Losing even one in 10 customers would substantially reduce airlines' revenue. They don't make much money on each flight as it is; less income would likely cause them to shrink their service, flying fewer routes less frequently.
The problem wouldn't just be customers who chose not to fly. Some passengers might split trips between self-driving cars and airplanes, which would further reduce airlines' revenue. For instance, a person in Savannah, Georgia, who wants to go to London could choose to change planes in Atlanta—or take a self-driving car to the Atlanta airport, and skip the layover.
These changes could substantially change the aviation industry, with airlines ordering fewer airplanes from manufacturers, airports seeing fewer daily flights and lower revenue from parking lots, and even airport hotels hosting fewer guests. The future of driverless cars is appealing to consumers—which means the future of commercial flight is in danger.
A personal fondling session from a TSA agent named Brad, or 5 hours in your self-driving Mazda that your four-year old smeared peanut butter in?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:53PM (29 children)
Well, in between Boeing and Tesla, might as well just drive the vehicle your own damn self, else you perish in a fiery inferno.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:33AM (14 children)
Yeah, I already do this -- drive around the USA. Road trips are the best, why would I want to let some robot driver have all the fun?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:42AM (13 children)
You could drive for 6-8 hours, then let the robot take over for the remaining 16-18 hours in the day.
If you plan accordingly, you could see even more stuff, take various detours, and still get to your destination more quickly since you can travel hundreds of miles while sleeping.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:50AM (12 children)
No thanks CIA. We'd rather not go out Michael Hastings-style.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:54AM (11 children)
Driverless cars shouldn't need to connect to the Internet or other cars. But it will be that way because it's so convenient.
Pity the Tesla owners with their OTA firmware updates and non-functional driverless mode. Worst of both worlds.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:51AM (8 children)
> Driverless cars shouldn't need to connect to the Internet or other cars. But it will be that way
Um, assuming current "AI" technology, the only way to get enough training data for these things is from user data. It's not like a Torrent where you can choose to just leech, all these systems will need your data back in exchange for the tech.
See the recent Tesla conference on their self driving system,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucp0TTmvqOE&t=4152s [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:03AM (7 children)
If the algorithms have been refined by years of testing and millions or billions of miles driven, then your new self-driving car shouldn't need to send data back to anyone.
Maybe don't be an early adopter if being a guinea pig is part of the deal.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:48AM (2 children)
Since AI learning is trial-and-error based (with errors being used in the optimisation), the only issue would be how many fatal errors the market is able to accept before dropping the idea completely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:14AM (1 child)
judging by how many deaths from ordinary vehicles people are willing to accept, I expect the number will be quite massively larger than 1.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:13AM
I don't know about that "massively".
It's one thing to accept "If you die in a car crash, it's mostly because of you, the driver" and just another to accept "get in the car and if you live or die is a matter of pure chance from your PoV, you or any other human have no control over it".
Humans are some weird creatures like that. For instance, you remember MH370 and MH17? Well, the govt of Malaysia nationalized the airline [economist.com] to save it from collapsing, despite the two air incidents being something beyond the airline's control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:34PM (3 children)
Hey wait
Why do you think they would just push out an update to *disable* telemetry? That's money lost. The GPS location, the speed and braking info, the routes taken and routes avoided, the calls received and calls placed, and the information accessed while in motion as compared to when at a complete stop--and even driver facing camers that do facial recognition... these all generate data that no vendor will wish to leave in the car.
ALL of that can be monetized over and over again. It will likely be used against the driver in some way (I consider marketing will put the ad into adversarial...) or used to entice the driver later when usage telemetry informs the vendor how to tweak the user interface just enough to include new irritating user interactions that are required... which, for a simple, for-a-cost, upgrade... can be elimated. It's not like this is a new tactic; look at how Windows 10 was "free" and solitare wasn't, and the DVD player was removed, etc...
If you refuse updates somehow, it's not like the telemetry is ever going to stop without cutting a wire. I am sure that any Insurance company would like to know what it is you're doing besides focusing on the road.
