3 ms·

> It's already far cheaper to drive or to fly(!) From what I'm aware (and I should do some more searching about this later) there's also plenty of subsidies fo

> It's already far cheaper to drive or to fly(!) From what I'm aware (and I should do some more searching about this later) there's also plenty of subsidies for flying. I don't know how somebody could think that $60 for a short-range ticket would be anywhere cost effective for an airline. Good comment btw.

Silhouette 16y ago
As far as I'm aware, the main reason that short-haul flights are relatively cheap here in the UK is not literally subsidies, but the lack of tax on aircraft fuel compared to, say, petrol/diesel for road vehicles. It's also worth keeping in mind that flight only requires serious land use at the origin and destination, which is a huge win over both rail and road networks, where you have to allocate and maintain land-based infrastructure for the entire network. In terms of finances and efficient land use, I suspect flying is actually a relatively sensible way to travel. It's the environmental factors, consumption of finite fuel supplies, and need for greater safety/security precautions because of the potential damage caused by something falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled location that really make flying unsustainable in its current form. (Edit: Out of curiosity, I did some Googling and some very quick and dirty calculations about relative fuel consumption. With huge error bars, it looks like a mid-spec 737 carrying around 130 passengers and their baggage would need about 50x as much fuel per mile as a typical family car with a couple of passengers and a similar amount of luggage, over a distance of a few hundred miles. That suggests that the kind of ticket price you mentioned isn't off the chart in terms of covering costs, if you get your aircraft fuel in bulk and the taxation is low.)
- elai 16y ago
  Aircraft fuel energy is incredibly expensive. For example, for a four seater turboprop airplane, a 1 hour round trip can cost about $80 in aircraft fuel. A two seater electric powered gilder can do the same trip with $5 of electricity. If we could mass produce mini electric automated air taxi glider flocks, they might be more economical than large airplanes for domestic flights (not to mention a lot nicer!). Your typical 1970s airplanes that a lot people still fly are so simple compared to your typical $15'000 Yaris. You still need the jets for hopping over oceans although. AirAsia has flights down to .03/km per passenger. A car full of people would be cheaper by a factor of 3, but the typical case of 1 person in a car is actually less efficient. But a car is slower by a factor of 1:14, due to traffic, indirect routing and slower speeds.

Silhouette 16y ago

As far as I'm aware, the main reason that short-haul flights are relatively cheap here in the UK is not literally subsidies, but the lack of tax on aircraft fuel compared to, say, petrol/diesel for road vehicles. It's also worth keeping in mind that flight only requires serious land use at the origin and destination, which is a huge win over both rail and road networks, where you have to allocate and maintain land-based infrastructure for the entire network. In terms of finances and efficient land use, I suspect flying is actually a relatively sensible way to travel. It's the environmental factors, consumption of finite fuel supplies, and need for greater safety/security precautions because of the potential damage caused by something falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled location that really make flying unsustainable in its current form. (Edit: Out of curiosity, I did some Googling and some very quick and dirty calculations about relative fuel consumption. With huge error bars, it looks like a mid-spec 737 carrying around 130 passengers and their baggage would need about 50x as much fuel per mile as a typical family car with a couple of passengers and a similar amount of luggage, over a distance of a few hundred miles. That suggests that the kind of ticket price you mentioned isn't off the chart in terms of covering costs, if you get your aircraft fuel in bulk and the taxation is low.)

elai 16y ago
Aircraft fuel energy is incredibly expensive. For example, for a four seater turboprop airplane, a 1 hour round trip can cost about $80 in aircraft fuel. A two seater electric powered gilder can do the same trip with $5 of electricity. If we could mass produce mini electric automated air taxi glider flocks, they might be more economical than large airplanes for domestic flights (not to mention a lot nicer!). Your typical 1970s airplanes that a lot people still fly are so simple compared to your typical $15'000 Yaris. You still need the jets for hopping over oceans although. AirAsia has flights down to .03/km per passenger. A car full of people would be cheaper by a factor of 3, but the typical case of 1 person in a car is actually less efficient. But a car is slower by a factor of 1:14, due to traffic, indirect routing and slower speeds.