Domestic flying in the USA

The growth in air traffic in the USA has far exceeded population growth between the time that airlines were deregulated in 1978 until the end of the century. Air travel almost completely displaced long distance automobile trips, and put the final nail into the coffin for train travel.

Since 2000, beaten back by first 9/11 and then the global economic meltdown, and the machinations of airlines to become profitable, air travel is now barely increasing. The rate is well below that of the general population increase.

What do you think holds in store for the next decade? Will skype and its successors, not to mention airline bankruptcies, increasing humiliation of flying, and fares keep growth to something well below population growth? Or was the past decade a singular anomaly.

Do you suspect your hometown airport is overpriced? I've heard a lot of people complain about Newark, where do fares rank on a national list.

The most recent ranking of average airport fares shows the average domestic fare out of Houston Bush airport to be 277% that of Atlantic City, NJ. Ranking of airports is done by number of origin domestic passengers (not including international and connecting passengers). So Atlanta which is normally the busiest airport in the USA is now ranked #3 since so many passengers are connecting flights. LAX is now #1. Fares are for domestic flights only.

Rank (originating)	Domestic Itinerary Fare	1Q 2011
21	Houston Bush, TX	$476.60
95	Huntsville, AL	$472.89
14	Newark-Liberty, NJ	$469.82
58	Cincinnati, OH	$465.75
30	Washington Dulles	$464.57
86	Charleston, SC	$459.56
65	Memphis, TN	$453.73
88	Knoxville TN	$448.54
8	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	$431.15
90	Madison, WI	$429.08
16	Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN	$413.21
83	Des Moines, IA	$412.62
93	Burlington, VT	$409.80
85	Colorado Springs, CO	$409.32
45	Cleveland, OH	$407.59
100	Greenville/Spartanburg, SC	$406.79
94	Jackson, MS	$404.37
73	Albany, NY	$401.09
91	Harrisburg, PA	$398.83
77	Syracuse, NY	$394.07
72	Tulsa, OK	$393.07
31	Charlotte, NC	$392.01
78	Little Rock, AR	$390.94
61	Oklahoma City, OK	$389.54
2	Chicago O'Hare, IL	$388.95
92	Pensacola, FL	$388.51
6	San Francisco, CA	$386.31
62	Norfolk/Virginia Beach, VA	$384.73
10	New York JFK, NY	$383.18
69	Birmingham, AL	$382.60
80	Grand Rapids, MI	$380.26
1	Los Angeles, CA	$378.55
22	Washington Reagan National	$378.22
87	Wichita, KS	$378.21
59	Richmond, VA	$377.97
98	Fresno, CA	$377.72
32	Salt Lake City, UT	$374.69
44	Miami, FL	$372.79
84	Greensboro/High Point, NC	$371.62
64	Louisville, KY	$371.58
13	Philadelphia, PA	$366.03
49	Hartford, CT	$364.70
17	Detroit, MI	$363.51
82	Portland, ME	$361.92
3	Atlanta, GA	$360.27
37	Austin, TX	$359.22
67	El Paso, TX	$355.97
Avg	U.S. Average	$355.72
25	Portland, OR	$353.33
40	Nashville, TN	$350.70
57	Omaha, NE	$349.08
9	New York LaGuardia, NY	$348.99
5	Boston, MA	$347.38
42	San Antonio, TX	$346.25
60	Tucson, AZ	$345.98
7	Seattle/Tacoma, WA	$345.20
70	Dayton, OH	$342.20
75	Boise, ID	$339.13
38	Santa Ana (Orange County), CA	$336.92
55	Albuquerque, NM	$336.38
74	Rochester, NY	$335.11
43	Columbus, OH	$333.72
18	San Diego, CA	$333.59
39	Indianapolis, IN	$332.50
26	St. Louis, MO	$331.76
28	Kansas City, MO	$330.80
56	Providence, RI	$330.74
63	Manchester, NH	$329.87
52	Jacksonville, FL	$328.05
66	Spokane, WA	$327.24
46	New Orleans, LA	$325.31
33	Raleigh/Durham, NC	$325.29
76	White Plains, NY	$323.25
35	Pittsburgh, PA	$323.13
11	Phoenix, AZ	$321.10
97	Newport News/Williamsburg, VA	$320.20
29	Sacramento, CA	$317.09
4	Denver, CO	$315.92
47	Buffalo/Niagara, NY	$309.97
50	Ontario/San Bernardino, CA	$308.67
96	Flint, MI	$307.67
71	Reno, NV	$306.68
23	Tampa, FL	$306.13
54	West Palm Beach/Palm Beach, FL	$305.23
12	Baltimore, MD	$304.15
34	San Jose, CA	$299.64
41	Houston Hobby, TX	$299.12
24	Chicago Midway, Il	$298.07
81	Akron/Canton, OH	$297.66
79	Islip, NY	$295.18
36	Milwaukee, WI	$280.78
53	Ft. Myers, FL	$276.85
27	Oakland, CA	$275.57
20	Las Vegas, NV	$274.12
48	Dallas Love, TX	$273.19
19	Ft. Lauderdale, FL	$269.49
15	Orlando, FL	$267.39
51	Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena, CA	$266.38
99	Bellingham, WA	$245.81
68	Long Beach, CA	$216.22
89	Atlantic City, NJ	$171.84

Thanks for providing these statistics that show Houston "leading" the nation in a bad way...no wonder it is hard to find a decent priced flight to Vegas!!

Quote: pacomartin

What do you think holds in store for the next decade? Will skype and its successors, not to mention airline bankruptcies, increasing humiliation of flying, and fares keep growth to something well below population growth? Or was the past decade a singular anomaly.

