The "prestige" of air travel - the Calclassic days v. today

[blueaircraft]

In any era, air travel has and will always be an area where commercialization occurs, as in most areas concerning business. But in your opinion, what makes flying today feel more commercialized or less special than the days of yesterday, that we Calclassic folks aim to replicate? Here are my personal views:

Cost - The cost of flying as a passenger on a plane today is quite different from the propliner and early jet age, as it's quite affordable to fly now. This in turn can impact the mental aspect of being a passenger onboard an airplane - one can think that he is simply taking a flying bus, an "airbus" if you will 

Number of passengers on the plane - More passengers equals more profit, and Tom's propliner tutorial from Calclassic makes sure we never forget that  While we pilots are occupied that our 3-engined propliner makes it to our destinations, the airline executives are occupied with finding the most profitable flying sardine tins so that the upper echelons of sardines can make it to other areas of the globe faster. I don't think that the number of passengers on planes are detrimental to my personal "image" of air travel until around the 90s, well after the Calclassic-esc days of flying. Seats became smaller while the number of seats became bigger, and there was a concept design from around last year that showed planes may very well become like the third-class rooms of the Titanic - not as bad as you would think, but not as good as you would think either. Compared to today's offerings, sitting on the seats of pre-90s airliners feels a bit more roomier and comfortable (not talking about the noise levels, however).

Food - I've never eaten food in the "old-days" while flying so I really cannot say. From watching old movies and archived footage, it seems that food was a bit better in the propliner age - "seems." I actually like airline food but I really like any food so take that with a grain of salt.

Clothes - Stewardesses and pilots will always dress (or at least I hope so) somewhat fashionably and smartly (even if one can argue about "skin exposure" and whatnot), but I really would like to talk about passengers. If one goes to church on a Sunday, they would dress smartly because that shows that one holds this act of praising the Lord in very high regard, and that this day is a bit more special than others. It can also mean that they love to flaunt themselves indirectly. Similarly, one would go up the airstair in their Pan Am best because that shows that one holds this act of traveling in the 3-engined Stratocruiser in very high regard, and that this day is a bit more special than others. It can also mean that they love to flaunt themselves indirectly. Today, I see passengers dressed from classy to downright hobo-like, which to me shows that the prestige of air travel is a bit down in general. You can argue that society is a bit down in general, but still.

Certain "stuff" onboard the plane - This is more of an unnecessary argument, but I'll still say it. With the advent of tv screens onboard the plane (as in on the ceiling, not really those on the rear of the seats), I can't help but feel that the airlines "force" or rather "impose" what they feel is best for us. For example, who are they to decide that we want to watch the low quality sequel of a high quality film? I understand that this argument can be easily used against me (for example, who are they to decide that I want a glass of water?) so I will leave it at there.

Liveries - Before I stop my exciting and rousing post, I would like to comment on liveries. Liveries on planes will be affected by the general culture of society, but still. Fonts and designs on most airliners are rather simple but satisfying, both today and in the past. But on some planes today, there are things such as "fly Calmodern airlines!!!!!" that disrupt the "simple harmony" of the plane's colours, or "this plane contains up to 12% plant-based materials. Hurray!" Mind you, ad-based liveries can be very satisfying from an artistic point of view (F1 cars from the 70s to the early 2010s, for example), but some of these liveries that I see on planes just scream "corporation bombardment."

Now that I am finished with my post. What are your thoughts?



Andrew

[Tom/CalClassic]

I think I agree with you for the most part. One reason why there have been so many changes is that in the classic era (in the US) the airlines were regulated by the CAB, including fares. There was generally only one fare for a given service type between two cities, no matter the airline you flew. Thus, the only way you could compete with other airlines was aircraft (faster, more comfortable), service, and food. This led to things in the classic era like The Hunt Breakfast and Gaslight Service, to name two. All the ladies got leis as they got off the plane in Honolulu, and United had men only flights, cigar smoking permitted. In the early 70's Western advertised first class legroom at every seat and free champagne, and 747s had piano bars. But after deregulation in 1978 all that went away. This allowed lower fares, but that required a lower level of service. It was clear even in the classic era that people were increasingly willing to trade service for a lower price - tourist service started small in the early 1950s, but by 1960 it was the predominant type. That trend simply continued into modern times.

[mrcapitalism]

Prestige is over rated, in my opinion.

