Hacker News Reader

Comment by city41 | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand how planes are seizing productivity when the nearest competitor -- an illegally driven car -- is about 5 times slower. Yes they have quite a bit of overhead during take off, landing, baggage claim, driving to the airport, security screening, etc. But what else can reduce a trip's time from days to hours? The amount of time wasted in that overhead compared to the time gained is minuscule.

View on HN

The competitor is planes without the TSA, not cars.

By your reasoning, it would be wrong to complain about cars which have a speed limit of 40 miles an hour, since "the nearest competitor" (bikes, horses?) would still be still worse.

Unless you are going a long way, it may well be faster to drive. For me: 1 hour drive to the airport, 1+ hours at the airport for check-in, security, etc, 1 hour at destination to retrieve baggage, get a rental car, and get out of the airport... plus the time of the flight. If I can drive in under 6 hours, I'll seriously consider doing that rather than deal with all the hassle of air travel.

That's exactly how I view, although I put a pretty heavy negative weight on the hassles of navigating around airports, finding parking, gates, etc. With driving I feel a lot more in control. Driving is also a continuous activity, there's minimal transition times (e.g. With flying you've got find a place to park, find your gate, etc).

Except that if you drive for 6 hours, you can't talk on the phone and you can't use your laptop. Your point doesn't make sense to me: if you're willing to drive for 6 hours, you're also willing to stop working during all that time, while if you flight you'll always find some time to work, at the terminal or in the plane.

It's actually reverse: you can talk on the phone in a car, but not on the plane (at least for reasonable rate).

If driving you can talk on the phone for the whole 6 hours. I did something similar at least once.

Also, the driver can't use a laptop, but because of the driving activity itself, the driver is not so easily bored. Boredom is the main reason why I power on my laptop on a plane. Also, the other passengers can easily work on a laptop, watch a movie and so on. If you've got a 3G connection, the passengers can also go online - even I as the driven, I often find myself checking my emails while driving, plus I'm connected on Skype for the whole ride. The only problem here may be the comfort of your car, as you'll have problems having a laptop in your lap if the car is a small one. I also never get anything done on a plane when trying to work, especially because I don't have Internet connectivity, so I would rather listen to Podcasts or read a book and when driving Audio books are great btw.

So, related to comfort, I always prefer a couple of hours in my 10-year old Audi A6 over a plane ride. If the car ride is longer than some threshold, like the mentioned 6 hours, I do agree that a plane ride is better.

Change your name to "bad_driver" already.

> even I as the driven, I often find myself checking my emails while driving

Why would you ever do that? If you don't care about your safety, at least make sure you're less likely to kill others, please...

Oh, cut the drama. I use text 2 speech.

I guess that even for short messages rather than interaction, some of this applies: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/cdir489.pdf

In other parts of the world their are trains, which are faster than cars and provide tables and often electricity and wifi, making them a pretty compelling substitute.

There's a lot of empty space in between the West and the East, which is where plane travel is the most compelling, and train travel would still likely not be.

There is a lot more travel North-South in the USA than there is East-West. Just look at the way the US highway system is setup. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/1926us.jp...

Note: Number of lanes paints a much stronger picture, but I can't find a good map of that.

Thanks a lot for this, it's a really cool map. Note that this is just the US numbered routes, so it's pre-Interstate.

I'm quite fascinated by the interstate system; I think it's one of the more amazing things this country's managed to accomplish in the last century. I admit that I draw my sample set from just my experience -- I grew up in the SF Bay Area, go to school near Chicago, and spend summers in Seattle, so all my travel is huge E-W distances -- but I think even if you're right, you have a good argument for N-S rail systems and there's still enough E-W travel that air travel is still quite necessary.

I don't think there's many places were a train is a good substitute for a 5+ hr flight.

No but for replacing quick hops trains make a whole lot of sense. Drastically less messing around at each end and train stations are often right in the centre of the city. Add to that the increased comfort a train provides and it is an easy argument to make.

I live in Washington, DC and Washington, DC -> NYC is a common trip. The train is a much better way to go. From Washington, DC, it's a short metro ride to get to union station. The train takes about 3 hours to NYC but it gets you right into Penn Station. This is much better than having to go to a suburb to get to the airport and landing in another suburb and having to get downtown. I'm a fan of trains. And... rail travel isn't dead time at all. I'm able to work on my laptop and I don't have to worry about the person in front of me putting their chair back full tilt crushing my opened screen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com