I don't think Skype etc have any effect at all. People who need videoconferencing, got it decades ago. For the rest it's just phone call with a gimmick. Virtually every new phone supports video calls (iphone was last to the party while at that), but you see very few people actually using them. When they do, it's pleasure, not business.

So barring a plunge into deeper recession, air travel is going to grow. Oil crisis only pushes towards phasing out overlong car trips in favor of more fuel-efficient air travel.
As for strip searches, people will get used to it. With all the things people have been forced to get used to recently, an occasional cavity search isn't by far the worst.

There will be a shift to Free Flight rather than computer assigned routes.
There will be an increase in Air Taxi Service particularly amongst those firms that "float" their planes rather than returning them to a base of operations when they are empty.
There will be major accidents particularly amongst European airlines wherein crews can't speak English despite the documentation they carry and have not been to any flight schools at all despite the documentation they carry. After a spate of these, general enthusiasm for flying may wane but in the USA regionals will have to offer better training and a better mix of experience for CRM because presently airline pilots are in reality Hamburger Flippers as far as economics and power go. In a courtroom and in obituaries they are airline professionals but in reality they are marginal workers on the brink of welfare and have no ability to exercise discretion in the orders they are giving regarding overweight takeoffs or deviations for WX purposes.

Note: Air India fired 14 pilots whose flight school documents were purchased but there are probably dozens more. Turkish Air has no desire to have their pilots speak English and no desire for any cockpit atmosphere other than the Captain is God and you never complain about anything. Foreign maintenance is bad enough but foreign training is utterly fraudulent. One pilot with over a thousand hours of "experience" couldn't even fasten his seat belt. Another pilot with a log book showing his flights turned out to have never experienced any delays and to have flown each flight at an average speed twenty miles an hour faster than the airplane was capable of flying.

I just got a flight From JFK to Vegas for $319 round trip on VirginAmerica. It beat anything I could get from Islip on Southwest. I'm a little surprised to see LaGuardia ahead of Kennedy in ranking even though most International flights in New York go to JFK. I was also surprised to see Islip on the list at all and shocked that White Plains made it.

Quote: FleaStiff

After a spate of these, general enthusiasm for flying may wane but in the USA regionals will have to offer better training and a better mix of experience for CRM because presently airline pilots are in reality Hamburger Flippers as far as economics and power go. In a courtroom and in obituaries they are airline professionals but in reality they are marginal workers on the brink of welfare

Are you being sarcastic or something?
I know some people in the job, and even flying domestic you won't find yourself less than comfortably off. One might argue airline pilots might not be paid enough for the level of responsibility, but they certainly do well in absolute terms. The annual income is high five to low six figures, with moderate hours. In US it's also a particularly difficult job to get into, as the market is swamped with fighter jocks who consider it a dream retirement and already had most of their training on the government.

Bush flyers and cargo are a different story, but it's still middle class, and they aren't what you normally think of as airlines.

If by "air traffic" you mean number of planes in the air, I think, that is probably going to decrease, let alone grow faster than population.
If you fly often, I bet, you can see the tendency already. There are a lot fewer half-empty planes, most of the time they are packed to capacity, even the first class. This is not happening because so much more people have suddenly started to fly, this is happening because airlines are cutting their flights.

The problem is that operating a plane is extremely expensive. The margins are so low that every empty seat on the plane is literally taking money out of some airline employee's pocket. If the price of every ticket on the same flight was the same, the airline would never be able to sell enough tickets to pay the costs of the flight.
Many (if not most) of the tickets are actually sold below cost, and now with the business travel dramatically down, the ratio is higher than ever. The trend leads to business travel becoming more expensive, which in turn will lead to further reduction.

Another "evil circle" is that, trying to survive desperately, airlines are cutting on many services and conveniences that customers are used to - from free snacks and television on board to having to pay to check your luggage. This greatly hurts "short haul" travel numbers. It takes a few hours more to get from, say, Boston to New York by train than it does by plane, and is almost as expensive, but is a lot more convenient. You don't have to be there two hours in advance, you are not jammed into an airplane seat for two hours, you do not need to drive to the airport, and then to wherever you need to be, you get food service, and you can bring baggage. Most people would much rather take a train than fly. Longer distances are not as open and shut, but still it is often more convenient to take a night train and go with comfort than to suffer and fly to save a few hours and get home in the middle of the night, while risking to spend that night in the airport to begin with.


Also, air travel is not fuel-efficient. Compare Boeing-747's 91 passenger-miles/gallon (smaller planes that are more common on domestic routes, are a lot less efficient) to a diesel commuter bus averaging 330 passenger-mpg.

Some people have already started shipping their luggage rather than deal with airline fees and whims. I don't know if FedEx is cheaper than an airline, I think its just less troublesome. I travel rather light and frankly I think airline passengers have always lugged too much stuff with them and tried to hog overhead compartments.

As to airline pilots being Burger Flippers... new hires at commuter airlines are just about that. They can't afford to live near airports at which they are based, their fatigue levels are high, their training is spotty and their cockpit coordination is untested.

One nice thing about living in Vegas is it is cheap to fly places and you can go to just about any major city in America directly, as well as many international cities.

I've ranted about this before, but I think the airlines are under-priced. I'd be willing to pay more to not get bumped on overbooked flights and treated better than a sheep. Furthermore, there is something wrong with free enterprise in America if the much of the industry is losing money and in bankruptcy.

Quote: pacomartin

I've heard a lot of people complain about Newark...

Not to down-play thier bad reputation, but I do a lot of complaining about Newark right here at WoV, and if I recall correctly, in person when we met about a year ago.

I just hope you're not over-emphasizing my feelings in your analysis.

