4 ms·

Flying domestically is usually cheaper than driving once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two. Also, RealID isn't fully permeated yet - my state won't

by t-3 9mo ago

Flying domestically is usually cheaper than driving once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two. Also, RealID isn't fully permeated yet - my state won't fully phase out non-RealIDs until 2029.

kube-system 9mo ago
For a single person going between two major metro areas, for sure. But a lot of the working poor have families and travel to/from places that aren't major metro areas, and this can change the math really fast.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  And even if there is an airport, it costs a lot more to fly into a small captive airport. For instance my parents live in South GA where the local airport has three commercial flights a day all on Delta and all fly to and from ATL
  - kube-system 9mo ago
    Yeah, that's part of what I'm getting at. Smaller airports can be much more expensive and lack options for transportation to the final destination. For exurb or rural destinations a rental car may be required.
- jjk166 9mo ago
  No one is arguing the working poor exclusively fly, the point is there are plenty of people who do fly for whom the fee is significant.
  - kube-system 9mo ago
    I know. I was simply disputing the idea that ~600+ mile flights are cheaper than driving. They only are in very specific circumstances.
    - jjk166 9mo ago
      I would not describe travelling alone as "very specific circumstances." It is extremely common. 70% of all car trips are solo, and the average number of occupants for all car trips is 1.5. That you can get more bang for your buck driving if you have enough passengers and luggage doesn't change the fact plenty of people don't.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - kube-system 9mo ago
        You are entirely right, because 98%+ trips in a car are commutes or errands that average 6 miles in distance. But, that is not the topic of conversation above -- we were talking about trips 600+ miles in distance. These are almost exclusively not commutes. Averages don't necessarily describe your whole data set. Just like how the average person has around 1 testicle, this data is also multimodal :) ... People commute alone, but they go on vacation with friends/family.
        jjk166 9mo ago
        > You are entirely right, because 98%+ trips in a car are commutes or errands that average 6 miles in distance. My figure was based on miles travelled, not trips. Further, your assumption that local travel would severely skew the data seems at best unsupported. Think about all those trips taking the kids to school/soccer practice/etc. Having a lot of people in the car is going to radically skew the average number of occupants up. > Just like how the average person has around 1 testicle, this data is also multimodal Then why are you essentially arguing that people with two testicles are a niche case? The overwhelming majority of car trips that happen are going to be car trips that make sense to be car trips. That's not evidence of driving's economic sensibility, it is selection bias. The question is of all trips where a person needs to go a certain distance, how often is flying the cheaper option, and for long trips it is a lot.
        kube-system 9mo ago
rngfnby 9mo ago
"once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two." This is like the folks who say flying is more carbon friendly than driving. It's wrong, you're comparing a vehicle running cost with one passenger vs a full vehicle normalized by its capacity. No one flies 30 mi commutes. Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.
- MattGaiser 9mo ago
  > Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone. Is there a study on this? As I would have thought the opposite and would bet that the number driving alone is increasing as more people live alone.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    Its intuitive, costs don’t scale to travel per family member when you drive from A to B like it does when you fly.
    - MattGaiser 9mo ago
      That does not mean that they have someone to travel with though. It would make sense that more trips in groups are by road. But is that much group travel happening in the first place?
- jjk166 9mo ago
  > Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone. Because if you are going 600+ mi alone with minimal luggage you fly, because it's cheaper.
  - rngfnby 9mo ago
    The point is that it's nonsensical to say flying is cheaper than driving. Its oranges vs apple. Apples and oranges are fruit, flying and driving are transportation. But they're totally different. 1. You're normalizing one cost by the occupancy but assuming the other is single occupancy. 2. The assumption that folks are alone in a car is only true only for short trips, trips that are unpractical and expensive by plane. Folks don't fly 600+ mi because it's cheaper (the fuel isn't cheaper until about 1600 mi), but because it's faster.

by t-3 9mo ago

kube-system 9mo ago

For a single person going between two major metro areas, for sure. But a lot of the working poor have families and travel to/from places that aren't major metro areas, and this can change the math really fast.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
And even if there is an airport, it costs a lot more to fly into a small captive airport. For instance my parents live in South GA where the local airport has three commercial flights a day all on Delta and all fly to and from ATL
- kube-system 9mo ago
  Yeah, that's part of what I'm getting at. Smaller airports can be much more expensive and lack options for transportation to the final destination. For exurb or rural destinations a rental car may be required.
jjk166 9mo ago
No one is arguing the working poor exclusively fly, the point is there are plenty of people who do fly for whom the fee is significant.
- kube-system 9mo ago
  I know. I was simply disputing the idea that ~600+ mile flights are cheaper than driving. They only are in very specific circumstances.
  - jjk166 9mo ago
    I would not describe travelling alone as "very specific circumstances." It is extremely common. 70% of all car trips are solo, and the average number of occupants for all car trips is 1.5. That you can get more bang for your buck driving if you have enough passengers and luggage doesn't change the fact plenty of people don't.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 9mo ago
      You are entirely right, because 98%+ trips in a car are commutes or errands that average 6 miles in distance. But, that is not the topic of conversation above -- we were talking about trips 600+ miles in distance. These are almost exclusively not commutes. Averages don't necessarily describe your whole data set. Just like how the average person has around 1 testicle, this data is also multimodal :) ... People commute alone, but they go on vacation with friends/family.
      - jjk166 9mo ago
        > You are entirely right, because 98%+ trips in a car are commutes or errands that average 6 miles in distance. My figure was based on miles travelled, not trips. Further, your assumption that local travel would severely skew the data seems at best unsupported. Think about all those trips taking the kids to school/soccer practice/etc. Having a lot of people in the car is going to radically skew the average number of occupants up. > Just like how the average person has around 1 testicle, this data is also multimodal Then why are you essentially arguing that people with two testicles are a niche case? The overwhelming majority of car trips that happen are going to be car trips that make sense to be car trips. That's not evidence of driving's economic sensibility, it is selection bias. The question is of all trips where a person needs to go a certain distance, how often is flying the cheaper option, and for long trips it is a lot.
        kube-system 9mo ago

rngfnby 9mo ago

"once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two." This is like the folks who say flying is more carbon friendly than driving. It's wrong, you're comparing a vehicle running cost with one passenger vs a full vehicle normalized by its capacity. No one flies 30 mi commutes. Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.

MattGaiser 9mo ago
> Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone. Is there a study on this? As I would have thought the opposite and would bet that the number driving alone is increasing as more people live alone.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  Its intuitive, costs don’t scale to travel per family member when you drive from A to B like it does when you fly.
  - MattGaiser 9mo ago
    That does not mean that they have someone to travel with though. It would make sense that more trips in groups are by road. But is that much group travel happening in the first place?
jjk166 9mo ago
> Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone. Because if you are going 600+ mi alone with minimal luggage you fly, because it's cheaper.
- rngfnby 9mo ago
  The point is that it's nonsensical to say flying is cheaper than driving. Its oranges vs apple. Apples and oranges are fruit, flying and driving are transportation. But they're totally different. 1. You're normalizing one cost by the occupancy but assuming the other is single occupancy. 2. The assumption that folks are alone in a car is only true only for short trips, trips that are unpractical and expensive by plane. Folks don't fly 600+ mi because it's cheaper (the fuel isn't cheaper until about 1600 mi), but because it's faster.