CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Temp430 on April 01, 2024, 11:38:36 AM
-
Clemson and Florida State, and maybe Notre Dame?
https://onwardstate.com/2024/04/01/florida-state-clemson-to-join-big-ten-in-2025/ (https://onwardstate.com/2024/04/01/florida-state-clemson-to-join-big-ten-in-2025/)
-
Clemson and Florida State, and maybe Notre Dame?
https://onwardstate.com/2024/04/01/florida-state-clemson-to-join-big-ten-in-2025/ (https://onwardstate.com/2024/04/01/florida-state-clemson-to-join-big-ten-in-2025/)
April Fools . . .
For now.
-
Fake News.
Clemson will go to the SEC, if anything.
-
Plus they are a basketball school now. Like Tennessee and Alabama
-
Fake News.
Clemson will go to the SEC, if anything.
SEC doesn't need Clemson. Just another mouth to divide the pie.
-
ESecPN will tell the SEC who it needs.
-
SEC doesn't need Clemson. Just another mouth to divide the pie.
That's been the case for a while, problem is, you are either eating or you are being eaten. I would say the Big Ten and SEC have reached a point where they no longer have to fear that, but I would have said that before Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon jumped as well.
I've gone from wanting this to stop to just wanting those two conferences to absorb enough, to just reset with those 2 conferences.
It's a real shame we had to involve all of the other sports to get here. Lots of issues could have been solved if football had just broken away from the conferences 20 years ago
-
That's been the case for a while, problem is, you are either eating or you are being eaten. I would say the Big Ten and SEC have reached a point where they no longer have to fear that, but I would have said that before Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon jumped as well.
I've gone from wanting this to stop to just wanting those two conferences to absorb enough, to just reset with those 2 conferences.
It's a real shame we had to involve all of the other sports to get here. Lots of issues could have been solved if football had just broken away from the conferences 20 years ago
Could not have put it better.
-
ESecPN will tell the SEC who it needs.
And Fox will tell the B1G.
But in reality, ESPN isn't going to pay the SEC considerably more for Clemson, so ESPN will not be suggesting the addition of Clemson. They take away more than they bring to the table.
-
And Fox will tell the B1G.
But in reality, ESPN isn't going to pay the SEC considerably more for Clemson, so ESPN will not be suggesting the addition of Clemson. They take away more than they bring to the table.
They already have. Fox wanted the West Coast, and it got the West Coast.
It's clear Fox wants FSU, UNC, UVA, Miami, GT and ND. It's all out there in the open.
Who knows when, is the big question. FSU, UNC and Clemson are in a war with the ACC. If others join the war, the ACC is over. The XII will need to guard against being raided by the SEC for its value schools too.
-
They already have. Fox wanted the West Coast, and it got the West Coast.
It's clear Fox wants FSU, UNC, UVA, Miami, GT and ND. It's all out there in the open.
Who knows when, is the big question. FSU, UNC and Clemson are in a war with the ACC. If others join the war, the ACC is over. The XII will need to guard against being raided by the SEC for its value schools too.
There's nothing left in the B12 of value to the SEC. If there were, the SEC would already have it.
-
It's a real shame we had to involve all of the other sports to get here. Lots of issues could have been solved if football had just broken away from the conferences 20 years ago
I did not agree with this initially because I always thought it was kinda neat that even in an obscure sport an athlete got to compete against their school's major FB rivals. Ie, a swimmer or rower at tOSU/M still gets to compete against their school's FB rival.
The national mega-conferences make sense both financially and competitively for FB and, to a lesser extent, BB. People will watch Ohio State play in Autzen or UCLA play in the Big House and the money needed to fly tOSU to Eugene or UCLA to Ann Arbor is EASILY recouped by the TV money those games generate but it really makes no sense to fly Oregon's swimmers and rowers to Columbus nor Michigan's to Los Angeles.
-
I believe the SEC waits and adds UNC and UVA after the ACC folds. Everyone I know from UNC wants the SEC and they are joined at the hip to UVA in whatever they decide.
-
There's nothing left in the B12 of value to the SEC. If there were, the SEC would already have it.
Mitt Romney could shake some value out of it
-
Probably some value in oSu, Kansas and the Arizona schools.
-
not enuff
like USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon
-
I did not agree with this initially because I always thought it was kinda neat that even in an obscure sport an athlete got to compete against their school's major FB rivals. Ie, a swimmer or rower at tOSU/M still gets to compete against their school's FB rival.
The national mega-conferences make sense both financially and competitively for FB and, to a lesser extent, BB. People will watch Ohio State play in Autzen or UCLA play in the Big House and the money needed to fly tOSU to Eugene or UCLA to Ann Arbor is EASILY recouped by the TV money those games generate but it really makes no sense to fly Oregon's swimmers and rowers to Columbus nor Michigan's to Los Angeles.
Although to be honest, don't they pretty much fly most places these days? The PAC-12 was already a fly-between conference IMHO. The B1G is also in many cases, although there are a handful of schools close enough together the bus it.
What if for the other sports, they did do east/west divisions? 9 schools each.
- West: USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois
- East: Northwestern, Purdue, IU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland
Other than Illinois/Northwestern, that really doesn't disrupt any mainstream rivalries that I can see... And it makes a lot more sense than Oregon traveling to Rutgers every year or vice versa.
-
Yes, but that seems like a much heavier travel burden on the West schools
-
Yes, but that seems like a much heavier travel burden on the West schools
But I think the Western schools had a heavier travel burden to begin with and this is more-or-less unavoidable.
I'm thinking we end up at 24 broken into four "pods" of six where the pods are reasonably geographic but who knows.
-
Yes, but that seems like a much heavier travel burden on the West schools
Didn't seem to bother them or the idiots who accepted their applications.
I really wish this was football only.
-
Probably some value in oSu, Kansas and the Arizona schools.
If there were any value in them, they'd already be in the SEC. The Arizona schools just changed conferences. If they'd had an SEC invitation, then they'd have easily picked the SEC over the B12. They didn't have an SEC invitation, because there's no value in adding them.
I'm not saying they weren't valuable to the B12. They are. They're just not valuable to the SEC.
And would oSu or Kansas turn down an SEC invitation? Of course not. It would have been easy to add them at the same time as Texas and OU. The fact that this did NOT happen, tells you all you need to know about whether or not the SEC sees any value there. Short answer-- they don't.
-
But I think the Western schools had a heavier travel burden to begin with and this is more-or-less unavoidable.
I'm thinking we end up at 24 broken into four "pods" of six where the pods are reasonably geographic but who knows.
I mean the West existing members
-
Yes, but that seems like a much heavier travel burden on the West schools
I don't know how the Olympic sports work? If they do home meets between schools once a year, the 5 existing B1G schools would each only travel to the West Coast twice a year. If they had any cross-division meets that would also be as easy as it is today. (And honestly for those schools there's not much difference between traveling to the West Coast vs State College, Piscataway, or College Park.)
I know basketball (which I'm not sure would be included) have some 2-play schools, but if they tried to not avoid divisions and do a more round robin w/ protected rivalries, with a 20-game schedule you'd have 16 one-play and 2 two-play teams. Stick with traditional (and geographic) rivalries for the two-play teams, and the traditional B1G teams also only need to travel to the West Coast twice yearly.
