4 ms·

Why Does Flying Suck So Much? – Robert Reich [video]

26 points by cratermoon 3y ago

GenericDev 3y ago
I think the most pernicious part of this has been how normalized all of this is. I grew up during 1990's air travel and it was still pretty great back then. For a lot of the younger generation, they are so used to the disrespect from start to finish as a result of 9/11. The good old days - in no specific order - TSA Body Scans that used to be simple metal detectors - Not having Disneyland-like Fast Passes, for TSA Scans (I cannot believe this is real) - Being able to wait at the gate for people - Not being charged insane amount of money to get mediocre services before your flight - Extra seat room - Flights that weren't over booked - Actual in-flight meals - Actual in-flight snacks - First class that was actual first-class quality Man I can go on. I hate flying so much now-and-days, and it KILLS me, because I try to articulate this to younger folks, and they shrug their shoulders because they're been raised in this. And the worst part is I KNOW it was better before the 90's. It's just been an absolute enshitification that has become such a disruptive force in my life when I decide I want to travel anywhere, and it's a fucking bummer.
- teeray 3y ago
  > Actual in-flight meals I remember getting a full-blown McDonald’s cheeseburger meal with fries and multiple desserts as a kid in the 90s with a special United toy plane and a fun little aviation-themed placemat (there was a little section with the NATO alphabet and it taught you about runway numbers). This was the equivalent of a wagyu steak dinner to a 7 year old. I also could not wait to get some headphones so I could tune in to Channel 9 and listen to the pilots talk to ATC :) Those early flights had a huge influence on how much I enjoy aviation because of those simple little things.
- space_fountain 3y ago
  This mixes two problems. The TSA which I can’t really put up much of a defense of and quality declining. On that second point look at the prices. Airfare is only 67% of what it was in the 90s and that’s while fuel costs have exploded
- re5i5tor 3y ago
  If you want to get a feel for 50s air travel, check out the movie The High and the Mighty which I recently watched on Kanopy. Also includes an insane fly-by-control-cables scene.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > Being able to wait at the gate for people Once around 1992, my mischievous goth club friend told me that we were going to meet some friends arriving at the airport. So she took about two hours doing my dark goth makeup, and we both got dolled up in our splendid nightclub finery, and we marched right through a very crowded airport, and right up to the arrival gate. It was better than bringing a bouquet of flowers, that's for sure.
- wrp 3y ago
  > Being able to wait at the gate for people Before your day, I remember when non-passengers could wait in the boarding lounge with the passengers. Not all changes are due to costs and security. People travelling by air generally used to dress and behave better than now. That had various effects on the total experience. There is one really big improvement in the air-travel experience, though. The smell of cigarette smoke used to be inescapable in the lounge and on the plane.
- tavavex 3y ago
  > Disneyland-like Fast Passes, for TSA Scans Is this an American-exclusive thing? I've been in many airports in multiple countries and I've never seen anything like this. What's it like, you just pay to skip the line? Or is it an actual "fast pass" system where people grab queue tickets and return at a specified time? Also, the vast majority of airports still have the simple "metal arch" detectors. Even then, I still wish I could try flying the way it used to be done - having been born after 9/11, I've grown up with it already being this way.
  - devilbunny 3y ago
    In the US, there are two different systems that might have been the intended meaning. There's Clear, which is a service (and not a cheap one) that essentially lets you go straight to the front of the screening line (although the screen is subject to the normal rules). And there's PreCheck, which not only involves a different line but has different rules (keep your belt, coat, and shoes on; metal detector and X-ray of carryon baggage only; keep your laptop in your bag). You can have both. Clear requires IIRC an iris scan, while PreCheck requires a background check and interview and fingerprinting. Most PreCheck users get it as part of Global Entry, which expedites the immigration and customs experience when entering the US. GE has saved me many hours of waiting in lines. The most I've ever had to wait was about five minutes, because there were 10 air crew in front of me. It's open to citizens of a variety of countries; if you have to travel to the US with any regularity, it is well worth the $100 cost every five years.
    - tavavex 3y ago
      Thanks for explaining! Honestly, if this was the intended meaning, I don't really see a connection - this isn't a fee to skip the line directly, but kind of a "doing part of your security clearance before arriving" thing. I don't think it's worth it for me as I barely ever visit the US, but for Canadians it's even cheaper at $50/5 years, so I might look into that if I ever need to cross the border often.
      - devilbunny 3y ago
