How to Improve Air Travel

I kind of like the idea of high speed rail. All my experiences with train travel have been pleasant. Air travel has come to be a pain though.

How bout instead of working on those "old" methods, we spend the time getting our "beam me up Scotty" type teleportation devices ready.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation

and as long as we're at it, lets finish up the time machine as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

This problem was solved years ago. Not implemented, but solved. Good old American ingenuity.

http://www.spike.com/video/bat-day/2684179

I love this guy - but if bad language offends you, don't view.

Bit of extra authenticity would be to have your Thunderbox mounted on springs (or suspended by bungee straps) & have Mrs C give it the occasional sly kick, after muttering about the necessity to return to your seat and fasten your safety belt, on account of the possibility of impending turbulence.

OMG, this is getting too real ...

C'mon Del! Why don't simply sell your KrisDel transporter belt to poor ol' Edignan to spare him his travel miseries?

We are *just* not getting in the spirit of things here

Never traveled by air?

How have you avoided it?

I've been through Oklahoma, I know they have airports there.

Oh, and by the way, this means that you are speaking in theory only, since you have never felt the joy and exhilaration of flight?

I've been up in choppers 3 times in the Nat'l Guard. Don't consider that traveling.

Never had the money or reason to travel by air.

BTW, Oklahoma City has two airports named after men that died in an airplane accident.

Pod's can be powered either by faerie dust, reindeer poop, or baby seal teeth.

But seriously, I've always dreamt of such a method of travel, would be wonderful.

Sort of mini-versions of this

For frequent travellers I can see a real advantage to owning your own!

But really interesting suggestion

That would also help with revenue. Everyone would be buying blankets.

There might be some nice sights, but for the most part I might want an escape pod after flying with some of the people I've seen. Either that or blinders used for horses!

Whenever possible I take as little as I can and avoid luggage. I take a small carry on and my cameras. I use this as an excuse to buy new clothes or swimsuits when I get there.

We usually go to the Dominican Republic and stay at a villa. My wife takes 3 suitcases with all her clothes and essentials. If she wears 1/10th of what she brings it is amazing. The last time we went we took my son and his friend and my niece. She asked everybody at the airport if they had all their "stuff". When we got to the resort she discovered she had forgotten to grab her case filled with cosmetics, cleaning products for hair and body, and all the sunscreen. After paying $60.00 (US) the cab driver went and picked up HER case. We could have bought everything there and paid a lot less considering she wore makeup once!

Great topic Edignan.

I travel quite frequently for my job and have had many pleasant and unpleasant experiences over the years. I think there are many problems with air transportation or any equivalent mass transportation system as you have eluded to. I came to the conclusion that similar to health care (in the US) there are too many players involved for the majority of end users to be satisfied. You have the passengers, businesses (the ones paying for business travelers),the airlines, airports, TSA (or some form of security) and FAA (or similar aviation authority) to name the major players and then government (local as the Feds are represented by TSA and FAA). Because the airline industry requires such huge capital expenditures(land, roads, aircraft, etc.) I think it's difficult for true free market solutions to work well. I mean if I don't like a particular airport (especially if it's near where I live), I have very few options, if any, especially if my employer is requiring me to travel. Because of those limitations and how many players and regulations are involved I think there is very little pressure to optimize the process for the end user. Most TSA are not all that concerned with you having a pleasant flight...they are concerned (hopefully) with catching potential threats (like passengers with bats). And the FAA is concerned with safety, not the passengers comfort. And airports are in business to make money and basically have a captive audience as in most cities it's not practical to choose our airport preference.

I have observed that in general airports in the US are better at processing people and comfort (to me) than those in Europe and much better than the middle east. That doesn't mean every single airport....but in general. But in general, the US airlines are not as good with customer service as foreign carriers. I don't know how much has to do with government subsidies to the airlines...cultural differences or other factors. I cannot compare from experience the quality of the pilots or safety of the airlines (although a little research would reveal useful information).

My home is in Tampa, FL area which has a quite nice airport and it used to bother me when flying through JFK, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas or some other large airport that they couldn't handle things as smoothly as Tampa Internation (TIA). Then it dawned on me that maybe it's not because Tampa's airport design is so unique/great. It could be due to age of airport (Tampa is relatively new), or size (Tampa doesn't handle nearly the volume of traffic as most major hubs). If Tampa dealt with the same volume as Atlanta, perhaps things wouldn't run so smoothly.

Okay, all this to say I don't have a solution to the problem, but have been bouncing ideas around in my head for some time now. So perhaps this thread will get those ideas to the front of the que.

Sorry for being rather long winded, I'll blame it on this being my first post.

Flying out of LAX is enough to put anyone off flying.

If the Americans wouldn't be so paranoid, air traveling would be much more confortable ...

Instead of sending soldiers thousands miles away, put a few (specially trained ones) on every airplane.

What ? there are to many flights ? I've read that there's about 5000 airplanes in the air constantly. Say 5 soldiers on each plane, that's 25,000. this during 24 hours, that's 600,000 in total ... How many soldiers are there in the USA ?

5 "free" seats on an airplane is to expensive ? What's the price of security ON the airports ?

The fact that you're not seated as confortable on an economic seat as in your lazyboy at home is kinda normal. If you're willing to pay double price for your ticket, you WILL have a confortable seat. If we all want that comfort, then there have to be at least twice as many flights, so think about pollution, waiting lines at the landing strips etc. etc ...

Anyhow ...

Next month I'll travel to the States again, but I'm prepaired to deal with mile-long waiting lines at multiple checkpoints...

Actually, being paranoid is not always a bad thing. It's really about balance. Being paranoid enough to be safe, but not so paranoid you put yourself into a coma or ending up where the cure is worse than the disease. I think most are willing to give up some reasonable freedoms and conveinences as a trade off for being safer (or having the illusion of being safer). But I think it's possible to have moderate comfort and safety at reasonable cost, but it's not without some effort to get there. The cost ($ and labor and shear size changing the system) or politics may make it a non-starter.

As far as putting soldiers on planes for security....I'm not 100% sure, but I think that may be illegal or even unconstitutional (not to say that the law can't change). And even if the 5 soldiers work as a team for 8 hours a day you would have need 75,000 soldiers to cover the 24 hour period. And specially trained ones at that. The cost may be more than you think. There is the increased cost to the airlines due to loss of revenue on those seats as well as the expense of to the military. Are you suggesting that TSA would no longer be needed? The soldiers presence on the planes would not eliminate explosives or many other terrorist activities. A terrorist only has to have a hostage, threatening to kill them...and you have a problem. I am not opposed to security on the planes (as the air marshalls were), but I don't think it's wise to eliminate TSA. I would however advocate eliminating the union aspect of the TSA. I have never personally had a bad experience with a TSA agent, most I have found to be professional, but I have observed many lazy ones repeatedly as some airports. If they had to be concerend with loosing their jobs based on performance the process would improve.

I don't believe most people expect the comfort of their living rooms when on a flight, however, after getting up at 4 am...boarding at 7 am, 4 hour flight, 1 or 2 hour layover, boarding your connecting flight and then being sent out to the runway only to sit there for an hour because of a crowded airport, it doesn't take much to make one extremely uncomfortable. I am not a big guy (tall or otherwise), but the coach seats are almost too small for me to not be uncomfortable experience. There is a big difference between the comfort of a lazyboy and not even being able to open your laptop because the seat in front of you is reclined and it's impossible to open the computer top more than 45 deg.

In general the airports (major ones anyway) are operating at too high a capacity. One airport having bad weather messes up the entire network. As mentioned, one way is to increase the costs which will drive down the number of passengers, but how does society do that without the unintended consquences that may follow?

Because in the world of winner-takes-all, so-long-sucker, oil-economy capitalism, where everyone is out for all that (s)he can get, there cannot be the joined-up-thinking that a high speed rail network requires for its foundations!

Anyone for Eurostar?

I had to travel by air regularly as part of my job requirement. I have travelled on national and international flights.Mostly in economy class (Cattle Class). I had agony of air travel during my long flights from Mumbai,(India) to Chicago (U.S). Sitting in congested seat for 19 hours, just watching movies, eating food reheated in micro wave ovens, noisy jet engines, air turbulence, had taken on my nerves. Also pressurised cabins and restricted movement had made me mad.

Comparatively train journey is more comfortable as it has many halts in between and you have space to sleep in air conditioned coach. But it also has its noisy journey and bumpy rides also it takes much more time.Still I would prefer train journey as you can look around scenic beauty of the world. Moreover it is safer than air travel and there is no fear of crashes. So there is peace of mind.

Suresh Sharma.

Clearly high speed rail has limitations. Cross country travel should probably not be on the menu, but shorter trips (LA to San Francisco, Chicago to New York) could make good sense. You might even get to use your cell phone.

If the trip is over 1000 miles and I can get there non stop from my local airport, I'll go commercial. If I must drive to a major hub for the trip to be non stop, I may not go.

Long term parking at hubs is another form of raping the consumer. I can't always chalk the expense to business. It's a 3 hour round trip to a major hub from my house. It's only 30 minutes to the local airport for a flight and the parking is one quarter that of the hub.

The downside is that while the local airport is convenient and less expensive, I must switch planes somewhere and hope that my plane is on time to connect with the second flight. Or, I must risk the delays sitting in a terminal for hours on end.

A recent flight to West Palm Beach from the ABE airport in Allentown, PA required deplaning in Atlanta. The next plane was delayed and I was forced to spend almost 6 hours in one of the nosiest and distressing areas in my life, short of a factory. In fact I spent more time in the terminal than on both flights and my luggage was damaged so badly I had to buy new luggage for the return trip.

What makes these types of incidents frustrating is that I have my own plane, one which cruises at 165 knots at only 8 gallons per hour. I do not fly at night however, and since I am not instrument rated, my ability to fly in margional weather is constrained as well. This relegates my flying to recreational.

I think the solution is to initiate Tort reform legislation in Congress so that the costs of product liability insurance can be reduced. Such a move would not just impact the general aviation community but give a boost to many other industries as well, medicine especially.

The cost of doing everything in this Country is grossly exaggerated by CYA behavior driven by fear of lawsuits and the needless expense of insurance. Simplified aircraft with more appropriate control and navigation devices would make personal flying more available to more people. Trips would be from the local airport and the trip would not burdon the complex and antiquated system the FAA is currently using which is one iof the biggest deterants to an efficient and effective commercial airline system.

People would not have to travel by car or public transportation to get to big airports with the obvious benfits to pollution and congestion. And, best of all, with your own plane, you leave when you want to, not when someone else says so.

The current system was invented by and run by the government. That fact, explains a lot about the cause of not just the current airline industry problems but much of what is eroding the quality of life in general.

L.J.

Wow, would I love to see tort reform ripple through ALL industries - the savings in the medical field alone could bring back the General Practitioner - Malpractice insurance is killing them.

One of the things we should consider is the playing field is far from level, and I consider the statements of CEO for Virgin "I can't think of another industry that never pays off it's capital costs".

But the railroads were incentivized with payments per mile for construction, as well as land grants along the lines to the railroads. Trackage was laid as cheaply as possible, ties were free for the cutting and they still never covered construction out west.

But even if you are a fan of high-speed rail, out west we have the least issues with track routes, but we have a lot. Most of the needed route for instance for Los Angeles to Phoenix (not currently connected which is amazing itself) belongs to one government entity or other, so that is somewhat easier. But the rail lines asked for track expansion near an area called ?Antelope Canyon? and found themselves mired in lawsuits from environmentalists.

But should the government subsidize rail in competition with deregulated airlines? Should they re-regulate the airlines?

"Should they re-regulate the airlines?"

No! We should immasculate Government instead! It's easy. Simply cut off the money that fuels it's absurd, arrogant behavior.

I invite anyone to look closely at the performance of industries that are or were regulated and the mess they are in now. Be it power generation, rail, airlines, trucking industry, maritime, etc.

Farming subsidies have made a mess of agriculture to the point where they get us into trouble with other nations.

Congress legsilated the common filiment light bulb out of existance for "environmental reasons" and empowered the mercury laden flouresent while the LED was in the wings outperforming both.

They went and created a regulatory formula for gasoline which mandates ethenol which hurt many engines, and drove corn prices up to where farm feeds trebbled in price driving up the cost of meat.

Yeh Sure! Let the Feds regulate the airline industry like they did their own government agency: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!

Instead of regulating anything, how about us demanding legislation limiting the percentage of attorney's in elected office to half that of the ratio of attorney's in practice. THAT would make for changes in a hurry!

L.J.

I invite anyone to look closely at the performance of industries that are or were regulated and the mess they are in now. Be it power generation, rail, airlines, trucking industry, maritime, etc.

Would any of these industries exist without massive subsidies?

How to streamline passenger process for security?

Simple. How much of your cary on do you actually use in flight????? Almost zero, even on international flights. Limit cabin baggage to clothing and essential (prescription) medication. The check in procedures and boarding times would be significantly reduced.

My first flight for a 2 day work trip had a bag too heavy to cary and cary on at the limit. After that trip, some rational thought got into the process and now 2 week trips to USA or Japan come in with less than 10Kg baggage total and my cary on is usually less than 2Kg including change of underwear and clean shirt.

I am constantly frustrated by those passengers that insist on having almost everything they own included in their cary on fitted into bags that are obviously over the prescribed size and being indignant when this is mentioned.

We need to educate the passengers that it's still part of the same world at the other end of the trip and they will have the necessities of life there. (Unless we are going on an aid mission and then we should already know what to expect.)

The only real problem that I encounter now is that my steel cap safety boots not only trip the metal detectors, but they also trip the "sniffers" since I am often using the necessary materials for farming activities.

I do not know how frequently you travel or what you like to do on flights, but what works for you may not work for everyone. I enjoy reading on flights as opposed to sleeping and so I bring reading material. I fly a great deal for work, so I must bring with me at least my company computer and sometimes my personal computer (depending on the length of the trip). When you consider that I don 't believe we can rely on airport, security or airline personell to not go through your luggage, I am not willing to check my laptop(s) even if I don't plan on using them during the flight. The same goes with most anything else of value that I intend on using at my destination.

" it's still part of the same world at the other end of the trip and they will have the necessities of life there. " That is not necessarily true, especially if you travel internationally. Even if they have the same contact solution at my destination there is a good chance it will not be written in a language that I am able to read. And on many trips, I have not had the time for shopping nor do I want to spend the money to purchase something that I will only use half of and discard it (so as not to transport it back home). While I do not like the idea of paying for checked baggage, I am willing to do so for the ability to use products that I know something about and prefer or to avoid having to go shopping at my destination.

I agree with you regarding people who cram too much into carry-ons to the point their bags no longer fit the specified dimensions for carry-on luggage.