Why did it take the jetliner to kill the TA ocean liner business

Why did it take the entry of the jetliner in 1958 to kill off the ocean liners? If you look at the old piston powered planes like the DC-7 and Super Constellation, they are already able to travel nonstop across the Atlantic in under 16 hours, way faster than an ocean liner which takes 5 days. So why did it take the arrival of the 707 and DC-8 to make passengers finally switch from ocean liners to jetliners? Because although air travel took up an increasing market share of TA travel until 1957, passenger numbers for TA ocean liners only started dropping with the introduction of the 707 and DC-8.

Interesting question. But times have changed, and the population is living longer with various health conditions that prohibit airline travel. So my guess is that as we age, ocean voyages to cross the Atlantic will increase in popularity. Don't give up the ship:) -S.

Edited to add: although it would be nice to return to the days when crossing the Atlantic by ship took 4 or 5 days, as an added option to the longer 6, 7 or 8 day crossings.

Interesting question. But times have changed, and the population is living longer with various health conditions that prohibit airline travel. So my guess is that as we age, ocean voyages to cross the Atlantic will increase in popularity. Don't give up the ship:) -S.

 

Edited to add: although it would be nice to return to the days when crossing the Atlantic by ship took 4 or 5 days.

I am just wondering why did it take the 707 to kill off the ocean liner when the prop planes have been able to get across the Atlantic faster since the 40s.

I am just wondering why did it take the 707 to kill off the ocean liner when the prop planes have been able to get across the Atlantic faster since the 40s.

Maybe because prop lanes didn't carry many passengers?

Ocean liners were not totally killed off...there is still one left. And my theory is that she provides a good service that will increase in popularity.

Maybe because prop lanes didn't carry many passengers?

 

Ocean liners were not totally killed off...there is still one left. And my theory is that she provides a good service that will increase in popularity.

My own theory was around noise and vibrations or prop vs a jetliner?

imo, the 707 enabled the airlines to offer flights to the masses in terms of pricing.

Prior to that, flight trips where a pretty pricey endeavour and TA passages could compete on that field.

The 707 was a gamechanger.

Previously:

TA passage slower but cheaper

Flight faster but more expensive

After:

TA passage slower AND more expensive

Flight faster AND cheaper

I would have thought the cost for flying was reduced when the 707 came into service which got people going by plane rather than ship.:D

When commercial jets began transatlantic flights a process began where the price of tickets was driven downwards. People from Europe were still holidaying in Europe by aircraft and acceptability by a wider range of people to this mode of travel boomed. Many then saw USA as a destination a bit more exotic and attractive than France or Spain from the UK or elsewhere in Europe. So basically air travel boomed. Some of the cruise lines became state subsidised to some extent notably French Line and their government pulled the plug. The French government then state aided the Concorde while the "France" sort of eventually went into mutiny. The big killer diller has got to be Boeing 747 and Pan Am backing the project this made massive savings in overheads for airlines.

I am not knocking anyone, this is just my perception of how things went.

Regards John

When commercial jets began transatlantic flights a process began where the price of tickets was driven downwards. People from Europe were still holidaying in Europe by aircraft and acceptability by a wider range of people to this mode of travel boomed. Many then saw USA as a destination a bit more exotic and attractive than France or Spain from the UK or elsewhere in Europe. So basically air travel boomed. Some of the cruise lines became state subsidised to some extent notably French Line and their government pulled the plug. The French government then state aided the Concorde while the "France" sort of eventually went into mutiny. The big killer diller has got to be Boeing 747 and Pan Am backing the project this made massive savings in overheads for airlines.

 

I am not knocking anyone, this is just my perception of how things went.

 

Regards John

Air travel was actually thrice as expensive in the 60s and 70s compared to today before deregulation, so maybe prices were comparable?

I travelled once on a Bristol Britannia from Gatwick to Majorca in the mid- sixties - I wouldn't want to repeat the experience - the throbbing from the engines made it somewhat of an endurance and that was a 3 1/2 hour flight.

Tourist class in those days was not the most pleasant way to cross. "Steerage" was in the most motion prone part of the ship, bathrooms were down the hall, one roomed with three strangers in bunk type berths, and evening entertainment limited to non-existent. Separation by class was very strict compared to the few set-aside areas for high fare passengers as is common today.

Five hours of being jammed into a jet liner seemed like a better deal than five days of bouncing and vomiting on an ocean liner. And, one got to spend more vacation time being there rather than getting there. (Something I can relate to - longer TA crossings limit my itineraries as they would exhaust my vacation time.)

