Saturday, January 28, 2006

Flying is dull



I am starting to really dislike flying. This morning's flight will
be just over an hour, but the whole process, from leaving the house to
arriving at the other end will take three and a half hours. That
doesn't include hanging around for luggage at the other end, which I
don't do because I won't have any.


By contrast, the train takes seven hours... but there are a few
other factors which, for me, tip the balance in favour of staying on
the ground.


First, I like train stations. They seem to me to be places of
infinite promise, where one can step onto any platform and go anywhere
at a moment's notice. There is nothing regimented about a train
station, the whole place floats on a tide of people. At an airport, by
contrast, the moment you check-in you are processed, searched,
channeled, ticketed, watched, searched again, and finally let onto a
plane like it's some great privilege.


And planes don't even look like they should fly! Oh, intellectually
I know they work - I studied as an engineer, for goodness' sake, I know
lots of things about planes, including quite a lot about crack
propagation and fatigue failure (don't ask), so I know they work. But
as anyone who has watched a jumbo jet lumbering into the air will tell
you, it just ain't right.


Now I know, of course, that it's different for long flights. But for
the sort of short hops I'm always doing, flying is an extremely
frustrating form of transport, because the time is all chopped up.
First you have to travel out to the airport, then hang around for an
hour or so at the freakin' place, then climb onto a plane, then after
you've reached altitude you're allowed to get all the toys out again,
but by that time you're only forty minutes' away! It's all wasted time.
Whereas on the train, it may take twice as long, but once you're safely
esconced in your seat, that's you until you're at your destination. You
can work, rest or play the whole time. So much more civilized.


Then there's the environmental argument. Planes deliver NOx and all
its other evil exhaust stuff into the upper atmosphere, right where it
can do the most damage. Global warming kept me awake when I was twelve
years old. That was seventeen years ago, for crying out loud. I don't want to talk about it.


Finally, there's the fact that on a train you feel like you've travelled. You go through places.
You watch the countryside whipping by. People get on and off. On a
plane, the sense of movement is so distant that I always get the
distinct impression that we've just gone up and circled round for a bit
while people on the ground rearrange the furniture.


(This isn't what I wanted to write about at all. I was planning a
long rant about capitalism and its nature as an inherently unstable
system, but I appear to have got distracted)


And then, of course, there's the travel horror stories, which mostly
seem to involve flying. My own best one was the time Ryanair cancelled
a flight back from Paris (or at least, from the distant provincial
airport that Ryanair laughingly call Paris) on a Sunday night at 3am,
and couldn't find a replacement until Thursday. I finally ended up at a
different airport, two buses and a train later, flying with someone
else, but it was an entertaining twenty four hours. (Actually, I've
just realized I can beat that with a story about trains from when I was
16 and traveling on my own through France, but that was through my own
idiocy so it doesn’t count).
I'm sure people have better horror stories than that, though. Anyone care to share?


WOW! We just flew over an offshore wind farm! A neat little grid of
tiny wind turbines in the middle of the sea! I was peering out the
window, looking for oil rigs (I know they're around here somewhere),
when suddenly this wonder of modernity caught my ear! Eye, sorry.
Caught my eye. That is SO COOL. Stupid thing to get excited about, but
really, wow. Brilliant. I've seen plenty on land, but seeing them in
the middle of the ocean is really something else. I sincerely doubt
they'll ever pay back all the effort that went into putting them there,
but as a symbol of mankind looking for new wonders to create, that was
pretty powerful.


15 comments:

Chris G said...

changed your mind then?

Ian Tindale said...

If man was meant to travel by train, it'd be affordable.

Henry Bloomfield said...

At the end of 2004 I flew back from Hong Kong to London and for the first time ever, got a seat which reclined completely flat. So, I reclined it as soon as I was allowed to, (we were still climbing), put the earplugs in and the eyeshades on, and slept solidly for the next 7.5 hours. I then woke up, thought "I still feel a little drowsy" and slept for another 2 hours (it was time to get off then). If you're comfortable, I think the rumble of jet engines is a great aid to sleep - although a bed in a proper sleeping compartment on a train is a great place to sleep too (clickety-clack, clickety-clack ... snore ....).

- H

Barry Owen said...

I'm for the 'plane as well. The best acceleration you will ever experience.

