[Klathmon]

Anecdotally I've noticed that for like 5 years now my friends and family have a pretty severe aversion to flying anywhere for anything.

From needing to show up hours before the flight, to the invasive screenings, the insane restrictions on what you can and cannot bring, the sentiment that if you check any baggage it's basically as good as gone, the ever increasing cost, the delays, and even things like the worry about if your ticket will actually get you on the damn plane!

If I have to choose between a 3 hour flight, and a 12 hour drive, the 12 hour drive is what I pick almost every time now. Ignoring "disasters" (massive accident, theft, etc...) I'm going to have all my stuff, I know i'm not going to waste hundreds of dollars on a ticket that will get "rejected" at the last second, i'll have a car when I get to my destination, i can bring whatever the fuck I want, and it's a fraction of the cost.

[manyxcxi]

Man, I'm not sure if your home airport is not very good, you don't travel that often, or if you just have a higher base level of anxiety or what- but any drive over 4 hours and I'm on the lookout to see if I can fly there.

I frequently go from Portland to San Jose and back in the same day- I get meetings done and am home in time to put my kids to bed. I also just generally fly pretty frequently. I've got an Arab name and my dad comes from 'one of those countries'. I lived in that country for a few years as a child, and I've visited a few of 'those countries' in the last three or for years. I've literally not been hassled beyond the occasional extended screening XXXX on my boarding pass- like, maybe 2 times in the last three years. I have been bumped from a flight zero times in my entire life.

150 years go if you wanted to travel from California to Oregon you'd be going up the Applegate Trail and the TSA wouldn't even be top 10 annoyances along the way for travel. I say that semi in jest, nor am I endorsing the TSA in anyway shape or form. But frankly, if you're worried about getting bumped or hassled by the TSA I think you're worried about the wrong thing or you've got a very peaceful life that hasn't got many things to worry about.

I'm not saying commercial air travel isn't without its issues, it's generally just kind of annyoying to stand in lines, stand in more lines, then get crammed into a metal tube with my knees smashed against the seat in front me. It's just that the likelihood of some catastrophe (drunk, mental issues, etc.) that isn't self imposed is quite low.

My n=1 anecdote is just that, but I would wager I'm more likely to be hassled or be hit by airline failure given all of my variables AND the sheer number of flights I take compared to the average person. Yet hear am I saying the airlines and TSA aren't really THAT bad. Talk about playing devil's advocate.

[scriptkiddy]

>Man, I'm not sure if your home airport is not very good, you don't travel that often, or if you just have a higher base level of anxiety or what- but any drive over 4 hours and I'm on the lookout to see if I can fly there.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do have something to say about this.

Your situation is a bit different in that you need to be able to get from Portland to SF and back in a single day. Some people, myself included, don't have that restriction and value the journey as much as we value the destination. Personally, I absolutely LOVE long road trips. Seeing sites, eating at cozy roadside diners, listening to super loud music and sleeping in my car are all things I look forward to.

[manyxcxi]

That's a good point, I do enjoy road trips for the purpose of a road trip. I usually take two or three on my motorcycle every summer. But if I'm just trying to get somewhere (work, family for the holidays, etc.) I'd be happiest if I could just teleport. Until we all have a personal Scotty beaming us around, I guess I'll have to settle for Alaska Airlines.

[nojvek]

I love Alaska. Its the least evil of all domestic airlines. I once had a supper shitty experience when Microsoft flew me in for interview with United. Since then I don't even go 100ft near United. Alaska all the way!

I really hope Microsoft doesn't fly their candidates with United anymore. A couple of big companies cancelling their corporate contracts might give them a reality check.

[foepys]

Maybe they are just not white and have to endure a lot of "random" searches every flight.

[indemnity]

Pretty sure this is it. I hail from a third world country, but I have never faced any issues since I'm European, and have since "whitewashed" my passport into a Five Eyes one.

Have even cracked a joke or two with TSA agents & gotten a "Welcome to America, enjoy your holiday" at LAX.

[manyxcxi]

My point is that I'm the exact demographic of people who should be getting hit by "random" searches and I've got the volume of travel where it should be happening to me somewhat frequently if it is a widespread issue that occurs with any regularity. I'm 24-34, 1/2 Arab, have a beard, book a lot of flights on short notice, sometimes just one way, and NEVER check a bag.