Quote: Wizard

I've ranted about this before, but I think the airlines are under-priced. I'd be willing to pay more to not get bumped on overbooked flights and treated better than a sheep.

You can do that. Just look for the words "full non-restricted fare" when you shop for the tickets.
I am not sure about better treatment (probably not), but you will not be bumped as long as you are paying full price for the ticket.

And to get better treatment, you can buy membership in various "elite"/"golden"/"platinum" airline clubs - that will get you priority boarding, better seats, member-only lounges with amenities in the airports etc. To me, that sounds like "better than sheep".

I suspect, you are being a little bit dishonest with yourself when you are saying you'd be willing to pay more for that. Surely, you knew the stuff I just mentioned, yet chose not to pay for it in the past ...

Quote:

Furthermore, there is something wrong with free enterprise in America if the much of the industry is losing money and in bankruptcy.

Not sure what it has to do with free enterprise. The problem is there is not enough people like you in US. For most of us, the airfare is way too expensive to be affordable as it is, we cannot afford to pay more, and the amount that we can afford does not cover airline's costs.

Quote: weaselman

And to get better treatment, you can buy membership in various "elite"/"golden"/"platinum" airline clubs - that will get you priority boarding, better seats, member-only lounges with amenities in the airports etc. To me, that sounds like "better than sheep".

Fair point. However, even with those perks, the whole experience of flying has become more like a cattle call.

Quote: weaselman

For most of us, the airfare is way too expensive to be affordable as it is, we cannot afford to pay more, and the amount that we can afford does not cover airline's costs.

I don't mean to come off as elitist, but it shouldn't be the role of government to subsidize the airline industry to keep tickets affordable. If I had my way it would be left to stand on its own two feet or die trying. It would also be more regulated than it is now, with fines up the ying-yang for overbooking.

Quote: Wizard

Fair point. However, even with those perks, the whole experience of flying has become more like a cattle call.

How was your experience with Aeromexico, and whatever local airline you used in Argentina? Just curious.

Quote: weaselman

Longer distances are not as open and shut, but still it is often more convenient to take a night train and go with comfort than to suffer and fly to save a few hours and get home in the middle of the night, while risking to spend that night in the airport to begin with.

Certainly. But these are medium distances, under 500 miles. Anything above that and you are spending more than just a night. 1000 miles+, and trains, at least common slow trains, take clearly considerable time.

I personally prefer the train when I can, provided it's got proper comforts for the distance, but it's not often that a choice is available. It also tends to cost more than what you can get a flight for.

Quote: weaselman

Also, air travel is not fuel-efficient. Compare Boeing-747's 91 passenger-miles/gallon (smaller planes that are more common on domestic routes, are a lot less efficient) to a diesel commuter bus averaging 330 passenger-mpg.

Yes, but most people don't consider buses as an alternative to planes, they are seen as a lower-class mode of transport. Some people just don't consider them, many even act offended by the idea of "sitting in other people's stink" (strangely they don't seem bothered by it when crammed twice tighter into a plane).

The car, which is seen as a "suitable" alternative, is less efficient even when full, for a typical vehicle and driver, and much less efficient when it's just 1-2 people. It's less efficient even against partially loaded planes and small planes, from all the way down to bush aviation to regional aircraft.

A few thoughts:

(1) Airlines are trying to increase efficiency in order to fill the planes. But this is seen far more often on regionals than the mainline carriers. With the major airlines, there will still be plenty of planes that are not even close to full because the plane is required to be somewhere else in the morning (when the plane will be full). But it's much more in their best interest to fill the plane and adjust the schedule to do so.

(2) The figures in the table above are different due to the airlines and the distances being served. Atlantic City flies all regional carriers short distances, which explains the very low prices. Houston is a continental hub, and airlines drive up flights to hubs because they usually employ mainline planes which are more expensive.

(3) Airlines will go bankrupt in order to renegotiate their pension plans, which put a competitive disadvantage compared to other airlines. They will emerge from bankruptcy but will go into bankruptcy every time to shed more costs.

(4) Hopefully, the FAA will open more routes or allow for free flight except for approach and departure paths. This will reduce congestion and increase on-time performance. This problem is quite evident through the eastern seaboard.

(5) Flying is the choice of travel for anything over 500 miles. I used to drive regularly from my home to New Jersey and Connecticut because of the unknowns of flying. If flying is perfect, then I could get door to door in about 4.5 hours from both locales. But i could drive it in 7 hours. If I had a sniff that anything was going wrong with my flight, I simply canceled the flight and drove.

(6) Train service is too slow - too many stops. There are few exceptions which is the Acela service.

(7) Pilots in regional airlines are the hamburger flippers of the industry. But their rates of pay are much higher than advertised, but they are paid by the scheduled or actual flight hour. So, take American Eagle. Their starting rate is $25.46/hour for a 1st officer, while the captain makes $43.83 - $67.44/flight hour depending on the craft. The top salary is between 72.88 and $104.88 / flight hour for the captain and 42.07 for a FO. While that may seem alot, they do not get paid for "duty" time (about 50% more than flying time) and are limited to 100 hours of paid flying time a month. Its parent company, American, has captains with a starting pay of $149/flight hour ($75/flight hour for the FO). But they're flying much more complex planes. If you're an FO on a regional (which is what you'll start with), you're looking at a starting salary of at most $25,460/year, not much. If you factor in duty time, that works out to about $18/hour.

Quote: Wizard

I don't mean to come off as elitist, but it shouldn't be the role of government to subsidize the airline industry to keep tickets affordable.

