The death of liners Jets planes and cheap tickets


Aug 31, 2004
192
0
111
I was just wondering how many of you despise planes, as they were the cause for the end of liners, and the scrapping of many of them. The worst year in history was 1956, as it was the first year planes carried more passengers than liners. How about we go back in time and kill the Wright brothers? :)
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
0
71
New Jersey,USA
You can count on me as being one of the few who do despise airline travel.I really don't care for those dumb airheads better known as the Wright Brothers.The Cunard Line was right with its advertising slogan that "Getting there is half the fun". But unfortunately by the early 1960's the flying sardine cans better known as jet planes were getting more than the majority of the Trans-Atlantic travelers and the great Trans-Atlantic Liners such as the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth got the short end of the stick.I end my message by giving the Boeing company and the airlines the middle-finger salute.Long Live the Queen Mary 2 and Queen Elizabeth 2.
 
Aug 31, 2004
192
0
111
And airplanes have made america's pride, the SS United States sit and rot in Philadelphia. She was finally rescued by the Norweigans. ):
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
38
308
quote:

I really don't care for those dumb airheads better known as the Wright Brothers
Stupidity doesn't seem to have been their outstanding characteristic.

There's a time and a place for everything. Had I the leisure time to travel by sea everywhere, I'd often make that choice. However, I'm accustomed to suffering the tyranny of distance - the long kilometres required to traverse Australia, let alone travel internationally. So I'm grateful for plane travel - it means that I can get to Europe, for example, in a fraction of the time. I'll be going on a liveaboard boat later this year, but I'm glad I don't have to use precious holiday time travelling by sea from Sydney to Cairns, where I'm embarking. If someone I love who lives remote from me is ill, I'm grateful for the fact I can hop in a plane and get to them faster than I would by other means of travel. Here in Oz it's the Flying Doctors who serve the people of the outback - they rely on aircraft.

I love ships and I love maritime culture, and I'm as susceptible as anyone to nostalgia about the golden age of ocean travel. However, when I'm hopping back and forward from Sydney to London, I'm rather glad it's not going to take me a month and a half one way to get there!​
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
1
171
Without wanting to hurt anybody's feelings, Orville and Wilbur were not dumb airheads. They made a reality of a dream that man had held for centuries, and what is dumb is to wish that they hadn't.

You can cherish the past, but you cannot recreate it. That is why, to allude to a topic that has been done to death on this Board, there will never be a duplicate Titanic.

To take days or even weeks to travel a distance that can be travelled in hours is simply not an option in a world where life seems to be lived at an ever faster pace. We live in an era of instant information (the Internet) and communication (e-mail, fax etc.) and the airliner is a vital cog in the whole wheel which makes up life-as-we-know-it.

Ships are wonderful, and will continue to play their part in the world of the future, but ocean liners in the traditional sense are as much a relic of bygone days as the telex machine and the telegram.

And while it is true that no ocean liner was ever used to bring down a tall building, nor is it very likely that a 747 is going to crash into an iceberg any time soon. And no single aircraft accident ever killed more than 1500 people (9/11 scarcely counts as an accident.

The Wright Brothers may have sounded the death knell for ocean liners, but by creating something that could ultimately transport people great distances at a whole lot faster rate than a few hundred miles a day they joined the list of brilliant innovators who have taken the world forwards - not backwards. Sad to some, perhaps, but an unavoidable part of belonging to a species that is always looking to make things bigger, better, faster. To quote the well-known cliche, Time Is Money.

Now it is true that aircraft have been used at times to wreak great havoc on innocent people. So have ships. Pearl Harbor is a fine example of the "collaboration" between the two.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,641
457
453
Easley South Carolina
>>I was just wondering how many of you despise planes,<<

Having piloted aircraft and having traveled by them, I'd be in a funny position to start hating them

>> as they were the cause for the end of liners, and the scrapping of many of them.<<

Yes they were. Prior to the creation of liners, people traveled from one side of the ocean to the other on whatever was available, and it was anybody's guess as to even when they would get underway. What the liner did was offer departures on a scheduled date and the advent of steam made it possible to schedule both departure and arrival times so that long risky journeys became shorter and safer.

