SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.