4 ms·

It always saddens me that in the 1960s it took 7 hours to fly from NYC -> London, and today, 60 years later, it still takes 7 hours to fly from NYC -> London...

It always saddens me that in the 1960s it took 7 hours to fly from NYC -> London, and today, 60 years later, it still takes 7 hours to fly from NYC -> London... Apart from fuel efficiency improvements, there hasn't been much innovation in the commercial commercial aerospace industry, with the exception of Boom's supersonic passenger airplanes which is just now starting to become a reality.

BlandDuck 2y ago
Look at the bright side, at least flights today are still as fast as 60 years ago. For trains, you would be hard pressed to find a route that is not significantly slower today than 60 years ago.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- idlewords 2y ago
  They are not; the 707 flew noticeably faster than modern airliners (525 knots cruise, compare to 485 knots for the Boeing 787).
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The cruise speed is selected for maximum fuel efficiency. The airplanes can fly faster, and do under special circumstances. Your gas car's maximally efficient speed is about 35 mph.
    - idlewords 2y ago
      If you want to go by top speeds, for the 787 (entered service 2011) it's Mach 0.9, for the A-350 (2015) it's 0.89, while for the 707-120 (1958) it's Mach 0.91. The 747 (1970) can go Mach 0.94. Modern jets are built to fly slightly slower than early jetliners, both in normal operation and at top speed. The reason is fuel economy, but the difference is real.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        Mach really isn't an appropriate unit here as it is highly depended on altitude and atmospheric conditions.
        AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        No, try again. Not correct in any way.
        TylerE 2y ago
        Mach is highly depended on altitude and atmospheric conditions. It is a ratio, not a speed.
        idlewords 2y ago
        A specific Mach number is what airliner airframes are designed to fly at; it's absolutely the correct unit to talk about in this context. If airplane A is designed to cruise at 0.94 mach, it is faster than airplane B that cruises at 0.89 mach. I don't understand the need for all the smoke and din in this argument thread. Old passenger jets flew a little faster than modern ones and that's okay!
        TylerE 2y ago
        Mach 0.94 at 40,000ft is slower than Mach 0.89 at sea level. That’s my point. It. Is. Not. A. Measurement. Of. Speed.
        AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        Still no... It's dependent on the speed of sound, which is only dependent on temperature, not specifically altitude contrary to popular belief.
        jjk166 2y ago
        Temperature varies by altitude. Mach 1 at 30,000 ft is 677mph, mach 1 at 35,000 ft is 663 mph.
    - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
      They're not faster in any absolute sense, look at the wing sweep angle of new vs old jets or the fact that early low bypass ratio jets have a much higher exhaust velocity, the old jets are marginally faster by every metric.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        The airplanes can fly faster than their cruise speed. It's just not economic to do so.
        AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        Modern airplanes can exceed their cruising speed in a relative sense but older planes have a higher absolute maximum speed, as well as cruising speed. Why is everyone trying to ackshewally this? The stat's are publicly available. Aircraft are optimized for a particular speed range and that impacts the designed cruising speed as well as Vs and VNE.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Max cruising speed of 707-121 was 593 mph at 30,000 ft. Max Crusing speed of 787 is 593 mph at 35,000 ft.
- lqet 2y ago
  > For trains, you would be hard pressed to find a route that is not significantly slower today than 60 years ago. It took 64 years (until 1997) to again reach the 1933 speed of the Flying Hamburger [0] - 138 minutes from Hamburg to Berlin. Trains today need about 115 minutes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_SVT_877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_SVT_877
- blks 2y ago
  For USA, that is. In Europe speed has increased drastically.
chasing 2y ago
I think there has been a ton of improvement in commercial flight — think safety, for example — but my understanding is that there has simply been no incentive to improve flight times. Customers aren’t willing to pay for it. Which sort of makes sense: Generally speaking flight time is less than half of the total door-to-door time of air travel.
- greazy 2y ago
  > Generally speaking flight time is less than half of the total door-to-door time of air travel. Maybe for domestic flights but for international flights (especially if you live in Australia) it would improve the flying experience. I've noticed a big difference on my body when flying 8hr vs 12hrs. It may not seem like a big difference but those extra 4hrs put a massive strain on your body and mind.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    If you live in New Zealand, you learn to suffer. A (dubious) upside is that you rarely circle long - after 18+ hours in the air, you're coming down.
- mrcsharp 2y ago
  > Customers aren’t willing to pay for it I would be more inclined to travel overseas if travel times were shorter thus making me a more frequent customer and bringing the airlines more money.
  - chasing 2y ago
    Would you be willing to pay 50% more for tix per flight? I think that’s the issue. And airlines have realized that, no: By-and-large people prefer low price over saving a few hours.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      Except due to greatly reduced efficiencies it's more like 500% more.
Spooky23 2y ago
Trains are worse. I found a New York Central timetable from the 1930s. The morning train I take from Albany to NYC is 7 minutes longer (although it now goes to Penn station.
thfuran 2y ago
There's been a ton of innovation in the space. It used to be seven hours hotboxing a melange of cigarettes while they lose your luggage, but now it's 7 hours of having your knees jammed up against the seat in front of you while they tell you that three grams of peanuts is a proper snack. It's a whole different experience.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  Wifi might be the best innovation.
- Ringz 2y ago
  Exactly as shown here: https://img.ifunny.co/images/9ceaa0fcb71a2f61bb5ddf5e1129035a0d64046f32daa226e22097cd2ee40da2_1.jpg https://img.ifunny.co/images/9ceaa0fcb71a2f61bb5ddf5e1129035...
- bruce511 2y ago
  It varies a lot depending on airline. Top tip : if you are flying internationally avoid Uas airlines where possible. The US airlines are built around domestic flights. They treat international flights as "long domestic ". By contrast some airlines are built around long-haul (international) flights, with domestic either not there at all, or just a feeder. Don't get me wrong, economy is still economy. But an economy seat on Emirates is better than economy on United or Delta (well, last time I flew those anyway.) Perhaps the biggest innovation though is seat-back entertainment. Done well, it makes a huge difference to long-haul flights.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  You also get the complementary full body check for any unusual protrusions before flight, if you ask for it.
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  Correction: while they helpfully wake you up in the middle of your redeye to tell you about a new exciting credit card offer only available to you in flight
WalterBright 2y ago
> Apart from fuel efficiency improvements Those have been huge, and are a primary driver for new airplane designs. The reason is simple. Back in the 80s, fuel was 40% of the operating cost. The 757 came about because of new, more efficient engines and a more efficient wing. If my brain hasn't fully rotted away yet, it offered a 35% reduction in fuel costs. The 737MAX was green-lighted because it offered a 15% improvement in fuel consumption. That's Big Money for the airlines.
snakeyjake 2y ago
There has been a ~90% decrease since the 1960s in the cost to fly from NYC to London due, in large part, to mind-blowing technological innovations in materials, engines, and aerodynamics.

BlandDuck 2y ago

Look at the bright side, at least flights today are still as fast as 60 years ago. For trains, you would be hard pressed to find a route that is not significantly slower today than 60 years ago.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
idlewords 2y ago
They are not; the 707 flew noticeably faster than modern airliners (525 knots cruise, compare to 485 knots for the Boeing 787).
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The cruise speed is selected for maximum fuel efficiency. The airplanes can fly faster, and do under special circumstances. Your gas car's maximally efficient speed is about 35 mph.
  - idlewords 2y ago
    If you want to go by top speeds, for the 787 (entered service 2011) it's Mach 0.9, for the A-350 (2015) it's 0.89, while for the 707-120 (1958) it's Mach 0.91. The 747 (1970) can go Mach 0.94. Modern jets are built to fly slightly slower than early jetliners, both in normal operation and at top speed. The reason is fuel economy, but the difference is real.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      Mach really isn't an appropriate unit here as it is highly depended on altitude and atmospheric conditions.
      - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        No, try again. Not correct in any way.
        TylerE 2y ago
        Mach is highly depended on altitude and atmospheric conditions. It is a ratio, not a speed.
        idlewords 2y ago
        A specific Mach number is what airliner airframes are designed to fly at; it's absolutely the correct unit to talk about in this context. If airplane A is designed to cruise at 0.94 mach, it is faster than airplane B that cruises at 0.89 mach. I don't understand the need for all the smoke and din in this argument thread. Old passenger jets flew a little faster than modern ones and that's okay!
        TylerE 2y ago
        Mach 0.94 at 40,000ft is slower than Mach 0.89 at sea level. That’s my point. It. Is. Not. A. Measurement. Of. Speed.
        AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        Still no... It's dependent on the speed of sound, which is only dependent on temperature, not specifically altitude contrary to popular belief.
        jjk166 2y ago
        Temperature varies by altitude. Mach 1 at 30,000 ft is 677mph, mach 1 at 35,000 ft is 663 mph.
  - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
    They're not faster in any absolute sense, look at the wing sweep angle of new vs old jets or the fact that early low bypass ratio jets have a much higher exhaust velocity, the old jets are marginally faster by every metric.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      The airplanes can fly faster than their cruise speed. It's just not economic to do so.
      - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        Modern airplanes can exceed their cruising speed in a relative sense but older planes have a higher absolute maximum speed, as well as cruising speed. Why is everyone trying to ackshewally this? The stat's are publicly available. Aircraft are optimized for a particular speed range and that impacts the designed cruising speed as well as Vs and VNE.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Max cruising speed of 707-121 was 593 mph at 30,000 ft. Max Crusing speed of 787 is 593 mph at 35,000 ft.
lqet 2y ago
> For trains, you would be hard pressed to find a route that is not significantly slower today than 60 years ago. It took 64 years (until 1997) to again reach the 1933 speed of the Flying Hamburger [0] - 138 minutes from Hamburg to Berlin. Trains today need about 115 minutes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_SVT_877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_SVT_877
blks 2y ago
For USA, that is. In Europe speed has increased drastically.

chasing 2y ago

I think there has been a ton of improvement in commercial flight — think safety, for example — but my understanding is that there has simply been no incentive to improve flight times. Customers aren’t willing to pay for it. Which sort of makes sense: Generally speaking flight time is less than half of the total door-to-door time of air travel.

greazy 2y ago
> Generally speaking flight time is less than half of the total door-to-door time of air travel. Maybe for domestic flights but for international flights (especially if you live in Australia) it would improve the flying experience. I've noticed a big difference on my body when flying 8hr vs 12hrs. It may not seem like a big difference but those extra 4hrs put a massive strain on your body and mind.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  If you live in New Zealand, you learn to suffer. A (dubious) upside is that you rarely circle long - after 18+ hours in the air, you're coming down.
mrcsharp 2y ago
> Customers aren’t willing to pay for it I would be more inclined to travel overseas if travel times were shorter thus making me a more frequent customer and bringing the airlines more money.
- chasing 2y ago
  Would you be willing to pay 50% more for tix per flight? I think that’s the issue. And airlines have realized that, no: By-and-large people prefer low price over saving a few hours.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    Except due to greatly reduced efficiencies it's more like 500% more.

Spooky23 2y ago

Trains are worse. I found a New York Central timetable from the 1930s. The morning train I take from Albany to NYC is 7 minutes longer (although it now goes to Penn station.

thfuran 2y ago

There's been a ton of innovation in the space. It used to be seven hours hotboxing a melange of cigarettes while they lose your luggage, but now it's 7 hours of having your knees jammed up against the seat in front of you while they tell you that three grams of peanuts is a proper snack. It's a whole different experience.

lostlogin 2y ago
Wifi might be the best innovation.
Ringz 2y ago
Exactly as shown here: https://img.ifunny.co/images/9ceaa0fcb71a2f61bb5ddf5e1129035a0d64046f32daa226e22097cd2ee40da2_1.jpg https://img.ifunny.co/images/9ceaa0fcb71a2f61bb5ddf5e1129035...
bruce511 2y ago
It varies a lot depending on airline. Top tip : if you are flying internationally avoid Uas airlines where possible. The US airlines are built around domestic flights. They treat international flights as "long domestic ". By contrast some airlines are built around long-haul (international) flights, with domestic either not there at all, or just a feeder. Don't get me wrong, economy is still economy. But an economy seat on Emirates is better than economy on United or Delta (well, last time I flew those anyway.) Perhaps the biggest innovation though is seat-back entertainment. Done well, it makes a huge difference to long-haul flights.
sidewndr46 2y ago
You also get the complementary full body check for any unusual protrusions before flight, if you ask for it.
AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
Correction: while they helpfully wake you up in the middle of your redeye to tell you about a new exciting credit card offer only available to you in flight

WalterBright 2y ago

> Apart from fuel efficiency improvements Those have been huge, and are a primary driver for new airplane designs. The reason is simple. Back in the 80s, fuel was 40% of the operating cost. The 757 came about because of new, more efficient engines and a more efficient wing. If my brain hasn't fully rotted away yet, it offered a 35% reduction in fuel costs. The 737MAX was green-lighted because it offered a 15% improvement in fuel consumption. That's Big Money for the airlines.

snakeyjake 2y ago

There has been a ~90% decrease since the 1960s in the cost to fly from NYC to London due, in large part, to mind-blowing technological innovations in materials, engines, and aerodynamics.