That is definitely true. No one likes connections.bcar240 wrote: A passenger from Mississippi does not want to have to fly to Chicago to catch a large plane to LA to catch another flight back to Denver. Most of the people who I know that travel on any sort of a regular basis (at least once a year) are willing to pay a good bit more to get a more direct flight as opposed to an itinerary full of meandering connections.
You don't think that companies create things like this simply to gain publicity?HashiriyaS14 wrote: These people aren't idiots, it's not like they configure these airplanes from an aesthetic perspective. They are obviously getting more $/sf of cabin space in the suites than via coach seats. Thus, they want to have as many suites as they can keep full. I've no doubt that this was modeled very precisely, why on earth would they do this as a novelty? This is their business, they want to make money.
Indeed. I do have a hard time wrapping my head around this.HashiriyaS14 wrote: I just think you have a tough time believing that any rational person would spend $25k on an airline ticket, although a normal Concorde seat used to cost like $14k and fractional private jet time for a flight that long would probably be $50,000 per seat.
Thaaaaaannnnnks buuuudddy!HashiriyaS14 wrote:
No...you're wrong and Charlie is right. It isn't a "novelty"
charlieo wrote:Thaaaaaannnnnks buuuudddy!HashiriyaS14 wrote:
No...you're wrong and Charlie is right. It isn't a "novelty"
First showing me some Land Cruiser love, now this? You feeling ok, brah?
The concepts depicted here are the meaning of life. Understand this and you understand the world.HashiriyaS14 wrote:PoorManQ45 wrote:Yey, more things only 1% can afford...
I do think that is part of the equation. Bigger planes when needed to minimize redundant flights between the same cities. But I think in the future when there is enough traffic between two different airports we'll start having direct flights between more and more cities (with whatever size plane is appropriate). The airline makes less money flying someone on multiple connections because the cost of the ticket does not increase proportional to the extra overhead costs the company incurs by using additional fuel, crew, maintenance reqs., etc. needed to fly that person around more miles on several aircraft. But they lose more flying near empty planes, so they currently set up routing so they can pack the expensive planes to near capacity. I mean, some airports will probably never get anything but feeders to larger airports, but there are plenty of popular, large regional airports that could start linking to each other. For some travelers it might do nothing more than just keep you from having to go as far out of the way and be able to take shorter connecting flights, but it'd be an improvement.AZ89two4Tsx wrote:But the reason I foresee bigger planes becoming more popular is just that reason. The way I look at it, airlines could become much more efficient if they ran less of the same flights. They need to quit trying to work around other people's schedules and only make a small number of flights per day to a certain destination.
bigger planes = less planes = less flights = less lost baggage = less hassle
Idk, that's how I look at it. Maybe I'm missing something.