Tourist class in those days was not the most pleasant way to cross. "Steerage" was in the most motion prone part of the ship, bathrooms were down the hall, one roomed with three strangers in bunk type berths, and evening entertainment limited to non-existent. Separation by class was very strict compared to the few set-aside areas for high fare passengers as is common today.

 

Five hours of being jammed into a jet liner seemed like a better deal than five days of bouncing and vomiting on an ocean liner. And, one got to spend more vacation time being there rather than getting there. (Something I can relate to - longer TA crossings limit my itineraries as they would exhaust my vacation time.)

Good points, time vs price and the airfares soon won both ways.:D

Is it just me or does it seem, now days, that many of the major players in the airline industry are actually struggling to make ends meet?

With so much competition from budget carriers and the ever rising cost of fuel..

People often ask me, why do I cruise? Why don't I just get on a plane and travel Europe or America etc and frankly, (of coarse things would be different if money was of no worry) but for what I pay for my local Cruises are usually only slightly more than what I would pay just for the return flight overseas. The big difference being that the cruise is my actual holiday and can last 1-2 weeks where as the over seas flight is just the transportation, accomodation, food, transfers etc all still need to be added ontop! Out of my close group of friends, I may not have travelled the furthest but I have certainly spent a lot more time on vacation than all of them due to the great value holidays that cruising offers :)

Something an airline company can never claim is that the plane itself is the destination and in my personal opinion 'getting there is half the fun' because it isn't. Ships will always have the upper hand in this respect as they offer both transportation/destination in one.

Now if they would just speed them back up a bit.......:D

Is it just me or does it seem, now days, that many of the major players in the airline industry are actually struggling to make ends meet?

With so much competition from budget carriers and the ever rising cost of fuel..

 

People often ask me, why do I cruise? Why don't I just get on a plane and travel Europe or America etc and frankly, (of coarse things would be different if money was of no worry) but for what I pay for my local Cruises are usually only slightly more than what I would pay just for the return flight overseas. The big difference being that the cruise is my actual holiday and can last 1-2 weeks where as the over seas flight is just the transportation, accomodation, food, transfers etc all still need to be added ontop! Out of my close group of friends, I may not have travelled the furthest but I have certainly spent a lot more time on vacation than all of them due to the great value holidays that cruising offers :)

 

Something an airline company can never claim is that the plane itself is the destination and in my personal opinion 'getting there is half the fun' because it isn't. Ships will always have the upper hand in this respect as they offer both transportation/destination in one.

Agreed, days in port are wonderful, seeing new places and experiencing different cultures but the sea days in between are heaven.:D

The DC-7 and Superconnies were not that big..about 50-70 passengers only they just look big in pictures..My uncle traveled a lot for business and he did not like to fly and was always saying the prop planes had more troubles with bad weather..delays and very turbulent trips due to the fact they only could fly up to about 22,000 feet. People were still leery of flying, thinking it not that safe ..The jets changed everything..they also ruined the overnight passenger train in the USA..until the 1960s there were many overnight sleeper trains..with the jets you could fly out in the AM and still make your meetings and be home that night...My Uncle liked train travel thou when the jets really increased in numbers he said his company did not want him spending all that time on train travel and told him to fly..Jet travel was all the rage in the early 1960s and the ships and trains suffered..plus every government was pouring money into the airlines and airports. at the expense of railroads and shipping lines

The DC-7 and Superconnies were not that big..about 50-70 passengers only they just look big in pictures..My uncle traveled a lot for business and he did not like to fly and was always saying the prop planes had more troubles with bad weather..delays and very turbulent trips due to the fact they only could fly up to about 22,000 feet. People were still leery of flying, thinking it not that safe ..The jets changed everything..they also ruined the overnight passenger train in the USA..until the 1960s there were many overnight sleeper trains..with the jets you could fly out in the AM and still make your meetings and be home that night...My Uncle liked train travel thou when the jets really increased in numbers he said his company did not want him spending all that time on train travel and told him to fly..Jet travel was all the rage in the early 1960s and the ships and trains suffered..plus every government was pouring money into the airlines and airports. at the expense of railroads and shipping lines

Efficiency is key and convenience takes priority.

For those who wish not to fly, there are slower alternatives.

If your employer is considering an aircraft as the only and mandatory mode of transportation which you prefer to avoid, you can always explore other career opportunities that may allow travel via car, train or boat.

Aviation made massive advances during WWII. Rapid progress and experience with war-time aircraft enabled developments in post-war 'planes (from Boeing, Douglas etc). The world's first passenger jet, the Comet (DeHavilland) entered service in '52 (with the 707 and DC8 waiting in the wings (pun intended :D )).

