I actually think it's a good question. A cousin of mine said when he's flown on a friend of his' Lear that there has been virtually no turbulence because it flies higher. I'm assuming that commercial jets CAN'T fly that high, but does it cost more to fly at a higher altitude. Could the airlines perhaps be requesting routes that are just a bit lower and thus subject to more chop? Just asking.

Also, there have been in instances in the past where pilots unhappy with the labor situations have given choppier rides and less pleasant landing approaches. I haven't heard anything that would suggest that is going on, but always something to consider.

With all that said, I suspect it's just the weather, but I don't think it is as silly a question as many of you are suggesting it is.

ALSO, most turbulence is unpleasant, not in the least dangerous. It costs money to detour around a patch of bumpy air. It very well could be that the airlines are ordering the planes to just plow right through turbulence that they might have avoided in the past. I know that in the cruise ship business they are now ordering the ships to go at incredibly slow speeds in some cases to save gas, even if it means much shorter port calls. (I know planes ain't ships, but I'm going on vacation soon).

Not likely. Fuel flow can increase in turbulence due to head winds, as can flight time itself which means increased payroll time for the crews and perhaps compensation for pax due to missed connections etc.

There is a theory that turbulence in general is itself more common now due to decreasing stability of the global climate.

Pinworm, I'm not sure the global climate is less stable, but I do agree with your other point. I was just pointing out that the OP's question in my opinion was a good one and was being treated by some as if it were silly beyond belief.

First, lets make a differentiation here between weather (storm cells, weather fronts, etc) and turbulence. Turbulence can happen anywhere, but it is a definite when entering a frontal area or area with storm activity.

Most traditional Bizjets (excludes VLJ's) fly "above the weather", which means that they can go over the top of most storms. They fly above 40.000ft. This doesn't put them above turbelence, it just puts them above storm related turbulenece. Commercial aircraft mostly have a maximum ceiling of 36.000ft or 38.000ft.

Flying as high as possible for the distance to be travelled is always what jets want to do since they are more effecient at these altitudes, which can even counteract a negative wind at that altitude. On TATL flights, older aircraft still have to step-climb, which means they go higher after they have become lighter through burning fuel.

IN THE US:
Turbulence is forecast (http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/turbulence/) and is reported to ATC by pilots (called PIREP's http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/pireps/) so the information can be passed to planes coming through later. Planning offices will file specific flight plans based on these forecasts. ATC will try an accomodate altitude changes, but that is not always possible due to traffic, agreements with the next ATC zone, airway restrictions, etc. Evening traffic to/from Boston from/to south of NYC/PHL cannot go above a certain altitude because of TATL traffic above them and cannot go below a certain level because of NYC/PHL landing traffic below them.

i do not know when weignt becomes a consideration in current tatl planes. however, fully loaded may make them heavy enough to fly a few thousand feet lower.

on my recent trip back from geneva to iad, the plane flew south of england and ireland, not the great circle route. we had a 10-20knot tail wind the whole way. never gone that way before. had a bit of turbulance here and there. 10 knot tail wind at 33,000 feet instead of a 120 knot headwind at 36000 is a real cost saving.

someone commented about turbulance, and related them to head winds. don't think that correct. horizontal wind does not make the plane bounce.

Well, it wouldn't cause them to bounce if the wind was always perfectly steady from exactly the same direction. Flying model airplanes I've learned that the wind rarely wants to cooperate that way .

There is a "sweet spot" for aircraft, and it varies depending on aircraft type and conditions. Generally, the higher the aircraft flies, the lower the air resistance and the more efficient it becomes (good speed for less burn)..this is impacted by payload as well. Too high, and the engines can no longer burn fuel and they "flame out". Too low, and they have to work harder, buring through fuel faster.

That said, reaching that altitude requires a climb. Sometimes a long one, which burns more fuel. Descent at idle at the end of the flight makes up for some of this higher burn at the start of the flight profile.

If there is a really good tailwind, crews will aim to take advantage of it as this provides a higher speed and provides some cost savings too as lower thrust is required. Bear in mind that TOO MUCH fuel savings could leave the plane heavy upon arrival, a situation crews want to avoid. If there is a strong headwind, this decreases speed and requires more thrust leading to increased burn.

Some of you may remember the incidents a few months back on some westbound TATL's that had to make unscheduled stops in Gander due to burning through fuel in headwinds.

Anyhow, strong enough head and tail winds can cause turbulence and if they are gusty, even more so. Airspeed can suddenly change by multiples of 10kts in sudden winds. The cost savings and fuel burn then gets inconsistent which is a headache for crews and uncomfortable for pax. You tend to have to reduce speeds in turbulence to reduce stress on the airframe..which leads to increased flight times and delays if it goes on long enough.

Crews are generally instructed to make pax as comfortable as possible and look for the stable air, but they are also instructed to stay within budget on burn and on schedule with departures and arrivals. There are consequences for generating a late and for burning through fuel when it may have been avoidable. Nobody wants to be the pilot that messes up logistics constantly. What is the lesser of two evils? Being late and exceeding budget or a few bumps and green faces? Which scenario do we think gets crews disciplined more?

If some old lady insisted on not sitting down prior to push back and they held the flight for a late full fare F etc etc and the crew has a chance to make up some of the lost time in a solid jet stream but may see a few more bumps in it, they will probably do it. Especially if their last few flights were similarly delayed. It is not soley the flight crews decision most of the time..they will contact both atc and the company first to request major changes in the flight plan.