- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
Comments (4)
Print
Save/Share
Over the last couple of decades, the number of passengers boarding short-haul flights has been on a steep, steady decline in the U.S. Now why might that be?
The Dallas Morning-News reported that the number of passengers flying Southwest between Dallas and Houston has dropped by one-third in the last two decades. Nationwide, short-haul flights account for a much smaller percentage of passengers than they used to:
In 1990, people flying on short-haul routes, 400 miles or less, made up nearly 34 percent of domestic passengers on U.S. airlines. In 2009, the last year for which full numbers are available, the percentage had dropped to 26.6 percent.
The reasons for the decline seem pretty obvious: The costs of these shorter flights have increased, as have the hassles of flying pretty much anywhere. This will come as no surprise to the many readers who said they were absolutely less likely to fly in 2011.
The kind of flight travelers are most likely to skip nowadays is the short-haul variety. Why is that? Because there are readily available alternatives with fewer headaches -- namely driving, or hopping a train or bus (especially a nice one like BoltBus). What with two-hour advance check-in requirements and long checkpoint waits (not to mention security procedures many travelers deem demeaning), flying no longer has the time-saving advantage it once boasted unless the traveler needs to go a long distance. This is why almost no one today is bothering to fly on once-popular short-haul routes such as Albany-LaGuardia or Boston-Bangor.
Increasingly, when travelers feel like there's an alternative to flying, they're taking it. This goes even for short-haul flights between some of the country's biggest cities. Using government data, the Morning-News story shows that the number of passengers flying routes such as LAX-Phoenix, Boston-LaGuardia, and St. Louis-Kansas City have dropped by more than 40 percent since 1990. There's no reason to think that passenger numbers on such routes will increase anytime soon.
It's getting to the point that we may have to redefine a "short-haul" flight as anything under 750 miles each way. And a flight that's under 250 miles? Well, that's almost unthinkable.
MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL:
Are you less likely to fly in 2011?
More airports consider ditching TSA
It's a new day for flier's rights: We're human beings, not just cargo!
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
I know we usually don't fly to anything less than, say, 600 miles, unless it's for business or it's a very short trip. My mother lives in a small town in Arizona, and by the time you add up the security time, flight time SLC-PHX, car rental hassles & driving to her house, we could be more than half-way there in our own car. We also routinely drive to Tucson, and in the last year, we have driven to Portland, OR, the Bay area, and LA. Of course, both my husband & I love the driving, so it's not a long chore for us.
Posted By Lisab on January 18, 2011, 10:12 AM
One problem with doing away with short-haul flights would be for those of us who need them to connect to long-haul flights because our local big-city airport is just small enough that it doesn't seem to go anywhere with a direct flight.
Posted By beth on January 18, 2011, 10:08 PM
Hopefully, we will only see a reduction in the number of short haul flights - not have them go away completely. I agree with Beth above - sometimes we need the short haul to get to the 'long haul.' :0)
Although we have considered driving to the larger airport and parking the car and leaving from the bigger airport - Mainly because so many of the short haul flights now are on those teeny, weeny regional planes that we WILL NOT - UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES fly on.
Posted By CMM on January 19, 2011, 11:05 AM
After attempting both plane and train, I have settled on taking the bus from my home in NYC to Washington DC. Fewer delays, less hassle, and much, much cheaper ($50 RT)! They show a movie, so the 4.5 hr ride goes by fast. I'm planning a trip to Boston soon, and will be taking the bus there. And by the way, this isn't the scary bus ride of old...they have smartly tapped into a much needed market!
Posted By Jill on January 19, 2011, 11:11 AM