• superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 months ago

    The people in the top picture still fly like that.
    The people in the bottom picture couldn’t afford to fly at all in the past.

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not on longer flights. It doesn’t benefit airlines much to make smaller tray tables

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Save on weight means save on gas. Multiply that by thousands of flights and it adds up. United printed their in flight magazines on lighter paper and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, just by using thinner paper.

          They only eliminated 5kg per 737, but that added up to $290k savings.

          If anything I think it’d be even more effective on longer flights as those jets spend more time in cruise vs short haul airliners.

          By using lighter paper to print their in-flight magazine, Hemisphere, United Airlines saves up to 170,000 gallons of fuel, which cuts about $290,000 in annual fuel costs.

          One magazine is now one 29 g lighter and weights 195 g which will make a usual 737 plane that carries 179 passengers 5 kg lighter on average.

          https://www.kiwi.com/stories/united-prints-lighter-magazine-saves-170000-gallons-fuel/

          • slaacaa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Good example, aviation is probably the most penny-fucking business in the planet, it’s a life and death fight between the companies, trying to keep costs low.

          • morrowind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            United makes 50B in revenue a year. I’m guessing that stunt gave them more value in marketing than actual savings.

  • whome@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    The amount of people who think flying is a normal thing. One percent of the worlds population produce 50% of aviation emissions. And most off the worlds population never fly in their life.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago
    • That tray table is WAYYYYY too big and luxurious - they have shrunk legroom so dramatically now that you get a little sliver about the width of your shoe.

    • That cup is about double the size they give now.

    • You didn’t get to pick those pretzels, there was just the single “choice” now.

    • Also, you didn’t get to pick that seat and you had to have last minute anxiety that you wouldn’t even be assigned a seat by the gate agent at the airport (after already taking time off from work to travel and committing $100+ for uber or airport parking)

    • You also paid at least an extra $100 to have a carryon bag (more depending on your route) and even more for a checked bag.

    • your seatback no longer has a screen in it. You have to submit to letting airline gorge on your personal data by granting permissions to run entertainment from your own phone and drain your battery.

    • Also, though they removed screen and expect you to use your own device, no viable phone holder provided to put your phone in a proper viewing position, so you’ll crane and hurt your neck throughout flight.

    • Also, your base airline ticket is now more expensive than in the past baggie all these upcharges and compromises.

    • shitty rental car at your destination now costs $100/day and parking at your hotel is not free, and is in fact $30-$50 additional per night.

    • And your garbage hotel room costs 3X what it should.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t though with the basic fares now. Boarding pass has “see gate agent” printed where a seat assignment would be. And no guarantee of a couple/family being seated together.

        Also always rumors of airlines testing stacked or standing seats to cram even more people in each plane.

          • Snapz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Depends on the market probably, but a lot of spots it’s like $50-$100 extra, each way, to upgrade to the seat level that let’s you choose a seat. Frontier and spirit used to be the joke, but most of them are doing it now. Cliche joke used to be that they’d charge you each time you used the bathroom (maybe they actually happened in Europe, Ryanair?) But like too many things, we’re close to living the onion.

      • Dettweiler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Allegiant and Frontier don’t, unless you want to pay extra to pick your seat. Some will cost more than others.

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Meanwhile, me aboard a train: “Oh you can get whole massive meals on restaurant cars these days? No thank you, I’ll get a coffee and one of those overpriced naff sandwiches.” (Well, the Finnish train sandwiches are pretty good, but they are hella overpriced. Like 7€. WTF.)

    • stringere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      7 Euros = 7.55 USD That is a pretty normal price for a sandwich in the USA. I wish I considered that overpriced. 5 or more years ago I probably would have said that was overpriced.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        they’re overpriced in the sense that a sandwich does not in any universe cost that much to actually produce, not in the sense that they charge more than other people do for sandwiches.

        7 euros isn’t too much more than what a sandwich can tend to cost at Pressbyrån in sweden, which is infamous for charging out the ass for everything just because they can. A normal grocery store that carries some premade sandwiches might charge more like 5 euro for them.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the sort of weird back in the day post that doesn’t make sense. Boomers not understanding house prices and minimum wage, that is true.

