Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, April 22, 2019

In the 1960s it took five hours to fly from New York to Los Angeles, and just 45 minutes to hop from New York to Washington, DC. Today, these same flights now take six-plus hours and 75 minutes respectively, although the airports haven't moved further apart. It's called "schedule creep", or padding.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


In a way, I prefer the schedules with the padding, especially when I have to make flight connections to get to my destination.

Consistency in scheduling is more important than flight time reduction.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-04-22 11:39 AM | Reply

They're also making airliners slower. They've been getting slower for about 30 years. The wings are optimized for a different flight profile. That lets them land slower, use cheaper landing gear, and opens access to shorter runways making more routes possible, and many other economic advantages that outweigh the gains from increased speeds.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-22 11:43 AM | Reply

Flight time reduction just isn't that important. People don't even pay enough to keep it operational. There's maybe 1 or 2 supersonic routes in the entire world that can fund themselves on Concordes.

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-22 11:44 AM | Reply

You can push a 100% "on time" arrival rate by saying a 45 minute flight takes 75 minutes.

The hell with putting in an effort to actually arrive on time, when you can fudge the numbers and still boast about how great you are.

Very Trumpian.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-04-22 11:56 AM | Reply

I had a feeling that quick air travel wasn't a priority. This strategy makes it a nice surprise when you arrive to the destination early, helping you make a connection.

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-04-22 12:06 PM | Reply

By need to get through a large airport is nutz. 2 to 3 hours before flight time.

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-22 02:37 PM | Reply

By need to get through a large airport is nutz. 2 to 3 hours before flight time.

#6 | Posted by Sniper

That's all just to send you through the muslim fear propaganda lines so you'll keep voting to have your privacy destroyed and your military over-funded.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-04-22 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I had a feeling that quick air travel wasn't a priority.

#5 | POSTED BY GONOLES92 AT 2019-04-22 12:06 PM | REPLY

Average Interstate speed: 65mph
Shanghai Maglev, world's fastest train: 267mph
Average airliner speed: 546mph

How much faster are you really looking for?

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-22 09:05 PM | Reply


@#8 ... How much faster are you really looking for? ...

Just specifying transport speeds is grossly misleading as, for example, the speed of travel is not necessarily related to travel time.

When you say airliner speed is 546mph, you're not taking into account the time needed to get from your house to the time the airplane actually takes off, and then the time it takes to get to your ultimate destination from the airport.

So, for example, for me to go from my house to visit my friend's family in western NY, the plane ride is about an hour nd forty minutes. But the time from me leaving my house until I walk into my firend's house is closer to 6 or 7 hours.

I usually drive there. The door-to-door time is about the same, the cost is so much cheaper.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-04-22 11:09 PM | Reply

6 or 7 hours lol. F me what terrible airports are you flying out of?

Anything over 2 hour drive time here, it's faster to fly.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-23 06:10 AM | Reply

You'd fly to replace a 3 hour drive?

-drive to the airport
-wait in security line
-wait to board
-actually board the plane
-sit there for half an hour watching all the idiots fuss with their bags
-actually fly
-somehow get a car or a ride
-drive to your ultimate destination

How on earth would that be faster or more pleasurable than just driving for 3 hours

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-23 07:40 AM | Reply

I'm already 4 hours in by the time I get to the airport.

If it's less than 800 miles I drive.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-04-23 07:52 AM | Reply

You'd fly to replace a 3 hour drive?

#11 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-04-23 07:40 AM | REPLY

Are my kids in the car? If so, yes. The airport is a breeze. IAH & Hobby are both very fast, smooth experiences.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-23 08:15 AM | Reply

Next week I fly Houston -> O'Hare -> South Bend. I picked up the connecting flight simply to avoid the hour and a half drive, even though the short layover means I'd get there slightly quicker by driving the last hop.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-23 08:22 AM | Reply

This is the thread where people wailing about the environment on another thread complain about having to spend an additional 45 minutes on a transcontinental flight.

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-23 08:44 AM | Reply

What pisses me off isn't the time (I can get behind the fuel efficiency / cost savings), it's the pressure changes. My ears get f'd up especially after multiple hops in a day. But I recently learned that those pressure changes aren't necessary on commercial jets - they program the pressure system to lessen the pressure in order to reduce stress on the plane structure so it can have another few years of service. They could keep the pressure almost static if they wanted. I'm sure the pilots and cabin crew don't even notice the pressure change; but I'd pay a significant fee to fly without ear pain.

#16 | Posted by Snowfake at 2019-04-23 09:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

New composite structures are allowing jets from the 787 onward to fly at much more comfortable cabin pressures without effecting the jet's lifespan.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-23 10:38 AM | Reply

Flight time reduction just isn't that important. People don't even pay enough to keep it operational. There's maybe 1 or 2 supersonic routes in the entire world that can fund themselves on Concordes.

#3 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2019-04-22 11:44 AM | FLAG: Concord aircraft were retired in Oct 2003.

#18 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-04-23 01:29 PM | Reply

Club Concorde raised $200 million for a return to service plan. It's unlikely that's enough money though. I'd be shocked if they made their 2019 goal.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-23 02:01 PM | Reply

People still show up two hours before a flight? Two words...Global Entry. I have never waited more than 15 minutes in a security line.

#20 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-23 07:27 PM | Reply

"Two words...Global Entry."

Unexpected Lolita Express!

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-23 07:38 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort