# Will future air travel mimic the past?



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Cast your mind back to what you know about travel in the past on trains like the Orient Express or in airships like the Hindenberg, where passengers were accommodated in relative luxury and all in individual cabins.

Then look forward in time to a plane in which there is a central aisle with cabins on each side that accommodate 2-4 passengers each. Each cabin will be at least 4 square metres in size. A Boeing 747 which is 6 metres wide inside, can easily allow this. Boarding will be by cabin number, one cabin at a time. In flight meals well be provided by crew wearing full PPE and delivering your meals to your cabin through a 'pass-through' from the central aisle. Each cabin will have it's own independent HEPA filtered air system. Disembarking will again be by cabin number, one cabin at a time. At no point will you come within 2 metres of another person. To be allowed to board, you will have to have a medical certificate confirming you are virus free. 

Now that you can travel safely, where will you go? Well, there are already locations such as New Zealand that are 100% virus free. So travel can be to such 'Virus Free Zones' which will stay that way since no one will be allowed in other than by the above means.

There are other locations as well such as small Greek islands where they have not had even one case since Covid began. I recently talked to an acquaintance on such an island. No one has been getting onto the island and no restrictions exist on the island as a result. You can go to the beach, go shopping, dine in a restaurant, etc. as you wish with absolutely no concern about the virus at all if you are there.

Obviously, such travel will come at a cost and such locations will be at a premium in terms of desirability. So the cost to fly and the cost of staying in such a location will be high indeed. But then, the cost to travel in the past was high and only affordable by the relatively wealthy. 

So will the future mimic the past?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

It'll pass, likely be a few years before most of the world is back to the old normal.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I've wondered if 2019 will come to be known as the peak of the "travel bubble". It seemed like most people were taking multiple vacations per year regardless of income. No doubt the industry will see a rebound eventually, but will air travel in our lifetimes ever again be as cheap and accessible as it was before the pandemic?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Too early to say IMHO. Anyone's guess at the moment. Have read industry opinions both ways depending on time frame.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> It'll pass, likely be a few years before most of the world is back to the old normal.


Maybe you should take a look at the likelyhood of the NEXT pandemic cainvest.




__





likelyhood of a next pandemic - Google Search






www.google.com





Hopefully, one good thing to come out of this pandemic is the political will to prepare for the next one. The scientists are all pretty much in agreement that this is not the last pandemic we can expect to see in our lifetime. 

So hopefully, it will not PASS in the sense that we will not go back to 'normal' and just forget about it as has happened in the past. This time hopefully it has shook up the politicians and the public enough that action will be demanded to be prepared for future pandemics.

One of those actions would have to be a way to reduce the spread by travellers. We have seen how with Covid-19, travellers carried it around the world in just DAYS. Are we going to go back to letting that possibly happen again? Or are we going to change travel so that it cannot? I certainly hope it is the latter. 

So my hypothetical scenario may not be all that far fetched.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

nathan79 said:


> I've wondered if 2019 will come to be known as the peak of the "travel bubble". It seemed like most people were taking multiple vacations per year regardless of income. No doubt the industry will see a rebound eventually, but will air travel in our lifetimes ever again be as cheap and accessible as it was before the pandemic?


I think the answer to that question depends on whether the politicians and the public listen to the scientists this time or not. If we listen and learn, then no, it will never be the same.


----------



## alexincash (May 27, 2020)

We'll most likely see a triple-whammy that is inconvenient for pleasure but convenient for safety: a reduced quality of service, longer queues, and higher costs


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

alexincash said:


> We'll most likely see a triple-whammy that is inconvenient for pleasure but convenient for safety: a reduced quality of service, longer queues, and higher costs


Or we may see an increase in service ie. no more sardine seats, at an increase in costs that most will not be able to afford. As it was in the past.

If you have 100 passengers in cabins vs. 500 passengers in sardine seats and the price for the 100 is $5k each vs. 500 at $1k each, you have the same revenue. If you use the same numbers and say that only 1 in 5 people will be able to afford to fly with those prices, then you still have the same number of flights and the same number of planes and staff required. From the airlines perspective there is no change really.

From the cheap package tourist's perspective of course it is the end of vacation travel by plane. But again consider the question of will the future mimic the past? What did people do before the cheap package vacation?

I happen to be old enough to remember that far back. My parents could afford to vacation every year like many families but they consisted of going to places they could drive to. I remember them renting CABINS, not really cottages, in the Muskokas. There were a great many such places with a dozen or more small one or two room cabins you rented by the week. I remember trips to Florida by car, etc. People didn't fly, they simply couldn't afford to do so. Only the relatively wealthy could afford to vacation using air travel.

