Hacker News Reader

Comment by vidarh | Hacker News Reader

A big part of the problem is that it is not just about price. New York to London is 5-6 hours. But back when I did business travel regularly (SFO<->LHR), the door to door time for me on an 11 hour flight was 16 hours after a lot of practice. So on a 5-6 hour flight, half would likely be spent on either end (and this is without checked luggage). At that point saving 2-3 hours in-air is not making enough of a dent in the travel time for it to be attractive to pay all that much more.

Much less saving 10% of the time.

View on HN

Completely agreed. I mainly fly internationally, and while shaving 2 hours off a 8 hour flight would be wonderful, it doesn't help me, as the majority of my time is spent in airports between the flights.

For me to get to where my family lives (one layover), it takes me:

1 Hour drive to airport

2 Hours because it's an international flight

8 Hour Flight

2 Hours Immigration / Baggage

1 Hour Re-checkin

3-5 Hour Layover

30 Minute Commuter Flight

30 Minutes for baggage

30 Minutes drive home

So for my entire flight, the flying (even on a 8 hour flight) is less than half of my total time. By lowering the amount of time between connections, or lessening the amount of connections that need to be made, you can get greater gains than by flying faster planes.

Cheaper planes and cheaper flights could actually make overall flying time SHORTER, because there would be more planes in the sky, and less time between fights.

-----------------------

Long rambling story:

When I first rode the bullet train back in college, I thought it would be like riding an airplane, at least from a management perspective. My friends and I bought the ticket a week in advance, made sure we were packed, and got to the station a good hour in advance of my train leaving.

It was only then that I realized that the security for getting on a bullet train is "show me your ticket" and that if you miss your train, you can just sit in the non-reserved seating on the next available train that will be along in under 5 minutes. (Back then it was more like 10, but still)

While you can't really compare trains and planes (and automobiles) in these situations, it still makes me think that the solution to faster travel is not faster planes, but better infrastructure and administration for travel.

This perspective is true of commuter public transit as well. High availability cuts the average time of the entire trip, smooths out capacity usage, and increases accessibility.

Why do you have to re-checkin? You can just drop your bags off after customs in most airports unless your commuter flight is > 4 hours away.

For me it works out like:

30 minute taxi to airport

2 hours ahead because its an international flight; checkin isn't even open if I arrive more than 2 hours earlier, I could get away with 1 hour or 1 1/2 hour, but I would get nervous.

1 hour delay on tarmac (b/c...Beijing)

11 hour flight

30 minutes immigration/baggage because Seattle is cool like that (unless our flight gets in early, then we have to wait for customs to open, curse that afternoon Beijing-Seattle flight!). On the other end, you have Heathrow, where the wait to get through customs is 4 freaking hours. I'm never flying to London directly from Asia again.

30 minute taxi to Bellevue if Seattle is my final destination (it often is), otherwise, hang out in the airport for a few hours waiting for whatever weird connection I have. Security in SEATAC is like 10 minutes, so no big deal there.

Bullet trains are great, until you realize that the bullet train station is farther away than the airport...on both sides of the trip! Given the distance, it's still much faster to fly between Beijing/Shanghai than to take the bullet train. Japan is completely different, of course.

I'd really like to hear if an Australian travelling to New York (or anywhere international but Bali/NZ) would prefer a faster plane.

Depending on the airport, you need to re-check in & go through security when going from International to Domestic. This is true at LAX which is the main hub that I go through.

Sure you have to hit security again, but most airports have a bag recheck counter after customs, you just drop it off after you pass the customs checkpoint. Security isn't much of a problem at seatac.

I wish we had more trains. Not just for passengers, but in general. They just get the best cost per mile per pound were gonna get on planet Earth, since the physics of cars requires constant acceleration / deceleration and 2 dimensions of movement, and planes require lift.

I'd love a train from Miami to Boston that hits all the major cities and averages something between the terrible 80 mph Amtrack trains and the way too expensive per mile (or km in a more civilized country =P) bullet trains in Korea or Japan.

Also, that doesn't cost $200 and doesn't take 2 days trip. It should be so much cheaper taking a vacation on wheels than paying the cost to get luggage airborne, and it really is the infrastructure being awful.

Wow, a round trip ticket to Austin is around $800. That is just unacceptable.

The fundamental problem is that the ground experience is managed by the airports, which are usually unionized governmental entities with little concern for the customer's time, and by the TSA. Similarly, despite very compelling economics, interstate passenger rail is a failure in the US because the government corporation Amtrak has a monopoly, deals with some of the most absurd unions in America, and doesn't seriously innovate.

This post is drool. "Blame the unions" is the new right wing "blame Jews" I guess.

Most airports in the states are reasonably run and don't waste our time, compared to many other European and Asian countries.

Passenger rail doesn't work well in the states given the distances involved, we just aren't that dense. Where it does make sense in the eastern corridor, Amtrak is able to make a profit. Amtrak long haul routes however exist only for those afraid to fly.

Long haul routes in china only make money because they have much more volume than us, and people who don't mind traveling 2 days from shanghai to urumuqi to save on a 6 hour flight.

You don't suppose US population density has something to do with this, do you? Rail does well enough in the Mid-Atlantic and NE states, between Boston and Washington.

That's a really great point. After 9/11, it takes so damn long to get to your flight that cutting out an hour of travel time isn't as impactful as before.

Someone should do a study on the lost productivity of airline travel.

I haven't noticed any big problems. The American airport I fly into often (SeaTac) is pretty efficient, security rarely takes more than 10 minutes. The other smaller airports I've experienced haven't been any worse.

Airports and airlines advise [1-4] arriving 2 to 3 hours before the departure of an international/long haul flight.

If airlines and airports have the capability to get you through security quickly, they don't do a good job of publicizing it.

[1] http://www.portseattle.org/sea-tac/passenger-services/pages/... [2] http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/orphan/faq/#2 [3] http://www.stanstedairport.com/stansted-airport-guide/checki... [4] http://www.jfkairportguide.com/arrivals-departures.html

I think rather than state an average time to get through the airport and on the plane and have everything break down the second it gets congested they are going to recommend a timeframe that should get everyone on the plane even in the worst case.

Airports/ airlines want to get planes out on time, wasting moe of your time makes that easier for them.

They may also be pulling out a worst case bound - in case you get pulled over for a secondary inspection and that sort of thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com