Maybe I'm not the usual passenger, but I realized recently that it's been many years since I've been on a plane larger than a 737 -- and I fly at least once a month. Most of my flights are to/from reasonable sized but not megacities (SF, St Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Charleston, Phoenix, etc), and since I try for direct flights, I almost always end up on Embraer 145 or 175 or similar small planes.
I think at long as gas prices aren't too high, far more passengers are going to pay a small premium for direct flights on smaller economy planes, and stay away from the 380s and 747s. I couldn't care less if I'm on a fancy plane with a video screen etc -- having to make a connection is 100x worse.
I think at long as gas prices aren't too high, far more passengers are going to pay a small premium for direct flights on smaller economy planes, and stay away from the 380s and 747s.
As an airline you don't get a superjumbo to save fuel or provide more amenities. You get one because you have only so many landing slots in a particular airport and the only way to increase passenger volume is to increase the number of passengers per landing.
I fly a lot -- as in, I've got around 20,000 miles worth of flying between now and the end of June, and typically hit the 100,000-mile frequent-flier status tier each year -- and I'm based in Kansas City.
And... yes, if you're mostly flying domestically within the contiguous 48 US states, you're going to be almost exclusively on planes seating up to 180 passengers, and often smaller. There are some larger planes on major hub-to-hub routes, and sometimes larger planes on major vacation routes at the right time of year, but for the most part you just don't see them unless you're flying long-haul international.
Really it just comes down to economics. Those 737-sized planes hit a good balancing point in terms of passenger capacity, fuel efficiency, cost to acquire, etc. This makes more sense when you remember that even the non-"jumbo" widebody jets are still freakin' huge; for perspective, here's a photo of an Airbus A320 (one of those 737-sized planes) parked next to a 777:
767s, 787s and A330s are all a bit smaller than the 777, but still not exactly small craft. Flying those big monsters around domestically just isn't viable outside of a few select routes, and even then it doesn't always happen. Domestic widebody flying tends to be to/from Hawaii, and otherwise you need to go to another continent to be on a bigger plane (as will be the case with my upcoming travel -- the only two segments on widebodies are to/from London).
On the plus side, the terrible economics of tiny regional jets are finally catching up to the airlines, and they're being used less or in some cases even retired in favor of the larger/more comfortable Embraer E-Jet series and the smaller end of the A320 family.
Yup. The flight from my city to Houston is on an ERJ145, and is nearly 3 hours. Its absolutely ridiculous.
737's are increasingly becoming used for transcons (USA + South America/Carribean/Hawaii), while the 752's that are still in operation are used for Transatlantic flights.
I just flew a 12.5 hour from Vancouver to Guangzhou, China then a 9.5 hour from there to Melbourne. Then I did the whole thing in reverse 2.5 weeks later.
On those flights, a video screen makes a huge difference!
He says in the post that he's flying to/from SF, St Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. These flights are anywhere from about an hour to 4/5 hours on the top end. STL to SFO, for example, is about 4 hours or so.
Comments
Maybe I'm not the usual passenger, but I realized recently that it's been many years since I've been on a plane larger than a 737 -- and I fly at least once a month. Most of my flights are to/from reasonable sized but not megacities (SF, St Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Charleston, Phoenix, etc), and since I try for direct flights, I almost always end up on Embraer 145 or 175 or similar small planes.
I think at long as gas prices aren't too high, far more passengers are going to pay a small premium for direct flights on smaller economy planes, and stay away from the 380s and 747s. I couldn't care less if I'm on a fancy plane with a video screen etc -- having to make a connection is 100x worse.
As an airline you don't get a superjumbo to save fuel or provide more amenities. You get one because you have only so many landing slots in a particular airport and the only way to increase passenger volume is to increase the number of passengers per landing.
"As an airline you don't get a superjumbo to save fuel or provide more amenities."
See Etihad Airways' A380.[1] "Only half the cost of a private jet".
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr0MsAoeLw
I fly a lot -- as in, I've got around 20,000 miles worth of flying between now and the end of June, and typically hit the 100,000-mile frequent-flier status tier each year -- and I'm based in Kansas City.
And... yes, if you're mostly flying domestically within the contiguous 48 US states, you're going to be almost exclusively on planes seating up to 180 passengers, and often smaller. There are some larger planes on major hub-to-hub routes, and sometimes larger planes on major vacation routes at the right time of year, but for the most part you just don't see them unless you're flying long-haul international.
Really it just comes down to economics. Those 737-sized planes hit a good balancing point in terms of passenger capacity, fuel efficiency, cost to acquire, etc. This makes more sense when you remember that even the non-"jumbo" widebody jets are still freakin' huge; for perspective, here's a photo of an Airbus A320 (one of those 737-sized planes) parked next to a 777:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-America/Airbus-A320-21...
767s, 787s and A330s are all a bit smaller than the 777, but still not exactly small craft. Flying those big monsters around domestically just isn't viable outside of a few select routes, and even then it doesn't always happen. Domestic widebody flying tends to be to/from Hawaii, and otherwise you need to go to another continent to be on a bigger plane (as will be the case with my upcoming travel -- the only two segments on widebodies are to/from London).
On the plus side, the terrible economics of tiny regional jets are finally catching up to the airlines, and they're being used less or in some cases even retired in favor of the larger/more comfortable Embraer E-Jet series and the smaller end of the A320 family.
Yup. The flight from my city to Houston is on an ERJ145, and is nearly 3 hours. Its absolutely ridiculous.
737's are increasingly becoming used for transcons (USA + South America/Carribean/Hawaii), while the 752's that are still in operation are used for Transatlantic flights.
What length of flight are you taking?
I just flew a 12.5 hour from Vancouver to Guangzhou, China then a 9.5 hour from there to Melbourne. Then I did the whole thing in reverse 2.5 weeks later.
On those flights, a video screen makes a huge difference!
He says in the post that he's flying to/from SF, St Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. These flights are anywhere from about an hour to 4/5 hours on the top end. STL to SFO, for example, is about 4 hours or so.