Air travel nostalgia
September 28th, 2011 at 10:57:33 AM
permalink
Why not?
One thing I miss is the visual variety in aircraft. I know this isn't universal, quite, but aircraft are becoming cookie-cutter shapes. In the old days you had planes with two engines at the rear (DC-9), three engines at the rear (B-727), two engines on the wing (A-300, I think and B-737), two engines ont he wing and one on the rear (DC-10 and L-1011), four engines on the wing (again I think the A-300, the 707, DC-8 and her majesty the B-747). And of course there was the uniquely shaped Concorde from time to time.
These days 90% of planes seem to be B-737, B-757, and A-320 variants. They're all pretty much alike, except for minor differences in size (the B-757 is larger, but from the groun it's not obvious), and what's on the wing-tips. The big Jets still retain more differences, but are less common than they used to be in smaller markets. In Mexico you still see the KLM, Lufhtansa and Air France 747s, plus the Iberia A-330 or A-340. The local airlines use only B-767s, twin engines on the wings, for long haul flights. In the 70s and 80s you got to see Delta's Tri-Star (L-1011), Pan-Am's Clippers (747) and American Airlines DC-10s
This may sound silly, but I also miss the individually wrapped, tiny soap bars on the plane's alvatory. In Mexicana, Aeromexico, Volaris and Itnerjet, there's a single bar placed near the sink, and the holder cabinet is empty. I admit I used to take one off each airline I flew as a souvenir, or got my paretns to get me one. Too abd my mom thre them all out one day <sigh> I ahd quite a colelction, including some from even then defunct National Airlines and Texas International Airlines.
This is more recent, but I miss being able to visit the cockpit. Not many crews allowed it, and usually only for children or teens, but if you begged or met a kindred spirit, sometimes you could be allowed in the cockpit for a few minutes. I got to do that twice. Once on a Pan-Am 747 from Mexico to Houston. That was neat! I got taken up the spiral stairs, where there had the first class bar, and to the cockpit. The view is amazing. Better yet the captain tried to explain a few thigns, but I was 10 years old and didn't speak a word of English back then.
These days if you ask to see the cockpit you're liable to get arrested.
More later
One thing I miss is the visual variety in aircraft. I know this isn't universal, quite, but aircraft are becoming cookie-cutter shapes. In the old days you had planes with two engines at the rear (DC-9), three engines at the rear (B-727), two engines on the wing (A-300, I think and B-737), two engines ont he wing and one on the rear (DC-10 and L-1011), four engines on the wing (again I think the A-300, the 707, DC-8 and her majesty the B-747). And of course there was the uniquely shaped Concorde from time to time.
These days 90% of planes seem to be B-737, B-757, and A-320 variants. They're all pretty much alike, except for minor differences in size (the B-757 is larger, but from the groun it's not obvious), and what's on the wing-tips. The big Jets still retain more differences, but are less common than they used to be in smaller markets. In Mexico you still see the KLM, Lufhtansa and Air France 747s, plus the Iberia A-330 or A-340. The local airlines use only B-767s, twin engines on the wings, for long haul flights. In the 70s and 80s you got to see Delta's Tri-Star (L-1011), Pan-Am's Clippers (747) and American Airlines DC-10s
This may sound silly, but I also miss the individually wrapped, tiny soap bars on the plane's alvatory. In Mexicana, Aeromexico, Volaris and Itnerjet, there's a single bar placed near the sink, and the holder cabinet is empty. I admit I used to take one off each airline I flew as a souvenir, or got my paretns to get me one. Too abd my mom thre them all out one day <sigh> I ahd quite a colelction, including some from even then defunct National Airlines and Texas International Airlines.
This is more recent, but I miss being able to visit the cockpit. Not many crews allowed it, and usually only for children or teens, but if you begged or met a kindred spirit, sometimes you could be allowed in the cockpit for a few minutes. I got to do that twice. Once on a Pan-Am 747 from Mexico to Houston. That was neat! I got taken up the spiral stairs, where there had the first class bar, and to the cockpit. The view is amazing. Better yet the captain tried to explain a few thigns, but I was 10 years old and didn't speak a word of English back then.
These days if you ask to see the cockpit you're liable to get arrested.
More later
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 28th, 2011 at 11:08:07 AM
permalink
Airplane fetish much? I dont think youd be arrested it'd be more like... "...I'd love to see her cockpit". Flight attendant: "Aren't you that creepy guy who steals our soap?"
September 28th, 2011 at 11:21:39 AM
permalink
Quote: ikilledjerryloganAirplane fetish much? I dont think youd be arrested it'd be more like... "...I'd love to see her cockpit". Flight attendant: "Aren't you that creepy guy who steals our soap?"
I never stole any soap. Maybe my parents did when they got me some. I always asked the stewardess where I could get soap like that as s souvenir, and 99% of the time she said I could just take one from the lavatory. A particualrly nice one on an El-Al flight even got me a small bag with a dozen bars.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 28th, 2011 at 11:43:41 AM
permalink
Man, I loved those DC10s and L1011s. Those were phenomenal planes to fly in. But bad luck.
L1011... there were 250 built for passenger use, and those 250 planes were involved in 54 incidents, with 11 total losses and 534 fatalities. Eastern 401, which crashed in the Everglades at Christmastime in 1972, was an L1011.
DC10... there were 386 built for passenger use, with 56 incidents, including 31 total losses and 1261 fatalities. The cargo door blowing off one in Detroit, causing the plane an emergency landing at an abandoned strip in Windsor Ontario. Another door blew off over France, with 386 dead. AA 191 in Chicago. United 232, the Iowa cornfield. The Concorde crash was caused by ingestion of a part the fell off a DC10.