    This plane ticket stuff is wrong. For about the same cost as a ticket back in the day you get way more. In 1955, a one way transatlantic flight was roughly £5k. That’s $6.3k freedom dollars, one way. You can today buy a ticket on that type of route for half that price that includes a lie flat bed, amenities and pyjamas, 2 hot meals, unlimited snacks, unlimited drinks, lounge access on departure and arrival, priority check-in, boarding an ungodly amount of luggage, etc. And in the lounges you get free food cooked to order, free unlimited drinks, free second tier food like buffets, etc.

    If you want to spend the equivalent money or a bit more, you could fly even better. You can have a private chef onboard making a meal for you anytime you want. You can take a shower in the sky. You can have a literal bedroom and attached private living room in a mini suite just for you. And that’s flying commercial.

    The other side of it is that now people can also buy a ticket for $25. Which would be completely unfathomable back when civil rights weren’t a thing.

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      In 1955, a one way transatlantic flight was roughly £5k.

      Is this already inflation adjusted or was it 5k 1955-pounds, because that would make the difference way more extreme

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      that includes a lie flat bed

      That entirely depends on how tall you are. Walking through those seats on my way to have my knees crammed into the seat in front of me in coach I realized that even in first class I’m too big for an airplane.

      Maybe there’s a market for a big & tall airline.

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The old ones have seats with about 72in of lie flatness which is 6ft. But unless you sleep like a Victorian ghost, most people bend their knees or legs somehow. My friend that is 6ft4in has no issues and he’s tall and wide.

        Most of the new ones are 76in to 82in. 6ft 10in is pretty generous. And if you need longer, there are first class seats which are full beds and you’d have no issue.

        I fly in a pod every few weeks for 12hr+ flights and it’s very comfortable. I am hoping blimp travel makes a come back as I’d love to take the scenic way back with a full suite one day.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’ve got a california king bed and frequently wake up with my feet dangling over one end and my arms over the other. I really, really doubt I’d fit on an 82 inch bed that has no space around it. And that doesn’t get into the constant light and noise and people on a plane which make it even harder for me to sleep, even if I could get comfortable.

          Though many people have made it clear to me that airplanes are not supposed to be comfortable or nice, just something to endure to get to where you’re going.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Airliner ticket prices used to be regulated. So when all airlines had to charge the same price, they had to find other ways to be competitive in order to bring in customers. Deregulation in the 70s brought ticket costs down but that means ticket cost is now the primary point of competition between airlines and amenities now come at a steep premium.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep, you can have it one way or the other…cheap flights or super luxury and only the rich can fly. Planes are not cheap to operate and fuel isn’t free.

      • BigBenis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not so sure that is a positive. Airplanes are huge emission drivers and our dependence on the convenience of air travel has caused us to cease investment and innovation in other more efficient and environmentally friendly methods of travel.

        No doubt there’d be a lot more support for high speed rails if airplanes weren’t as accessible. IMO airplanes should only really be used for intercontinental travel.

          • BigBenis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Are you saying a high speed train to your destination wouldn’t also solve that problem? It would likely end up being cheaper to travel via rail considering the lower costs of maintenance and fuel, meaning further accessibility than we have today with our dependence on air travel.

              • BigBenis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s fair, and please note that I mentioned air travel has its place in intercontinental travel in my previous comment. The whole point I’m trying to make is that domestic flights between areas that could support high speed land travel infrastructure are wasteful.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Even within continents, high speed rail is expensive, many cities and towns aren’t large enough or near large enough cities to make it practical. This would mean distant connections on slow trains and very long journeys.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          When you factor in the number of people the airplane carries, they are about 3 times more efficient than a car with one person in it.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Just saying, compared to driving, airplanes are usually better. Also trains in the US suck. Much slower, and almost comparable in price to air travel.

              • BigBenis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Also trains in the US suck. Much slower, and almost comparable in price to air travel.

                It doesn’t have to be that way, many other countries have solved those issues. But because we’ve leaned so heavily on air travel to get us to places only a few hours away by land there hasn’t been any incentive to innovate or invest in other forms of long-distance mass transit.

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    You COULD be paying for first class seats and getting that kind of treatment, but you’re flying Economy, aren’t you.

  • nexussapphire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because you always buy the cheaper seats. It’s not your fault, I do the same. Flying was literally for the wealthiest of people at that point in history, it was literally a luxury to fly instead of taking a train, bus, or a boat.

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because what are you gonna do? Take a boat to cross the Atlantic? Like you’re some puritan running from Anglicanism?