How exactly is this a bad thing? When I buy a plane ticket I only buy it for the privilege of being flown from one area of the country to the other, I don't care about anything else and I don't want to pay for anything more.
I don't think it's a bad thing. But the experience of flying has now became more than awful. Between the 2 hours TSA lines that make people miss their flights, the "you have to walk bare foot to pass the security" while we shout at you, the lack of space when you're sitting at your seat, ...
I don't remember it really being any better in the 90's. The only difference was you walked through a metal detector instead of a millimeter wave machine.
And you could bring a drink and keep your shoes on and nobody was swabbing and bomb testing your toothpaste. The cumulative effect made the lines move about four times faster.
Edit: I think there's also a lot of inefficiency. So often I see a huge line, half the equipment sitting idle, and half the TSA agents standing around talking to each other. I don't remember that sort of thing in the before times. Maybe because the security people were employed by private companies motivated to get their money's worth.
Is it that bad over there now? I have never flown domesic in the us, i mean i had heard it was bad, but i had assumed tey were just the worst of the worst horror stories.
I just took a flight DCA - ORD the other day. Stood in line maybe 5-6 minutes. I regularly get sub-10 minute trips through security at BWI.
I think people confuse airport congestion with security holdups. Carry-on x-rays have been mandated for a very long time (long before 9/11). And people always had to walk one-at-a-time through the metal detectors. What's happened over the last 25 years or so is a massive increase in air travel in the U.S., without a corresponding increase in airport capacity.
I went to ORD 7 times this last year, plus went there to pick up people 6 other times. I think maybe once I didn't have to wait for more than 30min. Also waited 3 hours for someone to cross the border last time I was there (obviously non-american, after she had spent 13 hours in a plane). This is just backwards.
> Carry-on x-rays have been mandated for a very long time
You didn't have to wait so much. You didn't have to go barefoot. You didn't have to go through the "get naked" machine.
I flew domestically in Japan, Sapporo - Tokyo. It was pretty bad, I almost missed the plane standing in the super-long line to registration. To be fair, I think it's considered to be one of the most congested domestic routes in the world. But especially in Japan I'd take train over plane any time.
Yeah I fly quite often, I hate it. I guess it also depends where you are flying? I've flied in Asia and Europe without a problem this past year, but as soon as you're in the US you get TSA.
I think it depends on the length of the flight. I'm happy to go with Ryanair in Europe (not sure you can go with a worse airline), because it's max 2-3h. But there's no way I'd do that for a longer flight for a number of reasons.
For a 23h trip, I'll definitely get the better option I can reasonably afford.
> When I buy a plane ticket I only buy it for the privilege of being flown from one area of the country to the other
Sure you want to pay for a confortable flight that will not make you feel totally exhausted or in bad shape once you land. Would you travel from US to UK while standing up because it would be 50% cheaper? with no toilets ? and a 100% fee for luggage ? because after all, you "only buy it for the privilege of being flown from one area of the country to the other".
I remember a time when consumers believed their interest was the best possible value for their money. Now we have a generation who justifies the worse business practices "because corporations must maximise profit for their shareholders" ? How is it in the interest of the consumer ?
The bottom being an exceptionally safe and rapid form of transportation. As someone who is willing to endure mild discomfort in return for $20-$100, I welcome this new option.
What sucks about this is that many corporate travel policies require you to take the lowest available fare for a trip. So now that's going to often be an even more horrible cattle-car steerage nightmare than it is today. I'm not overly tall and not seriously claustrophobic but I already view airline travel outside "first class" with dread -- these new sub-economy fares are going to be torture.
I don't know what field you work in, but give that this is HN I assume you're a developer, if so you'll probably not see a better job market, don't put up with shit.
It's not pretty simple if travel is an insignificant part of your job that you only undertake once every year or few years. (You shouldn't casually suggest that someone quit their job over something that might be and probably is trivial just because they don't like it. It's disingenuous. Note, I didn't downvote you, though I thought about it.)