L1011... there were 250 built for passenger use, and those 250 planes were involved in 54 incidents, with 11 total losses and 534 fatalities. Eastern 401, which crashed in the Everglades at Christmastime in 1972, was an L1011.
DC10... there were 386 built for passenger use, with 56 incidents, including 31 total losses and 1261 fatalities. The cargo door blowing off one in Detroit, causing the plane an emergency landing at an abandoned strip in Windsor Ontario. Another door blew off over France, with 386 dead. AA 191 in Chicago. United 232, the Iowa cornfield. The Concorde crash was caused by ingestion of a part the fell off a DC10.
A falling knife has no handle.
September 28th, 2011 at 12:02:43 PM
permalink
Quote: MoscaL1011... there were 250 built for passenger use, and those 250 planes were involved in 54 incidents, with 11 total losses and 534 fatalities.
I didn't know that.
I flew in one just once, Atlanta to orlando in 1989 or 1990 via Delta
Quote:DC10... there were 386 built for passenger use, with 56 incidents, including 31 total losses and 1261 fatalities.
Those are better known. Although considering the failure on the Sioux City, Iowa crash, the pilots managed to save a great many passengers.
I flew on several. Twice on Continental Houston to London and eventually abck. Aeromexico to NYC from mexico roud trip. And I got to fly in one of Mexicana's, which they only had briefly in the late 80s for flights to Chicago. I flew in that one on a flight to Monterrey, though.
My all-time favorites, though are the B-727 and the 747 Jumbo Jet.
Sure, today's planes are safer, easier to fly, more fuel efficient, have better, or at least more, entertainment options, but they lack character.
At that of about 12 flights I've taken over the past 5 years, all were on 737s or A-320s, except one round trip to Guadalajara on an Aerocalifornia DC-9. I'm getting to loath the medium-sized, twin engine planes.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 28th, 2011 at 6:18:30 PM
permalink
In the 70's, passengers were much better behaved and they
dressed nicer. And the flight attendants were actually attractive
women. There was a whole different feel then there is now, it
was more relaxed. Now it seems like everybody is in a hurry.
dressed nicer. And the flight attendants were actually attractive
women. There was a whole different feel then there is now, it
was more relaxed. Now it seems like everybody is in a hurry.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 28th, 2011 at 7:28:09 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedThese days 90% of planes seem to be B-737, B-757, and A-320 variants.
The B-737 is remarkably inexpensive to operate. According to data supplied by Southwest Airlines with their all B-737 fleet the average $139.18 one-way, and the average passenger trip length is about 909 miles. So it is 866 air miles from Seattle to Las Vegas or over 1100 bus miles. Greyhound fare is $145.80, $200, and $223 and it take roughly 36 hours. So if you are frugal about how much you pay to get to the airport, it can easily cost you less to fly than to take a bus.
September 28th, 2011 at 7:43:00 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThe B-737 is remarkably inexpensive to operate.
Maybe, maybe not. Part of the low-cost model for airlines is to rely on one type of plane only. This reduces costs in many ways, from dealing with one kind of spares only, to having interchangeable parts, to having to train employees on one model only, and so on. yet low-costs seem evenly split between the B-737 and the A-318/19/20. Even mainstream carriers tend to let one of these dominate the bulk of their fleet.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 28th, 2011 at 8:09:46 PM
permalink
When I saw this in the first post, I had a completely different thing in mind....Quote: NareedOne thing I miss is the visual variety in aircraft.
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/santaplane.jpg
For the record, I have no idea where I originally found the photo or what airline it is. I've had it on my hard drive about 3 years.
As funny as it is, I wonder how much a kid would freak out upon seeing it.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
September 28th, 2011 at 9:12:49 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearFor the record, I have no idea where I originally found the photo or what airline it is. I've had it on my hard drive about 3 years.
It looks a little like ValuJet colors
ValuJet of course crashed in the swamp in the Everglades where supposedly survivors were eaten alive by alligators. They had to change their name to AirTran after that kind of publicity.
I like this one of a plane licking his lips.
September 29th, 2011 at 4:27:13 AM
permalink
Things have changed.
Planes are now the new Greyhound Buses and the people who would have ridden buses now ride planes.
Planes are standardized on lower costs, quiet operation, one model for training and spare parts storage. The shorter hops are for regionals which means newly trained pilots working in a burger-flipper atmosphere at burger-flipper wages.
I recall flying in a DASH 8 where people in the first row could see into the cockpit since there was no door, just a curtain that the pilots rarely pulled shut. Some of the posters on this board would have liked that plane because on take off pilot and copilot would seem to be holding hands since regulations required each of them to maintain positive pressure on the throttle during take off to lessen chance that vibration or distraction could allow the throttle to become inadvertently retarded during critical take off phase.
Planes are now the new Greyhound Buses and the people who would have ridden buses now ride planes.
Planes are standardized on lower costs, quiet operation, one model for training and spare parts storage. The shorter hops are for regionals which means newly trained pilots working in a burger-flipper atmosphere at burger-flipper wages.
I recall flying in a DASH 8 where people in the first row could see into the cockpit since there was no door, just a curtain that the pilots rarely pulled shut. Some of the posters on this board would have liked that plane because on take off pilot and copilot would seem to be holding hands since regulations required each of them to maintain positive pressure on the throttle during take off to lessen chance that vibration or distraction could allow the throttle to become inadvertently retarded during critical take off phase.
September 29th, 2011 at 6:39:53 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhen I saw this in the first post, I had a completely different thing in mind....
If anything due to the sameness in aircraft design, current airlines resort to livery schemes that set them apart.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 29th, 2011 at 7:39:02 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffThings have changed.Planes are now the new Greyhound Buses and the people who would have ridden buses now ride planes..
Well, there is so much reliance on air travel, that some good transportation should be improved
(1) San Antonio - Austin (71 miles). They both built new airports because they couldn't agree on a transportation system to build one airport between them.
