few times), it's not fast at all, so if you're traveling any kind of distance it really doesn't compete. People don't have 3 days to ride across the country, and doing that in a train seat without taking a shower isn't very comfortable (they do have sleeper cars, but now you're looking at a far higher ticket price).
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:59PM
You are confused and probably thinking of Eurail [wikipedia.org], but that is only a travel agency-sort of company that sells passes for a variety of countries' domestic rail operators. Within the European Union (and naturally outside of it as well) each country still has its own rail carriers, which can vary drastically in price, punctuality, quality of rolling stock and passenger comforts, etc.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:39PM
Not necessarily.
Remember...these things are insanely huge with all sorts of lift capacity.
One of the ideas being...erm...floated is that of "flying hotels." You go straight from work to the airfield. After the obligatory gate rape and what-not, you board the airship. After stowing your luggage in your cabin, you head to the dining room for dinner. Before you've finished your entrée, the airship is airborne. After dinner, you go to the movie theatre if you're so inclined and eventually back to your cabin for bed. Get up the next morning, take a quick shower, have breakfast in the dining room, grab your bags from your room, and catch the shuttle to the rental car lot.
I bet that scenario would really, really appeal to almost all the traveling public. Why waste several hours during the day with the airlines only to get to your destination city and still need to get to the hotel and find someplace to eat and only finally get a short night's sleep? All the time in the air is essentially a waste. With an overnight flying hotel, you're doing everything you'd be doing anyway on the ground, including sleep in a real bed, at the same time you would anyway. Plus, you're multitasking by getting to the other side of the continent. It'd be the next best thing to teleportation -- go to bed in the hotel in Boston, wake up in the hotel in LA.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:00PM
That's a very good point actually.
But would it be cost-competitive with a regular flight + one night in a hotel? (One night in a hotel is only worth about $100-150.) If not, the corporate bean-counters won't allow it for employees.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:31PM
The "value-add" is a lot more than a single night in the hotel. It's also a day's worth of car rental, whatever meals are served, and potentially that much of the per diem.
And, on top of it...you get an entire extra day of productivity. Today, you lose an entire day, for all intents and purposes, to travel across the country. You're either spending enough time traveling that there's not enough time left to get anything meaningful done, or you're doing the redeye thing and not at the top of your game the next day. This way, you don't lose any productivity; you leave work as normal one day in one city and go to work as normal the next day in a different city.
The same sort of benefit applies to non-business travelers. Want to visit family for the weekend? Go from work to the airfield on Friday, show up at your family's doorstep Saturday morning, stay just Saturday night with them, sleep on the airship Sunday night, back to work like normal on Monday. Or, start your European tour Sunday night in New York and go straight to the tour bus in Paris on Monday morning.
You can also imagine, without much trouble, much smaller versions with the passenger area of a motorhome. Tour the world by air, if you can afford to buy the thing.
Initially I'm sure they'd use existing airport infrastructure...but they're VTOL craft. They don't need much more infrastructure than an hitching post and a fuel supply.
And they should be incredibly safe, too, with the only real requirement being to not fly into the same sorts of storms airliners already avoid. Even a complete engine failure isn't going to be too terrible; with adjustable ballast, you can still navigate the same way hot air balloons do and manage a soft landing anywhere ground winds are slow enough.
Potentially pretty exciting stuff!
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Saturday April 18 2015, @09:06PM
This way, you don't lose any productivity; you leave work as normal one day in one city and go to work as normal the next day in a different city.
I've eaten a couple steaks in first class on the Amtrak from Chicago to NYC. Given stereotypical delays I wouldn't plan anything critical right at 9am but you'll have no problem at all with a business lunch.
The first class lounge in CHC is really nice. I donno if NYC even has a lounge. The OLD cars east of the mississippi are kinda dumpy, the cars west of the mississippi are nice, and the new cars in the east are supposed to be nice although the stars have never aligned for my travel plans to take them. Something to do with tunnel dimensions and turn radius limitations.
Amtrak service sucks because most routes only have one departure per day and from memory the NYC to CHC return trip leaves just after lunch hour and you'll be back in CHC pretty early in the morning the next day (safe to plan on doing something at 9 in CHC). On the other hand if you want to go to minneapolis I hope you enjoy arriving at 1am or whatever it is, because thats when the ONLY daily train arrives. Blah.
As a warning, sleeping in a train is kind of annoying the first few times, the train is always wiggly a little. Some people get a little seasick but its not nearly as bad as a little sailboat...
I haven't made this run from CHC to NYC in a couple years but from memory its "moderately expensive" for an overnight hotel but nothing too terrifying. Not like $1K but its going to be more than a $150 hotel room.
I used to go to the HOPE convention at the hotel penn which is across the street from the amtrak station in NYC.
Its a different sort of mentality, with security theater and delays if you fly you give up a day for travel, but if you train you give up a night. Also my laptop worked fine on the train and its comfy so I didn't really give anything up.
Something to think about is sightseeing. There is nothing different geographically between NYC and CHC, but if you go out west you can start in forests and go thru deserts and generally see cool stuff.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:16PM
After saying the aren't too slow, you describe a romantic overnight flight of what could have been done in under three hours by airplane.
Airships have never exceeded 80–100 mph. So in your dinner, movie, nights sleep, shower, breakfast dream, you've invested probably 16 hours in the air. You've covered probably no more than 1400 miles (Seattle to Minneapolis) , which would have taken about 2.5 hours at typical airliner cruising speed of around 575 mph
You expect cruise-ship accomodations on a lighter than air aircraft. This means you can carry at most 100 passengers in a ship much larger than the Hindenburg.. (Movie theater, dining room, and bedrooms, plus lounge space, and enough water for showers!!!).
During 1936 the Hindenburg had a Blüthner aluminium grand piano placed on board in the music salon, though the instrument was removed after the first year to save weight. Over the winter of 1936–37, several alterations were made to the airship's structures. The greater lift capacity allowed ten passenger cabins to be added, nine with two beds and one with four, increasing passenger capacity to 72
You (wisely) avoid the issue of cost of a ticket, indeed any hint of economics. A multi-million dollar craft with a crew of no less than 20 is tied up for 16 hours moving maybe 100 passengers, probably fewer. And the fuel for 16 hours?
What makes you think that that would be affordable? What makes you think the beds and the showers and the movie theater wouldn't be chopped out to cram another 100 passengers in sitting cheek-by-jowl just to make it cost effective? How would you talk your company into that type of travel?
Nobody would do this for business. Vacation maybe.
Note: Alaska Airlines and Delta both offer Seattle to Minneapolis for $287 ROUND TRIP, less if you are flexible. What would be your estimate for the same trip on an airship? My guess would exceed $1000
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:12PM
This kind of development is just not good for us men with big fat junk. Ethanol-fueled knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's difficult for us to keep our legs together even in optimal settings. But in a constricted setting such as an airplane or even an SUV, the pressure our testes, scrotes and spouts exert on our thighs becomes very uncomfortable to bear.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Bot on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:16PM
You talk as if you had a use for it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:45PM
I go peepee out of it.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:23PM
You are NOT the growth market for air travel - despite being the growth market in waistband-length.
This is clearly designed for Asian carriers. These manufacturers, like those of automobiles and espresso machines, know that China is their last hope to find the next golden goose.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Funny) by snick on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:36PM
Absolutely. For Japan, this model will include boards that the ground crew can use to push more people into the plane before the doors close.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:27PM
Then add another floor! My last flight on domestic airline in Korea, I was sitting on a "empty" plane. Yes, the plane was full another story. I was the only person head was above the seat back. So cut the seat backs down, lower the ceiling get another floor in there! Profit
Wife's idea Just drug everyone and stack as firewood. Space tighter, no one complains, every one well rested, no need for wifi. Profit again!!
(Score: 1) by VanessaE on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:11PM
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ig-wrEGtKI [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Saturday April 18 2015, @10:12PM
Just drug everyone and stack as firewood
Ask the wife where she'll put the anesthetists required to monitor the firewood's vital signs so they don't die...
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:52PM
Asians are getting bigger too. You realize that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are not inherently "smaller" than caucasians, right? It's a case of nutrition. As economies and diets improve in what were previously rather poor countries, heights, widths, weights and girths also increase over time to match what you'd find in any "western" country. Any airline that invests in tiny seats for what it thinks are tiny passengers is going to have a shock in 20 years when no one fits in their planes anymore.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:59PM
"Girths"? As in penis girth?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:28PM
This is truly a non-issue for me, as the airlines have already made it physically impossible for me to fly in economy.