As for UCLA/USC/UO/UW and their travel budgets? Screw 'em; they're getting paid enough to fly wherever we tell them to fly :57:
-
Gotcha.
What we all need to understand here is that the TV networks are driving everything.
If Fox, NBC and CSB tell the B1G to dump Rutgers and Northwestern and to take FSU and Miami, it will get done.
If Mickey Mouse tells the SEC to dump Mizzou and Vandy and to take Clemson and UNC, it will get done.
-
Gotcha.
What we all need to understand here is that the TV networks are driving everything.
If Fox, NBC and CSB tell the B1G to dump Rutgers and Northwestern and to take FSU and Miami, it will get done.
If Mickey Mouse tells the SEC to dump Mizzou and Vandy and to take Clemson and UNC, it will get done.
Overall I agree with your premise, but we have yet to see any modern cases of a conference kicking out a member. Now that the implications of such an action have reached the Billions of Dollars range for any particular school, I'd be pretty surprised if any conference actually kicked out a sitting member. The enormity of the instant lawsuit they'd be facing, would be enough to bankrupt any conference within months.
It would take a complete breakaway of existing schools to form brand new conferences. We've all talked about that at length over the past many years, but at this point I think we're going to see the sport of college football implode before we see a full breakaway restructuring that would dump the Northwesterns and the Vandys.
-
Overall I agree with your premise, but we have yet to see any modern cases of a conference kicking out a member. Now that the implications of such an action have reached the Billions of Dollars range for any particular school, I'd be pretty surprised if any conference actually kicked out a sitting member. The enormity of the instant lawsuit they'd be facing, would be enough to bankrupt any conference within months.
It would take a complete breakaway of existing schools to form brand new conferences. We've all talked about that at length over the past many years, but at this point I think we're going to see the sport of college football implode before we see a full breakaway restructuring that would dump the Northwesterns and the Vandys.
It would, but do you honestly put it past them? The PAC was one of the most historic college conferences that existed, and now Wazzu and OrSU, although not "kicked out", are the only ones there.
The only reason to not kick them out is, per OAM's point, is to placate the power team conference teams egos by allowing them to inflate win totals against patsies. We all know they're snowflakes and their fans will revolt if they don't get 9 wins a year against the Little Sisters of the Poor. But the problem is that this means they can NEVER do anything about the parity problem in college sports, because there's no reason to let Northwestern and Vandy from any changes that improve parity.
-
It would, but do you honestly put it past them? The PAC was one of the most historic college conferences that existed, and now Wazzu and OrSU, although not "kicked out", are the only ones there.
The only reason to not kick them out is, per OAM's point, is to placate the power team conference teams by allowing them to inflate win totals against patsies. But the problem is that this means they can NEVER do anything about the parity problem in college sports, because there's no reason to let Northwestern and Vandy from any changes that improve parity.
No I don't put it past them, I just don't think it will happen in time. I think college football is going to implode before a full breakaway can occur.
I think what we're seeing now, in this mad dash to reorg conferences and get as much fast cash is possible, is the university presidents realizing that the golden goose is nearly dead, and doing everything they can to extract the last few eggs.
-
Nothing of great value is left, besides ND and the state-of-Florida schools.
People sleep on Miami because they've done fuck-all in the ACC, but....you get to play in the most talented county in the country AND Miami's existence prevents some talent from Dade & Broward counties from going to SEC schools. Some percentage stay home, and it's a defense against the SEC's rich getting that much richer.
What the Big 2 should do is when they add a 'plus' program, bring with it a 'have not' program. Keep things balanced, keep the big-boy programs with fanbases used to winning to enter the conference with a cannon fodder program.
And as I've said before, there is hope, in that the Big 2 get big enough to split into regional, conference-sized divisions....it's our only way to go back by going forward in a realistic manner.
-
From the UW 247 board:
(https://i.imgur.com/fzfitiS.png)
-
Thinking outside the football box I would say the gems of the ACC are UNC, Duke, and Virginia.
-
I think you cover the East Coast, if you can. Recruiting grounds. Need to get into Florida for sure.
Miami, FSU, GT, UNC, UVA.
Then ND and be done at 24.
4 pods of 6.
The two farthest West existing schools get stuck with the West Coast schools. Sorry UNL and Minnie.
SE pod
Miami, FSU, GT, UVA, UNC, OSU
MW pod
UW, Iowa, UIUC, NU, UM, MSU
E pod
PSU, ND, RU, UMD, PU, IU
-
The two farthest West existing schools get stuck with the West Coast schools. Sorry UNL and Minnie.
“the champions of the West!”
-
From the UW 247 board:
[img width=500 height=155.994]https://i.imgur.com/fzfitiS.png[/img]
Anybody on the UW 247 board take a look at the date this "article" was posted...?
-
No idea. I was just quoting a poster who has some pretty good history.
-
I think you cover the East Coast, if you can. Recruiting grounds. Need to get into Florida for sure.
Miami, FSU, GT, UNC, UVA.
Then ND and be done at 24.
4 pods of 6.
The two farthest West existing schools get stuck with the West Coast schools. Sorry UNL and Minnie.
SE pod
Miami, FSU, GT, UVA, UNC, OSU
MW pod
UW, Iowa, UIUC, NU, UM, MSU
E pod
PSU, ND, RU, UMD, PU, IU
Wait what?
-
it'll be GREAT
-
No idea. I was just quoting a poster who has some pretty good history.
Article came on April 1, 2024...
-
Article came on April 1, 2024...
I saw that silly tweet from a fake FSU account. I have not seen the actual article reporting that ESPN will not renew in 2027.
-
well, it was the first day of April
-
The astounding thing is that the expansion reality has gotten so crazy that you honestly can't really tell if something is an April Fool's or not. It is hard to parody insanity.
-
Wait what?
Swap OSU for UW if you don't like it.
I'll take the easy drives to Miami, Tallahassee and Atlanta for games.
-
I think you cover the East Coast, if you can. Recruiting grounds. Need to get into Florida for sure.
Miami, FSU, GT, UNC, UVA.
Then ND and be done at 24.
4 pods of 6.
The two farthest West existing schools get stuck with the West Coast schools. Sorry UNL and Minnie.
SE pod
Miami, FSU, GT, UVA, UNC, OSU
MW pod
UW, Iowa, UIUC, NU, UM, MSU
E pod
PSU, ND, RU, UMD, PU, IU
If we go to 24, what I think makes sense is four pods of six as you have laid out but not necessarily those pods. Each team is in both a "pod" and a "group", for example:
(https://i.imgur.com/lZmQ9mC.png)
So USC, for example, is in Pod-West, Group-1. Each team's schedule consists of eight scheduled games and one floater. The eight scheduled games are the five other teams in your Pod and the three other teams in your Group so for USC, their annual schedule consists of:
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- Notre Dame
- Oregon
- Nebraska
- Washington
- UCLA
- Minnesota
The ninth conference game is a "floater" that serves to balance the schedules and also, for the four Pod Champions, serves as a league semi-Final.