The government does not subsidise it as a rule, at least, to my knowledge. I mean, it might have bailed this airline or that one here and there to keep them afloat, like it does with many other businesses "too large to fail", that get into trouble, but in general airline tickets are not subsidised by government AFAIK.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Not to down-play thier bad reputation, but I do a lot of complaining about Newark right here at WoV, and if I recall correctly, in person when we met about a year ago.

I just hope you're not over-emphasizing my feelings in your analysis.

It's not just you. I've heard many people complain. Even the government was upset. On condition of permitting the merger of Continental and United they mandated that some gates be given to Southwest Airline to try and keep costs down. But you will notice that all the airports near New York City are on the upper end.

Hubs of major airlines are expensive. You could argue that you get better service (more frequent flights, and more nonstops), but you have to pay.

Emphasis on the tables shows average DOMESTIC fares.

Quote: P90

Yes, but most people don't consider buses as an alternative to planes, they are seen as a lower-class mode of transport.

I was responding to your statement comparing planes fuel efficiency to cars (which are, of course, worse than buses, but still better when compared to air travel, even though the comparison is unfair - you should actually compare cars to private planes, not major airline jets).

Quote:

Some people just don't consider them, many even act offended by the idea of "sitting in other people's stink" (strangely they don't seem bothered by it when crammed twice tighter into a plane).

When I have to travel, I'll consider taking a train, then bus, and then plane, only if the other two options are unavailable or infeasible.

Quote:

The car, which is seen as a "suitable" alternative, is less efficient even when full, for a typical vehicle and driver, and much less efficient when it's just 1-2 people. It's less efficient even against partially loaded planes and small planes, from all the way down to bush aviation to regional aircraft.

The 91 passenger-mpg number I quoted above was for a completely filled Boeing-747. These do not fly on the routes where travelling by car is a feasible option. The average number, quoted by DOT for major US carriers is 64 seat-mpg. This still includes trans-oceanic mammoths and also counts empty seats as occupied. Realistically, the number for domestic travel is probably around 40-45 passenger-mpg.
A "gaz-guzzler" car, carrying four people, makes about 100, for a more "environmentally-conscious" vehicles, 150 passenger-mpg or higher is a fairly realistic number.

Quote: Nareed

How was your experience with Aeromexico, and whatever local airline you used in Argentina? Just curious.

AeroMexico from Vegas to Buenos Aires: No complaints at all. Would definitely fly with them again.

LAN Airlines: Buenos Aires to Puerto Iguazu: My original flight was cancelled, and I didn't know this until I showed up for it. The agent made some calls and got me on another flight, leaving about two hours after the one I was supposed to be on. Originally she told me I would have to call the airline to make other arrangements, but she could tell my Spanish was horrible, and may have taken pity on me. The return flight went fine. Still, canceling a flight does not impress me, so would avoid flying them again.

Pluna: Buenos Aires to Punta Del Este: Outstanding. Never a wait and very nice planes. Would DEFINITELY fly again.

Aerolíneas Argentinas: I didn't fly them but could see traveling through the Aeroparque Airport twice that the lines for that airline were enormous. So I would definitely avoid them, if I has the choice.

Quote: Wizard

AeroMexico from Vegas to Buenos Aires: No complaints at all. Would definitely fly with them again.

At the Mex City airport, were you told the gate number when you got your baording pass, or did you have to wonder the terminal waiting for the info to show up on a screen?

Quote: boymimbo

A few thoughts:

(1) Airlines are trying to increase efficiency in order to fill the planes. But this is seen far more often on regionals than the mainline carriers. With the major airlines, there will still be plenty of planes that are not even close to full because the plane is required to be somewhere else in the morning (when the plane will be full). But it's much more in their best interest to fill the plane and adjust the schedule to do so.

(2) The figures in the table above are different due to the airlines and the distances being served. Atlantic City flies all regional carriers short distances, which explains the very low prices. Houston is a continental hub, and airlines drive up flights to hubs because they usually employ mainline planes which are more expensive.

(Point 1) there is no evidence to back this statement. In fact the load factors are dramatically increasing across the board. The empty planes have more to do with seamless connections to international flights. For instance American Airlines will run two flights per day from Las Vegas to JFK because they want to provide potential International travelers easy access to connections. They can tolerate a low load factor. The rest of the day JetBlue flies back and forth. Since JetBlue is in the business of flying people to Vegas, they want average load factors over 90%.

(Point 2) Granted the different airlines have different services. But Huntsville is mostly served by regional airlines servicing the major hubs while Atlantic City is served by offprice airlines AirTran and Spirit airlines, and AirTran is leaving in a few weeks. So Spirit tries to make money by selling a lot of one stop packages which includes hotel rooms and shows. The residents of Huntsville either must pay higher fares on a regional jet, or they have to drive 115 miles to Nashville airport where there are better choices and lower fares and more full size jets.

Quote: weaselman

I was responding to your statement comparing planes fuel efficiency to cars (which are, of course, worse than buses, but still better when compared to air travel, even though the comparison is unfair - you should actually compare cars to private planes, not major airline jets).

Private bizjets or personal planes? The former go vs chauffeured cars.
For personal aircraft, a typical one will only take about 4-8 gph while doing 150 mph, for 20-40 mpg, comparable to a reasonably efficient car.
It's not practical due to the lack of airstrips and other considerations, but still.

Quote: weaselman

A "gaz-guzzler" car, carrying four people, makes about 100, for a more "environmentally-conscious" vehicles, 150 passenger-mpg or higher is a fairly realistic number.

The average private vehicle is still only about 22 mpg, IIRC. Consider also that the average car occupancy is only about 1.6. Most of the time you drive alone, occasionally a family of up to 4, comes out to under 2. That's less than 40 passenger-mpg.

