3 ms·

I think the context that's missing from this discussion is just how long the 747 was in service. When it was new, pilots didn't directly control the engines -

by SR2Z 4mo ago

I think the context that's missing from this discussion is just how long the 747 was in service. When it was new, pilots didn't directly control the engines - a flight engineer did. There were no moving maps and navigation was done with radio beacons and pilotage (of course, this required lots of fiddling with knobs and a notepad). There were no flight envelope protections, and we knew next to nothing about the dangers of rocketing across the ocean at Mach 0.9. The first encounter between a jetliner and volcanic ash was a 747; despite all four engines flaming out and the whole plane being wreathed in St. Elmo's fire, the pilots were able to safely restart all of them and nobody got hurt. People who love this jet love it because they see the problems it solved and how it kept on rising to the occasion as the world changed around it. I'm not going to pay 2x ticket prices to keep it alive either, but it is terribly romantic. If human beings are allowed to fall in love with machines this one is as good as any.

sandworm101 4mo ago
And the context of the different regulatory environment. Those fancy cabins in the 60s/70s were because prices/routes were controlled by government. Unable to compete on price, airlines competed on luxury. Which, at the time, largely boiled down to who which had the shortest miniskirts in the TV ads. Today's flying cattlecar hell is the result of the opposite, a dramatic market-driven race to the bottom of quality... followed by a price bounce to see how much money they can pull out of use before we give up and drive. The day we have self-driving cars good enough that we can sleep, domestic air travel is dead. Ill take 10 hours curlled up in the back seat of my car rather than the 10+ hours it takes getting to/from airports for a domestic flight.
- shipman05 4mo ago
  Or we could just build trains (in the US, other wealthy places seem to already get this)
  - Forgeties79 4mo ago
    Seriously it is embarrassing how under developed trains are in the US. Yes there are some routes that don’t make sense but there are tons that do. It makes no sense. We’ve simply resigned to this general feeling of “well everything is probably too far apart and even if they aren’t it’s just not going to happen.”
    - bobthepanda 4mo ago
      there is a large, well connected domestic auto industry that wants Americans to keep driving bigger and more gas guzzling cars because that's the only thing they know how to sell to Americans these days. Though this is not really limited to the legacy automakers; the Hyperloop was a media stunt to try and divert investment away from transit, and in some places, it actually worked.
    - SR2Z 4mo ago
      Sure, but when the 747 was new and gas was a few cents a gallon? An airplane is a very efficient way to move people. There is no ground friction, the route is pretty direct, and once the airplane is loaded 100 passenger-miles a gallon is not unreasonable. Even today the EU has to ban short-haul flights along rail corridors because jets are still competitive. I say this as someone who likes trains and chooses them whenever possible.
      - lukan 4mo ago
        "because jets are still competitive" Yes, because airports and everything around is heavily subsidized and there is no tax on jet fuel. "There is no ground friction" And that argument is not so strong considering that air friction grows quadratic with speed. And considering side effects like climate change - contrails combined with lots of other chemicals in the jet fuel are really not helping, their effect is worse than just the CO2 released which is also already huge. So high speed trains are superior in almost every way - once a rail network is build. That is the advantage of planes - they just require start and landing strip.
        Forgeties79 4mo ago
- dolphenstein 4mo ago
  I bet if you pay the equivalent 60s/70s dollars to fly today you'll get much better service than back then! Modern first class cabins are a class above what was available back then.

by SR2Z 4mo ago

sandworm101 4mo ago

And the context of the different regulatory environment. Those fancy cabins in the 60s/70s were because prices/routes were controlled by government. Unable to compete on price, airlines competed on luxury. Which, at the time, largely boiled down to who which had the shortest miniskirts in the TV ads. Today's flying cattlecar hell is the result of the opposite, a dramatic market-driven race to the bottom of quality... followed by a price bounce to see how much money they can pull out of use before we give up and drive. The day we have self-driving cars good enough that we can sleep, domestic air travel is dead. Ill take 10 hours curlled up in the back seat of my car rather than the 10+ hours it takes getting to/from airports for a domestic flight.

shipman05 4mo ago
Or we could just build trains (in the US, other wealthy places seem to already get this)
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  Seriously it is embarrassing how under developed trains are in the US. Yes there are some routes that don’t make sense but there are tons that do. It makes no sense. We’ve simply resigned to this general feeling of “well everything is probably too far apart and even if they aren’t it’s just not going to happen.”
  - bobthepanda 4mo ago
    there is a large, well connected domestic auto industry that wants Americans to keep driving bigger and more gas guzzling cars because that's the only thing they know how to sell to Americans these days. Though this is not really limited to the legacy automakers; the Hyperloop was a media stunt to try and divert investment away from transit, and in some places, it actually worked.
  - SR2Z 4mo ago
    Sure, but when the 747 was new and gas was a few cents a gallon? An airplane is a very efficient way to move people. There is no ground friction, the route is pretty direct, and once the airplane is loaded 100 passenger-miles a gallon is not unreasonable. Even today the EU has to ban short-haul flights along rail corridors because jets are still competitive. I say this as someone who likes trains and chooses them whenever possible.
    - lukan 4mo ago
      "because jets are still competitive" Yes, because airports and everything around is heavily subsidized and there is no tax on jet fuel. "There is no ground friction" And that argument is not so strong considering that air friction grows quadratic with speed. And considering side effects like climate change - contrails combined with lots of other chemicals in the jet fuel are really not helping, their effect is worse than just the CO2 released which is also already huge. So high speed trains are superior in almost every way - once a rail network is build. That is the advantage of planes - they just require start and landing strip.
      - Forgeties79 4mo ago
dolphenstein 4mo ago
I bet if you pay the equivalent 60s/70s dollars to fly today you'll get much better service than back then! Modern first class cabins are a class above what was available back then.