For the ninth, "floater" league game, you rotate hosting. Ie:
- West hosts SE and MW hosts East in Year-1
- SE hosts West and East hosts MW in Year-2
- West hosts MW and SE hosts East in Year-3
- MW hosts West and East hosts SE in Year-4
- West hosts East and SE hosts MW in Year-5
- East hosts West and MW hosts SE in Year-6.
After the eight scheduled games each Pod is arranged from 1-->6 based on order of finish and tiebreakers. Then for the ninth games (Year-1):
- West #1 hosts SE #1 - League title Semi-Final, winner goes to the B1GCG
- MW #1 hosts East #1 - League title Semi-Final, winner goes to the B1GCG
- West #2 hosts SE #2
- MW #2 hosts East #2
- .....
- West #6 hosts SE #6
- MW #6 hosts East #6
-
I like 8 games annually against the same teams
-
Swap OSU for UW if you don't like it.
I'll take the easy drives to Miami, Tallahassee and Atlanta for games.
Wow, I'm a Texan and I'm accustomed to extremely long drives to get... well... anywhere.
But I don't think I'd ever call 672 miles an "easy drive." ;)
-
There are so many rumors on this topic each year, I just wait and see. Remember that utterly ridiculous rumor last year about a slew of Pac 12 teams bolting?
Never happened. Ridiculous.
-
easy
-
Wow, I'm a Texan and I'm accustomed to extremely long drives to get... well... anywhere.
But I don't think I'd ever call 672 miles an "easy drive." ;)
I'd do it over 2 days, for sure. Not bad. I get 7 weeks of PTO.
-
It is 662 miles from Atlanta to Miami, and 568 miles from Atlanta to Columbus, Ohio.
The new car is a lot easier on me for such distances at least. My wife told me this morning she really likes it and is glad we traded, out of the blue. This will be my first time driving it in the mountains, but I'm sure to take it pretty easy.
-
I drove over 900 from my place to Round Rock
743 to my brother's place now
one day easy
-
I'd do it over 2 days, for sure. Not bad. I get 7 weeks of PTO.
Oh wait, sorry. It's only 564 miles for you to get to Atlanta. A couple hours shorter, actually not terrible, but yeah dividing into 2 days is still a good idea.
-
I would prefer to have the Buckeyes and Irish in the same pod as Michigan for rivalry and historic purposes. And a 100 year exemption from having to play Rutgers or Maryland.
-
We drove back from North Port to ATL in January, it wasn't bad. We stayed in Gville on the way down.
-
I drove over 900 from my place to Round Rock
743 to my brother's place now
one day easy
If you say so. I do a couple of trips like that per year, and any chance I get, I try to split anything over 500-600 miles into 2 days.
-
Oh wait, sorry. It's only 564 miles for you to get to Atlanta. A couple hours shorter, actually not terrible, but yeah dividing into 2 days is still a good idea.
We used to be able to do 12 hour drive days. Not anymore. 5-6 hours is the sweet spot for us.
-
If you say so. I do a couple of trips like that per year, and any chance I get, I try to split anything over 500-600 miles into 2 days.
and you're young
-
We used to be able to do 12 hour drive days. Not anymore. 5-6 hours is the sweet spot for us.
We drove straight out from Austin to Pensacola last summer, that's around 12 and change counting a lunch stop.
On the way home we split it and stopped for a few days in New Orleans. Man that was fun, I love that city.
-
562 is def. a single day for me. Looks like Burnt Store->ATL is 8 hours, definitely doable. That's something where you can take it leisurely and have adequate rest stops. Would be great to have some 30+ minute stops along the way to break it up... Badge & wife can stretch their legs, eat a little food, charge their EV... :57:
-
In 2022, my son was flying home the day after Christmas. He is stationed in Biloxi MS, and flew out of New Orleans with a connection in Atlanta and then a connecting flight to Cleveland.
However, once he got to Atlanta, they canceled the flight to Cleveland and said they could not get him home for about 4 or 5 days. I got the news around 6:00pm that evening and told him I would be in Atlanta in 10 hours to pick him up. My oldest daughter went with me to break up the driving and we got there at about 4 in the morning, grabbed him and his luggage and then drove back home. We got home around 2:30 pm that afternoon. It is about 690 miles one way, so I think we drove close to 1400 miles in about 21 hours.
My son had teamed up with a Navy guy who was on the same flight and shared a hotel room. But instead of getting some sleep, they decided to drink beer and play video games most of the night. Therefore, he was less than worthless in sharing the driving home.
Needless to say, I was pretty wiped out when we got home.
-
Once you get over the 3 hour drive length these days I fly. Hard to believe I use to drive from Phoenix to Cincinnati in a single drive, stopping only for gas & food.
-
Once you get over the 3 hour drive length these days I fly. Hard to believe I use to drive from Phoenix to Cincinnati in a single drive, stopping only for gas & food.
You fly over a three hour drive length? Do you live in the terminal? For a drive that short I can't imagine that flying even saves any time unless you own your own plane.
An example for me, my wife and I drove to Chicago for the B1G Basketball Tournament back in 2015. Per google the United Center is 351 miles from my driveway and takes 5:24 to drive. A flight is 1:30 direct from Cleveland or 3:15+ with connections and starts at $249*.
I wouldn't even consider flying that. For one thing the flight barely saves you any time. Even with a direct flight at 1:30 it only saves four hours but I'd immediately give half of that back in time spent driving to the airport, parking at the airport, walking to the airport, getting through security, and waiting. When I get there, I already have my car and my luggage is in it. If you fly you get there and need to retrieve your luggage then find a rental car then get to it, then get going.
A second factor is cost as it is obviously cheaper to drive since even if I was travelling alone in a gas-guzzling Suburban at 15 MPG it would only take me 47 gallons of gas to get to Chicago and back. It is marginally cheaper to drive even for one person driving almost the least fuel efficient vehicle possible. Adding people obviously makes driving a MUCH better deal since the cost of driving doesn't change much until you get to the point that you can't all fit in one car. Then, if you need a car at your destination the price of flying goes up even more since you have to rent one but the cost of driving remains constant since you bring your own car and don't need to rent.
The biggest factors, to me, are convenience and flexibility. When my wife and I went to Chicago we left after work on Wednesday and ended up staying later than expected on Sunday before driving home. You can't change plans when you fly and you are stuck with the times the airlines offer. You can't just leave when you are ready. We actually met up with @nuwildcat (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=28) at one of Chicago's pizza places Wednesday night. The flight that is available leaves CLE at 7:09 and gets to ORD at 7:40 (you pick up an hour due to EST/CST). If we left at 5pm and drove we'd get to Chicago at 9:40.
*That "starts at $249" is laughable. That is only if you have no luggage, are willing to depart in the middle of the night, and don't mind sitting on the wing. If I made a similar trip for Wednesday, April 24 to Sunday, April 28 it would cost $264 per person to fly economy. If you want to bring a suitcase it adds $80. If you want in the "main cabin" (apparently economy is on the wing or something?) that adds $60. If you want "Main Select" you are up to $567 per person and first class is $469 per person. The real cost to fly would be ~$700 for my wife and I compared to <$100 in gas to drive.
I just can't see the advantages to flying anywhere that is less than about a 12 hour drive. Even then, I'd personally rather drive.
-
My favorite flying vs driving story:
Back in 2011 my Dad, my brother, a buddy, and I went to Lincoln, Nebraska to see the Buckeyes take on the Cornhuskers in the first ever Big Ten game in Lincoln. We met @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) and generally had a great time other than Ohio State losing the game.
Anyway, my dad and I drove while my buddy and my brother flew. The game was Saturday night and after the game we had to drive back to Omaha to our hotel. Then my brother and my buddy had to get up at zero-dark-thirty to catch a VERY early flight out of Omaha. My dad and I slept in a couple more hours and left at a more reasonable time after breakfast.
Shortly after dad and I left we got a call from my brother. The flight that he and my buddy were supposed to be on out of Omaha (Omaha->ATL) was delayed due to some mechanical issue. We offered to pick them up since we hadn't gotten far yet but they decided wait it out.
They got out of Omaha around the time dad and I were crossing into Illinois and they were too late for my brother's connection from ATL to CLE so he had to catch a later plane. He called from Atlanta as dad and I were driving through Toledo and told us that he was about to take off. We offered to pick him up at CLE since we'd get there BEFORE he did.
So, one of my life's experiences is beating a plane from Lincoln, Nebraska to Cleveland, Ohio.
-
I just can't see the advantages to flying anywhere that is less than about a 12 hour drive. Even then, I'd personally rather drive.
To me it's more about not flying anywhere that's less than 4 hours, if it's in the 6 hour range it'll depend on flight flexibility / cost / our schedule / parking and whether we need a car at the destination. Get up into that 8+ hour range and flights start looking REALLY attractive unless it's a destination that is difficult/expensive to fly to, or if it's something that we're doing as an entire family so I want to avoid buying plane tickets for 5 people, or we want to bring the dog.
-
I'll drive 7-8 hours in a day before splitting it up, or flying. We drove to DC and back a few years back, that was pretty tiring in the GTI, but not like Cle to Atl and back in a day of course.
-
In 2022, my son was flying home the day after Christmas. He is stationed in Biloxi MS, and flew out of New Orleans with a connection in Atlanta and then a connecting flight to Cleveland.
However, once he got to Atlanta, they canceled the flight to Cleveland and said they could not get him home for about 4 or 5 days. I got the news around 6:00pm that evening and told him I would be in Atlanta in 10 hours to pick him up. My oldest daughter went with me to break up the driving and we got there at about 4 in the morning, grabbed him and his luggage and then drove back home. We got home around 2:30 pm that afternoon. It is about 690 miles one way, so I think we drove close to 1400 miles in about 21 hours.
My son had teamed up with a Navy guy who was on the same flight and shared a hotel room. But instead of getting some sleep, they decided to drink beer and play video games most of the night. Therefore, he was less than worthless in sharing the driving home.
Needless to say, I was pretty wiped out when we got home.
(https://www.hagerty.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/GettyImages-154044530-scaled.jpg)
-
I'll drive from AZ to FL if I'm staying there more than 10 days. If it's less, then I fly. I just hate not having my own car to visit everyone I want to see. Paying for a rental for more than a few days feels like I'm just throwing money into the trash can.
-
I'll drive from AZ to FL if I'm staying there more than 10 days. If it's less, then I fly. I just hate not having my own car to visit everyone I want to see. Paying for a rental for more than a few days feels like I'm just throwing money into the trash can.
Are you still young and stupid enough to do things like drive it straight through, or single and frugal enough to get a few hours of shuteye at a rest stop in your car overnight rather than stay in a hotel bed? Because that's a long ass drive lol... I just mapped it and it's 25 hours to Pensacola or 35 to Miami, so no matter where you're going that's a haul.
I realize as a teacher you may have longer blocks of off time in the summer than I do so the extra time might be less of an issue than the extra money, but hell, no matter how much time I've got I'm not sleeping in my car at this point in my life lol.
When I think about that drive all I can say is...
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/e40b23c69b031cc63e05d6a3b5edc081/tumblr_n8jwilhgp71tg5sl7o1_500.gif)
-
I'd rather drive the 11 hours to my brother's place than to fly
but, I have to drive an hour and a half to omaha to the airport and then my brother drives 30 minutes to Love Field
-
Flying sucks.
-
Ed Zachery!!!
Post of the day!
-
Are you still young and stupid enough to do things like drive it straight through, or single and frugal enough to get a few hours of shuteye at a rest stop in your car overnight rather than stay in a hotel bed? Because that's a long ass drive lol... I just mapped it and it's 25 hours to Pensacola or 35 to Miami, so no matter where you're going that's a haul.
I realize as a teacher you may have longer blocks of off time in the summer than I do so the extra time might be less of an issue than the extra money, but hell, no matter how much time I've got I'm not sleeping in my car at this point in my life lol.
When I think about that drive all I can say is...
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/e40b23c69b031cc63e05d6a3b5edc081/tumblr_n8jwilhgp71tg5sl7o1_500.gif)
From either end, I just get through San Antonio, and stop. A couple of times (maybe 4-5) years ago, I'd sleep at a rest stop for 4-5 hours, then finish the trip (and sleep once I got there). Now, I'll get a hotel room, sleep for 6-7 hours, take a much-wanted shower, and finish the drive.
I just refuse to rent a car for 10+ days and I refuse to be stranded at one loved-one's place, unable to drive 4-5 hours to another loved-one's place. I REALLY like having my car.
Last time, I had half a day of nowhere to be and nobody to see, and I spent that time driving up A1A along the beach. It was great. 35 mph, windows down, listening to Jimmy Buffett. Needed. Cathartic. Home.
-
A lot of this is of course age, and wealth, related. I do things now I would not have chosen 30 years ago. I'm very much into the "take it easy" mode if I can.
I could drive ~12 hours and be wasted, pretty much, or just fly and arrive in OK shape.
We're meeting friends in Orlando (one of my least favorite cities) in May and I looked at flights, they are $137 in coach from here, but then I'd rent a car. So we'll drive.
-
Flying sucks.
I rather enjoy it. Of course, much of that also depends on the airports I'm flying in and out of.
-
I have a minor dislike of flying, I don't find it "entertaining" at all, even in the rare occasions when we're in First. First Class domestic is pretty much a nonevent, for me, some more room, fine, more attention, fine, but it's still sitting and waiting and doing little, almost like posting here.
-
I hate flying.
I love airports though, the energy is unbelievable. Excitement, concern, fear, happiness-- the emotions are palpable. Everyone is going somewhere for a reason, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but the combined energy in airports is just fascinating to me.
-
I dislike flying and airports
-
I love this closing scene from Love, Actually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPdYBcaO3is
-
I used to travel a lot for work through Denver's old Stapleton airport and consequently developed a serious hatred for flying.
-
Good times.
https://youtu.be/aOTeanDysss?si=1g6865JRRNWmR0Ny
-
I doubt anyone likes flying commercially to the point they would choose to fly A to B and then reboard and go B to A because they like it.
I enjoy driving from some kinds of As to Bs.
-
Inside Edition still exists?!? I though that died like 20 years ago.
-
Flying is fine. I just have 2 gripes.
Having to show up early negates much of the advantage. That's just fucking stupid.
And it's not fun being packed in like sardines. Just make the whole plane "first class."
You can charge more, as long as we don't have to show up so far ahead of the flight.
Again, this tiered bullshit is unethical. Just as auto companies should just make the best version of each car they offer (thus lowering the cost of it), airlines should make the flight as comfortable as possible, thus making the cost worth it for the customer.
You can make money without screwing over x% of your customers.
-
OAM displaying his typical depth of understanding of economics and consumer behavior.
-
No sir, it's because I understand it that I make a comment like that.
You can more easily screw over your customer for every thousandth of a cent profit and make money, but you don't HAVE to.
It's a choice.
Thanks for the 19th straight post insulting me on your end. Really contributes to the site.
-
No sir, it's because I understand it that I make a comment like that.
You can more easily screw over your customer for every thousandth of a cent profit and make money, but you don't HAVE to.
It's a choice.
Thanks for the 19th straight post insulting me on your end. Really contributes to the site.
It's also a choice how to fly.
You know why CD always talks about getting upgraded to first class? Because not enough first class tickets are sold. A plane maybe has 15-20 first class seats, and it's rare that they're all sold for first class prices. Loyalty members and frequent fliers end up there as a "perk".
You know why airlines are at a race to the bottom for ticket costs, scrapping anything that makes customers comfortable? Because every fare is available on the internet, easily comparable, and consumers will buy the cheapest fare even if it means flying a no-frills airline. I'm convinced some consumers would sit out on the wing if they could save $10.
You know why nobody that's not rich (and despite your pleas, most on this site aren't "rich") does what you suggest and makes use of the option that you don't have to show up hours early--which exists and is called flying private? Because it's damned expensive, that's why. There are all sorts of options out there where you can book these flights, but very few people can afford it.
Simply put, if bigger seats i.e. "make the whole plane first class" was something mainstream consumers would pay for, there would be at least ONE airline doing it. But we're not willing to pay for it.
Flying sucks, because all we're willing to pay for is a great big Greyhound in the sky. Flying sucks because we, as consumers, chose low price over high quality.
That's what I mean when I say you don't understand economics or consumer behavior. We got where we are re: flying because it was driven by what consumers wanted--low price. "Make the whole plane first class" is something consumers SAY we want, but then we pick the flight based on price, and bitch about why the airline experience is so shitty.
-
It's also a choice how to fly.
You know why CD always talks about getting upgraded to first class? Because not enough first class tickets are sold. A plane maybe has 15-20 first class seats, and it's rare that they're all sold for first class prices. Loyalty members and frequent fliers end up there as a "perk".
You know why airlines are at a race to the bottom for ticket costs, scrapping anything that makes customers comfortable? Because every fare is available on the internet, easily comparable, and consumers will buy the cheapest fare even if it means flying a no-frills airline. I'm convinced some consumers would sit out on the wing if they could save $10.
You know why nobody that's not rich (and despite your pleas, most on this site aren't "rich") does what you suggest and makes use of the option that you don't have to show up hours early--which exists and is called flying private? Because it's damned expensive, that's why. There are all sorts of options out there where you can book these flights, but very few people can afford it.
Simply put, if bigger seats i.e. "make the whole plane first class" was something mainstream consumers would pay for, there would be at least ONE airline doing it. But we're not willing to pay for it.
Flying sucks, because all we're willing to pay for is a great big Greyhound in the sky. Flying sucks because we, as consumers, chose low price over high quality.
That's what I mean when I say you don't understand economics or consumer behavior. We got where we are re: flying because it was driven by what consumers wanted--low price. "Make the whole plane first class" is something consumers SAY we want, but then we pick the flight based on price, and bitch about why the airline experience is so shitty.
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) , economists refer to what @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) described here as "revealed preference". It is a topic that economists spend a great deal of time researching and studying because it screws with their models. An example (I'm making this up but I would guess it is close to true):
- Conduct a poll, 90% of fliers say they'd pay $10 for a bigger seat.
- Actually redesign the plane to offer bigger seats and offer them for fares of $10 higher than the normal and . . . nobody buys tickets.
#1 is what people say they want but #2 is what they ACTUALLY want - their revealed preference. This happens all the time, not just with flying. When polled people think "sure I'd pay $10 for a bigger seat" and they aren't really "lying", in that moment they REALLY believe that they would but then when push comes to shove and they go to google flights to find flights for their next trip what they actually do is click "sort by price" and pick the cheapest or at least the cheapest that is not too ridiculously inconvenient to their schedule.
The economics of airfare in general is fascinating. More than almost any other industry, the marginal costs (cost to add one more unit - in this case passenger) are usually effectively zero. Ie, if an airline has a plane flying from LA to Phoenix this afternoon, so long as not all the seats are sold, the cost to the airline of putting Beta's butt in one of their empty seats to fly him to Phoenix for Purdue's triumphant National Championship is effectively almost zero. Fundamentally this is why the airlines offer standby fares for REALLY cheap, because if they have extra seats on a plane basically anything they get for those seats is a net positive for the airline.
-
We like flying (on American) because we get perks because of our status. Free premium economy (more leg room) seats, no baggage fees, free cocktails, free upgrades to first/business, priority check-in, and priority baggage (ours come out first).
We do pay more (unless using points) to fly on American than Southwest or whatever. We're OK with that because we worked very hard to have that choice and not have to choose Spirit, Frontier, etc.
-
We like flying (on American) because we get perks because of our status. Free premium economy (more leg room) seats, no baggage fees, free cocktails, free upgrades to first/business, priority check-in, and priority baggage (ours come out first).
We do pay more (unless using points) to fly on American than Southwest or whatever. We're OK with that because we worked very hard to have that choice and not have to choose Spirit, Frontier, etc.
Yeah, and expanding on what @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) said, the economics that get involved in loyalty programs get interesting. I basically try to fly American or Southwest if I can. American is where all my frequent flyer mileage usually went back when I was regularly traveling for work, and I'd try to work my schedule to maintain status. Even now, one advantage to American for personal flying is that although I don't rack up enough miles to get status, my AAdvantage credit card gets me free checked bags and priority boarding. Southwest I fly frequently from here because it's cheap and easy--and no checked bag fees for that either.
But while I tell OAM that people like us aren't "rich", I think we're well off enough that we can make those choices, especially since we fly often enough (for business or pleasure) that those little perks can add up. We do take non-monetary aspects into consideration, not just price. But price still matters. I might pay a little more to fly American than, say, United or Delta, but there's a limit. I also won't fly American if there's no direct non-stop flight, but United or Delta has a direct flight (perhaps due to the destination being a United/Delta hub). Price/routing are still important, and they trump loyalty programs for me.
-
You are fortunate to have hubs nearby, so flying direct is easy. The only direct flights we can get is if we are flying to certain hubs.
Seems like every other place we go, they put us through Charlotte, Dallas or Chicago.
We use our AA card for everything. Literally everything.
-
You are fortunate to have hubs nearby, so flying direct is easy. The only direct flights we can get is if we are flying to certain hubs.
