skywardhunter

That's actually incorrect. Aside from the fact that modern aircraft do still often cruise at M.84 - M.86 the more important consideration is that Mach speed is relative and depends on altitude. Indicated Air Speed remains relatively constant as one climbs into thinner layers of air, while true air speed increases (adjusting for air pressure, i.e. the same speed calibrated to sea level pressure). Modern airliners fly higher, the A380 routinely operates at FL400-Fl410 (40,000 or 41,000ft above mean sea level in standard atmospheric conditions). If you want to compare aircraft speed the best way to do so is by looking at true air speed or even better ground speed (but need to account for wind which affects ground speed). Modern airliners still often exceed 1,000km/h ground speed given the right wind conditions, I've even seen >1,100km/h.

An A380 might fly at M.84 at FL410, indicating 240KIAS (knots indicated air speed) with a true air speed of 450KTAS and a ground speed of 1,050km/h (or 850km/h with a head wind)

beachmouse

Comparing a long haul international carrier to a market where 85% of daily flights are 30 minute to 5 hour domestic operations is truly apples to date palms. In the time it takes for a single 14 hour long haul flight, the US domestic narrow body can in theory be booked to run 5-7 different flight segments, all of which have their opportunities to kink the schedule up because a delay on the day's second segment cascades a bit more on every leg. And far easier for the airline to have one spare crew on hand for one flight than multiple spare crews for multiple flights.

As for plane size, there is far too much money to be made in domestic secondary and tertiary markets with more limited competition to be limiting one's aircraft to the jumbos. If you only want to base in the USA and only fly long haul, well you're Pan Am and look where they are now. The legacies make up for heavy competition on the international routes by charging dear prices for that first leg on a 717/737/Mad Dog/regional jet out of Albany or Buffalo or Huntsville or Missoula.

Once an airline gets to a certain size here, they pretty much have to hub in order to capture traffic from those lucrative secondary markets. Even Southwest had to despite its point to point roots.

I do like Southwest's soft product, but the limitations of their IT and operations become more evident and annoying when your starting point and finishing points are one of their outstations. The last time the Spousal Unit flew them, he was delayed for like 2 hours coming back to ECP because other flights with IRROPS issues kept poaching what was supposed to be 'his plane' back to the beach and took some time for them to find a plane to serve what was clearly a lower priority route for them.

tjl

Perhaps the better analogy to cars would be a 1960s Chevrolet Impala to a new Chevrolet Impala. Due to similar highway speed limits and increased traffic congestion, it may not actually be faster to drive today than decades ago. But the new car is far more comfortable, reliable, economical, and safe than the old car.

kb9522

I don't see any posted speed limits when I look out my window. Nor any bumper to bumper traffic.

pinniped

OT: I prefer the old Impala.

The new one is the embodiment of the disappointment you feel as you approach National's Exec Aisle and it sinks in that there are no Premium, Luxury, or other specialty cars available. It's an impenetrable wall of Impalas.

Herb687

Yes, but as far as the airlines who buy fuel for aircraft are concerned, slower is better.

It's not that we don't have the technology to build faster subsonic aircraft. Technology hasn't gone backwards since the days of the 747SP (high speed cruise around M0.88 if memory serves), B727, Convair 880/990, etc. It's that this technology has been deployed building what airlines want: efficiency. Given a choice between a few incremental mach numbers and lower fuel burns, efficiency is going to win every time in the airline world.

For a contrast, look at the speed of business jets over the years. They are getting faster; the opposite of airliners. Cessna was alone in breaking the M0.90 barrier for many years but now pretty much all clean-sheet long range bizjet designs save for those of Dassault (and even they have admitted to working on something new and potentially faster) are capable of HSCs in the M0.90 to M0.92 range.

wilsonwei09

The legacy 3's corporate culture/strategy are not about pursuing excellent customer experience, they are more about "Getting the Job Done", in their case means transporting pax from point A to point B safely and punctually

RustyC

I'm late to this one but think this comes closest to the sentiment. I've done longer commentaries before about the history here, especially if there are debates over things like charging for passengers based on their weight. My response to that is that, other considerations aside, it's way too inappropriately fair-minded, i.e. you're acting like Elin Nordegren when the other party is Tiger Woods.

The U.S. legacy airlines have a long history of practices and making up rules themselves that defy common sense and show their real attitudes toward customers. They'll start doing "fuel surcharges" but won't get rid of them when the fuel costs go down. Change fees are such a gouge as to be regarded as an important profit center. Back in the age of the telephone, agents were trained not to give the lowest fare. The airline managements have always done things as ends-justify-the-means, i.e. use any bogus reasoning to try to introduce some fee and get it to stick. And also try to limit consumer choices as much as possible.

It's an extremely negative view of the customer and the real mission, and it makes customers extremely cynical over any period of time. The video with the customer being dragged off the UA flight was a real nadir with the symbolism, but it's not really a recent thing.

As for Southwest, they not only manage the expectations and have the better FA morale, but the whole business model is much more straightforward and in line with common sense, i.e. they don't act like traveling with no bags whatsoever is a reasonable baseline, or that $200 + fare difference is reasonable on change costs. You at least get the impression of a management and culture that's somewhat tethered to a notion of fairness and common sense, and believes at least somewhat that it's possible to have a good product at a fair price and still make money. I think the managements at the big 3 have long since given up on that idea and instead have spent decades trying to rationalize or redefine fairness down or just to say it's a dog-eat-dog world and if you don't do some of the worst practices you won't make any money or stay in business. And I can guaran-dam-tee you that if you don't adopt that way of thinking you'd won't make it to CEO in the big 3.

BearX220

Bingo down the line. And the US3 wonder why their brand names are right down there with Comcast and Wells Fargo in public esteem. They created this adversarial culture, and not yesterday. Of course customers feel justified in exploiting a mistake fare or sneaking into a lounge. The base craves revenge.