When I'm in business class, I simply don't care what's going on outside. Let me know when we land.
Now, bear with me, because this might sound obvious, but I don't think it is. You can have in-flight-entertainment in Economy. You can have videos playing on your tablet or whatever. We have far more distractions than ever before. You can read your book, listen to your music. The seats are comfortable enough in the first hour of your delay. At 5'10" I have sufficient legroom.
I think the difference is the seat pitch. I don't consider myself claustrophobic, but staring at a seatback 2 feet in front of my face just makes me want to see what the hell is going on to get me off the ground and to my destination. I think this is far more of an issue than the curvature of the fuselage.
The #1 issue for me is leg room, being unusually tall. Headroom was never a problem :-)
Or maybe the market has spoken. Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper, they're happy to fly on 1967 design planes to save a buck.
When you're booking a plane ticket, you don't have much information about the legroom amount. Maybe you can tell somewhat from the airline, but most airlines have a variety of different planes, and I don't know how to use that information to determine legroom.
Google flights shows it eg. "Below average legroom (29 in)"
For many trips, there are no reasonable alternatives to air travel. If you live in New York and really want to treat your kids to a trip to Disney World in Florida, you can drive, and can take a train/bus, but you'll be burning a significant amount of your precious time off work on travel.
The interesting thing is that I don't believe air travel is all that much cheaper now than it was in, say, 2010, when things were quite a bit more comfortable. Maybe not as comfortable as pre-deregulation, but certainly better than today, with more comfortable seats and more leg room.
Has it become much more costly to run an airline over the past decade? Maybe? I don't know. But if not, this doesn't seem to be "the market", at least not in the way a healthy market, with ample competition, would behave.
Actually according to the BLS since Jan 2010, the CPI has went up 42% whereas airline fares have dropped 7.5%. That means adjusted for inflation airline fares have actually dropped 35%. I would say that arguably counts as "that much cheaper". Whether that's worth the decrease in legroom (unknown amount of inches) is another matter.
> Has it become much more costly to run an airline over the past decade? Maybe? I don't know. But if not, this doesn't seem to be "the market", at least not in the way a healthy market, with ample competition, would behave.
I think there's just a lot more competition among airliners post airline deregulation. The costs for most airliners is fixed (pilots, crew, aircraft, fuel, airport fees, A&Ps, etc) and so you're competing on small things like aircraft seat configuration, trim, routes, and prices.
10 years ago I would fly a lot of out of the airport in Ithaca which had good connections to hubs at PHL, DTW and IAD which could get you anywhere.
Today the ITH airport looks close to dead, the only flights are to NYC, one to EWR where I've had to exit and then re-enter security every time I've made a connection there. It's almost unthinkable that I'd take the plane to NYC if I was actually going to NYC because bus service is highly competitive to to the city. Although there are no longer national carriers like Greyhound and Shortline (going to Detroit is hard now) but for the point-to-point route there are numerous buses at different price points some of which are budget like the Chinatown bus and others are premium like the bus that stops at the Cornell Club.
I can find something positive in losing our local airport in that SYR has greatly expanded and now has numerous low-cost and ultra-low cost carriers. For once I can get on a plane and know absolutely it won't be a 737. I can fly Jetblue to LA for less than it ever cost on Delta.
Yet I can point to many signs that the industry has not been thinking clearly or that the choices it has been offering people are not real. I'd point as exhibit #1 the experience you'll have boarding a plane on American Airlines at their hub at PHL where they'll spend 20 minutes reading from a very long and complicated list of who is allowed to board in the plane under what order under whatever circumstances. Turns out there is a definite hierarchy for all the credit cards you might have with American Airlines or with some airline that got bought by American Airliners not to mention many different levels you can be in the frequent flier program, many kinds of tickets, etc.
We know if they just boarded the plane outside in we would all be on our way a few minutes earlier and it would not demand so much of the staff boarding us and they might have fewer cases of staff rage quitting because they are being abused like this, etc. But instead it's an important opportunity to rub the average traveller's nose in shit, prove how little worth they have compared to other people's in the airline's eyes, etc.
Before 2008, airlines offered just economy and first class on domestic routes, refusing to sell you anything a little bit more expensive that would be just a little bit better because they didn't want to create competition for first class. The proliferation of Economy+ and other service tiers after the financial crisis was actually a sign of sanity, of the industry getting more flexible. Still the major airlines form a cartel where they won't compete for better service in economy because they couldn't afford to give up a single first class flyer to a more humane coach.
And Boeing was working on a replacement for the entire 737-757 line, a brand new airplane using many of the same concepts as the 787 "Dreamliner" but it took a long time and in 2011 Southwest blackmailed them if they need to retrain their pilots then they might as well buy Airbus.
Sources. First for the replacement airplane.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2011/02/11/boei...
