Why hasn't commercial air travel gotten any faster since the 1960s? (2009)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Fuel economy, physics, and why planes aren’t faster

  • Core answer from the article and the thread: fuel economy dominates. Drag – especially wave drag near Mach 1 – rises sharply with speed, so fuel per passenger‑mile increases steeply.
  • Modern high‑bypass turbofans are much more efficient than 1960s turbojets, but airlines have deliberately slowed cruise from early jet speeds to around Mach 0.8–0.83 to hit a fuel‑cost optimum.
  • Concorde is cited as proof that faster is possible but uneconomic: it needed huge fuel, had narrow, uncomfortable cabins, and worked only as a niche, premium product on a few routes.
  • Similar patterns are noted in shipping (“slow steaming”) and high‑speed rail (practical ceiling ≈300–350 km/h). Beyond that, energy use and infrastructure costs explode for modest time savings.
  • Many commenters argue that what’s improved since the 1960s is efficiency, safety, and comfort options, not cruise speed.

Total journey time vs cruise speed

  • For many trips, door‑to‑door time is dominated by:
    • Travel to far‑out airports
    • Early arrival buffers for check‑in and security
    • Boarding, taxiing, and baggage claim
  • Doubling cruise speed might cut a 6‑hour flight to 3–4 hours, but the fixed 3–4 hours of “airport overhead” remains. For medium‑haul, this often makes flying little better than driving or trains.
  • Several people argue the real gains would come from:
    • Faster ground links to airports
    • Smoother security and boarding
    • Better scheduling, fewer connections, less hub‑and‑spoke

Security, TSA, and “user‑space” slowness

  • Many say travel feels slower mainly because of post‑9/11 security: long, unpredictable TSA lines; liquids and shoes rules; ID checks; more time buffers.
  • There’s strong disagreement on value:
    • One side: cockpit doors plus changed passenger attitudes already solved the hijacking problem; much of TSA is security theater and a jobs/lobbying machine.
    • Other side: even imperfect screening and visible measures deter organized plots; hijackings used to be routine, now they’re vanishingly rare.
  • Pre‑check/Clear are seen by some as rational risk‑based screening; by others as paid bypasses that prove the inconvenience isn’t truly necessary.

Comfort, economics, and “enshittification”

  • Most passengers choose cheapest tickets; airlines optimize for cost per seat, not speed or comfort.
  • Comfort has diverged by class: lie‑flat business/first has improved dramatically; economy has seen tighter pitch, more fees, and more friction (baggage fees, overhead fights, boarding chaos).
  • Several note that for many, better seats and simpler processes matter more than shaving 30–60 minutes off flying time.

Alternatives and future concepts

  • High‑speed rail is cited as a more pleasant medium‑distance option where available; some prefer long train or car journeys to avoid airport hassles.
  • Supersonic (e.g., new startups) and “Earth‑to‑Earth” spaceflight are discussed as possible rich‑niche futures, but commenters doubt near‑term economics, safety, and environmental acceptability.