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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Commercial air travel hasn’t sped up much since the 1960s largely because flying faster is dramatically less fuel‑efficient and more expensive, and most passengers prioritize low fares and safety over shaving an hour off flight times. Commenters note that airlines now often fly slightly slower to save fuel, while overall journey times are dominated by airport access, security, boarding, and baggage handling rather than cruise speed. Environmental impact, noise limits, regulatory overhead, and the high cost of specialized supersonic aircraft further reinforce a shift toward efficiency and comfort upgrades instead of raw speed.

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.