Most of those 113 million passports are recent I suspect and only because of rule changes on traveling to Canada, Mexico and the Carribean ... Where in many case people could do that with just a drivers license.

I agree that the reason we aren't using big planes like the A380 and the 747-8 are due to the frequency of flights that the US consumer wants from point A to point B and the cost effectiveness of the smaller planes.

What I would find interesting to learn though is a comparison of the major US carrriers vs BA, KLM, AF, LH in terms of compensation costs ... As these are all airlines thAt have some history to them and have had to overcome similar issues I suspect as far as aging fleets, contracts with employees, etc. Comparing to Airlines grime,raging markets in the Middle East and Asia isn't fair probably for a couple reasons as many of them are newer airlines or don't have the same long term employee labor contracts, have gov't support or funding ... Etc.

If you live in the United States, your domestic travel options are quite broad—everything from Hawaiian beaches to the Grand Canyon to Alaskan glaciers. If you lived in Germany, not as much. I would compare domestic U.S. travel to intra-E.U. travel. The latter requires a passport while the former does not.

So does having a lower passport circulation per capita mean that Americans travel less? Not necessarily. Domestic U.S. travel =/= domestic other countries travel.

Regarding airline quality, the market has repeatedly shown that it only cares about price. U.S. airlines provide an excellent product for the fares they charge, as do various other LCCs around the world. It's tough to compete with a state-owned airline on quality when you're concerned the most about lowering costs/fares.

I would argue that providing an excellent in-flight product is not significantly harder than running a five-star hotel. No such airlines exist in the U.S. not because we don't know how (we do, after all, make the airplanes and the seats) but because we just don't want it. SQ and CX would go bankrupt overnight if they became U.S. centric.

Regarding the whole A vs. B debate, let's not get the war started again. I will say, however, that Airbus has done a fantastic job catching up with Boeing. The future, however, looks brighter for Boeing—the investments they made in the 787 and 777 programs are really starting to pay off.

Intra-Schengenland travel doesn't.

Yes and no. Atleast Norwegians still require passports as our other IDs are not approved for official purposes and hotel checkins etc.

OK, didn't know that. But my point was that Schengenland is just about as big as the EU. It's just missing those bits in the North Sea off the coast of Belgium and Bulgomania. Oh, and that island near Israel.

A lot of carriers seem to have been in decline, not just American carriers. The decline in most OECD countries has been more on the in-flight and ground service aspect than the physical product aspect. Non-OECD countries' carriers have more frequently been getting improved product, but their service levels seem to be declining in some ways too.

Still doesn't get you past the per capita problem you ignored. You know, the one where I pointed to China to show just how facile your argument was. HTH.

Per capita wasn't my point.

For the average person in England to think that Americans aren't well traveled it would be important to know that there are more Americans with passports than there are people in all of England. It puts a different light on things. Not to mention that in the US you can literally drive for days and not leave the country, put a good hour drive will get you out of my countries in Europe.

And I agree with your point IMHO the difference between Germany and the Nordics is far less than NYC and Miami.

While Americans probarly is a a slightly less travelled nation even when correcting for perspectives like this, it's not nearly as bad as one would thing based on the "only 5% of Americans have a passport" factual error.

A far greater proportion of the US lives within 100 miles of the US's international boundary lines than vote in US elections. No matter how someone may try to slice that, the fact remains that the great majority of all US persons live within 100 miles of an international boundry and can get to another country relatively cheaply if they wish in this land of plenty of miles and points.

The probability that a US-born US citizen has traveled to a country on another continent is far lower than is the case for citizens of most other OECD countries.

It's not quick and easy to find a Swedish-born Swedish citizen (of non-immigrant roots) who hasn't had at least one immediate family member go to Thailand; however, that hasn't done anything to spare SAS from being on the decline and losing on its scheduled service to Thailand.

I am always amazed with the numbers so easily obtainable people just make up stuff like only 5% of Americans have passports.

Or believing that the number of people with passports is somehow linked directly to the number of people who have ever traveled outside of the country.

The 5% number seems to have been thrown up not as a number representative fo fact -- which it is not -- but to get to sparking a comparison against some other OECD countries.

The number of people with currently valid passports, a number that is distinct from the number of currently valid passports, is linked to the number of people who have flown from the US. The options for flying out of the US without a passport to even neighboring countries has dried up because of the actions of the US Government. The result is more Americans getting US passports to travel.

Before the US's WHTI nonsense, most US citizens who traveled outside of the US did so without a US passport.

Indeed, but people like planemenchanic never picked up on that. The reality is that the number of US passport holders has increased rapidly since the 1980's (when it really was ~5%) to the current levels of ~30%. But the numbers don't tell the whole story, as others have said. State Department says that most of those passports are used to travel to Mexico and Canada. International travel? Sure is. Does that mean Americans count as "well travelled" or "meaningfully aware of other countries"? Nope. Whole different question. One that few people here have raised or caught on to.

I can only leave so many crumbs!

Don't forget the millions of Americans that have traveled the world, all without a passport.

Then why mention it? Explain to us why the number is important. Put it in context with the counterexample I gave for Chinese with passports. Tell us why simply facts of population total have relevance to the discussion of how well travelled a population is.

What you've said is about as useful as someone saying "America makes the best pizza" and someone else responding "Pizza was invented in Italy" The response is, "And?"


No, it simply tells us that the US has a bigger population than the UK (no news there) and that even though that percentage is still pathetically low, the outright number is higher. That's how percentages work. You haven't *explained* anything or made any *point*.


Again, so what? The US is physically big. And? So is Russia. So is Australia, China, Canada. So what? Places like Portugal aren't. Fiji is made up of islands. India has a large population. Water is wet. Again, so what? Don't state facts: draw connections and make related assertions to form an argument.