I don't get ever get bumped from flights and I get pulled out for "random" searches on average of 1 times per year for the past 5 years.

Again, all anecdotal, but I'm the definition of the guy who should hate the airport. I only just dislike it.

[dawnerd]

I do the pdx to lax route a lot and end up showing up under an hour to the airport most times. Pdx tsa is probably the nicest batch I've run across. Of all my flying I've only had one bad time through tsa anywhere. People just like to play into the joke about how incompetent they are. Now, MCO on the other hand is a complete joke and tsa there all need to be retrained....

[yodsanklai]

You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers.

Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

[linkmotif]

Eh I actually have developed this same attitude in the past few years. I'd rather drive NY to St Louis than fly because even though it's much shorter to fly, it's an uncomfortable reminder that the world is taken over by the lowest grade idiots and the highest grade capitalists. Probably nothing new, but somehow it feels different.

[posguy]

Gotta support the TSA make work program though, think of the poor, unemployed person who could instead be groping you in the name of security theater!

But seriously, flying sucks, I've driven 20+hrs to avoid it in the past. Usually worth it since I get to plan out stops and see old friends on the way down the west coast.

[logfromblammo]

Count me as another in the "Americans who avoid air travel" bin.

I'd rather rent a car and book overnight hotels than buy a US-based airline ticket, to the extent that I have driven (with another driver) 50 hours on the road to avoid 12 hours in the air. And with the prices of airline tickets, even renting the largest passenger vehicle for a week plus two weekends and staying in mid-range hotels was less than half the money cost for four passengers. Also, we got to see Oklahoma in its "everything is on fire" season.

That is the extent to which air travel has fallen. I would rather drive across a state that is literally on fire than fly an airline in the US. I would rather piss at a New Mexico low-water-use rest stop than in an airliner's toilet. I would rather be surrounded by an entire herd of leather-clad hog-riding bikers in the middle of nowhere than put a laptop or decent camera in checked baggage. And if I ever get forcibly dragged out of my seat by some thug, I'd like the cops to be on my side.

[linkmotif]

A state that's on fire? A herd of leather-clad bikers? That actually sounds cool :).

But you know what sounds not cool: being in an environment where you have no rights, and as you put it, are at the mercy of thugs.

[ambentzen]

> But you know what sounds not cool: being in an environment where you have no rights, and as you put it, are at the mercy of thugs.

Which is why he drives... I'll show myself out.

[knownothing]

> Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

When I was flying back from Paris, I sat next to an Airbus engineer who was working on retrofitting jet engines to run on a biofuel produced via fermentation rather than normal fuel.

No clue how far along that project is or how promising it is, but there are folks in the industry thinking about this problem.

[ricw]

Given that we have likely hit peak demand for fossil fuel (the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply), this is unlikely. Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again. Or so goes the theory..

In short, flight prices are unlikely to be severely effected by oil prices again.

[bmh_ca]

> Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again.

Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

When the current supplies start to dwindle, I would not be surprised to see oil prices strike $200 or more a barrel.

The oil crash removed the cost of exploration from oil prices, so current prices are no longer a indication of probable future supply.

There's a multi-year lag between exploration and crude coming to market. While futures/derivatives can cover that exploration for future crude extraction, there's a growing spectre of competitive alternative energy that will likely reduce the attractiveness of crude – i.e. there being higher risk of relative oil obsolescence, the anticipated return on futures diminishes, meaning less money going into exploration, even with what will be present-day high prices.

Given the lag in investment, I suspect that when the "spike" comes people will look as much to ramping up more immediate alternatives (solar, wind) than exploring for oil.

The above is all speculation of course, but the 5-10 year market forces at work are not pushing towards lower or even stable oil prices, but towards much higher ones – at least until demand drastically drops, which some figure is at least 15-20 years out.

Just my 2¢.

[davidf18]

> "Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary...."

The fracking technology for oil and gas is still on it's Moore's Law curve and is getting cheaper and cheaper so in fact more and more fracking is coming on-line so that we're unlikely to see prices much above $50 per barrel.

Mar 21, 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big-oil-s...

April 12, 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-12/u-s-shale...

[bmh_ca]

Good point. It just occurred to me that the spectre of shale that you highlight also counter-incentivises exploration, perhaps more so than alternative energy.

