What do us pax *really* want?
That topic line is bound to get an instant response from Slasher. And there are a fair number of double-entendres below that I can't be bothered to render modernly politically-correct, innocuous, and humourless. But seriously...
The aviation marketeers.
They've tried packing us into planes at minimum price, giving us a bit more room and service at a higher price, titillating us with Singapore girls, offering us double beds, loyalty schemes, you name it; and yet we're never satisfied.
Are they getting it all wrong?
I think they are.
It's that old fallacy - everyone follows the same market research, focussed on 51% of the population, and compete with each other murderously for that sector of the market. The other 49% get ignored.
Londoners can hop on the tube to Heathrow, but for the rest of the people who live in Britain, LHR and LGW are a pain in the a rse. Crowded, and you can't fly there (from say BRS or SOU), nor can you drive there - unless you allow several extra days for your car journey. But we still go there like lemmings on valium, at 4 miles per hour up the M4 or M3, because flying from a regional, to the same Europen destination, is normally much more expensive. If airlines priced flights from regionals more competitively, I'm sure a lot of the congestion at the hubs would go away, to the relief of all, especially the pilots who have to fly 100's of tons of expensive machinery, which incidentally have their Prized Manhood (or Womanhood) inside, in conditions which combine the congestion of the M25 with the velocities of Silverstone, in fact rather more in the latter case.
I know it's the same in Ireland and Belgium, and I have little doubt it's the same in much of the rest of Europe. DUB is full, guys, building a second runway is just going to make the pax handling facilities fuller!
If we pax are going further afield, they put us in huge planes, the front ends of which are quite pleasant to travel in. The back end is one huge cavern of writhing humanity. One noisy baby, with lungs of leather and ambitions to be a RSM, can ensure that 200+ passengers are going to regard the flight at the worst part of their trip. Hmm, what's that doing for persuading people to fly more? Would a few soundproofing panels, dividing the volume up into smaller volumes, really add so much to the weight of the aircraft? This surely is a marketing opportunity begging for realisation. Just imagine if Economy were divided into:
- Football video section, with hosties bringing the beer. Footie heaven! Washable floors, sky marshal.
- Infant section, strategically positioned close to the baby-change and toilet ares, and with extra-powerful soundproofing
- I-really-ought-to-be-in-business-class section. Zero special facilities apart from a power point for the laptop. Should be a money-spinner!
- Now-this-is-me-and-your-Auntie-Flo-doing the-birdie-dance section. Soundproofing, washable floors, video, computer games, sangria.
Returning to sanity:
What ever happened to flying as an occasion? Some people (mostly rich and old) reminisce about flying boats. I just about remember Connies, and Comets and VC-10's... hopelessly unsafe I'm sure by modern standards, and they guzzled fuel, and as noisy as a jet engine pressed against your ear (hmm - but it *was*) but boy you felt you were special. People pay thousands to travel by Pullman trains, the Orient Express experience, that sort of thing - is aviation so concerned with the future that it forgets it has a past?
Rant over. Any constructive suggestions?