You must log in or # to comment.
This style of chart is fucking awful. Can it obfuscate information in any worse way?
I found it easy to read personally. Not sure I’m a fan of it, but everything seems laid out half decently.
Feel free to post a better one!
I, too, hate this style of chart.
This doesn’t add up when you realise economy is treated like shit and first class gets the royal treatment. The seats aren’t worth it, what’s the reason for keeping them and why hasn’t shrinkflation hit this market?
Were they gifted this plane making the flight or am I just not understanding where price of the plane itself is being paid. Is that the depreciation bit?
Sources: Aviation Stack Exchange
If a citation is going to point to any of the Stack Exchange Q&A pages, it is extremely important to specifically cite the exact post or answer, since – not dissimilar to Wikipedia – the quality, consistency, and biases of Stack Exchange answers is paramount for evaluating the information presented, especially factual data to be fed into an infographic.
I personally am intrigued at these $800 economy, ten-hour flights, as well as a total omission of freight cargo in the underbelly. As presented, this flight has 180 passengers and runs for ten hours. This would suggest it’s not a common narrow-body, either the Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320, as even their largest available configurations can’t fit 180 people in a 2 class setup, let alone a 3 class setup. It could possibly be the Airbus A321, though.
My point is that if it’s a widebody aircraft or the A321, not hauling cargo would be some staggering malfeasance for a commercial revenue airliner. But I can’t follow-up on any of these queries, since the sources aren’t properly cited.