[protomyth]

> Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

I keep http://oilprice.com/ in my RSS feed to keep tabs on the subject. It looks like the shale exploration is kicking up again (from the site and from friends working in the western part of ND).

and this helps http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-Breakeven-Prices-A...

[Retric]

$100 per barrel is still cheap. It had minimal impact on usage, and with most of the world trying to ramp up to a western lifestyle demand is unlikely to drop in the next 20 years.

PS: Oil is 53$ per barrel right now, 2x price spikes in commodity prices are fairly common historically.

[marcosdumay]

> the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply

Demand == Supply

And that's even more true¹ for stuff like oil, that has a low volumetric price. Do you really think demand peaked because people could not find more uses for the stuff?

Oil is in a peak production crash. The prices volatility is a natural consequence of it, and will always stay as high as consumers' budgets allows.

1 - That means, it's true for almost any misleading definition of those terms you can come-up with.

[MarkMc]

> I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

Actually I think the cost of fuel to fly a passenger from New York to London will be cheaper in 30 years, for two reasons: (a) Motor vehicles will no longer be powered by gasoline; and (B) planes will continue to become more fuel efficient.

[gnode]

>Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

On the other hand, planes may become electric, and the cost of solar power is rapidly falling. If this trend continues, it will likely become cheaper to fly in the future.

Even if planes don't become electric any time soon, other demand for oil may be displaced, lowering its price.

[ferentchak]

Is it possible to make something like a jet electric? If someone knows of one I want to see a picture. Sounds like something from one of my dad's old sci-fi novels.

[gnode]

I've seen a few articles about electric aircraft on HN. In addition to the Boeing plane, there's Wright Electric ( https://weflywright.com/ ). Light electric trainer aircraft have already been built, such as the Pipistrel WATTsUP. Not a jumbo jet, but pictures like you asked for: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/wattsup-the-new-2seat-electric-...

[GFischer]

That Pipistrel airplane is very interesting. Not having fuel makes it better in a light crash I guess (no explosion).

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to piloting, but here on HN I've read other stories on light aircraft and training, and how forgiving it is and how it handles plays a very important factor in choosing an airplane as a trainer, no idea how that one does.

[gnode]

I imagine it wouldn't (need to) handle particularly differently. You can pretty much put a battery wherever you like. It seems that in the Pipistrel WATTsUP removable battery modules replace the mass of the engine block.

A nice advantage for a trainer is that unlike a combustion engine aircraft, a battery powered aircraft's mass isn't changing over time, so the learning pilot can expect a more consistent handling experience.

[Arizhel]

Yes, it's possible to make anything electric that currently runs on fossil fuel.

Making electric motors to spin propellers isn't that hard. We already do this for ships: any modern cruise liner has electrically-powered propellers (screws) that propel the ship. The challenge on a plane is getting the power to the motors. You could do a serial hybrid system, where a diesel generator makes power for the motors; this is what they do on cruise ships, but while it works well there for various reasons (including the variable-speed nature of running a cruise ship, and the usefulness of "azipods" for maneuverability), it's not likely to work so well for planes since planes in flight run their engines near full-throttle all the time (so you end up using more fuel, not less, due to conversion losses). So the idea is running the planes on batteries, like electric cars do now. The problem there is the weight of the batteries needed to store that much power is prohibitive. If someone invents battery tech that can store significantly more energy with the same weight, then the equation will change and we could very well see electric airplanes.

[bmh_ca]

Sure, Boeing's working on it now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-05/boeing-te...

[bm1362]

Is there any progress on electric aircraft that can match the durability and throughout of existing planes?

[mitchdoogle]

I really don't understand this. I've flown 3-4 times a year for the past 10 years and love flying.

At busy airports like JFK and NRT, I show up no more than 90 minutes before boarding time, which gives me time to check my bags and go through security, and still have time to grab a snack. At smaller airports, like MCI, I show up 30 minutes before boarding time and still have time to relax a bit.

I prefer to check bags. It's free on domestic flights for me and a passenger because I have airline-branded credit card, I avoid the pain of trying to find a space for my carry-on, and it just feels nicer to be able to walk through security and to my gate without dragging around a huge suitcase. I've never once had trouble with checked baggage - no valuables stolen, nothing lost.

And what's this about the "ever-increasing cost"?! Flights are cheaper than ever. If you're lucky enough to live near a hub, you can get anywhere in the world for a decent price. At smaller airports, the hubs are just one flight away and might not even cost any more. If they do it's only $100 or so.

