The Value of a Nonstop?

I always fly nonstop (whenever possible) for three reasons:

1) It's easier

2) Less chance of luggage screwup

3) It's better for the environment (every time you take off and land, you emit a LOT of greenhouse gasses).

 

My threshold is about where yours is ... $150 or so. I've had occasions where a non-stop is actually cheaper depending on the "alternate airport" I use (I fly to New England several times a year, and sometimes flying into Manchester, NH ... with a stop in Chicago ... is actually more expensive than the direct flight from LAX to Logan).

 

I have a different view of non-stop flights. At one time they were the norm until deregulation and the airlines decided to inconvenience passengers with transfers. I believe non-stop should be the norm and normal fare, and non-non-stop flights should be discounted for the paying passenger's inconvenience.

 

Probably $100 or so for me. If I were rich, I'd pay as much as necessary.

My reason is this: I'm scared to death of takeoffs. The less of them I can have, the better. And I like landings only slightly more. I usually drink a few shots before getting on a plane, and by the time a stop happens, my buzz has worn off, then I'm forced to handle my next takeoff sober. I don't like that. I close my eyes, and grip the seats with white-knuckled ferocity until the "you can walk about the cabin" message comes on.

I wasn't like this until I became a mom. I suddenly became aware of my own mortality.

 

I've never flown nonstop in my life. One time I *thought* we were going on a nonstop flight but it was actually a "direct" flight. At least, I think that's what they call it when you stop, deplane, and then get back on the exact same plane to go to your final destination.

So I guess I would say that I don't place any economic value on nonstop and would only insist on one if I needed to be somewhere tout de suite.

 

Depends on the number of flights I actually have to take. There are virtually no non-stop flights from Spokane. Denver, maybe Chicago (???), Seattle, Portland, and just once a day in the dreadfully-early morning, L.A. Since none of those places except Seattle is ever likely to be my destination, I'm S.O.L.

But I would pay considerably more for a non-stop flight, for the saved time, the reduced chances of lost luggage, and the reduction in time spent waiting around in airports. I just cannot put a precise figure on it. It also depends on which airport I'm avoiding. I'd pay more to avoid Chicago, with its frequent delays, and its winter storms, than to avoid Seattle. And I'd pay more to avoid 2 or 3 layovers on a long international trip, than to avoid a single layover on a shorter domestic trip. I suppose something on the order of magnitude of a few hundred dollars per layover avoided.

However, before you start calculating how much money airlines would make from the higher fares, you have to consider the greater number of flights they'd have to run, at greatly-increased cost.

I think that for around $250,000 you can buy 25 hours on a Lear jet. I think the clock runs only while you are airborn in the jet. You phone them a week or two in advance to reserve, and they come to your local airport to pick you up. That's out of my price range, though.

You can also charter a luxury rail car to take you anywhere there are functioning tracks. That's beyond my price range also, but would be a fun way to travel. Slower, but a lot more space, and a lot more comfortable.

 

I do nonstop at least 99% of the time. This is largely due to the fact that the closest airport to me is a hub city. The only time we do a stop is when we visit the in-laws in the Philippines, no nonstop MSP to MNL flights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 21 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]394000[/snapback]</div>

It must be more than a few shots! I never heard of or seen a "you can walk about the cabin" message!

I am beginning to rethink my position on paying extra for non-stop flights as it just took my wife and I over 24 hours to return to California from Paris, France due to delays weather, mechanical and ill-tempered passengers who won't sit down just as we pull back from the gate. Our route was Paris, De Gaulle airport a truly horrible airport, to Chicago, O'Hare, LAX then Fresno, FYI airport. I think I would have paid between 100-200 dollars more to avoid that much time in the air. The original flight with stops and waiting time should have taken 15-17 hours or something thereabouts!

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 21 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]394105[/snapback]</div>

I can count the number of times I've been on a flight without even taking my shoes off. Like Daniel, I prefer the train. Private railcars and The Canadian's Park car aren't in my budget either, for some strange reason, but it's a far more civilised way to travel. The slower you go, the more you see. Even if my time at the destination is shorter, I'll take the train and consider it part of the holiday.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Feb 20 2007, 09:22 PM) [snapback]393751[/snapback]</div>

Non-stops aren't necessarily more environmentally friendly. It all depends on how many people are on the flight. A non-stop with only a couple of dozen passengers is less environmentally friendly, per passenger, than a flight with multiple stops that uses full 200-passenger planes.