But there are better solutions than that, anyway. Corporate travel policies might only reimburse the cheapest fair, but you can often book a better fair and reimburse the cheapest rate while paying the discrepancy yourself if you wish (which is how you might fly first class).
> It's not pretty simple if travel is an insignificant part of your job that you only undertake once every year or few years.
If you're concerned over uncomfortable travel 'once every year or few years' then you have better things to be worried about. I can't imagine a better example of a 'first world problem'.
I don't know about it being a better market. There's jobs (and that's actually been pretty consistent), but the pay, at least in my area, is just not there and hasn't been for the past 7 years (very slight uptick in the past 18 months, but nothing major yet). Sticking with the old corporate job is still the best bet around here.
Sadly the job market is heavily centralized, from my recent experience. I can get offers in SF, Seattle, or NY, but I'm personally attached to the Mid-Atlantic for personal reasons, and it's been months of hell.
Now I don't discuss previous salaries, as I'm sure that has torpedoed several offers. That just leads down a road that is an inverse of the Impostor Syndrome, where they think you're overqualified for the position, and you can tell from the responses and further question. I am seriously wondering about the culture of the game, that it can be so seriously lacking of it's shining feature: distributed collaborative work.
Are you me? I'm in the exact same boat. It's not even just SF or NY - companies in Reston, VA or Tyson's Corner won't even consider even a partially remote schedule.
I've gone so far as to offer to commute from central MD to northern VA a couple times a week - no dice. Gotta be onsite every day in their open-office floor plan where 90% of the workday is spent with noise-canceling headphones on and almost all communication is through Slack.
It's maddening how the pendulum keeps swinging away from remote work in this area.
Not you, as I'm in South Eastern WV, but have applied to a few companies in Blacksburg, VA(1hr) and Charlotte, NC(4.5hr). I don't even mind showing up every day, to any in Blacksburg, or relocating to a midpoint near Winston-Salem, where I can still make it back in 2-3 hours if I need to.
I've literally dropped a quarter of my previous salary during negotiations, well aware of CoL differences, and had them come back at one-third to one-half as what they were thinking. But it's definitely hard to find any places that would offer remote, or even telecommutd options at a reaonable salary.
> > I already view airline travel outside "first class" with dread
> You poor thing!
I seriously agree with him though. I never book first class, was upgraded once for free, but man I wish I could be business/first class all the time. They just shove us elbow to elbow and you can't even lie down. For 13+ hours flights it's a nightmare. Back problems for weeks after.
Asides from safety, wouldn't standing be actually more comfortable?
Sleeping pods make much more sense - you are safe in case of sudden breaking and somewhat comfortable. The fairest way would be introducing progressive seat sizes and charge accordingly. Small people pay less for seats that are actually more comfortable (more fitting their height) and tall people have option not injuring themselves without paying 3x more.
For flights of up to a few hours I'd pay more to be able to spend the entire flight standing without getting shooed into a seat. Wouldn't work too well for anything crossing an ocean, though.
Cheap airlines (and maybe cheap seats?) actually have an unintended side effect for me. Recently I flew from Singapore to Hong Kong. The first 4 options in price according to Google flights were $69, $105, $540, ~$1500. I found that spread kind of shocking. The 2 bottom prices were for budget airlines (Tiger and Jetstar) both rated at 1 of 5 and 1.5 of 5 respectively. The $548 option was Singapore Air, consistently rated very good.
$548 is 7x $69!! That's a HUGE difference.
Anyway, I ended up taking Singapore Air because it flew at a time that fit my schedule. On the flight I had an issue with the entertainment system. It was resolved but had it not been resolved I'd have been extremely angry because I knew I'd paid some portion of $469 for entertainment.
I don't know how and if that will ever play out or if there will be any real repercussions but just knowing I paid 7x more means I expect extreme perfection, something I would not have expected if the price difference was only ~5% or something.
For Singapore Airline vs the budget airlines in the region, there is a key difference that makes it worth paying for business travel — more predictable arrival time.
