3 ms·

Personally I'd rather know the exact time I'm going to be taking off, so I can turn up at the perfect time (when I fly, at least out of England where I know the

by corin_ 16y ago

Personally I'd rather know the exact time I'm going to be taking off, so I can turn up at the perfect time (when I fly, at least out of England where I know the airports well enough, I turn up, drop off baggage, drink a coffee while smoking a cigarette, go through security, and I sit down in my seat a couple of minutes before the plane moves away from the gate). As opposed to your system, where I turn up, get on the plane, then... wait for an unknown time until it fills up.

jasonkester 16y ago
Even if that unknown amount of time averaged 7 minutes?
- corin_ 16y ago
  Find my any flight path that is active enough to fill a commercial plane every 7 minutes and I'll concede that it's an amazing idea.
  - jasonkester 16y ago
    Actually, it'd be every 15 minutes to average a 7 minute wait. And to find routes, simply look at Southwest's schedule between major airports. Or any commuter airline between New York and Chicago. If they're filling a 150 seat plane every 45 minutes, you could certainly fill a 20 seater in 15.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Slots at major airports are very expensive, and scheduled very carefully. You could only do this if you used minor airports, which would probably kill the convenience factor. edit: Actually there probably are pairs of cities where it could be made to work by using small, low-traffic, convenient-to-the-city airports which can't handle large planes. But now your main problem is chicken-and-egg: until you have a lot of customers you can't possibly run a frequent service, and the customers won't be interested unless it's frequent. I suppose you could take off every twenty minutes regardless of passenger load, but in that case your operating costs are going to be enormous from day one.
      - kd0amg 15y ago
        Actually there probably are pairs of cities where it could be made to work by using small, low-traffic, convenient-to-the-city airports which can't handle large planes. I think this was the intent -- fly out of Palwaukee, not O'Hare.

by corin_ 16y ago

jasonkester 16y ago

Even if that unknown amount of time averaged 7 minutes?

corin_ 16y ago
Find my any flight path that is active enough to fill a commercial plane every 7 minutes and I'll concede that it's an amazing idea.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  Actually, it'd be every 15 minutes to average a 7 minute wait. And to find routes, simply look at Southwest's schedule between major airports. Or any commuter airline between New York and Chicago. If they're filling a 150 seat plane every 45 minutes, you could certainly fill a 20 seater in 15.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Slots at major airports are very expensive, and scheduled very carefully. You could only do this if you used minor airports, which would probably kill the convenience factor. edit: Actually there probably are pairs of cities where it could be made to work by using small, low-traffic, convenient-to-the-city airports which can't handle large planes. But now your main problem is chicken-and-egg: until you have a lot of customers you can't possibly run a frequent service, and the customers won't be interested unless it's frequent. I suppose you could take off every twenty minutes regardless of passenger load, but in that case your operating costs are going to be enormous from day one.
    - kd0amg 15y ago
      Actually there probably are pairs of cities where it could be made to work by using small, low-traffic, convenient-to-the-city airports which can't handle large planes. I think this was the intent -- fly out of Palwaukee, not O'Hare.