Why Flying is so Expensive [SYTL 10 min 31 sec]
September 12, 2016 7:33 AM Subscribe
Ever wondered what the break down of an (average) airline ticket cost is? "Flying is expensive, really expensive, but only kinda, and it's only partially the airlines' fault."
Despite what you might believe, it's not mostly the cost of fuel.
Of course this break down doesn't apply to the Ten most expensive airline tickets you can buy (Jalopnik) And the costings are really skewewd once you get to the Worlds Most expensive airline segment of the market.
Still if you would rather cruise in extreme luxury there is always the Worlds Most Expensive Cruise Vacation (at least it was in 2013 ..)
Despite what you might believe, it's not mostly the cost of fuel.
Of course this break down doesn't apply to the Ten most expensive airline tickets you can buy (Jalopnik) And the costings are really skewewd once you get to the Worlds Most expensive airline segment of the market.
Still if you would rather cruise in extreme luxury there is always the Worlds Most Expensive Cruise Vacation (at least it was in 2013 ..)
no. Flying is way, way, WAY too cheap.
posted by silence at 7:50 AM on September 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by silence at 7:50 AM on September 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Can someone summarize so I don't have to watch the 10-minute video? I'll check back in ten minutes.
posted by goatdog at 7:51 AM on September 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by goatdog at 7:51 AM on September 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
Airfares have been increasing in the last 6 years; his chart only went to 2010.
posted by coberh at 7:52 AM on September 12, 2016
posted by coberh at 7:52 AM on September 12, 2016
Most of the cost goes toward paying engineers who figure out how to get more seats on the plane
posted by beerperson at 7:52 AM on September 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 7:52 AM on September 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you would rather cruise in extreme luxury, you'd commission your own yacht so that you don't have to swim in a pool that middle class children pee in.
Or outfit your own private 747.
posted by bl1nk at 7:58 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or outfit your own private 747.
posted by bl1nk at 7:58 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can someone summarize so I don't have to watch the 10-minute video? I'll check back in ten minutes.
Depreciation.
Followed by procurement of per-flight allotment of crying infants.
posted by zippy at 8:00 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Depreciation.
Followed by procurement of per-flight allotment of crying infants.
posted by zippy at 8:00 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Most of the cost goes toward paying engineers who figure out how to get more seats on the plane
If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized. I expect this process to be implemented shortly.
posted by FallowKing at 8:05 AM on September 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized. I expect this process to be implemented shortly.
posted by FallowKing at 8:05 AM on September 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
So is it just a coincidence that incredible bargains in airfares occurred the during the huge drop in oil prices?
posted by sammyo at 8:10 AM on September 12, 2016
posted by sammyo at 8:10 AM on September 12, 2016
For a flight from NYC's JFK airport to DC's Dulles airport on a fully-loaded Airbus A-320, he estimates per-passenger costs of: $2.50 in fuel, $1.50 in crew costs, $13.50 in airport usage fees, $15.60 in taxes, $11.50 to pay off the original purchase of the airplane, $14.00 in airplane maintenance, $10.00 in airline overhead, and $0.25 in insurance, for $68.75, which he rounds up to $70. Tickets on that route he estimates to start at $80, making flying not super-profitable for airlines. After all, his example resulted in $10 profit, but only when every seat is sold.
At around eight minutes in, he talks about how airfare has steadily gotten cheaper over time: mostly steady improvements to plane technology, making them dramatically more fuel efficient and longer-lasting.
Interesting video, but I really disliked the same YouTuber's other video, "Why Trains Suck in America," because it's something I know a tiny bit about, so I'm reluctant to accept this video at face video.
posted by pwinn at 8:13 AM on September 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
At around eight minutes in, he talks about how airfare has steadily gotten cheaper over time: mostly steady improvements to plane technology, making them dramatically more fuel efficient and longer-lasting.
Interesting video, but I really disliked the same YouTuber's other video, "Why Trains Suck in America," because it's something I know a tiny bit about, so I'm reluctant to accept this video at face video.
posted by pwinn at 8:13 AM on September 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
Liked it enough to subscribe to his channel. If this interested you, check out his explanation of budget airlines.
posted by Splunge at 8:15 AM on September 12, 2016
posted by Splunge at 8:15 AM on September 12, 2016
What's your argument there, silence? "Flying is too cheap" is not a position I've heard before, at least not often or in detail. Care to flesh out your assertion a bit?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:15 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:15 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
In descending order: $15.60 in taxes, $14.00 in airplane maintenance, $13.50 in airport usage fees, $11.50 in depreciation, $10.00 in airline overhead, $2.50 in fuel, $1.50 in crew costs, and $.25 in insurance.
posted by pwinn at 8:16 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pwinn at 8:16 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
FallowKing: "Most of the cost goes toward paying engineers who figure out how to get more seats on the plane
If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized. I expect this process to be implemented shortly."
The last time I took a plane I felt that this was already implemented.
posted by Splunge at 8:16 AM on September 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized. I expect this process to be implemented shortly."
The last time I took a plane I felt that this was already implemented.
posted by Splunge at 8:16 AM on September 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've flown First Class on Air France, SFO-CDG, twelve hours of utterly bonkers pampered luxury from gate to gate, and now I feel like a pleb.
Thanks, billionaires.
posted by cstross at 8:22 AM on September 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Thanks, billionaires.
posted by cstross at 8:22 AM on September 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
> What's your argument there, silence? "Flying is too cheap" is not a position I've heard before, at least not often or in detail. Care to flesh out your assertion a bit?
Presumably that the environmental costs aren't factored into ticket prices.
posted by hjo3 at 8:25 AM on September 12, 2016 [32 favorites]
Presumably that the environmental costs aren't factored into ticket prices.
posted by hjo3 at 8:25 AM on September 12, 2016 [32 favorites]
You want to keep costs low since airplanes are more green than automobile travel. It's like complaining that a bus gets worse gas mileage than a sedan. Well, yeah, but it can move a lot more people if they're all going to the same destination.
posted by I-baLL at 8:31 AM on September 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by I-baLL at 8:31 AM on September 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hmm. As an environmentalist, I would counter that the benefits of cheap air travel likely outweigh the costs. More travel means a more cosmopolitan global citizenry, and a global society that is more likely to think and care about issues—including environmental ones—that are happening outside of their home locality, or which are global in scope. Not to mention that a more global, more interconnected society is likely to be much more humane and stable than one which is divided into provincial fiefdoms—you tend to see a lot more willingness to tackle environmental issues in areas where people are secure and enjoy a high quality of life.
These benefits are extremely hard to quantify, but I have a feeling they are huge and also hugely underrated.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:32 AM on September 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
These benefits are extremely hard to quantify, but I have a feeling they are huge and also hugely underrated.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:32 AM on September 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
Presumably that the environmental costs aren't factored into
posted by lalochezia at 8:33 AM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
What I would want to see, ideally, is for air travel to be significantly subsidized at the retail level, and for that subsidization to include offsets and mitigations to help counter the environmental impacts of the industry. I feel like freedom to travel is such a massive good on a global scale that it should practically be considered a human right, and we should be striving to facilitate it as much as possible. Seriously.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:36 AM on September 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:36 AM on September 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized.
Imagine a spherical passenger in a vacuum...
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:39 AM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Imagine a spherical passenger in a vacuum...
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:39 AM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I stopped watching when he got to the labour costs and estimated that it only costs $88 in pilot labour to fly NYC to DC. You are paying for way more than one hour of two pilots time to fly from NYC to DC! No pilot is flying 1800 short haul flights in a year for $79,000. Seems this guy might not know what he is talking about.
posted by ssg at 8:45 AM on September 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ssg at 8:45 AM on September 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Any mention of how much it costs to deliberately leave 1st-class seats empty instead of allowing overflow from Coach to fill them?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:47 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:47 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
As a newly evolved virus, I too encourage international air travel, heartily.
posted by dglynn at 8:48 AM on September 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by dglynn at 8:48 AM on September 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
This very moment I can purchase a ticket for Stockholm to London and back (7 days) for 33 USD. That's ridiculously cheap.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:51 AM on September 12, 2016
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:51 AM on September 12, 2016
The pilot labor costs are significantly less if the pilot is flying for a regional airline branded as one of the big three. Three years ago the average wage for a regional pilot was around $40 an hour.
posted by Xurando at 9:03 AM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Xurando at 9:03 AM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
First officers make really bad money considering their job and the costs of schooling. My husband is a flight attendant and considered flight school until he learned his paychecks would barely change, and he'd be in huge debt.
posted by masquesoporfavor at 9:32 AM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by masquesoporfavor at 9:32 AM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Something about his cadence bothered me . . .
