One option is to not fly american airlines (with a lower case a). The highest rated US airline is 3 out of 5 stars on Skytrax.

As far as I understand, the reason for this is that foreign airlines are not allowed to fly US domestic routes, and most US people don't fly international which means they don't know that things could be better.

It also seems like people in the US to a greater extent than other countries only cares about ticket price, which means that even if an airline wants to improve their quality they can't use it to compete because customers will simply not see them, since they sort by price on the travel site and pick the first one on the list.

> most people in the US only cares about ticket price, which means that even if an airline wants to improve their quality they can't use it to compete

With regards to quality, do airlines in other places generally provide more bang for the buck or are they just generally more expensive than US flights to provide for the higher quality?

To be honest, I don't know. It's hard to compare for the US domestic flights, since you have to decide on comparable routes.

That said, flights throughout Asia at distances similar to US domestic flights tend to be reasonably cheap.

I decided to make a comparison:

Fly Singapore Airlines from Singapore to Hong Kong. This will cost you 225 USD in economy.

A domestic US flight of the same distance would be San Francisco to Albuquerque on United Airlines. This flight will cost you 468 USD.

So it seems to me that Singapore Airlines is able to provide better quality at much lower cost. Perhaps the US airlines simply don't have to be better because there is no one that shows it can be done?

Albuquerque isn't a major destination though. Flying to provincial cities is always expensive.

A better comparison with about the same distance in the US is New York to Miami, which can be done nonstop for under $200 on Delta, or $135 on whatever "Frontier" is.

EDIT: In fact you can go from New York to Las Vegas for under $200, round-trip, which is considerably farther.

yeah, but then you'd be Las Vegas.

The routes and dates really matter. I can fly from MSP to TPA (about 2.1k, about the same) for $28 USD. Now I wont argue Frontier airline is the same quality as Delta or some of the other majors... but airfare prices are really fungible.

I fly Frontier very regularly by quality choice and not by price. The fares are great, but the only other people flying the routes are United (awful awful) and Southwest (great but also pricey). More generally, I am not impressed by any U.S. major, discounting Southwest if they are considered. United, AA, and Delta (least) are pretty abysmal in their quality.

It's probably important to be specific when I say "quality." By that I'm referring to ease of purchase, fair baggage prices, web/app UX, on/off-flight customer service including pilot communication with passengers, and even landings (as a pilot, I am absolutely judging beyond "did we get to the ground safely or not"). Price and seating are secondary for me, although I certainly understand why they are list-toppers for others.

I fly Delta a fair amount and (with status), Delta seems quite good to me. With even the lowest level of status, there are no bag fees for anything approaching typical luggage load. Their app is fine. Web ticketing seems good to me. Domestically, I can almost always buy an economy ticket and get upgraded to first. Even where I have to pay for it, the upgrades are reasonably priced. During irregular ops (weather typically), they’ve always gotten me there within 18 hours of scheduled. I agree SWA is also good and my only experience recently on United was also good (but in business class Mumbai->Newark, so atypical to say the least).

I suspect flying up front on any of the majors is fine. Economy experience is driven by a race to the bottom price-wise, but if you want cheap travel, it’s readily available. If you want comfortable travel, that’s also on offer.

I was Delta diamond for about a decade, so same deal...domestically, they really treated you nicely.

I flew Frontier the first time this Spring - was helping ferry an open cockpit biplane from Colorado to Illinois - and it was a stupid cheap one way fair. I really can't think of a single perk Frontier did not try and up charge a fee for. Boarding, luggage, carry on, seat assignment... I'm sure there were others. Funny enough, the guy I was ferrying with also picked the cheapest seats in the plane, so we ended up next to each other on the flight out. I was fully prepared too wear the kevlar helmet on the flight rather than pay the $60 carry on fee.

I like Frontier but I was stunned to learn that even after paying for all of their upgrades to get seated in the front row, I would still have to pay extra for water.

> United (awful awful)

What's so awful about United?

Everything!! Like everything you can imagine about a flying experience compared to its competitors. Seat space, employee attitude, noise, snacks...

Sure. With a budget airline I can get cheaper flights in Asia too. The aforementioned flight from Singapore to Hong Kong (1-8 March) is 87 USD on Jetstar.

My point was that even though the regular flights are similarly priced in the US and Asia, the quality in the US is so much worse. I now see that my attempt at explaining this discrepancy had some flaws, but what other explanations do you suggest?

The fact seems to be that even the best US Airlines are significantly worse than the ones in other places. When the best rated ones are hovering around average, there is something wrong.

You probably need a larger sample to draw any conclusions, especially during a holiday season.

For anyone wanting to make similar comparisons: I checked returns flights between 1 and 8 March next year.

The Economist had an article in 2017 that argued that US airlines are worse, more expensive, and more profitable due to less competition than European (and I'd add Asian) airlines.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/22/a-lack-of-compe...

> It also seems like people in the US to a greater extent than other countries only cares about ticket price, which means that even if an airline wants to improve their quality they can't use it to compete

I'm not so sure people do it any different elsewhere. I mostly fly in Europe and have definitely never considered anything else than price and suitable flight times. I consider all airlines to provide the same standardized service. Yes I'd pick BA over Ryanair, but wouldn't pay extra for it.

In NZ we have two options for domestic travel Jetstar ( cheap and unreliable ) and Air NZ which usually costs more but it's better overall.

A lot of people I know and myself choose to pay more for a better experience.

It's not always about the race to the bottom in my opinion.

I always assumed that this disconnect was because most domestic u.s. air travel is business related, so that in general, the traveler is not the customer.

> It also seems like most people in the US only cares about ticket price,

Ryan Air, EasyJet, and other discount airlines suggest that Europe cares significantly more about price.

That is true. And these airlines never show up in the top half of the airline rankings. However, when flying these airlines you don't expect good service, and no one is going to proclaim that “flying is always a bad experience” because these airlines exist.

Personally, I have good experience with those airlines. As long as you are aware of the rules (print your boarding pass at home or use mobile boarding pass, limited carry-on luggage, usually doesn't go to the main airport) it's a good experience. Airplanes are relatively new, they are clean inside and the staff is friendly.

I'm 6'2" and my knees used to be painfully squeezed into seats and everything was incredibly uncomfortable on flights. At the time I weighed 275lb. I've since lost weight and I was surprised how much more comfortable flying is.

You wouldn't think being obese would impact knees not having enough space, but my ass shrank in multiple directions and I have about four to five inches of free space now between the seat in front of me and my knees. Unless you're much taller than I am, it's likely that losing weight will not just help with your health, but make flying more comfortable.

If you are taller, well, life sucks for us tall people in many ways and we can't expect airlines to build comfortable seats for people two or three standard deviations beyond the normal height.

I'm 6ft, 190lbs so not substantially overweight. Airlines like Air Canada Rouge have a 29" seat pitch in standard economy. I find that very uncomfortable. Even their upgraded seats are very tight for me with my knees pressed up against the seat infront of me unless I sit bolt upright.

On many leisure routes from Toronto there is very little choice in flights either, so pay more means pay their business class rate which is quite expensive, or well go some very complex non-direct routing.

All of these options are horrible.

There is no normal height.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...

> There is no normal height.

There more certainly is a statistically average height.

> Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions.

This article is comparing 10 dimensions of variability and we're talking about just one here, the one you yourself mentioned, height.

Statistically or mathematically average height does not equal normal height, it has no relevance in this discussion. If you read the article, the average does not fit most people even if you take a single dimension, height.

Within one standard deviation of the mean does, by definition, fit most people for a normally distributed factor like height. (64% > 50%, thus most). "Within 1 standard deviation of the mean" is a decent (if possibly overly strict) definition for "normal" in this context.

Read the article in the link and then explain your comment.

Then you could purchase a different fare class. The market has largely spoken already- people prefer lower fares over comfortable seats.

Ah, yes, it is definitely reasonable to draw that conclusion based on people's disinclination to spend 100% the fare for a 10% larger, somewhat less uncomfortable seat, and/or 1000% the fare for 50% more space and an actually comfortable seat.

You seem to have left out Premium Economy class that’s available on many (most?) airlines. Personally, I tend to opt for that fare class as I find the seat more tolerable at a reasonable price point.

Premium economy is still usually at least 2x the economy ticket price; on a long haul that will cost many hundreds to up to thousands extra.

What you’re probably thinking of is the US airline specific “comfort/extra/plus” add-on that is priced 10%-20% extra. There is a few more inches legroom but the seats are the same small economy seats.

The prices does not scale up too well for the travelers, but for the airlines. The extra that you get does not match the huge jump in price.

Premium economy / economy plus seem to scale pretty well. Most of the times I’ve booked it’s been about 10% extra in cost for about 10% space on the plane. E.g 34 inches instead of 31 inches of pitch.

To be clear, premium economy and economy+ are different things.

The former uses larger seats and is typically available on long-hauls. The seat is somewhat similar to old-style business class seats, or modern domestic first class seats. It is not priced at 10% extra, it is usually close to double.

The latter is priced at around 10% extra, but is the same old economy seat just with a couple of inches more legroom.

It would be nice to have to pay only 10% extra to get 10% more space, but the lack of scaling is by design on the airlines part, and textbook market segmentation.

Edit: this article has pictures showing the difference: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/whats-the-difference-betwee...

I once got an economy plus seat at a bulkhead and had to stow my laptop bag somewhere behind me. I'd rather squeeze into economy than pay extra for having no way to kill time but wonder whether it'll be stolen.

I’m 6ft and have normal length legs. I don’t have any issue doing a 5h flight on a 737 with minimum pitch. I wouldn’t pay extra for legroom, but people who are taller than me would, I imagine.

Flying you essentially pay by the inch at a price that's remarkable low historically speaking. The service has no more romance than what a Greyhound bus ride once offered (and don't ask what that's like now).

This is either a triumph of choice, markets, and abundance or grim, barbaric end to flight as uplifting experience.

It's also safer than it's ever been.

We can each decide, I suppose.

You could always buy a business class seat then. Economy is supposed to be uncomfortable because all the things that would make it comfortable have been removed to make it cheaper.

Then pay for an exit row seat. If I want cheaper seats instead of more legroom, why should I be forced to subsidize YOUR consumer preferences?

book an emergency exit seat for extra $50 or something