Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some amazing new innovation.
And, for commercial service under some parts, you're forced to use twin engines. Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways, and on par for overall safety (it's better to lose an engine in ideal cases in a twin, but things often go wrong with the recovery procedures, and engines are very reliable, and with twins you have twice as many engines to potentially break anyway...)
Some of the badness is actually FAA not being able to fund better ATC allowing more flexible routing.
> Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways.
Do you feel like giving us any reasons? :)
Without the regulations you could imagine an airport that pre-screened travellers. You roll up to the curb, get valet parked, and your bags checked, and then you get on the flight. You'd build the entire airport around this rapid on/off experience. You could have an airline that would run an Uber-style service to pick you up at your door. You'd solve the whole problem.
But there's no Toyota-style optimizations applied because these optimizations are illegal. Prime among them is that efficiency of this kind would make the airport more of a target IF it was also prevented by law from discriminating against potential dangerous passengers, which it would be.
And that's why when you ban selectivity at the federal level the necessary consequence is mediocrity.
But the TSA thing is a real pain too. A friend of mine who has his pilots license requires all passengers have at least 16 oz of fluids and a knife with them when they fly :-) We joke but he did point out that if you were in flight 214 trapped under a stuck seatbelt or malfunctioning escape slide with no pocket knife you could have died.
[1] Plus fees of course
The other striking thing was train travel in the South being heavily subsidised - huge distances travelled for not much money, with power for your laptop and lots of space to move around. If the train schedule was appropriate for you, you'd be crazy to fly instead.
If you want to leave SF/Oakland later than 9 am or LA later than 10 am, you have to take some long bus connections (which aren't very fun) and the San Joaquin or Pacific Surfliner.
Imagine getting on the train at 7 in the evening, lying on your own bed reading books and drinking tea, sleeping actually then getting off the train at 9 in the morning at the railway terminal in another city.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/05/business/la-fi-0506-...
With this airline, everyone will be required to buy a membership -- no "guests".
I'd do something like this if they covered Seattle, SF, Reno, Portland, and central-WA (datacenters) and central-OR (datacenters). Throw in SB/LA/SD/LV for extra fun, but the northern areas are what I care about much much more.
Light twin piston aircraft are not exactly cheap either.
If you could shave $500 off your monthly rent or mortgage by living in a coastal CA city and just flying in to work in Silicon Valley or SF, I think a lot more people would be willing to sign up. The service would essentially pay for itself.
Tip: Virgin LHR counter is well run and I look forward to stopping by for that reason. It's not about promoting a particular brand as a good way of doing life... leave the world a better place.
