Ideal travel experience

Here's another thought:

Is there any way to make fuel, both in cost and weight, a minor factor?

If this were possible, planes could grow bigger and more spacious. Imagine something like the old Pullman railroad cars, with a real bed and privacy. A separate dining area rather than eating at your seat, etc.

How?

Well, that's not easy. the military experimented with airborne nuclear power, and the results were horrendous. The weight of a reactor offset any gains it might offer, and then some (they never flew an active reactor). A fusion reactor, if we ever develop one, wouldn't be much different. Solar power is so feeble, that solar powered airplanes are flimsy and small.

You could make some kind of electrical engine (either to drive propellers, or to heat and compress air), and beam power from ground stations to passing airplanes. Bit the infrastructure for that would be horrendously expensive, broadcast power has never been successfully implemented even in small scales, and I predict every flying bird in the world would be killed by so many microwaves in the air. So that's out, too.

Zeppelins are the answer but you would lose a lot of your speed.

Quote: kenarman

Zeppelins are the answer but you would lose a lot of your speed.

Actually zeppelins are more sensitive to weight than planes. There's only so much a bag of helium can carry. But since it doesn't need fuel for lift, then fuel doesn't take up as much weight or room as it does in a plane.

Quote: Nareed

Well, that's not easy. the military experimented with airborne nuclear power, and the results were horrendous. The weight of a reactor offset any gains it might offer, and then some (they never flew an active reactor).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
I have never heard of airborne nuclear power. Project Orion was a very well known project 1957-1963, but that was a proposal for spacecraft and at a minimum they were talking about for an orbital test 1,760,000 lbs. That is heavier than an A380. For interplanetary they were considering 8 million pounds.

A380 maximum take-off weight = 1,300,000 lb

Quote: Pacomartin

I have never heard of airborne nuclear power.

I think they did nothing more than fly an inert reactor around. This was around the time when the Valkyrie was being developed. IN the end mid-air refueling killed the idea of nuclear propulsion, and guided missiles killed the Valkyrie .

Quote:

Project Orion was a very well known project 1957-1963, but that was a proposal for spacecraft and at a minimum they were talking about for an orbital test 1,760,000 lbs. That is heavier than an A380. For interplanetary they were considering 8 million pounds.

If you're going to ride on top of an exploding A-bomb, you'll need a lot of dense metal (ie lead) shielding.

the online press is abuzz with an Airbus patent for stacking seats on top of other seats in planes (making use of all that wasted space between your head and the ceiling). Here's one link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3260690/Airbus-files-patent-mezzanine-style-seating-business-class.html

On first glance it looks awful, and indeed the reaction has been "see, we're just cargo in human form to the airlines." But on second glance it's not that bad. I mean, you give me 2-2-2 seating and lie flat seats in economy, and I don't care if there are people in seats above me or below me.

from what I could gather a row would have six seats on the floor and two on top in the center. That's 8 across seating, which is quite liberal in today's wide bodies. So naturally this is not a plan for economy. Rather it might increase business class from 6 to 8 across on an A380. But I wonder if the demand is there.

You know, I'd settle for 3-3 economy on narrow bodies, and 3-4-3 on wide bodies, with separate, non-shared armrests between seats.

I came across Boeing's brochure for the very first B737 c.1965. In a page about seating configuration, it assumes 2-3 seating in economy. A photo of an interior (likely a mock-up) the aisle looks incredibly roomy.

The 737 wasn't popular in Mexico in the 70s or 80s. The two airlines at the time, Mexicana and Aeromexico, used the B727(*) and DC-9 respectively. I do recall a 2-3 configuration on the 727 and DC-9 in the late 70s. By the 80s I also recall 3-3 seating on the 727, in Mexicana, Pan Am and Brannif .


(*) One feature of the 727 design was efficient high altitude take off capability, though this was in the early 60s. It may have swayed Mexicana in their decision to adopt it to complement and/or replace their prop planes and, later, their 707s.

High altitude airports continue to impose a fuel penalty even for modern jets. Paco has pointed out several times why AM's 787 has to stop at Tijuana on it sway to Asia.

I need to read up on recent civil aviation history. yesterday I read a brief column which stated that prior to the late 70s, when airlines were more regulated, government set fares and fees. Therefore airlines had to compete on service.

This makes perfect sense. If everyone charges the same for flying from LAX to JFK, then your choices boil down to schedules and on board experience. This would have been the heyday of coach (economy), with competition on meals, types of seats, drinks, what passed for in-flight entertainment in those days, etc.

When the government stopped setting fares, now competition on price was seriously on. And this is why fares have come down dramatically, why so many more people fly, and why you're more likely to fly to the Moon by flapping your arms than to be served a complimentary hot meal on coach in short-haul flights (or, in words less sardonic, why airlines have cut back on service to make up for lower fares).

I need a better gauge on existing services on board, too, as well as fees. My own experiences are too limited.

Quote: Nareed

I need to read up on recent civil aviation history. yesterday I read a brief column which stated that prior to the late 70s, when airlines were more regulated, government set fares and fees. Therefore airlines had to compete on service.

I get the impression that the domestic passenger business, which in 1978 was primarily in USA was heavily regulated. I don't know what kind of regulations covered international flights. I gather most state owned airlines considered it just as important to the economy of the country that people have access to the country as that the airline made money.

Even today the top domestic airlines are all from USA or China. There is also a distinct lack of Asian carriers outside of Singapore or Hong Kong.

Quote: Pacomartin

Even today the top domestic airlines are all from USA or China.

It would make sense for airlines in large countries with widespread destinations and large populations would lead such a chart

Quote:

There is also a distinct lack of Asian carriers outside of Singapore or Hong Kong.

In my recent binge-reading of airline blogs, I've read a lot about ANA in Japan and Eva Air in Taiwan. Mostly they seem to fly transpacific routes to the US. Emirates pretty much only has international flights.