I'm writing mostly for the sake of conversation, but also coming from my personal bias. Some of this is my Libertarian political bias. I was also born well into the Modern Phase of aviation, and it currently pays my bills... so full disclosure.

I can't remember where I heard it (I think it related to cell phones), but the axiom was proposed which I find to be repeatedly true, "the rich in society pay the most money, to get the worst quality goods, the earliest."

Let my try and put my thoughts into you points, (and add some more).

Cost We got you beat here. You admit it. People complain about the high cost of air travel, they complain about expensive airport food, about paying checked bag fees. In the grand scheme it's dirt cheap. Compared to the Vintage and Classic phases? Dirt cheap. Compared to the competition, in most cases taking a train or driving? Air travel will win out on a direct flight, or more than about 10 hours of driving. First Class still exists. If you want a business class transatlantic seat you can book "La Compagnie" airlines all business class, and you will get the Classic prestige you desire. It's available. But most people don't want to pay. The airlines now reflect that desire.

Number of passengers on the plane. People (I mean passengers) are weird. They want to fly the biggest planes they can, but complain about how many people are on them. Big planes are "prestigious." They scoff at small planes.

In 1949 a Lockheed L-049 weighed 86,250lbs and Tom reports it had a typical capacity of 50 pax. I think the CAA/FAA allows up to 90 all economy "tourist" service.
In 2000+ the Bombardier/De Haviland Canada DHC-8 Q400 weighs 67,200lbs and seats up to 78 pax.

They're comparable in many respects, and I would argue in most metrics the Q400 is better.

Back in the day the Lockheed was the "flagship" and had high prestige. Today the 20 year old "Q" is a "puddle jumper" and passengers complain "eewww... I'm getting on a prop plane!" Then at their connection they sit in coach on a 242 pax B-787-8 and are "packed in like sardines!" While we respect our pax and thank them for their business, is this a fair judgement of prestige?

Clothes You got us beat there. Airline dress codes are a minimum standard, and we have become more functional and less "fashion show." You still see passengers wearing business attire just out of their meeting for the flight back home. But people have also decided if they are going to pay cheap fares for a small seat on a packed plane they want to be comfortable, despite not looking their Sunday best. The perception of flying isn't prestigious, over 2 million people in the United States do it every single day.

Certain "stuff" onboard the plane Sorry, you're blown out of the water here. The cabin screens are out. The seat screens have short lives. "Wi-Fi" is in. You very well could be typing your reply from an airline seat, streaming the show of your choosing, listening to music you like.. and I would have no idea. Please bring your headphones, we might not have the same tastes as you.
No more is that cliche "excuse me flight attendant, what city is that below?" You can track your flight's position, you have an update on it's ETA. You can look at the map and see what city that is.

So these are the things you think of when you consider "prestige." Let me add my own as well.

Safety That's the big one. The big, big, big one. The safety performance of the industry is through the roof. Amazing, incredible. The envy of the world. Sitting next to medical professions cramped in little "puddle jumpers" and they talk to us like we're some kind of Gods. But we make less than them? It's very strange. How do all these machines carry all these people all the time and basically can't kill anybody? If I do the calculations right, 12 million passengers worldwide daily in 2019.

It's wild from an insider perspective. You talk about putting on your "Pan Am best" stepping onto the Stratocruiser in glamor and pomp. Check out the Mini Tutorial and Contextual History. You're supposed to learn here that the thing was a dog for Pan Am.

Ten of the fifty-five production aircraft (18%) would suffer total loss crashes over the next ten years, but three of those caused no fatalities. However two others had pressurised cabin doors open in flight causing fatalities, and so nine of the commercial fleet (16%) were involved in fatal accidents which killed 140 passengers and crew within ten years. The surrounding publicity did nothing to improve ticket sales.

I love and adore both my CalClassic and A2A Stratocruisers, but "prestige" is "propaganda." Realizing these truths is one of the great things about FSAviator, Tom, and CalClassics. Where we simulate these things with all their strengths, weaknesses, and problems.

My old ride is the Embraer E-145. Eww.. Gross. Little puddle jumper jet. "Ouch, I hit my head!"

1,213 built.
8 hull losses.
0 fatalities.
Zero.

That's not prestigious.

Of course the hard thing about bragging about safety is that it could change tomorrow. Don't count your chickens before they hatch!

