Did airlines fly their aircraft slower in response to oil prices in the 1970s?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}








25














$begingroup$


Modern airliners generally have lower cruise speeds than those of comparable aircraft from 40 years ago (the venerable Boeing 737 seems to be something of an exception; it has always had a more leisurely cruise speed).



Airlines had to respond much faster to the oil crisis than manufacturers could - to what extent were airlines able to economise on fuel consumption by flying more slowly, and what sort of margin was available to them at cruise (and by extension, what sort of margin is available in modern aircraft, should economic factors drive operators to seek lower fuel consumption by flying more slowly)?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$
















  • $begingroup$
    related: What is Cost Index? (in short, "the ratio between the unit cost of time and the unit cost of fuel")
    $endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 28 at 9:32




















25














$begingroup$


Modern airliners generally have lower cruise speeds than those of comparable aircraft from 40 years ago (the venerable Boeing 737 seems to be something of an exception; it has always had a more leisurely cruise speed).



Airlines had to respond much faster to the oil crisis than manufacturers could - to what extent were airlines able to economise on fuel consumption by flying more slowly, and what sort of margin was available to them at cruise (and by extension, what sort of margin is available in modern aircraft, should economic factors drive operators to seek lower fuel consumption by flying more slowly)?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$
















  • $begingroup$
    related: What is Cost Index? (in short, "the ratio between the unit cost of time and the unit cost of fuel")
    $endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 28 at 9:32
















25












25








25





$begingroup$


Modern airliners generally have lower cruise speeds than those of comparable aircraft from 40 years ago (the venerable Boeing 737 seems to be something of an exception; it has always had a more leisurely cruise speed).



Airlines had to respond much faster to the oil crisis than manufacturers could - to what extent were airlines able to economise on fuel consumption by flying more slowly, and what sort of margin was available to them at cruise (and by extension, what sort of margin is available in modern aircraft, should economic factors drive operators to seek lower fuel consumption by flying more slowly)?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




Modern airliners generally have lower cruise speeds than those of comparable aircraft from 40 years ago (the venerable Boeing 737 seems to be something of an exception; it has always had a more leisurely cruise speed).



Airlines had to respond much faster to the oil crisis than manufacturers could - to what extent were airlines able to economise on fuel consumption by flying more slowly, and what sort of margin was available to them at cruise (and by extension, what sort of margin is available in modern aircraft, should economic factors drive operators to seek lower fuel consumption by flying more slowly)?







efficiency






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question










asked May 28 at 8:43









Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida

8,7351 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges




8,7351 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges















  • $begingroup$
    related: What is Cost Index? (in short, "the ratio between the unit cost of time and the unit cost of fuel")
    $endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 28 at 9:32




















  • $begingroup$
    related: What is Cost Index? (in short, "the ratio between the unit cost of time and the unit cost of fuel")
    $endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 28 at 9:32


















$begingroup$
related: What is Cost Index? (in short, "the ratio between the unit cost of time and the unit cost of fuel")
$endgroup$
– Manu H
May 28 at 9:32






$begingroup$
related: What is Cost Index? (in short, "the ratio between the unit cost of time and the unit cost of fuel")
$endgroup$
– Manu H
May 28 at 9:32












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















25
















$begingroup$

As a French who grew up in the Caribbean, I can tell that flights are getting longer. A flight between France and my island that took 7.5 hours 15 years ago is almost 9 hours long today.





This post published by the MIT’s School of Engineering says (emphasis mine):




Specified cruising speeds for commercial airliners today range between about 480 and 510 knots, compared to 525 knots for the Boeing 707, a mainstay of 1960s jet travel. Why? “The main issue is fuel economy,” says Aeronautics and Astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile. This is especially true with the newer ‘high-bypass’ jet engines with their large-diameter front fans.”




Today's high bypass engines are more efficient at low speed:




Observant fliers can easily spot these engines, with air intakes nearly 10 feet across, especially on newer long-range two-engine jetliners. Older engines had intakes that were less than half as wide and moved less air at higher speeds; high-bypass engines achieve the same thrust with more air at lower speed by routing most of the air (up to 93 percent in the newest designs) around the engine’s turbine instead of through it. “Their efficiency peaks are at lower speeds, which causes airplane builders to favor a somewhat slower aircraft




This article also states that slower aircraft's structures are cheaper to build:




“A slower airplane can also have less wing sweep, which makes it smaller, lighter and hence less expensive.” The 707’s wing sweep was 35 degrees, while the current 777’s is 31.6 degrees.







share|improve this answer












$endgroup$











  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:02






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:06








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:18






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    May 28 at 19:11



















11
















$begingroup$

I have only my own anecdotal evidence. I was flying domestically & internationally quite extensively during the 1970s, and particularly the period spanning the oil crisis.



Although the impact of the 747 on mass air travel had begun in some markets, most aircraft were still legacy assets, often belonging to government owned national carriers that were still run by pilots, engineers & bureaucrats, not accountants & MBAs. It was very common on long international flights to have aircraft that were only half-full, if that; my first flights between Australia & the US or Europe were spent stretched out over three seats, this was considered to be commonplace at the time.



The airlines reacted to the oil crisis by immediately cutting the number of flights, & getting rid of a lot of bulk-buy cheap ticket deals to travel agents. In many cases it was a physical shortage of fuel as well as the increased cost that excused what led to sudden huge increases in queues at airports that were still just glorified empty hangars that had never dealt with crowds.



Long distance aircraft were constrained much more by having to stop & refuel much more often than they do now; what is today a single hop from Sydney to DFW, was then Sydney to Fiji, then Hawaii, then LA, then domestic.



I don't recall the aircraft going much slower, or at a different altitude (not sure if that was practical), but there may have been some adjustments with somewhat less flexible legacy aircraft such as the 707s & DC8s. They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. With fewer aircraft flying, they were now more likely to be operating closer to their maximum weight, which constrained performance.



Early 747s were more economical to start with, but when they were first introduced they had far fewer seats than post-oil crisis, when they were quickly reconfigured to get very crowded. Pre-crisis you preferred a new 747 for its space; post-crisis you hoped for a DC8 because they couldn't rob you of seat width.



With domestic air travel, again, they just cut flights & charged like wounded bulls. There were many non-flying areas in their operations that were hugely inefficient that could be made less costly, & these were all overhauled. Political lobbying became much more important in order to reduce technical & employment regulatory "costs". Refuelling at lower-cost airports & tankering changed scheduling.



TLDR, yes, they probably slowed aircraft slightly, but that wasn't nearly enough - instead the airlines cut flights massively & ordered smaller seats for their 747s. It took years for airlines to recover, many just went bankrupt.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
    $endgroup$
    – bautista
    May 29 at 6:03








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
    $endgroup$
    – Jirka Hanika
    May 29 at 15:12










  • $begingroup$
    That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Mad Physicist
    May 29 at 19:47













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});















draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64828%2fdid-airlines-fly-their-aircraft-slower-in-response-to-oil-prices-in-the-1970s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









25
















$begingroup$

As a French who grew up in the Caribbean, I can tell that flights are getting longer. A flight between France and my island that took 7.5 hours 15 years ago is almost 9 hours long today.





This post published by the MIT’s School of Engineering says (emphasis mine):




Specified cruising speeds for commercial airliners today range between about 480 and 510 knots, compared to 525 knots for the Boeing 707, a mainstay of 1960s jet travel. Why? “The main issue is fuel economy,” says Aeronautics and Astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile. This is especially true with the newer ‘high-bypass’ jet engines with their large-diameter front fans.”




Today's high bypass engines are more efficient at low speed:




Observant fliers can easily spot these engines, with air intakes nearly 10 feet across, especially on newer long-range two-engine jetliners. Older engines had intakes that were less than half as wide and moved less air at higher speeds; high-bypass engines achieve the same thrust with more air at lower speed by routing most of the air (up to 93 percent in the newest designs) around the engine’s turbine instead of through it. “Their efficiency peaks are at lower speeds, which causes airplane builders to favor a somewhat slower aircraft




This article also states that slower aircraft's structures are cheaper to build:




“A slower airplane can also have less wing sweep, which makes it smaller, lighter and hence less expensive.” The 707’s wing sweep was 35 degrees, while the current 777’s is 31.6 degrees.







share|improve this answer












$endgroup$











  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:02






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:06








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:18






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    May 28 at 19:11
















25
















$begingroup$

As a French who grew up in the Caribbean, I can tell that flights are getting longer. A flight between France and my island that took 7.5 hours 15 years ago is almost 9 hours long today.