perryizgr8 3y ago
It sucks because standard of living for the average citizen in the west has failed to keep pace with the rest of the world. It was glorious 4 decades ago because at that time the median American was richer than the wildest fantasies of the median Chinese. That's no longer the case. And these are the effects.
- axpvms 3y ago
  Airfares are quite a bit cheaper however, and it seems that most passengers are willing to forgo luxuries in order to receive a lower-priced ticket. That's evident by looking at the airline industry in Europe. Those are simple market effects. Regarding China, it's great that large swathes of people are escaping absolute poverty, here's to our shared common prosperity.
angmarsbane 3y ago
If cross-country trains were a viable alternative I'd choose them over flying in a heartbeat.
- distract8901 3y ago
  Man, I'm still mad that a flight from Kentucky to DC cost less than a train. There was an Amtrak station within walking distance of my house, but it was cheaper to drive an hour to an airport and take a flight. Also the train was like 6 or 8 stopovers and changes. Absolute insanity.
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  Let’s say they are but 10x time and 10x the cost but 1.5x comfort - would you?
  - dadoomer 3y ago
    In that case they wouldn't be a viable alternative, would they. A train can go 500+ km/h, and with good planning they don't have to cost 10x, so you're premise does not stand.
    - dzhiurgis 3y ago
      Can you give examples where they are “viable”? In Japan they are still several times more expensive and slower (over long distance, as OP suggested).
  - tavavex 3y ago
    In this case, I would not. But in the real world, trains hit none of these criteria. Sure, they're slower, but the ideal case scenario is one where they can replace short- and medium-haul flights, where the difference in speed can be made up for the extra hours spent at an airport. Nor are they more expensive - trains are cheaper to run per person and can carry a ton of people at once. And while this depends on the train service, the comfort is generally much better - there's more legroom and the seats are more comfortable, and if they serve food on board, it's superior to in-flight food. And that's not even mentioning other benefits like no limits on luggage weight or not having to throw out all drinks before boarding.
jabroni_salad 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act The time of those ritzy pictures everyone likes to share was the result of protectionism. The govt saw a lot of value in standing up the airline industry and gave operators exclusivity over their routes in order to ensure their profitability while things were booting up. They could probably afford to put a lot of the fat back into the passenger experience if they didn't have to compete on price. As long as they must compete and as long as consumers mainly choose their tickets based on the first price they see, they will be heavily incentivized to trim the fat as much as possible, stuff in as many bodies as possible, and shove them through the pipeline as quickly as possible. I'm not advocating for re-regulating, especially since I definitely would not be able to afford air travel at all without the dereg. But I think the 'growth at any cost' mentality needs to be curbed here. It would be nice if the airlines could be content with merely obscene profits instead absurd profits, but the lines gotta go up and the only way to get the juice is to squeeze ever harder.
- m463 3y ago
  I can't help but think of the decline in phone ruggedness when Ma Bell was overruled and you could finally plug in 3rd party phones into your home ("foreign attachments")
- kmlx 3y ago
  > with merely obscene profits instead absurd profits i thought this was a serious comment until i read this line. their profit margins are 1.2% or $2.25/passenger. and this is after losing hundreds of billions in the preceding 3 years. show me these obscene/absurd profits.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  American Airlines, the biggest US airline, reported a mere $127 million in profit on $48 billion of revenue in 2023 [1]. That’s after being in the red for the past two years and making net profit ranges of 1-5% in the years before that. There’s no “merely obscene” or “absurd” profits in the airline business. It’s probably the toughest industry out there, which is why it gears toward consolidation. As the popular saying goes, the best way to become a millionaire is to become a billionaire first and start an airline. 1 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/250572/net-income-of-us-airways/#:~:text=In%20the%20fiscal%20year%20of,beginning%20of%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic https://www.statista.com/statistics/250572/net-income-of-us-....
space_fountain 3y ago
The airline industry has a low profit margin of only 1.2%. Apparently in the US the average across industries is 7%. I’m not convinced that the problems with air travel is about people being greedy or two little competition and isn’t systematic in some way that’s harder to pin down. Or maybe it just comes from the fact that when I choose a flight I almost always choose the cheapest without much consideration of comfort
ChristopherDrum 3y ago
Behind the Bastards did 2 episodes on this very topic. Blame Frank Lorenzo! https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-frank-lorenzo-the-man-120146254/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
m-p-3 3y ago
I have the choice to either take the train or the airplane when having to visit a business office about 6 hours away (by car). I always take the train for the less stressful experience despite the longer commute time. I hate flying for work that much.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  I was on a consulting gig for an airline, working remotely about 3 hours from the office. On the rare occasions I was asked to go to the office, I had the option of flying, free. It's about a 20 minute drive from my home to the airport here, a 1 hour flight time, and the airline's offices are on the airport grounds. I drove every time.
nunez 3y ago
Flying sucks compared to the 90s because route deregulation made air travel a race to the bottom, petroleum was ultra super cheap, and 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Airlines make restaurant-level margins these days (1-2%, despite spending billions of dollars!). Practically all of them are state-sponsored for this reason, and many (MANY!) airlines were either merged into the big three legacy US airlines (Delta, American, United) or folded because their business models couldn't handle travelers who wanted to fly JFKLAX for $300 round-trip. This combined with the cost of jet fuel skyrocketing (pun intended) since then has forced airlines to pressure aircraft manufacturers into making more passenger-efficient interiors with more fuel-efficient engines, like the 737 MAX series, the Airbus A220 and the upcoming Airbus A321XLR. As far as TSA security theater and fast-passes go, debate the efficacy of the agency all y'all want, but terrorist attacks on airplanes (a VERY real concern since Lockerbie in the 80s) have become almost non-existent since their creation. This helps the airlines massively, as every major security incident that happens causes substantial reduction in air travel and brings the airlines just that much closer to death. Despite all of this, the thing that many forget is that flying was better in the past because it was VASTLY more expensive. The average air ticket in 2023 is ~$382. In 1993, it was ~$339...in 1993 dollars ($713 in 2023 dollars)! [0] Additionally, booking was much more complicated than it is today. You had to account for Saturday-night stays, minimum trip lengths, fare class limitations, change fees (mostly eradicated during COVID), longer routes due to point-to-point routing, and more. Flying might suck more, but it is much more accessible to people now, and for the average American traveler who might fly once or twice per year [1] to visit friends and family or attend a conference, long lines at security and crap food/drink options onboard is a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things. The cost reductions are especially true for travelers coming from small cities with regional airports (think: Lansing, MI or Yuma, AZ) Before regional jetd and the hub system, these airports were usually serviced by regional carriers using prop-jets for domestic travel. If they did get mainline service, they would come infrequently, and because those flights were point-to-point, travel took much longer. (Southwest still uses point-to-point today, though all of them route through what are basically hubs). Service varied wildly and that experience, while more romantic in hindsight, was slow and, usually, very expensive. Regional jets and hubs lowered the cost of travel for these passengers significantly by adding capacity that didn't exist before (given that most of those operators got acquired by or work exclusively for legacy airlines) and siphoning travelers living in cities that couldn't support their airports into cities with bigger airports that can. Again, for the average traveler that flies once or twice per year for VFR travel, a two-hour drive for a flight that used to be >$1000 RT but is now $300 is very reasonable. Two final points. Firstly, flying internationally is still a pretty good experience...if you have status and book business class and above, especially if you book with an international carrier. Emirates's business and first class experience is apparently unbelievable, for example. You'll definitely pay for it, however! Finally, flying isn't terrible for frequent-fliers as long as you manage expectations, are willing to pay for extra benefits and avoid over-packing like the plague. I fly over 100k miles/year, almost entirely within the lower 48 of the US. I carry nothing but a backpack and pay for CLEAR ($199/3 years; many travel cards will reimburse) and lounge access with United ($699/year). $800/year is a lot, but if you fly every week and have to endure delays (more people flying = more planes flying = greater chances of delays), long lines (many more people have Precheck now, and CLEAR is an airport-provided service, not a Federal service like Pre is) and sub-optimal flight times, it's a reasonable cost. [0] https://www.transtats.bts.gov/AverageFare/ https://www.transtats.bts.gov/AverageFare/ [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/388484/air-travel-remains-down-employed-adults-fly-less.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/388484/air-travel-remains-down-...

26 points by cratermoon 3y ago

I think the most pernicious part of this has been how normalized all of this is. I grew up during 1990's air travel and it was still pretty great back then. For a lot of the younger generation, they are so used to the disrespect from start to finish as a result of 9/11. The good old days - in no specific order - TSA Body Scans that used to be simple metal detectors - Not having Disneyland-like Fast Passes, for TSA Scans (I cannot believe this is real) - Being able to wait at the gate for people - Not being charged insane amount of money to get mediocre services before your flight - Extra seat room - Flights that weren't over booked - Actual in-flight meals - Actual in-flight snacks - First class that was actual first-class quality Man I can go on. I hate flying so much now-and-days, and it KILLS me, because I try to articulate this to younger folks, and they shrug their shoulders because they're been raised in this. And the worst part is I KNOW it was better before the 90's. It's just been an absolute enshitification that has become such a disruptive force in my life when I decide I want to travel anywhere, and it's a fucking bummer.

teeray 3y ago
> Actual in-flight meals I remember getting a full-blown McDonald’s cheeseburger meal with fries and multiple desserts as a kid in the 90s with a special United toy plane and a fun little aviation-themed placemat (there was a little section with the NATO alphabet and it taught you about runway numbers). This was the equivalent of a wagyu steak dinner to a 7 year old. I also could not wait to get some headphones so I could tune in to Channel 9 and listen to the pilots talk to ATC :) Those early flights had a huge influence on how much I enjoy aviation because of those simple little things.
space_fountain 3y ago
This mixes two problems. The TSA which I can’t really put up much of a defense of and quality declining. On that second point look at the prices. Airfare is only 67% of what it was in the 90s and that’s while fuel costs have exploded
re5i5tor 3y ago
If you want to get a feel for 50s air travel, check out the movie The High and the Mighty which I recently watched on Kanopy. Also includes an insane fly-by-control-cables scene.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> Being able to wait at the gate for people Once around 1992, my mischievous goth club friend told me that we were going to meet some friends arriving at the airport. So she took about two hours doing my dark goth makeup, and we both got dolled up in our splendid nightclub finery, and we marched right through a very crowded airport, and right up to the arrival gate. It was better than bringing a bouquet of flowers, that's for sure.
wrp 3y ago
> Being able to wait at the gate for people Before your day, I remember when non-passengers could wait in the boarding lounge with the passengers. Not all changes are due to costs and security. People travelling by air generally used to dress and behave better than now. That had various effects on the total experience. There is one really big improvement in the air-travel experience, though. The smell of cigarette smoke used to be inescapable in the lounge and on the plane.
tavavex 3y ago
> Disneyland-like Fast Passes, for TSA Scans Is this an American-exclusive thing? I've been in many airports in multiple countries and I've never seen anything like this. What's it like, you just pay to skip the line? Or is it an actual "fast pass" system where people grab queue tickets and return at a specified time? Also, the vast majority of airports still have the simple "metal arch" detectors. Even then, I still wish I could try flying the way it used to be done - having been born after 9/11, I've grown up with it already being this way.
- devilbunny 3y ago
  In the US, there are two different systems that might have been the intended meaning. There's Clear, which is a service (and not a cheap one) that essentially lets you go straight to the front of the screening line (although the screen is subject to the normal rules). And there's PreCheck, which not only involves a different line but has different rules (keep your belt, coat, and shoes on; metal detector and X-ray of carryon baggage only; keep your laptop in your bag). You can have both. Clear requires IIRC an iris scan, while PreCheck requires a background check and interview and fingerprinting. Most PreCheck users get it as part of Global Entry, which expedites the immigration and customs experience when entering the US. GE has saved me many hours of waiting in lines. The most I've ever had to wait was about five minutes, because there were 10 air crew in front of me. It's open to citizens of a variety of countries; if you have to travel to the US with any regularity, it is well worth the $100 cost every five years.
  - tavavex 3y ago
    Thanks for explaining! Honestly, if this was the intended meaning, I don't really see a connection - this isn't a fee to skip the line directly, but kind of a "doing part of your security clearance before arriving" thing. I don't think it's worth it for me as I barely ever visit the US, but for Canadians it's even cheaper at $50/5 years, so I might look into that if I ever need to cross the border often.
    - devilbunny 3y ago

perryizgr8 3y ago

It sucks because standard of living for the average citizen in the west has failed to keep pace with the rest of the world. It was glorious 4 decades ago because at that time the median American was richer than the wildest fantasies of the median Chinese. That's no longer the case. And these are the effects.

axpvms 3y ago
Airfares are quite a bit cheaper however, and it seems that most passengers are willing to forgo luxuries in order to receive a lower-priced ticket. That's evident by looking at the airline industry in Europe. Those are simple market effects. Regarding China, it's great that large swathes of people are escaping absolute poverty, here's to our shared common prosperity.

angmarsbane 3y ago

If cross-country trains were a viable alternative I'd choose them over flying in a heartbeat.

distract8901 3y ago
Man, I'm still mad that a flight from Kentucky to DC cost less than a train. There was an Amtrak station within walking distance of my house, but it was cheaper to drive an hour to an airport and take a flight. Also the train was like 6 or 8 stopovers and changes. Absolute insanity.
dzhiurgis 3y ago
Let’s say they are but 10x time and 10x the cost but 1.5x comfort - would you?
- dadoomer 3y ago
  In that case they wouldn't be a viable alternative, would they. A train can go 500+ km/h, and with good planning they don't have to cost 10x, so you're premise does not stand.
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    Can you give examples where they are “viable”? In Japan they are still several times more expensive and slower (over long distance, as OP suggested).
- tavavex 3y ago
  In this case, I would not. But in the real world, trains hit none of these criteria. Sure, they're slower, but the ideal case scenario is one where they can replace short- and medium-haul flights, where the difference in speed can be made up for the extra hours spent at an airport. Nor are they more expensive - trains are cheaper to run per person and can carry a ton of people at once. And while this depends on the train service, the comfort is generally much better - there's more legroom and the seats are more comfortable, and if they serve food on board, it's superior to in-flight food. And that's not even mentioning other benefits like no limits on luggage weight or not having to throw out all drinks before boarding.

jabroni_salad 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act The time of those ritzy pictures everyone likes to share was the result of protectionism. The govt saw a lot of value in standing up the airline industry and gave operators exclusivity over their routes in order to ensure their profitability while things were booting up. They could probably afford to put a lot of the fat back into the passenger experience if they didn't have to compete on price. As long as they must compete and as long as consumers mainly choose their tickets based on the first price they see, they will be heavily incentivized to trim the fat as much as possible, stuff in as many bodies as possible, and shove them through the pipeline as quickly as possible. I'm not advocating for re-regulating, especially since I definitely would not be able to afford air travel at all without the dereg. But I think the 'growth at any cost' mentality needs to be curbed here. It would be nice if the airlines could be content with merely obscene profits instead absurd profits, but the lines gotta go up and the only way to get the juice is to squeeze ever harder.

m463 3y ago
I can't help but think of the decline in phone ruggedness when Ma Bell was overruled and you could finally plug in 3rd party phones into your home ("foreign attachments")
kmlx 3y ago
> with merely obscene profits instead absurd profits i thought this was a serious comment until i read this line. their profit margins are 1.2% or $2.25/passenger. and this is after losing hundreds of billions in the preceding 3 years. show me these obscene/absurd profits.
boeingUH60 3y ago
American Airlines, the biggest US airline, reported a mere $127 million in profit on $48 billion of revenue in 2023 [1]. That’s after being in the red for the past two years and making net profit ranges of 1-5% in the years before that. There’s no “merely obscene” or “absurd” profits in the airline business. It’s probably the toughest industry out there, which is why it gears toward consolidation. As the popular saying goes, the best way to become a millionaire is to become a billionaire first and start an airline. 1 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/250572/net-income-of-us-airways/#:~:text=In%20the%20fiscal%20year%20of,beginning%20of%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic https://www.statista.com/statistics/250572/net-income-of-us-....

space_fountain 3y ago

The airline industry has a low profit margin of only 1.2%. Apparently in the US the average across industries is 7%. I’m not convinced that the problems with air travel is about people being greedy or two little competition and isn’t systematic in some way that’s harder to pin down. Or maybe it just comes from the fact that when I choose a flight I almost always choose the cheapest without much consideration of comfort

ChristopherDrum 3y ago

Behind the Bastards did 2 episodes on this very topic. Blame Frank Lorenzo! https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-frank-lorenzo-the-man-120146254/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...

m-p-3 3y ago

I have the choice to either take the train or the airplane when having to visit a business office about 6 hours away (by car). I always take the train for the less stressful experience despite the longer commute time. I hate flying for work that much.

cratermoon 3y ago
I was on a consulting gig for an airline, working remotely about 3 hours from the office. On the rare occasions I was asked to go to the office, I had the option of flying, free. It's about a 20 minute drive from my home to the airport here, a 1 hour flight time, and the airline's offices are on the airport grounds. I drove every time.

nunez 3y ago

Flying sucks compared to the 90s because route deregulation made air travel a race to the bottom, petroleum was ultra super cheap, and 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Airlines make restaurant-level margins these days (1-2%, despite spending billions of dollars!). Practically all of them are state-sponsored for this reason, and many (MANY!) airlines were either merged into the big three legacy US airlines (Delta, American, United) or folded because their business models couldn't handle travelers who wanted to fly JFKLAX for $300 round-trip. This combined with the cost of jet fuel skyrocketing (pun intended) since then has forced airlines to pressure aircraft manufacturers into making more passenger-efficient interiors with more fuel-efficient engines, like the 737 MAX series, the Airbus A220 and the upcoming Airbus A321XLR. As far as TSA security theater and fast-passes go, debate the efficacy of the agency all y'all want, but terrorist attacks on airplanes (a VERY real concern since Lockerbie in the 80s) have become almost non-existent since their creation. This helps the airlines massively, as every major security incident that happens causes substantial reduction in air travel and brings the airlines just that much closer to death. Despite all of this, the thing that many forget is that flying was better in the past because it was VASTLY more expensive. The average air ticket in 2023 is ~$382. In 1993, it was ~$339...in 1993 dollars ($713 in 2023 dollars)! [0] Additionally, booking was much more complicated than it is today. You had to account for Saturday-night stays, minimum trip lengths, fare class limitations, change fees (mostly eradicated during COVID), longer routes due to point-to-point routing, and more. Flying might suck more, but it is much more accessible to people now, and for the average American traveler who might fly once or twice per year [1] to visit friends and family or attend a conference, long lines at security and crap food/drink options onboard is a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things. The cost reductions are especially true for travelers coming from small cities with regional airports (think: Lansing, MI or Yuma, AZ) Before regional jetd and the hub system, these airports were usually serviced by regional carriers using prop-jets for domestic travel. If they did get mainline service, they would come infrequently, and because those flights were point-to-point, travel took much longer. (Southwest still uses point-to-point today, though all of them route through what are basically hubs). Service varied wildly and that experience, while more romantic in hindsight, was slow and, usually, very expensive. Regional jets and hubs lowered the cost of travel for these passengers significantly by adding capacity that didn't exist before (given that most of those operators got acquired by or work exclusively for legacy airlines) and siphoning travelers living in cities that couldn't support their airports into cities with bigger airports that can. Again, for the average traveler that flies once or twice per year for VFR travel, a two-hour drive for a flight that used to be >$1000 RT but is now $300 is very reasonable. Two final points. Firstly, flying internationally is still a pretty good experience...if you have status and book business class and above, especially if you book with an international carrier. Emirates's business and first class experience is apparently unbelievable, for example. You'll definitely pay for it, however! Finally, flying isn't terrible for frequent-fliers as long as you manage expectations, are willing to pay for extra benefits and avoid over-packing like the plague. I fly over 100k miles/year, almost entirely within the lower 48 of the US. I carry nothing but a backpack and pay for CLEAR ($199/3 years; many travel cards will reimburse) and lounge access with United ($699/year). $800/year is a lot, but if you fly every week and have to endure delays (more people flying = more planes flying = greater chances of delays), long lines (many more people have Precheck now, and CLEAR is an airport-provided service, not a Federal service like Pre is) and sub-optimal flight times, it's a reasonable cost. [0] https://www.transtats.bts.gov/AverageFare/ https://www.transtats.bts.gov/AverageFare/ [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/388484/air-travel-remains-down-employed-adults-fly-less.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/388484/air-travel-remains-down-...