Time It's interesting to wait out a 3 hour flight delay on a route that probably takes 19 hours to drive in your car. People are mmmaaadddd. Or they're at the bar, trying to vent their frustration into a tall glass or tumbler.
The flight times are probably the same (or actually slower) than the dawn of deregulation. But I'd like to think the frequency is way up. Giving people more options. Maybe not. But my latest epic journey is flying the GLAMOROUS Martin China Clipper in FSX across the great Pacific, at a whole 140 KTAS. If I'm lucky.

You really get a sense of these aircraft when you fly their real routes in real time. And how badly you wish for the prestige of a middle seat on a B-767.

Cabin Comfort You said you didn't want to talk about noise levels. I think it's important to talk about them. In the Constellations, it looks like they put the bathrooms and galleys in plane of the propeller discs. Probably because that's the loudest part of the cabin. For HOURS. The Q in Q400 stands for Quiet. The idea is to use negative sound to reduce the cabin volume. The propellers spin at 850 RPM in cruise, and have swept tips. It's arguable how well the audio trick works...

Going further back in time the air conditioning and pressurization just get worse. Back in the unpressurized days probably all you had was cabin heat. I know I've flown my share of leaky airplanes where the rain gets in, I bet that also was an issue on some.

Information A Classic Phase passenger would be extremely jealous of the information available to everyone. GPS, Radar, Data Link. You, as the passenger, sitting in the terminal, tracking the status of your inbound airplane. Getting mobile telephone notifications of delays and gate changes, seating assignments. When your flight starts boarding. Being able to buy and rebook all without saying a word to anybody at a desk or on a telephone. Being able to pull up a map of the terminal for any airport anywhere in the world in real time.

Airport Businesses You guys will have to fill me in here. Were there as many businesses/shopping/food choices at classic airports compared to modern ones?

Weather Exposure The movable Jet Bridge has had such a huge impact on air travel that I think it's completely changed it, and been completely ignored. The glamour of walking across the apron is mostly gone now. And doing that in snow, and blowing rain, and sweltering sun or freezing cold. The only interaction people have with their airplane is looking at it through terminal glass, or sitting in their seat.
In many airports the protection is so complete that it starts at the parking garage terminal entrance and you are in climate control all the way to the curb at your destination. You never are exposed to outside, for better or worse.
I bet this is probably a big reason you see fewer coats worn in airports.

I mean I hate to be that blunt, but if air travel today can't be considered "special" I'm not really sure if anything will ever be special.

The rich pay the most money, to get the worst quality, the earliest.

[chris_c]

I would probably respond with the old adage that "familiarity breeds contempt". When air travel was new and expensive it was also interesting and something to aspire to. Now it has become essentially a chore, much like riding the bus or subway during a commute; the shine is long gone and what remains is merely a means to get from A to B in the least practical amount of time. Certainly, contemporary security protocols, cattle-car seating and crowded airports coupled with frequent delays provide stressors that were largely absent from Classic flights in "our" era. I had mostly hated flying commercially or via the Boeings and Cosmopolitans of "Scare Air" (Canadian Forces Transport Command) as something to be endured rather than enjoyed although service related trips on a Herc, Buffalo or a helo were far less comfortable but generally great fun.

There is the value of nostalgia but I would argue that in many cases this is really pining for a past that probably never really existed. Although commercial aviation in the fifties was, for the most part, as safe as technology and then-current business practices allowed, you are likely to be an order of magnitude more safe boarding a B-737-800 Max in 2022 than a Constellation in 1958 but that's probably part of the attraction. For a subset of people, safe = boring when choosing the means of travel, particularly when the travelling itself is as or more important as the destination. This accounts for the popularity of people taking flights on obscure airlines with the destinations being unimportant and classic airliner tours that do not actually go anywhere. Today a trip on a 707 or Convair would be great fun with or without a destination and I would be glad to pay for the privilege.

My first flight was a short joy ride in the DeHavilland Tiger Moth belonging to an acquaintance of my father. A couple of years later, my first commercial trip was on an 'old' Air Canada Viscount to NYC. I came home on a brand new Air Canada DC-9, which to my 15-year old self was the high point of the entire summer. 50+ years on, both aircraft are classic and would be desirable to fly in the here and now. FS9 allows this vicariously to an extent and the content-creators here have greatly facilitated the marvellous visual cues provided by flight simulation. I expect that the "prestige" of the classic aviation period is largely tied to the nostalgia that the era triggers but the problem with nostalgia is that the realities of a time seldom actually match our usually rosy-tinted perceptions and memories.

