Minor things that bother you

[MultiMillionMiler]

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

[Max Rockatansky]

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

How'd things work out for the Concorde supersonic jet?

[MultiMillionMiler]

Smaller planes like that, and private planes, should be in the 4000-5000 mph range. 2000-3000 mph is more reasonable for commercial airliners due to their extreme mass. Only issue with that is the extreme friction generated heated in the atmosphere. Imagine looking out your window and only seeing a huge fireball the whole time!

[JoePCool14]

Smaller planes like that, and private planes, should be in the 4000-5000 mph range. 2000-3000 mph is more reasonable for commercial airliners due to their extreme mass. Only issue with that is the extreme friction generated heated in the atmosphere. Imagine looking out your window and only seeing a huge fireball the whole time!

What are you smoking?

[skluth]

Smaller planes like that, and private planes, should be in the 4000-5000 mph range. 2000-3000 mph is more reasonable for commercial airliners due to their extreme mass. Only issue with that is the extreme friction generated heated in the atmosphere. Imagine looking out your window and only seeing a huge fireball the whole time!

Imagine being on the ground and having all the windows of your home blown out from the sonic boom generated by the plane flying overhead.

[Max Rockatansky]

I should go tell the guys on the flight line that their F/A-18s are pathetically slow and should be several times faster.  1,190 miles per hour is for pussies.

[GaryV]

Smaller planes like that, and private planes, should be in the 4000-5000 mph range. 2000-3000 mph is more reasonable for commercial airliners due to their extreme mass. Only issue with that is the extreme friction generated heated in the atmosphere. Imagine looking out your window and only seeing a huge fireball the whole time!

Once you take all the curves out of all turnpikes, you can invent one of these super-speed planes. The world will thank you.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Smaller planes like that, and private planes, should be in the 4000-5000 mph range. 2000-3000 mph is more reasonable for commercial airliners due to their extreme mass. Only issue with that is the extreme friction generated heated in the atmosphere. Imagine looking out your window and only seeing a huge fireball the whole time!

Imagine being on the ground and having all the windows of your home blown out from the sonic boom generated by the plane flying overhead.

Well they would fly at a much higher altitude, for lesser air resistance and being able to stay in the air in a thinner atmosphere due to increased speed and lift.

@Max R

Even 3,000 mph for commercial airplanes is barely cutting it. That's still more than 1 second to go a mile.

[Max Rockatansky]

And you seriously wonder why so many of us give you shit about the things you say?   

[formulanone]

upcoming Air Bus[sic] A350

I just flew on an Airbus A350 and it had standard, manually-operated window shades.  We were asked to put them up 30-60 minutes into the flight and then were asked to put them down before landing.  I can assure that no one was trampling my individual right to be a massive wanker open my window shade as soon as the sun came back up.

While there isn't a lot to look at over the ocean, and have had very little Very Long Flights (usually 5 hours, tops), I typically don't like being a darkened airplane in daylight. I like cracking in the shade and taking a peek if there's something interesting, especially flying over or west of the Rocky Mountain Front Range. If I'm working/playing on my laptop, I need just a little light to see the keyboard, and it's less obtrusive than the overhead light.

Some regional jets use an inverted window shade on the exit row, which means it rises up from the bottom to open, and that's kind of annoying unless I want to look out the window the whole time. You can't just crack the shade for a little light on your keyboard, it goes straight into your eyes.

On the aforementioned DC-Tokyo flight, the window shades were closed for the entire 14-hour flight, but I believe that was because the flight was in daylight for most, if not all, of the flight.

I get a little jumpy without a little sunlight after about 4-5 hours. As much as I'm used to flying, it's in much shorter stints and I don't sleep well on aircraft (personally, even lay-flat seating requires a lot of extra blankets or pillow for me to get comfortable).

I like having my window open on a plane unless the sun is beaming directly into it. I suppose I'm biased because I don't sleep on flights regardless of the time of day (a tendency that will probably hurt me if I ever have to fly overseas at the wrong hours). But the way I see it, an airliner is not anyone's personal bedroom. As long as I'm not being obnoxious, it's not my responsibility to ensure someone else sleeps nice, especially if it's the middle of the day. If I'm asked to close the window I will.

That's kind of how I look at it. But then again, the longest flight I've ever taken was 8 hours, and getting 1-2 hours' sleep is as much as I can get. Even with a 1500+ flights under my belt, I just don't relax that well but I can't ply myself with alcohol for a variety of reasons.

[DenverBrian]

I like having my window open on a plane unless the sun is beaming directly into it.

Isn't that a little...um...windy?

[MultiMillionMiler]

I like having my window open on a plane unless the sun is beaming directly into it.

Isn't that a little...um...windy?

The windows aren't aligned with the seats, so you won't get much of the breeze

[Max Rockatansky]

I like having my window open on a plane unless the sun is beaming directly into it.

Isn't that a little...um...windy?

The windows aren't aligned with the seats, so you won't get much of the breeze

You must have trained to climb Mount Everest given you can withstand oxygen deprivation.

[Max Rockatansky]

I like having my window open on a plane unless the sun is beaming directly into it.

Isn't that a little...um...windy?

The windows aren't aligned with the seats, so you won't get much of the breeze

You must have trained to climb Mount Everest given you can withstand oxygen deprivation.

Are planes actually airtight? I know they aren't space worthy but would you suffocate if you stayed on a sealed plane for days?

No, the cabin is pressurized to mimic atmospheric conditions similar to being at surface elevation.  A plane flying at cruising altitude is just moving through thinner atmosphere, it's not a vacuum. 

To a lesser extent a lot of people who aren't used to high elevation and lower oxygen levels can begin to experience altitude sickness even at an elevation a mile above sea level.  I found this to be quite common with friends/family visit me here when I take them into the Sierra Nevada Mountains.  Usually it takes an hour or so for their blood to oxygenate enough for the affects of altitude sickness to abate. 

[Scott5114]

^^^^

The moderators have VERY SERIOUSLY discouraged that sort of post in the past, for what it's worth.

Cause of one of the other users on here who came out and admitted he was on the Spectrum is most likely why.

No, mostly because it's pretty tacky for people without degrees in psychiatric medicine to speculate about what medical conditions someone has.

[hbelkins]

hot me hard

this isn't that type of website, gosh

me roadtrip you long time

Re: the discussion about short flights, I don't understand why anyone in my part of Kentucky flies to DC. It's around an eight-hour drive. I am 90 minutes away from the nearest commercial airport (Lexington, which is in the opposite direction from DC) and if you allow yourself 90 minutes arriving there before your flight departs, that's three hours -- or nearly half the trip. In three hours, barring roadway issues, I can be well past Charleston heading up I-79. I don't know how long a flight from Lexington to DC takes, or if it stops anywhere in between, but by the time you land, retrieve your luggage, and hail a cab or a rideshare, you can nearly be to your destination by car.

[Max Rockatansky]

hot me hard

this isn't that type of website, gosh

me roadtrip you long time

Re: the discussion about short flights, I don't understand why anyone in my part of Kentucky flies to DC. It's around an eight-hour drive. I am 90 minutes away from the nearest commercial airport (Lexington, which is in the opposite direction from DC) and if you allow yourself 90 minutes arriving there before your flight departs, that's three hours -- or nearly half the trip. In three hours, barring roadway issues, I can be well past Charleston heading up I-79. I don't know how long a flight from Lexington to DC takes, or if it stops anywhere in between, but by the time you land, retrieve your luggage, and hail a cab or a rideshare, you can nearly be to your destination by car.

My old work area was centered around Phoenix but was spread east/west from Los Angeles to Midland, Texas.  There wasn't really anywhere in that range where I could reliably fly to and get to the work location faster than driving.  Two tanks or gas and mileage reimbursement cost a fraction of the price of a flight plus rental.  Essentially I wasn't flying unless there was some extenuating reason to do so because my expense account dictated I drive given it was the far more cost effective option.