(2) LAX - Santa Barbara ( 89 miles), and LAX- San Diego (109 miles) put ridiculous amount of pressure on LAX's two runways given the very large number of daily flights.
(3) Seattle Portland (129 miles) needs a better ground transportation system
(4) La Guardia to Boston (189 miles) is needs a better train
(5) La Guardia to Washington National (214 miles) is the only real bright spot in the nation for short range ground transport
September 29th, 2011 at 7:53:20 AM
permalink
I just spent three years in Boston, and many many people take buses. Bolt Bus and Megabus offer service from Boston to NYC for only about $15 on new, clean, buses with wifi and power ports. The train, on a cheap day, is about $60, and is only about 45 minutes faster. Most people take the bus.
LA does have 4 commercial relief airports though, right? Long Beach, Ontario, Orange County, and Burbank.
LA does have 4 commercial relief airports though, right? Long Beach, Ontario, Orange County, and Burbank.
September 29th, 2011 at 8:08:52 AM
permalink
I miss the good ol' days of free baggage check. No, not just because I'm a cheapskate. If I had to chose between: A) an airline that charge $25 each way for checked baggage or B) an airline with free baggage but tickets that were $50 more expensive than their competitors, I'd go with option B. Why? Studies by Boeing show a 50 percent increase in boarding times since 1970. Boeing put some of the blame on carry-ons.
Big bulky carry-ons create congestion in the airport, and more importantly congestion on the planes themselves. In the ol' days, air travelers had to tolerate 200 other passengers on the aircraft. These days, we have to tolerate 200 other passengers plus their "mini" suitcases on the same aircraft. One more reason to love JetBlue?
Big bulky carry-ons create congestion in the airport, and more importantly congestion on the planes themselves. In the ol' days, air travelers had to tolerate 200 other passengers on the aircraft. These days, we have to tolerate 200 other passengers plus their "mini" suitcases on the same aircraft. One more reason to love JetBlue?
September 29th, 2011 at 8:12:54 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinValuJet of course crashed in the swamp in the Everglades where supposedly survivors were eaten alive by alligators.
I knew of the crash, but not of the urban legend around it. Fact is there were probably no survivors. Fact also is the crash would have 1) killed any aligators in the immediate area and 2) frightened off the rest.
Quote:They had to change their name to AirTran after that kind of publicity.
And here I thought they just went broke and vanished.
Do they still fly DC-9s? Many airlines still do, notably AA, but the planes are getting old fast; even those formally named MD-80s.
I like them. I've many fond memories of flying the Texas International DC-9s to Houston in the 70s. They were also the yardstcik for the Shuttle in its early days. Besides they have a sleek look for a passenger jet.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 29th, 2011 at 8:16:17 AM
permalink
Quote: renoStudies by Boeing show a 50 percent increase in boarding times since 1970. Boeing put some of the blame on carry-ons.
I'd never heard of that study, but it is supportive of my comment in the "bumping passengers" thread.
September 29th, 2011 at 10:33:22 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIn the 70's...flight attendants were actually attractive
women.
They're still working. They're all in their 60's and surly now.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 29th, 2011 at 11:00:55 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhen I saw this in the first post, I had a completely different thing in mind....
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/santaplane.jpg
For the record, I have no idea where I originally found the photo or what airline it is. I've had it on my hard drive about 3 years.
As funny as it is, I wonder how much a kid would freak out upon seeing it.
The base paint scheme is RyanAir, a value carrier based in the U.K. They put out a charity calendar of the cabin crew each year:
Oh... there's a plane in there too:
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 29th, 2011 at 2:49:58 PM
permalink
Increased boarding time is probably due to letting all the slow-boarders on first and delaying everyone instead of forcing them to stand aside and let the able bodied and brat-less board expeditiously.
September 29th, 2011 at 3:57:19 PM
permalink
I recently flew Spirit for the first time (AA is my carrier of choice due to my father's 38 year career there) and they are the ultimate in a la carte pricing. Their CEO is also a firm believer in how carry-on bags increase embarking and disembarking times, so they actually cost more than if you were to check them. After one round trip on the carrier I am inclined to agree with the CEO, it did seem much quicker to board and depart.
As far as the 'nostalgia', most of the value added services back then like hot stewardesses, better food and free alcohol were due to the non-price competition era when there was regulation of ticket prices. Deregulation has opened the skies to a much wider audience via price competition, but bye bye to all the extras.
As far as the 'nostalgia', most of the value added services back then like hot stewardesses, better food and free alcohol were due to the non-price competition era when there was regulation of ticket prices. Deregulation has opened the skies to a much wider audience via price competition, but bye bye to all the extras.
Solo venimos, solo nos vamos. Y aqui nos juntamos, juntos que estamos.
September 29th, 2011 at 4:30:35 PM
permalink
On airlines that charge for baggage and that are anywhere near to full, the last carryons are usually tagged to their final destination and are put on the plane. A major amount of congestion on the plane is created when that happens as people go to the back of the plane and bags move forward. Airlines are smartening up to this and a good FA crew will tell the gate agent when the overheads are full and thus everyone must check their rollerbags. But since the luggage policy came into effect, overheads have become absolutely jammed and slows the boarding and deplaning process considerably.
I think charging $50 for a bag is an awful idea. A $20 / bag charge might be more appropriate. I also try to go carry-on only but have been doing that long before baggage fees (which don't apply to me anyway) came into effect.
Southwest does not charge for bags. Alaska has a 20 minute gate to baggage claim guarantee.
Airtran's fleet consists entirely of 717s and 737s.
American's MD-82's oldest plane was delivered in 1984 (27 years ago).
DC10s no longer exist as part of a American airline. Federal Express has a large fleet of DC10s still in service.