A pretty good strategy for environmental friendliness in choosing flights is to choose the cheapest flights. Airlines tend to make flights that cost them less cheaper for the consumer, and the flights that are cheapest per passenger for the airlines tend to be those with full planes and lower per-passenger fuel costs.

It's not a perfect correlation, as there are factors unrelated to fuel that affect flight cost, but it's probably better as a rule of thumb than taking the non-stop.

Here's another way to look at it. If more people chose non-stops over cheaper flights, airlines would optimize their profits by having more point-to-point flights carrying fewer passengers, even though that would cost more fuel. If more people chose the lowest possible fares over number of stops, airlines would optimize their profits by using whatever routes would fill up planes and reduce numbers of flights and amounts of fuel.

We tell the airlines what to optimize for by the priorities we choose in booking flights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 21 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]394202[/snapback]</div>

I've traveled quite a bit by rail and it is a great way to go tho not the most economical. The only bad rail trip was leaving Seattle to Oakland 2 days after the 9/11 attacks on NYC. Planes were grounded and rail cars were filled to overflowing. Have traveled by rail Oakland to Grand Central Station twice. Once while traveling Albuquerque to Oakland we hit a car on the tracks and were delayed for a few hours, then in the middle of the night we hit a cow on the tracks and it somehow unhitched the air brakes making the train come to a sudden stop, then the engineers had to go under the train and remove the mangled body. Once we were late for a connection in LA to Oakland so the railroad hired a bus to meet us in Bakersfield and bus us to Santa Barbara to catch the train. Only trouble was the very old bus driver couldn't find his glasses before the trip so he was wearing his wife's pink rimmed glasses and he kept adjusting them to see a little better while screaming the bus up the freeway. Nothing compares to a long distance bus ride I took once but that's another story...For a real death-defying thrill try a long distance bus ride in Mexico!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 21 2007, 08:01 PM) [snapback]394254[/snapback]</div>

No, it's not the cheapest way to go, and is obviously out of the question for travelling overseas. By the time you factor in meals en route and extra charges for a berth to sleep in, flying is usually cheaper. But that's only counting the dollars, and not the carbon, or the difference in stress.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 21 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]394202[/snapback]</div>

It's hard to find specific prices, but one site mentions $6,000 per day for a car that can sleep six guests. I believe a porter and chef are included in the price, but I'm not certain. I think it took 3 or 4 days to get from Fargo to CA on Amtrak, so a nice cross-country-and-back trip could probably be done in, what, two weeks? That's $84,000. Maybe ten days, or $60,000. Well, it ain't gonna happen for me.

I'd take the train a lot if Amtrak was anywhere near as nice as the trains in Europe. But the Empire Builder (the only Amtrak train I've got much experience of) is deteriorating badly. The cars don't function well, and the freight rails they run on are terrible. I think they want to discontinue it, so they're making it as uncomfortable as they can, so people won't ride it, so they can justify shutting it down for lack of passengers.

And it typically runs hours and hours late, so forget about trying to make a connection!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 21 2007, 08:29 PM) [snapback]394267[/snapback]</div>

I've not been to Europe, but if and when I get to ride the TGV, I might just forget to come home. Switzerland, reportedly, is like one giant model railway. I've been on the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, the Southwest Chief, and of course The Canadian. At first the double decker Superliners were a novelty, but the food was not wonderful, and the frequently backed up toilets were an issue. Practicalities aside, they still don't have the same cachet as a classic dome car. I've travelled before on passes that made return trips quite economical, but I don't think they're still available. The population densities of Europe and North America are very different, and so are the transit systems. From what I've read and heard, it would indeed seem AMTRAK is being demolished by neglect, which is a shame.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 21 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]394276[/snapback]</div>

I have traveled on the Eurostar, TGV and the Thalys. Other than the speed (which you only notice when you look out the window at the countryside), the experience is rather unremarkable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 21 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]394267[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. When I go to Europe, I take the train everywhere and have never had a bad experience.

EVERY time I take Amtrak, the train is late by hours.

 

If you have kept track of the battle of the airlines, Airbus gambled the superjumbo A380 was the future, but Boeing chose a medium-sized 787 with carbon fibre that gave it nonstop range. So far, the 787 has raised Boeing from the dead, while A380 delays will force Airbus to layoff people.

 

If you're going to take the TGV train in Europe make sure you get tickets in advance. Last March when my wife and I went to London we got a wild-hair and decided to take the TGV Chunnel train to Paris. The advanced price was like 60 Euro and the ticket at the counter was 299 Euro! I about had a Kow! [attachmentid=6649]

Wildkow