This post published by the MIT’s School of Engineering says (emphasis mine):




Specified cruising speeds for commercial airliners today range between about 480 and 510 knots, compared to 525 knots for the Boeing 707, a mainstay of 1960s jet travel. Why? “The main issue is fuel economy,” says Aeronautics and Astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile. This is especially true with the newer ‘high-bypass’ jet engines with their large-diameter front fans.”




Today's high bypass engines are more efficient at low speed:




Observant fliers can easily spot these engines, with air intakes nearly 10 feet across, especially on newer long-range two-engine jetliners. Older engines had intakes that were less than half as wide and moved less air at higher speeds; high-bypass engines achieve the same thrust with more air at lower speed by routing most of the air (up to 93 percent in the newest designs) around the engine’s turbine instead of through it. “Their efficiency peaks are at lower speeds, which causes airplane builders to favor a somewhat slower aircraft




This article also states that slower aircraft's structures are cheaper to build:




“A slower airplane can also have less wing sweep, which makes it smaller, lighter and hence less expensive.” The 707’s wing sweep was 35 degrees, while the current 777’s is 31.6 degrees.







share|improve this answer












$endgroup$











  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:02






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:06








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:18






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    May 28 at 19:11














25














25










25







$begingroup$

As a French who grew up in the Caribbean, I can tell that flights are getting longer. A flight between France and my island that took 7.5 hours 15 years ago is almost 9 hours long today.





This post published by the MIT’s School of Engineering says (emphasis mine):




Specified cruising speeds for commercial airliners today range between about 480 and 510 knots, compared to 525 knots for the Boeing 707, a mainstay of 1960s jet travel. Why? “The main issue is fuel economy,” says Aeronautics and Astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile. This is especially true with the newer ‘high-bypass’ jet engines with their large-diameter front fans.”




Today's high bypass engines are more efficient at low speed:




Observant fliers can easily spot these engines, with air intakes nearly 10 feet across, especially on newer long-range two-engine jetliners. Older engines had intakes that were less than half as wide and moved less air at higher speeds; high-bypass engines achieve the same thrust with more air at lower speed by routing most of the air (up to 93 percent in the newest designs) around the engine’s turbine instead of through it. “Their efficiency peaks are at lower speeds, which causes airplane builders to favor a somewhat slower aircraft




This article also states that slower aircraft's structures are cheaper to build:




“A slower airplane can also have less wing sweep, which makes it smaller, lighter and hence less expensive.” The 707’s wing sweep was 35 degrees, while the current 777’s is 31.6 degrees.







share|improve this answer












$endgroup$



As a French who grew up in the Caribbean, I can tell that flights are getting longer. A flight between France and my island that took 7.5 hours 15 years ago is almost 9 hours long today.





This post published by the MIT’s School of Engineering says (emphasis mine):




Specified cruising speeds for commercial airliners today range between about 480 and 510 knots, compared to 525 knots for the Boeing 707, a mainstay of 1960s jet travel. Why? “The main issue is fuel economy,” says Aeronautics and Astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile. This is especially true with the newer ‘high-bypass’ jet engines with their large-diameter front fans.”




Today's high bypass engines are more efficient at low speed:




Observant fliers can easily spot these engines, with air intakes nearly 10 feet across, especially on newer long-range two-engine jetliners. Older engines had intakes that were less than half as wide and moved less air at higher speeds; high-bypass engines achieve the same thrust with more air at lower speed by routing most of the air (up to 93 percent in the newest designs) around the engine’s turbine instead of through it. “Their efficiency peaks are at lower speeds, which causes airplane builders to favor a somewhat slower aircraft




This article also states that slower aircraft's structures are cheaper to build:




“A slower airplane can also have less wing sweep, which makes it smaller, lighter and hence less expensive.” The 707’s wing sweep was 35 degrees, while the current 777’s is 31.6 degrees.








