At what point will air travel become unaffordable

TOliver wrote:
"nobody" wrote...


The first to go will be discretionary travel. People will travel less
often for vacation.


In inflation adjusted costs, airfares - especially available international
fares - today remain well below those of the 50s/60s and 70s. They'll have
to ridse considerably to change peoples habits. Certainly, for those
located in "Middle America" off season fares to Europe remain no more than
those for many domestic trips. Within Europe, cheap fares seem available
with some planning (or willingness to go where/when fares or cheap). I'm
sure that there are added taxes/surchrges, but my morning's email brought me
BMI selling one ways for 13 pounds ++ for flights to the Continent (and
within the Continent) from the Scuppered H'aisles.

snip

Your point is reasonable but a bit overstated. I live in a gateway city
served by among others Continental, KLM, Air France, BA, Lufthansa &
others. While air fares are reasonable they even in winter will run
$500 or $600 to Europe & packages do run a bit more than the 5 day
cruises. And many domestic locations are under $300.

Fares are still reasonable and packages within reach but not quite as
within as you note. If one is on the eastern edge of North America it
may fit but not from all gateway cities.

Jim Ley wrote:
As is the boat crew, however you're missing the vital point that if
airline prices go up due to fuel costs, then boat costs will rise
faster as they use more fuel per passenger.

Cruise ships may use more fuel per passenger, but it is not a given that
a purpose-built floating A380 on steroids carrying 5500 passengers would
also cost more in fuel. The crew-pax ratio would be much lower than on a
cruise ship, the cabins would be much smaller (more akin to train
travel), and a greater percentage of the ship's mass would be devoted to
sleeping quarters instead of entertainment facilities.


And if such a ship can also carry cargo, then efficiency rises
significantly and so do revenus.

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:27:09 -0400, nobody wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:
As is the boat crew, however you're missing the vital point that if
airline prices go up due to fuel costs, then boat costs will rise
faster as they use more fuel per passenger.

Cruise ships may use more fuel per passenger, but it is not a given that
a purpose-built floating A380 on steroids carrying 5500 passengers would
also cost more in fuel. The crew-pax ratio would be much lower than on a
cruise ship, the cabins would be much smaller (more akin to train
travel), and a greater percentage of the ship's mass would be devoted to
sleeping quarters instead of entertainment facilities.

No, the majority of that ship would be in lifeboats, and engines, and
you would still be burning as much fuel as a plane, boats are really
inefficient, there's a lot of water to push out of the way, and they
can only go to coasts, fuel prices won't change the economics in
favour of boats from planes.

Jim.

TOliver wrote:
In inflation adjusted costs, airfares - especially available international
fares - today remain well below those of the 50s/60s and 70s.

This is not what counts. What counts is how much you plane ticket to
London, Paris, Hong Kong etc will cost you next year compared to 2000 or
2001. The air industry had been setup for certain travel levels at
certain prices. Now, this is changing, and as prices go up, fewer
passengers will travel. The real metric to look at is air fares
increases vs disposable income increases.

to ridse considerably to change peoples habits. Certainly, for those
located in "Middle America" off season fares to Europe remain no more than
those for many domestic trips.

You'll find that airlines will offer fewer and fewer "below cost" fares
just to fill seats on a plane, they will start to widthdraw services
instead of running flights at a loss. You'll find more seasonal
services that match actual demand instead of running flights for the
sake of it and using yield management to generarate seat seales to put
bums on seat at any cost.

BMI selling one ways for 13 pounds ++ for flights to the Continent (and
within the Continent) from the Scuppered H'aisles.

Beware of those adverts. Once you add on all the taxes, fuel surchages
etc, you'll find that ticket price much higher.

And yes, the european low cost carriers had had a field day with low
prices, but those too are rising now. And as they rise, it will put
barriers to discretionary trips such as mates taking afternoon off work,
using Ryannair to fly and then watch a football game and come back home
at night on Ryannair.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:21:58 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:47:54 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:


On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:27:59 GMT, (Jim Ley) wrote:



unless they make a lot more sailing ships, surely boats are less
efficient at moving people than a plane?

I can't see boats ever being better than planes in any terms apart

from comfort. The journey time means you need staff to be employed for

long periods, and that's where the costs are.


Yet the simple fact is that up well into the 1960s air travel was
expensive enough that ships were the preferred means of economy
travel from the USA to Europe. As to comfort, I understood at the
time comfort wasn't a consideration; the kids partied for the
entire crossing.