A 3 hour flight is more like a 20 hour drive. Take Chicago to Miami for example. I just looked some flights. A nonstop flight is 3 hr 5 min and cost about $200 round trip. You'd spend more than that on gas for just the one way trip if you drove. Not to mention a hotel since you'd probably want to break it up to 2 days driving.

[nojvek]

Sometimes its about Flying vs not flying. I definitely have reduced all flying to absolute necessary. Not being white, I get treated differently by TSA at times. Flying is currently a very annoying experience.

[jghn]

This was me for a long time, but then I got precheck. It is such a night and day difference that I'm back to flying

[Klathmon]

Even with precheck (which i got as well), it didn't really change anything.

I still need to show up just as early (as my local airport often has a longer line for precheck!), i still can't pack more than some stupid amount of liquid, or have my shit thrown out because I used a X-oz plastic bag which is too big!!! I still can't check bags as they just won't ever show up, or will show up damaged, have items stolen, or completely trashed from being searched. It only makes the cost more expensive, and it doesn't really help with the "invasive screening" (oh, i don't need to take my shoes off any more... i'm still getting scanned or felt up)

Plus I had to take a day off of work to go answer a bunch of stupid questions, pay them $80-ish per person, and give my fingerprints.

[randallsquared]

I must fly into and out of only the best airports. I've only ever had one thing thrown out; I've never had anything in my checked baggage damaged (and if I'm going for more than overnight, I always check my bag, even though I could carry it on, to avoid fighting for space with other passengers' carryons); the scanning doesn't perceptibly affect me; and I regularly show up at the airport less than an hour before boarding.

I live 45 minutes from CLT, with an office 45 minutes by taxi[0]from JFK, and when I fly into JFK, I can leave the house at 5am and be at the office by 10am.

[0] account_banned on Uber the first time I ever tried to use it, so, taxi it is.

[meddlepal]

I've never had an issue at Logan (Boston), SFO, Seattle or Austin. Usually past security in 20 min and I do not use precheck.

[driverdan]

When are you flying? BOS and SEA have some of the longest TSA lines in the country. I've waited over an hour in line at both. I've gotten through BOS in 20 min but that's the exception, not the rule. AUS has gotten a lot worse too.

[meddlepal]

I fly in the morning and usually on Mondays and Tuesdays when I do fly from BOS. Departure's are usually in 7-8AM time frame. I've never had an issue getting through quickly. Maybe I'm just extremely lucky.

[linkmotif]

Yeah exactly they can just arbitrarily throw all your shit out, harass you, etc. Yeah it's rare for these things to happen, but my family immigrated to the US for freedom and civil rights and lol it's more Soviet here every day.

[wbl]

I fly approximately 3-4 times a year, possibly more, and have for the past 8 years. I've never had a checked bag go missing. Chances a check bag is lost (not just delayed) are vanishingly small.

[jghn]

I didn't say it was the greatest thing ever and yes it sucks to have to pay for the privilege of what just used to be normal. At least at my airport the whole process winds up being a lot faster.

However it did change my calculus when debating train vs plane for trips. It used to be anything under about a 10 hour train ride was a no brainer, now that's more like a 3 hour train ride.

[coldpie]

Some TSA clown once told me I had to throw away my water and we just stared at each other for a bit. "My water, seriously?" "Yep, your water." "Water." "Water."

Fuck the TSA and fuck the terrified Americans who keep voting to keep them.

[stuff4ben]

Why is that a big deal? You're warned not to bring bottles of liquids before you even get into the TSA line. Sure the TSA is bunch of security theatre in some cases, but if there's a rule there, why do you have to be a prick about it?

[coldpie]

Because it's a huge waste of time and resources. No one benefits. There's no reason for these clowns to be wasting my time and making people buy water on the other side of the checkpoint. It's just one huge welfare program for unemployable morons, and I have to waste two hours every time I fly to put up with their dumb horseshit.

I'm gonna throw a brick through your front window. No reason for it, just gonna do it. Hey, a guy's paying me to do it. Why you gotta be so upset about it?

Let me put this in perspective. The Twin Cities gained a new light rail passenger line a couple years ago. The construction cost for this new line came to about $1 billion[1]. I use this line every single day. It takes me to work and to home and out to dinner. I love this rail line. It makes my life better.

The TSA's annual budget is $8 billion[2]. For the cost of running the TSA for one year, eight metro areas could gain a new rail line. Every year! And what does the TSA do in return for this money? Waste my time. Waste your time. Piss me off. Humiliate me with pat-downs. Why the fuck are we paying for these clowns to do this instead of doing something useful with that money? Because of Americans who have never met a person of Muslim faith but are terrified because of the loud angry white man on TV.

Yeah, it's a big deal and I'm fucking pissed. Why aren't you?

[1] http://finance-commerce.com/2015/04/progress-mn-metro-green-...

[2] https://www.rt.com/usa/tsa-useless-airport-security-479/

[talmand]

Well, if you knew the rule before going in, then from my perspective you were the one wasting everybody's time. Sure, you can view it as a stupid rule but being stupid is not the way to combat a stupid rule.

As for TSA security theater and it's bloated budget, right on.

[lsaferite]

Most airports I frequent have water bottle fountains now that dispense cold, filtered water into your bottle for you. Just bring a reusable bottle or dump your water from a disposable bottle.

[pcmonk]

Of course there's no reason to make people buy water on the other side of the checkpoint, but that's because it's generally ludicrous to have people buy water at all. In the USA, every airport I've been to has free water fountains both airside and landside. The rest of the world is way behind in this respect.

[briandear]

Let me know when I can take the train from Houston to Frankfurt.

[natch]

We are dealing with zealots who think a reward is waiting for them in heaven.

How was he supposed to know that it's really water?

Just because it is clear liquid in a sealed bottle proves nothing, even if you are willing to drink it on the spot. See above, the part about heaven and zealots.

If he said "water" repeatedly, that's not because he actually knows or cares whether it is really water. It very well may be water. He's just saying that that is the rule; even if your liquid is just water, you need to ditch it. He's not going to say all this stuff about "how do I know it's really water" because he's not there to argue; he's just trying to move the line along.

This information all seems like common sense to me.

[deong]

I was in line behind a girl flying from Schiphol to the US a couple of years ago, and they told her she needed to throw away the unopened bottle of water she'd purchased from a shop in the airport. She was arguing that she'd bought it right there and it hadn't been opened, and the guy said, "they're supposed to seal it in a bag. Maybe you can go get a bag?"

At that point, the rule isn't "you aren't allowed to bring liquids onto a plane because it might be a bomb". The rule is "you have to bring your bomb on the plane in a special bag".

[toomuchtodo]

Just bring an empty water bottle with through and fill it post-security. For all the hand wringing, this is a minor issue.

[zzleeper]

I once had a tiny bit of water on my plastic thermos. The TSA guy said "throw the bottle or exit the line, walk to the bathroom and empty it there".

I just looked at him puzzled, opened the bottle, and drank the water.

Now that I think of it, I was lucky he didn't taze me for my 'insolence'.

[coldpie]

I usually dump it in the trash at the line. I feel sorry for the cleaning staff, but whatever, fuck it. Anyone with brains understands how useless all this is, but it's the TSA, so brains are not involved.

[shamaku]

Agreed!

[late2part]

Next time try freezing it first.

[dawnerd]

Which is actually a suggestion tsa gives out. Just make sure it's completely frozen. Any floating water won't be allowed. Aka drink the melt.

[coldpie]

Woo, $100 extortion fees, all right.

[gm-conspiracy]

Ah, yes, being extorted to not remove your shoes.

[ChemicalWarfare]

Precheck is a must if you travel often. On the flip side - pre-check lines are sometimes longer then "regular", esp on Monday/Friday mornings when the frequent-flying business crowd is there.

[dawnerd]

I got global entry. Few bucks more and it covers me when I travel outside the states.

[mrbill]

The last time I flew was in 2009 when I had to go to Chattanooga for my wife's funeral (we buried her next to her mom). Before that was 2001 when we got married in the same city and then honeymooned in Baltimore & DC.

I don't plan on flying again any time soon.

[rconti]

I love flying AND driving. I used to regularly do Seattle->SJ by car (did it 4x in 4 weeks one time) and really enjoy the drive.

Flying commercially sucks, of course, but the security line concerns are overblown. They've been saying "3 hours before departure for international, 2 hours for domestic" for decades, but I just ignore it. I routinely show up 30min before boarding for domestic flights (so, 55-60min before departure) and never have an issue. Worst security line I've seen at SFO was 25min. I was sweating it a bit, but I got to my gate exactly at boarding time, and it was a ghost town.. they hadn't even bothered to get the gate agents there yet!

The only thing you have to be careful of is, if checking a bag, to have it checked 45 or 50min before departure, that's the the tricky one.

[rdiddly]

And you get at least a fighting chance at experiencing/appreciating the places you pass through. And in a pinch you've got a place to sleep. And no inane announcements to sit through and no inane in-flight movie to avert your eyes from!

[douche]

Your door-to-door time with those two trips is probably not that far apart, when you factor in time getting to and from the airport, waiting for security, waiting for luggage, and delays.

Plus driving is cheaper and less stressful...

[Klathmon]

But am I wrong in thinking it shouldn't be that way? Why is the "really fast bus in the sky" so much worse in just about every way? Is it like this in other countries?

[piva00]

At least here in Europe when I fly inside Schengen it's not like that at all.

My experience going through security has always been much smoother than when I traveled to the US. Lines are smaller, security is more relaxed (never had to take my shoes off for example) and the security staff for the most part are much kinder.

When I flew through the US (arrived at DFW to connect to SFO, drove to LA and went from LAX to JFK) I think the only airport that everything was smooth was SFO. DFW was meh-ok but I had to go through immigration so don't want to consider it. But oh my fucking god, I pray to never have to go through LAX again, never expected to be treated like cattle with rude agents everywhere. JFK was a little bit better but not by much.

So yes, comparing my experience between LAX, SFO, JFK and DFW against ARN, MUN, TXL, SXF, BCN, FRA, CDG, AMS, ZUR and DUB... There's really no comparison, never felt mistreated or had any kind of problem with security staff or time in the queues in any of the European airports.

[rangibaby]

As a western person, the lack of invasive checks and procedures etc in Asia (live Japan, have travelled PRC HK Indonesia and Malaysia) was an eye opener for me.

In every case the security involved an X-ray for luggage and walking thru a metal detector. That was it.

Australia in 2014 otoh was nuts. I was taken aside and magic wanded at one airport, subject to a personal body scan (???) and patdown at another, and interrogated on my way out (apparently "company employee" was not an adequate description of my occupation).

Combined with other security theater like police leading dogs around at the gate, it made me not want to visit there again. It was scary!

[talmand]

Asia hasn't discovered, or have the need for, the security theater jobs program.

[posguy]

Seriously, instead of a New Deal with public infrastructure projects, we're spending to create make work jobs with the TSA.

[talmand]

Not only that, the security lines are now a security issue.

[yardie]

The U.K. London Heathrow takes a close second. No, other countries do not put on a security theater show where you are the spectacle.

[throwaway049]

I always feel like LHR security checks do their best to keep the lines moving and have a neutral or even friendly manner. I find the process to be of about the same format and duration as other airports I've passed through in ME and East Asia.

[Cthulhu_]

Is driving really cheaper? I mean I'm pretty sure the margins are pretty thin, if it's just you at least - they should balance out the more people you need to transport.

Mind you I'm from Europe, our gas prices are 4x as high and for trips to e.g. the UK or Scandinavia we have to cross a body of water. There's some toll roads too in e.g. France, and Germany wants to introduce those too.

[Klathmon]

We just recently drove from Pennsylvania to Florida, cost us about $150 in gas round trip (ignoring wear-and-tear on the car)

The cheapest we could have flown is about $200 per person (2 people), not to mention taxi/uber costs.

So for one person, it might be a wash, but for 2+ people its very much cheaper to drive.

[RightMillennial]

It really depends on the location of departure, destination, and how valuable your time is.

For example, I can fly round trip from Chicago, IL (ORD) to Miami, FL (MIA) for $325 per person (tax included, no checked luggage) taking about 7 hours each way (45 minutes to airport, arrive 2 hours early, 3:15 hour flight, 15 minutes to get situated, 45 minutes to destination). To drive that would take 21 hours and 1,400 miles each way which would cost about $300 in gas for my vehicle. This is really a best case scenario for flying being potentially as cheap as driving. If you want to fly to any smaller international or regional airport without frequent direct flights, the cost can easily be a couple hundred dollars more per person.

[throwaway2048]

$325 is a lot for a flight to miami, you can easily find flights that are half that.

[driverdan]

A 3h flight is going to be much faster than a 12h drive. It may be cheaper if you fill the car with people but will cost more if you do it alone. That's assuming you consider your time to be worth nothing.

[douche]

Unless I'm flying a RyanAir flight that's under $100, a tank and a half of gas to go 700-800 miles is going to be cheaper, if we're sticking in the 12-hour drive frame. And that's driving a not-particularly fuel efficient pickup truck. Gas is only $2.09 this week.

[_red]

IF the VLJ (Very Light Jet) segment would ever fully blossom a major Uber-style disruption would be possible.

The biggest thing that could prevent this welcomed development? The government. Specifically that the FAA is likely to clamp down on "Uber Air Taxi" market and declare them common carriers.

Got to protect those monopolies.

[peckrob]

> Specifically that the FAA is likely to clamp down on "Uber Air Taxi" market and declare them common carriers.

The FAA has some really arcane rules, which is why aviation law is an actual speciality. Like, for instance, as a private pilot I can't fly a coworker with me to a conference and be reimbursed by my employer, but I can fly just myself and be reimbursed. There's a lot of subtleties to the FARs.

But if you're talking about private pilots flying people around like Uber drivers do, I can understand why they would clamp down on that.

Commercial and Air Transport pilots have much more rigorous standards than private pilots do, including stricter medical requirements and more thorough yearly medical exams. Private pilots will soon be able to get by with just an annual physical at a family doctor after their initial medical, whereas ATPs have to have a yearly EKG done, for instance. There's also more thorough training, higher hour requirements, etc.

Basically, people and equipment flying passengers are held to the highest standards (sometimes, maybe too high) which is one reason commercial aviation is so safe, and the FAA does not want private pilots who may not meet those standards running underground, fly-by-night airlines. All it takes is one crash wiping out a family in an "uber air taxi," and maybe a few people on the ground if it hits a house or something. In addition to being a tragedy the people involved and aviation in general, it would bring a ton of negative publicity to the relevant licensing agencies followed by mountains of lawsuits.

Without massive changes to the current aviation legal system, I can't see any way an "Uber air taxi" could work. Unlike a lot of cities which may not fully enforce a prohibition on services like Uber, the FAA will bring the wrath of God down on anyone they find willfully breaking the rules.

[rohit89]

For something like "Uber Air Taxi", they should probably do away with pilots altogether and have it work on autopilot.

[nradov]

Nonsense. The FAA actively encourages general aviation and small air charters. They bent over backwards to help the VLJ manufacturers through the certification process. The VLJ segment failed (so far) because they're still too expensive, too slow, and too dangerous. But perhaps further improvements in engines and lightweight materials will eventually make it viable?

[dmitrygr]

The operating costs of a VLJ are still insanely huge. Example: a piston plane - SR22 can fly 200mph for 1200 miles on one tank of fuel. Approximate cost of that flight including amortised repair and maintenance costs: $1000. A VLJ, like SF50 can do that same flight at 320mph, but at an amortized cost of about $2600. Mostly it is due to engine overhaul costs. Overhauling a piston engine like in an SR22 is about $40k and done about every 2000 hours. Overhauling a jet like the in the SF50 is about $700k, and done every 4000 hours.

Until that comes down, jets will simply not approach uber-useful affordability for even people who buy full-fare first class seats.

(Fuel consumption is also much higher both in gal/h and in $/hr for jets compared to pistons)

And piston planes are not nearly as useful for air taxi due to them being unable to fly high enough to avoid most weather. Oh and in general turbines are an order of magnitude less likely to fail per hour.

[rdl]

I'm surprised turbine costs haven't fallen -- maybe we need more cruise missiles and jet-powered drones to raise the volume and lower per unit costs.

[nradov]

Cruise missile turbine engines have a design operating life of only a few hours, use special stabilized gel fuel, and optimize for performance over cost. I'm skeptical as to whether those will prove to be a good basis for developing cheaper VLJ engines.

[rdl]

Didn't Eclipse (RIP) say their engine was going to be derived from a cruise missile engine?

[throwaway2048]

pilots not licensed for commerical people transport are forbidden from taking money to fly people places. Planes that do fly people places from money are either forced to use the TSA or provide "equivilent security".