> Travellers have signalled that they are willing to suffer all sorts of discomforts and inconveniences for the sake of a lower fare. America’s big airlines are simply giving them what they wished for.
I feel the same way about people who complain about crappy airlines as I do about people who complain about crappy video games. If you don't want to be treated like cattle don't buy the cheapest ticket you can find on Hotwire (and stop buying from EA). It's not like there aren't dozens of other options to choose from.
If I'm not getting paid enough, or I want to change my work hours to account for new circumstances, or I don't want to be forced into a sub-economy cattle class flight, I'll just talk to my manager about it.
If they don't agree and the issue is big enough for me, I'll find a new job.
(a) being crammed in a space uncomfortable for anybody over 5'2" or 120 lbs between two chatty salesmen mutually disapproving those who think the world is ca. 600,000 times older than they think it is, or
(b) being shot with a tranquilizer dart and shipped in a dog crate.
I mean, I'd seriously consider (b) before sighing and going for (a) + alcohol.
I think what he is saying is... a lot of companies let you pay for the ticket yourself and expense (ask for reimbursement) the cost of the ticket. Most companies will pay the price of the cheapest ticket but won't care if you pay more than that. They just limit how much they pay you back.
So if the cheapest ticket is X dollars and the ticket you buy is Y. The employer will reimburse you for X and you pay the Y-X yourself.
Nothing illegal about that, it's the same as if a company says they will reimburse you for half your gym membership. You pay half the company pays half.
companies get tax deductions for those expenses which means they need to submit receipts.
They can't expense a random "market price" but an actual ticket, if you then upgrade it it's fine, if you just say airline a had it for 200 and airline b had it for 300 and you can't expense the cheaper one.
I know this thread is dead, but just for reference in case you or someone else in the future are curious... Sure they can! No auditor is going to look at this situation and say, "Wait a minute, you took a deduction lower than you could have? That's a penalty" so it's generally not a problem. If you do the opposite (book a cheaper flight and then expense a more expensive one), that's definitely a big problem and also probably illegal.
However, if your company has strict policies about receipts and expense amounts you can always do the slightly shady "book two, cancel one" move - book one seat at the cheapest rate and another that's actually comfortable, print the receipt for the cheaper one, then cancel it within 24 hours to get a refund. I don't recommend this of course, but it is a way to get around excessive red tape.
I was going to say something similar but I gave up. Just adding, anecdotally, I've never met a company that won't let you expense less than the receipt amount so haven't needed to do the refund thing. But I'm sure they exist.
Totally agree. What really gets me is when people complain about the limited space in economy, then say more spacious "economy plus" options cost too much. Vote with your wallet, people.
Or better, as a consumer get more value for your money by pressuring companies to stop shitty business practices through activism. And how can you "vote with your wallet" in an industry that is de facto an oligopoly ? it's no free market.
For those interested in the future of American air travel ...
Regional airlines, which carry half of pax, have been "last class" for decades, but they're about to disappear.
The new pilot training rules requiring 1500 hours of experience have destroyed their ability to operate. The first to declare bankruptcy is Republic, but the rest will soon join it.
The majors have used the regionals for union-busting purposes, but those days are over.
No, regionals are not disappearing. There are still tons of kids in the pipeline who will do anything to fly jets. Several regionals are owned by majors anyway.
This is great! This will open airline travel to a segment of the population that has historically not had access. This is the story of airline travel. It has taken decades, but what was only available to the richest of the rich is now available to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups of society.
I've always wondered why the main 'innovation' in the airline industry (when it comes to lowering fares) is to treat customers more and more like herd animals. There has to be better ways to make flying affordable while maintaining both safety and comfort.
Last time I flew the reclining feature in person's seat in front of me was broken and it was 5 - 7 inches in front of my face for the duration of the flight. I couldn't even read my book. I got a free soda for my trouble.
In my view flying has become something exclusively for the wealthy who can afford the half-way decent seats made for real humans who have dignity.