share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 28 at 9:15

























answered May 28 at 9:08









Quentin HQuentin H

1,3001 gold badge10 silver badges24 bronze badges




1,3001 gold badge10 silver badges24 bronze badges











  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:02






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:06








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:18






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    May 28 at 19:11














  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:02






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
    $endgroup$
    – Quentin H
    May 28 at 18:06








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
    $endgroup$
    – Daniele Procida
    May 28 at 18:18






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    May 28 at 19:11








8




8




$begingroup$
Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
$endgroup$
– Daniele Procida
May 28 at 18:02




$begingroup$
Interesting information, and thanks, but I don't think it actually addresses the question: did airlines start to fly their planes more slowly? (which is not the same as did airline manufacturers start to design slower planes?).
$endgroup$
– Daniele Procida
May 28 at 18:02




3




3




$begingroup$
@DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
$endgroup$
– Quentin H
May 28 at 18:03




$begingroup$
@DanieleProcida airlines bought slower aircrafts overtime :)
$endgroup$
– Quentin H
May 28 at 18:03




3




3




$begingroup$
@Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
$endgroup$
– Quentin H
May 28 at 18:06






$begingroup$
@Mast Older engines were low bypass which makes them more efficient at higher speed
$endgroup$
– Quentin H
May 28 at 18:06






8




8




$begingroup$
@QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
$endgroup$
– Daniele Procida
May 28 at 18:18




$begingroup$
@QuentinHayot Yes, they did buy slower aircraft eventually - but can you add to your answer to say what they did at the time with the aircraft that they already had?
$endgroup$
– Daniele Procida
May 28 at 18:18




10




10




$begingroup$
15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 28 at 19:11




$begingroup$
15 years ago was also just when the EU air passenger rights regulation was introduced. As its implications become clearer (and especially after the ECJ ruled that the cash compensation the regulation sets out for cancellation should also be paid in case of delays), airlines would have a definite incentive to construct their long-haul schedules more conservatively. Nobody complains when their flight arrives early.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 28 at 19:11













11
















$begingroup$

I have only my own anecdotal evidence. I was flying domestically & internationally quite extensively during the 1970s, and particularly the period spanning the oil crisis.



Although the impact of the 747 on mass air travel had begun in some markets, most aircraft were still legacy assets, often belonging to government owned national carriers that were still run by pilots, engineers & bureaucrats, not accountants & MBAs. It was very common on long international flights to have aircraft that were only half-full, if that; my first flights between Australia & the US or Europe were spent stretched out over three seats, this was considered to be commonplace at the time.



The airlines reacted to the oil crisis by immediately cutting the number of flights, & getting rid of a lot of bulk-buy cheap ticket deals to travel agents. In many cases it was a physical shortage of fuel as well as the increased cost that excused what led to sudden huge increases in queues at airports that were still just glorified empty hangars that had never dealt with crowds.



Long distance aircraft were constrained much more by having to stop & refuel much more often than they do now; what is today a single hop from Sydney to DFW, was then Sydney to Fiji, then Hawaii, then LA, then domestic.



I don't recall the aircraft going much slower, or at a different altitude (not sure if that was practical), but there may have been some adjustments with somewhat less flexible legacy aircraft such as the 707s & DC8s. They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. With fewer aircraft flying, they were now more likely to be operating closer to their maximum weight, which constrained performance.



Early 747s were more economical to start with, but when they were first introduced they had far fewer seats than post-oil crisis, when they were quickly reconfigured to get very crowded. Pre-crisis you preferred a new 747 for its space; post-crisis you hoped for a DC8 because they couldn't rob you of seat width.



With domestic air travel, again, they just cut flights & charged like wounded bulls. There were many non-flying areas in their operations that were hugely inefficient that could be made less costly, & these were all overhauled. Political lobbying became much more important in order to reduce technical & employment regulatory "costs". Refuelling at lower-cost airports & tankering changed scheduling.



TLDR, yes, they probably slowed aircraft slightly, but that wasn't nearly enough - instead the airlines cut flights massively & ordered smaller seats for their 747s. It took years for airlines to recover, many just went bankrupt.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
    $endgroup$
    – bautista
    May 29 at 6:03








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
    $endgroup$
    – Jirka Hanika
    May 29 at 15:12










  • $begingroup$
    That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Mad Physicist
    May 29 at 19:47
















11
















$begingroup$

I have only my own anecdotal evidence. I was flying domestically & internationally quite extensively during the 1970s, and particularly the period spanning the oil crisis.



Although the impact of the 747 on mass air travel had begun in some markets, most aircraft were still legacy assets, often belonging to government owned national carriers that were still run by pilots, engineers & bureaucrats, not accountants & MBAs. It was very common on long international flights to have aircraft that were only half-full, if that; my first flights between Australia & the US or Europe were spent stretched out over three seats, this was considered to be commonplace at the time.



The airlines reacted to the oil crisis by immediately cutting the number of flights, & getting rid of a lot of bulk-buy cheap ticket deals to travel agents. In many cases it was a physical shortage of fuel as well as the increased cost that excused what led to sudden huge increases in queues at airports that were still just glorified empty hangars that had never dealt with crowds.



Long distance aircraft were constrained much more by having to stop & refuel much more often than they do now; what is today a single hop from Sydney to DFW, was then Sydney to Fiji, then Hawaii, then LA, then domestic.



I don't recall the aircraft going much slower, or at a different altitude (not sure if that was practical), but there may have been some adjustments with somewhat less flexible legacy aircraft such as the 707s & DC8s. They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. With fewer aircraft flying, they were now more likely to be operating closer to their maximum weight, which constrained performance.



Early 747s were more economical to start with, but when they were first introduced they had far fewer seats than post-oil crisis, when they were quickly reconfigured to get very crowded. Pre-crisis you preferred a new 747 for its space; post-crisis you hoped for a DC8 because they couldn't rob you of seat width.



With domestic air travel, again, they just cut flights & charged like wounded bulls. There were many non-flying areas in their operations that were hugely inefficient that could be made less costly, & these were all overhauled. Political lobbying became much more important in order to reduce technical & employment regulatory "costs". Refuelling at lower-cost airports & tankering changed scheduling.



TLDR, yes, they probably slowed aircraft slightly, but that wasn't nearly enough - instead the airlines cut flights massively & ordered smaller seats for their 747s. It took years for airlines to recover, many just went bankrupt.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
    $endgroup$
    – bautista
    May 29 at 6:03








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
    $endgroup$
    – Jirka Hanika
    May 29 at 15:12










  • $begingroup$
    That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Mad Physicist
    May 29 at 19:47














11














11










11







$begingroup$

I have only my own anecdotal evidence. I was flying domestically & internationally quite extensively during the 1970s, and particularly the period spanning the oil crisis.



Although the impact of the 747 on mass air travel had begun in some markets, most aircraft were still legacy assets, often belonging to government owned national carriers that were still run by pilots, engineers & bureaucrats, not accountants & MBAs. It was very common on long international flights to have aircraft that were only half-full, if that; my first flights between Australia & the US or Europe were spent stretched out over three seats, this was considered to be commonplace at the time.



The airlines reacted to the oil crisis by immediately cutting the number of flights, & getting rid of a lot of bulk-buy cheap ticket deals to travel agents. In many cases it was a physical shortage of fuel as well as the increased cost that excused what led to sudden huge increases in queues at airports that were still just glorified empty hangars that had never dealt with crowds.



Long distance aircraft were constrained much more by having to stop & refuel much more often than they do now; what is today a single hop from Sydney to DFW, was then Sydney to Fiji, then Hawaii, then LA, then domestic.



I don't recall the aircraft going much slower, or at a different altitude (not sure if that was practical), but there may have been some adjustments with somewhat less flexible legacy aircraft such as the 707s & DC8s. They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. With fewer aircraft flying, they were now more likely to be operating closer to their maximum weight, which constrained performance.



Early 747s were more economical to start with, but when they were first introduced they had far fewer seats than post-oil crisis, when they were quickly reconfigured to get very crowded. Pre-crisis you preferred a new 747 for its space; post-crisis you hoped for a DC8 because they couldn't rob you of seat width.