TLDR - I suspect that the prestige of classic era flight is probably overrated.

Chris

[blueaircraft]

Hi mrcapitalism, I appreciate the response! I agree with a good bit of what you said, but I disagree on some others.

I agree that prestige (when it comes to air travel) is indeed overrated. I am grateful for the modern airline experience, which is why I stated that the so-called "prestige" of classic flying is exactly that, overrated when compared to modern flying. Of course, there are some things that the old era did better than the modern era, but those things are quite miniscule. I'm going to give my opinion on your opinion now...

Cost - We both agree that the cost of travelling by air is much better today than the days of old. I am well aware that first-class seats are available on more or less all major (and minor) airlines and airliners. That does not change the fact that since the 1960s (generally speaking), there are "plebeians" (specifically middle-class and under) onboard most airliners today, who has seemingly eroded the "prestige" or rather "high-class feeling" of air travel (by airliner). I'll say that yes, travelling in first-class is considered prestigious. Travelling by air generally is not considered prestigious (anymore), due to it being generally affordable to people of all socio-economic classes, barring the ultra poor.

Number of passengers on a plane - I should have worded this a bit better. The design and size of seats of modern planes may give a sense of "designed for maximum profit" compared to the design and size of seats of older planes, which may give a sense of "made for the passenger's comfort." Of course, modern seats are filled with amenities that older seats lack, and the "restrictedness" of modern seats are very, very overstated. They are made for the passenger's comfort, though one can argue that comfort is not at the top of the list. Concerning the number of passengers on planes, I do not think that it's the number of passengers that is the "cause" of the loss of "prestige," but rather the type of passengers and the way in which they are "packed in." You are correct when you said that people are weird. Modern "big" planes are considered "prestigious" yet are simultaneously considered "not prestigious" due to the number of passengers as well as the type of passengers that they carry. I think the reason why modern "big" planes are considered "prestigious" is simply due to the implication that these planes are majestic works of mankind, due to their visible technology and sheer size. Smaller "modern" planes like the Q400 may very well be just as advanced, but due to their visible technology and sheer size (propellers and small size compared to something like the 787-8), are not considered prestigious at all. The reason why Calclassic-focused airliners, both "big and small" are generally considered exclusively prestigious is due to the type of passengers they carried (mostly rich folks, or folks who "looked" rich) as well as being in an era that has had its downsides overlooked (when concerning the quality of air travel). If the number of passengers carried by planes was the sole reason for the supposed decline of the prestige of air travel, then groundbreaking planes like the Comet 1 would not have been considered prestigious. So I agree with you that the number of passengers carried is not a factor that prestige should be measured in - rather the type of passengers carried and the "way" (seats) in which they are carried is the factor.

Clothes - We both agree on this one.

Certain "stuff" aboard the plane - It is true that these "stuff" aboard modern airliners are mind-blowing and incredibly convenient compared to old airliners. I think the reason I stated this was due to tv screens and the like being available to everyone onboard a flight. I think the fact that these things are available to everyone (rich and poor) onboard most airliners, as well as some things being "imposed" on us (such as ceiling tv screens) gives me the feeling that air travel has been commercialized. Again, like you said, prestige is overrated. I am grateful for these "stuff" onboard my flights, and could care less about the "prestige" of said flights. I agree that this reason is not sound.

Safety - It's indeed safe to fly today compared to the days of old, but I do not think that safety is a real measure for prestige. For example, I understand that the Stratocruiser was a dog to Pan Am (generally speaking) profit or not, and was a potential airplane to carry passengers to heaven or hell, but the hypothetical person who I mentioned wearing their "Pan Am best" would have still have the privilege (and very well be privileged, socially and economically speaking) of flying back in those days, "bad" plane or not. Modern flying is indeed much safer and technologically advanced, but overall is considered less prestigious than the Calclassic days simply due to the affordability of air travel. Safety when concerning the airplanes themselves can uplift the "prestige" of the airplanes, but not the act of actually travelling by air.

Time - agreed on this one. But again I think that the type of people that travel by air today has been the main cause of the "decline" of the "prestige" of air travel. For example, say there are two identical planes. They will depart and arrive at places at exactly the same time, and they have exactly the same service onboard. One exclusively carries rich folks while the other carries some rich folks, but the majority of passengers are "not rich" folks. Which one would feel more prestigious? Sure, you have some rich folks aboard the second plane, but the feeling of that plane being "inferior" due to the type of passengers being carried may arise. Again, prestige is overrated, but many people fail to realize that.

