Yet another aviation thread.

To all those who claim airlines are providing the services customers want:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/24/travellers-are-taking-advantage-of-bag-rules-to-avoid-fees-says-ryanair

The money quote, almost literally:

Quote:

But it can cost more to check in a bag than purchase a seat, with prices typically up to £90 extra for a 20kg suitcase on a return short-haul summer flight. A two-year-old is entitled, like adults, to bring a 10kg suitcase and a second small bag for free.

There's some tumult where the FAA has been tasked by a federal judge and pressured by some in congress to review safety issues related to seat pitch.

This is clever, as it's the one way to institute regulations regarding minimum seat pitch. however, Spirit has been flying with 28" pitch for years, and I assume it has passed all the certifications, regulations, et. required by the FAA. So don't hope for a 31" or 32" minimum industry-wide based on this.

On the plus side, American recently walked back a plan to over-stuff its 737 MAX, which would have included things like 29" and 30" pitch in many seats.

But I do foresee something really bad happening soon regarding room on board. It's not so much a matter of pitch, though that hurts, but of serving ever more mid- and long-haul routes with narrow bodies. As I've said numerous times before, narrow body planes have no room to move around, not places to congregate. That's tolerable on short flights. I shudder to think about spending 5 hours or more in one.

Here's an interesting insight on the rising popularity of narrow bodies for transatlantic routes:

According to Norwegian, the block time for a round trip from Ireland to the east coast of the US (typically NY or Boston) is about 14 hours. So suppose a 737 MAX leaves Ireland at 7 pm for NYC. It would then be back in Ireland around 9 am the next day. Now you can use it to fly around Europe for ten hours, before it has to be in Ireland for transatlantic duty.

You can even use the plane to feed passengers to its other route, I suppose.

The same can be done on the US side of the Atlantic. Say Jet Blue sends an A321 neo from JFK to LHR and back in a block time of 14-15 hours. Upon returning to JFK, it can fly 9-10 hours on more local duties.

So it's not just a matter of smaller planes being more efficient and achieving a longer range. The business models also matter.

This could easily be done with a wide body as well, of course. Except wide bodies are more expensive to operate on short hauls, and far less likely to have much of a positive load factor on shorter routes.

The expense of a less than full flight is part of the high price of groundspace at larger airports where planes can land but not park.

Quote: Nareed

This could easily be done with a wide body as well, of course. Except wide bodies are more expensive to operate on short hauls, and far less likely to have much of a positive load factor on shorter routes.

It also takes longer to turnover a wide body flight.

Quote: DRich

It also takes longer to turnover a wide body flight.

JA123 was a 252 mile flight in 1985 and it crashed with 520 deaths and 4 survivors.

Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages of very large aircraft, even over very short distances. Operational disasters like planes taking off with one hundred empty seats, or true catastrophes like JA123 are just riskier than with smaller aircraft.

As I have said, airlines reap some of the benefits of very large aircraft, but the bulk of the benefits goes to airport which reduces it's runway stress considerably. Unfortunately, airlines purchase jets, not airports.

Quote: Pacomartin

Unfortunately, airlines purchase jets, not airports.

Maybe they should purchase airports. Or rather, build terminals and runways.

Quote: Nareed

Maybe they should purchase airports. Or rather, build terminals and runways.

JFK has 7 terminals built by individual airlines, but no private runways.

United Airlines opened Terminal 7 (later renumbered Terminal 9), in October 1959. It was demolished in 2008 when United closed it's JFK hub.
Eastern Airlines opened its Chester L. Churchill-designed Terminal 1 in November 1959; it was demolished in 1995.
American Airlines opened Terminal 8 in 1960.
Pan American World Airways opened the Worldport (later Terminal 3) in 1960.
Northwest Airlines, Braniff International and Northeast Airlines opened a joint terminal in 1962 (now Terminal 2).
Trans World Airlines opened the TWA Flight Center in 1962, designed by Eero Saarinen with a distinctive winged-bird shape.
National Airlines opened the Sundrome (now Terminal 6) in 1970. The terminal was designed by I.M.Pei

Charging landing fees by jet weight does not encourage larger planes. And in some cases like Chicago, where United and American both have hubs and pay most of the bills, the airport may never do the changes necessary to land the A380. UA and AA have no incentive to introduce competition from foreign airlines into their hub airport.

I'd no idea airlines actually build terminals...

Suppose airlines had built airports from the start.

On the one hand, it's doubtful any such airports would be profitable. On the other hand, you'd have like six or seven airports in every major city, as each big airline would build its own. Connecting to a different airline would be hard or impossible in most cases. Some airlines, no doubt, would partner up and share airports; say Continental lets Pan Am use its airport in Houston in exchange for using Pan Am's airport in NYC. It would be a complicated mess.

But perhaps congestion wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

Quote: Nareed

But perhaps congestion wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

Congestion is due to flight scheduling and the hub-spoke system..