The Sands still operates an L-1011 (delivery 1983). There are no other L-1011s in operation in North America.
Delta has 3 737s in service from 1984.
Southwest's 737 fleet ranges in age from 1984 to 1997 while its next generation 737s are all newer.
I think charging $50 for a bag is an awful idea. A $20 / bag charge might be more appropriate. I also try to go carry-on only but have been doing that long before baggage fees (which don't apply to me anyway) came into effect.
Southwest does not charge for bags. Alaska has a 20 minute gate to baggage claim guarantee.
Airtran's fleet consists entirely of 717s and 737s.
American's MD-82's oldest plane was delivered in 1984 (27 years ago).
DC10s no longer exist as part of a American airline. Federal Express has a large fleet of DC10s still in service.
The Sands still operates an L-1011 (delivery 1983). There are no other L-1011s in operation in North America.
Delta has 3 737s in service from 1984.
Southwest's 737 fleet ranges in age from 1984 to 1997 while its next generation 737s are all newer.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
September 29th, 2011 at 5:34:10 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI think charging $50 for a bag is an awful idea. A $20 / bag charge might be more appropriate. I also try to go carry-on only but have been doing that long before baggage fees (which don't apply to me anyway) came into effect.
Volaris prices its tickets according to luggage. That's a smarter policy. If you aren't checking bags, you pay less. If you check one bag you have a higher fee. For two bags it's still more. But the point is you pay that when you book, so it doesn't feel like an extra charge. there are also difference sin how much it costs to change your ticket according to the fare you choose.
Interjet doesn't charge per bag nor does it have differentiated fares. However, I've never traveled with luggage in that airline, except once a carry on. Most times I get back the same day.
the other thing is these two airlines let you print a boarding pass in advance if you don't check any bags. So that saves you a boring time in line at the ticket counter.
Quote:Airtran's fleet consists entirely of 717s and 737s.
The B-717 is what Boeing called the DC-9/MD-80 it developed after it merged with McDonnell Douglass.
Quote:Southwest's 737 fleet ranges in age from 1984 to 1997 while its next generation 737s are all newer.
You can tell older 737s from newer ones by the wings. The newer ones have winglets on the wing tips, the older ones don't. By older I mean pre-1990s or so.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 29th, 2011 at 7:09:09 PM
permalink
Quote: progrockerDeregulation has opened the skies to a much wider audience via price competition, but bye bye to all the extras.
It is ridiculous to compare the present day industry to the one in 1978 that carried 200M enplaned passengers in a year with 50% load factors.
But the reality is that the industry is not expanding it's passenger load. Look at the numbers of enplaned passengers over a ten year period.
708,638,875 CY2000
711,264,076 CY2010
At one point it was projected that the load would exceed 1 billion in another decade from today, but clearly that depends on the economy. After the huge growth in the '80s and '90's no one thought it would flatten out for the next decade.
September 30th, 2011 at 12:24:44 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedAnd of course there was the uniquely shaped Concorde from time to time.
I really regret having never been on Concorde. As a kid, I associated it with millionaire rock stars needlessly wasting money (Guns n Roses rode it in the Paradise City video). Its record from JFK to Heathrow was 2 hours, 53 minutes. Its record for circumnavigating the entire planet was 31 hours, 28 minutes. Who would have thought that supersonic commercial flights would be available in 1977 but completely unheard of in 2011? Technology is supposed to progress, not regress! At the end of the day, though, markets know best, and in 2003 the market determined that Concorde was unprofitable.
It was also dangerous, which for me added to its rock star appeal: it had a history of tire explosions 60 times greater than regular jets. A breach of cabin integrity would result in a loss of pressure severe enough so that those plastic emergency oxygen masks would be useless. (I know the rule book says that rock stars are supposed to die from heroin & cocaine, but asphyxiating on Concorde at 60,000 ft is how a real rock star ought to die.) Concorde was equipped with smaller windows to reduce the rate of loss in the event of a breach and a reserve air supply system to augment cabin air pressure. And Concorde passengers received almost twice the flux of extraterrestrial ionising radiation as those travelling on a conventional long-haul flight. Due to its high take off speed of 250mph, Concorde needed upgraded brakes: if a pilot had to abort the take-off for an emergency, the brakes reach 750 degrees Fahrenheit and need several hours to cool off.
So do you think we'll ever see commercial supersonic flights again in our lifetime?
September 30th, 2011 at 1:03:32 AM
permalink
Quote: renoSo do you think we'll ever see commercial supersonic flights again in our lifetime?
I doubt it. I think the fundamental business decision was made in the late 60's. The future of transoceanic travel was in the 747 and not the Concorde. The overwhelming number of technologies will never come together to make it realistic. It will always be much cheaper by an order of magnitude to put someone in a private mini room and fly them overnight at subsonic speeds.
For the truly demanding and extremely wealthy people there will probably be supersonic business jets available for charter. People chartered the Concorde frequently for private parties. But I don't see it commercially in our lifetime (regardless of your age).
September 30th, 2011 at 6:36:01 AM
permalink
Quote: renoI really regret having never been on Concorde.
Same here.
Quote:Who would have thought that supersonic commercial flights would be available in 1977 but completely unheard of in 2011? Technology is supposed to progress, not regress!
Who would ahve thought the richest country in the planet would spend billions to launch astronauts to the Moon, and then abadon the project after a few landings?
That's the kind of thing that drove larry Niven to quip "We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't put a man on the Moon."
Quote:At the end of the day, though, markets know best, and in 2003 the market determined that Concorde was unprofitable.
Had it been left to the markets alone, Concorde would have quit flying in the 80s. As it was, being operated by state-owned airlines and supplied by state-run builders, it held on much longer.
