>And I'll bet that flying first class today is far better than 50 years ago.

I wasn't flying first class 50 years ago, but everything I can see now leads me to believe that this isn't even slightly true. There might be a high def flatscreen in front of me in first class today, but I'm not getting more attention than someone would've gotten back then, I'm not in a less crowded airport while I'm boarding, and the security mess is more demeaning than ever.

The only reason that people aren't rioting for all the changes is that no one even remembers how good it used to be.

▲

professoretc 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you want to know what flying first-class 50 years ago was like (and you live in southern California, and you have money to burn) you can try the Panam Experience (https://panamexperience.com/). It's a replica of a Panam 747, together with a "crew" in period-correct costumes, that tries to recreate the entire experience of flying in the 1950s. (Bearing in mind that the plane is a replica, located on a soundstage.)

▲

SoftTalker 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That sounds a bit weird, the 747 didn't enter commercial service until 1970.

A 1950s flight experience would have been on something with piston engines and propellors, like a DC-6 or a Super Constellation. Noisy, turbulent, and not particularly safe by modern standards.

▲

WalterBright 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I flew in piston airliners long ago. They fly low and slow, and barf bags are supplied for a reason (low altitude means lots of turbulence).

Today's airliners fly high where the air is smooth, they've gotten very good at avoiding turbulent weather, and there are automated damping systems. The barf bags are still there, but I've never seen anyone use one.

The cool thing about piston airliners, though, is the the engine start.

	▲	SoftTalker an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I have flown in turboprops, which start just like a jet engine. Yes I bet the startup of a big Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp or Wright Cyclone, belching smoke and fire would have been something to see.

▲

OroPla 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's because the 1950s were seventy years ago, not fifty, which only brings you back to the 1970s.

	▲	SoftTalker an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I responded to "tries to recreate the entire experience of flying in the 1950s" and not the "50 years ago" yes in the 1970s it could certainly have been a 747.

▲

leonidasrup 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Economy are seats getting smaller, but also modern airplanes are much fuel efficient.

"Between 1950 and 2018, efficiency per passenger grew from 0.4 to 8.2 RPK per kg of CO2"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

https://www.explore.com/1762212/reason-why-plane-experience-...

▲

triceratops 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> no one even remembers how good it used to be.

Because not that many people even used to fly. Because it cost a lot more.

▲

a34729t 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well that and the people who make decisions largely don't fly peasant. Remember that the US air force is mostly executive transport.

The easiest way to make conditions get better is to make sure the people in charge have to use things, be it busses, bike lanes, trains, airports, public bathrooms, parks with bums, etc. Otherwise it always hits the middle and lower class to absorb it.