For those who wanted to travel air the cheapest fare was by the
non-IATA Iceland Airlines on a turpoprop at US $300 return New
York to Amsterdam via Goose Bay, Reykjavik, and Shannon.

Adjusted for inflation that $300 is $1901 today.

Did Icelandic fly into Amsterdam in their early says? I only remember
them from the mid 60s when they flew into Luxembourg to avoid IATA fare
rules.

I may be misremembering.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:23:52 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:21:58 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

In any case I suspect that ship travel could easily be cheaper even with
a reasonable level of service. Today the only service level on most
ships is high service. (Some river boats excluded.) Certainly for
hauling freight where time is not important ships are commonly used.

The weight of freight is considerably higher than a person, fuel costs
in passenger miles are not cheap for boats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

1.4 MJ/passenger-km for airplane

3.8 MJ/passenger-km for QE2

then saying 40% is used for propulsion so that/s 1.52 MJ / passenger
KM, so even the propulsion part alone of an ocean going vessel uses
more fuel than flying, I don't really see how a more expensive fuel
future is going to make everyone go on boats.

Even before you look at the much higher staffing costs (1 crew can
take 2000 maybe people a week on a boat compared to 6000 on a plane)

That airplane crew is more than the just the people on the plane. And boat
travel now is like first class air travel. Not much steerage class. If
things get too expensive on airtravel, there will be cheaper, more packed
boats. As to cost of flying, is probably cheaper now than 40 years ago.
Look at the cost to fly then and inflation.

Certainly the cost of some of the European ferries I've been on
seems reasonable. But we usually book cheapo class.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Per Jim Ley:
No, the majority of that ship would be in lifeboats, and engines, and
you would still be burning as much fuel as a plane, boats are really
inefficient, there's a lot of water to push out of the way, and they
can only go to coasts, fuel prices won't change the economics in
favour of boats from planes.

If this is true - and it seems like more than a few posters say it is - how come
it costs so much more to ship cargo via air?

Cargo ships have a much different ratio of revenue-generating to overhead
weight?
--
PeteCresswell

Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:23:52 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:21:58 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:


In any case I suspect that ship travel could easily be cheaper even with
a reasonable level of service. Today the only service level on most
ships is high service. (Some river boats excluded.) Certainly for
hauling freight where time is not important ships are commonly used.

The weight of freight is considerably higher than a person, fuel costs
in passenger miles are not cheap for boats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

1.4 MJ/passenger-km for airplane

3.8 MJ/passenger-km for QE2

then saying 40% is used for propulsion so that/s 1.52 MJ / passenger
KM, so even the propulsion part alone of an ocean going vessel uses
more fuel than flying, I don't really see how a more expensive fuel
future is going to make everyone go on boats.

Even before you look at the much higher staffing costs (1 crew can
take 2000 maybe people a week on a boat compared to 6000 on a plane)

That airplane crew is more than the just the people on the plane. And boat
travel now is like first class air travel. Not much steerage class. If
things get too expensive on airtravel, there will be cheaper, more packed
boats. As to cost of flying, is probably cheaper now than 40 years ago.
Look at the cost to fly then and inflation.


Certainly the cost of some of the European ferries I've been on
seems reasonable. But we usually book cheapo class.

Would you want to spend a couple of weeks on one doing an Atlantic
crossing in midwinter?

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Jim Ley:
No, the majority of that ship would be in lifeboats, and engines, and
you would still be burning as much fuel as a plane, boats are really
inefficient, there's a lot of water to push out of the way, and they
can only go to coasts, fuel prices won't change the economics in
favour of boats from planes.

If this is true - and it seems like more than a few posters say it is -
how come
it costs so much more to ship cargo via air?


Cargo can be packed tight, doesnt need to sleep, eat and defaecate
and doesnt care if the trip takes 6 weeks.

A 100,000 ton ship will only carry around 1000 tons of people.
Thats a really inefficient loading rate.

Keith

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:02:05 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:23:52 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Certainly the cost of some of the European ferries I've been on
seems reasonable. But we usually book cheapo class.

Would you want to spend a couple of weeks on one doing an Atlantic
crossing in midwinter?

I don't even do it in Europe in midwinter. But the Silja and
Viking Lines ferries on the Stockholm-Helsinki route wouldn't be
any problem. Those were the sort of overnight ferries I was
referring to.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *