Canada

You my friend are single serving

Like in the 60s, the IBM 3.5mb hard drive went for $35,000 a month. Now the 24,000,000mb drives are $370.

Phill Edwards has a great video talking about the changes in airlines, while focused on the US market, it has a wide impact to the entire industry.

As a matter of fact after looking into this a little more, it's cheaper to fly now for several reasons. Not just economy of scale but also the technology.

(Note: All 1970 figures are adjusted for inflation to 2024 U.S. dollars using a CPI multiplier of approximately 8.04. We assume a 1970 jet fuel price of $0.11/gallon and a 2024 price of $2.50/gallon.)

Cost Analysis: 707 vs. 737 MAX 8 Aircraft & Capacity

• Purchase Price (Market Value):
  • 707-320B (1970): $8.0 Million
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $64.32 Million
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $55 Million
  • Change (Real Terms): -14.5%
• Typical Seats (Mixed/Typical):
  • 707-320B (1970): 145
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 145
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 166
  • Change (Real Terms): +14.5%
• Industry Load Factor (LF):
  • 707-320B (1970): 49.3%
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 49.3%
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 85.0%
  • Change (Real Terms): +35.7 pts
• Avg. Passengers per Flight:
  • 707-320B (1970): 71.5
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 71.5
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 141.1
  • Change (Real Terms): +97.3% Efficiency Metrics
• Engines:
  • 707-320B (1970): 4 (Low-bypass)
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 4
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 2 (High-bypass)
  • Change (Real Terms): -50%
• Cockpit Crew:
  • 707-320B (1970): 3–4
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 3–4
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 2
  • Change (Real Terms): -33% to -50%
• Fuel Burn (Gallons/Hour):
  • 707-320B (1970): 2,500
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 2,500
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 580
  • Change (Real Terms): -76.8% Hourly Operating Costs (Est.)
• Fuel Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $275.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $2,211
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $1,450
  • Change (Real Terms): -34.4%
• Crew Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $250.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $2,010
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $850
  • Change (Real Terms): -57.7%
• Maintenance Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $150.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $1,206
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $750
  • Change (Real Terms): -37.8%
• Total Hourly Op. Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $675.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $5,427
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $3,050
  • Change (Real Terms): -43.8% Economics & Pricing
• Cost per Seat Hour:
  • 707-320B (1970): $4.66
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $37.43
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $18.37
  • Change (Real Terms): -50.9%
• Cost per Passenger Hour:
  • 707-320B (1970): $9.44
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $75.90
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $21.62
  • Change (Real Terms): -71.5%

(Note: Hourly Operating Costs focus on Fuel, Crew, and Maintenance for direct comparison of operational efficiency.)

This direct comparison between two similarly sized narrow-body aircraft reveals a profound improvement in aviation economics over the past 50 years.

1. Acquisition Costs and Capacity: Remarkably, the 737 MAX 8 is actually cheaper in real terms (-14.5%) than the Boeing 707 was in 1970. The 707 was expensive, state-of-the-art technology for its time. Manufacturing efficiencies and the massive scale of the 737 program have driven down the real acquisition cost of modern narrow-bodies, despite their increased complexity. Furthermore, the 737 MAX 8 carries about 14.5% more seats (166 vs. 145) due to modern, denser seating configurations.

2. The Fuel Efficiency Chasm: This is the most striking technological difference. The 707 utilized four early-generation, low-bypass engines that were incredibly thirsty, burning about 2,500 gallons per hour. The 737 MAX 8, utilizing two highly advanced, high-bypass CFM LEAP engines, burns only 580 gallons per hour. This represents a 76.8% reduction in fuel burn per hour.

3. Operating Costs Plummet: When comparing these two aircraft, the total hourly operating cost of the 737 MAX 8 is 43.8% lower in real terms than the 707.

• Fuel Costs: Despite the massive increase in the price of jet fuel (from $0.11 to $2.50), the efficiency gains are so profound that the real cost of fuel per hour is 34.4% lower today.
• Crew Costs: Real crew costs are down 57.7%. This is driven by the elimination of the Flight Engineer and Navigator roles required on the 707, standardizing the two-person cockpit.
• Maintenance Costs: Real maintenance costs are down 37.8%. A major driver here is the shift from four engines on the 707 to two engines on the 737 MAX 8, significantly reducing engine maintenance overhead and benefiting from improved reliability.

4. The Impact of Utilization: The technological improvements are magnified by changes in airline business practices following deregulation. The shift from planes flying half-empty (49.3% load factor) to nearly full (85.0% load factor) is crucial.

The combined effect of higher seating density and better load factors means the average 737 MAX 8 flight carries 141.1 passengers, nearly double the 71.5 passengers carried on the average 707 flight (+97.3%). Conclusion

When comparing the Boeing 707 directly to the modern 737 MAX 8, the advancements are extraordinary. The modern aircraft is cheaper to buy (in real terms), carries more seats, and costs nearly half as much to operate per hour.

By combining a 43.8% reduction in hourly costs with a 97.3% increase in passengers per flight, the inflation-adjusted cost to the airline to fly one passenger for one hour has decreased by a staggering 71.5% (from $75.90 to $21.62).

They're also a lot more planes today.

Why should people be able to fly for cheap?

Air travel is the single biggest contributor to CO2 pollution that the average person produces. Environmentally speaking, air travel should more expensive.

And we have overtourism running rampant now precisely because air travel is now so cheap, destroying many local economies in tourism hot spots.

People bitch and moan about airlines, but the only problem I have had with airlines is the passengers.

No one had to fly beside some sweaty fat fuck in flip flops in 1965.

The only difference is societal acceptance.

Cramming in one more row of passengers means you get more passengers per flight => each passenger costs less to fly.

I don’t actually know if they’re going to fit in one more row though. Maybe the non-reclining seats are lighter in weight? That would save money on fuel costs.

If the system for optional reclining seats actually adds weight to the plane then they’re taking a gamble that enough passengers will pay extra for the reclining to pay for the additional fuel costs. That could backfire!

In a lot of ways this seems like an experiment that could backfire, even if it doesn’t risk increasing flight costs on some flights. Only time will tell!