I've got my issues to be sure, but the airlines are hysterical with their moves towards smaller and smaller seats, while Americans are making their asses fatter every day. That's not opinion, but fact apparently from the news and statistics. There's going to be a logical conclusion here, and it's one in which people are going to stop fitting into seats. For me that was many years ago where my shoulders became too big for the seats. I sit down and my arms drape down the middle of the two seats to the side of me, and that was when I was about 20-30lbs overweight and my ass fit in the seat no problem. I can fit into the seat, with just a small application of butter for lube, but I can no longer fold my shoulders inward and suck up against the sidewall of the plane. I literally do not fit on a plane, and I got to experience airlines in foreign countries where I could not even slide into in aisle. Screaming stewardesses in a foreign language trying to (literally) push me into in aisle and seat. I ended up standing the whole flight, and was a little surprised that they just gave up and let me do it, although not as surprised as I was about the plane made for little people.
With the TSA patting down my scrote, and now threatening that the naked body scanners (and the new and improved ones) will be mandatory, and the fact I just can't fucking fit in a chair that is already skinnier than my shoulders, I can no longer fly. So cheers to the Airlines. I don't know where they're going to find all these tiny skinny Americans.
Airships are about my only hope, as they sound like they can do freight shipping, which is where my world is. If Americans don't change their ways, we are going to have double duty for the same transportation our cattle use, as it will be efficient and practical.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:05PM
Seat spacing and and width are starting to get more attention in the press lately.
http://consumertraveler.com/columns/policy-columns/are-shrinking-airline-seats-unsafe-and-unhealthy-too/ [consumertraveler.com]
http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/03/25/time-to-take-a-fresh-look-at-aircraft-emergency-egress-testing/ [runwaygirlnetwork.com]
Some airlines are listening (albeit with only one ear).
http://www.ibtimes.com/ibtraveler/economy-class-airline-seat-heres-whats-new-1886790 [ibtimes.com]
The problem is the FAA's only rules for seat size and spacing have to do with how fast you can empty an airliner in an emergency.
There are no comfort regulations, indeed no humanitarian considerations at all in the regulations.
The FAA (another agency suffering full regulatory capture by the airline industry) would be perfectly fine with "standing seats" [cnn.com], or at least has no basis for rejecting them because their only consideration is the exit requirement.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:36PM
With a 3-5-3 configuration, there are still 6 aisle or window seats, and 5 "middle seats", so the odds of getting a window or aisle seat are STILL better then 50%. It's not exactly complicated math to figure that out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by snick on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:39PM
Why do you think that seat assignment is random?
Your chances of not getting stuffed into the cargo hold will be determined by what you are willing to pay for the "upgrade"
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:57PM
Indeed, in Europe it's standard that you can choose your seat on check-in, with the only limitation that you cannot choose an already occupied seat.
So no, seats are not chosen randomly; the later you check in, the worse your seat will likely be.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:49PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:01PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/17/364708388/flying-donuts-airbus-files-patent-for-a-new-kind-of-plane [npr.org]
Make this thing
(Score: 4, Informative) by Justin Case on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:16PM
I don't know if the terrorists wanted to destroy air travel but the airlines are doing a pretty good job
on their ownwith massive help from The Stupid Assholes. After 9-11, if my family is going somewhere we can drive in less than a day, we don't fly.We spent half a year planning a month long family trip to Europe. We had a great time, except for the many intolerable experiences at the airports. I'd like to go back, but I can't forget saying to myself "I can't believe I paid good money to be abused like this."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:13PM
We'll drive two days to avoid TSA.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2015, @12:54AM
Very AMEN!
I did job interview, 30hr round trip enjoyed the time to relate and just drive.
If you do go back to Europe. Drive to Canada and fly direct. Or Fly though Mexico, very relaxed after getting out of US.
Also get Europe Rail tickets and enjoy. Any train and time, just step on. And they take you city center to city center, very nice.
(Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:19PM
Do they actually cram so much luggage below/above deck that they could not shave off a little space to create a two store situation for the middle aisle?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:24PM
I also like airships. I think the greatest benefit would be to "calm down" the global "hectic spirit" (of traveling) in general.
go some place with style and not on a whim and in a hurry!
see the world (more then from a high-altitude plane)!
i have given it some thought even.
problems are:
1) weather. planes are stream-line and do get buffeted by strong winds even at higher altitudes but they're not like a "giant sail".