Look at this review; https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/06/it-watches-you-drive-subaru-forester-review/ [arstechnica.com]
They don't even touch upon the privacy implications. Facial cameras, like what I mentioned earlier. Right now, it is a special extra cost feature. Before long, privacy will be the luxury that will cost extra.
There is no real suggestion as to why a facial ID tagging is necessary to alert the driver to remain focused on the road; no real reasons are provided aswhy facial ID is really required. I cynically suspect the point is getting facial recognition in the car for testing acceptance and also testing what can be done with the telemetry later.
The reviewer is clearly unconcerned with it, not creeped out at all, and considers it to be pretty cool that the car will stop if you turn your head to look out the side windows when parking, forcing you to look where you shouldn't be because the system doesn't consider why, just that you are not compliant.
From the article: "The real shiny newness in the Forester is DriverFocus. When you start the Forester up, the DriverFocus cameras will scan the driver's face. If it's your first time behind the wheel, it will do a face scan and offer to store the data in one of the five profile spots. If it detects your aren't looking straight ahead, it will beep and flash a warning on the display in the instrument panel. Ignore the warning and the Forester will gradually stop the vehicle."
The word "privacy" is not in the article even once. "Data" is used only in the context of saving the face information to a profile. There is no comment as to where the profile itself is saved. Of course, it's an article about cars--the reviewer and drivers in general are not supposed to care about privacy or security of their data when focusing on driving.
This first generation seems to open the door to more telemetry gathering, not less. I think that if user acceptance levels among rich people impressed with bling and shiny is at a high level (positive and simplistic reviews will help, I am sure), then facial ID and telemetry based privacy violations for safety purposes will become more common, not less. Pair it with some insurance discount (or punishment if not used) and it's practically a given.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:27PM (2 children)
Will a self-driving car function without telemetry? Maybe you can find a way to disable or jam it. Hopefully as easy as a YouTube video and not requiring you to dismantle the whole car and carefully remove component(s) off of a computer chip.
If not, just use the self-driving Uber/Lyft/etc. replacements when you need to, and keep your own old car until it is banned. By the time that happens, you might not be interested in driving that much (retired, eyes/brain screwed up if no regenerative medicine available, receiving Walmort/Amazonk grocery deliveries to your house).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:27PM (1 child)
I think I'll keep my old car until it's banned... maybe then I'll have "bought the farm" and can have a horse be my autopilot. Once they learn the route, the rider can even sleep while holding the reigns! If they make cyborg horses controlled by The Cloud, we're all doomed, unless we start riding manually pedaled bikes or actually start walking instead ;)
Also I wouldn't want to use a self-driving uber or lyft. I feel sorry for the people working as drivers that essentially are funding the service that will eventually put them out of a job. Seems like a crummy way to get rewarded for doing the job; getting laid off in the end if the research is successful. I've seen too many jobs get outsourced; at least those jobs went to someone. In this case, the AI isn't going to contribute back to the local economy, but the CEO of the company might get a bonus and can afford more gold plated furniture in his armageddon vault in New Zealand or something.
I can't follow through on all of my ivory tower beliefs, but not spending money on something because I don't like it (as opposed to donating to various causes that I do like) is a lot easier to do...cheaper, too, so that maybe I'll have something saved for the eventual time when my job is taken by robots.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 13 2019, @05:06PM
I said "self-driving Uber/Lyft/etc. replacements".
These may be operated by Uber and Lyft. But in the case of GOOG/Waymo, there isn't a bunch of drivers except for test drivers, so no exploited ridehailing drivers are personally kicked to the curb. They'll just force others to kick their own drivers to the curb or go out of business.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:43AM (1 child)
Me thinks the usual term is "collide with other cars"
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:20AM
V2V [wikipedia.org], bumper-to-bumper...
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:32AM (12 children)
If I'm going out in a fiery inferno, I want it to be one that I bear some responsibility for, not as a helpless passenger.
Never tell me the odds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:35AM (9 children)
If we told you that you are 6 times more likely to die when driving long distances yourself than using the driverless option, I assume your reaction would be to attack the studies involved and continue engaging in the dangerous behavior.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:39AM
No need to attack anything, this is 'Murica, we don't need permission to risk our lives, and science denial puts you in the popular majority.