You can still find such small cabin rentals although they are far fewer and far between these days but perhaps they will be the way of the future, who knows? Take a look.





Willow Barrel Retreat - Cabin and Cottage Rentals Erieau / Blenheim


Willow Barrel Retreat - Cabin and Cottage Rentals Erieau / Blenheim




bayviewblisscabins.com





You could vacation in one of those today and have no concerns about being able to maintain distancing.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> If you have 100 passengers in cabins vs. 500 passengers in sardine seats and the price for the 100 is $5k each vs. 500 at $1k each, you have the same revenue. If you use the same numbers and say that only 1 in 5 people will be able to afford to fly with those prices, then you still have the same number of flights and the same number of planes and staff required. From the airlines perspective there is no change really.


From the reality perspective, that has no chance of working. Flights at $5000 will weed out at least 95% of the passengers, not 80%. Not only will they lose 99.9% of the casual travelers, they will also lose 95% or more of the business travelers. The pandemic has proven that virtual meetings will suffice in most cases.


----------



## alexincash (May 27, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> From the reality perspective, that has no chance of working. Flights at $5000 will weed out at least 95% of the passengers, not 80%. Not only will they lose 99.9% of the casual travelers, they will also lose 95% or more of the business travelers. The pandemic has proven that virtual meetings will suffice in most cases.


This x 100. Flights are still being booked to maximum capacity with "just put on a mask" levels of containment. I still think there's a bright future for budget airliners such as Ryanair, because with globalization the appeal for travel is only growing larger - it shouldn't be a luxury. With the economy class AND the business class discouraged to fly, there is no hope for the entire industry.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Maybe the 747 and 380 have a future again.....larger planes at half capacity may make sense? Vs smaller planes at half capacity? Who knows. What’s the fastest test turnaround? Could you get a test and fly same day? 

like all pandemics.....it will end (or at least be very, very minimal) and life will resume with a new normal.........until the next novel virus. New industry, new innovation will commence.

just like after the Black Plague, spanish flu, ww1 and 2. 
it’s funny how we view the “cheap” vacation in Canada.....thousands go south every year.

my friend married an American woman from ny state. Neither she, nor her friends even had a passport. I guess if Vegas and Miami are accessible withOut a passport, vacations take on a different feel. They drive everywhere.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> From the reality perspective, that has no chance of working. Flights at $5000 will weed out at least 95% of the passengers, not 80%. Not only will they lose 99.9% of the casual travelers, they will also lose 95% or more of the business travelers. The pandemic has proven that virtual meetings will suffice in most cases.


What makes you think more than 5% of the population could afford to fly in the past? Or that airlines need more to fly to make money? Making money is a simple equation, price minus cost equals profit. Less passengers simply means you up the price. 

As it happens, I could afford 2 seats at $5k per year for a vacation and I am nowhere near 'wealthy' by most measures. Simply reasonably well off. I'd say about 5 million of Canada's 37 million could afford it. They might not want to pay it, they might have become conditioned to believe air travel should be cheap but if push came to shove and they really wanted to fly somewhere, then they could afford it. What most may not be doing is going on cheap package vacations since they may well no longer exist. There will be no alternative to paying more except for staying home.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> What makes you think more than 5% of the population could afford to fly in the past? Or that airlines need more to fly to make money? Making money is a simple equation, price minus cost equals profit. Less passengers simply means you up the price.


5% of the _existing _travelers. There's no point counting people that already don't fly.



> As it happens, I could afford 2 seats at $5k per year for a vacation and I am nowhere near 'wealthy' by most measures. Simply reasonably well off. I'd say about 5 million of Canada's 37 million could afford it. They might not want to pay it, they might have become conditioned to believe air travel should be cheap but if push came to shove and they really wanted to fly somewhere, then they could afford it. What most may not be doing is going on cheap package vacations since they may well no longer exist. There will be no alternative to paying more except for staying home.


We could also afford 2 seats $5k a year. But at those prices we won't bother because travel is a pleasant diversion, not a requirement. So rather than spending $10k a year for a pair of tickets we'd find a different outlet for our disposable income.

Perhaps we'd pay $20k for a pool then build a structure to keep it conditioned all year. Since I have extensive DIY skills, the cost of the structure will be material only. Or, we'd buy a classic car for summer driving. Or, we'd buy a cabin which around here can be found for well under $100k...that's just 10 years of a single trip a year. And maybe we'd rent it out for part of the year so it pays for itself.