Quote: Nareed

At the Mex City airport, were you told the gate number when you got your baording pass, or did you have to wonder the terminal waiting for the info to show up on a screen?

I had to wander. For example, on the return they didn't announce the gate until about an hour before departure. On the way out it didn't matter because I barely made the connection, due to very long line at Mexican customs, which you must clear even if just making a connection.

Quote: Wizard

I've ranted about this before, but I think the airlines are under-priced. .

They are.
Still, I've never heard anyone say "that is too low a price at which to fly me safely, so I will voluntarily pay more".

Remember, the Hub and Spoke system is good for the airlines, not the public (or as industry people refer to the public, "Self Loading Freight").

Some transcontintental flights earn the airline a grand total of three hundred dollars.

It was the cities that chose not to impose development bans on air approach paths.

Quote: FleaStiff

Still, I've never heard anyone say "that is too low a price at which to fly me safely, so I will voluntarily pay more".

I'd be happy to pay more if I got more. My first two requests would be a few more inches of leg room, hire more people to work the lines (this does seem to be getting better), and don't bump from a flight I paid for.

Quote: Wizard

I had to wander. For example, on the return they didn't announce the gate until about an hour before departure. On the way out it didn't matter because I barely made the connection, due to very long line at Mexican customs, which you must clear even if just making a connection.

I've always had to wander in MEX airport. It is very annoying.

The schedule says the redeye from Buenos Aires arrives at 05:40 AM and the nonstop flights back to Vegas are at 10:00AM and 11:35 AM. I assume you took the later one to give you a few hours to explore the City. Icelandair used to offer a free one day layover for people who wanted to spend the night in the city. If AeroMexico made the same offer would you have taken them up on it?

Quote: pacomartin

The schedule says the redeye from Buenos Aires arrives at 05:40 AM and the nonstop flights back to Vegas are at 10:00AM and 11:35 AM. I assume you took the later one to give you a few hours to explore the City. Icelandair used to offer a free one day layover for people who wanted to spend the night in the city. If AeroMexico made the same offer would you have taken them up on it?

Yes, exactly, I took the later flight to have more time to see the city. The 10:00 a.m. flight also makes a stop on the way, I think Monterey, so they get to Vegas at close to the same time anyway. Indeed, I probably would have done a one night layover if there was little or no additional expense.

When I took Icelandair from Baltimore to Germany in 2000 I stayed over in Reykavik for two days on the way back, to fairly cross Iceland off my list of Risk cards.

Quote: P90

The average private vehicle is still only about 22 mpg, IIRC. Consider also that the average car occupancy is only about 1.6. Most of the time you drive alone, occasionally a family of up to 4, comes out to under 2. That's less than 40 passenger-mpg.

Not for long distance travel. People tend to travel in groups. I think 4 people per car is a reasonable estimate.
Also 22 mpg is a bit on a low side. According to this, it was higher than that even back in the 80s, and is close to 30+ at the present time for new vehicles.

My evidence is anecdotal. However, it makes sense that a plane will run empty back late at night in order to handle morning flights. In hub cities, this is done more purposefully so that those missing earlier connections due to weather and air traffic control will be able to get on that last flight.

All airlines want high load factors. All airlines will run a couple of mainline flights from major cities to its hubs regardless of capacity in order to drum up international business, and they may not be at capacity but run the flights anyway for its international customers. According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors authority about 14% (5.1 million) of the total visitor count in 2009 was international.

The answer is competition for Huntsville. They have flights to 12 destinations: Charlotte (USAirways), Orlando (Southwest), Atlanta (Delta), Chicago (United), Denver (United), Detroit (Delta), Dallas (American), Houston (United), Baltimore (Southwest), Memphis (Delta), and Dulles (United), and Reagan (USA). Each destination is served by one carrier. Atlanta is 151 miles away, Nashville 115 miles.

I will purport that the high cost of flying from Huntsville is a result of an oligarchy. Huntsville's main business is defense and space. Most of its travellers are business travellers, and the portion of those who travel for pleasure will make the trek to Atlanta or Nashville to fly for cheaper. Business travellers are willing to pay more for their flights, and because of a lack of competition, the airlines charge more.

Take for example YYZ - BDL (Hartford). Air Canada charges $1,086 for this flight in mid-January. Or, I could fly to Boston for $450, or San Francisco for $713. It's because no one else flies there, and those travelling for pleasure will simply drive to Boston or LaGuardia.

Quote: weaselman

Not for long distance travel. People tend to travel in groups. I think 4 people per car is a reasonable estimate.
Also 22 mpg is a bit on a low side. According to this, it was higher than that even back in the 80s, and is close to 30+ at the present time for new vehicles.

That's for new cars.
As for cars that are really out there, the figure for 2008 (latest provided) is 22.6 for cars and 18.1 for "other 2-axle 4-tire vehicle". That's a total average of maybe 21, not even 22. It grew by less than 1 mpg the last decade, so 22 is a fair estimate for 2011.

New cars rolling out of the showroom with all the latest gizmos, fresh oil and perfect condition, would have to be compared to new airplanes. Airbus figures come to around 100 passenger-mpg in economy configuration. It's not just the transatlantics - the smaller Boeing 787 also promises around 100 passenger-mpg.
Yes, that's optimal, but so is a car with 4 people (full capacity for many cars), and planes, unlike cars, actually keep their first-flight gph till retirement. Aside from that, roads aren't perfectly straight, so actual mileage is always greater than the distance, turning potential 120 back to the same 100.

Whichever way you look at it, cars at their best only get a marginal advantage. Be it new vs new or real vs real. But when they fall behind, like when you're driving to Vegas with no more than 2 people in the car, they fall behind hard. The only case where cars win hands down is where you couldn't use planes anyway.

