Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 September 11

= September 11 =

Advantages to aeroplane travel?
I just came back from my holiday to Nice. On the flight back home, I thought of advantages and disadvantages of aeroplane travel. I could only come up with one advantage: I could, however, come up with several disadvantages: Are there any other actual advantages to aeroplane travel? J I P &#124; Talk 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fast.
 * You have to reserve exact flight tickets in advance and they are generally not modifiable, refundable or transmissible.
 * You have to go through laborious security checks.
 * You see less of the scenery.
 * You have less freedom to move about and fewer services.
 * Flights are atomic, you cannot exit or switch a flight while it's in progress.
 * Flights sometimes cost more than ground trips.
 * Aeroplanes pollute the environment.
 * I can think of two more: it's cheap; and it'll take you places you can't go to by any other way in a practical time and/or cost. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * {ec} It's fast, fast, and very fast. Over long distances it is also a lot cheaper than most methods of ground transportation. It's comparatively safer than many methods of ground transportation, from an accident standpoint. Those are all pretty big advantages. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That tickets are "generally not modifiable, refundable or transmissible" isn't a property of aeroplane travel, or even of the current air transport industry. You chose those parameters when you booked a cheap flight on a direct-to-consumer channel.  If you'd booked through a business travel agent you'd typically get a much more flexible ticket, with opportunities to change or refund it, but at a greater headline cost.  This is no different to train travel (at least in the UK): I can get a cheap long-distance ticket if I book in advance on a specific train, but it gets more expensive if I want a ticket that's flexible, and more expensive still if I don't book and just show up at the station and get on a train. You can do that last thing for air travel too, and just turn up at the airport and fly - but you pay for the privilege. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "you cannot exit or switch a flight while it's in progress". You can rarely switch a bus or train trip "while in progress" either. Perhaps there are more frequent stops on a long-distance train/bus than layovers on a plane trip but you are not leaving any of them. Only a car seems to give you more options (although there are places where freeways exits are pretty far apart). Rmhermen (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition while you can jump off a freighter while your trip is in progess, I wouldn't recommend it. Also while I know the risk of motion sickness on large ships isn't that high, without knowing much about it I suspect your risk is higher on a freighter then on a aeroplane. Also I want to further emphasise the time aspect. If I take this freighter it will take me 21 days to get to NZ from Singapore (it goes to several intermediate ports where to be fair you can get off for a short time presuming your visas and innoculations are in other but I'm not sure how easy it is to find one that's much faster). If I fly, it will take me 16-20 hours including all security, travel to the airport etc. It seems I also need a yellow fever innoculation for the freighter. And it's perhaps 1/4 or less the cost if I don't have anyone with me for the plane (for economy). From  it sounds like travelling with a child under 5 will be very difficult by freighter so the options if you have a young child may be more limited perhaps requiring a significantly more expensive cruise ship . Also I'm pretty sure in some areas the risk of pirates or hijackers is also far higher by boat. On a related note, there are far fewer high risk spots for planes (from human activity) then there are on the ground or sea and that combined with the nature of planes means it's easier to avoid them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On a per passenger per mile basis, the pollution created by planes (and the amount of fuel used) is actually pretty similar to single passenger cars. Though trains and buses are much better than either. Dragons flight (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For most people THE most important factor is time. E.g. If you live in Paris and have a meeting in Munich, or are going on holiday to Munich for a long weekend you can take the train...that takes about 11 hours, or you can go by plane that takes 1.5 hours. That's 9 hours difference - 9! And that's a relatively short haul flight - over longer distances that gap is only going to get more pronounced. Alternatives are a great idea and suitable for some circumstances but nothing compares to planes over distance when time is of the essence. ny156uk (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you add all the non-flight time to the airplane travel and the non-motion time to the train time, the difference might be the same, but the ratio isn't nearly so good. And, when you compare the "door-to-door" time against car travel, short airplane trips can actually take longer. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One other advantage I see to air travel, at least for new travelers with window seats on a clear day, is the view. Of course, some ground and sea transportation can provide nice views, too, but definitely not the same view you can get from an airplane.  Also, to your list of disadvantages you can add your ears popping and getting leg cramps (and possibly blood clots) from the tiny seats.  Another problem with flying, for me, is dehydration.  I normally drink lots of water, but am no longer allowed to bring much with me, and, if they serve any, it's tiny amounts of questionable cleanliness.  