• FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Someone clearly doesn’t understand how much it used to cost to travel by plane 50 years ago.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Also this image is bullshit

      Tray tables are about half that size now.

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not on longer flights. It doesn’t benefit airlines much to make smaller tray tables

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Save on weight means save on gas. Multiply that by thousands of flights and it adds up. United printed their in flight magazines on lighter paper and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, just by using thinner paper.

          They only eliminated 5kg per 737, but that added up to $290k savings.

          If anything I think it’d be even more effective on longer flights as those jets spend more time in cruise vs short haul airliners.

          By using lighter paper to print their in-flight magazine, Hemisphere, United Airlines saves up to 170,000 gallons of fuel, which cuts about $290,000 in annual fuel costs.

          One magazine is now one 29 g lighter and weights 195 g which will make a usual 737 plane that carries 179 passengers 5 kg lighter on average.

          https://www.kiwi.com/stories/united-prints-lighter-magazine-saves-170000-gallons-fuel/

          • slaacaa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            4 months ago

            Good example, aviation is probably the most penny-fucking business in the planet, it’s a life and death fight between the companies, trying to keep costs low.

          • morrowind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            United makes 50B in revenue a year. I’m guessing that stunt gave them more value in marketing than actual savings.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You clearly do not understand basic math nor how rampant greed in capitalism works. Sad.

              If it saves them money, they WILL do it. (or even appears to save money)

              Or do you think Scrooge types aren’t literally known for penny-pinching when they’re already rich and wouldn’t even notice the pennies going missing?

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s a good pr thing, but they probably saved more money by using lower quality paper than the saved fuel.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I suppose I don’t take many long flights and I don’t recall how much space I had on the last long flight I had.

          Typically on my domestic flights I have a tray table that won’t fit my switch if I want to stand it up.

      • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ehh…

        The bottom line

        Proportionally (inflation considered), flights are much cheaper now than they were 50 years ago. Consequently, flying is a more accessible mode of transport for many and has resulted in the soaring popularity of air travel, which began after deregulation. However, despite the cost drop, the base cost of flying has increased as airlines operate small profit margins and seek to remain competitive.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you want you can go first class you know. It’s more or less as much as it was in the 50s and you get possibly even more luxury. Just be ready to pay 5k instead of a hundred bucks

    • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It was like 135 bucks for the cheapest unrestricted ticket in the usa in 1975, which comes out to around 814 bucks today. Where as I can buy a round-trip ticket right now for 220, which is the equivalent of 38 bucks in 1975.

      And to really put that into perspective, an average house in 1975 cost 39k, and if you take out a 20-year lone with 9% interest, you are looking at 193 bucks per month for your rent. So a single plane ticket in 1975 was 69% of the average monthly rent for a house.

      Idk why I did all this, but my adhd told me I had to.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      But back then the price was regulated so they had to compete on service.

      That might have been more that 50 years now.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not everyone’s situtation is yours. There are millions of people living continents away from their family to earn money to support them.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    4 months ago

    Airliner ticket prices used to be regulated. So when all airlines had to charge the same price, they had to find other ways to be competitive in order to bring in customers. Deregulation in the 70s brought ticket costs down but that means ticket cost is now the primary point of competition between airlines and amenities now come at a steep premium.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yep, you can have it one way or the other…cheap flights or super luxury and only the rich can fly. Planes are not cheap to operate and fuel isn’t free.

      • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Frankly for short haul flights it makes sense. Would it be worth paying double or triple for a three hour flight just to get a full meal? Anyone who truly wants a taste of old time flying can get that with a first class ticket, both in terms of cost and quality.

      • BigBenis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m not so sure that is a positive. Airplanes are huge emission drivers and our dependence on the convenience of air travel has caused us to cease investment and innovation in other more efficient and environmentally friendly methods of travel.

        No doubt there’d be a lot more support for high speed rails if airplanes weren’t as accessible. IMO airplanes should only really be used for intercontinental travel.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          When you factor in the number of people the airplane carries, they are about 3 times more efficient than a car with one person in it.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Just saying, compared to driving, airplanes are usually better. Also trains in the US suck. Much slower, and almost comparable in price to air travel.

              • BigBenis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Also trains in the US suck. Much slower, and almost comparable in price to air travel.

                It doesn’t have to be that way, many other countries have solved those issues. But because we’ve leaned so heavily on air travel to get us to places only a few hours away by land there hasn’t been any incentive to innovate or invest in other forms of long-distance mass transit.

          • BigBenis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Are you saying a high speed train to your destination wouldn’t also solve that problem? It would likely end up being cheaper to travel via rail considering the lower costs of maintenance and fuel, meaning further accessibility than we have today with our dependence on air travel.

              • BigBenis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                That’s fair, and please note that I mentioned air travel has its place in intercontinental travel in my previous comment. The whole point I’m trying to make is that domestic flights between areas that could support high speed land travel infrastructure are wasteful.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Even within continents, high speed rail is expensive, many cities and towns aren’t large enough or near large enough cities to make it practical. This would mean distant connections on slow trains and very long journeys.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the sort of weird back in the day post that doesn’t make sense. Boomers not understanding house prices and minimum wage, that is true.

    This plane ticket stuff is wrong. For about the same cost as a ticket back in the day you get way more. In 1955, a one way transatlantic flight was roughly £5k. That’s $6.3k freedom dollars, one way. You can today buy a ticket on that type of route for half that price that includes a lie flat bed, amenities and pyjamas, 2 hot meals, unlimited snacks, unlimited drinks, lounge access on departure and arrival, priority check-in, boarding an ungodly amount of luggage, etc. And in the lounges you get free food cooked to order, free unlimited drinks, free second tier food like buffets, etc.

    If you want to spend the equivalent money or a bit more, you could fly even better. You can have a private chef onboard making a meal for you anytime you want. You can take a shower in the sky. You can have a literal bedroom and attached private living room in a mini suite just for you. And that’s flying commercial.

    The other side of it is that now people can also buy a ticket for $25. Which would be completely unfathomable back when civil rights weren’t a thing.

    • Kazumara
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      In 1955, a one way transatlantic flight was roughly £5k.

      Is this already inflation adjusted or was it 5k 1955-pounds, because that would make the difference way more extreme

    • cjk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Came here to write something like that. 💯

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      that includes a lie flat bed

      That entirely depends on how tall you are. Walking through those seats on my way to have my knees crammed into the seat in front of me in coach I realized that even in first class I’m too big for an airplane.

      Maybe there’s a market for a big & tall airline.

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The old ones have seats with about 72in of lie flatness which is 6ft. But unless you sleep like a Victorian ghost, most people bend their knees or legs somehow. My friend that is 6ft4in has no issues and he’s tall and wide.

        Most of the new ones are 76in to 82in. 6ft 10in is pretty generous. And if you need longer, there are first class seats which are full beds and you’d have no issue.

        I fly in a pod every few weeks for 12hr+ flights and it’s very comfortable. I am hoping blimp travel makes a come back as I’d love to take the scenic way back with a full suite one day.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I’ve got a california king bed and frequently wake up with my feet dangling over one end and my arms over the other. I really, really doubt I’d fit on an 82 inch bed that has no space around it. And that doesn’t get into the constant light and noise and people on a plane which make it even harder for me to sleep, even if I could get comfortable.

          Though many people have made it clear to me that airplanes are not supposed to be comfortable or nice, just something to endure to get to where you’re going.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    4 months ago

    The people in the top picture still fly like that.
    The people in the bottom picture couldn’t afford to fly at all in the past.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    We are too reliant on air travel as it is. With the advent of the internet we should reduce air travel down to permitted leisure/visiting family and migration. Businesses should be able to video confernce most transactions. The situations where you absolutely need on site representation can be reduced drastically.

    That is, if you took climate change seriously.

  • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    So I remember taking a flight 10 years ago and they gave us pretzel pieces from snyders. I thought, great, we don’t even get whole pretzels…

    Next flight, they give us generic “trail mix” in clear bags. The kind the old folks down the street would give out at Halloween because it was “healthy.” but that contained approximately 2 pretzels the size of quarters, 3 peanuts, 3 generic m&ms, and 2 raisins…

    It gave me the impression that airlines are like schools, where the flight staff are the ones bringing in the snacks because the airline is too cheap to supply them.

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      My teacher friends live in big houses and travel all over the world but you know whatever. I don’t.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          My grandparents were both teachers and are rich. Granted one was a professor, but the other a public school teacher.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            In any case, anecdotes do not and cannot disprove the actual statistics.

            Also, if you live in a country that actually respects intelligence, I’d HOPE your teachers are actually paid well. Sadly, the US despises intelligence right now…

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              In dying rural areas in the US teachers are generally some of the best paid. Its mostly in cities where their pay lags. But no, they live in the US in LA(CA, not the state). Also, FYI just because I live in one country doesn’t mean its the same my grandparents live in.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Ahh yes, California, a state that pays more, AND in LA, where wages are WAY higher because cost of living is way higher…

                Thank you for describing why your anecdote is an outlier and DEFINITELY doesn’t prove any norm.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Thank you for describing why your anecdote is an outlier and DEFINITELY doesn’t prove any norm.

                  Where did I say it was the norm??? You called someone a liar for giving an anecdote. Outliers do happen…

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Airlines were not more luxurious 50 years ago.

    You had more legroom and the TSA didn’t exist, but everything else was way worse.

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    Eh, if you’re looking for the cheapest ticket available you can’t really expect luxury. Airlines are competing with prices, so all luxury goes off the window like a passenger on a Boeing flight

  • chemicalprophet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because our children’s children will still be paying the tab for that unsustainable opulence. Fuck they’ll be paying the bill for recreational air travel with only pretzels.

  • whome
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    The amount of people who think flying is a normal thing. One percent of the worlds population produce 50% of aviation emissions. And most off the worlds population never fly in their life.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    Stupid. The cost for flights then was more like beyond first class prices now.

    • dtrain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Stupid. The cost for flights then was more like beyond first class prices now.

      And a lot more smoky.

      • abcd@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This reminded me of that one flight as a kid, when I was seated in a row with two smokers. I literally couldn’t breathe. I’m happy that my kids don’t have to experience shit like this.

      • tpihkal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Don’t like the smoke? Then sit on the other side of the aisle in the non-smoking section.

  • nexussapphire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because you always buy the cheaper seats. It’s not your fault, I do the same. Flying was literally for the wealthiest of people at that point in history, it was literally a luxury to fly instead of taking a train, bus, or a boat.