So each spring for the last several years I’ve been doing an unfortunate amount of travel by plane (I hate planes-- I’m a nervous passenger, but not a gibbering wreck or anything). For some reason every flight I’ve been on over the last few months compared to years past seems to me to experience a lot more turbulence than I remember in the past. Am I imagining this, is it mere coincidence, or (this is an extremely wild assed hypothesis) are airlines saving fuel by taking more direct routes through rougher weather than they used to or something like that?
My guess - global warming 
Seriously though - I live in the northeast US and the past couple years we’ve had a LOT of snow and a lot of wet weather in general. Definately some different weather patterns lately. So while I dont know where you are flying - I wouldn’t be surprised if there is actually more turbulence due to changes in atmospheric activity.
I fly two to four segments/week, mostly to the contiguous 48.
I have not noticed a difference but neither have I been paying attention. I have been on some pretty bumpy rides lately, including one back from Virginia a couple days ago.
I don’t find turbulence nerve-wracking; I don’t remember hearing a plane brought down because of it.
I don’t like odd noises and too much tipping around near the ground, though. And the kids flying the smaller regional jets make me nervous.
Maybe you’ve been flying on smaller planes, where turbulence is more noticeable? Maybe during a season or times of day when there’s more turbulence? Different parts of the country?
Out of curiosity what airline do you fly on?
I cant imagine an explanation for this for a random sample of flights. Ive flown perhaps 10 times in the past couple of years and have experienced almost no turbulence. Voting confirmation bias/bad luck.
Are you flying to the same destination? Some places are more prone to low level turbulence than others, so if you’d started flying to somewhere different you may notice a change. Also, is the turbulence in the cruise or during the departure and arrival?
Overall, I don’t think your experience is a big enough sample to be able to say anything other than you happen to be on more turbulent flights. I do a lot of flying and manage, by chance, to miss most of the bad weather, that doesn’t man it’s not out there though, I talk to other people and sometimes they get a lot of bad weather.
Edit: Time of day can also make a big difference in turbulence levels. If you’re tending to fly in the afternoon you’d be more likely to get low level turbulence than if you were doing all morning flights.
I fly probably 8-10 times a year, from CA to the southwest or midwest. No increase in turbulence noted.
If you’re a nervous type, watch the flight attendants – if they buckle down as well, its probably good turbulance. If they’re bustling serving drinks, probably not. If they’re strapped down AND looking worried when the plane drops 50 feet, feel free to be worried.
If there were an increase in flights thru turbulence, perhaps it could be due to attempts to save fuel. I.e., “Let’s go straight thru that storm and if the passengers complain, they can book their next flight on $mooth Flight Airlines.”
Wouldn’t that just tell you if the turbulence was predicted or not?
Some of the worst turbulence I ever experienced was on a flight from Houston to England. The flight attendants were caught off guard, and turned their food carts diagonally in the aisle and braced themselves against the seats in the aisle for about two and a half minutes. I’m not at all afraid or nervous of flying, but it was quite nerve wracking for a bit.
I am not a pilot and I am several years away from even beginning to call myself an aeronautical engineer, but this seems very unlikely to me, for aq few reasons. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can comment and correct these impressions I have!
-
flying through turbulence means the airflow over the plane/wings is uneven, there is less lift, etc. That would suggest that the plane is actually burning more fuel to stay up and maintain speed/direction than if it was flying through smooth air. I don’t know how big the increase in fuel consumption is, so perhaps it is more economical to go straight through for a few miles of turbulence, but not for some threshhold size of storm. Storms or turbulent masses of air can stretch for hundreds of miles; going around isn’t always an option, so that’s something to consider.
-
Flying through an actual storm is incredibly dangerous, especially one with lightning or rapidly changing winds, and even more so on take-off or landing. I think fuel savings and litigation/cost of replacing a crashed plane/insurance settlements after an acciident must balance out somewhere on the “don’t fly through the storm” side of that equation.
-
I thought I had a third reason, but I can’t remember it. I’m sure it will come to mind 5:01 minutes after I hit submit.
ETA: another reason!
Flight paths are relatively fixed things, I think, with the planes needing to be flown from navigation beacon to navigation beacon and having near-constant contact with controllers on the ground. These beacons have been in place for years and aren’t likely to change locations any time soon. Changing flight paths to save money doesn’t seem like it would be very probable to me (though airlines can save money by flight sharing, cancelling certain destinations, getting more passengers on the plane by having stop-overs, etc).
There’s also the Jet Stream.
All the same, if all the flight attendants are panicking, as mentioned above, there is no shame in panicking yourself!
Hmm. Thanks for the ideas-- presently waiting to get on yet another flight, but from above responses and today’s relatively sane flights I think it might just be that I’m traveling more in the midwest/mideast than usual and less on the west coast and perhaps spring weather’s just a bit more rumbly out this way.
If you watch the weather channel you will see that much of the weather in the middle of the country consists of warm fronts hitting cold fronts. The end result is often a wall of weather that spans 3 or 4 states. The worst of it shows up as a tight band that the pilot has to pick through to find the smoothest route.
You will never fly into severe turbulence because the plane won’t survive. The only thing a pilot can do while transitioning bad weather is to slow the plane down and there’s a trade-off to that if the flight is going to a connecting hub.
You might find it helpful to read / post on the the pilots forum …
There are civ and mil pilots and aircrew there, who would possibly be willing to offer you their take on your question.
You’ve got a third reason all right-- the wrath of Opal.
It was probably a subconscious instinct on your part not to make a 2-item list. Lucky you. 
Actually, the third was actually the thought that depending on where the OP is flying, he might simply be encountering the naturally more turbulent air/weather associated with springtime; as the northern hemisphere heats up, the weather goes a little crazy. So even my ETA wasn’t number three on the list at the time.
I came very close to making an Opal reference, but thought better of it.
Flying through turbulence does not necessarily increase fuel flow, it’s just uncomfortable when moderate and potentially dangerous when severe. There is however an increase in track miles flown when diverting around weather. No one with half a brain will intentionally fly through a thunderstorm though, they are very dangerous, as you noted.
It’s true that the airways are relatively fixed, however with the greater use of GPS there are now “flex tracks” which can be changed depending on the prevailing weather. I’ve never used one so I’m not entirely sure on how they work. There are plenty of other options for diverting around weather or shortening the track miles flown. Traffic permitting, a pilot may request direct tracking from one waypoint to another rather than following the airway which may not be a straight line. Also if weather is involved you can request diversions off the airway around the weather. If the weather is severe, a thunderstorm for example, then you can “require” diversions and they must be approved, safety trumps all else if required. Finally, for large areas of turbulence rather than isolated storms, a change in altitude can be requested. Sometimes a “block level” will be approved which allows the aircraft to operate over a range of altitudes either because the turbulence is too severe to be able to maintain altitude or to give the pilot a decent block of airspace where they can experiment and find smooth conditions.
In summary, pilots will not intentionally fly through a thunderstorm unless they’ve had half their brain surgically removed. Small areas of bad weather such as thunderstorms can be deviated around. Large areas of turbulence require either a change in levels or sometimes you just have to settle for a bumpy flight.
It’s actually very important to the flight crew and the company to give the passengers a smooth ride. you can’t make money if passengers don’t rebook. You often hear airline crews on the radio requesting information from aircraft who’re flying ahead of them about the “ride”, i.e, how much turbulence there is. If an aircraft reports turbulence, the crews will do as much as they can to avoid it. It’s their work environment after all, and although they may be more used to it, they still don’t like it (it spills their cuppa tea.)