If flight times could be halved would that change where you cruise?

[ducklite]

22 hours ago, Warm Breezes said:

If price wasn't an issue then yes.  Then we might talk about flying to Europe or Australia or Hawaii.  My DH is 6'5 and DS 6'8-flying for more than a few hours is not usually an enjoyable experience for them and I'd rather not pay the cost for First Class tickets.

 

You would be absolutely miserable in a Concorde seat. They were narrow and the legroom was about what you'd get in domestic economy.

[FlyerTalker]

On 9/3/2019 at 8:04 AM, ilikeanswers said:

Would you change your regular cruising route if you could have shorter flights?

 

Your question presupposes a "regular cruising route".  What about those who choose to take cruises outside any habitual pattern?

[PTMary]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I like that too!

 

I still think that it's nice to sit in the same seat a long time and watch some movies and drink Champagne! 

 

Not for me! Just as if hitting my head repeatedly with a hammer, sipping Champagne won't make it pleasant - even if watching a movie. 

 

Also, the only place you will be sipping Champagne is in first class. Most of us find the price of first class international tickets to be much too expensive.

Edited September 4, 2019 by PTMary

[shipgeeks]

If the flights were much shorter AND we could fly nonstop to/from our home airport, then we would absolutely return to cruising far from home.  No interest in Carib, have done CNE and Bermuda many times, but resigned to those now entirely due to the aggravation of long flights and layovers.

[sverigecruiser]

16 minutes ago, PTMary said:

 

Not for me! Just as if hitting my head repeatedly with a hammer, sipping Champagne won't make it pleasant - even if watching a movie. 

 

Also, the only place you will be sipping Champagne is in first class. Most of us find the price of first class international tickets to be much too expensive.

 

The Champagne is better in first class but the Champagne in business class is normally ok too.

 

I like the combination of Champagne, movies, the sound of the engines and the movement (but preferely without too much turbulence!).

[Zach1213]

58 minutes ago, PTMary said:

 

Not for me! Just as if hitting my head repeatedly with a hammer, sipping Champagne won't make it pleasant - even if watching a movie. 

 

Also, the only place you will be sipping Champagne is in first class. Most of us find the price of first class international tickets to be much too expensive.

 

I certainly consume (sometimes excessive) amounts of tasty business class champagne on my work trips. Nothing better after a hard week of work than to plop down in my seat, shut the laptop, start a movie, and enjoy some champagne on a 10-15 hour flight home.

[bobcat440]

6 hours ago, Zach1213 said:

champagne

I laugh at those articles about jet lag re don't drink alcohol.  What else are you going to do??? 🙂

 

[cruisemom42]

Not sure the hypothetical will become a reality, but yes I would absolutely consider travel or travel/cruise destinations that are farther away. As mentioned upthread, for those of us still working, taking a long flight to a destination presupposes that you have time to make it worthwhile, to get over the jet lag, etc. 

 

I will fly to Europe for a week (from the east coast US) but wouldn't consider doing that for Australia or China. However, if flights were half as long....

 

As it is, Australia and NZ are (and will likely remain) on my post-retirement bucket list.

 

[navybankerteacher]

Silly topic — with all the movement to reduce carbon footprint, the only speed increase we are likely to see in travel will be high speed trains designed to replace, as much as possible, shorter flights.

 

The absurd inefficiency of supersonic passenger flight makes it a non-starter in this period of awareness about global warming.  Certainly the overwhelming number of bargain-seeking mass market cruise passengers would be strongly disinclined to pay the hugely inflated prices .

[ducklite]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Silly topic — with all the movement to reduce carbon footprint, the only speed increase we are likely to see in travel will be high speed trains designed to replace, as much as possible, shorter flights.

 

The absurd inefficiency of supersonic passenger flight makes it a non-starter in this period of awareness about global warming.  Certainly the overwhelming number of bargain-seeking mass market cruise passengers would be strongly disinclined to pay the hugely inflated prices .

 

Supersonic flights can only operate long haul over oceans because of the noise.  Until we can figure out a way to change physics, that's not going to change.  To the same point, high speed trains can't levitate, and they aren't going to build a tunnel under the Atlantic or Pacific.

 

Anyone who can't tolerate a flight from the west coast to the east coast is probably better off just staying home or traveling to places where they can drive.

[navybankerteacher]

28 minutes ago, ducklite said:

 

Supersonic flights can only operate long haul over oceans because of the noise.  Until we can figure out a way to change physics, that's not going to change.  To the same point, high speed trains can't levitate, and they aren't going to build a tunnel under the Atlantic or Pacific.

 

Anyone who can't tolerate a flight from the west coast to the east coast is probably better off just staying home or traveling to places where they can drive.

All true - but immaterial.  

1) Since we are now in a “reduce carbon footprint” mode, switching to much higher fuel-burning aircraft is now on a burner very far back.

2) Since an increasing percentage of cruisers are economy-minded, switching to much more expensive modes of getting to ports is highly unlikely.

3) The noise is the least significant - sure, it is unpleasant, but the opposition to steam locomotives in the early 19th Century, and to gasoline  powered cars in the late 19th Century on the basis of the “unacceptable” noise they produced was quickly overcome in the name of progress.   