2) economics. a full planet gets about 2 -3 liters per kilometers and passenger. i doubt a airship can beat that with conventional combustion engines.
3) ?
4) more ?
Now the question is how to get lift and manage bouncy?
a "thought experiment": take a big oldskool scale (left and right side). on either side put a jet engine and a 500 liter tank.
the scale is even. neither side is heavier or lighter.
now assume a running engine consumes 1 liter per second.
we start one engine (the left one) and feed it the above mentioned amount of gasoline.
the other one (the right side one) we don't start and the gasoline tank "wastes" 1 liter of gasoline per second (off the scale onto the ground).
what does the scale show now?
if the "running engine side" gets lighter then we have to research this more: a engine that gets lighter, nevermind the thrust and volume of air that it can push out. it just needs to get lighter.
now we can put this "getting lighter" engine inside the "balloon" envelope -aka- dirigible and voila we have a simple "anti-gravity machine".
also hot hydrogen/helium works like regular hot air (but even better; expands more per degree of heating-up then regular air?) but still needs a "closed space" to expand into (displacement).
also there's a theory that bird have a constant fever (42 degree body temperature?) and that their lungs expand all the way into their bones?
anyways airship travel would be cool (no hurry take your time) but it think the modern airlines is now like the old bus and will not go away and not get more comfortable...
N.Y - L.A ~ 4'000 km, overnight ~ 12 hours =~ 333 km/h?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:44PM
oops, correction "2-3 liter per 100 (hundred) kilometers and passenger" : )
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:16PM
> if the "running engine side" gets lighter then we have to research this more: a engine that gets lighter, nevermind the thrust and volume of air that it can push out. it just needs to get lighter.
now we can put this "getting lighter" engine inside the "balloon" envelope -aka- dirigible and voila we have a simple "anti-gravity machine".
WTF are you smoking?
Yeah and if the moon suddenly turns rectangular we may need to go check if it happens to be made out of gold. Except that nobody anywhere ever made such a claim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:33PM
What's not to love about flying?
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:56PM
I'm just hoping they'll stick to "loose pack" and not "tight pack." [pegopera.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday April 18 2015, @09:58PM
I understand they're working on a new system to help people find their seat and fit properly now. They'll just stage people at the entrance to the plane and then operate the new people mover to carry them to their p[lace on the plane. Here's a youtube video [youtube.com] of the prototype. As you can see, it's mostly working but not yet able to support the desired density.
(Score: 3, Funny) by subs on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:41PM
Many major western airports are operating at or close to capacity, so more wings in the air isn't feasible. Meanwhile, the demand for cheaper fares has been relentless. Larger airplanes seems possible, but so far, market interest for the larger A380-900 [leblogfinance.com] variant has been weak and it would not necessarily makes fare cheaper (larger planes cost more money).
I've actually ridden in a A380 and I have to say, it's much better than a comparable 747. Much quieter and roomier, and I say so as a Boeing guy myself. I'm not a fan of the 11-seat config, so I'd vote for larger airplanes and fares staying the same.
Who here would, rather than bitch and moan, propose a real solution? And who would be willing to pay for it? And don't say stupid things like "airships!" - airships, for their enormous size, have minuscule passenger capacity, are slow and are gas guzzlers. That's not solving the problem, that's just mental masturbation.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by FatPhil on Sunday April 19 2015, @08:15PM
and you're just blowing off steam ... punk.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 21 2015, @07:45AM
"and you're just blowing off steam ... punk."
To blow [something] off is, amongst other things, to dismiss.
And what happens when you interpret the ' ... ' as nothing but a pause? (', ' woudl have been the normal punctuation for the misconscrual)
So you're left with:
"and you're just dismissing steampunk"
Which is precisely what your post, at least the part that I quoted, was doing. The fact that your wording was quite strong made it all the more fitting (but easier to not see the pun).
I don't mind "-1 too devious a pun", but flamebait I refuse to accept. And yes, I know that if you have to explain a joke it wasn't funny.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Dunbal on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:54PM
Economy is, as the name implies, a "cut price" ticket. You want to be treated like a civilized person I recommend business class. You want to be treated like royalty, try first class. Wait what, it's more expensive? Well duh. Pay up or shut up.
