If I were to buy you a ticket...

[blueaircraft]

Good day, you outdated pilots! I had a thought stuck on my mind for some time now, and it concerns the passenger and ticket aspect of the old days of aviation. In The Godfather, for example, a certain character who is not wealthy is bought a plane ticket, and while the "benefactor" was more than wealthy to buy it, the actual holder of the ticket was not. This had me thinking: were relatively "not wealthy enough to buy a Chevy" businessmen or even "common folk" troublemakers who had a rich uncle or relative (someone like Scrooge McDuck) common passengers on flights? What about potential assassins sent to some country from another (hiring locals to do the job is likely a much better idea but let's assume a James Bond style, CIA, MI6 or Mossad mission)? Was that common? Not common as in entire passengers flying in what could be called "third-class" in the old days ("third-class" in the old days were likely today's first class) but perhaps one or four passengers flying in, at most, a quarter of all given flights before the 1970s or even the 1960s.

I also ask myself the question if DC-3's and planes before the 1960s were considered "greater than Concorde" simply due to the fact that they arrived at places much, much, faster than ocean-liners. And there was no cheap alternative to air travel other by sea or land. Concorde arrived at a time when air travel was already instilled as the primary method of continental and regional travel.


Andrew

[Tom/CalClassic]

Business fliers were quite common in first class, others were uncommon due to the relatively high expense compared to today’s fares. The lack of socially acceptable alternatives to face to face meetings meant that it was quite valuable to travel to clients, etc. Coach fliers were typically relatively well off people flying for non-business purposes. Of course there were lots of exceptions to those characterizations.

Concorde had essentially no effect on the airline business, since there were so few and only flew a few routes. And flights today are no faster than they were in 1960 using early jets, and in many cases slower. The great economic advantages of the jets (especially during and after the 1970s with the wide bodies) made other modes of transportation somewhat obsolete for long distance travel, except for a few exceptions (Western Europe, US Northeast Corridor, Japan, etc., and those are medium distance at best). In the US rail and bus transport are only shadows of their former selves.

[blueaircraft]

Thanks Tom! Detailed information as always! Although I think that you misinterpreted my second question - I was asking if propliners were thought of being "something bigger" than Concorde. Concorde was to many (perhaps non-aviation oriented) people the pinnacle and future of air transport, but what did folks (people who lived during air travel's golden era) think of planes before air travel became common and affordable? Did they think of it as the pinnacle of travel and the future?

Andrew

[Tom/CalClassic]

No, not at all. The military had used jets since WWII and it was clear that those would be the pinnacle. Most airline execs were very reticent to get into jets, due to their unproven track record in airline service, the Comet debacle, and the (unfounded) fear that the public wouldn’t accept them. When the jets were introduced some airlines went to great lengths to ease fears (United’s Jetarama tour for example) but it turned out that the public took to jets immediately and shunned the old prop planes. Thus some airlines were stuck with unwanted prop airliners for several years.

[Tom/CalClassic]

And before WWII flying was considered unsafe, and often air travel was not allowed by some company’s employees. The massive use of air power in the war changed a lot of minds and the new planes and navaids after the war reduced the accident rates and thus its acceptance.

[blueaircraft]

Thanks Tom! I very much appreciate the information!

Andrew

[yellowribbon]

Don't mean to bury up an old thread, but I came across something interesting and related to the thread, so I thought I'd share.

I was reading about the history of my employer (for context, a federal agency) and their field offices in the San Francisco Bay Area. After WWII, and before the jets, staff regarded travel to Washington DC (HQ) as a slog, only done when absolutely necessary. This was even with the DC-7s, which were expressly mentioned (somewhat not surprising to see the old heads remembered the aircraft, haha). Even direct communication between DC and Field was limited, reserved for only high priorities.

With the 707 and DC-8 in service, attitudes changed drastically, with regular travel of field office staff to HQ. Around the time, communication started to improve between DC and the Field. Nowadays, the Field Office staff work directly with DC, and until covid, it was expected that a good chunk of field office staff would travel roughly once a year.

[JasonK..AKA "Pal Joey."]

Thus some airlines were stuck with unwanted prop airliners for several years.

Looking at YOU, Eddie Rickenbacker!

[Tom/CalClassic]

Very true Jason.

Yeah, 4 hours in a vibration free jet is very different from 8 hours in a loud and droning DC-7. And now it’s going back the other way with virtual meetings, etc. much more common.