Never tell me the odds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:00AM (4 children)
From an evolutionary perspective it's better for the species in the long term if most of us die mostly/partly because of our own gene related issues (bad coordination, poor reflexes, falling asleep while driving, low toughness, poor clotting factor) than something mostly not controlled by our genes other than "chose or even forced to get in a self driving car".
So self-driving cars, elevators and airliners have to be really safe, while it's fine for people to participate in dangerous sports or hobbies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:43AM (2 children)
Maybe, but this assumes that we don't entirely veer away from natural reproduction. If we use gene editing, synthetic embyros, artificial wombs, etc. we will have unprecedented control over the evolutionary direction of the species. Even with what we have today, we are balancing our ability to keep weaker individuals alive with our ability to screen them out [soylentnews.org].
If shit hits the fan™, we may not reach that level of technology, but we could have a quick culling of billions of humans, leaving a fraction of a subset of well-prepared and crafty individuals. If the goal is to keep humanity from being completely extinguished, we will probably be OK since we have billions of humans. Many "strong" people will die if nukes are being launched all over the globe, but some would make it and dominate the next phase.
If we don't get a SHTF™ event, we will enter into a new era of biotechnology that overturns a lot of ideas. No more natural selection, no more natural anything unless you're a contrarian.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:55AM (1 child)
FTFY, no strong warranties exists.
Besides, even if it happens, I have reasons to believe you won't like the ... ummm... dominants, very likely they'll rely on brute force more than the intellect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:24AM
It would be a mix. Methodical preparation, organization, resource management, etc. aren't "brutal" traits. But they can be applied in brutal ways.
Also, I'm not tryna flex. I'd probably die during week 1.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:23AM
When we started providing significant species (and even tribe) specific advantages to our offspring after our age of fertility (thinking: Grandmothers...), that started skewing up the whole evolution by death of the stupid. Now, we can have stupid children, but as long as some of them grow up to be able to protect some children long enough to breed, that's O.K.
Diversity is where it's at. There's not one best genotype for species survival - having a variety working cooperatively has given h. sapiens lots of advantages.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:57AM (2 children)
But they are no where near 6:1 vs average drivers, and don't believe anyone that tells you they are--look deeper for the people behind the "AI" who are still tweaking madly as edge cases surface. These are not the self-learning systems you have been led to believe. There has been a lot of hype out there, dig past it.
And it will be a good while before they can come close to a "good driver" -- one who doesn't engage in known risky behavior like substance abuse, distraction (phone/videos), over-tired, etc, and is probably something like 10x less likely to be in a serious accident than "average" drivers.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:49AM (1 child)
~6:1 is one claim, but you can also find claims of 90% or 93% accident reduction.
An individual car doesn't need to learn anything. It just needs to apply algorithms that have been widely tested. These algorithms may have been created using a "machine learning" process. If you don't want to call it "learning" to mix it up with some other method (like having neuromorphic "strong AI" enslaved in the car), then don't.
I don't think it will be long at all until it gets as good as a "good driver". >99% of the time, driving is trivial and boring. Google demoed a car doing the boring stuff years ago. But sometimes a person will run in front of the car or some other unexpected event will happen. In those cases, if the car can react very quickly in order to simply slow down, it will increase the possibility of saving lives (might result in you getting rear ended more often though). If it can react in 25ms instead of 500ms, there can be a substantial reduction in impact velocity.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics-speeding-cars [science.org.au]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:27AM
Whatever the odds (and never tell me), self-driving cars represent predictability, mass production with uniform predictable flaws and failure rates: the actuarial table calculators are dreaming of retiring to Bora Bora on this one, and the deep futurists can't stop salivating over the day that we get the human controlled vehicles off the road.
Newsflash: freeways might someday become auto-driver only zones, but until you're prepared to stop me from my morning bike ride, and keep pedestrians off the village crosswalks, you're always going to have human controlled obstacles in the auto-drivers' paths.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:59AM
I want to die like my Uncle Jack, sleeping peacefully.
Not like the passengers in his car, screaming and yelling as the car drifted into oncoming traffic.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:18AM
To the offtopic mod: Driverless cars and commercial air travel are both very much about loss of personal control and risk reduction.
Never tell me the odds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:18PM
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:58PM (3 children)
If you're going to split the trip, this way you get the best of both worlds. Ahh, the future. And now you have five hours to put some elbow grease into getting that peanut butter out.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:37AM (2 children)
Spend just 30 seconds picturing some of the ways that could go incredibly, hilariously and tragically wrong. Write them down. Tell me how many years before they are all covered as story elements in fictional movies.
I bet the answer is less than 5 years... the only trick is that nobody can possibly watch all the movies that come out anymore, but buried in that Netflix produced content will be every easy gag imaginable - as long as it fits a screenplay with 3 or fewer principle human characters.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:30PM (1 child)
Oh, it will be even better than that when they format it like a "choose your own adventure" like "You vs. Wild with Bear Grylls."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:05PM
I wanted to like that, I really did, but I just couldn't continue after the St. Bernard lost in the mountains, it was too predictably dumb.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @12:12AM (8 children)
Well due to wonderful customer service, I can shed many crocodile tears over this for the major airline companies.
Now if only I can find a way to get internet service without being forced to use a phone or cable company.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 4, Informative) by jelizondo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:18AM (7 children)
With all due respect, all US airlines suck mud big time. Actually, they should be named air lies.
Other parts of the world are blessed with outstanding airlines [forbes.com]. And while not in the previous list, South African Airlines (No. 45) and AeroMexico (No. 97) are two of my favourites on this list [worldairlineawards.com].
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:45AM (2 children)
Blame congress and/or the airline industry lobbyists that pay to keep 80-year-old anti-competitive laws on the books.
https://slate.com/business/2007/01/the-stupid-law-that-prevents-foreigners-from-buying-u-s-airlines.html [slate.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:07AM (1 child)
Is that really what makes your airlines provide worse service, customer experience, etc? Not being able to be bought/owned by foreign companies?
If a "better" foreign airline starts a US airline headquartered in the USA but provides the same training, policies, etc it will somehow still provide worse service?
Or are the real reasons something else?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:14AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:15AM (2 children)
The thing is that "45 minute" flight balloons into 4.5 hours when you factor in the forced shopping period at the airport. Their business model is to keep you in their shopping center for as long as possible. The airplanes are basically a novelty attraction to get you in there in the first place.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:49PM
Heathrow forced me through a gift shop including 3 aisles of perfume stench to get to my gate.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:20PM
Yeah, that deregulation thing sure did work out for us, didn't it?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 12 2019, @12:31AM (7 children)
The government will keep them afloat...
*Your tax dollars at work*
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday June 12 2019, @12:45AM (6 children)
It already does, by not helping finance the high-speed rail that other countries rely on to reduce connecting flights.
It got to the point where a few French assembly members are considering making flights illegal between towns with a good alternative on high-speed train (they can't agree on "good" yet).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:30AM (5 children)
French trains pretty much kick ass - though I was underwhelmed by the TGV... not as impressive as I expected, and even though it's fast, it's not astoundingly faster than the standard high speed intercity trains.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:16PM (3 children)
It's like riding Concorde and complaining it's not crushing you into the seat.
You're still going twice as fast as the other guys. Engineers just did a good job.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:59PM (2 children)
Let's put it another way: the TGV schedules were less accommodating than the normal IC schedules, as such TGV lost most of its speed advantage by making me wait to get on in the first place. The TGV routes of course did not go directly where I wanted to go, so forced a transfer which again reduced the time and convenience advantage.
The TGV seats were less comfortable than the normal IC seats - even if they did look cool when they were new. The excuse is that you're not on TGV as long as a normal IC train, but at least the route I took (Paris toward the Alps as far as I could get before having to transfer), I was on long enough to get uncomfortable.
Also, there's top speed and average speed, and the ratio of TGVavg/ICavg is significantly less than TGVtop/ICtop.
