It’s a fair point more affordable is also a kind of better, average Joe could only dream of affording flight. On the other hand it’s all new technologies and the price is bound to drop as adoption goes up. You could argue windmills have been around for a while, but let’s be honest - calling a windpowered electricity generating turbines windmills is a bit of a stretch.
I understand your sentiment. On the other hand, I would rather my son have an hour of slight discomfort but arrive safely than be a fatality statistic.
There is a feasible middle ground that is not realistically going to happen however. Slightly increasing personal space and comfort in the newer, safer planes without squeezing every possible seat in in the name of profit.
“Better” does need to defined to not be ambiguous. To me a good definition to use in this thread would be “the net changes over time are objectively an improvement for the use”. I think that my middle ground would firmly be “better” but in the current state it is only strictly better for those owning the planes.
Air travel was very expensive back then relative to the average household income. If you’re willing to pay for business class today, you’ll be basically in the same position as those folks in the first photo, and be paying about as much (relatively) as they did.
It’s still available, but you’re not going to get it for the price of a super saver economy ticket. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.
I’m having a hard time believing the first picture is a real airplane. Are you sure it isn’t a mock up? The width of the cabin rivals the 787 I flew on from Japan.
deleted by creator
Sure, they had more legroom because the modern concept of economy class did not exist. They also crashed and killed everyone onboard much more often
It’s a fair point more affordable is also a kind of better, average Joe could only dream of affording flight. On the other hand it’s all new technologies and the price is bound to drop as adoption goes up. You could argue windmills have been around for a while, but let’s be honest - calling a windpowered electricity generating turbines windmills is a bit of a stretch.
You could argue that was more a function of training, policies & procedures, and maintenance than of construction.
I’d gladly trade leg room for a somewhat increased risk of death.
That would be “made better” to me.
Better is a useless metric.
I understand your sentiment. On the other hand, I would rather my son have an hour of slight discomfort but arrive safely than be a fatality statistic.
There is a feasible middle ground that is not realistically going to happen however. Slightly increasing personal space and comfort in the newer, safer planes without squeezing every possible seat in in the name of profit.
“Better” does need to defined to not be ambiguous. To me a good definition to use in this thread would be “the net changes over time are objectively an improvement for the use”. I think that my middle ground would firmly be “better” but in the current state it is only strictly better for those owning the planes.
They sold flight insurance, life insurance policies you bought at kiosks in the airport, into the 70s. No thanks.
Air travel was very expensive back then relative to the average household income. If you’re willing to pay for business class today, you’ll be basically in the same position as those folks in the first photo, and be paying about as much (relatively) as they did.
It’s still available, but you’re not going to get it for the price of a super saver economy ticket. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.
Fair points and nice illustrations 👍
I was mostly thinking about fuel economy and decreased noise levels.
I’m having a hard time believing the first picture is a real airplane. Are you sure it isn’t a mock up? The width of the cabin rivals the 787 I flew on from Japan.