3 ms·

> [...]why revolutionary changes to products > and technologies stop[...] Yeah, but maybe we're just impressed by different things. I'm more impressed by

by avar 8y ago

> [...]why revolutionary changes to products > and technologies stop[...] Yeah, but maybe we're just impressed by different things. I'm more impressed by the number of air passengers carried yearly around the globe being equivalent to around 50% of the world population, v.s. around 8% in the 1970s[1]. I'm more impressed by aircraft being reliable enough that most modern twin-engine jets in service can get an ETOPS[2] rating. There's been an amazing growth in the amount of direct flights, both transoceanic and otherwise. It's like how nothing fundamentally new really happened in E-Mail since the 1970s, but in terms of making it a useful consumer technology iteration was everything. 1. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

xg15 8y ago
> I'm more impressed by the number of air passengers carried yearly around the globe being equivalent to around 50% of the world population, v.s. around 8% in the 1970s[1]. This sounds more like innovation in how to run an airline than technological innovation though.
- avar 8y ago
  No, it's mainly technological. Here you can see the breakdown of operating costs of different wide-body aircraft: https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep As shown there majority of the cost is fuel, and as hcarvalhoalves's comment notes fuel economy has improved by 45% since the 60s. Not having to operate a 4-engine jumbo jet for transatlantic flights or make multiple landings in Ireland/Iceland/Nova Scotia just to fly between Paris & New York is also a huge reduction in cost. That's what ETOPS in my comment is referring to. The operating of having more engines is also higher. Flights that today cost $400 would cost something like $1000 today if it wasn't for these sorts of technological improvements, and $1000 flights would be $2500 etc.

by avar 8y ago

xg15 8y ago

> I'm more impressed by the number of air passengers carried yearly around the globe being equivalent to around 50% of the world population, v.s. around 8% in the 1970s[1]. This sounds more like innovation in how to run an airline than technological innovation though.

avar 8y ago
No, it's mainly technological. Here you can see the breakdown of operating costs of different wide-body aircraft: https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep As shown there majority of the cost is fuel, and as hcarvalhoalves's comment notes fuel economy has improved by 45% since the 60s. Not having to operate a 4-engine jumbo jet for transatlantic flights or make multiple landings in Ireland/Iceland/Nova Scotia just to fly between Paris & New York is also a huge reduction in cost. That's what ETOPS in my comment is referring to. The operating of having more engines is also higher. Flights that today cost $400 would cost something like $1000 today if it wasn't for these sorts of technological improvements, and $1000 flights would be $2500 etc.