Why do ordinary people travel with airplanes ?

[Skyscrapers]

Logical is that a travel with transport facilities which are moving with lower speed costs less than a travel with transport facilities which are moving with higher speed.

Logical is for ordinary people to be transported with transport facilities which are moving with lower speed, because they are cheaper.

It would be normal for ordinary people in the world to be transported by zeppelins or ships and not by airplanes.

[Endy0816]

Time saved can make up for the cost.

There can also be sleeping and food costs associated with slower travel options.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Skyscrapers said:

Logical is that a travel with transport facilities which are moving with lower speed costs less than a travel with transport facilities which are moving with higher speed.

That is not logical, and the premise is flawed. Cost depends on more than speed, and arguably the overall infrastructure (and scale) is more important. 

[paulsutton]

I think Helium is expensive so that could be one of many factors that makes airships less viable from a cost viewpoint, and  Hydrogen is flammable so perhaps less of an option too.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Skyscrapers said:

Logical is that a travel with transport facilities which are moving with lower speed costs less than a travel with transport facilities which are moving with higher speed.

Logical is for ordinary people to be transported with transport facilities which are moving with lower speed, because they are cheaper.

It would be normal for ordinary people in the world to be transported by zeppelins or ships and not by airplanes.

A transatlantic ship crossing takes 4 days (on a fast, purpose-built ship), during which each passenger has to be given a cabin and meals, as if in a hotel, with all the associated staffing costs, but at sea, so a lot more expensive than on land. The cost of that has to be compared with a 7hr flight, with 2 in-flight meals provided.  

Planes can be tuned round in a couple of hours at each end, so a single A340, taking 250 people each flight,  can transport 1000 people in each direction during a 4 day period. That's hard for ships to beat.  

And that's before you take into account of the value of time for the passenger, as others have pointed out.

[iNow]

Please just ban the broken bot

3 hours ago, Skyscrapers said:

Logical is for ordinary people to be transported with transport facilities which are moving with lower speed, because they are cheaper.

Not when time is money. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Skyscrapers said:

It would be normal for ordinary people in the world to be transported by zeppelins or ships and not by airplanes.

1. It’s not up to you, and

2. “normal” is overrated

[mistermack]

At 35,000 feet, the air is thin, friction is low and a plane is pushing very little air out of the way. Down on the ocean, sea is dense and very heavy, drag is great, and a ship has to move thousands of tons of water, both to get through it, and to provide drive. And a trip that a plane can do in hours takes days, so you need electrical power for heating, cooling, cooking, cleaning, ventilation, and lighting. For days. 

And cruising is bloody boring. I have no idea why people like it. 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, kayasawayn said:

I think a lot of ordinary people travel by plane because it’s often the quickest way to get to new places. For some, it’s about visiting family or friends who live far away, while for others, it’s the chance to explore new cities, experience different cultures, or just take a break from the daily routine.

Thanks for sharing such an insightful post, GPT.

[Peterkin]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:06 PM, Skyscrapers said:

It would be normal for ordinary people in the world to be transported by zeppelins or ships and not by airplanes.

'Ordinary' people accept the technology and pace of their times. They use whatever form of transport is available to arrive where and when they're obliged to or desire to be.

Zeppelins went out of popular favour because of the perceived danger, the price of building and upkeep and the disproportion of airship to payload: they're just not cost-effective. Ships are fine for leisurely trips, but only on water, which means delay and inconvenience in transferring to one or more land vehicles, while airplanes can go directly from one city to another anywhere on the planet.   

The more thoughtful among us may reject air travel for various reasons, may reject motorized travel and may even question the need to travel.  

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for sharing such an insightful post, GPT.

Apparently AIs are getting dumber, because they there is so much of them that they start "learning" from each other.  Oh my god, I just realized why student performance is dropping.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, kayasawayn said:

I think a lot of ordinary people travel by plane because it’s often the quickest way to get to new places. For some, it’s about visiting family or friends who live far away, while for others, it’s the chance to explore new cities, experience different cultures, or just take a break from the daily routine.

This can't be true since there are no bullet points.