Also I struggled to get through after right near the beginning he pointed out the Airbus' per passenger fuel efficiency of 104.7 mpg (WOW!) without following through on his (pointless?) Camry analogy (a fully 'booked' Camry works out to 120-165 mpg per person).
posted by auggy at 9:34 AM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also I struggled to get through after right near the beginning he pointed out the Airbus' per passenger fuel efficiency of 104.7 mpg (WOW!) without following through on his (pointless?) Camry analogy (a fully 'booked' Camry works out to 120-165 mpg per person).
posted by auggy at 9:34 AM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
First officers make really bad money considering their job and the costs of schooling.
There was also a rule change recently that significantly increased the hours and training needed to become a first officer. Previously, you could right-seat on a regional with a commercial license and 250 hours; now you need an ATP and 1,500 hours for the same position. From what I've read, it's exacerbating the pilot shortage (which you'd think would force wages higher, but I guess in this economy nobody gets anything anymore).
posted by backseatpilot at 9:36 AM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
There was also a rule change recently that significantly increased the hours and training needed to become a first officer. Previously, you could right-seat on a regional with a commercial license and 250 hours; now you need an ATP and 1,500 hours for the same position. From what I've read, it's exacerbating the pilot shortage (which you'd think would force wages higher, but I guess in this economy nobody gets anything anymore).
posted by backseatpilot at 9:36 AM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
tl;dr: turns out it's all the pretzels.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 9:45 AM on September 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 9:45 AM on September 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
The entry level first officers are ONLY RECENTLY making approximately $36,000 per year, their first year - 5-6 years ago it was closer to $20-25K. However, 1500 hour ATP rule has significantly impacted the hiring pools. The ATP rule was the result of legislation that came from the Colgan 3407 crash.
Wages HAVE gone up for pilots. They haven't gone up enough, in my opinion, and probably won't ever return to where they were when the airlines were regulated.
posted by Thistledown at 9:48 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wages HAVE gone up for pilots. They haven't gone up enough, in my opinion, and probably won't ever return to where they were when the airlines were regulated.
posted by Thistledown at 9:48 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't even modern high bypass turbofan engines have fairly loose emissions controls compared to ground vehicles? Which is then compounded by being dumped into the atmosphere at high altitude? Genuinely curious, I've never had to look at the emissions aspect of jet engines.
posted by indubitable at 9:54 AM on September 12, 2016
posted by indubitable at 9:54 AM on September 12, 2016
More travel means a more cosmopolitan global citizenry, and a global society that is more likely to think and care about issues—including environmental ones—that are happening outside of their home locality, or which are global in scope.
This is a pious given in my socioeconomic circles and I think it's wishful thinking. Alternate take: more travel means the well-off won't do the hard tedious work of keeping any specific place livable, because they're always faintly conscious that they could just go somewhere else. It's like "awareness" campaigns for diseases: maximize the feels and scant the work. Ostrom's examples of successful cooperative ecological governance are not cosmopolitan, as a counter-case.
I can't think how to test this, although I'm personally doing so by eschewing flight for pleasure and putting the time and energy into the place I live instead.
posted by clew at 9:59 AM on September 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
This is a pious given in my socioeconomic circles and I think it's wishful thinking. Alternate take: more travel means the well-off won't do the hard tedious work of keeping any specific place livable, because they're always faintly conscious that they could just go somewhere else. It's like "awareness" campaigns for diseases: maximize the feels and scant the work. Ostrom's examples of successful cooperative ecological governance are not cosmopolitan, as a counter-case.
I can't think how to test this, although I'm personally doing so by eschewing flight for pleasure and putting the time and energy into the place I live instead.
posted by clew at 9:59 AM on September 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
Airline profitability being minimal is a known thing, at least in North America, where EVERY network carrier is the result of one or more bankruptcies -- United (its own, and Continental's); American (its own, US Airway's two, America West's and TWA's); Delta (its own and Northwest's); and Air Canada (its own). The commuter carriers pretty all have been in or are in bankruptcy. Frontier went into bankruptcy. The only long-term survivors have been Alaska and Southwest; JetBlue hasn't been put through the ringer yet to see how it would fare.
posted by MattD at 10:09 AM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by MattD at 10:09 AM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
He evaluates an $88 airplane ticket and concludes that $10 of that is profit. Which is laughable. I'm willing to be the airline "loses" on tickets at that price, except that they are necessary to maintain operations, brand, keep the planes available for situations where they make much more, etc. If all 154 passengers on the plane only paid $88 to be there and did that every flight, I suspect even that short hop full capacity haul would quickly bankrupt the airline.
