3 ms·

It's twice the price of a flight, and with planes you can pick between 3 major airports in SFBA and 5 in LA, which are probably closer to the locations you're r

by gok 7y ago

It's twice the price of a flight, and with planes you can pick between 3 major airports in SFBA and 5 in LA, which are probably closer to the locations you're really going between.

a13n 7y ago
2x the price and 4x the duration. I think the innovation is that instead of dealing with the hassle of going to the airport, going through security, and sitting in a cramped seat, you just spend a good night's sleep traveling.
- seandougall 7y ago
  Don't underestimate that hassle when comparing durations. I once dropped my spouse off at OAK, drove down the 5, and picked her up at BUR. She had time to eat dinner at the airport, but otherwise she really didn't get there much before me.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Were you driving 120 mph? Airport to airport it should take maybe 2.5 hours (1 hr before flight + 1.5 for the flight) versus the 5 hr to drive between the two.
    - tedd4u 7y ago
      Refer to MythBusters episode 221, "Traffic Tricks.": https://mythresults.com/traffic-tricks https://mythresults.com/traffic-tricks For journeys shorter than 400 miles, driving is faster than flying. PLAUSIBLE The Build Team had a race of 380 miles (610 km) from San Francisco to Los Angeles, between Tory on a plane, and Kari and Grant driving. The bottlenecks of air travel (arriving early to get through security, waiting for the plane to start boarding, retrieving luggage at the destination, and renting a car) delayed Tory significantly. Kari and Grant had fewer such delays, but did have to stop for gas and food at one point, and traffic in and near the larger cities did slow them down. Kari and Grant arrived at their destination after 5h 33m; Tory was slightly faster, at 5h 25m. Because of the close result and variables that could alter the result either way, this myth was declared plausible.
      - refurb 7y ago
        I don’t disagree it could be quicker, city to city, but this was airport to airport. That would eliminate the drive to the airport for the person flying.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    It was always a tough call for me when I went home from Berkeley. The door to door time was almost identical, including going to airport, security, and going home from the airport. Pretty much the only time I flew was when there was just one of us and I would either need to leave or arrive during rush hour. But I'm curious, why did you drop off your spouse and then pick her up? Why not go together? Are you really afraid of flying and she's afraid of driving? I'm just trying to imagine a scenario where it makes sense to split up like that.
eikenberry 7y ago
Isn't only twice the price pretty good for a brand new, unscaled service? Particularly compared to a century old industry that has had ages to optimize.
- notatoad 7y ago
  Sure, if you're looking at it purely from an academic perspective, it's not terrible. but from the prespective of a person who needs to get from LA to SF and is deciding what mode of transport to take, the excuses for why it's more expensive aren't very relevant.
scarejunba 7y ago
Not for the times involved, right? If you want to leave late on Friday and leave late on Sunday to maximize the day time you're spending then it's comparable.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  And massively cheap if you factor in the saving from a night of accommodation.
sswu 7y ago
I took this bus twice, and would happily take it again, but probably because it just happens to fill my niche. From Santa Monica, taking rideshare to/from LAX would easily cost an extra $30 each way, not to mention the traffic on Friday evenings. Sometimes it takes longer to get to the airport than the flight itself. Cabin is nice because the total time I spend awake (< 30mins at each end) is less than that of taking a flight (at least a 3 hour contiguous block). It's also less stressful not having to worry about luggage, security, when to leave for the airport, etc. If I couldn't sleep like a rock, or didn't live in Santa Monica, or wanted to go to south bay instead of SF, I would get a flight instead. I agree this is not for everyone, whether it be comfort-wise or location-wise, but I do hope this new tech helps people sleep more peacefully, and that they expand to more locations.

by gok 7y ago

It's twice the price of a flight, and with planes you can pick between 3 major airports in SFBA and 5 in LA, which are probably closer to the locations you're really going between.

a13n 7y ago

2x the price and 4x the duration. I think the innovation is that instead of dealing with the hassle of going to the airport, going through security, and sitting in a cramped seat, you just spend a good night's sleep traveling.

seandougall 7y ago
Don't underestimate that hassle when comparing durations. I once dropped my spouse off at OAK, drove down the 5, and picked her up at BUR. She had time to eat dinner at the airport, but otherwise she really didn't get there much before me.
- refurb 7y ago
  Were you driving 120 mph? Airport to airport it should take maybe 2.5 hours (1 hr before flight + 1.5 for the flight) versus the 5 hr to drive between the two.
  - tedd4u 7y ago
    Refer to MythBusters episode 221, "Traffic Tricks.": https://mythresults.com/traffic-tricks https://mythresults.com/traffic-tricks For journeys shorter than 400 miles, driving is faster than flying. PLAUSIBLE The Build Team had a race of 380 miles (610 km) from San Francisco to Los Angeles, between Tory on a plane, and Kari and Grant driving. The bottlenecks of air travel (arriving early to get through security, waiting for the plane to start boarding, retrieving luggage at the destination, and renting a car) delayed Tory significantly. Kari and Grant had fewer such delays, but did have to stop for gas and food at one point, and traffic in and near the larger cities did slow them down. Kari and Grant arrived at their destination after 5h 33m; Tory was slightly faster, at 5h 25m. Because of the close result and variables that could alter the result either way, this myth was declared plausible.
    - refurb 7y ago
      I don’t disagree it could be quicker, city to city, but this was airport to airport. That would eliminate the drive to the airport for the person flying.
- jedberg 7y ago
  It was always a tough call for me when I went home from Berkeley. The door to door time was almost identical, including going to airport, security, and going home from the airport. Pretty much the only time I flew was when there was just one of us and I would either need to leave or arrive during rush hour. But I'm curious, why did you drop off your spouse and then pick her up? Why not go together? Are you really afraid of flying and she's afraid of driving? I'm just trying to imagine a scenario where it makes sense to split up like that.

eikenberry 7y ago

Isn't only twice the price pretty good for a brand new, unscaled service? Particularly compared to a century old industry that has had ages to optimize.

notatoad 7y ago
Sure, if you're looking at it purely from an academic perspective, it's not terrible. but from the prespective of a person who needs to get from LA to SF and is deciding what mode of transport to take, the excuses for why it's more expensive aren't very relevant.

scarejunba 7y ago

Not for the times involved, right? If you want to leave late on Friday and leave late on Sunday to maximize the day time you're spending then it's comparable.

Scoundreller 7y ago
And massively cheap if you factor in the saving from a night of accommodation.

sswu 7y ago

I took this bus twice, and would happily take it again, but probably because it just happens to fill my niche. From Santa Monica, taking rideshare to/from LAX would easily cost an extra $30 each way, not to mention the traffic on Friday evenings. Sometimes it takes longer to get to the airport than the flight itself. Cabin is nice because the total time I spend awake (< 30mins at each end) is less than that of taking a flight (at least a 3 hour contiguous block). It's also less stressful not having to worry about luggage, security, when to leave for the airport, etc. If I couldn't sleep like a rock, or didn't live in Santa Monica, or wanted to go to south bay instead of SF, I would get a flight instead. I agree this is not for everyone, whether it be comfort-wise or location-wise, but I do hope this new tech helps people sleep more peacefully, and that they expand to more locations.