And I also tend to overheat, due to the lack of cool water, the overhead fan not doing diddly while parked on the runway, and, of course, being wedged between two sumo wrestlers. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The view's debatable. It's nice taking off and landing, but train and car rides can offer far more impressive scenery throughout the journey.  You're more likely to be flying over water, which is dull, than riding a train or driving over water, which is a limitation of land-based transport. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Plane usually quicker, but not always, especially when you take check-in times and journey to the airport into account. It's always worth checking if the train is quicker. A couple of years ago The Guardian set a reporter to meet passengers arriving at London Heathrow from Glasgow to ask them if they knew it would have been cheaper and quicker by train. As you may imagine, responses varied from "I wish I had known" to "I don't care, I would take the plane at any cost". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another advantage is that, in some cases, a flight is the only possible option. I believe this was the case is West Berlin for a while.  There are also isolated locations only accessible by plane. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * StuRat, like you, I am sensitive to dehydration and tend to drink a lot of water. When I fly, this isn't a huge problem, though it takes a little planning.  Of course, I don't attempt to take water with me through security, but you can purchase as much water as you want on the secure side of the airport.  Typically, I drink lots of water about an hour and a half before I expect to get on my plane.  Usually, that is before I go through security.  Then I make a last minute trip to the facilities before boarding.  Meanwhile, I carry plenty of water with me on the plane.  If I have an aisle seat, I drink water fairly freely.  (I make an effort to get an aisle seat on really long flights.) Otherwise, I sip it carefully if I start to feel dehydrated, then drink plenty 30-45 minutes before landing.  I never get too dehydrated on a flight. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you even have to purchase water? If you're on a relatively full service airline, they tend to oblige when you ask them to fill up a bottle. On some planes you may find a tap near (but outside) the toilet so you can do it yourself. Of course the best bet may be to look around, if it's a decent airport there should be a drinking fountain in the secure area which you can use to partially fill any bottles. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Air travel is the best way of traversing lightly-populated land with uneven terrain, forests, and swamps, e.g. eastern Russia, Alaska, or Brazil. It doesn't require clearing land to construct roads or railways, which causes significant environmental damage and is very expensive.  If a lot of journeys have to be made, then you get economies of scale from roads or railways (which even in the west were in the past built by immigrant labour in working horrible conditions, by soldiers, armies of unemployed people, etc, but if constructed today are really expensive) but for new routes or routes without a lot of people, air is more efficient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I find flying rather exciting, so I guess that is an advantage, highlights include the feeling of slight weightlessness at take-off, the views (especially when going through layered cloud or when low to the ground), and an eight hour sunset I once experienced flying tranatlantic from Canada to the UK. Of course a small aircraft (or even better a sailplane) is much preferable, but I'll take my flying kicks where I can get them. After all "once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Equisetum (talk &#124; email &#124; contributions) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You should actually have increased apparent weight at take-off, and decreased apparent weight right before landing. True weightlessness means the plane would be in free fall, which is generally a bad thing, unless you're on the vomit comet. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, physically that is right - however it is the decrease in apparent weight (back to 1G) when the upwards acceleration falls to zero after takeoff that leads to the "weightless feeling" for me (there is a converse feeling when the apperent weight increases to 1G after landing, I don't like this one so much as it indicates I am no longer flying). True reduced G can actually be rather unpleasant, and can cause accidents in small aircraft by confusing pilots (e.g. upon a cable break in a glider winch-launch it can encourage one to pull the stick back halfway through lowering the nose, which is one thing you must not do).Equisetum (talk &#124; email &#124; contributions) 09:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your apparent weight might go slightly below 1 g as they level off upon reaching altitude, if done quickly, since your upward momentum also comes into play. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not experience a prolonged sunset when flying from Canada to the UK, unless you chose the l-o-n-g route. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kim Collins 21.73s time in 100m 1997 Athletics Championships
Recently Sogelau Tuvalu ran a rather slow time at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics and quite a few media outlets ran a story on this. A lot of them made reference to the fact Kim Collins ran 21.73s (actually far slower than Tuvalu) in the 1997 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres and then became world champion six years later. They don't explain how Collins ran such a slow time however. My assumption is that he tripped, or got injured. Any ideas? --Iae (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)