7 ms·

I've always wanted turboprop planes to become more common for long haul flights. Many people would gladly pay for premium economy with spacious seating in the

• mnky9800n 2y ago
  I find the most onerous part of the flying experience to be the invasive searches at the airport followed by the corralling and grouping of people onto the plane penny pinching everything from a bottle of water to whether my bag goes in my lap or the overhead bin. The size of the seat area and length of the flight haven’t come to mind as travel complaints for a long time.
  • Snoddas 2y ago
    You must be of size medium to small then because legroom is definitly an issue for me, especially for longer flights and I'm just 180cm. (just below average hight) Or alternativly you can afford better seats than me.
    • Toutouxc 2y ago
      The "just below average" caught my attention, and it looks like that that's probably not true about most countries in the world..? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_countr...
      • 4gotunameagain 2y ago
        Yeah but the person you are replying to is Swedish, according to a previous comment of his.
    • happymellon 2y ago
      I am of the same height as you, and I managed a Ryan Air flight to Madrid a couple of weeks ago with enough legspace that I was able to put my bag under seat in front and pull it out without having to shift around noticeably. On the other hand, I took an Iceland Express flight many years ago, and my knees were uncomfortably pressed against the seat in front. It does seem to be all over the place.
    • kaffekaka 2y ago
      Indeed. I am 190 cm and leg room is by far the biggest issue when flying.
  • bartread 2y ago
    Airport bullshit/overhead, and transit times, are why I massively prefer overland or over water transport for shorter journeys (up to say 1000 miles) even when it takes a few hours longer. I’d rather be happier, less stressed, and get there more slowly, than go through all the nonsense. I can always read, work, play a game, or just watch the world go by so the time isn’t wasted (unlike so much of the dead time in a noisy and crowded airport). It also has the increasingly important benefit of being more environmentally friendly.
    • kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Why can’t you read at the airport?
      • bartread 2y ago
        Depending on how the airport is arranged you can find yourself doing a lot of walking or standing around in not quite stationary queues. If you can manage to find somewhere to sit down where it isn't too noisy, it's fine, but often that's harder than you'd think, and you find your concentration is just continually broken by something or other that's going on or that you need to pay attention to. Budget airlines and priority boarding are a particular bugbear of mine here. Most people pay for priority boarding just for the extra bag it allows you to take into the cabin. You end up with two thirds of the flight made up of people who have priority boarding. That's great, but there's only so much space in the overhead lockers, so you have everyone queuing up way before boarding starts to avoid having their cabin back checked into the hold at the gate. The whole process is just... endlessly tedious and wearisome. I'd genuinely rather board a much slower form of transport, like a train, coach, or ferry (or even drive under some circumstances) than deal with being treated like cattle at an airport. The whole experience of airports, and getting to and from them, sucks.
      • ulkhf 2y ago
        In America, all the gates (I have been to) subject you to constant noise pollution in the form of announcements over the public address system.
  • pipes 2y ago
    Yep. It's the feeling of being in constant high alert the whole way through the airport. I regularly take a 40 min flight and it leaves me exhausted because of this. My theory anyway!
    • krisoft 2y ago
      > It's the feeling of being in constant high alert the whole way through the airport. This is something you can change though by changing your mindset and outlook. Airports are what they are, they are highly predictable and unlikely to change drastically. On the other hand you can recognise when you are begining to feel on alert, acknowledge it and let go of the feeling. Let it wash over you like a wave. You are presumably not a terrorist, nor a criminal. The worst thing which can happen is that there is some misunderstanding and you are delayed a bit. And even that is very unlikely. If you make peace with that maybe that will help with the feeling? Not saying that you can go full meditating zen monk with “this one little weird trick”, but if you can make the experience more pleasant for yourself by just a little bit maybe that is worth the try?
      • Loughla 2y ago
        Mindfulness and CBT sorts of things have always seemed like saying, "but have you tried just not having anxiety?" I don't get it. Address the feeling, let it wash over you. It won't wash over. It sticks and causes the chemicals in my body to fuck me up completely. I can already tell you that I'm anxious.
        • bmacho 2y ago
          > "but have you tried just not having anxiety?" Probably this is _the_ solution for many? GP seems to talk from experience with this, or similar situations. Probably it could work for you too, if you haven't tried it yet. (Also, if you haven't tried it enough times. One experiment/measurement is not enough.)
        • HelloMcFly 2y ago
          This feeling of letting it "wash over you" is a verbal construction that is very helpful and apt for some, but others may describe it's different. Some people may start to think of it as "experiencing these feelings with more remove" or something. It's something that takes practice often done with guidance from a therapist or psychologist. For many (this is not universally true), what is experienced as "anxiety" is like a preset program or routine that auto-executes across cognitive, behavioral, and emotional channels. CBT isn't a cure, but helps you interrupt the program during its cycle or before it starts by inserting new and different programs that don't auto-run without effort. As you sense your anxiety spiking ("awareness training" may be needed to get this early insight), you engage in behaviors or techniques to prevent the normal cycle of anxiety spiraling and calm the nervous system. It is effective, but it is not a magic trick and takes practice.
  • tetha 2y ago
    Hence why I like going by train tbh. A long-distance train (well, long-distance for German standards. Probably grocery-distances in terms of the US standards) reaches the main company office in 5 hours or so, while a flight (including all of the stuff around it) takes about 3 hours. Except with the train, I can just drop myself into the seat 10 minutes from home and go to sleep / work / do other things for those 5 hours without a care in the world.
    • ghaff 2y ago
      Well, then you're talking Boston to NYC or NYC to Washington DC in the US basically. In which case I agree train is better. But there aren't a lot of options to do that.
  • smoe 2y ago
    For me, the size of the seat area is probably the biggest nuisance on a long flight. I'm not super tall, but above average and depending on my body position, either my knees or shins are always lightly pressed against some hard plastic or metal from the seat in front of me. Not painful, just a constant discomfort, especially if the person in front moves a lot. The biggest quality-of-life improvement for flights, for me, was paying up each way for an emergency exit seat. A secondary benefit that I hadn’t initially considered but turned out to be huge is being able to get in and out of my seat at any time without making the entire row get up or having to get up for others.
• cjrp 2y ago
  I'm not sure turboprops would be efficient for a long-haul flight. They cruise at lower altitudes, which makes sense for short-haul (no point climbing to FL410 if you're going to immediately begin descent for arrival), but for a longer distance I think that would hurt efficiency.
• _qua 2y ago
  I think the common thread in airline pricing for the past decade has been that consumers want to pay the absolute least they can for every flight, disregarding almost everything else about the flight/plane.
  • account42 2y ago
    I don't think that's a fair assessment when pretty much all upgrades are overpriced for what you get over the base service. And the markup is even more obscene once you discount bundled upgrades that you don't need. There isn't really an option to e.g. pay 10% more for 10% more seat pitch - and really the price increase should be less than 1:1 that if you keep the baggage allowance and food / other services the same.
    • ghaff 2y ago
      There are things like Economy Plus on United. But, yes, in general Economy is priced for the bulk of people who want the absolute lowest fare--and once you have a class of seating that isn't the absolute lowest fare, there are a lot fewer constraints to how high it can be set.
  • kjkjadksj 2y ago
    If that was the case Delta wouldn’t have like 5 cabin classes.
  • Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    "What's the least it gonna cost me to maybe die, horribly?" Us nervous people fly, too.
• wkat4242 2y ago
  Why would turboprops make sense? Jets/turbofans are more efficient at high altitudes where there's less air friction as well. This is why turboprops are so common in ultra short haul where there's no point in climbing so high. They're more efficient at lower altitudes. And I don't really see the relation between engine type and cabin space
• throw0101d 2y ago
  > I've always wanted turboprop planes to become more common for long haul flights. The math doesn't seem to make sense for it: there's a maximum speed that can be hit with turboprop (x), and if you can only carry so much fuel (y) as part of your useful payload (to maximize carrying revenue-generating cargo), then you can only go a certain distance. That distance turns out to be <1500 nmi.
  • coredog64 2y ago
    The Breguet range equation is the first stop for roughly determining range. The three knobs are aerodynamic efficiency, structural efficiency, and fuel consumption. Broadly speaking, fuel consumption has an outsized influence on range as the other two terms are usually fixed at a maximum value by state of the art.
• pjc50 2y ago
  Turboprops are much noisier though. I don't think they're going to give you extra space either?
• WJW 2y ago
  How would a change in engine tech from jet to turboprop give more space to the passengers? Even if they are more efficient, that just means the airline can save on fuel but cram just as many paying passengers into the fuselage. I also don't think "Many people would gladly pay for..." has been proven in the marketplace. If anything, the success of Ryanair, Easyjet and co has resoundingly proven that people will gladly suffer less spacious seating if it means paying less.
  • saelthavron 2y ago
    > I also don't think "Many people would gladly pay for..." has been proven in the marketplace. If anything, the success of Ryanair, Easyjet and co has resoundingly proven that people will gladly suffer less spacious seating if it means paying less. Given the number of 7 hour flights I could find, I really don't think that proves anything except maybe people will pay more.
• numpad0 2y ago
  The seats are on rails. Spacing is factory adjustable. It's just that air fare paperclipping isn't as aggressive on regional flights.
• leecarraher 2y ago
  while the cabin may be able to be more spacious (like dirigibles and blimps) the flight my not be more comfortable because a turboprop's ceiling has you flying well within the troposphere where the majority of weather occurs. that may also put wear and tear on the airframe, incurring costs additional to the extended crew hours.