[Bruce]

Re: the discussion about short flights, I don't understand why anyone in my part of Kentucky flies to DC. It's around an eight-hour drive. I am 90 minutes away from the nearest commercial airport (Lexington, which is in the opposite direction from DC) and if you allow yourself 90 minutes arriving there before your flight departs, that's three hours -- or nearly half the trip. In three hours, barring roadway issues, I can be well past Charleston heading up I-79. I don't know how long a flight from Lexington to DC takes, or if it stops anywhere in between, but by the time you land, retrieve your luggage, and hail a cab or a rideshare, you can nearly be to your destination by car.

Building up status and mileage that can be used for personal trips is an appealing reason for some, I imagine.

[mgk920]

A couple of years or so ago, I say a feature clip on line abut a non-stop direct test fight from London Heathrow (LHR)  to Sydney Kingsford Smith (SYD).  The passengers on board saw TWO sunrises.

Mike

[kkt]

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

It takes most people 3-4 days to get over jetlag after a long flight.  What does it matter if the flight itself is 11 hours or 5 hours.

[abefroman329]

A couple of years or so ago, I say a feature clip on line abut a non-stop direct test fight from London Heathrow (LHR)  to Sydney Kingsford Smith (SYD).  The passengers on board saw TWO sunrises.

Mike

Yep, which is why they called it Project Sunrise.

Presumably it would be a premium service, since the only way it can be done using current technology is to have as little weight as possible on board (to make room for all the fuel that's required), and I'm not sure how appealing the cost/benefit analysis would be to business travelers.

[Max Rockatansky]

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

It takes most people 3-4 days to get over jetlag after a long flight.  What does it matter if the flight itself is 11 hours or 5 hours.

11 hours is the better part of a day, 5 hours may not imply much of a change in sunlight in the destination.

Says the guy who literally saved himself no time on a $1,300 flight/s versus maybe $200 tops via overland excursion to rollercoaster land.  . 

[MultiMillionMiler]

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

It takes most people 3-4 days to get over jetlag after a long flight.  What does it matter if the flight itself is 11 hours or 5 hours.

11 hours is the better part of a day, 5 hours may not imply much of a change in sunlight in the destination.

Says the guy who literally saved himself no time on a $1,300 flight/s versus maybe $100 tops via overland excursion to rollercoaster land.  .

$100 tops? I was paying $60-70 for gas back then, and my car only gets 450 miles a tank. Add in a couple extra hotel nights for 2 full days of travel. There's no jet lag flying down the east coast. It's the same time zone.

[bm7]

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

It takes most people 3-4 days to get over jetlag after a long flight.  What does it matter if the flight itself is 11 hours or 5 hours.

11 hours is the better part of a day, 5 hours may not imply much of a change in sunlight in the destination.

Says the guy who literally saved himself no time on a $1,300 flight/s versus maybe $200 tops via overland excursion to rollercoaster land.  .

Maybe he just wanted to fly somewhere?

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

Probably, but what MMM doesn't get is why I'm giving him a hard time.  He got on the case with several other users about how they orient their trips based around route clinching.  He thought it was fun to critique the trips of others, now I'm having fun critiquing his.

All this is telling me that planes need to be faster. 500 mph is too slow for worldwide travel. Passenger Planes should be in the 2000-3000 mph range. Then sleep wouldn't be as much of an issue. Currently the longest flight is from NYC to Singapore (19 hours, 10,000 miles). Although if a continous flight from NYC to Perth, Australia was ever added, that would be over 11,600 miles.

It takes most people 3-4 days to get over jetlag after a long flight.  What does it matter if the flight itself is 11 hours or 5 hours.

11 hours is the better part of a day, 5 hours may not imply much of a change in sunlight in the destination.

Says the guy who literally saved himself no time on a $1,300 flight/s versus maybe $100 tops via overland excursion to rollercoaster land.  .

$100 tops? I was paying $60-70 for gas back then, and my car only gets 450 miles a tank. Add in a couple extra hotel nights for 2 full days of travel. There's no jet lag flying down the east coast. It's the same time zone.

One way yes, just punching in Long Island-Charlotte in Google shows a 664 mile result (which I assume isn't 100% to where you live) and a drive of 11-12 hours depending on the route.  How much of a light weight behind the wheel are you that you can't hack 12 hours on Interstates in a single day with people you can switch driving duties with?  Oh that's right, you don't get up early on the morning for road trips because that's beneath you.