> Feb 11, 2011
> Boeing chairman and CEO Jim McNerney told a conference Thursday that Boeing probably will offer an all-new aircraft to replace its current generation of Boeing 737s.
> McNerney says Boeing prefers the new-airplane option to a second option -- re-engineering its current 737 lineup to accept a more fuel efficient engine.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/civ...
> Boeing has begun work on the 737-RS, a research program to build a new aircraft to replace the 737, which carries roughly 170 passengers. By mid-2009 Boeing expected to arrive at a design template for the 737 replacement, with "notional entry into service" around the year 2015.
> Boeing's long term plan as of 2005 seemed to involve three aircraft, designated Y1, Y3 and Y3. The Y1 is the 737RS.
Page last modified: 07-07-2011
Second, the blackmail.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal...
> Not only did Southwest management not want their pilots who flew the earlier model 737 NG to have to train in a flight simulator for the MAX, they insisted to Boeing that even classroom training be off the table, the filing shows. Southwest insisted on a clause in the sales contract stipulating a penalty of $1 million per airplane delivered if that standard wasn’t met.
> As the MAX’s most influential customer, Southwest’s insistence on this “infected every aspect of the birth and development of the new 737,” the legal filing asserts.
This is, of course, the legalese version of the blackmail mentioned above.
Wikipedia says Southwest has the fourth-largest fleet in the world (today, dunno about in 2011); while that's a lot, that's still only 800-some planes; did Boeing really let an airline with a 7%-or-so share of their business hold them over the barrel? I guess that's not entirely unreasonable, but... it's not great.
And if you look at the breakdown, more than 70% of Southwest's fleet still consists of 737-700 and -800. Boeing in 2011 was "taking too long" with their next-gen plane, and yet, 13 years later, Southwest is still largely on the previous generation. Maybe their blackmail was more a bluff. Hell, maybe at this point they regret their blackmail; it possibly would have been better for them to just wait for a new plane, or not bother and just go with Airbus.
But really, the problem didn't start in 2011. They'd already rode on the coattails of the 737/737NG design for too long. They should have started on a new narrowbody design even earlier. Sure, hindsight, and all that.
It's tempting to say that some of the worst airports in the US (say Newark) are "third-world" but the truth is that a bad airport in the third world is often a lot better than any airport in the U.S.
This prof was talking about defects in the last generation 737
https://www.ithaca.com/news/cornell-expert-boeing-737-plane-...
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-12-13-Boeing-737-MAX-Logs-...
-- Southwest orders 150 737 MAX airplanes and 58 Next-Generation 737s
-- Southwest becomes launch customer; scheduled to take first 737 MAX delivery
-- Largest firm order in Boeing history
Since then, they operate 223 of the 737 MAX (16% of deliveries) and have 495 on order, which is about 10% of total orders. At a single airline. United has 159 and has 388 on order. Then comes Ryanair with 136 delivered and 374 ordered. These are not third world airlines.
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25906-why-can-t-boeing-ju...
> In the early 2000s, the plan was to roll out the production model of Y1 by 2015. In 2010, Boeing’s patent became public, revealing a glimpse of the new project: a dream of all low-cost airlines and a bold new step for the industry. The aircraft was supposed to have T-tail and nearly elliptical fuselage cross section with twin-aisle 2-3-2 configuration, but retain drag-per-seat and weight-per-seat ratio comparable to single-aisle competitors. A variety of weight-optimization techniques, utilizing the newest composite structures, was explored. According to Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh, the company was already looking into converting their plants from metal to all-composite manufacturing.
> But come 2011, the project was shelved.
If you think "flying sucks" it's probably because you've flown in a 737 and similar (A320) aircraft.
Many people find it highly stressful to fly in a 737-class airplane because the curve of the fuselage is circular. My neck starts to lock up just thinking about it, but you don't have the same problem riding in a car, bus, or train because those vehicles have straight sides. Modern aircraft like the A220 and E2-Jet have a shape compatible with the human body such that today's "regional jets" feel more like riding in a widebody airliner than a 737. It's the kind of thing that's hard to believe until you experience it for yourself.
The 737 is exceptionally loud, particularly for the flight crew, but also for the passengers and innocent people on the ground. If you think flying sucks it could be because you remember walking out of a 737 with your ears ringing -- and nobody told you it doesn't have to be that way.
The A320 has a reliable fly-by-wire system with numerous benefits, not least the plane being able to automatically cancel out some turbulence, another small thing that leaves you feeling better when you reach your destination.
The 737 struggles to take off under good conditions, requiring much more runway than many much larger planes. Next summer you'll see headlines that "airplanes" are grounded at some airports in the US Southwest, you should replace "airplanes" with "737s".
Airplane manufacturers have wasted enough resources on widebody airliners that nobody wants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380
and the industry needs to get real to the fact that narrowbody airliners are responsible for most of the flights and most of the social and environmental impact of aviation: domestic flyers in the U.S. deserve something better than a 1967 design.