This is a case where the devil is in the details, and he clearly doesn't know them well enough to really elucidate the subject.
posted by meinvt at 10:20 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is a case where the devil is in the details, and he clearly doesn't know them well enough to really elucidate the subject.
posted by meinvt at 10:20 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, to answer the fuel cost question, it looks like about 15-20% of the average ticket price. So, his estimate of about 2-3% (of the lowest available fare) on that line is already off by an order of magnitude.
posted by meinvt at 10:22 AM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by meinvt at 10:22 AM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized. I expect this process to be implemented shortly.
Having just finished The Three-Body Problem I would agree it is a Chaotic Era of air travel.
posted by GuyZero at 10:27 AM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Having just finished The Three-Body Problem I would agree it is a Chaotic Era of air travel.
posted by GuyZero at 10:27 AM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
According to WSJ, fuel was 29% of the cost of a ticket in 2012, but don't clarify the distance of their hypothetical flight -- presumably longer than DC to NYC. Salaries were 20%.
It's counter-intuitive that air travel is often cheaper than bus travel, but I think the cost of vehicle ownership is the biggest factor. A jetliner might cost $100 million, but it's in service almost 24/7 for 30 years or so. A motorcoach is under $1 million, but only might be usable for 7 years and providing 10% of the value per hour of a jetliner. The rest of the difference might be explained by the superior scale and commoditization of air travel.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:36 AM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's counter-intuitive that air travel is often cheaper than bus travel, but I think the cost of vehicle ownership is the biggest factor. A jetliner might cost $100 million, but it's in service almost 24/7 for 30 years or so. A motorcoach is under $1 million, but only might be usable for 7 years and providing 10% of the value per hour of a jetliner. The rest of the difference might be explained by the superior scale and commoditization of air travel.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:36 AM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Greg_Ace: "If the passengers are minced, dehydrated then compressed the wasted space can be minimized.
Imagine a spherical passenger in a vacuum..."
Balanced upon a perfectly upright pin which is a single atom thick.
posted by Splunge at 10:40 AM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imagine a spherical passenger in a vacuum..."
Balanced upon a perfectly upright pin which is a single atom thick.
posted by Splunge at 10:40 AM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
And of course a JFK-to-Dulles ticket would leave out the cost of Lorna Doones.
posted by ejs at 11:01 AM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ejs at 11:01 AM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I remember reading an article some time ago arguing that US airlines' insistence on purchasing their aircraft had a significant negative impact on their bottom lines. Apparently airlines in other parts of the world tend to lease more aircraft which can make better financial sense if you need to keep your fleet up to date.
posted by backseatpilot at 11:21 AM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by backseatpilot at 11:21 AM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
You want to keep costs low since airplanes are more green than automobile travel.
Airline travel in and of itself might be greener than the equivalent amount of automobile/boat travel, but that assumes that the trip would happen regardless, and the ease that flight introduces to long trips means that's not a sure proposition, to put it politely I'm going on vacation next month and I wasn't gonna drive from Toronto to Hong Kong. Hell, you'd have to work really hard to get me to drive from Toronto to LA, and that's at least possible.
posted by mightygodking at 11:33 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Airline travel in and of itself might be greener than the equivalent amount of automobile/boat travel, but that assumes that the trip would happen regardless, and the ease that flight introduces to long trips means that's not a sure proposition, to put it politely I'm going on vacation next month and I wasn't gonna drive from Toronto to Hong Kong. Hell, you'd have to work really hard to get me to drive from Toronto to LA, and that's at least possible.
posted by mightygodking at 11:33 AM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Balanced upon a perfectly upright pin which is a single atom thick.
But can this pin recline?
posted by ejs at 11:49 AM on September 12, 2016
But can this pin recline?
posted by ejs at 11:49 AM on September 12, 2016
2.50 in fuel? When the plane people say an A-320 gets 70 miles per gallon per seat and its 228 miles without any allowance for holding to get from JFK to Dulles and the futures contract for September gulf coast jet fuel is 1.36 a gallon, (which is a commodity price without the costs of getting from the refinery into the airplane,) how can I believe anything the guy says? I'm not going to watch it on principal.
