| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not wrong though. Customers pick the cheapest flights then complain about the amenities.
Seat pitch directly affects the number of seats on the plane, which ties directly to ticket price.
This is a choice the airlines make though. When was the last time you saw amenities advertised from an air carrier? The consumer "chooses" the cheapest flight even when United increased their seat pitch, because the consumer assumed the airlines are all in a race to the bottom to screw passengers and beat them with prods into vertical gurneys with restraint straps. So, if you want to really see if making a more pleasant experience ACTUALLY affects passenger's willingness break an extra $50 out of their wallet, then you have to advertise and commit to informing your consumers AND your employees that there is a brand-related expectation of improved experience on your airline. United clearly didn't do this. And, their CEO knows that. He is a freaking wind-up cymbal monkey who is afraid to invest in long-term improvement if it means the capital outlay could affect his quarterly-report.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just have to get that bike from south park it sounds much better then flying.
Really need those high speed monorail things all across the country. when you can get from A to B at 600 MPH I just nay to ye planes! (of course across the ocean would still be a pain but it is what it is. )
If there was an easy way to increase room for more seats, they would have long ago done that.
I mean, at least domestically, I don't see how to do it. The stewards barely get any room as is, cargo space located below the the space the passengers reside, and the overhead compartments are...uh...overhead.
Things like this they tend to require lots of approval though.
Regardless, if they did get more space, the same economic incentive would push them to put more seats in it, instead of less seats with more room. People would compare prices and fly on the companies that reduced prices by fitting more people in.
They could make slightly less profit and not squish their passengers like sardines?
Only if they all agreed to do it, though. Otherwise the one who did not would see the others crash on the stock market. Federal regulation could do it. Of course, with higher prices in general, more people will be excluded from flying.
Traditional airlines have found themselves in competition with budget carriers, at least outside the US, and the results haven't been pretty for the former. Sad to say the United Airlines guy is right here.
Just have to get that bike from south park it sounds much better then flying.
Really need those high speed monorail things all across the country. when you can get from A to B at 600 MPH I just nay to ye planes! (of course across the ocean would still be a pain but it is what it is. )
The only issue with a monorail system across the US is that maintenance would be stupid high. Also, installation would be insane as well. This is to say that until such a system becomes much more cost effeicent, it just isn't financially plausible (or reasonable) for the US of A to get one. (I.e it makes sense for smaller countries, but not for us except inner city)
I always thought the way to go would be to install it over all the train tracks. It would be a lot of jobs at least. Yeah money is always the limiting factor on coolness it seems.
I always thought the way to go would be to install it over all the train tracks. It would be a lot of jobs at least. Yeah money is always the limiting factor on coolness it seems.
The issue isn't so much, where to lay it down, but just how much rail there is to lay down, and the speeds at which it is going, coupled with the immense amount of different weather it'll be suffering.
I'm not saying I don't want to see a monorail/magnetic rail system here, I am just aware of the fact that such technology needs to become more cost-efficient before it becomes feasible here.
I always thought the way to go would be to install it over all the train tracks. It would be a lot of jobs at least. Yeah money is always the limiting factor on coolness it seems.
Next to the highways would make more sense: just buy the land 100 more feet out. There's usually a legal provision for this.
the thing is, like trains over that much distance the cost of maintaining the track becomes.. why not just fly?
Yeah having been to Japan...I still find it incredibly sad that the state or Rail here versus there.
A hyperloop (let's be frank here, tube post for humans) is not for inner city distances. The entire point is that you can go extremely fast. That gets more useful the further you go. It's what you want to put from NYC to LA or across the Atlantic, not as another subway.
Yeah having been to Japan...I still find it incredibly sad that the state or Rail here versus there.
I think its population density. Public transport gets less effective the more spread out you are, and the difference in people per square mile in the two countries is absurd. (especially since japan is both tiny and effectively made even smaller by the mountains)
I dunno. Honshu is a bit smaller than Texas.
Edit: Bleh. It is pretty close to a third the size of Texas. And they use the SI system for determining surface area, unlike some barbarians I could mention...
Yeah having been to Japan...I still find it incredibly sad that the state or Rail here versus there.I think its population density. Public transport gets less effective the more spread out you are, and the difference in people per square mile in the two countries is absurd. (especially since japan is both tiny and effectively made even smaller by the mountains)
Yeah I don't expect high speed rail in rural Nebraska, but there are plenty of places with equivalent densities here in the US, for instance the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards.
Along the seaboards as well as transcontinental high-speed lines could replace the airports.
Connect the big loops directly the major airports. Let pond-jumpers connect as they do right now whilst the larger aircraft handle international travel. There would only need to be, what, 3 transcontinental legs connecting Pacific to Atlantic, with 1 north-to-south rail on each coast and a third roughly in the middle? Granted, Tornado Alley might be a problem...
Yeah I don't expect high speed rail in rural Nebraska, but there are plenty of places with equivalent densities here in the US, for instance the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards.
But you need the population density at both ends or you're going to need a car when you get there anyway. And once people need a car (largely a sunk cost), and a car can get where you're going without too much hassle to park then "take the car" becomes the best alternative.