Seems like every other place we go, they put us through Charlotte, Dallas or Chicago.
We use our AA card for everything. Literally everything.
Honestly, I really try to avoid LAX if I can. LAX has much more direct flights than Orange County and typically better pricing, but I won't drive there unless I really have to. I will often look at San Diego rather than LAX because I'd rather drive there than LAX. It's slightly farther away, but I hate LAX so much that I will accept that if the price/routing/etc works.
The number of direct flights out of SNA isn't that great except to certain destinations. A lot of the western states can be direct on Southwest, but any time I'm headed east on American to anywhere except Chicago (where I don't go much now that my parents moved to CO) or Dallas (where I have almost no reason to go) I'm pretty much routed through one of those two most of the time.
For Indy we flew out of SNA, and neither trip was direct. It was on Southwest through LAS on the outbound trip, and on American through PHX on the return. That was the best price/routing combo I could find.
-
We are flying to Chicago a lot coming up.
May 1
July 2
September 2
October 4
October 25
November 15
December 25
In between all of that, we have a ton of visitors lined up in October, November and December.
We have to go to PHX in early December for my MIL's 90th birthday. Trying to figure out that trip. PHX is not a hub for AA.
I'm going to be tired in January. No Cabo this year, that's for sure.
-
I'm tired just thinking about that
-
Flying is fine. I just have 2 gripes.
Having to show up early negates much of the advantage.
On this I agree with you completely and I think people tend to undervalue this time. ORD is 5-1/2 hours from me driving. A direct flight takes about 1-1/2 hours . . . in the air. I think people tend to oversimplify that and just say that flying saves four hours but if I flew to Chicago I'd have to leave my house about two hours before takeoff and it would probably take me the better part of an hour to get off the plane, retrieve my luggage, get a rental car, and get out of the airport parking maze. So the fair comparison isn't 5.5-1.5=4 hours saved, it is more like 5.5-4.5=1 hour saved.
Then on top of that if I fly there are a lot of options for flight times but it isn't infinitely flexible like driving. I can't just leave a little early or a little late.
-
When I go to ORD, I'm in my rental car and on the road in 30-40 minutes, tops.
-
When I go to ORD, I'm in my rental car and on the road in 30-40 minutes, tops.
Well, that (barely) meets the definition of:
the better part of an hour
On top of that, since you lived and worked in Chicago for many years I'm assuming you've flown to ORD a LOT more than I have (once). It would take me longer due to my lack of familiarity.
-
When I go to ORD, I'm in my rental car and on the road in 30-40 minutes, tops.
When I travel alone, that's usually my case. When I travel with my wife, we check bags so that doesn't work so quickly.
I will say one thing I hate about the Orange County airport is how painfully slow they send out the bags. For such a small and simple airport, I don't understand what takes so long...
-
That's why I like priority baggage tags. By the time we get from the gate to baggage at ORD, our bags are there, we hop on the tram, and go right to our rental car (no counter stops for us - Hertz Gold).
-
That's why I like priority baggage tags. By the time we get from the gate to baggage at ORD, our bags are there, we hop on the tram, and go right to our rental car (no counter stops for us - Hertz Gold).
Ahh. I don't fly frequently enough to maintain status any longer, so that's been out. I'm not one of the million mile club lol. Only about a third of the way there.
-
It's also a choice how to fly.
You know why CD always talks about getting upgraded to first class? Because not enough first class tickets are sold. A plane maybe has 15-20 first class seats, and it's rare that they're all sold for first class prices. Loyalty members and frequent fliers end up there as a "perk".
You know why airlines are at a race to the bottom for ticket costs, scrapping anything that makes customers comfortable? Because every fare is available on the internet, easily comparable, and consumers will buy the cheapest fare even if it means flying a no-frills airline. I'm convinced some consumers would sit out on the wing if they could save $10.
You know why nobody that's not rich (and despite your pleas, most on this site aren't "rich") does what you suggest and makes use of the option that you don't have to show up hours early--which exists and is called flying private? Because it's damned expensive, that's why. There are all sorts of options out there where you can book these flights, but very few people can afford it.
Simply put, if bigger seats i.e. "make the whole plane first class" was something mainstream consumers would pay for, there would be at least ONE airline doing it. But we're not willing to pay for it.
Flying sucks, because all we're willing to pay for is a great big Greyhound in the sky. Flying sucks because we, as consumers, chose low price over high quality.
That's what I mean when I say you don't understand economics or consumer behavior. We got where we are re: flying because it was driven by what consumers wanted--low price. "Make the whole plane first class" is something consumers SAY we want, but then we pick the flight based on price, and bitch about why the airline experience is so shitty.
Yes, people chose low price because that's all they can afford.
Don't to a bullshit +$10 for first class example, because this isn't about a few bucks for a better experience. I just looked up the same dates on a travel site for economy vs first class and you're spending 4x as much for a slightly larger seat.
If the airlines' margins are so shitty, then perhaps we shouldn't have widespread air travel. Flights can be similar to safe neighborhoods or green grass and manicured roadways - perks for the wealthy.
The more people say they're not rich here, the less I believe it. Maybe I should specify upper class, so that nobody's panties get in a pinch. To argue against it is odd and dishonest. Cruises, fights, trips, weeks in Europe, etc. aren't even feasible for most people. The argument against my claim SHOULD be "we're old farts at our wealthiest point of our lives" and obviously not "we're not rich."
Just be accurate, man.
Now, go poll potential flyers and ask them if they'd pay over 4x the cost of a ticket onto the plane to have a seat 3-4 inches wider.
No, that's not worth it for 99% of people. Duh.
For most, being packed in like sardines is their only option. The other potential option is simply not flying. That's the fancy-pants economic explanation. Do not pretend otherwise.
-
btw, we're WAY off-topic here
-
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) , economists refer to what @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) described here as "revealed preference". It is a topic that economists spend a great deal of time researching and studying because it screws with their models. An example (I'm making this up but I would guess it is close to true):
- Conduct a poll, 90% of fliers say they'd pay $10 for a bigger seat.
- Actually redesign the plane to offer bigger seats and offer them for fares of $10 higher than the normal and . . . nobody buys tickets.
#1 is what people say they want but #2 is what they ACTUALLY want - their revealed preference. This happens all the time, not just with flying. When polled people think "sure I'd pay $10 for a bigger seat" and they aren't really "lying", in that moment they REALLY believe that they would but then when push comes to shove and they go to google flights to find flights for their next trip what they actually do is click "sort by price" and pick the cheapest or at least the cheapest that is not too ridiculously inconvenient to their schedule.
The economics of airfare in general is fascinating. More than almost any other industry, the marginal costs (cost to add one more unit - in this case passenger) are usually effectively zero. Ie, if an airline has a plane flying from LA to Phoenix this afternoon, so long as not all the seats are sold, the cost to the airline of putting Beta's butt in one of their empty seats to fly him to Phoenix for Purdue's triumphant National Championship is effectively almost zero. Fundamentally this is why the airlines offer standby fares for REALLY cheap, because if they have extra seats on a plane basically anything they get for those seats is a net positive for the airline.
$230 vs $902 (flight chosen at random)
economy vs first class
Try again.
-
I do have a question for B10ers:
say the B1G and SEC wind up picking the top programs left from the ACC and XII and the 2 decision-maker conferences sit down with ND and gives them the bad news....you have to join a conference.
Is there any way ND chooses the SEC? Eschewing the traditional programs that have always littered their schedule in an attempt to get that southern talent?
Is that a crazy idea? I'd never considered it before.
-
How would you rank the remaining FBS teams, from most to least likely to join the Big Ten-SEC conglomeration?
ie: Florida State would be at or near the top, while New Mexico State would be at or near the bottom, and so forth.
-
I HOPE it doesn't matter, as I view 80 as too many and am hoping for 60.
I see them as tiers, and not a ranking.
Tier 1: safely in the club
FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Virginia, Colorado, ND
.
Tier 2: safe, unless we get a 40-team NFL Jr
Cal, Stanford, VA Tech, Arizona, ASU, SMU, GA Tech, Pitt
.
Tier 3: not safe, tagalongs - opponents the programs in Tier 1 and 2 would like to continue to play
Kansas, KSU, Utah, BYU, Texas Tech, WV, OK State, Baylor, TCU, NC State, Duke, BC, Syracuse, Louisville
.
Tier 4: the P5 fringes and strong-ish G5 programs:
UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, Iowa St, Wake Forest, Tulane, Memphis, Navy, Boise St, Fresno St, San Diego St
.
Tier 5: Irrelevant, honestly.....hoping to be that 80th team
Everyone else, but some thoughts on specific ones:
UNLV - only plus is that it's in Vegas
JMU, App St, Coastal - recent success, but such newbies
So. Miss, LA Tech, Toledo, Miami(OH), USAFA - has had some history of mattering, but now irrelevant
.
I just don't see any point in trying to differentiate between South Alabama, Ball State, and Rice.
-
$230 vs $902 (flight chosen at random)
economy vs first class
Try again.
Don't act smug when you can't understand what the adults are talking about.
-
Don't act smug when you can't understand what the adults are talking about.
Nothing you said was hard to follow. I get it. I believe you, in principal, but it doesn't work when the price difference is quadruple.
And the airline business having razor-thin margins is well-known, too.
Don't get pissy when your points aren't astute.
-
Yes, people chose low price because that's all they can afford.
Don't to a bullshit +$10 for first class example, because this isn't about a few bucks for a better experience. I just looked up the same dates on a travel site for economy vs first class and you're spending 4x as much for a slightly larger seat.
If the airlines' margins are so shitty, then perhaps we shouldn't have widespread air travel. Flights can be similar to safe neighborhoods or green grass and manicured roadways - perks for the wealthy.
The more people say they're not rich here, the less I believe it. Maybe I should specify upper class, so that nobody's panties get in a pinch. To argue against it is odd and dishonest. Cruises, fights, trips, weeks in Europe, etc. aren't even feasible for most people. The argument against my claim SHOULD be "we're old farts at our wealthiest point of our lives" and obviously not "we're not rich."
Just be accurate, man.
Now, go poll potential flyers and ask them if they'd pay over 4x the cost of a ticket onto the plane to have a seat 3-4 inches wider.
No, that's not worth it for 99% of people. Duh.
For most, being packed in like sardines is their only option. The other potential option is simply not flying. That's the fancy-pants economic explanation. Do not pretend otherwise.
Absolutely not, unless it's a free upgrade.
-
well, nothing is "free"
-
Yes, people chose low price because that's all they can afford.
Don't to a bullshit +$10 for first class example, because this isn't about a few bucks for a better experience. I just looked up the same dates on a travel site for economy vs first class and you're spending 4x as much for a slightly larger seat.
If the airlines' margins are so shitty, then perhaps we shouldn't have widespread air travel. Flights can be similar to safe neighborhoods or green grass and manicured roadways - perks for the wealthy.
The more people say they're not rich here, the less I believe it. Maybe I should specify upper class, so that nobody's panties get in a pinch. To argue against it is odd and dishonest. Cruises, fights, trips, weeks in Europe, etc. aren't even feasible for most people. The argument against my claim SHOULD be "we're old farts at our wealthiest point of our lives" and obviously not "we're not rich."
Just be accurate, man.
Now, go poll potential flyers and ask them if they'd pay over 4x the cost of a ticket onto the plane to have a seat 3-4 inches wider.
No, that's not worth it for 99% of people. Duh.
For most, being packed in like sardines is their only option. The other potential option is simply not flying. That's the fancy-pants economic explanation. Do not pretend otherwise.
Listen, you're the one that said "make the whole plane first class". That's what started this. Now you're gonna say "but first class is too expensive, man!" Well, yeah. That's why they don't do it.
And you know how many first class airline tickets I've bought in my life? Zero. Not a single one. The only times I've gotten to sit up there have been free upgrades b/c I was flying so much for work that I had status.
Now you're saying that regular people shouldn't fly, and it should be reserved for the upper class? I mean, what the hell are you even talking about?
-
he likes to argue for the sake of arguing
it's quite obvious
-
You ever watch TV shows and movies from the 80's and earlier that show how roomy the planes used to be? It's funny, because people on the whole are much larger now than 30-40 years ago, but the seats are much smaller.
I also blame it on the fact that you really can't "try it on" before buying. You're buying something you can't tangibly feel, based on price. If I was sitting on an airplane, with my 6-3" 250# frame in a seat, and the seat next to me had 2-4 inches more room, and they asked " wanna upgrade for $10 more" I'd jump at the chance. Instead I fly so infrequently that I hardly even know the ins and outs of any airline or what prices mean what, so I'm just guessing at what to buy. I really only fly maybe once or twice every other year. Sometimes it may be 3-4 years between my last plane ride. So everything that you had before is changed now, like non-assigned seating on Southwest, or Continental Airlines being gone and now it's just all United, or this one merging with that one. Who the F knows. And when I do look online, as stated, the price never marginally increases from one option to the next. Instead, they jump $100's of dollars, without even really knowing what you're getting extra.
-
btw, we're WAY off-topic here
It's offseason everything, unless you're into baseball. Most here are not.
-
You ever watch TV shows and movies from the 80's and earlier that show how roomy the planes used to be? It's funny, because people on the whole are much larger now than 30-40 years ago, but the seats are much smaller.
I also blame it on the fact that you really can't "try it on" before buying. You're buying something you can't tangibly feel, based on price. If I was sitting on an airplane, with my 6-3" 250# frame in a seat, and the seat next to me had 2-4 inches more room, and they asked " wanna upgrade for $10 more" I'd jump at the chance. Instead I fly so infrequently that I hardly even know the ins and outs of any airline or what prices mean what, so I'm just guessing at what to buy. I really only fly maybe once or twice every other year. Sometimes it may be 3-4 years between my last plane ride. So everything that you had before is changed now, like non-assigned seating on Southwest, or Continental Airlines being gone and now it's just all United, or this one merging with that one. Who the F knows. And when I do look online, as stated, the price never marginally increases from one option to the next. Instead, they jump $100's of dollars, without even really knowing what you're getting extra.
Pick an airline. Get their credit card. Rack up points with it. Fly for free with upgrade to increased legroom. It works.