That, when you get down to it what the customer tends to want: To get from point A to point B in reasonable comfort and in the fastest possible time. For close to 150 years, the ocean liner did that but the advent of the jet did the job a lot better for a much lower cost. Can't say as it's much of a surprise that the customers moved in that direction.
 

James Carey

Member
Sep 14, 2004
136
0
111
This same topic could be brought to the people who had the smaller liners, before Titanic and her sisters were built! I am sure they were upset at having these large Ladies coming into service.

It is all relative to the time.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
38
308
Some very good points there from Matthew and Michael, and I think you've raised a very interesting issue, James. You're absolutely correct that the advent of steamships was resented who admired sailing vessels - they found them grubby, coal-smoke belching, noisy and ugly...as opposed to the grace of a square rigger in full sail. Even seamen, who could appreciate the advantages of steam over sail, occasionally cast a backwards glance of nostalgia for the old vessels. Lightoller wrote of missing the feel of something 'living' under his feet, even though it was nice to be sure of his watch below!
 
C

Cornelius Thiessen

Guest
Did'nt the Wright Brothers also reinvent the bicycle?Now theres a mode of transportation that won't put a Liner to shame
happy.gif
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
0
71
New Jersey,USA
If you other people want to love airline travel and to fly the friendly skies fine that is your choice and you are welcome to it. And I will also say that in 1970 my parents took myself and my two sisters on a trip to Italy because my parents had relatives there,they had emigrated to the United States in the 1950's and myself and my sisters were born in the U.S.A. I asked my parents why don't go to Italy on one of the Italian Line Ships which were the Michaelangelo,Raffaello and Leonardo DaVinci.But unfortunately they said no because they claimed that it was too long and too expensive.I guess Mom and Dad were already brainwashed by the airline industry.So my family and I went to Italy on what is today a defuncted airline. I know you must remember it its initials were T.W.A. which stood for Trans World Airlines. On the flight to Rome I ordered dinner and I don't remember what the food was only that it looked disqusting and looking at the food on my plate made me lose my appetite and I did not eat it. On the flight back to New York, Italian food was on the menu and I do love Italian food and I ordered Ravioli.When the plate with the ravioli arrived again I looked at it and again the so called ravioli looked disqusting like if it came out of a can and again I did not eat it.I will also say that I would not give this ravioli to a dog it would be so inhumane.Of the cruises that I took aboard the QE2 and QM2 some nights Italian food was on the menu and the ravioli aboard the QE2 and QM2 was definitely much more better than the garbage that was served to me aboard TWA,you know how disqusting airline food can be.During this flight back to New York the plane had to fly through some turbulence which to me was very uncomfortable.And since that airline flight back to New York in the year 1970 I have not flown since then and I don't care to.I was 11 years old at that time in 1970.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
38
308
Lol! So, you haven't flown since 1970, and yet you're commenting on airline flight today
happy.gif
?

I fly all the time, and the quality of food certainly varies - just as it does aboard ships. I've had some very passable Italian food on board airlines.

But I think, as I said above, there's a time and place for everything - including sea and air travel. Few people fly commercial airlines because they want the travelling experience in and of itself (private and military aircraft are another case). They're doing it because they want to get to their destination, and have taken the cheapest and most efficient route. I enjoy time aboard ships very much (not so much cruise liners - I prefer smaller liveaboards that are sans the floating hotel business), but when I want to get somewhere I'm very, very grateful for all the flight pioneers who have constantly improved air travel. As I said, I love sea travel (and not just large cruise liners - I'm fascinated by most sea craft). But airplanes have made international travel a much easier, more accessible process.

If, however, you want to experience sea travel for recreational purposes, then by all means I'd rather spend 2 days on the QEII than 2 days in an aircraft. But they're different things for different purposes - if I want to cruise around the Carribean in a floating condominium I'll take a cruise ship. If I want to get to the Carribean so I can stay at a hotel (or join my cruise ship!) I'll take a plane.