Add the gross safety disadvantage cars are at, and it's very clear that whatever the answer is, the car is anything but.

Quote: P90

Yes, but most people don't consider buses as an alternative to planes, they are seen as a lower-class mode of transport. Some people just don't consider them, many even act offended by the idea of "sitting in other people's stink" (strangely they don't seem bothered by it when crammed twice tighter into a plane).

I think it is primarily because there are no significant tolls on roads in the USA compared to most of the rest of the world. In Mexico there is an entire class of buses with movies and seats that fully recline (often with only 25 seats per bus; roughly half the normal amount).



They cost about US$48 one way to go 5 hours from Mexico city to Veracruz (a popular beach resort). That is roughly double the price of a normal bus. Even cheaper options are available on second class buses which could take many additional hours. Most of these buses are for overnight trips.

For the poor man's transport in the USA, bus travel is surprisingly expensive. For two people it is almost always cheaper to rent a one way from Enterprise Rent a Car. So we can consider bus transport not just for the poor, but for people who are poor and do not have the credit rating for VISA card to rent a car.

Bus travel is also used for tourism if you want to duplicate a commuter route. My 76 year old mother can go the 85 miles into Manhattan for $11.30 each way (senior fare). Driving a car with gas, tolls, parking, and the congested traffic is not an option. But for a younger person, the $22.65 price one way is still economical as parking in Manhattan can be prohibitive unless you find a remote location. But if there wasn't fifty buses a day doing the route for long distance commuters, then you wouldn't have a viable option for tourism.

Quote: pacomartin

For the poor man's transport in the USA, bus travel is surprisingly expensive.

True. Buses in US seem to be not even as much for poor people, as just to make you choose something else.

Quote: pacomartin

Even cheaper options are available on second class buses which could take many additional hours. Most of these buses are for overnight trips.

...Ah, yes, overnight buses, that's something not to forget. Some of the best transit experiences I've had were there, all-night poker games on the first floor of a bus. I'll take that over a first-class flight any time of the day, as long as there's enough people I can persuade into playing. Not that you'd ever get that choice financially. I got to travel hundreds of miles for less than $30 for a combo ticket, and in the end made it back anyway.

Quote: Wizard

I had to wander. For example, on the return they didn't announce the gate until about an hour before departure.

That's an airport thing rather than an airline issue. I've no idea why this airport works like this. In Monterrey and Guadalajara, for example, you're told the gate when you check in, or even when you print the boarding pass online.

That's the other reason I wait until about 40 minutes before boarding time to even go past security. I'm sure I'll miss a flight one of these days...

Quote: P90

True. Buses in US seem to be not even as much for poor people, as just to make you choose something else.


...Ah, yes, overnight buses, that's something not to forget. Some of the best transit experiences I've had were there, all-night poker games on the first floor of a bus. I'll take that over a first-class flight any time of the day, as long as there's enough people I can persuade into playing. Not that you'd ever get that choice financially. I got to travel hundreds of miles for less than $30 for a combo ticket, and in the end made it back anyway.

==============
Greyhound from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, NV (273 miles) cannot be done in less than 5 hours because of the number of stops.
Prices for one way are $46 (web fare) $59.50 (standard fare) and $67.50 (refundable fare). A private LuxBus is $88 one way.

One week economy car rental at LAX is $196. So for two people round trip it is generally cheaper (even including gas), and you have the car for the week.Drop off charges vary from little to nothing to extortionate.

==============
So in my Mexico example from Mexico City to Veracruz (similar distance), the tolls alone are 448 pesos or $32.50 one way. Bus fare in a first class bus starts at from US $24 one way to $48 /one way for luxury bus with only 25 seats.

Roughly 600 people on average each day fly one way from Mexico City to Veracruz. But that is a small percentage of the people who make the trip. Rock bottom air fare seems to be 2150 pesos round trip or about US $155.

If you don't have to rent a car, then the fixed costs are usually not as visible for each trip. Bus and train travel will never grow very popular while the roads are toll-free or fairly low.

Quote: pacomartin

==============
Greyhound from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, NV (273 miles) cannot be done in less than 5 hours because of the number of stops.
Prices for one way are $46 (web fare) $59.50 (standard fare) and $67.50 (refundable fare). A private LuxBus is $88 one way.

I know those Greyhound buses used to be compelled to provide services to small towns but don't know if that continues. I would think the bus companies and riders would prefer express service. I thought I saw very recently a comment about a thirty five dollar Los Angeles to Las Vegas bus for gamblers but don't recall any details.

Quote: pacomartin

Bus and train travel will never grow very popular while the roads are toll-free or fairly low.

I don't know about that.
For a trip of any significant length, I am willing to pay more for not having to drive.

Quote: FleaStiff

Some people have already started shipping their luggage rather than deal with airline fees and whims. I don't know if FedEx is cheaper than an airline, I think its just less troublesome. I travel rather light and frankly I think airline passengers have always lugged too much stuff with them and tried to hog overhead compartments.

People simply cannot pack light, bag size alone is part of the reason. When I was a kid my family had luggage that we took on trips including the one flight I took before age 19 or so. When I was about 15 I asked for a suitcase as a Christmas gift. When asked why I said our luggage was shot. The bag was about 50% bigger than the old ones and seemed huge. I still have and use that bag. But the rest of the family got bags they were 20% or so bigger than mine! I'm not upgrading again, if you can't mix and match some outfits over a few days you need to consider how you live. What as well amazes me is when I traveled with female coworkers who had bags half the size and twice the weight of mine.