Quote:So do you think we'll ever see commercial supersonic flights again in our lifetime?
Certainly. I wouldn't hazzard to guess a time line, but I'd bet all the money on Earth there will be supersonic commercial flights within the next 50 years at most. Once a singel problem is solved: the sonic boom.
That's one of the two reasons the Concorde died. Sure, it was handy to cross the Atlantic swiftly, but it would have been great for crossing North America, too. Imagine NYC to LA in under two hours! But the sonic boom prevented that. Concorde flew past Mach 1.0 only over water. the other big reason why it failed was its limited range. it couldn't carry passengers accross the Pacific, which is as big a market as the Transatlantic one, if not bigger.
You'll hear about fuel consumption, and that was a factor but only a minor one. People who can afford to will always pay as much as it takes to get what they want. if they wat an LA to Tokyo flight under 6 hours, they'll pay thousands of dollars for it. Anyway, the fuel problem woulnd't be as bad now. For one thing supercruising engines exist now. These are regular turbojet engines that can get past Mach 1.0 without the use of afterburners. You still need afterburners for Mach 2 and upwards, of course, but even so supercruise engines are much more efficient and use up less fuel. And great strides have been achieved recently in scramjet technology, too. these are engines that can sustain hypersonic (past Mach 4) flight.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 30th, 2011 at 8:56:20 AM
permalink
Quote: Nareedthe other big reason why it failed was its limited range. it couldn't carry passengers accross the Pacific, which is as big a market as the Transatlantic one, if not bigger.
Why not refuel Concorde in Honolulu? Sure, it might slow down the trip by 45 minutes, but even with a fuel stop I'll bet Concorde could beat a 747 from L.A. to Tokyo.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:07:57 AM
permalink
Quote: renoWhy not refuel Concorde in Honolulu? Sure, it might slow down the trip by 45 minutes, but even with a fuel stop I'll bet Concorde could beat a 747 from L.A. to Tokyo.
Beats me. Maybe it couldn't handle LA to Hawaii, or from there to Japan. I'm not sure what its max range was.
Honolulu does handle wide body jets, so their runway ought to be long enough for the Concorde.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 30th, 2011 at 9:54:33 AM
permalink
You're thinking two dimensionally. It would be shorter, by several hundred miles, to refuel in Alaska.
Then again...
According to WikiPedia, (yeah, I know), it had a range of 4,500 miles.
According to Google Maps:
London to NYC: 3,460 miles
London to Washington: 3,665 miles
LA to Tokyo: 5,430 miles
LA to Honolulu: 2,560 miles
Hololulu to Tokyo: 4,030 miles
LA to Anchorage: 2,350 miles
Anchorage to Tokyo: 3,475 miles
Personally, I don't think the time required for the pit-stop was the issue, as much as the incredible expense to take off and land that beast would have made LA to Tokyo prohibitively expensive. Perhaps as much as double the London to NY fare, which was already expensive.....
Then again...
According to WikiPedia, (yeah, I know), it had a range of 4,500 miles.
According to Google Maps:
London to NYC: 3,460 miles
London to Washington: 3,665 miles
LA to Tokyo: 5,430 miles
LA to Honolulu: 2,560 miles
Hololulu to Tokyo: 4,030 miles
LA to Anchorage: 2,350 miles
Anchorage to Tokyo: 3,475 miles
Personally, I don't think the time required for the pit-stop was the issue, as much as the incredible expense to take off and land that beast would have made LA to Tokyo prohibitively expensive. Perhaps as much as double the London to NY fare, which was already expensive.....
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
September 30th, 2011 at 9:57:24 AM
permalink
Isn't Honolulu a heck of a long way out of the way for a trip between LA and Tokyo? Tokyo to Honolulu is 70% as far as Tokyo to LA. I know there is a big speed difference in the options being discussed, but if aircraft range is a big factor, then a refueling stop probably would need to be in the Aleutians, and I don't think anything suitable is available.Quote: NareedBeats me. Maybe it couldn't handle LA to Hawaii, or from there to Japan. I'm not sure what its max range was.Quote: renoWhy not refuel Concorde in Honolulu? Sure, it might slow down the trip by 45 minutes, but even with a fuel stop I'll bet Concorde could beat a 747 from L.A. to Tokyo.
Honolulu does handle wide body jets, so their runway ought to be long enough for the Concorde.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:07:23 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearYou're thinking two dimensionally. It would be shorter, by several hundred miles, to refuel in Alaska.
Air travel is two-dimensional.
But you're right. We're thinking projectionally. That is, we carry a mental map of the comon equatorial projection of the globe. There the poles always seem far away and out of the way.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 30th, 2011 at 11:00:12 AM
permalink
I violated one of my own cardinal sins.
I posted, then took a LONG time to edit additional info.
You may have missed what I added to the last post on the prior page:
According to WikiPedia, (yeah, I know), the Concorde had a range of 4,500 miles.
According to Google Maps:
London to NYC: 3,460 miles
London to Washington: 3,665 miles
LA to Tokyo: 5,430 miles
LA to Honolulu: 2,560 miles
Hololulu to Tokyo: 4,030 miles
LA to Anchorage: 2,350 miles
Anchorage to Tokyo: 3,475 miles
Personally, I don't think the time required for the pit-stop was the issue, as much as the incredible expense to take off and land that beast would have made LA to Tokyo prohibitively expensive. Perhaps as much as double the London to NY fare, which was already expensive....
I posted, then took a LONG time to edit additional info.
You may have missed what I added to the last post on the prior page:
According to WikiPedia, (yeah, I know), the Concorde had a range of 4,500 miles.
According to Google Maps:
London to NYC: 3,460 miles
London to Washington: 3,665 miles
LA to Tokyo: 5,430 miles
LA to Honolulu: 2,560 miles
Hololulu to Tokyo: 4,030 miles
LA to Anchorage: 2,350 miles
Anchorage to Tokyo: 3,475 miles
Personally, I don't think the time required for the pit-stop was the issue, as much as the incredible expense to take off and land that beast would have made LA to Tokyo prohibitively expensive. Perhaps as much as double the London to NY fare, which was already expensive....
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
September 30th, 2011 at 11:32:03 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearI violated one of my own cardinal sins.
I posted, then took a LONG time to edit additional info.
Sinful indeed :)
Quote:Personally, I don't think the time required for the pit-stop was the issue, as much as the incredible expense to take off and land that beast would have made LA to Tokyo prohibitively expensive. Perhaps as much as double the London to NY fare, which was already expensive....
Again, I'm not sure. Typically aircraft consume the most fuel at takeoff and climb-out, as that's done under full or near-full power. But the Concorde was different. It used the afterburners to take off, yes, but also ahd them on during the supersonic portion of its flight, which is to say most of it.
For landing most aircraft actually consume less fuel, because you lose altitude by slowing down. At touchdown the engines go to full power, but the thrust-reversers are engaged. These redirect thrust forward and help slow the palne down. Concorde did have thrust-reversers and they didn't need the after-burners to operate.
So I've no idea whether taking off or landing Concorde was more or less expensive proportionally to other planes.
For all that ti wasn't a bad first generation supersonic passenger jet. Had it succeeded even modestly, say by placing 100+ units in production (I think less than 20 ever flew) and flight operations, there woudl have been furhter developments.
The various oil-shocks have bene blamed for the failure to sell any planes outside Air France and British Airways, but I think the reasons were deeper than that. It could be the makers missread the potential amrket.
BTW Concorde was a governmetn project through and through. at the time there were two competing designs, also backed by governments. The Soviet Ilyushin design bureau even flew theirs, which they crashed at the Paris air show. That plane never flew again as far as I know. The US government subisdized or finanaced an SST (Supersonic transport) project along with some American airplane manufacturers, but the project lost funding.
That's what comes out of government meddling in the market.
Still, the challenge is there. Who will first develop a supersonic or hypersonic passenger jet that can either 1) fly transpacific and transatlantic routes for not much more than regular fares (say up to 25% above regular fares) or 2) fly over land without disrupting those of us on the ground too much. Someone's bound to, someday.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 30th, 2011 at 12:43:53 PM
permalink
Quote: DocIsn't Honolulu a heck of a long way out of the way for a trip between LA and Tokyo? Tokyo to Honolulu is 70% as far as Tokyo to LA.
Yeah, you're right, Tokyo is a bad example. A better example would be Hong Kong or Shanghai, which are geographically closer to Hawaii. On the other hand, China didn't have many (any?) millionaires back in the 1970s or 80s, so there wasn't much of a market for Concorde on those routes in the good ol days. (There was a market for Concorde to fly to Mexico City during Mexico's oil boom.)
Quote: DocI know there is a big speed difference...
A Boeing 747-400 has a cruising speed of 560 mph. Concorde cruised at 1,300 miles per hour. I find that statistic just amazing.
September 30th, 2011 at 5:02:43 PM
permalink
Quote: renoYeah, you're right, Tokyo is a bad example. A better example would be Hong Kong or Shanghai, which are geographically closer to Hawaii. On the other hand, China didn't have many (any?) millionaires back in the 1970s or 80s, so there wasn't much of a market for Concorde on those routes in the good ol days.
The Transpacific market exploded in the 80s due to demand for flights to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong. That's why I set up Tokyo as an example.
Quote:(There was a market for Concorde to fly to Mexico City during Mexico's oil boom.)
Sort of. As I recall it was one flight per week, and it went to NYC before heading off to Paris. I've no idea who flew it from here, or whether it traveled supersonic to NYC.
I did get to see it a number of times. Once I was at the airport waiting for a flight, in 981 I think, and I saw it take off. The sound it made was amazing. Taking off it looked more like a fighter plane than a passenger jet, too.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 30th, 2011 at 6:25:08 PM
permalink
Quote: renoWhy not refuel Concorde in Honolulu? Sure, it might slow down the trip by 45 minutes, but even with a fuel stop I'll bet Concorde could beat a 747 from L.A. to Tokyo.
In it's long history the Concorde flew to all kinds of cities for promotional purposes, and for demonstration rides. The main reason it did not fly a scheduled route from Tokyo to Honolulu and on to LAX was that they never sold any airplanes. That is not a route operated by Air France or British Airways.
At the time it took two stops for a 747 to fly to Sydney, and one stop to fly one to Singapore. Singapore was projected to be as important as New York. The first commercial flights in 1976 were to Bahrain (an island country near Saudi Arabia). When I was in that country for work, I was surprised to see photos of the Concorde even though it had been decades since the route was flow.
On 09 December 1977, BA and Singapore Airlines started a service between LHR and Singapore - Paya Lebar via Bahrain, bringing the travel time to only 9 hours. The plane had British Airways livery on one side, and Singapore Airlines livery on the other.
After only 3 return flights, the service was discontinued because of complaints from the Malaysian government about the supersonic boom over the Straits of Malacca. But in the summer of the same year, Malaysia Airlines plans of further capacity increase on the London route were denied in order to protect BA and Cathy Pacific, causing a clash between the Malaysian and British governments.
The service began in again in 1979 and ran for almost two years. The combined political problems, plus the need to go at subsonic speeds over much of the trip when passing over different countries meant that the plane could not be operated at a profit without a nearly full load which it could not achieve.
It is generally believed that a new supersonic commercial jet will only succeed if it has the range and speed to make the LAX to Tokyo run twice in a 24 hour day and allow enough time for disembarking,refueling, embarking, and restocking. Furthermore it will require a capacity of at least 300 seats.