(Score: 2) by subs on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:19PM
Precisely how I see this. All I see in the comments section here is a bunch of whiny entitled people crying over first-world problems. If they want their space, they need to pay for it. There's simply no way around it, many airlines are already marginally profitable as-is, while the regulatory burdens and technological expenses are the highest they've ever been. Most of these people have no freakin' idea just how unbelievably expensive things are as soon as the sticker "aerospace-grade" is slapped on.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Sunday April 19 2015, @05:24AM
I did not realize that economy meant I was no longer a civilized person. In my definition, economy means no-frills but safe. I like no-frills. But it is not safe for me to travel transatlantic in economy to see my family. The seats are designed for the average 5'9" person. I am almost six foot so when the person in front of me leans back in their chair, they bump my knees -- for several hours. I have naturally broad shoulders so I have to hunch for 8-9 hours without moving around. Doctors recommend that you get up and move around during a long flight, but the cabin personnel usually tell you to sit back down. Every trip I've taken in the past 7 years, I've heard the stewards and stewardesses saying to clear the aisle because there are 3 or more people waiting to use the bathroom and they don't want a line forming.
So, you recommend business class. Is there really any more room? When I board an aircraft, I only see 1st class accommodations. I look at seats immediately behind 1st class and I see no difference on the transatlantic in leg room. Maybe I just need to try out a business class seat, but I can't exactly do that when boarding an aircraft and I'm not willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for an "upgrade" that may or may not give me extra leg room. My experience with airlines is that they are incompetent. I once had to get a three-way phone call going between me and two different departments at an airline so I could inquire about buying tickets for my cat. They didn't know which department was responsible to sell me a ticket for my cat. Never mind they do this all the time. (We were moving across the Atlantic at the time.) That was an eye opener as to the blatant stupidity and disregard for passengers they have.
I tell you something that would cost the airlines almost nothing that would get me to pay extra money: Post how much room there is between my hip and the back of the seat in front of me when it is in a reclined position and how much shoulder room I have. I'd spend extra money if I knew what I was getting. Now THAT makes sense. As a matter of fact: The airlines can put up [easily accessible and understandable information] or shut up [about their monetary problems].
(Score: 3, Funny) by Dunbal on Sunday April 19 2015, @03:42PM
I did not realize that economy meant I was no longer a civilized person.
Then maybe you should travel more. Everyone knows it's the cattle car. Everyone. Tell me do you go to McDonad's and bitch because they didn't ask you if you wanted your burger cooked well done or medium? That's what you buy with an economy ticket. McDonad's. It's bad for you. Everyone knows it's bad for you. It's disgusting. But yeah, it's cheaper than "Chez Pierre's" with his $150 steak. GUESS WHAT. The ambiance is different too. The quality of the staff is different. At Chez Pierres you will be expected to tip more than the cost of your entire meal at McDonad's. THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO.
You want to bitch about economy and how you don't fit and people bump you with their seat fine, bitch away. You get what you pay for.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:06PM
The only civilized method of "air" travel is via the transporter. No rude passengers, no crying babies in the row behind you, no suicidal pilots, Beam me up, Scotty! But if I can't have a transporter, I'll take a flying carpet. I want to travel in luxury!
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday April 18 2015, @09:28PM
I flew back from Sydney a couple of days ago. Got bumped up to First for the Singapore leg, mostly empty cabin, delightful. SnOed a couple of times, had a bowl of soup when I woke up, perfectly fine way to spend 8 hours.
Had to slum it in business for the sin-hel leg, but still got a good 8 hours sleep. A quick shower in Helsinki before my final hop to manchester with breakfast and it was fine.
Sure, nearly 30 hours of travelling is a pain, but ita hardly uncivilised.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday April 19 2015, @08:19PM
Because you have no idea what "slum it" means. Thanks for rubbing in the fact that I haven't got a clue what "business class" means.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday April 19 2015, @09:03PM
Typically business class means you get a seat that turns into a flat piece of furniture about 6' long and wide enough for your shoulders. It means you can get a good nights sleep on a long flight (like London-Singapore for example).
I really appreciated it a couple of months ago flying Rio to London, only a 2 hour time difference, but a 12 hour flight meant I had a solid 8 hours sleep.
I'm getting too old to be flying 20x 10h+ flights a year in premium economy though, fortunatly the price of PE has increased dramatically recently, meaning that I can get business on other carriers (Finnair, Turkish, Emirates) for less than the price of PE.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:56PM
Quite relevant. [imgur.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh