Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

I may be showing my age here, but I remember when flying wasn't something to be dreaded. The few inches we've lost have really made a difference. Twenty years ago, you could read or use a laptop in coach and first-class was a frill for rich people.

In 2015, aside from the people with upgrades, most people in first-class don't want to be there (i.e. they're not there because they're wealthy, but because their disabilities or age make coach literally impossible) and most actual rich people fly private because even first class isn't great.

I find that the only thing that I can do on planes, these days, is take a pill, make sure I get 2 armrests (I'm 6' and 195 pounds) and nod off-- and I don't sleep very well. If we had 300 mph trains at competitive prices like Europe and Japan have, I'd rather take those.

View on HN

This degradation in comforts of air travel is very regrettable. Especially when it comes to seat pitch, coach class is clearly denied what is necessary and, worse still, this is intentional. There's a lovely quote by a French engineer named Jules Dupuit going back to 1849, which explains the conundrum. I think he was talking about railroad cars but the argument applies to air travel just the same. Quote:

"It is not because of the few thousand francs which would have to be spent to put a roof over the third-class carriage or to upholster the third-class seats that some company or other has open carriages with wooden benches ... What the company is trying to do is prevent the passengers who can pay the second-class fare from traveling third class; it hits the poor, not because it wants to hurt them, but to frighten the rich ... And it is again for the same reason that the companies, having proved almost cruel to the third-class passengers and mean to the second-class ones, become lavish in dealing with first-class customers. Having refused the poor what is necessary, they give the rich what is superfluous."

20 years ago very few people had laptops. In fact, say 20-25 years ago, flying at all was a luxury (at least for most of us in Europe). I don't dispute that legroom has become stingy as air traffic has increased, but I think it's unfortunate to use ye olden days to set expectations for today. 'Economy' implies getting people from A to B as economically as possible.

An inch of extra legroom means fewer seats on the plane, and even if I had to pay 5% ($40-50) more, then it's too much. Some of the 'premium economy' options aren't that expensive anyhow. I flew Virgin Atlantic in April and only paid something like $60 for a bit of extra room (and as a bonus, because few people do, had an empty seat next to me).

Another thing with regard to your age, and I mean no disrespect, is that I believe ones tolerance for certain kinds of discomfort tend to decrease with age.

Another thing with regard to your age, and I mean no disrespect, is that I believe ones tolerance for certain kinds of discomfort tend to decrease with age.

I'm not that old (31). I just happen to remember a time when air travel wasn't horrible.

Older people are actually far more tolerant of discomfort. They just suffer more bodily pain when conditions aren't right.

5% being $40-50 means an airfare of $800 to $1000. If domestic flights cost that much, then we should consider airlines forgone for domestic travel and elect officials who'll make competent train service (not necessarily government run, but with infrastructural improvements and revisions of right-of-way laws that enable passenger rail competition) a #1 priority. As for international flights, the reason you see four-digit fares is the very high taxes on those, and the monopolies that airports have, and various other weird factors involving pilot unions and seniority tiers. NYC-HKG really should only cost about $850.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com