Airline travel will not keep up its wild growth 1980-2000. Flying is little more than a Greyhound Bus in the air. It is a hassle. Aviation is a terrible industry to enter.

Remember all those steamer trunks when rich people Dressed for Lunch and Dressed For Dinner? Are we returning to such days?

Many women feel they may be in several different moods and so will need several different outfits to choose from. I might understand that at home but on a trip?

In a casino they watch your hands, they don't much care if your belt doesn't quite match your shoes. For the ladies, a bit of mix and match won't kill them. Most people spend less than a week in Vegas.

I don't know how much time it would save in boarding if people got rid of all that luggage and I have no idea if the fuel savings would even be measurable, but I'd prefer a speedy boarding to all that luggage scrambling.

Quote: AZDuffman

Airline travel will not keep up its wild growth 1980-2000. Flying is little more than a Greyhound Bus in the air. It is a hassle. Aviation is a terrible industry to enter.

The ten “trunk” legacy carriers at deregulation in 1978 were:
American Airlines,
Braniff Airlines,
Continental Airlines,
Delta Air Lines,
Eastern Airlines,
Northwest Airlines,
PanAm,
United Airlines,
US Airways, and
TWA.

Now the 10 have been reduced to 4, and American Airlines is taking their turn in bankruptcy. It is very likely that American and US Airways will merge so that there will be 3.

Airline ridership essentially doubled from deregulation in 1978 to 2000. But from April 1 2000 to April 1 2010 (the day of the census) the population of the country increased by 9.71% while the number of enplaned passengers increased by 7.14%.

It's not a small question. Municipalities are spending billions of dollars, and saying they need much more to increase airports to handle projected growth.
For instance Report: Expanding New York Airports Essential to New
York’s Economic Future, Says Regional Plan Association which is expecting a 44% increase in ridership in the New York airports in the next 19 years.


A US$60 billion airport for 150 million passengers is being discussed for London in the estuary of the Thames river. It would be in addition to the 5 airports in the London area.

A lot of the water in the estuary is 10 to 15 feet deep, so it is not like the floating airports that would be needed in California.

I just heard about that plan... it's next to a sunken world war 2 wreck of a ammo boat and relatively close to where 20% of the UK's liquid gas is stored. To me, it sounds crazy. Crazy enough it might just work.

Quote: thecesspit

I just heard about that plan... it's next to a sunken world war 2 wreck of a ammo boat and relatively close to where 20% of the UK's liquid gas is stored. To me, it sounds crazy. Crazy enough it might just work.

There are huge economic consequences to trying to build a new airport without closing the old ones. They actually dwarf the engineering problems. It's been tried three times. (1) Narita in Tokyo, (2) Montreal, (3) Dulles airport in Washington DC. Although there have been other airports built, they always involve closing the old airport. When you close the old airport, airlines are forced to move, and the economics work themselves out. When you open a new reliever airport none of the airlines want to move. In the case of Narita and Dulles huge subsidizes had to be made to keep the new airport in business for 10 to 20 years before it was viable on its own. In the case of Montreal, the new airport never became viable, and the population shifted to Toronto.

If the UK was building this airport with an idea to closing Heathrow, or turning Heathrow into an airport for regional jets, then it might work. But it will never work as a reliever airport (which is the plan).

Of course, you will make a lot of contractors happy. It could easily become the largest public work's project in Europe.

Isn't Denver a textbook example of a failed new airport? I don't know enough to make the case, but I heard it was a huge boondoggle, and the locals still prefer the old one.

Quote: Wizard

Isn't Denver a textbook example of a failed new airport? I don't know enough to make the case, but I heard it was a huge boondoggle, and the locals still prefer the old one.

That doesn't sound right. DEN is a fantastic airport, with great design and a lot of neat artwork. It is one of my favorite airports to connect through. I don't know about the old one, though.

The textbook example of a failed new airport is Montreal-Mirabel. It just doesn't get any worse than that.

Quote: Wizard

Isn't Denver a textbook example of a failed new airport? I don't know enough to make the case, but I heard it was a huge boondoggle, and the locals still prefer the old one.

No, the ultimate text book example is Montreal Mirabel, far and away the worst airport decision making process in history. What is frightening is that people seem to act like it never happened, and are poised to do it again. Hot off the massive victory of the 1967 Montreal Olympics Canada conceived of making Montreal the gateway to the world for Canada. They required every flight from Europe to Canada to land at Montreal to clear customs. By 1969 they had the idea of building a mega airport outside of Montreal to handle international flights. From there they conceived of connections to the rest of the country. But very importantly, they decided not to close the existing airport. Looking backwards 40 years, we can see how this economic model makes no sense, but the project proceeded anyway. They built the airport and forced the international flights to land there. But there is not enough international traffic to sustain an airport. So the massive infrastructure (roads, trains, etc.) was never built. The domestic industry preferred to land in the downtown airport, so the international passengers had to transfer airports to make domestic connections.

When the economic model changed so that there were lots of international city pairs, Mirabel became more and more outdated. Today it is basically a cargo airport and a soundstage for movies.

Denver had some of the same makings of a Mirabel type disaster. A huge land area, bigger than some older cities like San Francisco, Boston or Seattle. Terrible mountain weather. Extreme distance from the city of Denver. Construction overruns eventually drove the price to almost double the original estimation. It still has no hotels even 17 years after opening. But Denver resisted temptation and completely closed the old airport. Usually people want the old airport for short haul, or for regional aircraft. By closing the old airport you force people to adapt to the new airport. The old airport property is being redeveloped as a retail and residential neighborhood. The hotels are still at the old airport since it seemed insane to move them all to the new airport. Now 17 years after opening , the new airport is the 10th busiest in the world, and the fifth busiest in USA.