Still, was kinda scary cool when blowing through rural crossings at top speed - thinking about what would happen if an idiot truck driver decided today was his day to leave the world with a bang.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)
High-speed rail normally doesn't have grade crossings, and the way the trains are built as one "snake" is a lot safer than the usual individual cars of low-speed trains, which tumble individually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TGV_accidents [wikipedia.org]
Took until 2015 to get a fatality (11), and that was on a test, not even a regular one.
Their main default is the number of assholes who decide to shed their mortal coil all over the front bumper. Causes massive delays every time (twice a week for a while on just one line).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:42PM
Welp, TGV from Paris in the direction of Geneva certainly did have grade crossings in 1997... haven't tried it again since then, but we were definitely hauling ass past some of those...
If one of those suicidal assholes put some planning into it, they could surely derail the train without too much ingenuity and a heavy vehicle, perhaps modified to slip under the front of the train and wedge it up.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:34PM
I would prefer to travel by zeppelin, but bullet trains are not bad. The TGV and Shinkansen are amazing pieces of engineering. As an experiment I set a glass of water on the table on the leg between Hiroshima and Tokyo and there wasn't even a ripple on the surface as we travelled at hundreds of kph.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:11AM (2 children)
If driverless cars could disrupt the airplane industry, then buses [drivered, or driverless] should disrupt it more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:23AM
Driverless Greyhound? People would complain about being left behind at smoke break rest stops.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:44AM
Long distance busses are the worst of both worlds. Drive or get a ride to the station, buy a ticket, wait hours for a late bus, cram in with a bunch of strangers, then wait for countless hours as you travel at highway speeds. Then at the other end you still need to find a ride or rent a car.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:52AM (3 children)
How far are we from a commercial flight at mach2 ? This article appears to assume that airlines aren't going to advance technology. What about a bullet train with self guiding cars that can detach/attach as the train continues on with out stopping. You would just board the appropriate car and it would detach as you went by the intermediate destination without stopping the entire train.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:11AM
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-wants-starship-spaceliners/ [teslarati.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:28AM
Pretty safe assumption - the last 60 years have seen refinements, optimizations, but nothing like the huge technological leap from piston to turbine engines.
As for supersonic, been there, done that, proved that the world is full of a bunch of tightwads who don't really want to pay for such things. Maybe if we keep spreading the wealth gap and the next SST is _more_ luxurious than a standard commercial first class, that might sell to the 1%, but even though they fly 10x more than your average peon, that's still a tiny market, and quite a few of them are still frugal for various reasons.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:27AM
Airliners have been getting slower. Compare the cruising speed of a 707 vs a 777 and a 787. See also: https://alum.mit.edu/slice/why-hasnt-commercial-air-travel-gotten-any-faster-1960s [mit.edu]
Go figure. When flight time is a smaller percentage of the total travel time (TSA/check in time, time to airport, etc) speeding it up at a significantly higher cost isn't very attractive. If it takes 5 hours to fly from LA to NY but you need 2 hours to check in and 1+1 hours to travel from airports then cutting the flight time to 3 hours only cuts the total time from 9 hours to 7 hours. How much more would you pay that? What if there was a 1 hour flight delay (weather or whatever), then it's 10 vs 8. It's even worse for flights with a shorter flight time.
The passengers who'd really benefit from supersonic/hypersonic passenger planes are the very rich or powerful - they'd get to bypass the TSA etc (private plane, charter etc).
The advantage high speed trains have is the assumption that fewer terrorists/nutcases will target such trains compared to planes hence the check-in times for trains are much shorter.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:24AM (4 children)
Flights from hub to hub are only marginally cheaper than one and even two stop flights from smaller airports. You gain nothing, costwise, by driving a few extra miles to fly out of the hub airport as compared to paying a little higher fare at a smaller closer airport. Exceptions abound. Some small airports carry ludicrous premiums. Some large airports to too - for decades now MIA-DCA has run $800-1200 per seat round trip, while just 20 minutes up the road FLL-DCA runs more like $200 round trip.