Also the HAH!, airplanes are better for the environment stupid hippy article isn't terribly persuasive to me as written. I would like to see something that had details about comparative harm of plausible cases like New York to Chicago or New York to Boston that take into account the real world fuel consumption and not just an extrapolation of a mileage average whose basis is obscure, and the issues of quality of emissions etc. (Don't forget the drive to the airport!) I'm not pro or anti jet travel but I am anti stupid.
posted by Pembquist at 12:22 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also the HAH!, airplanes are better for the environment stupid hippy article isn't terribly persuasive to me as written. I would like to see something that had details about comparative harm of plausible cases like New York to Chicago or New York to Boston that take into account the real world fuel consumption and not just an extrapolation of a mileage average whose basis is obscure, and the issues of quality of emissions etc. (Don't forget the drive to the airport!) I'm not pro or anti jet travel but I am anti stupid.
posted by Pembquist at 12:22 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Cubic passengers woud have a better packing density, but as has been pointed out in the past cylinders are a decent compromise between spheres and cubes. Since people are already roughly cylindrical I propose they be secured packaged in cylindrical containers and rapidly loaded onto planes by robots.
Imagine, you can bring as much luggage as will fit in your cylinder (I predict luggage designed to fit snugly around you in lieu of padding), security concerns are reduced because you're individually packaged for the whole trip, and NASA already has decades of research into solving the problems associated with being trapped in a small space.
... You know I jest, but this actually sounds pretty fantastic and I'd totally do it for my inevitable next flight to California.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:28 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Imagine, you can bring as much luggage as will fit in your cylinder (I predict luggage designed to fit snugly around you in lieu of padding), security concerns are reduced because you're individually packaged for the whole trip, and NASA already has decades of research into solving the problems associated with being trapped in a small space.
... You know I jest, but this actually sounds pretty fantastic and I'd totally do it for my inevitable next flight to California.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:28 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Re: the environment vs. cheap tickets. The choice for most people isn't between air or ground, it's between going and not going. The convenience flying is what's attractive and encourages the consumption resources that would not otherwise be consumed.
I flew to LA from Vancouver for a lot of meetings that didn't need to happen and wouldn't have without cheap air travel.
posted by klanawa at 12:30 PM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I flew to LA from Vancouver for a lot of meetings that didn't need to happen and wouldn't have without cheap air travel.
posted by klanawa at 12:30 PM on September 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Meetings vs Environment
posted by Pembquist at 1:01 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Pembquist at 1:01 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Re: the environment vs. cheap tickets. The choice for most people isn't between air or ground, it's between going and not going. The convenience flying is what's attractive and encourages the consumption resources that would not otherwise be consumed.
I flew to LA from Vancouver for a lot of meetings that didn't need to happen and wouldn't have without cheap air travel.
I wonder how that actually works out for most people. I've never flown to a meeting that I wouldn't otherwise have attended, but I often fly to see family members where I absolutely have a choice of mode of transit (and have taken cars, planes, and trains, depending on my life situation at that exact moment of travel), but I don't really have a choice of going or not. I fly 3-4 times/year and probably one trip every year or so is one I would never take if air travel were totally not an option. I have no idea which situation is more common.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:20 PM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I flew to LA from Vancouver for a lot of meetings that didn't need to happen and wouldn't have without cheap air travel.
I wonder how that actually works out for most people. I've never flown to a meeting that I wouldn't otherwise have attended, but I often fly to see family members where I absolutely have a choice of mode of transit (and have taken cars, planes, and trains, depending on my life situation at that exact moment of travel), but I don't really have a choice of going or not. I fly 3-4 times/year and probably one trip every year or so is one I would never take if air travel were totally not an option. I have no idea which situation is more common.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:20 PM on September 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
> What's your argument there, silence? "Flying is too cheap" is not a position I've heard before, at least not often or in detail. Care to flesh out your assertion a bit?
Presumably that the environmental costs aren't factored into ticket prices.
I understand the sentiment, but given the gap in income and distribution of wealth we are living with in this country, I expect that an increase in the cost of flying will likely result in fewer trips by those who don't fly all that often anyway, i.e., lower income folks who fly primarily to visit family and/or for an occasional vacation.
posted by she's not there at 1:33 PM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Presumably that the environmental costs aren't factored into ticket prices.
