3 ms·

Air travel is a good counterexample here: technology made airlines far more productive, but much of the gain went into lower staffing, higher throughput, and co

by JacobiX 24d ago

Air travel is a good counterexample here: technology made airlines far more productive, but much of the gain went into lower staffing, higher throughput, and cost cutting not a better passenger experience

triceratops 24d ago
To be fair it is a better passenger experience at that price point.
- bitmasher9 24d ago
  I once saw a receipt for a cross-country train ride in the late 1950s and was shocked at the price. It was significantly slower and more expensive than a similar plane ticket today.
  - brailsafe 23d ago
    That tends to be true now as well for a variety of reasons. I'd be more interested in the cost then between both modes of travel.
    - SoftTalker 23d ago
      Yes, in the USA Amtrak tends to be quite a bit more expensive than the equivalent trip by air. And far slower. Maybe excluding some of the east coast commuter routes.
      - brailsafe 23d ago
        Very different experience though. Fast and deeply uncomfortable vs long and chill. I'd prefer the latter when feasible but it obviously isn't always.
dukeyukey 24d ago
Being able to fly at all is a much better passenger experience than not having that choice in the first place. And I'll bet that flying first class today is far better than 50 years ago.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 24d ago
  >And I'll bet that flying first class today is far better than 50 years ago. I wasn't flying first class 50 years ago, but everything I can see now leads me to believe that this isn't even slightly true. There might be a high def flatscreen in front of me in first class today, but I'm not getting more attention than someone would've gotten back then, I'm not in a less crowded airport while I'm boarding, and the security mess is more demeaning than ever. The only reason that people aren't rioting for all the changes is that no one even remembers how good it used to be.
  - triceratops 24d ago
    > no one even remembers how good it used to be. Because not that many people even used to fly. Because it cost a lot more.
  - professoretc 23d ago
    If you want to know what flying first-class 50 years ago was like (and you live in southern California, and you have money to burn) you can try the Panam Experience (https://panamexperience.com/ https://panamexperience.com/). It's a replica of a Panam 747, together with a "crew" in period-correct costumes, that tries to recreate the entire experience of flying in the 1950s. (Bearing in mind that the plane is a replica, located on a soundstage.)
    - SoftTalker 23d ago
      That sounds a bit weird, the 747 didn't enter commercial service until 1970. A 1950s flight experience would have been on something with piston engines and propellors, like a DC-6 or a Super Constellation. Noisy, turbulent, and not particularly safe by modern standards.
WalterBright 23d ago
If you were right, the airlines would be highly profitable. They aren't. Where the gains went are lower ticket prices.

by JacobiX 24d ago

triceratops 24d ago

To be fair it is a better passenger experience at that price point.

bitmasher9 24d ago
I once saw a receipt for a cross-country train ride in the late 1950s and was shocked at the price. It was significantly slower and more expensive than a similar plane ticket today.
- brailsafe 23d ago
  That tends to be true now as well for a variety of reasons. I'd be more interested in the cost then between both modes of travel.
  - SoftTalker 23d ago
    Yes, in the USA Amtrak tends to be quite a bit more expensive than the equivalent trip by air. And far slower. Maybe excluding some of the east coast commuter routes.
    - brailsafe 23d ago
      Very different experience though. Fast and deeply uncomfortable vs long and chill. I'd prefer the latter when feasible but it obviously isn't always.

dukeyukey 24d ago

Being able to fly at all is a much better passenger experience than not having that choice in the first place. And I'll bet that flying first class today is far better than 50 years ago.

NoMoreNicksLeft 24d ago
>And I'll bet that flying first class today is far better than 50 years ago. I wasn't flying first class 50 years ago, but everything I can see now leads me to believe that this isn't even slightly true. There might be a high def flatscreen in front of me in first class today, but I'm not getting more attention than someone would've gotten back then, I'm not in a less crowded airport while I'm boarding, and the security mess is more demeaning than ever. The only reason that people aren't rioting for all the changes is that no one even remembers how good it used to be.
- triceratops 24d ago
  > no one even remembers how good it used to be. Because not that many people even used to fly. Because it cost a lot more.
- professoretc 23d ago
  If you want to know what flying first-class 50 years ago was like (and you live in southern California, and you have money to burn) you can try the Panam Experience (https://panamexperience.com/ https://panamexperience.com/). It's a replica of a Panam 747, together with a "crew" in period-correct costumes, that tries to recreate the entire experience of flying in the 1950s. (Bearing in mind that the plane is a replica, located on a soundstage.)
  - SoftTalker 23d ago
    That sounds a bit weird, the 747 didn't enter commercial service until 1970. A 1950s flight experience would have been on something with piston engines and propellors, like a DC-6 or a Super Constellation. Noisy, turbulent, and not particularly safe by modern standards.

WalterBright 23d ago

If you were right, the airlines would be highly profitable. They aren't. Where the gains went are lower ticket prices.