Peter S said...

Only in a dive.

XXXX YYYY said...

I hear ya, Matt. I feel the exact same way about flying. Hate doing it, but it's a quick way of getting around the world.

One of the people at work took an 8 minute flight last week. He flew from the Burbank Airport to LAX, which by driving takes about 20 minutes, maybe less. Well, he was on his way to Vegas, but they had to stop at LAX to refuel.

Paul ◘ said...

I never had a bad train ride.

Jonathan Phillips said...

I also travel for work a fair bit, often to Paris or Brussels. For both destinations, I have a choice of flying (1 hour flight + all the time wasting described above), or a 2.5 hour train journey.

The fragmented nature of the journey by plane makes it frustrating and very often wasted time since it's rather difficult to settle into anything and get work done, whereas the 2.5 train journey is nearly all profitable time.

However, I do get the same spaceless feeling travelling to on Eurostar that Matt described from going by train and I'm sure it's due to my being an islander (the United Kingdom that is).

For us in the UK, to travel abroad, we need to cross water, which for years and years meant a ferry trip or a flight, looking down at the Channel, Atlantic or North Sea. [Yea, I know, those in Northern Ireland do have a land border to cross to a foreign country, but for most, it means crossing water]. But it's the lack of crossing water when I use the Eurostar that throws me. It's thoroughly disconcerting to arrive at a patently foreign station and not see water.

TARA W said...

I don't mind flying. I hate layovers. What I don't understand is that, when I go to Arizona, which is about a three to four hour flight, I can choose a non-stop flight. However, when I have flown to South Carolina, which I would think is a much quicker flight, the plane has to have a layover. Weirder yet is that sometimes the layover is in Detroit, Michigan.

Barry Owen said...

I thought that even a lowly jet plane could exceed 1g - am I misguided?
Nevertheless, the push in the back is still fun!.

Calum Fisher said...

Will Self, on telly once, pointed out that the problem with airports is that they are dull. They are uniform, easy clean, blank plastic spaces. They are truly international because, architecturally speaking, you could be anywhere in the world. Self didn't like this dullness. He claimed to be extremely taken with the amazingness of flying - the fact that man has conquered the skies, that you can sit in a huge metal contraption and fly, ffs - and he wanted his airports to reflect this awesomeness: huge Metropolis-style columns and facades, ground staff wearing winged sandals, a la Mercury etc. But Self's enthusiasm misses the function of the bare aesthetic of airports - emotional sedation. Your brain is entirely aware of the fact that that metal contraption is significantly heavier than air and that gravity is always on, so architects seek, through their designs, to engender an extremely run-of-the-mill, workaday tediousness about the pre-flight experience. If you are switched off, you are less likely to flip out on taxi.

Contrast airport designs with the architecture of large train stations in the UK (Glasgow Central, Saint Pancras): huge ornate temples to industrial promise, high glass and steel lattice canopies, wide open concourse spaces.

On the subject of views, it's a trade off. Train line views (when you're not stuck in a cutting) are usually somewhere around a 2 or 3 (out of ten) on the interest factor, for the whole of the journey. Aeroplane views hover around zero, save for those occasional moments when you see, for example, a 10-scoring marshmallow pink sunrise over the dark green folds of Korea.

Peter S said...

I'd be surprised if a standard airliner can manage a half g, but you enjoy the sensation of acceleration for longer than you would in a normal car, as the plane probably has to exceed 150 mph to get airborne.
Any pilots got the figures?
[EDIT] Got the figures for a 747-400ER from here (OK, I know, not reliable), but for a maximum takeoff weight of 412.8 tonnes, and a thrust of 4 x 274 kN, the maximum acceleration would be 2.6 ms^-2, compared to g = 9.8 ms^-1.
Or, put another way, a 0-60mph of almost exactly 10 seconds - same as a fairly ordinary family car.

Barry Owen said...

Thanks for that, absinthe - It certainly does feel like more though!.

Oooh, I just thought: and no changing gears!

XXXX YYYY said...

Flying over India at night is pretty cool. Despite the poverty it is a carpet of lights, due to the sheer density of population. Flying over central Australia is very dull... endless vistas of red sand and a few grey/green trees.

Lloyd . said...

Flying Air India isn't.