Hacker News Reader

Comment by mberning | Hacker News Reader

Air travel has become the least dignified means of transportation. Almost everything about it is terrible. Shopping for tickets. Checking in. Security. Waiting. Boarding the plane and fighting for overhead bin space. Seat dimensions. Lavatories. Literally everything is terrible. The only thing it has going for it is that it makes long distance and overseas travel logistically possible on an acceptable timescale. Given the choice to drive for 8 hours or fly for 2 I always chose to drive. At some point I think concerns for health, safety, and the basic human dignity of having personal space have to come in to play.

View on HN

The hollowing out of the middle ground seems to happen in most commoditized markets.

Take meat. Used to be you'd go to the butcher for your meat, and you'd get a reasonably good product, from a butcher who knew where the meat came from, probably even the farmer who reared the meat. That was the way almost everybody got their meat, so the fixed overheads of having a butcher shop was spread over a large customer base.

Move along a couple of decades. Supermarkets, with their more efficient logistics, eat into the meat trade. Butcher shops almost completely disappear. But supermarket meat goes through a longer supply chain with larger suppliers that have the efficiencies of scale to cope with the pricing power supermarkets have. The butcher shops that survive turn into boutiques, where their unique selling proposition is what used to be commonplace: that they know where the meat is coming from and probably know the farmer that reared it.

The market bifurcates into two basic strategies, low price and high quality (see also Porter's Cost Leadership and Differentiation).

The consumer who's willing to pay a little bit more for a little bit more quality ends up having to pay a lot more rather than a little bit more, because the pool of people who could spread the fixed costs of the higher quality is split - most go for the lowest priced product. There's a ratchet effect, where slightly higher quality products are, at the margin, increasingly expensive because there's no scale in that strategy: the more expensive they become the less uptake they get, which means they have less scale, which means they become more expensive.

In some ways it's a collective action problem: what would be a better outcome for a large group of people can't really occur because individual actions can't sustain a stable state change. In other ways - many, if not most economists believe this - it's a better outcome overall, because more people get to use the bargain basement product.

But I think people in the middle are usually worse off in commoditized markets.

You just described the entire American Economy.

Funny thing is this also describes the job market. Very low wages at the bottom, not even enough to sustain a living, nothing in the middle, high wages at the top. Hollowing out of the middle. All a result of supposed efficiency, but really it's just externalities pushed onto the employees. It's not as if they can afford it, they have no choice.

>Very low wages at the bottom, not even enough to sustain a living, nothing in the middle,

This is false. 15 percent in the US are at or below the poverty line. The remaining 85 percent certainly aren't at the top.

I am not saying it's there. But it's getting there.

This shows it more clearly.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Distribu...

You assume that $1 above poverty line is "middle".

I certainly don't.

Median income in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_Unit...

"nothing in the middle" is a blatant lie and hackernews discussions are much better when they are backed by facts and logical arguments rather than political clap trap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

71% making less than $50k/y.

51% of households.

A median says close to nothing about repartition. That's not a fact that you can use in a logical argument against your opponent's claim about repartition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

There's quite a few households and quite a lot of people between $35k and $100k. The claim that there is no middle class is blatantly, provably false. The very, very top has a lot. I don't think anybody is disputing that (I'm certainly not). But there are a lot of people who make a solid, middle class income.

The share of total national income for the middle class has been in decline for 50 years. The piece of the pie that the middle class represents is shrinking.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/...

You're assuming the poverty line is a relevant metric. And regardless of the accuracy of that assumption, you still don't offer any information on the income spread over percentiles, nor a source for your one claim.

The poverty line is very relevant when the entire discussion is about getting by.

Again assuming the meaning of "getting by".

> In 2015, in the United States, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was at an annual income of US$11,770; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$24,250.

Do you consider this getting by?

24k for a family of 4... That's easily just the cost of an apartment/utilities for a year here in Austin. Damn. :-/

That's why it's called "poverty."

I think that's the general setup you get when an economy cartelizes. The untold story of American inequality has been the reversal of decades of antitrust work by the state, resulting in the oligopolization of most major labor, consumer, and capital markets. http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaug-2016/popul...

You didn't mention the affordability of meat to average customers in the age of the butcher.

I did, indirectly - "more people get to use the bargain basement product".

I don't deny that the commodity situation is better for people at the lower end of the income distribution. It's the middle that gets hollowed out.

So why are you telling the story with supermarkets and meat producers framed as actors? Looks like it's the consumers who have collectively made this decision, and companies have just been following their wishes.

Yes indeed, consumers have collectively made the decision from the choices given to them by the market (you need at least two sides for most market outcomes, since transactions generally have two parties). My point is that not all consumers are necessarily better off from the collective decision.

The fact that you only see two choices at the stabilized market right now doesn't mean that these were the only two choices present when the market transformed.

It's impossible for everyone to be happy when you're making the collective decision.

That's a very interesting phenomenon with the butchers (and about 1/5th of the American retail economy in my experience), but it's not what's happening in airline services.

Airlines have jacked up the prices of comfortable berths people can sleep in on long haul journeys to almost 10x the price of shrinking torture chairs that most of us buy. For a long while business class and coach drew apart in price even as business got more luxurious with flat beds and fancy wines while coach seats in Boeing's newest, most advanced 787 jets are the narrowest trans-oceanic seats ever sold and Spirit/Frontier domestic seats don't even recline anymore.

But that difference was driven by corporate executive passengers whose employers were paying the 10x prices and getting tax breaks for doing so. Corporate sales is complicated and charging more can actually sell more units so the airlines carefully eliminated mid-priced options to force businesses to pay far more for the very profitable business class seats than their marginal cost.

And economic rationality has reasserted itself. Premium economy seating is now common on airlines outside the USA without such easily gamed large corporations to scam. The premium economy is similar in quality to old-fashioned business class seating at prices that middle class leisure travellers can afford. Mostly you can't buy it from the USA without paying a steep premium, but anyone flying to the USA from abroad has been able to for about a decade. Carriers refused to sell it at the same prices in the USA because running the game on corporate purchasing departments is so lucrative. For example, JAL and Cathay Pacific round trip fares between the Far East and USA in premium economy have been about $500-1000 more originating in the USA than in their home countries.

But Delta and American are now outfitting planes with premium economy because it's the most profitable use of space for carriers that have it and supporting the corporate business class sales inflation scam can't hold it back anymore. American is flying the new class on planes already. Even CX and JL prices are starting to rationalize.

So the key variable in airline discomfort has been American corporate purchasing culture irrationality and not the natural division of markets into tiers. Corporate purchasing irrationality and cartel pricing to exploit it are also the drivers of advance-purchase fares, last-minute price gouging, saturday night stay requirements, steep premiums for one-way fares, and lots of other paradoxical and nasty pricing strategies.

> torture chairs

Maybe part of the problem is the tendency to hyperbolize.

You can't be tall.

How tall, though? I'm taller than 95% of the US population, have flown quite a bit, and have never had a problem. They can't build all the seats in the plane for people in the 98th percentile and up. (Or rather, they can build some, and call them 'first class'.)

I think it's very anti-humanistic to say that someone born tall should be required to pay for seats that are 10x the price of people that require slightly less space, or simply not travel long distances.

I think it's anti-humanistic to say that, because a small number of people are born a particular way, that others must be charged more money so that they can be accommodated by more services than they would want consume. See? It's so easy to call people anti-humanistic.

Most airlines that I've been on have started turning the exit row into a "non-first-class extra legroom" row. On a few occasions I've seen very tall people sitting there. And there's nothing wrong with building a range of legrooms into a plane. But I don't see why there should be some requirement that a costly good - legroom on a plane - be provided to more people than actually want to pay for it.

I wasn't arguing for making all seats larger, but against your statement that for the tall people, there is first class.

But first class largely costs more because of its larger legroom. Certainly there's no problem with having a long-legroom-but-no-frills class of seats. Indeed, unbundling services would probably facilitate this.

Have you flown international business or first class before?

It costs a much larger premium than the space differential, it largely costs more due to price discrimination, because many fliers in business aren't the ones paying for their tickets. If you're talking about real first class (which can carry up to a 30-50x price premium on the economy rate), there's also very attentive service, nice champagne, multi-course meals made by an onboard chef served on china plates with silverware, seclusion, sometimes even private rooms. I would not characterize it as "largely because of its larger legroom".

If you mean to say that many people choose business/first because of the additional space, that's more correct. But even in business, it's more about lying flat and other factors than simple legroom.

I started paying business just for the legroom. It's the only reason.

And it's not always as somebody pointed out above that you may chose the door seats for the same price. I had to take a last minute trip for this summer vacation. Those places were part of some "Comfort" plan I didn't even hear of while booking. Fortunately those were the only ones free on the plane and they let me sit there for free. They were booked out for the flight back though...

It's a pain, it got worse through the decades and I fail to understand that development. Was the free market not supposed to make everything better and cheaper? ;)

I have flown first class, not international business. Yes, there is of course a range of first class experiences. Many include expensive additional services.

But a sigificant component of the cost is simply that first class carries fewer people per linear foot than does economy.

Allowing the unbundling of services is much more likely to allow the emergence of an "extra leg room only" class, than is a situation where services must be bundled into a standard package. If the prices have to be the same regardless of seat location, and be packaged with an identical bundle of food, blankets, etc, then that's a strong disincentive to attempt to sell a separate class of legroom seats. And it's much more likely that a "standardized seat" will be too short for very tall people than it will be tall enough - and even if it were, that would mean fewer seats on the plane and thus higher prices.

Perhaps it's worth comparing to people in wheelchairs. Airlines accommodate a few wheelchair-bound people on flights, but if more than that number want to fly, they need to pay extra. Shit luck for them, but the alternative would be for everyone else to subsidise wheelchair-bound people whenever they want to fly. If you consider, for the purpose of this conversation, being tall as similar to being wheelchair-bound that's the choice.

So what happens with people of below average intelligence and physical ability? They're likely to suffer from lower earnings. Should a person of average height and on minimum wage subsidise a well-paid tall person?

In an ideal world, chairs would adjust so that everyone is comfortable and still allow the same number of people on the plane at the same price. However, in the real world, we probably have to accept that allocating comfort based on ability to pay, with a bit of flexibility on both sides, is the best outcome.

> Should a person of average height and on minimum wage subsidise a well-paid tall person?

I assume it is ok though that a short well-paid person to subsidize a tall less-paid individual?

I mainly meant to say that it's a ridiculous idea to suggest business/first class as a solution to basic needs given the absolutely insane pricing structure. Obviously reality makes it impossible for everyone to enjoy exactly the same advantages, regardless of their in-born traits.

So it depends how you define "basic needs". For me, this is a "nice-to-have" which might be skewed by my being average height and build. Those above average height, especially those who fly frequently, are more likely to consider it a basic need.

I would define the basic needs for a very tall person on a 6 hour flight to include the ability to keep their limbs within their allotted space.

Or have arms.

I spend about 100 hours per year in the air, always in economy class, and I'm average height and build.

I'm not saying it's at all comfortable, just that it's rather hyperbolic to call it 'torture'. I have a book, an MP3 player and some headphones, and then look forward to landing. I prefer to have the money than pay for extra comfort. FWIW, I also have a pretty small car for exactly the same reason. I wouldn't call that torture, and wouldn't expect anyone to subsidise big cars just so I feel more comfortable for the same price.

I wouldn't call it torture, but I would call it "uncomfortable". I'm average build too; I don't mind the lack of legroom in economy, but when I have to spend an entire 12 hour flight managing where my elbows are (ahead of my seatmate, behind my seatmate, arms across my chest, hold the seat in front of me, etc) it's very uncomfortable. A shared 3" wide armrest is just NEVER going to work. If I could just sit in a relaxed pose I'd be thrilled.

Don't know why you're gettimg downvoted for this.

"Having to pay what I deem a high price for a good and/or service I deem insufficient? Help help, I'm being oppressed!"

For a 6' tall person, the current seating is actually very inconvenient on 8h+ flights. No hyperbole at all! So maybe the solution is to all genetically convert our offspring to shorter persons :)

Every time it comes up, I rant about the need for a human-sized seat that's only perhaps 50% more expensive, but it virtually doesn't exist. (Save Premium Economy on Lufthansa and Air NZ, neither of which I've ever tried due to arcane rules about what seats you're allowed to pre-buy on what codeshares.. thanks, United).

Wanting enough space for my elbows to be able to stay within the confines of my seat should not cost me 10x as much.

I fly US-South East Asia a couple times a year. Economy fares are around $1k(or $500-800 the last few months). Business class fares can be had for about $4-5k. Premium economy for around $1,500-2,000. My problem with premium economy is that for 50%-100% more than the economy fare, you're not getting much. Slightly(1-2") larger seat and pitch. Slightly better food. Earlier boarding. I wish they would have something in the $2,000-2,500 price point with those recliners that you find in domestic first class. I'd definitely pay that much for it.

I hear what you're saying, but I can't justify paying a full multiple of base fare.

Economy plus might not be the best thing in the world, but 50% more is at least within the realm of human affordability, and partial recline and my own armrest sounds downright luxurious. For 5x as much as a coach fare, the perks better be things I shouldn't discuss on a public forum.

And I don't really care about the quality of food or service, how many times they bring me a hot towel, etc. Just want a good seat.

It's not just about bargain basement product though. Supermarkets do offer premium products and prices more people can afford. Maybe not hand-reared meat, but better cuts of meat from e.g. Aberdeen Angus. The Bronze turkey we had for Christmas was dry hung, bought at Aldi (a German owned chain that operates here in the UK) at the price of a basic bird from a butcher.

My experience of supermarket premium products is that they are barely acceptable approximations of a quality version of the product.

Take cheese, for example - it's much easier to taste the difference with cheese. I've never had a UK supermarket Comte comparable to a Comte from a cheesemonger, no matter how premium it was advertised.

Or pastries. The only widely distributed supermarket in the UK with what I would consider edible pastries is Waitrose, and not all branches have a decent range. But bakeries in the UK have their own mass-market pathologies.

What really brought the insight home to me was my experience eating in Morocco. There, bread was baked by street vendors - it was always fresh and warm. You have to get lucky with timing to get the same experience in the UK, even if you go to bakeries. I realised we've lost certain qualities of life with our economic setup, and the more I found out about good food, the more I realised that supermarkets and commoditization had created a mechanism that forced me to work much harder to get good food.

Anyway, this isn't directly related to airline seats, but I do think the ratchet effect is real and it shows up in a lot of places.

> There, bread was baked by street vendors - it was always fresh and warm. You have to get lucky with timing to get the same experience in the UK, even if you go to bakeries.

Maybe that's just the UK? In Germany, many supermarket and discount store chains have recently been outfitting their stores with bakery stations, where you have a somewhat decent chance of actually getting warm rolls.

Also, I've had a pretty good experience with premium products in German supermarkets. I only rarely buy from a premium store (sometimes for cheese, almost never for meat), but when I do, their performance is pretty comparable to supermarket premium lines.

Yeah, that sounds like just the Anglosphere. I've been to Montreal and lived in Israel, and in both those places you darn well get fresh bread and pastries in either the supermarket or bakery shop of your choosing.

Mind, I was fortunate enough to live in the best baking city in Israel (something like 53 bakeries in a city of 300000 people, plus supermarkets and open street markets), but still.

While I agree with your points, I would also add that most of the people who are in the middle in the second, bifurcated market would likely be in the low end or outside the market entirely in the first market, e.g. they won't even be able to afford the meat. So they're not really worse off, the goalpost has moved.

I don't agree at all. Even today, meat from a good butcher is quite affordable. A much bigger part of the cost is physically visiting the butcher, since there's far fewer of them.

It does tie in with two-income families (households are more time-poor) and other changes in the economy, it's not just commoditization.

Totally agree. Some of the fares are really cheap these days. For example a return flight from Manchester to Dublin booked two weeks in advance is £20. That's a journey that can only be done by flying for one hour or driving for two followed by a three hour ferry.

Or perhaps even better, a return from Manchester to Nürnberg for ~£30 in 2 hours instead of a 14 hour drive plus ferry. The fuel for that alone (not including the ferry) would cost £170.

I just don't understand the complaints!

Booking a few months in advance I can get a return trip to the otherside of the world (Australia) for under £700 and get there in less than 24 hours. I find that incredibly cheap and would be mindblowing just 20 years ago.

That would be amazing. We can't even get across the states for less than $250.

It's not just price. Most consumers don't want to waste time travelling to multiple different specialty food stores. It's not worth the hassle for a marginal improvement in quality.

I don't know about 8 hours, but for a lot of semi-local business, I've started taking my car or a train (if available). Even if you have pre-check (and especially if you don't), you're looking at a ~40 minute drive, uber, or public transit ride to the airport, all with their own cost, followed by an hour or more of downtime and further indignity of being corraled and scanned, followed by 30+ minutes of waiting on the tarmac after landing. Then you get to wait to get off the plane. If you were crazy enough to check luggage, add another ~20 for that. Then you're in an airport, not exactly in the city center, without transportation. Get on a shuttle to rent a car or go wait for transit.

All told, it's easily 2+ hours on top of your flight.

On a train, I get out my laptop, do some work (the wifi is usually free; eat shit, gogoinflight), maybe nap a bit, and arrive in about the same total time. Much nicer.

And unlike on a plane you have enough space to actually use your laptop.

Totally - there are actual tables, and trains are seldom as packed as planes consistently tend to be.

I live in NYC and whenever I go to DC I always take the train. It's about the same time as flying but with less chances of delays. I flew once and was delayed for 8 hours and have taken the train ever since. I drove once but that was slightly slower than the train and not as relaxing as sitting back with a drink and a laptop.

To Boston though I usually fly. It is actually much faster if you leave at the right times to avoid traffic which you'd want to do if driving too. It's about 100% faster in my experience.

I drove to Chicago once and that was about 12 or 13 hours. I've flown a bunch of times and it takes, door to door (depending on when you leave, etc) about 4 hours total. So it's much faster.

I live in NYC but Pittsburgh is my hometown; I have even been preferring a train to go that far these days. I was Diamond on Delta in the past, just gonna miss platinum this year because I flew off-airline enough; I fly a lot, but if a train is feasible I tend to prefer it.

NYC to Pittsburgh is actually a subpar trip in terms of Northeast train travel. It's smooth-sailing from NYC to Philly and Philly to Harrisburg, but once you get west of Harrisburg, speeds drop drastically and the resulting trip is much slower than driving. This is because the tracks are shared with other trains and run through mountainous terrain. Because the trip isn't great, it's not that heavily used and Amtrak only runs one train a day each way between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

It's a shame really! A high speed track between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg would really improve accessibility for the city and be well used I think. I know there's been some talk of it, but no real progress made.

I took Amtrak from Chicago to Las Vegas once. Never again. Trip took 48 hours and two locomotive breakdowns.

Another thing about Amtrak is, they do not own their tracks. Instead they use tracks from other companies and have to yield priority to them. The American train system will always be much slower than necessary because of these system delays.

There is a very good youtube video on this subject.

Depends on the part of the US.

The Northeast Corridor[1], where the DC-NYC route that was previously mentioned is part of, is owned primarily by Amtrak -- so they get priority on the rails and can run as often (and as fast) as they please. However, they share the rails with other passenger rail lines so both entities cooperate on scheduling and maintenance.

Not to mention that there are sections that are designated as high speed sections, consist of 4 tracks (1 local and 1 express track in each direction), and is electrified. Plus, there are regional transportation agencies (and Amtrak) that operate locomotives capable of 150mph+.

Yes, I know this speed pales in comparison to Europe, but as far as I'm aware, it's still faster than any other rail system in the US.

That's why when Northeast US people rave about Amtrak service (between Boston and DC), and everyone else doesn't, both sides think the other side is crazy due to a myopic view.

What suffers in the Northeast is delivery of freight, so almost all of it needs to go by truck, which contributes to traffic congestion, and drives even more people to mass transit for long distances (which makes it easier to make a convincing case for expanding passenger rail operations). Or to relocate to more densely-populated cities that have rail access.

One interesting by-product of this, is diesel engines are banned in New York City rail tunnels, so the only way to get freight from New Jersey into New York city, is via a 140-mile detour known as the the Selkirk Hurdle[2].

In other parts of the US, the rails are owned by freight companies (BNSF, CSX, etc), so their customers' cargo gets priority, and Amtrak suffers because they don't automatically win the "battle" like they do in the Northeast.

Additionally, in these areas, due to the lack of electrification, Amtrak has to rely on an aging fleet of diesel locomotives[3] that break down often, and when they do, everything gets backed up. Couple this with the fact that the only section of Amtrak's network that's profitable is the Northeast Corridor and there's less incentive to throw good money after bad, and also leads to politicians calling for the defunding or even eradication of Amtrak.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock#L...

If you ever happen to be in Europe (specifically, Switzerland or France) or Asia (specifically, Japan), try their high-speed trains. Pure perfection. Even German, Italian, Spanish, etc trains are still a lot better than the US train system.

I took a Chinese high-speed train a week ago, I concur it was very pleasant and affordable. $60 roundtrip for approx the distance between Seattle and SF, 3.5 hrs journey.

While Switzerland has a decent rail system (high frequency, somewhat dense), it doesn't have high speed trains. Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands all of at least some high speed lines.

Add China to the list. Getting between Beijing and Shanghai is an absolute treat compared to US travel.

Taking trains between any of Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, NYC, and Boston is not really comparable to doing so in the rest of the country, (because those are on the Acela Express line which, while not as nice as high-speed rail in Europe or Asia, is a reasonably acceptable substitute).

It goes both ways. I used to live in Denver, and it was faster for me to ski in Alta (after flying to SLC) than it was for me to drive to I-70 ski resorts on a weekend.

How quick is the flight and ski in Alta? I don't remember that being the case at all when I lived in Denver especially if you went to a place like Loveland, A-Basin, Breckenridge or Copper. Vail was a bit farther and more possibilities for road issues though.

55 min flight + 45 min Uber Ski to Alta. Only comparable with bad weekend traffic/snowy conditions on I-70 for sure.

Yup. A few years back some friends and I went from SF to LA for a conference. We all left home at the same time. The people who drove and the people who flew arrived at the hotel within 15 minutes of one another.

It was a real eye-opener for me.

Part of the problem is non-linearity of delays. If you are delayed 45 minutes in traffic towards the airport, you may miss your flight and have to wait 6+ hours for another. With driving, if you are delayed 45 minutes, then you are just delayed 45 minutes at your final destination.

Because of this, people frequently spend a lot of non-productive time at the airport, because they are afraid of the (small) chance that they can miss their flight entirely.

When you're trying to be price sensitive for your reimbursement (say, keeping startup runway in mind), the 55.5 cents per mile reimbursement very quickly overtakes the cost of other forms of transit.

I can't imagine driving 6-7 hours vs. flying. As it is for especially tight schedules I can get up at 4:30am to catch a 6:00am flight, and be at a 9am meeting in downtown Chicago with 45 minutes to prep. That's including the 20 minute uber on the MSP side and 45 minute Blue Line ride to the loop. I can't remember the last time I spent more than 5 minutes in security on either end. Door to door is 3.5-4 hours pretty reliably.

I have colleagues that prefer to drive that, and I only do it if it's the last option available. For me, the driving is my full day and them I'm exhausted while taking a flight I can nap or do work - much less unproductive time.

I think a 4-5 hour one-day drive is about my limit before I'll look hard at flight options. I also don't mind taking a flight for work on my "own time" since I find the whole process rather peaceful and can just zone out reading/catching up on news. Driving you'll have to pay me :)

To each their own though - I know without precheck and being able to jump the standby list flying would be much more miserable. It's certainly a race to the bottom that's sad to watch.

But what if the car could drive itself? Would you prefer it then?

You are describing a very inefficient train ;)

IIRC the USA doesn't really do trains. Also, trains have public seating, which means they Can't Have Nice Things thanks to various anonymous assholes - in comparison, most people don't wreck their own car.

> IIRC the USA doesn't really do trains

the US does a lot of trains, but generally for short distances on commuter corridors, and municipal light rail. we don't do high speed passenger rail, which is probably what you're thinking of.

How much of that is the perception of anonymous assholes vs the real thing? American passenger trains used to have open sleeper cars, but not anymore, which is kinda sad because I don't want to have to choose between coach (uncomfortable) and roomette (expensive) on the LA/Chicago route.

No trains stop outside my house though ;)

Car seats are uncomfortable.

If a car could drive itself then you wouldn't need the rather-awkward driver's seat (plus the required visibility for driving), and you might be able to squeeze in an actual bed or couch-like thing.

Really? Compared to cattle class in an airline ..?

Yes, at least for me, it's not just the size, it's also the vibration. And while the noise is usually louder in the plane, its nature is somehow worse in the car.

Probably because jet engines operate smoothly at constant RPM so the sound is monotonous and gets tuned out quickly, whereas car engines operate roughly at low and wildly varying RPMs. It also depends on the car--a Toyota Yaris with a 4 speed auto (lol in 2016) would pretty awful, where as a Lexus LS600h with V8 and CVT would be very pleasant.

What the sibling said about noise and vibration, plus the fact that you are in the seat for less time (the rest of the time spent in airports, walking from point to point, standing in line, etc.), plus the fact that you can get up and walk around at any time (I always get aisle seats).

This comment is simply incorrect.

You can choose from literally hundreds of car seats when purchasing a vehicle, and I have never, ONCE been in a car seat less comfortable than the standard airline economy seats which, despite coming from different manufacturers across different airlines, are universally terrible. Flat as a board so you put pressure on your tailbone, no support anywhere, just terrible. I'd rather sit on a park bench.

Give me the option of paying $200 per ticket to sit in my car's seats on an airplane, I'd do it every time.

When comparing an 8-hour drive to an 8-hour door-2-door plane trip, only about 3-4hrs is actually spent in that economy class seat. And for all the discomfort of the seat, you can get up and stretch and walk around without crashing the vehicle.

This seems like a distinctly American problem - admittedly, it's been a very long time since I've been in the US to see it for myself.

Here in Australia, I check in on the mobile app, arrive at the airport around 40 minutes before my domestic flight, take 1 minute to walk straight to the automated Qantas Bag Drop point (and there's almost never a queue of more than 1 or 2 other travellers), take around 30 seconds to scan my boarding pass or frequent flyer card, put my (complimentary) checked bag with its RFID baggage tag straight on the machine, 30 seconds later I have my baggage receipt.

1 minute later, I'm on my way through security - I have to take my laptop out of my bag and empty metal from my pockets, but I'm not usually taking off my shoes and there's no LAG restrictions on domestic services. No ID checks either (admittedly a possibility of being stopped for 30 seconds for an "explosives residue" test, though). A minute later, I'm on the other side, and I'm already lining up to buy an only slightly overpriced drink from the cafe.

The whole process is quick enough that when you don't have checked luggage, it's absolutely possible to walk in the front of the terminal and see FINAL CALL on the departures screen, and still make it to the gate in time.

The seat dimensions on domestic aircraft aren't great (and I'm 6'4", so believe me, I know) but it's not really that much more uncomfortable than a car, and it's definitely better than being on a bus for 8 hours. The overhead bin space is way less of a problem when you're on a traditional carrier that unlike the American ones still gives you a complimentary checked bag.

And for anyone who suffers from mild motion sickness (like myself), it's way nicer to be in an aircraft and still be able to read a book than to be on the road.

I can definitely live with this.

Seconded. Terrible airlines aren't a problem unique to the US, but my experience of travel with major Australian and Asian airlines is consistently good, whilst with US carriers almost universally dismal as given in the GP.

When I hear American and European airline bosses whining about the harsh competition from the "Gulf" airlines such as Emirates, Qatar Airways or Etihad, a voice in my head always yells "why don't you just try to give their level of customer experience in the first place before begging your government to help you provide abysmal service".

Because they don't get special deals on the fuel and huge government loans to get started off (and good locations for hubs).

And because foreign airlines are generally prohibited from providing domestic service inside the US, which is the substantial majority of the overall market.

I have to agree. And it's a similar experience in Europe and South East Asia.

Maybe this is a generational thing? I've only been traveling for the past 3 years and to me everything seems normal.

Edit: There is one thing that really bugs me: The insecticide spray they release into the cabin on some routes. What's next? Barnaby Joyce personally raiding the cabin looking for traces of Pistol and Boo?

There are very few things I agree with ol' Barnaby about, but the need for strong enforcement of our biosecurity laws is one of them ;)

That's fair enough, biosecurity is indeed important. But the cabin spraying specifically has always struck me as a bit cavalier...

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where 10 years later whatever chemical they use is linked to some form of cancer and then a class action lawsuit follows.

Generational and regional for sure. I've been flying US and Japanese carriers since the late 80's, and (a) Japanese Carriers were always higher quality, but (b) US carriers are much much more crammed than they used to be.

It's because most airport security in the US is theater - they're trying to reduce the perception of risk.

I'm an American and I travel back to the US as seldom as possible, in large part due to the bullshit you have to go through to travel there. Every time I go back I feel like I'm treated like a criminal, with my only crime being that I need to get on a plane.

And as bad as the normal procedure is, it's much worse if you have to book a flight on short notice - two of the last three trips I've taken to the US were because either a family member had died or was dying. Honestly, when you're just off a 10 hour flight and you don't know whether or not your mother died while you were on the way, the last thing you have patience for is yet another asshole border control guy asking you question after question.

Yeah, I'm a bit bitter about airport security in the US.

If you're American, you dont really have to tell anything to the US border control.

Meh. I'm sure it's worse for non-Americans, but US border control is more of a hassle for me than any of Europe or China. Africa was pretty bad (they confiscated my passport...?) but otherwise the US is generally the worst.

The US charges $100 to sign up for Global Entry, while Australia is trying to force as many people as possible to use SmartGate with no fee and no registration required...

I travel internationally maybe 6 times a year and on average spend maybe 10 minutes waiting in line and 30 seconds talking to the officer at CBP without global entry.

I've timed it with friends with global entry going through at the same time and they shaved off maybe 5 minutes.

Either ATL, SEA, LAX, JFK, and MSP are way better than average, or global entry isn't worth it except for the tiny percentage of international travelers that commute that way.

Point being, for US citizens, CBP is plenty fast enough without global entry.

I have waited 2 hours at sfo just recently

And they don't really have to let you in the country.

American courts have ruled that it's unconstitutional to bar American citizens from entering America.

I don't think you understand the context of that decision. You do not have a right to enter the USA as a US citizen under all circumstances. You can be denied entry based on suspicious behavior and circumstances, and the border agents have plenty of free reign to interpret that as they will.

Would you care to provide links to cases or law that shows US citizens can be stopped by CBP for refusing to answer questions?

http://www.justanswer.com/immigration-law/5l4kh-american-cit...

Disagree with "Security Theater". Look up older aircraft types in Wikipedia, like "Boeing 727" or "DC-9" and look at their incident lists and why they crashed. Many of them were destroyed in bombings or were hijacked. Nowadays, this kind of crime has become a rarity and it can be attributed to much higher security levels at the aiport. While I oppose total surveillance strongly, this kind of "direct protection" where you look into the eye of the security guys directly might help sometimes.

The TSA does not have to be anywhere near as bad as it is right now. We could have similar levels of security without millimeter wave scanners or pat downs, and without removing shoes, belts, etc.

The reinforcement of cockpit doors and additional sky marshals are what keep that incident list short today.

Also, add that the passengers will not sit idly by any more.

In the past, the message was, give the hijackers what they want and no one will get hurt.

Of course, every one knows, sky marshals and enforced cockpit doors keep bombs out of the plane...

Of course you can always do better. But compared to Europe, I've found the TSA to be very quick working and quite friendly. I worried a bit after reading so many bad articles, but then wondered that most of them kept smiling and being polite despite their intense work.

> Of course, every one knows, sky marshals and enforced cockpit doors keep bombs out of the plane...

This presumes that the TSA keeps bombs out of the plane, which does not seem to be the case.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/2449...

But metal detectors aren't that much better than millimeter wave scanners.

Shoes, belts, and taking the laptop out are the only significant pain point that America has that the rest of the world doesn't. And the shoes thing is a the result of someone walking through security with bombs in his shoe, so it's hard to be too critical.

I flew in yesterday and there was some kind of a "nation-wide computer-system outage", so there was a 1.5 hour line at border control. Apparently the CBP officers were getting a bit frustrated with all the travelers. My officer made a couple of offhand jokes about the idea of sending me back where I came from. Apparently he didn't like that my visa type was too fancy for my job title.

If the airport did not have American flags all over, I would have thought that I'm in a third-world country.

It's actually pretty quick in the US, too, despite the bad rap it gets. I have perhaps twice hit 30min security queues at SFO and almost missed my flight, because I like to cut it close and live dangerously.

Typically I arrive about 30-45min before boarding begins and it's no problem whatsoever. I agree most countries I've travelled to have the security lines figured out a lot better in the US, and I just recently got TSA PreCheck so I don't have to take off my shoes and take out my laptop, but it's more about the convenience than the speed.

Is it really that bad? We're scooting around the world are reasonably affordable prices in what is the most statistically safe way to travel. Sure it could be improved but to say it is such a horrible experience...really? Air travel is wonderful and I feel fortunate to have been lucky enough to see many parts of the world. Big picture - it's bloody brilliant!

I'm with you. From Tokyo I can go to multiple countries for less than 200 USD round trip. 300 USD and my choices increase to more than 10 countries.

And the "cost" outside of that is shuffling around an airport listening to an audiobook for a couple of hours, then a few hours of cramped pleasant conversation with a stranger or mediocre naps or reading a book?

It's not the ideal situation, of course, but the last flight I was on I was able to program my first game (shitty breakout clone in Lua and Love2D) from start to finish.

I already posted this further up but I want to add it again as I'm in agreement with you.

Some of the fares are really cheap these days. For example a return flight from Manchester to Dublin booked two weeks in advance is £20. That's a journey that can only be done by flying for one hour or driving for two followed by a three hour ferry.

Or perhaps even better, a return from Manchester to Nürnberg for ~£30 in 2 hours instead of a 14 hour drive plus ferry. The fuel for that alone (not including the ferry) would cost £170.

I just don't understand the complaints!

How is driving safer than air travel?

Just a quick googling got me this: http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/news/economy/train-plane-car...

    Cars and trucks: 5.75 deaths per billion miles
    Commercial air travel: 0.06 deaths per billion miles

I understand this statistic and get why it's often referenced, but how about this question instead? "Per accident, which has higher likelihood of death?"

I feel that's what worries people. Ya, per mile traveled its less likely, but per accident I imagine is a much different story.

But that's an inherently wrong way of looking at it. If you're traveling somewhere in a plane vs on the road, you're way more likely to die. Even if you factor own your own human error (but not others').

"Probability of death conditional on an accident" sounds like a statistic designed to fool people who really just care about the probability of death, preying on a cognitive error.

But that statistic is pointless because you're so much more unlikely to get into an accident. It's irrelevant that you're more likely to die in a plane crash than a car crash. By that logic, you should never drive more than 5 miles an hour, because with each mile an hour you increase your speed, you're more likely to be in a fatal accident.

you you're saying that people prefer to be maimed more and so would choose driving over flying because there's less chance of them being maimed when they fly?

honestly that makes no sense

That makes it worse actually - not only are you more likely to die in a car per mile, but you are many more times likely than THAT higher number to get injured.

It may be what worries people, but that's only because people are irrational. That number is utterly meaningless. If you use that number to decide safety, then stubbing your toe before you go BASE jumping makes it safer!

I don't disagree with you but I don't think deaths per mile is a good way to compare modes of transportation. The car/truck numbers include intra-city miles driven for a start. If you can narrow it down to accidents on interstates I think it'd be better.

My guess is that it wouldn't matter much, since accidents at intra-city speeds are rarely fatal.

Accidents on country roads are often fatal though, so maybe that is where the difference would come from (and country driving is not an alternative to flying commercial).

>In 2014, the most recent year for which vehicle miles traveled data are available, the rate of crash deaths per 100 million miles traveled was 2.4 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas (1.81 in rural areas compared with 0.74 in urban areas).

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/fa...

So you're right, country driving is more dangerous than urban driving, but both are far more dangerous than flying on a per-mile basis.

I would disagree, as I'm assuming those deaths include pedestrians, who are rarely present in inter-city travel.

Seems to be very different in Europe. Here, I can book flights with basically any app online, fares are usually very competitive (cheaper than train/car mostly) and I can arrive at the airport 1hr before take-off. Even small airports that only serve no-frills airlines tend to be very nice by now (e.g. London Stansted).

And I even like to fly Ryanair, the service isn't great but they're basically always on time and boarding/de-boarding is much faster than with other airlines (don't understand why only no-frills airlines use both doors for boarding). Don't need food&drinks for a 1-2hr flight, and leg room is enough for me for that time.

I don't really know where ticket prices in the US come from. I often find cheaper fares (for the same distance) in Europe than the US, even with airlines offering free alcohol on board and lounges that are way better than what you find in the US (domestic lounges in the US are laughable).

I am continually frustrated with how European trains are more expensive than flying. I remember taking a lot more trains 20 years ago and I miss that. I need to do a lot of travel the next weeks and I also have a lot of reading to get done, and would give anything to be able to afford the 3x times prices of trains, but alas I'll be flying because it's a 75€ flight vs 150€ fast train. Of course there is always the 15€ night bus but I can't handle 12 hours without being able to stand up and stretch at will, which even at least a long-haul jet allows.

Not only are they more expensive, sometimes you pay about the same for the train as the entire flight. It costs me 40 EUR to go by train to a cheap airport. That airport has flights around that price! As a result, I do not usually fly from there (the 40 EUR plus additional time involved).

I always take into account the cost of going to the airport; the far away cheap airport often loses out (as saving e.g. 10 EUR isn't worth the hassle).

Going anywhere further than just the airport by train is expensive. I try to take the bus until 2.5 hour trips. After that I try to avoid unless you can fly. Pretty ridiculous!

+1, love arriving downtown when taking a Euro train... sadly many corporate policies require booking flights OVER trains due to negotiated travel deals in Europe.

> would give anything to be able to afford the 3x times prices of trains, but alas I'll be flying because it's a 75€ flight vs 150€ fast train.

150 vs 75 is 2x, not 3x. And it's a bit strange to read that you "would give anything" if 75 euros is too much.

Depends on the route, and that wasn't the best example I agree. It's more a question of not understanding how the airlines can afford to cut prices so deeply, and yet trains remain expensive. I'm not clear on the economics, which leaves me frustrated due to not understanding.

This helps a little: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14032/market-econo...

>Literally everything is terrible. The only thing it has going for it is that it makes long distance and overseas travel logistically possible on an acceptable timescale.

Yeah, just that. Merely taking like 7 hours to get from the US to Europe sitting on a chair in the sky and being fed -- as opposed to a trip that used to take months or weeks, people got sick and/or died in the way, and unless you were rich you were getting terrible food (or what you brought yourself) and bunk beds.

>and the basic human dignity of having personal space

Immigrants from Europe towards the US / Ellis Island: http://www.amicidicapracotta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/...

It used to be worse is not really a good argument. If you use this reasoning the current state is good. Without being able to question the current state, improvements will be limited or none.

Not accepting the current state of things is a good way to improve things. Instead of comparing to the past, compare it to other regions. One commenter compared USA to Europe and said USA is significantly worse, irrespective of how things were loads of years ago.

>It used to be worse is not really a good argument. If you use this reasoning the current state is good. Without being able to question the current state, improvements will be limited or none.

The other side of this is that without seeing things in perspective we might not appreciate the huge improvements that went into it.

And we might even lament for "first world problems" making mountains out of molehills, or take everything for granted...

GP is not comparing to pre-airplane travel, why are you?

For one, because I'm not restricted in my argumentation to what the GP compared.

But, more precisely, because I found the kind GP's lamentations over the top when speaking of modern air travel, and think that it would only be justified if GP was indeed speaking about pre-airplane travel.

If you don't care about price then buy business or economy plus tickets.

Most people are not software engineers and would prefer to save $50 even if it means a less dignified experience

I really don't think most software engineers are flying business class. Any significant distance that would merit it, is SERIOUS money. Even for someone making six figures.

For domestic travel within the US, first class -- especially booked well in advance -- is often surprisingly cheap, and cheap buy-ups are routinely offered, too (for example, I'm looking at a round-trip for about four months from now for a conference I'll attend, and I'm seeing first class offered for about $250 round-trip).

International business class is expensive, yes, typically on the order of $8,000 to $10,000 for a round-trip ticket. But international is the only place airlines can get away with charging that kind of fare and have people pay it, so that's what they'll continue to do. And when compared to other things people in software-developer income brackets often spend money on, even that isn't particularly gigantic; it's just all in one go instead of spread out over many small purchases the way, say, use of Uber and Lyft would be.

    > International business class
    > is expensive, yes, typically
    > on the order of $8,000 to 
    > $10,000

Nah. My average cost this year has been ~$3,000.

I have a friend who works for Apple and they get dirt cheap business class tickets to China. He says usually around $3000. For a human who has to pay human prices (eg, not a corporate deal), the multiple from coach is much greater.

For the purposes of this comment I just Google searched "SFO to Shanghai". The default is Jan 21-Feb 3 (so you're not paying a last-minute-booking penalty).

The prices are insanely cheap somehow, but the multiple holds up.

$527 economy $1999 premium economy $2853 business $5340 first

I would fly premium economy every time if it existed on most airlines and the multiple was 'only' 50%. What normal human can afford 4x the price for a couple more inches of elbow and legroom? It's far greater than the cost of the actual space.

I tend to assume business will be three times the cost of economy; I suspect SFO to Shanghai is a weird route from a price perspective, much like London to NYC; very few landing spots available. I'd also consider Jan 21-Feb 3 to be pretty last minute.

AMS-IAD (two airports with good capacity) for the default Google Flight dates show 45k for economy, 99k for PE, and 120k (all INR) for business, all on reasonable airlines

    > What normal human

One that's a True Scotsman only, I'd guess.

    > International business class
    > is expensive, yes, typically
    > on the order of $8,000 to 
    > $10,000

The usual roundtrip flight price for flights Germany-Japan (as determined with hundreds of searches on Skyscanner) seems to be:

Economy: ~400 GBP

Premium Economy: ~1000 GBP

Business: ~1300 GBP

First: ~3700 GBP

So, the "$8000 to $10000" isn’t even in the same ballpark as First class, respectively business class.

Prices in this context are meaningless without discussing the airports in question and the number of connecting flights.

All the companies I've worked for have had travel policies where more than N hours airborne meant an automatic upgrade. I don't know how normal it is, but it's not crazy.

Not normal. A typical bay to Asia business class ticket I see is $6k+. At most conferences small talk is around your travel there and everyone else I've talked to from US companies that was a software engineer was lucky to get a bump to economy plus.

I've never worked for a company without this kind of policy. I have worked for companies with strict travel restrictions.

That's fine, and the company I work for has a similar policy, it actually used to be based on just how long a single flight is. Today, you'll get that if you're an executive with serious flight time. With that said, OP did not mention a company shelling out for this, only that the were a software engineer. Which is nonsense.

I said "or economy plus"

The difference between business and economy plus is an order or magnitude, at the very least. My statement stands, just because someone is a software engineer, absolutely does not mean they are spending $9000 to fly to Japan business class. 6% of their salary on a single flight is just crazy talk.

As a tall person, I would happily pay 33% more for a seat with 33% more pitch. (Which is a great deal for the airline because I would be paying to haul empty space that weighs nothing, rather than the weight of [human+bags+seat]/3.

The airline would rather be carrying paid for cargo instead of empty space.

Incorrect. Lifting cargo costs fuel which is one of the largest expenses in commercial aviation. If someone is willing to pay full fare for empty space, that's a great deal.

That's exactly my threshold.

30 minutes to wake up/get ready, 1 hour to the airport, arrive 90 minutes early, 30 minutes to de-board, 30 minutes for luggage/rental car and I'm at 4 hours on top of flight time. Most of that time I'm bothered by what I'm being put through - whether it's a TSA line, one of several airline lines, poor customer service, overpriced ... everything, and the general unhealthy atmosphere I'd happily commit an additional 2 hours to the drive. I get to be in my own car and avoid all kinds of frustration in favor of zoning out on music I enjoy.

Try flying first class, it addresses most of those concerns, albeit for a much higher price!

That's right. If anything flying can be the most dignified way of traveling. I just came back from a trip to Europe and was upgraded so I had access to a lounge with "free" massages, nice food and drinks and then boarded a plane where I had a seat that could be made into a bed and also had a table my wife and I could eat together at. And then enjoy the cheese cart and have a seat at the bar for another cocktail before laying down for a cat nap.

The point is airlines are giving people options. Flying is unbelievably cheap if you want it to be but you get what you pay for - a safe flight in a moderately uncomfortable seat. People wanted cheap and they're getting it.

I wish more airlines offered more classes of service though. Flying United to Europe you either have crummy economy (exit rows are fine but the service still is poor) or rather expensive first. More options for mid-tier service where you have larger, more comfortable seating and nice food options similar to Virgins "Premium Economy" service which is is quite nice at a reasonable ask for those that find a couple hundred dollars extra worth it. I find it worth it for 8 hour+ flights to have some extra comfort so I feel better when landing.

Premium Economy cabins (better than domestic first class but not as nice as lie-flat business class seats) are coming to both Delta and American international flights in 2017.

That sounds excellent. I'm a United person (easiest airport to get to and they dominate it - Delta doesn't even have a terminal. EWR if you're interested) and I'm not sure they do. They are rolling out a new first class service which looks nice but no idea on improving to a Premium Economy cabin.

Delta has impressed me lately. I may make the switch and just deal with the extra haul to JFK which is about 20 minutes more for me if United can't or won't improve their lousy, outdated aircraft for international flights to Europe.

United does fly nicely outfitted aircraft to Asia and Australia but I don't get out that way nearly as much.

I live close to JFK, and rarely fly out of EWR for similar reasons as you, in the opposite direction. The Delta terminals are pretty nice; terminal 4 is looong, but much nicer than terminal 1.

United has not announced plans that I know of to add premium economy, but both United and AA nowadays tend to copy Delta, since Delta's been making a lot of money.

Of the big three legacy carriers, Delta is currently the best combination of price and reliability. You know they want a bit of extra money for the slightly nicer experiences, and you know what you're going to get out of it.

For international travel, though, I've been starting to avoid US carriers entirely in favor of flying the other country's airline (which is something you can do when living near a major international hub -- SFO, in my case). Often it's another small step up, and sometimes it's a big step up, compared to the US airlines.

I travel enough where it only makes sense to use a domestic carrier. United is the most convenient for me so that's that.

You're right though, airlines like British Airways and Virgin Atlantic are quite a bit more nice. United treats me pretty well as I have the highest status, however.

Sadly the Delta product is more of a rebranding of Comfort Plus... more food service but not anything very comfortable. If they would just offer the equivalent of domestic Delta First as a premium economy that would be a start for me!

You and the grandparent are dancing around the increased costs. I just checked prices for the last flight I took to Europe, and the difference between economy and first class is (roughly) TEN TIMES. Hey, if $9,000 is to your budget what $900 is to mine, awesome! I've had first class once, for business, and, sure, it was great. I just wish they'd give us another couple of inches of legroom in economy. Just 2 inches! Take out, like 2 or 3 rows, and expand. I'm 6' and 250 lbs, and when someone reclines in front of me, the seat is literally 6 inches from my face! If they'd charge the extra for taking out those rows, the increase to the prices of the rest of the tickets would be minimal. I think they cram us in as tightly as humanly possible (literally) so that they can cajole more people into the first-class cabin and it's attendant price. It's not just awful; it's manipulative!

I'm with you. I have issues with the literal class dynamic of airlines regardless. But when I look at how much more I'd be paying per hour for a modestly more comfortable chair, I quickly get to "no way, not ever" territory. Hell, when I had my wisdom teeth out, it was only $400/hr for the general anesthetic and I said no to that. If I ever spend thousands just for my personal comfort, it's going to be on something I end up owning and using for years.

> Hell, when I had my wisdom teeth out, it was only $400/hr for the general anesthetic and I said no to that.

You're a brave man. How was it?

i had mine taken out with local+nitrous (as opposed to going completely under) because the anesthesiologist wasn't in that day (apparently an oral surgeon can do the gas, but not the knockout drugs). i remember the whole thing. it was surprising how much force they used but other than that it was fine. i remember i had my ipod with me and tripped out to music while getting my face drilled.

as an adult it's probably better because there's no recovery time, they just take the nitrous away and you're good to drive yourself home (or to the pharmacy, to pick up your pain meds that you're definitely going to need) 2 minutes later.

the 2-3 weeks following extraction are 1000x worse than the actual procedure, which isn't bad at all.

Interesting, I didn't find the recovery very bad at all. I had general anesthetics and a script for oxycontin, but my mom was overprotective and wouldn't let me take anything more than ibuprofen. I don't recall even needing the ibuprofen after a day or two.

I thought it was fine. It was only 45 minutes, and I thought it was all pretty interesting. Thanks to the local anesthetic, there was very little pain. The parts I really didn't like all came over the next few days, but ice cream and video were enough to get me through.

Oh, I had only local anesthetic for mine, too. I got confused. I thought you meant without any anesthetic. It wasn't bad at all. I was just surprised at how much force they used. It sounded like hell, too, but no big deal.

I think they cram us in as tightly as humanly possible (literally) so that they can cajole more people into the first-class cabin and it's attendant price.

Domestic first-class cabins in the US have been shrinking (fewer seats), for what it's worth. And while international business-class cabins still usually have 20+ seats in them (and sometimes much more), you're correct in noting that they're much more expensive in relation.

The economics of running an airline hasn't changed. People still -- despite everything they complain about as a consequence -- shop exclusively for the lowest possible fare they can find anywhere, and damn the legroom and extra fees. Airlines, which need to maximize the revenue coming from the back end of the plane in order to stay profitable, know this and have responded by squeezing in more seats (witness the number of carriers now going to ten-across seating on international aircraft, switching to "slimline" seats and shaving more inches out of the legroom in order to add another row or two) and unbundling as much as they can into separate upsells to preserve that low advertised fare.

Sometimes you can get a good deal on international business class.

I recently picked up a business class seat from Australia to LA for 4x the economy price.

Well worth it for the short trip and being able to get some sleep and work done in air.

I was able to score business class from Beijing to LA for $2k one way; at the time the lowest one way ticket I could find was $1500 (same as round trip, and we weren't coming back), so it worked well, especially with a pregnant wife.

It's not always that much more expensive but yeah sometimes the asks are crazy. A year ago I booked a flight on Virgin Atlantic in Economy and they offered an upgrade to "Upper Class" (their term) for $500 roundtrip to Europe per person. That was great value.

United has "Economy Plus" which is more legroom. I'm 6'2" and I find it fine. My advice is to upgrade to that and pay extra for the exit row. If there are 2 exit rows then book the one behind the one in front. You can't recline into an exit row so with the second set of exit rows you get a ton of space and no one that can recline into you.

I always upgrade to economy plus but it's only marginally worth it. Yeah, I can actually get things out of my bag (instead of smashing my face against the seat in front of me and fumbling blindly), but it doesn't solve the elbow room issue which is the real problem on planes for anyone of average build.

Business class (as opposed to first) is still super nice and usually significantly less than 9k.

> Just 2 inches! Take out, like 2 or 3 rows, and expand.

The problem is that increasing the other basic economy tickets by the lost revenue (even all seats regardless of class) prices the seats out of competition, not to mention the costs in actually ripping the seats out, moving all the other seats, and getting the plane recertified/inspected.

> when someone reclines in front of me, the seat is literally 6 inches from my face

Serious question: would 8 inches be any better?

> I think they cram us in as tightly as humanly possible (literally) so that they can cajole more people into the first-class cabin and it's attendant price. It's not just awful; it's manipulative!

I think the intersection of people who can afford first class but who would consider taking basic economy with 8" of room but not 6" is exceedingly small.

>I just wish they'd give us another couple of inches of legroom in economy. Just 2 inches! Take out, like 2 or 3 rows, and expand. I'm 6' and 250 lbs, and when someone reclines in front of me, the seat is literally 6 inches from my face!

They offer this service on most airlines, it's called economy plus on United.

I love a couple inches more wide. Maybe instead of a 3-3 row, they could sell a 2-3 row. Or just make the damn planes wider.

Even when I was skin and bones, 169 lbs and 6'2", I couldn't comfortably fit in these 17 inch wide seats. My shoulders are too wide. Now that I've plumped up, it's basically impossible.

Hell, I'd just appreciate a thin seat divider that clearly makes sure I'm not spilling into someone else's room.

>People wanted cheap and they're getting it.

Did you read the article? Because the entire point of the article is that people aren't actually getting it for cheaper.

The article's argument is based on a known-false assumption.

It assumes that people will automatically buy the next-highest fare bucket in order to avoid the horrors of Basic Economy, but the history of the airline business in the US over the past couple decades suggests that the vast majority of travelers will complain about how horrible the low-fare experience is, then book it anyway.

You missed the point—when airlines introduce Basic Economy fares, they don't drop the price, they instead drop services. So at best, you're paying the same for poorer service, otherwise you're paying more for the same service. Either way, the cost of those services is going up.

The article offered only one anecdote of a previous lowest fare price becoming the basic-economy fare price. Meanwhile, it presents as its main thesis that most people will spend more to not get basic economy, which is demonstrably false.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if people will spend more or not. Say you regularly purchase something, and pay $10/lb for it. And you usually buy a 6 pound package. So you spend $60.

And the one day you go into the store, and they tell you "We just introduced a new Basic Economy package!". It's still only $60, but now it's 5 pounds instead of 6. Or, for $12 more, you can upgrade to your previous 6 pound package.

May you pay more to upgrade, maybe you pay the same—but either way, what used to be $10/lb is now $12/lb. The price went up.

You're still trying to generalize from a single anecdote provided in the article. That doesn't work out.

I think you're missing the fact that they were offering better service than the discount airlines but at the same price. It was the only way to compete when most people who travel infrequently purchase strictly on cheapest price. In effect they were offering a better service than people were paying for because they had to.

Now they are finally updating their seating and policy to be in-line with what the discount airlines offer. So they aren't charging more for economy. They're pricing it inline with the level of service you get, something they weren't able to do before.

If anything flying can be the most dignified way of traveling.

Hmm, I don't think first class on an aircraft has anything on the better ocean liners in the 'dignified' stakes - if you've got the time to burn.

    > Flying United to Europe you
    > either have crummy economy 
    > or rather expensive first

Mmm, actually it's economy or business, whatever brand name they're giving it — it'll come up as a business fare in flight booking systems. Genuine First is becoming rarer and rarer (excepting what US domestic routes describe as that), as more and more airlines follow Virgin Atlantic's original lead of a business class (very almost) as good as First, and no First. Even the ME3 are cutting back (Etihad's The Residence as an exception) — Qatar have a First Class cabin only on their A380, and have nixed it from their A350s, Dreamliners, 777s etc

Yeah I was just using "First Class" as an enhanced level of service where you can expect a bed, decent food options served on actual plates and other niceties like a comfort kit and other things.

I think they called it "Business First" before they switched to "Polaris".

I guess my poorly worded answer was trying to highlight a further collapse in options at the high end.

Those upgrades don't exist for normal people anymore. They used to upgrade people just for the hell of it. I've got status on an airline and STILL never get upgrades. You've gotta travel constantly to ever be eligible for an upgrade.

You've basically got to fly a lot AND fly full fare refundable tickets (easily twice as much as regular tickets). So it's basically only useful for business travelers who are on business.

Once I got on United Gold, I could pick weird flights (undesireable times, maybe the shittier airport) that would automatically upgrade a full ticket to first class. But a full fare economy is basically the same price as a non-refundable first class. So it only works if a business is picking up the tab.

On most US domestic airlines, so-called "first class" gives me what other airlines call at most a premium economy seat, and does not improve the overall quality of customer service.

It's also become substantially cheaper as fuel prices have tanked over the last few years.

Lower fuel costs means budget airlines can compete more aggressively, and major carriers have to lower their own prices to stay competitive. So they have to cut corners other ways to maintain growth.

For me, the upside of much cheaper travel beats these downsides. If you travel light and educate yourself about fees, airline travel really isn't so bad.

It could be worse. They could be putting people in boxes and treating them as live cargo. However, that would be an improvement over the alternative of mailing oneself:

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-strangely-successfu...

I am the same. I've got a ~10 hour drive later this week and I never even seriously thought about flying. Much rather take my own car, even if door-to-door is a few hours more. When we someday have fully-autonomous cars I predict a vast collapse in short-mid haul air travel.

The reality is all of those issues you mention are largely alleviated for frequent fliers, and I don't think that's a surprise given the revenues they generate.

When I fly I get a free upgrade to economy plus (it ain't much but the extra legroom is nice) and occasional upgrades to first class, a free check bag, priority boarding, and priority security. And that's only with basic status.

Checking in online and packing only carry-on means I can breeze through pretty quickly. Add a trusted traveler program and it's almost like flying 20 years ago.

My guess is the goal of airlines is to encourage frequent flier loyalty by making conveniences a part of the status benefits, and then squeeze the occasional travellers for more dollars at the same time.

Interestingly this is very US specific. the big European legacy carriers have way worse frequent flyer programs. Living in Germany, the obvious choice of FFP would be Lufthansa where status is incredibly hard to obtain without flying Business or First and then the benefits are small then with US programs - for example no complimentary updates. Lufthansa rather flies an empty Business cabin then upgrading someone. (With the exception that you get domestic lounge access too)

This is not a solution for almost anyone, but I've found that flying is the one thing where being 5ft2 is really extremely very beneficial. Makes flying totally awesome.

Even economy plus is weird because it just means I can't reach the touch screen without leaning forward :D

You can solve most of the other problems by being super late to your flight. Cuts the waiting and queuing but does mean you have to check your bags. Often this is okay or even preferable because less stuff to haul around airport.

Oh and noise cancellation headphones have changed my life. You can actually hear the stewardess when they talk to you because your ears aren't worn out from the engine noise. It's amazing! Easily the best $300 I ever spent in terms of improving airplanes.

Last time I flew overseas, there was a 5', petite lady next to me. She put her feet in the safety brochure pocket in the seat in front of her, curled up in her seat, and went to sleep for the duration. As a big guy who can't sleep in public, I was SOOOOO jealous.

My partner is much shorter than me, and we fly together a lot; the upgrades matter so much more to me due to the room. First class is almost too big for her, but it's so much nicer for me. Delta's economy plus is big enough to be comfy. Other flights are tolerable, but rough, especially at the frequency I travel.

I have been upgraded to 1st class only once in my life. Are free upgrades more common in the US than other countries?

If you have one of those mileage credit cards and put everything including rent on the card, it can go pretty fast.

Or if you travel a lot for work.

How are you able to pay your rent on a credit card without an additional 2-3% (at least) fee?

That math might work out if you consider the value of the miles you're getting.

It Depends. I will say that I get upgraded to first class on domestic flights all the time, but have only gotten two or three international upgrades.

In Delta's case, at least, it depends on how many seats are free, and how you rank. The ranking is based on all kinds of stuff. So for less-flown and less-upgraded routes, it's easy to upgrade. Other routes have more people flying first class by paying and more competition for the free upgrades.

No, they basically don't exist. I'm United Mileage Plus Silver and have never seen an upgrade (although now I get 'free' Economy Plus which just adds a few inches of legroom to the terrible experience). I've had friends put in for first class upgrades for me a number of times and never once seen one.

A "normal" person who doesn't rack up tens of thousands of miles a year will absolutely never see an upgrade.

I do that. Sometimes one can run into the rare problem of too much legroom with this. Due to shorter legs, sitting normally for extended time is quite uncomfortable due to pressure on the legs just above the knees.

I'm not small, I'm travel size. ;)

>Shopping for tickets. Checking in. Security. Waiting. Boarding the plane and fighting for overhead bin space. Seat dimensions. Lavatories. Literally everything is terrible.

I've been flying for over 30 years.

Shopping for tickets is easier. Before you had to go to a travel agency or wait in line at the airport. Now you just buy online.

Checking in has gotten a lot better. The last so many times I flew, I did not even have a wait. Go to the kiosk, get your tickets, and not even a wait to go to a person and have them checked in.

Fighting for overhead bin space is the same. Seat dimensions are roughly the same. Lavatories are the same.

Only security lines has gotten worse.

Seat width is shrinking. Legroom is shrinking.

Fighting for overhead space is indisputably worse since airlines mostly abandoned free checked bags.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/travel/shrinking-airline-s...

> Given the choice to drive for 8 hours or fly for 2 I always chose to drive.

Hopefully self-driving or at least largely autonomous cars at an affordable price will make this a no-brainer for everything except trans-oceanic flights. My car has a seat that's more comfortable than any seat I've had on an airplane so far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com