Emirates Says ‘Whole Load of Airlines’ Will Fail in Fuel Squeeze

[wick1ert]

Originally Posted by ALS

I remember flying from Pittsburgh to Orlando round trip in 1982 for $199 on Peoples Air.
Today it's $344 on Southwest. Normal cost before Peoples Air started service was closer to $400 round trip with the big name airlines.

If you throw that $199 round trip fare into an inflation calculator you would get $444 in 2010 dollars. So flying is still dirt cheap compared to driving by car.

If I drove that same route in a car that got 35 mpg at $3.75 a gallon with WV tolls I would be looking at 1986 miles come to $223 and 38 plus hours of driving. On the other hand you would only be looking at four and half hours of total flight time.

If you look at the cost of a round trip non stop Flight between Chicago and Paris, $1055.
A round trip flight from Chicago to Honolulu is only $1,310

I'm sorry but that is still dirt cheap cost wise when you realize the distances involved.

Your calculation is true provided it's just 1 person going. I've often debated this, but if you need a car when you get where you're going, that cost savings is gone. It then comes down to what you consider your time to be worth. Most of my longer trips, if not for vacation, involve other people. The cost savings then becomes significant enough to make driving make sense.

My typicaly determination is that if I can drive it within a day, then I'll drive it. The time spent for the trip sometimes is close to the same, and price is similar given I have the Prius. Once the trip goes past a day (8 hours, lets say), then you're into hotel room costs as well.

I will say that I'm glad I don't fly out of Chicago. PHL to HNL is under $1,000 here, and if you go EWR to HNL it's closer to $900. I'll drive up to 90 mins to save $100 in plane fare, assuming gas and tolls doesn't eat too much of that. However, I would still have to agree that flying is indeed cheap considering the convenience and cost on a 1 to 1 basis.

[civic94coupe206]

Originally Posted by ALS

I remember flying from Pittsburgh to Orlando round trip in 1982 for $199 on Peoples Air.
Today it's $344 on Southwest. Normal cost before Peoples Air started service was closer to $400 round trip with the big name airlines.

If you throw that $199 round trip fare into an inflation calculator you would get $444 in 2010 dollars. So flying is still dirt cheap compared to driving by car.

If I drove that same route in a car that got 35 mpg at $3.75 a gallon with WV tolls I would be looking at 1986 miles come to $223 and 38 plus hours of driving. On the other hand you would only be looking at four and half hours of total flight time.

If you look at the cost of a round trip non stop Flight between Chicago and Paris, $1055.
A round trip flight from Chicago to Honolulu is only $1,310

I'm sorry but that is still dirt cheap cost wise when you realize the distances involved.

true, but in that 35 mpg highway true mpg car, it can be a 4 cylinder accord or Camry (most of the time they get better than 35 all freeway). so if there is 4 or 5 people in the car (its not that bad in there, a accord is a full size car now) it comes out to 44 bucks per person. It just depends if all 5 people want to go through the hassle of sitting in the car for 38 hours, or go through security.


I think if a barrel of oil goes up, airlines can still survive to a point, i mean companies can still cut pilots pay, ground crew, flight attendant, and counter people's pay. Or, like most airline companies, they used kiosk machines where you type in your e ticket, and get a boarding pass, taking out the need to see a real person. when it comes to the bottom line, any company will cut costs before it goes bust, and the workers have no choice but to take it, leave it, or the company goes over and everyone looses their job.

[Chuck]

NOT good news for American Airlines.

[ALS]

The cost will go up and less people will fly. That means less planes in the air and less jet fuel being burned. People use to take trips using Greyhound buses and trains before air travel got cheap enough that almost anyone could afford a plane ticket across the country.

[WriConsult]

Well, no one with a brain is going to fill an airship with hydrogen EVER AGAIN, for the obvious reason. Helium scarcity is a serious problem, so we probably are left with hot air as the most viable option. Is it possible to make vacuum chambers that are strong enough to withstand the rigors of flight, but are still lighter than air? Probably not today, but maybe ultra-strong materials could make that possible eventually. I don't claim to be a dirigible expert, but they can be a lot more energy efficient than aerodynamic craft, and as the airlines start folding there will be incentive to further explore some more modern designs like rigid and semi-rigid. I don't deny that much more research is needed though.

Originally Posted by ALS

The cost will go up and less people will fly. That means less planes in the air and less jet fuel being burned. People use to take trips using Greyhound buses and trains before air travel got cheap enough that almost anyone could afford a plane ticket across the country.

I think you're right. We'll see Amtrak adding trains and restoring canceled routes like the Pioneer, and more bus service. For a lot of people a trip on "The Dog" is even more unpleasant than the indignities of flying, but what we'll see is a proliferation of NICER, more expensive bus services like those that crisscross Mexico.

For longer trips (coast-to-coast or overseas) that aren't feasible for most people to do by land, people will simply travel a lot less. My wife and I once flew from Portland to Paris for the weekend, simply because the tickets were cheap ($350). I doubt we'll do anything like that ever again.

[herm]

There is still another option.. slow down the airplanes.

They would have to be redesigned and you also have to account for the longer time that each plane would take to do a route plus increased labor costs vs fuel savings. I'm sure Boeing has done the calculations already.

[ALS]

They are already doing that now to save fuel. The problem is there is a point of negative returns when you drop the air speed too low. Don't quote me on this one but I think the cut off on savings is somewhere around ten percent below the manufactures recommended cruising speed. Once below that point, the aircraft actually burns more fuel than at cruising speed due to lift and drag variables.

[civic94coupe206]

this is really, really bad news for pilots or soon to be pilots with tons of school loans. I watched the news somewhere, that in the miami airport, people who worked at the gates used to make like 18 an hour, then they laid them off and hired people for min wage.


For myself, I would fly if I was by myself. If im with a group of 4-5, we would drive, only if its 12 hours or less. at the new city, We dont have to wait to rent/return a car, and on top of everything, we save money. 5 people at 200 a piece for the plane = 1000, on top of spending 4-5 days using the car at the other cities, it really comes out to 1300 total (after insruance), while we can just spend 200 on gas on the road trip back and forth and call it a day.

[herm]

Originally Posted by ALS

Don't quote me on this one but I think the cut off on savings is somewhere around ten percent below the manufactures recommended cruising speed.

Thats why jetliners would have to be redesigned, to take advantage of lower speeds. Current designs are optimized for a certain speed, load and altitude.

[EdwinTheMagnificent]

I'm wondering how the energy expended per person would compare , between the newest airliners and the most modern diesel bus. Not your typical thirty-year-old Greyhound , but one using the newest common-rail tech. My stepdaughter takes the bus when she comes to visit from Iowa. She could drive her car (2002 Escort) but the bus is cheaper.
It's obvious to me that that the air travel industry will shrink drastically in the next decade.