Cabin comfort - I also agree with this. As technology improves, cabin comfort will improve as well. I am sure that passengers in the old days will more than appreciate today's cabins, but their thoughts on the prestige of air travel would diminish. I think that some will say, "It is a very good plane, with very good service and absolutely astonishing technology, but I just can't help the feeling that flying isn't as glamourous as it was anymore, due to these people on board. Perhaps these private jets can give me that feeling!" I could care less about that statement, but I'm sure some would agree, for whatever petty reason.

Information - again this is a very good thing, but the fact that everyone onboard can get gives the feeling of commercialization.

And I can say the exact same thing for airport businesses and weather exposure. I really think that the affordability of air travel is what caused the decline of its "prestige." I think I agree with your statement that "if air travel today can't be considered "special" I'm not really sure if anything will ever be special." It's just that many people overlook the many positive aspects of air travel today (and that includes the TSA, mind you) and look at the Calclassic-esc days with rose-tinted glasses. Sorry for talking nonstop but the place is raining and I had nothing else to do!

Hi Chris, I think that you explained the parts concerning safety and "chore aspect" of modern flying quite well, much shorter than I. Nostalgia I also agree with - the past was not always the best time to be in, especially when flying!




Hi Tom, I didn't see your post there! Thanks for the information about airline regulation and the history of air travel during the jet age!



Andrew

[mrcapitalism]

Hi Andrew,

Let me see if I understand the concept, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Tom gives the explanation for the change in market conditions (the "commercialization" of airlines), and I think I can piece together what you're trying to say. It's not something I think about too much, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But here's the logic as I see it:

1. De-regulation suddenly allowed airlines to freely compete on routes and airfares (where they were previously restricted by the CAB).
2. Prices dropped, passengers increased, and special services (big meals, cigars/bars, themed flights) were dropped.
3. Airplanes got larger, airports got larger. There were more people flying on any given day.
4. Because there exists fewer "rich" and "high status" people in society than "no status" and "moderate/low wealth," it follows that position and wealth of the average passenger decreased. Basically the wealthy and powerful were diluted.
5. The increasing availability of private aircraft travel also has an effect of driving that segment away from airlines.
This, according to your description, lowers the prestige of the flying public, and of air travel.

So I think I misunderstood. We're not really talking about the aircraft, airlines, or the flying itself. When we talk about prestige, we're mostly talking about the passengers holding the tickets. Right?

So to go back to my Lockheed vs De Havilland Canada example. If we have both a 50 Seat Lockheed 049, and a 80 Seat DHC-8 Q400. Despite the similarities of both propeller aircraft, the Constellation holds more prestige because it's likely that more of those 50 passengers are considered "wealthy" or "high status" than would be found in the back of the "Dash." The performance numbers of the two aircraft aren't really relevant to anything.

Let me know if I got a handle on the concept,

Robert.

[Tom/CalClassic]

I think you have it, pretty much. Flying was prestigious because mostly prestigious people were flying. This was diluted starting in the 1950s and 60s with tourist flights, the CAB itself eased the rules in the 70s, and then the floodgates really opened after deregulation.

[blueaircraft]

Hi Robert and Tom, you all got it pretty much nailed on the head there! I would say that the aircraft, airlines, or the flying itself do play a part in the "prestige" of air travel, but the passengers holding the tickets more or less dictates the image of prestige of the aforementioned things. For example, aircraft today are tailored for all kinds of people, not just for the well-off like the days of old. Another example is the flying itself. Flying itself was considered prestigious due to the type of people who did it, but now is seen as a "regular" thing because of... the type of people who do it. Your example of the Connie and Dash basically explains the concept.

Andrew

[alexnelson94]

I agree with the first comment, flying on an airplane now does feel like flying on an aerial bus. You get all sorts of riff raff and people who say, "you cant tell me what to do, my rights" blah blah.

Going overseas use to be a once, maybe twice in a life time event, particularly a big overseas holiday. Dont get me wrong, flying cheaply has opened up overseas and my own country (Australia) for that matter, but other people dont make it feel as special as it should. I wish i couldve experienced what it was like back in the day. I still get dressed up nicely any time i fly because for me its still an occasion.

[blueaircraft]

I agree Alex! I like today's flying but to go back in time for a while would be a nice treat (as both a pilot and passenger