For me, flying is now only something I do where the importance of my presence supersedes the cost of a decent seat. Otherwise, a video call will do.
And if companies only offered what the market asked for there would never have been personal computers or smartphones. It takes someone who has vision for what could be to change the world through innovation. Not a bunch of marketing monkeys surveying customers to death.
How else would you propose to cut costs? Maintenance, crew, and fuel are already near the technological limits. Profits are basically zero. The only remaining ways to cut prices are to cram more people into the same space, or make people pay for extra services. And the customers demand lower prices no matter what. They crave it. The airlines are just giving people what they want.
It's a combinations of physics and resource economics. There is a theoretical maximum efficiency in any Brayton cycle, which is in practice limited by the maximum temperature at the turbine blades, which is itself limited by metallurgy. Improvements on that front come very slowly--fuel efficiency has only about doubled since 1960, has improved very slowly since 1990. Except for the recent cratering of fuel prices, these improvements in fuel efficiency have been more than eaten up by rising fuel costs.
But, hey that's pretty much the entire world outside of computing. Did you know that a modern coal plant is only about twice as efficient as one from a century ago? Same thing will happen in computing too, soon enough: http://imgur.com/NFysh.
I don't like those charts because they focus on consumer CPUs and neglect the GPU. The GPU is what all the extra die space is going to these days on consumer CPUs. On the server you're seeing 18 core CPUs announced last year [1], so we are indeed seeing multicore scaling in both the consumer and server markets. It's just that, for consumer CPUs, the new cores are GPU cores instead of CPU cores.
When people say stuff like this I have to wonder if they have any idea how most of the world lives. Have you seen trains in India or busses in Latin America? The worst seat on the worst airline in the world is better that sitting on an un-air conditioned chicken bus in Nicaragua for 7 hours during a farmer protest, let me tell you. And I wouldn't say that anyone on that bus lacked dignity.
Wow, you have a twisted view of the world. I never said people who fly coach or who are crammed into a bus or train in the developing world lack dignity. I am saying the people who run the transportation companies don't treat their customers with dignity. Big difference.
Besides that there is nothing wrong with aspiring for better travel. Why accept that we have to be crammed onto airplanes, busses, and trains. We should be looking for ways to improve quality of life for everyone.
If you look at the history of air travel [1] it's clear that airplanes are the new busses.
Air-travel was essentially once reserved for the wealthy, and mostly white travelers but as more people moved up into the middle class there was increased demand for air-travel which drove competition to accommodate them. When southwest was born it completely changed the game and the race to the bottom started.
On one hand this has been great, as it has enabled everyone in the US to be able to fly and increased safety significantly. On the other hand, the "elegance" of air travel, which I think most people still desire, is basically gone in the US.
Asian carriers such as Emirates, Singapore etc... all maintain the elegant aspect, but at significantly higher costs because they are servicing the higher end still. You'll notice that they have no US domestic equivalent.
Expect that eventually there will be no pretense of elegance and it will look exactly like ground transportation.
Interestingly enough, Amtrak has taken advantage of this and on the east coast at least is largely considered a better experience between the DC <> Boston corridor.
People used to take other means of transportation more often for long trips, which was a lot less safe. Cheaper plane tickets means fewer people dying on the roads.
Bottom line: As flying increased in frequency, injuries went up linearly and people freaked out. The demands for better design, efficiency and well, safety, drove the industry to adopt standards very quickly which led to better records. There are some graphs out there that show it well [1].
I expected worse, to be honest. It sounds like the worst thing about it is not being able to choose a seat- but otherwise the same basic in-flight experience as "regular" economy.
What really gets me are the people who complain about being able to fly across an entire continent within five hours in near perfect safety for a few hundred dollars.
I remember being trapped next to a loud woman on one flight where she proceeded to complain about every minor insult (slow drink service, so so food, etc). When we got to the Sierra Nevada, I pointed out the Donner Pass to her, and suggested she look it up. "It'll give you some perspective on your trip".
