One of the huge innovations to shrink the world was modern, affordable air travel. Before then, the best time you could hope for a transatlantic crossing was between ten days and two weeks for a steamship, depending on weather conditions. The golden age of air travel turned pilots into movie stars, hostesses into glamour icons, and the experience of flying abroad akin to joining an exclusive elite and being part of a brave new exploration into other countries and cultures.
So what has become of this revolution? Well, like the other great innovation to follow it, computing, it's fair to say that things have stagnated a little. Computers, you will recall, were supposed to make our lives easier. With modern computing (and also the fanciful robot help on which the 50's futurists were so keen) we were all supposed to have a litany of tasks automated on our behalf, and much more spare time available for leisure.
Nowadays, although it's fair to say they are useful and modern society could ill afford to be without them, we spend more time glued to a computer screen every day than just about anything else. In fact, for an entire generation of potentially obese and socially-backward youngsters, the computer has become leisure time completely.
So what ails the air industry? In line with the general economy, there's a polarisation of class. Whereas initially air travel was prohibitively priced, the advent of budget travel forms means that just about anyone can fly to a destination of their choice. In response to the influx of budget travel passengers, the picky elite started to prefer first class. Then soon this wasn't enough, so business class became the norm for those who could afford. Not even this was enough, and soon business class passengers were expecting to experience a whole different airport to regular travellers with the introduction of executive lounges and gate bypass channels.
Meanwhile the service for standard non-budget airline passengers didn't noticeably improve. Although there is a certain management of expectations when it comes to specialised budget airlines (although a few notably have been keen to push the boundaries of what even their jaded passengers deem acceptable), the main established airlines have failed to react to this new, lower strata of passenger travel and have suffered accordingly when on competing routes.
For example, I remember a hurriedly brief British Airways campaign lambasting budget airlines for offering a sandwich as part of the in-flight catering. Yet this is exactly what British Airways was serving on their short-haul flight into Germany from the UK, at least for their economy passengers. If a warm, stale sandwich and a slightly more generous luggage allowance is all that separates a supposedly premium air service and its budget equivalent, is it any wonder hordes decided to desert en masse and put up with endless announcements for duty free and lottery tickets (but only if you have the correct money)?
Many airports too have not aged well. The concrete aesthetic of the early sixties has started to crumble (literally, in some cases) and large parts of Gatwick and Heathrow look better placed as a set from Life On Mars. The Dutch have a marvellous modern airport at Schipol, and even the much older edifice in Athens does a good job of marrying the modern with its classical heritage, the adjoining subway taking you through archaeological strata of the city's past. It feels more like museum than metro. Sadly, the UK equivalent strikes closer to "mundane", and aims at shovelling the maximum amount of passengers through the terminals (or keeping them in holding areas when everything goes pear-shaped).
What's the solution? Huge investment in the airport and transport infrastructure is needed, which is going to be a tall order in the current economic climate. As well as being passenger efficient, terminals also need to plan for the long term and try to get back to a degree of lelegance and style, rather than brute function. Heathrow, by necessity, has spread into a tarmac and concrete eyesore that covers hectares. Gatwick still retains a modest nod to the leafy surroundings, but the adjunct of the creaking rail network and the increase in flights (and the lung-dissolving kerosene fumes bathing the terminals) is doing nothing to win over environmentalists over planned expansion.
Care and effort must be taken in planning modernisation, not just for modernism's sake (such as the collapsing terminal at Charles de Gaulle) but also so that some of the impact the airport will have will be mitigated. Having a generally nicer place to fly from will make the whole travel experience much better and may even encourage airlines to up their game accordingly.
So what has become of this revolution? Well, like the other great innovation to follow it, computing, it's fair to say that things have stagnated a little. Computers, you will recall, were supposed to make our lives easier. With modern computing (and also the fanciful robot help on which the 50's futurists were so keen) we were all supposed to have a litany of tasks automated on our behalf, and much more spare time available for leisure.
Nowadays, although it's fair to say they are useful and modern society could ill afford to be without them, we spend more time glued to a computer screen every day than just about anything else. In fact, for an entire generation of potentially obese and socially-backward youngsters, the computer has become leisure time completely.
So what ails the air industry? In line with the general economy, there's a polarisation of class. Whereas initially air travel was prohibitively priced, the advent of budget travel forms means that just about anyone can fly to a destination of their choice. In response to the influx of budget travel passengers, the picky elite started to prefer first class. Then soon this wasn't enough, so business class became the norm for those who could afford. Not even this was enough, and soon business class passengers were expecting to experience a whole different airport to regular travellers with the introduction of executive lounges and gate bypass channels.
Meanwhile the service for standard non-budget airline passengers didn't noticeably improve. Although there is a certain management of expectations when it comes to specialised budget airlines (although a few notably have been keen to push the boundaries of what even their jaded passengers deem acceptable), the main established airlines have failed to react to this new, lower strata of passenger travel and have suffered accordingly when on competing routes.
For example, I remember a hurriedly brief British Airways campaign lambasting budget airlines for offering a sandwich as part of the in-flight catering. Yet this is exactly what British Airways was serving on their short-haul flight into Germany from the UK, at least for their economy passengers. If a warm, stale sandwich and a slightly more generous luggage allowance is all that separates a supposedly premium air service and its budget equivalent, is it any wonder hordes decided to desert en masse and put up with endless announcements for duty free and lottery tickets (but only if you have the correct money)?
Many airports too have not aged well. The concrete aesthetic of the early sixties has started to crumble (literally, in some cases) and large parts of Gatwick and Heathrow look better placed as a set from Life On Mars. The Dutch have a marvellous modern airport at Schipol, and even the much older edifice in Athens does a good job of marrying the modern with its classical heritage, the adjoining subway taking you through archaeological strata of the city's past. It feels more like museum than metro. Sadly, the UK equivalent strikes closer to "mundane", and aims at shovelling the maximum amount of passengers through the terminals (or keeping them in holding areas when everything goes pear-shaped).
What's the solution? Huge investment in the airport and transport infrastructure is needed, which is going to be a tall order in the current economic climate. As well as being passenger efficient, terminals also need to plan for the long term and try to get back to a degree of lelegance and style, rather than brute function. Heathrow, by necessity, has spread into a tarmac and concrete eyesore that covers hectares. Gatwick still retains a modest nod to the leafy surroundings, but the adjunct of the creaking rail network and the increase in flights (and the lung-dissolving kerosene fumes bathing the terminals) is doing nothing to win over environmentalists over planned expansion.
Care and effort must be taken in planning modernisation, not just for modernism's sake (such as the collapsing terminal at Charles de Gaulle) but also so that some of the impact the airport will have will be mitigated. Having a generally nicer place to fly from will make the whole travel experience much better and may even encourage airlines to up their game accordingly.
SHARE