But we won't pay $10k to take a trip because the value isn't there for us compared to several other options.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> 5% of the _existing _travelers. There's no point counting people that already don't fly.
> 
> 
> We could also afford 2 seats $5k a year. But at those prices we won't bother because travel is a pleasant diversion, not a requirement. So rather than spending $10k a year for a pair of tickets we'd find a different outlet for our disposable income.
> ...


That's fine Prairie Guy, to each his own in this case. I would pay $10k for a hiking vacation in the Swiss Alps. That is the one thing my wife and I are really missing during the current situation. Our normal day to day life and routines are little affected really by the virus. Yes we have to deal differently with getting groceries and now upcoming haircuts (our area is now open for that), etc. But overall, the biggest issue for us is travel. If you want to hike in the Alps, a cottage or classic car, etc. are simply not a substitute. They just aren't equal.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> If you want to hike in the Alps, a cottage or classic car, etc. are simply not a substitute. They just aren't equal.


I'm not into hiking but I supposed with $5k flights we would just hike in the Rockies. To me a mountain is a mountain and being located in Switzerland doesn't make it $10k more valuable.

But, as you said...each to their own.


----------



## alexincash (May 27, 2020)

I'm not sure what the link policy is here, but this article from 2019 explains why air travel is moving towards mass- affordability to maximize profit. It doesn't make sense to reroute the course and go back to the 1960s where only the wealthy business class could fly. At the end of the day, modern day consumers that "can" pay for higher flight ticket (including myself) *won't* after mentally doing a cost-to-benefit. Would I fly to London and visit the city's streets for a few hundred dollars? Yes. A few thousand dollars? It's just poor value for money at that point.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> I'm not into hiking but I supposed with $5k flights we would just hike in the Rockies. To me a mountain is a mountain and being located in Switzerland doesn't make it $10k more valuable.
> 
> But, as you said...each to their own.





alexincash said:


> I'm not sure what the link policy is here, but this article from 2019 explains why air travel is moving towards mass- affordability to maximize profit. It doesn't make sense to reroute the course and go back to the 1960s where only the wealthy business class could fly. At the end of the day, modern day consumers that "can" pay for higher flight ticket (including myself) *won't* after mentally doing a cost-to-benefit. Would I fly to London and visit the city's streets for a few hundred dollars? Yes. A few thousand dollars? It's just poor value for money at that point.



Well guys it's all about the individual isn't it. You can't go hiking in the Rockies in the same way you can in the Swiss Alps Prairie Guy. Without going into great detail, I would try to explain it to you like this. The Rockies has hiking trails but they are limited in number and access. In the Alps, in one small valley (Davos-Kosters) of about 20 km in length, you have over 700km of trails to choose from and access all along the valley at various points. So there is really no comparison.

It isn't about it being in Switzerland that might make it $10k more valuable, it is about what is available in one places vs. another. If the Rockies had a comparable area for hiking, I would agree with you that there was no need to spend $10k to go to the Alps. But that just isn't the case.

You can't do a 'cost to benefit' analysis of going to London alexincash, unless you know the individual's view on the 'benefits'. Value for money can ONLY be determined by an individual based on what THEY value, not what you value.

Your argument might hold true alexincash for the average package tourist going on a 'sun and sand' vacation who really couldn't care less where that sun and sand was. The reality is that many of those kind of tourists couldn't even point on a map to where it was they are going. So anywhere will do in that case but that argument does not hold water when someone has a specific reason for going to specific place, whether it is a city or anywhere else. 

I have never been on a 'sun and sand' vacation to anywhere. I always have a purpose in visiting a place. It may be scenery and hiking or it may be the history, culture, architecture, etc. of a place for example. You cannot substitute one place for another in that case. Visiting Ottawa is not visiting London, so how do you do a cost to benefit analysis comparing the two? The answer is you cannot.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think temp checks at boarding and masks are going to be a feature on planes for years, even after we go back to fully booked flights. What that does to long haul travel which necessitates a good amount of time without masks for eating is an interesting question.


----------



## alexincash (May 27, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> You can't do a 'cost to benefit' analysis of going to London alexincash, unless you know the individual's view on the 'benefits'. Value for money can ONLY be determined by an individual based on what THEY value, not what you value.


