I had always thought that flying at higher altitudes was both a fuel saver and a time saver, but perhaps I’m wrong. I recently flew from PHX to LAX and although we took off a little late, we landed a half hour early. The pilot mentioned at the beginning of the flight that we’d have to fly at 26,000 feet due to weather, and the PHX-LAX flight is certainly long enough to get into higher altitudes.
And then I waited 45 minutes for my checked bag to come out :smack:
PHX-LAX is a funny one. It’s only about an hour flight, so if you got in a half hour early, they certainly padded the arrival time. The pilot pretty much doesn’t even have to turn the plane. Take off west, flight straight, land plane. On one flight we must have been very early, because the pilot made a huge 360 degree turn in the middle of the desert.
Now that you mention this, I think fuller load factors also play a role here, since they make it harder to reroute passengers who miss connections due to a late arrival. So it’s more practical to have “slow” schedules.
An even bigger reason for this is the airlines adoption of the hub-and-spokes routing system, which saves money for the airline, but results in a lot more passengers who have to change planes in their travel.
I grew up just up the hill from Convair’s plant and two of their early generation airliner types were the 880 and the 990. Those refer to Mach numbers and I just did some envelope scribbling and it sure looks like .99 Mach is faster than most of, at least Boeing’s, current batch fly at. It’s been pointed out several times and very clearly already that there are a number of other considerations that airlines are taking into account these days. The 990 , to fly that fast, had interesting anti-shock bodies on the wing’s upper surfaces to decrease trans-sonic wave drag. Great aircraft.
Very good video and summary of this very issue. It even starts with timetables from 1967.
Interesting that the Convair jetliners never really–hah!–took off.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
They well could be seen as the practical example to other manufacturers that incremental speed increases and decreased capacity weren’t the wave of the future.
I knew of the 880 (the first airplane I flew in), but not the very impressive 990. Cool.
[quote=“Charlie_Tan, post:26, topic:813629”]
Very good video and summary of this very issue. It even starts with timetables from 1967.
[/QUOTE]Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
:eek:An hour flight! Holy smokes! Where do I get a ticket? 
“Or was the 600 mph figure in the early promos a sort of ideal or record speed which the airlines rarely or never have attained in their day-to-day operations?”
You guessed it. When American started flying 707s NY to Los Angeles in January 1959, they hoped to make it nonstop on maybe 90% of the trips. That’s at an economical cruising speed, 550 mph or less. The 707-123 might have been able to do 600 mph, but the fuel burn would rule out a nonstop westward flight.
When fanjets appeared in 1961, the airlines could afford to speed up a bit. Mach 0.85 instead of Mach 0.82, let’s say. But no airline ever regularly cruised at 600 mph airspeed.
Old thread, but I’ll point out a factoid I think is interesting…
The average speed of airliners went DOWN with the retirement of the Concorde. Of course, its contribution was just a blip by comparison.
But as was pointed out, airline operations are all about efficiency. IIRC, Southwest used to give bonuses of some kind to crews for every minute they saved. It doesn’t sound like much, but multiply saving one or two minutes over hundreds of flights a day for a year and it adds up to a lot of fuel.
The bizjets in my world are generally optimized around the same speeds as airliners, but some regularly cruise faster. I started in Lear 60s, which are optimized for about mach .85, but they can also climb like a motherf**er. Once we were dropping off passengers in Florida and planned to airline home - we ended up racing our own airliner there which took off from Newark (we from Teterboro). We slowly but surely pulled away from them and landed about 30 minutes earlier.
All that to say, economy is good for bizjets too, but the very nature of that business means you’re using a lot of fuel to fly just a handful of people, which makes it incredibly costly in the aggregate.
Maybe this os an odd way of thinking about the issue, but as a passenger, why would I care about whether the departure is on time? I want the arrival to be on time, for obvious reasons, and might even choose which airline to fly based on their record of on-time arrivals. But it’s slightly in my interest for their departures to be late. If I’m running late to catch my plane, I want to be on an airline that leaves a little behind schedule, just in case I’m the guy who’s rushing to get there before the door closes
Directly, you probably don’t. But, I would suspect that there’s a reasonably strong correlation between a flight leaving on time, and arriving on time, which is the thing that you, and the airline, really want.
Also, at least at a busy airport, there may be the aspect of a flight which departs from the gate late losing its place in the departure schedule, making it even later.
When Airforce One was flying Bush around on 9/11 it was flying at .97 Mach and the fighter escort had to juggle using after burners to keep up and then not having enough fuel.
Great book BTW
Agreed, but since the on-time arrival is available directly, there isn’t much value in looking at data that just correlates with it.
I don’t disagree; my point is that the reason that the airlines care about leaving on time is that leaving late makes it harder to arrive on time – which is what they, and you, really care about.
Unless you’re trying to make a connecting flight, or have a meeting to get to as soon as you land, if your flight is 20 or 30 minutes late, it’s probably not a big deal to most travelers. But, as the “on-time arrival” numbers are based on the flight arriving at the gate no later than 15 minutes after the scheduled arrival time, even 16 minutes late is a big deal to the airline.
If I was running an airline, I’d want to know as much about the operations as possible. If most of my flights are leaving on time, and arriving late, I need to focus on improving what happens after the door closes.
For passengers, I doubt they give it much thought beyond “on time is good”. I never really questioned it until reading this thread. I need to plan around my arrrival time, but anything leading to that is kinda irrelevant.
Since I didn’t see it linked…the Convair 990A Coronado.
The World’s Fastest Subsonic Airliner: The Convair 990A Coronado