As for bizarrely rude gesture directed at the Boeing blokes - I doubt they'd really care. I'll be meeting up with a good friend, a project manager for Boeing, in a couple of hours. He's working on some sensational new projects they have going, and as I'm not a technological troglodyte they'll probably come up in conversation. With his engineering background, he likes ships, too!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,641
457
453
Easley South Carolina
>>If you other people want to love airline travel and to fly the friendly skies fine that is your choice and you are welcome to it.<<

Thank you. I do. Flying made it possible for me to make it to three Titanic gatherings hosted by Captains Erik Wood, David Brown, and Charlie Weeks in a reasonable time and at reasonable cost with minimal risk.

>>I guess Mom and Dad were already brainwashed by the airline industry.<<

Mmmmmmmm...and you saw the prices that were quoted?

>>During this flight back to New York the plane had to fly through some turbulence which to me was very uncomfortable.<<

Ever ride out a typhoon at sea or cruise around the Pacific Northwest in a small warship in the winertime? I've done that and it was no sweet picnic. Especially when I had to get up in the middle of the night and stand a low visibility watch. I don't think you'll find any mode of travel that doesn't have it's downside. Aircraft can be uncomfortable, but so can ships. The difference is that with aircraft, the discomfort only lasts for a few hours. On a ship, it can last for the entire voyage.

Be mindful of the fact that if time was always on my side, I'd gladly opt for an ocean voyage. The problem is that time is never on my side and ships can't go inland whereas aircraft can. But what the hell, if you want to hate them, you're welcome to it.
wink.gif
 
Aug 31, 2004
192
0
111
I have only been on a plane once-the summer of 2001 to visit a relative. After the escapade a few months later...let's just say i'm a wee bit nervous...

>>The problem is that time is never on my side and ships can't go inland whereas aircraft can<<

Well I have no idea where you live but try the delta queen steamboat company... they will take you all up the USA's water systems-from New Orleans to Philadelphia.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
17
298
Living as I do in snakebite country, and 110 miles from a hospital with antivenom, I am always grateful for the airlift system - which is put to use roughly 3 or 4 times per year- and am painfully aware of what life here would be like if one had to rely on the overland route.

About the 9/11 reference- blaming the plane in that incident is rather like blaming the car of a drunk driver for the ensuing accident. The natives of Halifax, Texas City, Port Chicago, CAN attest to what a single shipping accident can wreak, having suffered damage far beyond anything ever inflicted by a non-bomb carrying aircraft.

Concerning the decision to fly, Jerry, your parents were wise. The two Italian flagships at the time took 8 or 9 days to make the NYC/ Genoa crossing, and Leonardo Da Vinci took longer. Assuming a generous 3 week vacation, and allowing for 16-20 days of travel time, that would have left you with between 1 and 5 days to actually see Italy.
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
0
71
New Jersey,USA
I also want to say that it is just not my airline experience in 1970 that I don't want to fly again.It is also the fear of a plane crash which I do admit scares the hell out of me.It was years after my family's trip to Italy when I heard news report after news report of plane crashes and the deaths of hundreds of people in these plane crashes that then I started to fear airline travel.And I've had this fear long before 9-11-01.And I also want to fair and I do not blame the airline industry for the acts of the scumbag terrorists on 9-11-01.As I have said on my previous message that if you want to fly that is your choice and I am not trying to talk you out of it.It is my choice that I choose not to fly.As for overland travel there is still something called a train or even a bus.And next April I will do a Trans-Atlantic crossing aboard the Queen Mary 2.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,641
457
453
Easley South Carolina
>>As for overland travel there is still something called a train or even a bus.<<

Yes there is. Unfortunately, I'm not so patient that I want to spend several days traveling from point A to point B. I want to get there as quickly as I can to make the most of whatever time I have.

But that's just me.

Your milage may vary...
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
38
308
quote:

I also want to say that it is just not my airline experience in 1970 that I don't want to fly again.It is also the fear of a plane crash which I do admit scares the hell out of me.It was years after my family's trip to Italy when I heard news report after news report of plane crashes and the deaths of hundreds of people in these plane crashes that then I started to fear airline travel.
Out of curiousity, do you likewise avoid cars for fear of car crashes? They don't make for sensational headlines like plane crashes do, precisely because they are so common, but they killed 42,815 and injured around 2,926,000 in the US alone in 2002.​
 

Similar threads