You're right in the sense that a cost-benefit analysis is entirely subjective, I give you that. But even a hardcore traveler is more likely to consider the opportunity cost of a $2500 flight to London compared to a $700 flight to London (lets assume they can afford both). While I don't consider myself a huge travel bug, a price increase on those lines is substantial - and apart from having a little more elbow/leg room on flights, the service does not change at all. Full disclosure, I'm not a scientist - I don't know how the spread of covid works on planes, or how much space you need to effectively reduce spread, or if space even plays a role at all in this scenario. In short, I think going backwards and making a mass-appeal service exclusive will do more harm than good.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you haven't gotten the message yet, LTA is kind of a big deal. Us hoi polloi wouldn't understand.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Capitalism is designed to sell to the masses. Catering to the wealthy didn't help Neiman Marcus avoid bankruptcy.

There aren't enough rich people flying around to run one small airline, let alone airlines around the world.

If airlines can't pack people into the planes.........they are out of business. If resorts don't pack the people in....they close.

It is the same with everything. The rich may buy mulitmillion dollar yachts but it is the masses who buy all the boats.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Capitalism is designed to sell to the masses. Catering to the wealthy didn't help Neiman Marcus avoid bankruptcy.
> 
> There aren't enough rich people flying around to run one small airline, let alone airlines around the world.
> 
> ...


If you look at the business models of airlines today, you are right sags. But why would you assume that a different business model was not possible? 

Look at the Concorde. British Airways and Air France were able to successfully(meaning profitably) fly the Concorde for 27 YEARS, despite it having a high ticket price. It succeeded because it gave the passenger something no other did. It go there in less than half the time of other planes. So there are 'enough rich people flying around' to support such prices.

What you are really assuming sags is that there has to be a way for those with less money to fly and so a business model must cater to them. Why would you assume that? Why not just as easily assume that those without enough money will not longer be able to fly, as was the case in the past.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

alexincash said:


> You're right in the sense that a cost-benefit analysis is entirely subjective, I give you that. But even a hardcore traveler is more likely to consider the opportunity cost of a $2500 flight to London compared to a $700 flight to London (lets assume they can afford both). While I don't consider myself a huge travel bug, a price increase on those lines is substantial - and apart from having a little more elbow/leg room on flights, the service does not change at all. Full disclosure, I'm not a scientist - I don't know how the spread of covid works on planes, or how much space you need to effectively reduce spread, or if space even plays a role at all in this scenario. In short, I think going backwards and making a mass-appeal service exclusive will do more harm than good.


I have no doubt a $2500 vs. $700 price tag would discourage a lot of people alexincash. But I think your associating this with 'hardcore traveller' may be misleading you. Think instead about any activity that you personally are passionate about. Maybe you are into wind surfing for example. You can do that near home perhaps on a lake but if you are really passionate about it, you may reach the point where you want to surf the 'meccas of windsurfing'. Chasing the Wind: The Best Windsurfing Spots in the World - BookSurfCamps.com

Then it is not about TRAVEL, it is about pursuing your passion and you will want to go to where that is to be found. In that case, the only issue regarding the travel to GET there is can you afford it or not. The travel is irrelevant, it is what you will do at the destination that will matter to you.

Now consider mass appeal once more. As I wrote, someone only interested in a beach, any beach won't care where they can afford to go to find one. But if you try to tell me as someone who really loves hiking that I can hike in Ontario as easily as I can hike in the Swiss Alps, they simply aren't comparable. So a flight that is more expensive to get to where I want to go is only going to be a question of whether I can afford it or not. That may be my reason for paying the price asked to get on that flight, while someone else may be on that flight for an entirely different reason that matters to THEM. The result though will be that people who have their own individual reasons for wanting to GET somewhere and who can afford it, will fill the plane.

Will that be the majority of people? No, because the reality is that the majority of people do not have that strong a passion about something to be willing to pay to get somewhere. So no, there won''t be 'mass appeal' but then the 'mass' won't be able to afford it anyway.


----------



## alexincash (May 27, 2020)

sags said:


> Capitalism is designed to sell to the masses. Catering to the wealthy didn't help Neiman Marcus avoid bankruptcy.
> 
> There aren't enough rich people flying around to run one small airline, let alone airlines around the world.
> 
> ...


Well said sags


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Westjet has announced that over 3000 of their people will be permanently gone. They are acknowledging the writing is on the wall.








Latest WestJet layoffs affect 3,333 employees as COVID-19 cripples airline industry | Globalnews.ca


The moves are being made to position the company for "a competitive future following the COVID-19 crisis."




globalnews.ca





“_Here is a company that has taken a hard look at the future and has decided it doesn’t like what it sees,” School of Public Policy economics professor Ron Kneebone said.