I understand the sentiment, but given the gap in income and distribution of wealth we are living with in this country, I expect that an increase in the cost of flying will likely result in fewer trips by those who don't fly all that often anyway, i.e., lower income folks who fly primarily to visit family and/or for an occasional vacation.
posted by she's not there at 1:33 PM on September 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
$234 round trip from Salt Lake City to Bakersfield, California, VW van, 17 miles per gallon. Free room and, water and coffee on board. Dinner, breakfast, fruit, lunch. See the USA! The last time I tried flying this, United overbooked airspace in San Fran and it eventually took me 13.5 hours one way, including a shuttle from LAX to Bakersfield.
posted by Oyéah at 1:33 PM on September 12, 2016
posted by Oyéah at 1:33 PM on September 12, 2016
NASA already has decades of research into solving the problems associated with being trapped in a small space.
There are no claustrophobes in space.
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:44 PM on September 12, 2016
There are no claustrophobes in space.
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:44 PM on September 12, 2016
I understand the sentiment, but given the gap in income and distribution of wealth we are living with in this country, I expect that an increase in the cost of flying will likely result in fewer trips by those who don't fly all that often anyway, i.e., lower income folks who fly primarily to visit family and/or for an occasional vacation.
But the effects will primarily be felt by people who will never fly, earn less than two dollars a day and will be hit hardest by climate change.
posted by biffa at 1:48 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the effects will primarily be felt by people who will never fly, earn less than two dollars a day and will be hit hardest by climate change.
posted by biffa at 1:48 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bulgaroktonos: "I wonder how that actually works out for most people. I've never flown to a meeting that I wouldn't otherwise have attended"
I have attended meetings in person that easily could have been done by phone. Many times. Oh God, so many times.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:08 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have attended meetings in person that easily could have been done by phone. Many times. Oh God, so many times.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:08 PM on September 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
A few years ago I was visiting Boston, and a friend who knew I wanted to visit Chicago as well. She pointed out a seat sale and I'm still shocked that I found a ticket for $30. We don't usually have those kinds of prices in Canada. I still bring it up at parties and we all lament how expensive it is to fly up here.
posted by A hidden well at 3:51 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by A hidden well at 3:51 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I often fly to see family members where I absolutely have a choice of mode of transit ... but I don't really have a choice of going or not.
That's a luxury scenario.
posted by klanawa at 4:38 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's a luxury scenario.
posted by klanawa at 4:38 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Since people are already roughly cylindrical I propose they be secured packaged in cylindrical containers
See also Japanese tube hotels. This could actually be viable.
I used to work for an airline and picked up some useless trivia about airlines and ticket pricing. Pricing is heavily dependent on fuel prices; when oil is cheap ticket prices drop. My airline was fastidious about conserving fuel to the point of not having in-flight magazines or Skymall catalogs because of the extra weight which would lead to more fuel consumption.
The power outlets operated on a "rolling" structure - your outlet didn't always have power because there was a limited infrastructure that distributed a limit amount of power through the plane - limited power equals less equipment weight.
posted by bendy at 5:23 PM on September 12, 2016
See also Japanese tube hotels. This could actually be viable.
I used to work for an airline and picked up some useless trivia about airlines and ticket pricing. Pricing is heavily dependent on fuel prices; when oil is cheap ticket prices drop. My airline was fastidious about conserving fuel to the point of not having in-flight magazines or Skymall catalogs because of the extra weight which would lead to more fuel consumption.
The power outlets operated on a "rolling" structure - your outlet didn't always have power because there was a limited infrastructure that distributed a limit amount of power through the plane - limited power equals less equipment weight.
posted by bendy at 5:23 PM on September 12, 2016
You want to keep costs low since airplanes are more green than automobile travel.
There's a lot of debate about this, even beyond the demand elasticity aspect. Planes do emit a little less greenhouse gases per person-mile, but they emit it directly into the stratosphere, where it causes far more damage than it would on the ground. If you're in Europe, the alternative to a plane is an electric-powered fast train, which really is green. But we can't have nice things in the US.
posted by miyabo at 10:08 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a lot of debate about this, even beyond the demand elasticity aspect. Planes do emit a little less greenhouse gases per person-mile, but they emit it directly into the stratosphere, where it causes far more damage than it would on the ground. If you're in Europe, the alternative to a plane is an electric-powered fast train, which really is green. But we can't have nice things in the US.
posted by miyabo at 10:08 PM on September 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really wish things that claim to explain why stuff is so expensive would take an econ 102 class.
