4 ms·

When you fly what is your #1 criteria? I would argue that for most people it is cost. For a cheaper fare people will give up a lot. If you want comfort then upg

by brixon 8y ago

When you fly what is your #1 criteria? I would argue that for most people it is cost. For a cheaper fare people will give up a lot. If you want comfort then upgrade the business or first class. One of the reasons Concorde failed was the inability to get enough people to pay for speed. Airlines will focus on what sells and what enables them to turn a profit.

40acres 8y ago
This, and the other replies to my question, seems about right. When I fly the #1 thing I'm looking for is cost, following by # of layover(s) and time of layover. Once I'm actually in the air there is not much that distinguishes Delta , Alaska & Jet Blue for instance. Aside from cost and available routes, my main sticking point between picking airlines has been if they have adequate enough TV service.
fadesibert 8y ago
I fly frequently from London to New York and San Francisco. The flights are quite fast - but here's the killer: in New York and San Francisco (and London if you aren't going near or via Paddington) - the trip from the Airport to my next destination - {hotel,office,client...} Can take 1/4 to 1/2 of the flight time! New York is especially bad (2.5 hours at rush hour). Would I pay a premium for speed of flight? Yes Do I think that there are enough people to form that use case? Yes! Will it work? No - the benefit obtained through a fast flight is obliterated by 3rd world airport links into the major airport destinations. Concorde had a hard beginning - the French and Brits cooperating? On research?! (It uses the French spelling...) But when you couldn't fly a helicopter to Midtown anymore, or into the City... The clock started ticking. (This last I have from dear old Dad who was in Finance in the Concorde era and through its end)
- jedberg 8y ago
  In NYC you can get from the airport to Manhattan in about 10 minutes with a helicopter flight. There are a few companies that offer it. My friend likes this one: https://blade.flyblade.com/p/bounce https://blade.flyblade.com/p/bounce It's about $200, but if your time is worth a lot to you, it might be worth it, especially since a regular taxi is $60 anyway.

by brixon 8y ago

40acres 8y ago

This, and the other replies to my question, seems about right. When I fly the #1 thing I'm looking for is cost, following by # of layover(s) and time of layover. Once I'm actually in the air there is not much that distinguishes Delta , Alaska & Jet Blue for instance. Aside from cost and available routes, my main sticking point between picking airlines has been if they have adequate enough TV service.

fadesibert 8y ago

I fly frequently from London to New York and San Francisco. The flights are quite fast - but here's the killer: in New York and San Francisco (and London if you aren't going near or via Paddington) - the trip from the Airport to my next destination - {hotel,office,client...} Can take 1/4 to 1/2 of the flight time! New York is especially bad (2.5 hours at rush hour). Would I pay a premium for speed of flight? Yes Do I think that there are enough people to form that use case? Yes! Will it work? No - the benefit obtained through a fast flight is obliterated by 3rd world airport links into the major airport destinations. Concorde had a hard beginning - the French and Brits cooperating? On research?! (It uses the French spelling...) But when you couldn't fly a helicopter to Midtown anymore, or into the City... The clock started ticking. (This last I have from dear old Dad who was in Finance in the Concorde era and through its end)

jedberg 8y ago
In NYC you can get from the airport to Manhattan in about 10 minutes with a helicopter flight. There are a few companies that offer it. My friend likes this one: https://blade.flyblade.com/p/bounce https://blade.flyblade.com/p/bounce It's about $200, but if your time is worth a lot to you, it might be worth it, especially since a regular taxi is $60 anyway.