“It wasn’t that long ago you’ll recall that it was petitioning the government to open up air travel, and the government hasn’t done that; so I think they’re looking towards the future and realizing their business model has changed maybe forever and that they need to downsize to accommodate that.”_

The 'masses' are going to have to realize that their future in terms of travel and vacations are not likely to be any different in that they are going to be changed perhaps forever.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Sounds pleasant....









The Virus Will Make Everything You Hate About Flying Worse


The airline industry faces a wrenching future. Passengers will pay the price.




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Much depends on whether the public decide they are comfortable getting back on a plane or not and if so, when.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Much depends on whether the public decide they are comfortable getting back on a plane or not and if so, when.


And it depends on the cost. We'll go somewhere if the prices are reasonable but if it's $2500+ for a round trip as opposed to $1200 we'll just spend our money on something else.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> And it depends on the cost. We'll go somewhere if the prices are reasonable but if it's $2500+ for a round trip as opposed to $1200 we'll just spend our money on something else.


Then you may not be travelling anywhere in the foreseeable future. I found this story interesting.








Canadian, American tour boats at Niagara Falls become symbol of COVID-19 contrast


Different capacity levels on the American Maid of the Mist tour boat and the Canadian Hornblower Cruise at Niagara Falls are leading some to compare COVID-19 responses between Canada and the U.S.




www.ctvnews.ca





What I notice is not just the numbers and the point of the news article but the response by the tour company and a couple of passengers. Our tour company says they could carry more safely and in fact are going to be allowed to increase to 100. Even that will not be enough to make a profit though and they have moved to including a meal and doubling the price per passenger with that. 

One passenger from Quebec (why did I know it would be a Quebecer) complained about the price increase and a 10 year old said it was _“It was great, because usually when there's a lot of people you can't even move to have a great view,” she said. _From my perspective it took a 10 year old girl to realize what actually mattered while an adult couldn't see past the $ signs.

Perhaps the Hornblower operator will come to the realization that just carrying a reasonble 200 passengers instead of cramming in 700 can be profitable if they include the meal and it will be a far better experience for the passengers as well. 

I get really tired of people who can't see past the price and as a result everything ends up being about how many sardines can be packed in the can.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Then you may not be travelling anywhere in the foreseeable future.
> 
> One passenger from Quebec (why did I know it would be a Quebecer) complained about the price increase and a 10 year old said it was _“It was great, because usually when there's a lot of people you can't even move to have a great view,” she said. _From my perspective it took a 10 year old girl to realize what actually mattered while an adult couldn't see past the $ signs.
> 
> I get really tired of people who can't see past the price and as a result everything ends up being about how many sardines can be packed in the can.


That's fine because we're not "travelers". We just go somewhere warm for a couple months to escape winter (usually a rented condo). It's nice to get away but it's not a requirement. Once the cost to fly exceeds our perceived value of the trip we'll just find a different outlet for our disposable income. 

It's easy for a 10-year old girl with no bills to pay to say how wonderful an empty boat is...she has the perspective of someone who has no concept of money and has no idea how hard some people have to work for their money. Ask her again when she's 25 if she wants to pay 5 times as much for that boat ride.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

While the airlines are suffering, the private jet business is back to near normal. Not with their traditional business travellers but with leisure travellers who will not now fly commercial flights.




__





Subscribe to read | Financial Times


News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication




www.ft.com





Flying the masses may end up a thing of the past and air travel become something most cannot afford to do, as it was in the past.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

While the airlines continue to try to tell us it is safe to fly with them, the majority of people do not agree with them.








Without COVID-19 vaccine, most Canadians and Americans unwilling to travel: poll


While COVID-19 restrictions are slowly lifting in many parts of Canada, international travel still isn't recommended, and a new poll suggests most Canadians and Americans aren't willing to travel until there's a vaccine.



bc.ctvnews.ca





Looking at the picture at the top of that article, I ask myself if it is so safe, why is the flight attendant wearing full PPE? Should passengers be doing the same. LOL

Canadians seem to be smarter about taking a cruise than Americans are. While 20% of Americans say they would take a cruise, only 13% of Canadians say they would and in BC, it's only 8%. Cruises have started with predictable results.








36 crew infected on Hurtigruten ship: Passengers disembarked, potentially exposing communities


Thirty-six crew members have tested positive for COVID-19 onboard Hurtigruten's MS Roald Amundsen, the first to sail internationally since the pandemic began.



www.usatoday.com


----------