[evandbob]

The old SST planes may evolve into jet rocket planes if Musk & Bezos are successful.  NY to Sydney in less than an hour?  Put me in coach, LOL.

[evandbob]

11 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

Not sure the hypothetical will become a reality, but yes I would absolutely consider travel or travel/cruise destinations that are farther away. As mentioned upthread, for those of us still working, taking a long flight to a destination presupposes that you have time to make it worthwhile, to get over the jet lag, etc. 

 

I will fly to Europe for a week (from the east coast US) but wouldn't consider doing that for Australia or China. However, if flights were half as long....

 

As it is, Australia and NZ are (and will likely remain) on my post-retirement bucket list.

 

 

We made a 7 week land journey in eastern Australia, NZ and the Cook Islands from NY and had just a brief exposure to these cultures.  Can't imagine going there for just a week from mainland USA.  That would be like an Aussie coming to see America in a week:  a few days in NYC, then a day in Washington DC, followed by 2 days in Miami before heading home.  Can't see much in that short of a time.

 

Even when we went to Tahiti, we stayed first 10 days, then 2 weeks the 2nd time, otherwise it would have been a rushed jet lagged trip. 

 

And if you go by cruiseship, you will see even less than you would if you were on a land based vacation.

[sverigecruiser]

6 hours ago, ducklite said:

Anyone who can't tolerate a flight from the west coast to the east coast is probably better off just staying home or traveling to places where they can drive.

 

I think that the OP thought about much longer flights than the rather short west coast to east coast flights.    

[geoherb]

I would go to Australia and New Zealand. I'm booked for our third European cruise after one last year and one the year before. I might go two times a year if the flight times were better.

[ReneeFLL]

Most likely not. We will still cruise where we want to. In business or first class I usually just sleep a lot of the time away. 

[ReneeFLL]

On 9/3/2019 at 2:11 PM, JennyB1977 said:

@ilikeanswers I believe you're talking about the news regarding the AS2. That is a business jet (biz jet). It is being planned for London to New York, Dubai or Beijing. The Boeing plan is to run completely on biofuels. The capacity currently is 12 passengers.

That would cost a pretty penny.

[Mary229]

For me, probably not but for my husband absolutely.  Flying is boring.  There is nothing to do and no where to go.  If I could get there in 6 hours or less I would travel a lot more.   

 

[ontheweb]

48 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

For me, probably not but for my husband absolutely.  Flying is boring.  There is nothing to do and no where to go.  If I could get there in 6 hours or less I would travel a lot more.   

 

And add to that the hassle of the security check and the requirement that you be there 2 hours early for domestic flights and 3 hours early for foreign flights. Even if the flights were quicker, the whole flying experience would still be a huge  unpleasant hassle.

[ilikeanswers]

On 9/7/2019 at 10:11 PM, ontheweb said:

And add to that the hassle of the security check and the requirement that you be there 2 hours early for domestic flights and 3 hours early for foreign flights. Even if the flights were quicker, the whole flying experience would still be a huge  unpleasant hassle.

 

That is a good point, there is no cutting the time you have to spend at an airport😩.

 

Thanks  to everyone for your posts. It was really interesting and very informative👍.

Edited September 12, 2019 by ilikeanswers

[cruisemom42]

Maybe it's because I was taken on long driving trips as a child -- my parents thought nothing of a 9-10 hour drive to Florida from our home, with limited stops -- but I don't see flying as terrible. It's really difficult to understand people who say they won't travel anywhere that requires a flight just because of the "hassle".  OMG, imagine what people used to go through before modern times to get from one place to another....!  Read (or reread) Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad for a humorous but all too accurate look at travel 100 years ago.

 

There's nothing to do on the plane?  Are you telling me that at home people don't spend hours on the computer or in front of the TV binge-watching shows or using social media?  Or sleeping?  What did you do on all those long car trips of the past? They can't have had so much more to offer in terms of entertainment than flying...

 

So you have to get to the airport early -- walk around (good way to get in some exercise before sitting on a long flight) and people watch or shop, or eat a meal.  Many airports now have restaurants that are far better than any food you'll get on the plane if headed overseas -- and if not headed overseas, you'll get nothing unless you're in the front section....) Or use that time to call friends/relatives and chat. 

 

There are also ways to circumvent the security hassle. Get TSA (at a minimum; Global Entry if you fly overseas often) and you won't have to undress or take out electronics and your 3-1-1 bag.  And if you're over a certain age, you already get to keep on your shoes and jackets.

 

 

[clo]

On 9/4/2019 at 10:57 AM, FlyerTalker said:

 

Your question presupposes a "regular cruising route".  What about those who choose to take cruises outside any habitual pattern?

I hadn't thought of that.  We have no desire to have a "regular cruising route."  We want all different destinations/ports.  Now, I wouldn't mind beginning or ending in Barcelona 🙂

[clo]

On 9/7/2019 at 4:21 AM, Mary229 said:

There is nothing to do

Huh?  Read books/magazines/newspapers, watch movies, play games, etc.

[clo]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

So you have to get to the airport early

More for connecting flights which can be super long - we had seven hours in Gatwick last fall - you can usually buy a day pass for an airline's lounge.

[Winnigirl]

It's nice to dream about.  For us it would be Australia and New Zealand.