Even prior to the introduction of jets across the pond, the journey was fast compared with sailing, twelve hours compared to five days (or longer). But the flights were noisy and uncomfortable, and a ticket as expensive, or more so, than First Class on an express liner. The journey was to be endured, rather than enjoyed.

Jets brought the time down to eight hours, and were smoother/more comfortable for passengers. They massively increased revenue as jets were generally larger with more “bums on seats”, so earned more money per flight (and more flights per year per aircraft) and reduced overall operating costs.

In 1958 more people (1,200,000) crossed by sea than ever, but from then the number of people sailing declined. In 1959 only 882,000 sailed across (1.5 million flew the Atlantic). And so on... in '61 750,000 by sea, 2 million by air. In '65 only 650,000 sailed across while over 4 million enjoyed flying across. By the late 60s twenty times as many people flew, as sailed.

(However during the 60s there were far more aircraft seats available than passengers to sit in them. Fares were cut to encourage bookings which reduced profits, or for state-owned airlines increased losses (BOAC lost over $35 million in one year alone). However it was still cheaper to sail across than fly (for example, the average tourist class ticket $200 by ship, $230 by 'plane))

In Feb ‘63 QE sailed FULL on a five-day round-trip cruise from New York to the Bahamas (tickets from $145). It didn’t make a profit. Designed for the North Atlantic, she didn’t, at that time, have an outside pool and wasn’t fully air-conditioned, so was unsuited to cruising. Cunard’s extremely formal service standards, at home on the North Atlantic, were ill-suited to relaxed care-free casual holidays in the sun, either in the Caribbean or Mediterranean (and Cunard tried to make a success of cruising in both).

Times and people had changed, the swinging sixties and the “jet-set” had arrived, yet Cunard’s mind-set was stuck firmly in the 30s and 40s. Amazingly even the new “space-age”-“ships have been boring long enough” QE2 was provided with several tiny servants bedrooms alongside some suites, despite that even in the 50s in a whole year of sailings on both "Queens", less than fifty people travelled with a servant.

Ships were no longer the only way to cross and if you going on holiday, why choose to spend a week getting there and a week getting back, when you could fly over in a few hours and have far longer at your destination?

I have personal experience of this attitude. Recently I tried to encourage a family to cross to America by QM2 as “Your holiday will start the moment you step on board in Southampton” - “Sorry, but we’re not spending a week travelling anywhere, we’ll be on holiday in New York while your ship is still passing the Isle of Wight” :( .

However, having said all of the above, I think you wanted to discuss propeller-driven aircraft v jet airplanes, not crossing by sea v flying across (or have I miss-read your original question?) If that is so, then I’m not totally convinced that a cruise-ship forum is the best place to ask questions about the history of passenger aircraft. I apologise if I’ve got that wrong.

Best wishes :) .

“sorry, but we’re not spending a week travelling anywhere, we’ll be on holiday in new york while your ship is still passing the isle of wight” .

:d:d:d

Recalling a Lockheed flight from New York, refueling in Gander, then again at Shannon after paddling across the Atlantic, before finally getting to London, it is easy to see why 4 or 5 days at sea was a good alternative. The non-stop 707, so much faster, more comfortable, and less expensive made the decision easy.

Recalling a Lockheed flight from New York, refueling in Gander, then again at Shannon after paddling across the Atlantic, before finally getting to London, it is easy to see why 4 or 5 days at sea was a good alternative. The non-stop 707, so much faster, more comfortable, and less expensive made the decision easy.

We made much the same flight on a prop plane. Fuel stops, flying low in the turbulence, looking out the window at ice forming on the wings, the droning of the engines, yes, it all was not as nice as being onboard a ship but you could be over there tomorrow instead of next week. :D

.

 

:d:d:d

I agree it is funny but they also have a point, I suppose it really depends on how you want to spend your holidays.:D

 

Ocean liners were not totally killed off...there is still one left. And my theory is that she provides a good service that will increase in popularity.

I'm not so sure, Salacia. IMO, Queen Mary 2 seems as if she is going through the motions of a transatlantic liner, with her slower speeds and longer crossings. She is, of course, the last link to the golden age of ocean liners, even though she is slowly being reduced to a theme park.

For me, the end of the purebred ocean liner began with the withdrawal from service of ships that carried on regular "line" voyages...the France, the United States, Raffaello, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, and finally QE2.

We can debate this over the second round of drinks (on me) in the Commodore Club ;).

I agree it is funny but they also have a point, I suppose it really depends on how you want to spend your holidays.:D

I am a firm believer in "To each his own", it's what makes the world go round. :D

I am a firm believer in "To each his own", it's what makes the world go round. :D

Yes, the trouble is I like them both, travelling by cruise and exploring by land.