Airlines could save quite a bit of fuel if they strictly enforced the carryon size and weight limitations.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I don’t know what portion of travel is done for business, but at least in the U.S., that demand is relatively inflexible. If the airlines are forced to raise prices to cover increased fuel costs, then businesses will just have to spend more to cover that expense, even if they cut out as many unnecessary trips as possible. The pace of business is unlikely to change. A cross-country flight takes what, four hours? Compare that to the time it takes to drive or take the train. Even if the cost of plane travel goes up, businesses aren’t going to put everything on hold when there is an faster option available. It’d probably still be cheaper in terms of opportunity cost anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly as inflexible as you say. There is intense pressure to cut travel costs. I travel a lot less than I did 20 years ago, and I travel a lot relative to most of the people where I work. A lot more is done today with net conferences and the like.
One example. I started a conference where I work in 1998. For the first one people came from all over the country. Today the whole thing is a combination of web and teleconference, and very few people travel.
Salesmen will travel, and some execs, but the volume will be down.
[QUOTE=Duckster]
Airlines could save quite a bit of fuel if they strictly enforced the carryon size and weight limitations.
[/QUOTE]
They are starting to charge big bucks ($50) for the second checked bag, so we’ll see.
If he’d said “some airlines” or even “many” he’d be likely right, but none?
[QUOTE=August 16, 2007]
QANTAS has reported a 50 per cent lift in annual earnings, and says it expects another strong result this year.
Net profit rose to $719.4 million in 2006/07, from $479.5 million, as revenue rose 11 per cent to $15.17 billion.
Qantas’ pre-tax profit was $1.03 billion and in line with market expectations.
“The first six weeks of 2007/08 have been very strong for all our flying businesses and forward bookings are equally buoyant through to the end of the calendar year,” it said.
“As a result, and subject to no major deterioration in market conditions, we are expecting another good profit in 2007/08, which we are currently expecting to be around 30 per cent higher than the 2006/07 profit before tax result.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Feb 21, 2008]
Qantas Airways Ltd. said Thursday it is well cushioned against any U.S.-led economic slowdown after fiscal first-half earnings more than doubled to 617.6 million Australian dollars from a year earlier.
[/QUOTE]
Granted this is not long term yet - no business projection is - but they seem to be actually thriving in a high-oil-cost world.
It’s common to overlook the really rather good fuel efficiency of air travel. A nearly full B-747 delivers around 80 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel consumed - very competitive with terrestrial forms of transport.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Finally, the dirigible is poised to make a comeback!
[/QUOTE]
Some work still needed - costs (including construction, fuel and maintenance) still far exceed those of airliners, on a per-passenger-mile basis.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
<snip>
But Cessna 172s have been retrofitted. A test aircraft scored 126.6 mpg and 27.4 mpg. A '60s- or '70s-vintage 172 might cost $25,000 to $50,000 depending on a number of factors, and a Diesel conversion would cost about $40,000. Still expensive, but reachable by a number of people.
I don’t see airlines turning to Diesel engines. Jets are more efficient. But as far as General Aviation goes, this might be a step in the right direction.
[/QUOTE]
Where these fuel efficiency numbers for just a straight line flight, or did they include the take off and landing?
I welcome higher air travel costs because it reduces frivolous flying. People should not be jetting around the planet on a whim and they should not feel entitled to do so on the cheap. Remember how much flak Al Gore got for his carbon footprint due to flying?
Suppose air travel is subsidized so it is much cheaper. People could be as wasteful as they wanted, because there is no limiting costs. Fly all your friends and family out to Las Vegas for lunch! Fly to Australia for dinner and then France for breakfast! Buy two extra tickets so you can sit by yourself! Or buy out the entire plane so you can really stretch your legs, it’s that cheap. Why not a fleet of twenty empty planes, just to really flaunt it?
How quickly would we pump the atmosphere full of carbon dioxide if that were possible? Overnight?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Biofuel is mostly a scam. There’s no way we can afford to replace our present energy infrastructure with something that requires sacrificing vast amounts of farmland. And that’s “afford” in the sense of avoiding starvation, not money.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if by biofuel we mean that ridiculous solution with biofuel made from corn, then you are right. If by biofuel we mean genetically engineered bacterias that convert waste biomass from usual agriculture into biofuel, then it become more feasible. Especially if coupled with development of fast trains for intercity transit, electric cars for personal transport and rails for cargo.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Oh, that would be wonderful.
Gimme some solar-powered dirigibles. Sure, they’re slow… but I’d love to cruise the US.
[/QUOTE]
That’s all I see them used for (at least as far as passenger travel in concerned). Airships might fill a niche in the vacation industry, but they’re never going to replace planes or trains.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Finally, the dirigible is poised to make a comeback!
[/QUOTE]
But high-speed rail might be even better.
I don’t think air travel is going to come to a crashing halt anytime soon…if anything ABC wanted a shocking headline. I would gladly take a plane- getting from DC- Chicago or to LA on a train- is that even possible. I don’t think, at least not currently, a cost effective or readily available form of transportation besides flying exists.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
For a more fuel efficient way, I recommend the train. I heard a train guy say the other day that trains are two orders of magnitude more fuel efficient for cargo than trucks. Sure it takes longer, but so do dirigibles and boats.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, I heard about a week ago that many independent long-haul truckers were being forced out of business by rising fuel costs. I think we’ll be forced into a scenario where nearly all long-distance freight transit is by train, and trucks will be used only for short-haul transport and local delivery. The railroads have been doing quite well with their freight business, and in today’s market I think they will see a lot more growth. I only hope the infrastructure is up to this. According to Kunstler, it isn’t.
[QUOTE=AlmondJoy]
I don’t think air travel is going to come to a crashing halt anytime soon…if anything ABC wanted a shocking headline. I would gladly take a plane- getting from DC- Chicago or to LA on a train- is that even possible. I don’t think, at least not currently, a cost effective or readily available form of transportation besides flying exists.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly it’s possible, but train travel in the U.S. is for the patient. In addition to the three days it would take to get from DC to LA, there’s only one Chicago - L.A. run a day. So, in addition to the time you spend traveling, you conceivably have to wait nearly a day for the next train.
The basic fares on Amtrak are usually quite inexpensive, but it can get pricey when you factor in dining-car meals and, especially, sleeping accommodations. The last time I looked, traveling across country with the the least expensive compartment cost about $3000 for two people, round trip. On the other hand, if you do book the compartment, you’re considered a “first class” passenger and you get all your meals included in the price. And the food was actually quite good. We didn’t travel across country from east to west, but we did travel from Seattle to L.A. on the train, which takes about 36 hours. What with the food all included, it was sort of like a “cruise-on-wheels”. Everyone should try it, at least once in their life.
[QUOTE=Askance]
If he’d said “some airlines” or even “many” he’d be likely right, but none?Granted this is not long term yet - no business projection is - but they seem to be actually thriving in a high-oil-cost world.
[/QUOTE]
The airline industry in Australia is booming in a big way. A lot of new arilines starting including mining charter companies and not enough pilots to take all the jobs that are going. I’m not sure just how long it will last but high fuel prices don’t seem to be making a dent. Despite the number of american airlines that have had financial problems lately, many airlines in other parts of the world run at a good profit.
Take off and landing does not have a significant effect on fuel consumption.
For the American airlines, if the current financial model becomes infeasible, they will simple ask the federal government for more subsidies. And they’ll get them.
No, it’s an idiotic statement. High fuel prices may change the way the industry is structured, howeverm there will always be a demand to get from one place to the other quickly.
Also, high speed rail is stupid for a country the size of the US. It’s too expensive to compete with the other cross country inferior good, the bus, and even at 300mph, it’s still too slow to compete with the airlines.
[QUOTE=Chimera]
The real problem with the Airlines is the unnecessarily complex pricing/ticketing process that leads to 100 passengers on one aircraft each having paid a unique sum to travel on that airline; from squanderingly huge profit per ticket (first class business travel) to ‘not enough to cover the in-flight peanuts, but we filled a seat’.
[/QUOTE]
Why do say it’s unnecessarily complex? Since this is a situation where each additional passenger adds little to the fixed costs of the flight, a reduced price to fill the last few seats adds profit. It’s tricky to maximize the total revenue for each flight and the way they’re doing it is probably the best way. If they only offered a fixed price (equal to the average of all the tickets sold on the flight today), there would be fewer tickets sold and lower revenue and profits. The current system also provides more choice to the customer. If you can be flexible you can get a lower fare. Why do you want to take away that option for the traveler that might not be able to afford a full-fare ticket?
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
In fact, I heard about a week ago that many independent long-haul truckers were being forced out of business by rising fuel costs. I think we’ll be forced into a scenario where nearly all long-distance freight transit is by train, and trucks will be used only for short-haul transport and local delivery. The railroads have been doing quite well with their freight business, and in today’s market I think they will see a lot more growth. I only hope the infrastructure is up to this. According to Kunstler, it isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
The Trucker thing isn’t new, it happens periodically when fuel prices rise sharply. That’s because fuel costs are generally calculated into the basic rate and not dealt with separately. So if they rise, you make less money than you planned; and if they rise too much, you lose money. Some contracts call for fuel surcharges, but it’s not the norm.
Trains have been seriously cut back in this country and can no longer haul all of our frieght to every place it’s needed. So trucks are not going away. There will just be the usual shake-out, and if it goes on long enough, there will be serious changes in the way truck companies charge for their services as well as slightly higher prices for consumer goods to pay for it.