-
Now you're saying that regular people shouldn't fly, and it should be reserved for the upper class? I mean, what the hell are you even talking about?
If the whole plane is first-class width, that's x% of fewer seats and thus, the price goes up y%. My point isn't that the new price + the y% would price normal people out, that's what you're trying to say. And it's BS.
Let's say it's 33%.......33% fewer seats and ticket prices go up 33%. There's no more packing people in like sardines for a cheaper ticket, the price is what it is and you get a comfortable flight.
People would fly less often. Fewer people would fly. The airlines would probably fold.
And then you could go down the argument that flight has become essential and that it must exist, despite the shit economics behind it, and it would probably then be run by the government. "Gov't running things poorly" jokes aside, with a default comfy seat and the gov't footing the bill, that would be an interesting air travel landscape, no?
It beats airlines barely scraping by WHILE packing us in like sardines.
-
he likes to argue for the sake of arguing
it's quite obvious
This is so lazy.
I simply like to progress beyond "you're wrong", "no YOU'RE wrong" and explore differences of opinion.
Such tomfoolery on a MESSAGE BOARD, I know.
-
If the whole plane is first-class width, that's x% of fewer seats and thus, the price goes up y%. My point isn't that the new price + the y% would price normal people out, that's what you're trying to say. And it's BS.
Let's say it's 33%.......33% fewer seats and ticket prices go up 33%. There's no more packing people in like sardines for a cheaper ticket, the price is what it is and you get a comfortable flight.
People would fly less often. Fewer people would fly. The airlines would probably fold.
And then you could go down the argument that flight has become essential and that it must exist, despite the shit economics behind it, and it would probably then be run by the government. "Gov't running things poorly" jokes aside, with a default comfy seat and the gov't footing the bill, that would be an interesting air travel landscape, no?
It beats airlines barely scraping by WHILE packing us in like sardines.
The airlines are fine. COVID kinda screwed them, but once we got out of that, they've been alright. They've done a halfway decent job of aligning their number of flight options to consumer demand such that nearly every flight is full.
People bitch about the flight experience, but you know what? They still keep effing flying! If their preferences changed (and they actually spent money to reflect those preferences) the situation would be different.
You seem to want to turn flying into some sort of luxury good when it seems the world as a whole looks at it as another method of transportation subject to normal market economics, which is how we got here.
Flying is just riding the big Greyhound in the sky. Some people who would NEVER ride Greyhound lament the fact that the "prestige" of air travel is gone. But they aren't spending the money to bring it back, so screw 'em.
-
I wonder what effect high-speed rail would have on flying if we ever actually utilized it.
-
I wonder what effect high-speed rail would have on flying if we ever actually utilized it.
The planes would probably still go above it
-
Mystery solved.
-
This is so lazy.
I simply like to progress beyond "you're wrong", "no YOU'RE wrong" and explore differences of opinion.
Such tomfoolery on a MESSAGE BOARD, I know.
might be lazy, but it's still obvious
-
When I go to ORD, I'm in my rental car and on the road in 30-40 minutes, tops.
I've topped that waving my Desert Eagle around
-
the black & white isn't a rental
-
That's not rashee's car color
-
The airlines are fine. COVID kinda screwed them, but once we got out of that, they've been alright. They've done a halfway decent job of aligning their number of flight options to consumer demand such that nearly every flight is full.
People bitch about the flight experience, but you know what? They still keep effing flying! If their preferences changed (and they actually spent money to reflect those preferences) the situation would be different.
You seem to want to turn flying into some sort of luxury good when it seems the world as a whole looks at it as another method of transportation subject to normal market economics, which is how we got here.
Flying is just riding the big Greyhound in the sky. Some people who would NEVER ride Greyhound lament the fact that the "prestige" of air travel is gone. But they aren't spending the money to bring it back, so screw 'em.
Covid didn't screw them...
-
I wonder what effect high-speed rail would have on flying if we ever actually utilized it.
Not happening on a large scale. We are not Europe.
-
Covid didn't screw them...
I loved flying during Covid. "Everyone" was scared to fly - not me. Didn't drink fear the Kool-Aid.
$50-75 round trips from here to Chicago and you got your own row.
Now planes are more packed then they ever were.
-
I wonder what effect high-speed rail would have on flying if we ever actually utilized it.
It's unclear. The problem with high speed rail traditionally has been that it's often as expensive as flying and as slow as driving.
For me, let's say I wanted to go from home to the Bay Area.
Flying:
- 25 minute drive to SNA
- Get there 1 hr before departure to get through security (SNA is a quick/easy airport and I have TSA precheck)
- 1 hr flight time
- 30 minutes for deplane, rental car, etc
- Total time: ~3 hours
HSR:
- 10-15 minutes drive to Irvine metro station, plus 10 minutes buffer to make sure I'm there before my scheduled train
- 1 hr train ride to LA, plus 20 minutes buffer to ensure I'm there with enough time to get to my HSR train
- 3 hrs train
- 30 minutes to get off, rental car, etc
- Total time: ~5 hours
Driving:
Now, that's anecdotal. For someone who lives near downtown LA, and would be flying out of LAX, it's significantly MORE time for them if they had to drive to LAX, park, give themselves more time for security because LAX is slow, etc. And they wouldn't have the 1 hr train ride from Irvine->LA so it would cut that time off their travel.
But I'd argue that given that there are 5 airports in the LA/Orange County megalopolis, and 3 airports in the Bay Area, that a lot of people in this area would find flying more convenient for them than HSR, given that you have to find your way to downtown LA to access HSR. But I could be wrong... Maybe it would be such a pleasurable experience in comparison to flying that people would flock to it.
-
Our mass transit is working just fine
https://twitter.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1778058841743065459?t=yIa8U1TAMzA5DlTY2oohqA&s=19
-
Looks effective. I wonder if the guy gets fired.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/IlgG67BffbkAAAAM/jurassic-park-ian-malcolm.gif)
-
Huskers getting the boot? Clemson and FSU not happening.
https://flywareagle.com/posts/big-ten-discussing-nebraska-expulsion-aau-not-good-sign-fsu-clemson (https://flywareagle.com/posts/big-ten-discussing-nebraska-expulsion-aau-not-good-sign-fsu-clemson)
-
I'm not worried
-
Huskers aren't going anywhere.
-
Huskers getting the boot? Clemson and FSU not happening.
https://flywareagle.com/posts/big-ten-discussing-nebraska-expulsion-aau-not-good-sign-fsu-clemson (https://flywareagle.com/posts/big-ten-discussing-nebraska-expulsion-aau-not-good-sign-fsu-clemson)
LOL at anyone that thinks you can "expel" a school from a conference in the modern world of multi-billion-dollar consequences.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVcCgx5K1gs2Dn0eNwfYovsYRpTtJTQ_2ZH37bOz6jQQ&s)
-
That's not rashee's car color
Dallas Police announced Wednesday that an arrest warrant has been issued for NFL player Rashee Rice who was involved in a multi-vehicle crash in Dallas earlier this month.
-
Huskers aren't going anywhere.
Not in the standings anyway
-
(https://i.imgur.com/GsXFTHZ.png)