Bottom line, if the trip is too far to wait for your self-driving car to take you there and you want to fly, don't be thinking you're going to be beating the airfare every time by having a larger choice in airports, sometimes you will, but on average the cost of driving the extra distance will be higher than the savings on the airfare.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:27AM (1 child)
The cost savings is not always why people drive to hubs. They drive to hubs to save time, avoid the hassle of layovers, avoid losing luggage, etc. I might drive 30-45 minutes to a local airport, then wait there to board, then get to a hub and sit there for a few hours for a layover. Or, I might just drive a couple hours straight to a hub and be able to leave later than if I had taken a connecting flight.
And there are the other inconveniences of layovers -- particularly scheduling issues. In an era when airlines are maximizing schedules, the more legs to your journey, the more likely some flight is going to be delayed. If the delay is in the wrong order, you may miss the later flights and end up in your destination a day later (or more) than expected. If your earlier flight is delayed and layover is too short, you may miss getting your luggage properly transferred (has happened to me more than once, and I basically never check baggage).
And there are other problems than can ensue too. Not to mention the inconveniences of flying: in a car on a long drive I can choose to stop where I want, pick up a cheap meal somewhere, even not be harassed for carrying a beverage through some faux security. I'd much rather take that than be dealing with the overpriced airports and airlines for a few hours when I can just stop at a rest stop and get some fresh air when I want on the way to a hub.
So, even if I'm not saving on cost, I generally would choose a single direct flight if I had an easy way to get to a hub over a multi-leg air journey.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:37AM
If I lived just a little closer to Atlanta (presently 5 hours away as compared to 30 minutes for my local airport), I'd probably drive out to Atlanta to avoid the evening returning flight change of planes. Most flights leave the East coast in the morning and return to the East coast in the evening. The morning flights tend to run like clockwork, but by late afternoon chaos has taken over and delays are common - my experience in Atlanta runs about 40% delays > 30 minutes for evening plane changes (monitors showing 17 flights leaving in a 10 minute window - yeah, like that's ever gonna happen), maybe 20% of those evening transfers result in a big delay of 2 hours or more, and 10% of the time it would have been faster to rent a car in Atlanta and drive myself 5 hours home - I have yet to experience a total failure that results in a hotel stay, though I have gotten home at 3am, and I do know plenty of people who have had the unexpected overnight stay.
So, yeah, with a self driving rental car, I'd probably opt to fly into Atlanta instead of taking a transfer jet to my local airport to sometimes save a couple of hours. Too bad the airfares won't reflect that, and I'll have to either also drive to Atlanta for the outbound, or pay for the transfer home whether I use it or not.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:40AM (1 child)
That is a good example, MIA-DCA vs FLL-DCA.
I95 is a really traffic magnet, seeing as it is North/South and so much of Florida is South ;-)
And if you are flying into one NYC airport and out of another, the airlines pad the schedule by 5 hours (EWR->JFK , I had 4 hours and missed my flight...).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @12:47PM
I would never try to drive MIA-FLL during rush hour, not unless they've "fixed" the Golden Glades interchange, which seems unlikely without a complete do-over. That being said, it's a nominal 45 minute drive in average heavy traffic.
I used to live between the two airports, 20 minutes to MIA, 40 minutes to FLL, FLL was usually my preferred airport, but taxis were cheaper and easier to MIA.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:42AM (4 children)
I travel for work a lot. I live almost an hour from the airport, the parking shuttle takes at least 20 minutes, and I have to be there an hour-and-a-half early to check my bag. From there I sit on the tarmac for 20 minutes, fly to $Hub, sit there for at least an hour, and finally fly to where I want to go.
Anywhere under a 5 hours I already drive because it's faster than flying. With an autonomous car I would unquestionably drive more and fly less.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:57AM (1 child)
You first, honey.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:33PM
I already have, sort-of. One of the side benefits of traveling is I get to drive a lot of rental cars. The last Toyota I drove had the best driver assist (LDA) system I've been able to test so far. Its "are your hands on the steering wheel" sensor isn't quite sensitive enough, but it does an excellent job in keeping between well marked highway lines and adjusting speed to match the vehicle in front of me.
I haven't been able to figure out the Tacoma configurator to figure out what it would cost me to own. I guess I need to go to a dealer for that. I should probably get a minivan anyway.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:40AM
The convenience of "on demand" departure times can't be overstated. That 5 hour threshold can easily jump to 6 or 7 if the selection of flight times is limited to undesirable hours.