108 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadEdit: I think there's also a lot of inefficiency. So often I see a huge line, half the equipment sitting idle, and half the TSA agents standing around talking to each other. I don't remember that sort of thing in the before times. Maybe because the security people were employed by private companies motivated to get their money's worth.
There is also no guarantee that the precheck line will be open at the airport for the time you visit.
I think people confuse airport congestion with security holdups. Carry-on x-rays have been mandated for a very long time (long before 9/11). And people always had to walk one-at-a-time through the metal detectors. What's happened over the last 25 years or so is a massive increase in air travel in the U.S., without a corresponding increase in airport capacity.
> Carry-on x-rays have been mandated for a very long time
You didn't have to wait so much. You didn't have to go barefoot. You didn't have to go through the "get naked" machine.
For a 23h trip, I'll definitely get the better option I can reasonably afford.
Sure you want to pay for a confortable flight that will not make you feel totally exhausted or in bad shape once you land. Would you travel from US to UK while standing up because it would be 50% cheaper? with no toilets ? and a 100% fee for luggage ? because after all, you "only buy it for the privilege of being flown from one area of the country to the other".
I remember a time when consumers believed their interest was the best possible value for their money. Now we have a generation who justifies the worse business practices "because corporations must maximise profit for their shareholders" ? How is it in the interest of the consumer ?
I don't know what field you work in, but give that this is HN I assume you're a developer, if so you'll probably not see a better job market, don't put up with shit.
But there are better solutions than that, anyway. Corporate travel policies might only reimburse the cheapest fair, but you can often book a better fair and reimburse the cheapest rate while paying the discrepancy yourself if you wish (which is how you might fly first class).
If you're concerned over uncomfortable travel 'once every year or few years' then you have better things to be worried about. I can't imagine a better example of a 'first world problem'.
Almost all of my travel in grad school was funded through taxpayer money. You ever fly to Okinawa in economy? It's not fun.
Now I don't discuss previous salaries, as I'm sure that has torpedoed several offers. That just leads down a road that is an inverse of the Impostor Syndrome, where they think you're overqualified for the position, and you can tell from the responses and further question. I am seriously wondering about the culture of the game, that it can be so seriously lacking of it's shining feature: distributed collaborative work.
I've gone so far as to offer to commute from central MD to northern VA a couple times a week - no dice. Gotta be onsite every day in their open-office floor plan where 90% of the workday is spent with noise-canceling headphones on and almost all communication is through Slack.
It's maddening how the pendulum keeps swinging away from remote work in this area.
I've literally dropped a quarter of my previous salary during negotiations, well aware of CoL differences, and had them come back at one-third to one-half as what they were thinking. But it's definitely hard to find any places that would offer remote, or even telecommutd options at a reaonable salary.
You poor thing!
At any rate, many corporate travel policies also allow business class on flights over N hours.
> You poor thing!
I seriously agree with him though. I never book first class, was upgraded once for free, but man I wish I could be business/first class all the time. They just shove us elbow to elbow and you can't even lie down. For 13+ hours flights it's a nightmare. Back problems for weeks after.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/New-call-for-standing...
I am definitely willing to experience more discomfort in exchange for a lower fare, and from other comments, so are many others here.
Sleeping pods make much more sense - you are safe in case of sudden breaking and somewhat comfortable. The fairest way would be introducing progressive seat sizes and charge accordingly. Small people pay less for seats that are actually more comfortable (more fitting their height) and tall people have option not injuring themselves without paying 3x more.
$548 is 7x $69!! That's a HUGE difference.
Anyway, I ended up taking Singapore Air because it flew at a time that fit my schedule. On the flight I had an issue with the entertainment system. It was resolved but had it not been resolved I'd have been extremely angry because I knew I'd paid some portion of $469 for entertainment.
I don't know how and if that will ever play out or if there will be any real repercussions but just knowing I paid 7x more means I expect extreme perfection, something I would not have expected if the price difference was only ~5% or something.