Costs influence the amount of supply (how many planes, which routes). Demand determines the price at the level of supply. This is true whether the profit margins are huge or minuscule.
Therefore the answer the question of why X costs so much is always "because that's what people are willing to pay."
If they couldn't get people to pay that much, they'd charge less or go out of business. So if you want to talk about why things cost a lot, you need to talk about what limits the supply and what factors lead to the demand being what it is at that price.
It's still economics which means that the "real" answer is hideously complex and much of our current understanding is hopelessly incomplete but that's a LOT closer to the truth and get's people out of the habit of saying stupid stuff like, "Why is X so expensive, it can't cost that much to make!?" as they take X off the shelf and put it into their cart.
I wrote up a case study on Southwest in college. One aspect of their success was that they were the only domestic carrier hedging their fuel costs with options and futures contracts. I argued that it doesn't really change their long-term average cost of fuel. My argument was demand for air travel was inelastic compared to the volatility of fuel prices. So what the fuel hedging did do was smooth out the curve enough to allow them to more gradually changing their prices as compared to their competitors. Though it only occurs to me now that I should have gone the extra step and charted their ticket prices vs. fuel prices over time and compared it to competitors so I'm not really sure if that argument holds water. Still seems like a solid hypothesis though.
posted by VTX at 10:24 PM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Costs influence the amount of supply (how many planes, which routes). Demand determines the price at the level of supply. This is true whether the profit margins are huge or minuscule.
Therefore the answer the question of why X costs so much is always "because that's what people are willing to pay."
If they couldn't get people to pay that much, they'd charge less or go out of business. So if you want to talk about why things cost a lot, you need to talk about what limits the supply and what factors lead to the demand being what it is at that price.
It's still economics which means that the "real" answer is hideously complex and much of our current understanding is hopelessly incomplete but that's a LOT closer to the truth and get's people out of the habit of saying stupid stuff like, "Why is X so expensive, it can't cost that much to make!?" as they take X off the shelf and put it into their cart.
I wrote up a case study on Southwest in college. One aspect of their success was that they were the only domestic carrier hedging their fuel costs with options and futures contracts. I argued that it doesn't really change their long-term average cost of fuel. My argument was demand for air travel was inelastic compared to the volatility of fuel prices. So what the fuel hedging did do was smooth out the curve enough to allow them to more gradually changing their prices as compared to their competitors. Though it only occurs to me now that I should have gone the extra step and charted their ticket prices vs. fuel prices over time and compared it to competitors so I'm not really sure if that argument holds water. Still seems like a solid hypothesis though.
posted by VTX at 10:24 PM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Greg_Ace: "NASA already has decades of research into solving the problems associated with being trapped in a small space.
There are no claustrophobes in space."
Well, at least not after they open the door to get some air.
posted by Splunge at 7:06 PM on September 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are no claustrophobes in space."
Well, at least not after they open the door to get some air.
posted by Splunge at 7:06 PM on September 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Note for posterity: killed one link ("most expensive airline") because the linked site appears to have been nailed by some sort of spam injection attack and is clumsily peddling online prescriptions etc.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:15 AM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:15 AM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know I'd hold up Norwegian as a (socially) good example of cheap airfare either, given the controversy surrounding their hiring practices on short haul and long haul flights. Despite the name, the long haul flights are run by an Irish-based company, which allows them to use a Thai corporation to hire East Asian flight attendants, to save money, a move that "the Parat union, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, the Minister of Labour and the Labour Party" characterized as "social dumping, deliberately undermining Norwegian work rights."
That and their vegetarian meal option literally has not changed in 2 years.
posted by fragmede at 8:21 AM on September 15, 2016
That and their vegetarian meal option literally has not changed in 2 years.
posted by fragmede at 8:21 AM on September 15, 2016
[Note for posterity: killed one link ("most expensive airline") because the linked site appears to have been nailed by some sort of spam injection attack and is clumsily peddling online prescriptions etc.]
Well, of course the seats are expensive if you also get your prescription filled as part of it!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:50 PM on September 15, 2016
Well, of course the seats are expensive if you also get your prescription filled as part of it!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:50 PM on September 15, 2016
« Older Honestly, it's kind of draining | 512K required. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by I-baLL at 7:49 AM on September 12, 2016 [6 favorites]