Of course, ground transport has its urban blackout periods as well: 8-9am and 4-6pm in most urban centers, you might as well stop for a meal instead of fighting it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:12PM
Add onto that the cost in some places. For example if I wanted to fly to visit my parents. Take that ticket x4 as the wife and kids need to go too. The tickets to get there are anywhere from 300-800 depending on the time of year. I will be nice but 300x4 is 1200 bucks. The gas is MAYBE 200 total and 1 night in a hotel for 80-150 plus food.
They have made it expensive and a PITA to use. So I skip as much as I can.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:47AM (4 children)
Abolish the TSA, and add a tough door to every flight cockpit. No more pedo strip searches of babies, and more people will fly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:50AM (1 child)
Tough door is already there.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:57PM
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:22PM (1 child)
Yeah, not like the terrorists can't blow up the entire plane [wikipedia.org] or anything....
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Osamabobama on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:39PM
We just need for terrorists to have access to cheap and reliable surface to air weapons so they don't gain anything from getting a bomb aboard an aircraft. If we gave away stinger missiles, or rented out larger missile systems, we could remove airport security entirely; the terrorists would have equal or better access to the plane from the ground outside the current security perimeter.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:30AM (9 children)
If anything, this will disrupt the hotel/motel industry moreso than the Airline industry. Just have the car drive while you sleep, isntead of paying $100-150 for hotel. Sure you forgo a cold shower and a terrible breakfast, but you can significantly cut down on travel time.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:00AM (8 children)
http://www.lifeasatrucker.com/how-much-is-a-shower-at-a-truck-stop-.html [lifeasatrucker.com]
https://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/threads/cost-of-showers-laundry-at-truck-stops.145806/ [thetruckersreport.com]
http://www.girlmeetsroad.com/morning-took-shower-truck-stop/ [girlmeetsroad.com]
If you need a shower, looks like you can get one for ~$5-15 if you plan your route to hit a travel center. Maybe just get it right before arriving at your destination.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:20AM (2 children)
I'm guessing the truck stop hookers would be cheaper (possibly significantly so) than one you found online who will come to your hotel.
It's a win/win!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:07AM (1 child)
Escorts technically aren't hookers, plus they add in transit cost to and from the hotel. Unless you're talking about the ones that hang around in the bar/lobby of high end hotels. They're expensive since the hotel staff gets a cut.
Self driving cars would be a boon to the sex work industry. No need for hotels or corners. John calls, you pick them up and the car drives around the block while you work. You can call yourself a ride share service. With heavy tint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:31PM
Yep. And military advisers aren't technically soldiers either.
I'm aware of the economics (as is probably anyone else who gives it about 30 seconds of thought).
I will take issue with your treatment of transit costs, especially as electric vehicles become more common, so will the practice of hotels and other places providing free charging. This will allow (sanctioned or not) the hookers to reduce fuel costs significantly.
As for the cost of a place to do business, out-call [quora.com] means that the john provides the location, not the escort. So that's not an issue unless you're picking up street hookers, which is a significantly different scenario, and those girls likely won't have a car anyway.
As such, it's unlikely that the out-call girls will bring you to their own cars (self-driving or not), given that they are coming to you in the first place, and they generally have a driver who provides both transportation and muscle, often to multiple girls.
Besides, can't we just accept the trope that truck-stop whores are generally skankier than out-call escorts and, as such, they will generally charge less? Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:42AM (3 children)
?
What's your _X_ virginity worth to you? There are lots of experiences available at truck stops (whether you're willing or not) that most people prefer to never have.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:00PM (2 children)
It's $CURRENT_YEAR. Are you sure you gonna get raped at the truck stop?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @03:34PM (1 child)
It's $CURRENT_YEAR, people still get raped, mugged, beat up for little or no reason, shot, etc. and if that's going to happen, a truck stop is one of the higher odds places for it to happen.
Worst I ever experienced was in $CURRENT_YEAR-30 when a bunch of loitering teens decided they didn't like the brand of my car and threw a perfectly good apple pie onto the windshield - funny in retrospect, but... in my concern at the time I backed out and left quickly, not paying attention to the motorcycles parked behind me, luckily I didn't knock them over or that night would probably have been even more fun.
But, I will grant you, since they removed the lead from the gasoline, the senseless violence seems to have tapered down quite a bit, not to zero, but it has definitely improved.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:44PM
I think there's something wrong with y'all's html. Neither one of you was able to get your current year variable to parse.
Try it like this: 2019
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:05PM
I've seen it as cheap as $3 with a clean towel thrown in.
People don't like sleeping in their cars. I do it on long trips, and take a hotel every other night (EG, driving a 7000km trip or what not). You just pull over in a rest stop, and go to sleep.
I don't see how a self-driving car changes things, except you get more distance. You'd probably get less sleep with cars driving around, but who knows. People are weird.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:39AM (4 children)
I pretty much stopped flying when the TSA started making taking a flight more painful than driving. Only time I fly now is for international travel to Asia, if I need to be anywhere in the USA I drive there, even if it takes a couple days to get there.
what would make me consider flying domestically more?
For starters get rid of the TSA, go back to pre-2001 security levels. No one will ever be able to hijack a plane again no mater what they manage to smuggle on board.
Get rid of a of a couple rows to add more leg room. I'm tall and having my knees mashed into the seat in front of me for hours is an experience I prefer to avoid.
It would also be nice if the air lines started treating the passengers less like cattle.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:22AM (3 children)
lol couple of days drive
sure you do internet tough guy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:20PM
He might. I do. By the time you deal with traffic, TSA, layovers, etc. any air trip from where I live is going to take a full day. If I can do it in two days as a car trip, even with a decent hotel it's cheaper, more relaxing, and I arrive happier. Add in a good book from Audible and it's even entertaining.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:41PM
You find that hard to believe? I don't, because I don't fly any more either. I can drive to most of the important cities in the Midwest in a day. If I need to speak to someone on the west coast I use video conferencing. Driving anywhere as far west as Pittsburgh or south as Richmond or north as Boston is as fast, or faster, than flying.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:13PM
I'm utterly confused as to why you think 2 days of driving is "tough guy" behaviour.
There are lots of reasons to do it, and some people actually find driving extremely fun and enjoyable.
I drive from the East coast of Canada to Southern California last winter, did so in 4 days, and enjoyed the entire drive down and back. And since I stayed there from some of the winter -- it was a win/win. I had my car with me, instead of it sitting at home (and me paying for it regardless), and I didn't need to rent one.
Driving is also often much cheaper than flying. When you're "away from home", such as a vacation, you're pretty much in a hotel or rented accommodation anyhow. Yet driving (especially with a family of 4 people, as happened when I was a child) is quite cheap, compared to flying. Again, the plus is .. get to keep the car.
EG, drive to Florida as a Canuck.. that's a 2 day drive (about 12 hours a day), with one hotel stop over half way there. Cost? 4 or 5 tanks of gas, which is far cheaper than even one person flying down (flight costs in Canada are more than the US...). And we got the whole family there for that price.
Fair enough that maybe you don't like driving. But some do -- and heck, to give you an example? As a teenager, it was 60 miles to drive to my high school (there were school buses, but...), then after it was 45 miles to drive to work, then I delivered pizza for 8 hours some nights (anywhere from 20 to 60 more miles), then I drove home again, another 60 miles or so. 200 miles daily, plus school, plus job.
When you grow up like that, you're just used to 'car time'.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:04AM
Flying on airlines is horrible and miserable and nobody should do it unless they absolutely have to. Anything that increases options is good.
There's also a potential environmental benefit. Electric cars might be genuinely practical for long distance travel within ten years or so, probably around the same time fully autonomous cars are ready. Airplanes will be fossil fuel powered for the foreseeable future.
Someday, self-driving cars will be safe and efficient enough that freeway speed limits may increase for them, and then they will become an even better choice relative to airplanes.
Airplanes largely replaced trains, and someday they will also be replaced. Of course, aircraft will remain necessary for cross-continent and intercontinental travel.