I feel the same way about people who complain about crappy airlines as I do about people who complain about crappy video games. If you don't want to be treated like cattle don't buy the cheapest ticket you can find on Hotwire (and stop buying from EA). It's not like there aren't dozens of other options to choose from.
If they don't agree and the issue is big enough for me, I'll find a new job.
(a) being crammed in a space uncomfortable for anybody over 5'2" or 120 lbs between two chatty salesmen mutually disapproving those who think the world is ca. 600,000 times older than they think it is, or
(b) being shot with a tranquilizer dart and shipped in a dog crate.
I mean, I'd seriously consider (b) before sighing and going for (a) + alcohol.
So if the cheapest ticket is X dollars and the ticket you buy is Y. The employer will reimburse you for X and you pay the Y-X yourself.
Nothing illegal about that, it's the same as if a company says they will reimburse you for half your gym membership. You pay half the company pays half.
They can't expense a random "market price" but an actual ticket, if you then upgrade it it's fine, if you just say airline a had it for 200 and airline b had it for 300 and you can't expense the cheaper one.
However, if your company has strict policies about receipts and expense amounts you can always do the slightly shady "book two, cancel one" move - book one seat at the cheapest rate and another that's actually comfortable, print the receipt for the cheaper one, then cancel it within 24 hours to get a refund. I don't recommend this of course, but it is a way to get around excessive red tape.
Regional airlines, which carry half of pax, have been "last class" for decades, but they're about to disappear.
The new pilot training rules requiring 1500 hours of experience have destroyed their ability to operate. The first to declare bankruptcy is Republic, but the rest will soon join it.
The majors have used the regionals for union-busting purposes, but those days are over.
Last time I flew the reclining feature in person's seat in front of me was broken and it was 5 - 7 inches in front of my face for the duration of the flight. I couldn't even read my book. I got a free soda for my trouble.
In my view flying has become something exclusively for the wealthy who can afford the half-way decent seats made for real humans who have dignity.
For me, flying is now only something I do where the importance of my presence supersedes the cost of a decent seat. Otherwise, a video call will do.
Everyone bitches. No one pays more for more service.
But, hey that's pretty much the entire world outside of computing. Did you know that a modern coal plant is only about twice as efficient as one from a century ago? Same thing will happen in computing too, soon enough: http://imgur.com/NFysh.
[1]: http://ark.intel.com/products/81061/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-...
Besides that there is nothing wrong with aspiring for better travel. Why accept that we have to be crammed onto airplanes, busses, and trains. We should be looking for ways to improve quality of life for everyone.
Air-travel was essentially once reserved for the wealthy, and mostly white travelers but as more people moved up into the middle class there was increased demand for air-travel which drove competition to accommodate them. When southwest was born it completely changed the game and the race to the bottom started.
On one hand this has been great, as it has enabled everyone in the US to be able to fly and increased safety significantly. On the other hand, the "elegance" of air travel, which I think most people still desire, is basically gone in the US.
Asian carriers such as Emirates, Singapore etc... all maintain the elegant aspect, but at significantly higher costs because they are servicing the higher end still. You'll notice that they have no US domestic equivalent.
Expect that eventually there will be no pretense of elegance and it will look exactly like ground transportation.
Interestingly enough, Amtrak has taken advantage of this and on the east coast at least is largely considered a better experience between the DC <> Boston corridor.
[1] http://www.fastcodesign.com/3022215/terminal-velocity/what-i...
Bottom line: As flying increased in frequency, injuries went up linearly and people freaked out. The demands for better design, efficiency and well, safety, drove the industry to adopt standards very quickly which led to better records. There are some graphs out there that show it well [1].
[1]http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
I remember being trapped next to a loud woman on one flight where she proceeded to complain about every minor insult (slow drink service, so so food, etc). When we got to the Sierra Nevada, I pointed out the Donner Pass to her, and suggested she look it up. "It'll give you some perspective on your trip".