Currently with a 777 in a 24 hour day, it takes 11:50 to fly Westbound, with 45 minute layover in Tokyo, and a 9:40 minute return to LAX and a 1:45 layover before repeating. The longer layover in LAX allows recovery time for some weather.
I do not believe that any full scale commercial service will exist in our lifetime. But a limited niche market will certainly exist. There is plans to build a 20 seat jet in the next ten years.
Twice as fast as Concorde: The supersonic jet that will fly from London to New York in TWO HOURS
September 30th, 2011 at 6:46:11 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIt is generally believed that a new supersonic commercial jet will only succeed if it has the range and speed to make the LAX to Tokyo run twice in a 24 hour day and allow enough time for disembarking,refueling, embarking, and restocking. Furthermore it will require a capacity of at least 300 seats.
Currently with a 777 in a 24 hour day, it takes 11:50 to fly Westbound, with 45 minute layover in Tokyo, and a 9:40 minute return to LAX and a 1:45 layover before repeating. The longer layover in LAX allows recovery time for some weather.
Speed in planes seems to have the same problems as trains. First, as the old saying goes, "speed is expensive, how fast do you want to go?" The market for very fast planes is limited as once the price gets so high it becomes out of range for the commercial flier and if someone has that much cash they get there faster owning or renting a private jet and leaving when they please not once or twice a day. Even if the plane is half as fast it is still "faster" in not having to wait for the next flight.
Second, peak-speed times are limited. You cannot hit supersonic until you are over the ocean, and when you get near the airport you have to make the same approach as anybody else, etc.
The A-380 has size problems. Boeing explained they did not build a plane like that because in their terms, "the best way to move 800+ people is to use 2-3 smaller airplanes." So far this is true. Stagger the flights, less time to board and disembark, all the stuff other than the actual flight.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 30th, 2011 at 8:26:22 PM
permalink
Quote: renoI really regret having never been on Concorde. As a kid, I associated it with millionaire rock stars needlessly wasting money (Guns n Roses rode it in the Paradise City video). Its record from JFK to Heathrow was 2 hours, 53 minutes. Its record for circumnavigating the entire planet was 31 hours, 28 minutes. Who would have thought that supersonic commercial flights would be available in 1977 but completely unheard of in 2011? Technology is supposed to progress, not regress! At the end of the day, though, markets know best, and in 2003 the market determined that Concorde was unprofitable.
The Concorde offered special one-way (with return by other flight or ship) charter flights were arranged to bring a trip within the means of moderately well-off enthusiasts or contest winners. A friend of mind won two one way trips to London from Washington in the early 1990's (with return by subsonic jet) for a sales contest. She is a little bit of flibbertigibbet so unfortunately she was too smashed to remember much of the trip.
I think that Concorde hit Mach 2.0, but from take-off to landing averaged about 1000 mph (just over Mach 1.3). In order to do the LAX to Tokyo flight twice in a 24 hour day, I think you would have to reach Mach 3.0 .
When I worked for the Navy, I flew the LAX-Tokyo once for government fare which is currently $564 round trip. The round trip is scheduled for 22 hours. I assume that barely covers the cost of fuel. Now an executive or a ultra wealthy person who wants to do the trip at the last minute on a commercial flights spends $16,500 for the ticket. For that the airline gives him a tiny cabin-like seat that allows him to sleep in relative comfort. He probably has shower facilities at Narita, and he dines on high quality food and drinks. But the airline is making a lot of profit since it does not have to pay down additional expensive equipment. Why should it spend millions of dollars on specialized aircraft so that they can get the passenger there in 5 hours? How much more is he willing to pay?
That's why I think that supersonic travel will be relegated to business jets, charters, or limited commercial surface where a flight is scheduled with 20 seats for possibly as high as $100K. A very limited group of people will pay almost anything to be part of an experience.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:42:56 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinShe is a little bit of flibbertigibbet so unfortunately she was too smashed to remember much of the trip.
There's not much to remember. Aside from the altitude, it would feel and look like any other flight. You could look at a horizon much farther away, but that would be it. If you sat well back, though, I've no idea whether you would see anything out but the wing adn the sky.
Service was first class, though with smaller seats than regular first class.
Quote:I think that Concorde hit Mach 2.0, but from take-off to landing averaged about 1000 mph (just over Mach 1.3).
That's a pretty good average. Of course the longer the flight over water, the longer it would fly at Mach 2.something.
Quote:In order to do the LAX to Tokyo flight twice in a 24 hour day, I think you would have to reach Mach 3.0 .
We'll get there, but it will take a while. Fighter typically top out at around Mach 2.5. The Blackbird could fly a lot faster, but if there was ever an expensive plane to build and operate, that was it. A titanium fuselage simply would cost too much for an airliner anyway.
What might work better is a sub-orbital plane. Something like Spaceship One, but bigger and with a longer range. Spaceship One, and Two for that matter, goes straight up because the purpose is to get into space for a few minutes. It would be perfectly feasible, though, to climb out at a shallower angle, leave the atmosphere and keep accelerating til, oh, Mach 6 or so. then re-enter and glide at a shallow angle to your destination. Think an ICBM with wings. There are rumors the Marines are looking at something along these lines for rapid troop deployment. You could probably do London to NYC in under one hour.
Or, if that fails, we could always build a Transatlantic tunnel and a hypersonic train. I am serious.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 30th, 2011 at 11:34:06 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedOr, if that fails, we could always build a Transatlantic tunnel and a hypersonic train. I am serious.
Don't hold your breath. A transatlantic tunnel would have to cross a tectonic plate boundary in the middle of the ocean.
If nothing will change then I am nothing.
October 1st, 2011 at 12:40:57 AM
permalink
Safer and cheaper to invest time and money in video conferencing.