With domestic air travel, again, they just cut flights & charged like wounded bulls. There were many non-flying areas in their operations that were hugely inefficient that could be made less costly, & these were all overhauled. Political lobbying became much more important in order to reduce technical & employment regulatory "costs". Refuelling at lower-cost airports & tankering changed scheduling.



TLDR, yes, they probably slowed aircraft slightly, but that wasn't nearly enough - instead the airlines cut flights massively & ordered smaller seats for their 747s. It took years for airlines to recover, many just went bankrupt.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$



I have only my own anecdotal evidence. I was flying domestically & internationally quite extensively during the 1970s, and particularly the period spanning the oil crisis.



Although the impact of the 747 on mass air travel had begun in some markets, most aircraft were still legacy assets, often belonging to government owned national carriers that were still run by pilots, engineers & bureaucrats, not accountants & MBAs. It was very common on long international flights to have aircraft that were only half-full, if that; my first flights between Australia & the US or Europe were spent stretched out over three seats, this was considered to be commonplace at the time.



The airlines reacted to the oil crisis by immediately cutting the number of flights, & getting rid of a lot of bulk-buy cheap ticket deals to travel agents. In many cases it was a physical shortage of fuel as well as the increased cost that excused what led to sudden huge increases in queues at airports that were still just glorified empty hangars that had never dealt with crowds.



Long distance aircraft were constrained much more by having to stop & refuel much more often than they do now; what is today a single hop from Sydney to DFW, was then Sydney to Fiji, then Hawaii, then LA, then domestic.



I don't recall the aircraft going much slower, or at a different altitude (not sure if that was practical), but there may have been some adjustments with somewhat less flexible legacy aircraft such as the 707s & DC8s. They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. With fewer aircraft flying, they were now more likely to be operating closer to their maximum weight, which constrained performance.



Early 747s were more economical to start with, but when they were first introduced they had far fewer seats than post-oil crisis, when they were quickly reconfigured to get very crowded. Pre-crisis you preferred a new 747 for its space; post-crisis you hoped for a DC8 because they couldn't rob you of seat width.



With domestic air travel, again, they just cut flights & charged like wounded bulls. There were many non-flying areas in their operations that were hugely inefficient that could be made less costly, & these were all overhauled. Political lobbying became much more important in order to reduce technical & employment regulatory "costs". Refuelling at lower-cost airports & tankering changed scheduling.



TLDR, yes, they probably slowed aircraft slightly, but that wasn't nearly enough - instead the airlines cut flights massively & ordered smaller seats for their 747s. It took years for airlines to recover, many just went bankrupt.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 29 at 0:51

























answered May 29 at 0:45









MackkMackk

8813 silver badges7 bronze badges




8813 silver badges7 bronze badges















  • $begingroup$
    They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
    $endgroup$
    – bautista
    May 29 at 6:03








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
    $endgroup$
    – Jirka Hanika
    May 29 at 15:12










  • $begingroup$
    That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Mad Physicist
    May 29 at 19:47


















  • $begingroup$
    They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
    $endgroup$
    – bautista
    May 29 at 6:03








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
    $endgroup$
    – Jirka Hanika
    May 29 at 15:12










  • $begingroup$
    That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Mad Physicist
    May 29 at 19:47
















$begingroup$
They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
$endgroup$
– bautista
May 29 at 6:03






$begingroup$
They were already flying as efficiently as they could, just to avoid having to land. Efficiently in terms of what?
$endgroup$
– bautista
May 29 at 6:03






4




4




$begingroup$
@bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
$endgroup$
– Jirka Hanika
May 29 at 15:12




$begingroup$
@bautista - In terms of fuel consumption per mile flown. The idea is that if you fly trans-oceanic excessively fast, you will have to detour to land to refuel more often, and therefore truly long distance passengers will get to their destinations later while paying more.
$endgroup$
– Jirka Hanika
May 29 at 15:12












$begingroup$
That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Mad Physicist
May 29 at 19:47




$begingroup$
That's some anecdotal evidence you got there. I feel like an expert on the impact of the oil crisis on airlines just from reading that. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Mad Physicist
May 29 at 19:47



















draft saved

draft discarded



















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64828%2fdid-airlines-fly-their-aircraft-slower-in-response-to-oil-prices-in-the-1970s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029