Why flying sux 3

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   JMG Posted 9:53 am
   28 Jul 2008

   No, ...Flying sucks because it has exploded, and turned into a monster of a greenhouse gas emissions source (until the recent unpleasantness, the fastest growing source of emissions), with its actual effects even worse (estimated at 2 or 3 times the amount of greenhouse gases emitted because of where jets emit them).
   And because it has created an entitlement mentality among people of VERY modest means, who think that it is a god-given right to be able to fly to Hawaii or from NY to SF multiple times a year.
   And because it has created a class of frequent flyers who whine insufferably about the horrors of flying -- but who drone on endlessly about their frequent flyer mileage coups and the trips they've taken courtesy of their employers/clients.
   And because flying -- the ultimate non-essential activity for 99.9% of us -- stands as the monument for our boundless greed to think of ourselves as more important (I have to be in DC TONIGHT!!!!) than the millions who will die of hunger and disease this year and who will be dislocated and turned into refugees from the climate chaos that jet emissions create.
   THOSE are just some of the reasons that flying sucks.  The rest is just lifestyle whining.
   
   The 5% Project

   Permalink

2. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 11:25 am
   28 Jul 2008

   Why is the insider so optimistic......I thought the airline industry can't survive at more than $100/gallon.  Apparently they're burning through their cash now, trying to stave off jacking up fares.
   One thing that occurs to me: the small cities that would be stuck without flight had rail before.  Apparently it doesn't even occur to them to try it again.
   Personally, we've been taking Amtrak from Chicago to NYC (20 hours), DC (18), California (so it's 43 hours).  You can buy tickets, miss the train, get a full refund, change plans with no penalty, just get onboard without all the security crap, sit in a nice chair, look outside -- ok, get a crappy night's sleep -- hopefully I won't have to go to and from some city in one day..

   Permalink

3. 

   Sean Casten Posted 12:29 am
   29 Jul 2008

   Good posts - two obvious responses
   
   I have a fairly simple rule of business: high capital cost commodity businesses suck.  They require huge investments to "get in the game", but have no ability to charge a premium for your brand or service since one airline seat is pretty much the same as another.  The universal feature of those business - from the auto industry to bulk chemicals to airlines - is that you have an incessant focus on cost cutting and face the constant risk that you may have to slash prices to unsustainable levels for no reason than that your competitors did.  You'll have the occasional flush year, but most years will suck.
   Because of the prior point - and as noted implicitly the article you link to - we should never make the simplistic assumption that big, capital intensive commodity businesses will be able to pass increased costs along to their customers.   I beat this drum all the time, but we have to keep this in mind when we think about carbon policy, as a charge for carbon upstream does not necessarily lead to an increased charge for carbon-containing energy downstream, and therefore is not independently sufficient to change behavior.  Sometimes higher costs lead to higher prices.  Sometimes, they just lead to less comfortable seats and pretzel-cutbacks.
   
   

   Permalink