October 1st, 2011 at 2:52:49 AM
permalink
Quote: algleDon't hold your breath. A transatlantic tunnel would have to cross a tectonic plate boundary in the middle of the ocean.
It would be more of a slightly buoyant tunnel which is held in place with cables attached to the bottom of the ocean. I guess the only thing that bothers me is that no one has tried to build such a tunnel of any length. Not across one of the Great Lakes, or a narrow portion of the ocean. There is no experience with this sort of construction.
I doubt that the developed world will invest in such a structure. Ultimately it is not very efficient. As most people know the speed of an airplane doesn't matter. What matters is how many connections you have to make. Building a transportation system that takes everyone in North America to a single point, and then shoots them in an airless tunnel to London, and then distributes them throughout Europe will never compete in overall effectiveness to a bunch of planes flying from individual cities in Northern America to individual cities in Europe.
As someone pointed out earlier, air travel may be stalling in favor of video conferencing and other forms of communication. The alarming plateau of air passengers since 2000 can either be an indicator of the "lost decade" due to 9-11 and the recession, or it could represent a more long term leveling off of demand.
Enplaned air passengers in USA
2010 - 713.6 million
2000 - 710.3 million
1990 - 499.1 million
1980 - 310.4 million
October 1st, 2011 at 3:01:36 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinEnplaned air passengers in USA
2010 - 713.6 million
2000 - 710.3 million
1990 - 499.1 million
1980 - 310.4 million
Does this figure include Air Taxis? It seems air taxi services and various flight share services are booming so that perhaps "scheduled airline passenger traffic" is relatively stagnant but business executives are still flying, they just fly on private jets or chartered jets rather than scheduled airliners. Last minute travel by Florida officials was wholesaled out to a jet charter service. Other states and companies may be doing similar end-runs around airport delays. So traffic might be high, its just shifted to the spot charter and ride share markets.
October 1st, 2011 at 3:28:44 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffDoes this figure include Air Taxis? It seems air taxi services and various flight share services are booming so that perhaps "scheduled airline passenger traffic" is relatively stagnant but business executives are still flying, they just fly on private jets or chartered jets rather than scheduled airliners.
I believe it does include charters. They say "revenue passengers" so it presumably does not include people working on the plane, or airline employees hitching a free ride. It does not include airports of fewer than 10,000 passengers per year, but most executive charters do not fly out of such tiny airports.
Social flights is the groupon of air taxis. You might score a chance to fly in a private jet for a few hundred dollars.
October 1st, 2011 at 5:27:56 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIt would be more of a slightly buoyant tunnel which is held in place with cables attached to the bottom of the ocean.
Right. It's called a floating tunnel. Digging under the Atlantic Ocean is simply impossible.
Quote:I guess the only thing that bothers me is that no one has tried to build such a tunnel of any length. Not across one of the Great Lakes, or a narrow portion of the ocean. There is no experience with this sort of construction.
There are a few submerged tunnels, lying at the bottom of lakes or rivers. But no floating tunnels so far, no. It's a radical new idea. But then prior to the 1800s no one had built a railroad track. And before 1905 no one had built an airplane.
Quote:Building a transportation system that takes everyone in North America to a single point, and then shoots them in an airless tunnel to London, and then distributes them throughout Europe will never compete in overall effectiveness to a bunch of planes flying from individual cities in Northern America to individual cities in Europe.
It would if you built a network of such tunnels crisscrossing the whole world. Underground, across chasms, under shallow lakes, floating in the oceans, etc.
BTW you also need maglev trains, few of which exist as yet. And no one's ever built an evacuated tunnel of any length, nor run a Mach 6 train through it.
Someday, though...
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
October 1st, 2011 at 10:11:39 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedOr, if that fails, we could always build a Transatlantic tunnel and a hypersonic train. I am serious.
Sounds crazy. What would the advantage of a Transatlantic tunnel be? Could a 3,400-mile ocean railroad connecting New York and London be built for less than, say, $100 billion? So who would invest that sort of money for a form of transportation that could never match the 560 mph cruising speed of a 747?
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a fan of high speed rail. But high speed rail only makes sense for short trips less than 500 miles. For long hauls of 3,400 miles, jet aircraft will always be faster. And cheaper.
October 1st, 2011 at 11:38:38 AM
permalink
Quote: renoSounds crazy. What would the advantage of a Transatlantic tunnel be? Could a 3,400-mile ocean railroad connecting New York and London be built for less than, say, $100 billion? So who would invest that sort of money for a form of transportation that could never match the 560 mph cruising speed of a 747?
You missed the hypersonic part. I'm talking a Mach 6+, at least, kind of speed.
It wouldn't be easy or cheap, no, but it might be worth it. A single tunnel for a single route wouldn't be that good, either. But a network of such tunnels all over the world, that would be different. You might board at, say, Sydney and disembark in Vegas, or Toronto, and so on.
This is one possible solution to the sonic boom problem. Instead of flying in the stratosphere, you'd fly a few inches of the track inside a tunnel filled with hard vacuum. No air, no boom.
The problems are huge, however. First thing is to develop a submerged tunnel. Next to keep such tunnels, and underground tunnels in a network, evacuated of air at all times. and while maglev trains do exist, none are yet capable of such speeds. you'd also need a way to deliver power to the tracks.
It wouldn't be easy, no. It wasn't easy to lay copper cable across the Atlantic, either, but now such things are commonplace. So much so I bet most people don't even know there are underwater optic fiber webs connecting the entire world.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
October 1st, 2011 at 11:57:54 AM
permalink
Filled? Filled with nothing?Quote: Nareedtrack inside a tunnel filled with hard vacuum.
I know you meant merely "in a vacuum", but that made me laugh.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