Since Denver is so physically large it has the space to be the busiest airport in the world before it hits capacity. While I am sure that many locals would like to have their smaller, closer, convenient airport back, it cannot be termed an economic failure.

But at $4.8 billion dollars, it is chump change compared to some of the newer projects (even accounting for 17 years of inflation). Philadelphia will spend that much to add a 5th runway. The cost to retrofit the NY airports is staggering. This new airport in London in the estuary could be $60-$75 billion dollars. (It should be noted that people have been talking about building an airport in the estuary since WWII).

The only airports that have been successfully built without closing the original airport are Dulles airport in Washington DC and Narita airport in Japan. It is only with the support of the national governments of these economically powerful countries that an airport can be supported for long enough until it becomes profitable. It took 20 years for Dulles to make be able to support itself.

But many cities talk about building a new airport and keeping the old one open. Las Vegas and San Diego are among them (but to be fair San Diego eventually rejected the idea). But San Diego could not get voter approval to refashion Miramar. Los Angeles ultimately plans to build an airport from scratch in Palmdale.

Of course, the issue with all these plans was the assumption that air travel would grow at a rate much higher than general population growth. Planners are still thinking of the last decade as an aberration.

I still think that people dream of a super Mirabel airport near Barstow, that can land domestic flights from everywhere in the country, and field both conventional international huge aircraft like the Airbus A380, plus new generation of high Mach aircraft to fly to anywhere in the world. The London estuary airport would fill a similar purpose, with engineers believing the 15 feet of water is a manageable problem. Of course that would necessitate a high speed land system to take people to Vegas, Los angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix.



Of course, reality is usually much colder than the grand plans. When Austin and San Antonio TX both needed new airports, the FAA tried to get them to build one airport between the two cities. Instead they built separate airports a mere 71 miles apart. Splitting the difference so that each city had to drive an extra 35 miles was considered too difficult. Had the central airport been built, it would have been a big driver to connecting the two cities only 80 miles apart by high speed rail (with the airport in the middle) . That in turn might have formed the backbone of a 300 mile rail that includes Waco and terminates in Dallas.

Quote: AZDuffman

People simply cannot pack light, bag size alone is part of the reason.

Most people can't. It's not hard to learn to pack light, and after a while it becomes automatic. You don't struggle cramming everything you need into a small carry-on bag, you just don't see a need for more.
Of course it depends on where you're going... but as long as it's not a special event and not Alaska.

Much of what happened to Montreal's airport was political. Quebec gets very special treatment in Canada in order to appease the separatists in Canada and out of respect for the french language. As well, Montreal was experience crazy economic growth in the 60s. Passenger traffic at Dorval was increasing at a rate of 15 - 20% a year. So, they decided to build Mirabel and have it open in time for the Olympics.

The federal government miscalculated and thought that Dorval would be oversaturated by 1982. To ensure Mirabel stayed open the government forced international flights destined to Montreal to land at Mirabel until 1997.

Now, the airport is used mostly for cargo. Bombardier's planes are assembled and launched from there. Part of the airport is being used for racing. But it was a massive boondoggle based on a dream.

With Texas's 6 major airports constituting about 130-140 million passengers a year, it would be nice to imagine a mega airport in the center of all five urban areas. High speed rail would run to each city (120-150 miles) which is achievable with current Chinese technology in 30 minutes. The hypothetical airport's massive size coupled with the projected growth in Texas population means that it could become the center for supersonic and hypersonic travel. The central location in North America means it would only be a few hours from most urban centers in USA, Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean.

The airport would function as a land hub for interstate travel, as well as an air travel. That would reduce the huge amount of pollution from excess automobile use.

DFW Fort Worth Dallas/Fort Worth International
IAH Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston
HOU Houston William P Hobby
AUS Austin Austin-Bergstrom International
SAT San Antonio San Antonio International

Anyway Austin opened their airport on May 23, 1999. San Antonio did not open a new airport, but developed massive plans in 1994 to renovate terminals and carry development options to the end of the 21st century. As I said earlier, these two airports are only 71 miles apart. The decision not to cooperate on a shared airport implies that there is little hope of any shared airport in the future of US air travel. We are stuck with endless wrangling about noise pollution and building new runways, as well as limited intermodal transfers to land transport.

With the US government in the state that it is in, the only change that government is capable of are minor ones that serve its lobbyists. You'll never see anything visionary and successful come out of government until the lobbyists and bickering are controlled... everything is watered down crap.

And with the government is such a massive deficit hole, megaprojects will not be popular.

In my experience living in the U.S I used to fly mainly with Southwest. I did not like their service but it was hard to find cheaper airfare. Also the two free checked pieces were a great deal. The most annoying was having no seats priorly assigned. I think that two times I had to seat far from my fiancee whcih was very annoying in a "long flight" from Philadelphia to Orlando.

Quote: boymimbo

With the US government in the state that it is in, the only change that government is capable of are minor ones that serve its lobbyists. You'll never see anything visionary and successful come out of government until the lobbyists and bickering are controlled... everything is watered down crap.

And with the government is such a massive deficit hole, megaprojects will not be popular.

When Dallas Fort Worth airport was built in the early 1970's, it was estimated that by 2010, 100 million passengers would transit through the airport. But no airport in the world is higher than 89.3 million (Atlanta).

The fact that DFW massively overestimated the number of passengers is probably not critical. They simply don't build terminals as fast as they expected.

But this idea of spending two to three times as much as Denver International for an airport for San Diego, the plan to completely tear down La Guardia, the plan to build a second airport for Vegas, the Palmdale airport, etc. These are projects that could bankrupt a municipality if they turn out not to be needed.