What Travel Will Look Like After Coronavirus (wsj.com) 103
When will we be traveling again in large numbers? And what will travel be like in the future? The first question depends on a medical solution to the coronavirus pandemic. The second is best answered with experience. From a report: I asked eight travel pioneers for predictions on what the future of travel will be -- current and former chairmen and chief executives of travel companies and a former secretary of transportation. All have experience from past crises and recoveries. Most foresee a lasting decline in business travel, but think leisure travel will bounce back robustly. That means airlines and hotels will have to change their business plans, being unable to rely as much on rich revenue from corporate travelers. Expect higher ticket prices and room rates for vacationers to cover the costs with fewer high-dollar customers to subsidize bargain-seekers.
"The airline industry is going to have to examine its business plan," says Robert Crandall, former chief executive of American Airlines. "You are never going to see the volume of business travel that you've seen in the past." He estimates one-third to one-half of business travel will go away. More meetings will take place electronically. Trips once thought necessary will be seen as superfluous. "Everybody who depends on business travel is going to have to rethink their game plan," Mr. Crandall says. The pandemic has forced widespread, rapid adoption of videoconferencing technology. The technology is mature, easy to use and available on any device.
"The airline industry is going to have to examine its business plan," says Robert Crandall, former chief executive of American Airlines. "You are never going to see the volume of business travel that you've seen in the past." He estimates one-third to one-half of business travel will go away. More meetings will take place electronically. Trips once thought necessary will be seen as superfluous. "Everybody who depends on business travel is going to have to rethink their game plan," Mr. Crandall says. The pandemic has forced widespread, rapid adoption of videoconferencing technology. The technology is mature, easy to use and available on any device.
Never is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
You are never going to see the volume of business travel that you've seen in the past.
"Never" is a long time. It's not like Skype/Zoom/Teams/Teleconferencing are new things, they've been around for as long as I've been in the workforce. Hard to install hardware at a remote location over the phone. Conferences are going to come back. Shaking hands to close a business deal is going to come back. And gigantic corporate expense accounts aren't going anywhere.
Re:Never is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
"Never" is a long time. It's not like Skype/Zoom/Teams/Teleconferencing are new things, they've been around for as long as I've been in the workforce.
While I agree that a drop of 1/3 to 1/2 of business travel seems bigger than I would guess, it isn't that important how long teleconferencing has existed because the entire world was never forced to use them exclusively for 6+ months. There are bound to be a number of business functions that people thought needed to be done in person which they would now have a hard time justifying thousands of dollars of travel expenses.
All of those things you mention will come back, but the question is to what extent.
Airlines have Been Helping (Score:5, Insightful)
There are bound to be a number of business functions that people thought needed to be done in person which they would now have a hard time justifying thousands of dollars of travel expenses.
I agree that this is what is probably going to be the driving force behind any change. However, given that the airlines have spent years doing their best to encourage travelers to find any way they can to avoid flying I'm not sure how big this impact is going to end up being. Most people look for ways to avoid flying, not ways to justify the expense.
In fact, perhaps the one big change maybe that airlines will start making flying more tolerable because they are going to need to persuade people to choose flying over a video conference if they want to regain business in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
However, given that the airlines have spent years doing their best to encourage travelers to find any way they can to avoid flying
I'm not sure what you mean by this? Cutting costs for travelers almost continuously to the point of making it the fastest and cheapest mode of transport for basically any destination outside of a 300km radius? People keep going on how flying is a horrible experience, yet the experience is unchanged from the 70s. Airlines have simply introduced lower cheaper tiers. That original top quality experience is still there but those people complaining the most are also those who have voted with their wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
H.... People keep going on how flying is a horrible experience, yet the experience is unchanged from the 70s.....
Being old enough to have actually flown in the 1970's, I can state with certainty the experience has changed, for the worse. Fares can be much cheaper, but, the experience is horrid. Start with the overcrowded aircraft cabins, featuring seating unsuitable for an adult - much arrower, far more uncomfortable, with minimal leg room, and very little seat adjustment. Much narrower aisles, and reduced available in-cabin storage.
The loss of meal service ended a small perk that made many two to four hour flights much more tolerable, especially if you had to travel during meal times.
Not seen in the 70's is the never-ending creation of new surcharges, mostly for services that once were included in the ticket price (meals and a realistic luggage allowance are two prime examples).
Finally, bewildering and illogical ticket prices. A direct flight taking 3 hours between points A and B is often much more expensive than a 7 hour flight between A and B, that follows a meandering route, with multiple stops that either have very long lay-overs, or, impossibly short connection times.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you didn't fly in the 70's then...
Back then...
No security lines
No baggage fees
Food included
Almost always on time and cancellations were uncommon
Bigger and more comfortable seats
Some things are better now
Smoking not allowed
Flight attendants can be normal people instead of only young girls that weigh under 125 lbs
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh a list, let's go through it.
Security lines: Not in control of airlines and 100% on the airport itself. However if you want to pay 1970s prices pretty much every airport in the world will express wave you through security and you won't have lines even in peak hour.
Baggage fees: You've always had baggage fees. The only difference is now for Economy and Premium Economy classes you have the choice on some flights not to pay them, a very consumer friendly move, one that can get you across the continent for
The 1870s? (Score:2)
People keep going on how flying is a horrible experience, yet the experience is unchanged from the 70s.
I agree - but don't you think flying in a modern passenger jet should offer a far better flying experience than a Victoria hot air balloon in the 1870s where everyone was crowded together in a tiny basket with no clue when, or even whether, they were going to get to their destination?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - but don't you think flying in a modern passenger jet should offer a far better flying experience than a Victoria hot air balloon in the 1870s where everyone was crowded together in a tiny basket with no clue when, or even whether, they were going to get to their destination?
Not sure what you're talking about. You couldn't get a Victorian era hot air balloon ride for the equivalent of $40 to another country, it was an activity for rich people. And rich people still happily pay 1970s era prices on flights, aren't cramped, have premium service, better food, a seat that folds down to a complete bed (on some flights like QANTAS the staff will even make the bed for you while you put on your pajamas). Oh and even on cheap shit flights you do only pay a few dollars for the captain giv
Re: (Score:2)
You might be able to attribute the drop in quality from the 1970's to the 1990's as due to the drop in price of a ticket - I do not know what tickets cost in the 1970s and 1980s. But from the 19
Re: (Score:2)
the prices have not changed noticeably
So what you're saying is it's gotten cheaper? Inflation from 1990 to today is almost exactly double, 203.7%. And that's kind of my point. I flew intercontinental in the early 90s for about $2300 (cheapest flight because we flew that stretch a lot). That same stretch cheapest flight is now $1800, which doesn't sound like much less but that would be $900 in early 90s dollars. And that's intercontinental where they still offer food and baggage allowance, and a full service flight.
For shits and giggles the last
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
travelling by air in the 60's, sitting in big comfy seats and with
cute stewardesses fussing about them.
What they forget is that those passengers were paying a lot more
than what first class charges now, after adjusting for inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Also people who only know from looking at pictures have zero appreciation for how uncomfortable those seats were. A modern business class seat is many orders of magnitude more comfortable and even folds into a lay flat bed.
Also also, food. People point to pictures of dining in the air. Unfortunately research into human taste sensation at low pressures wasn't actively conducted until the late 80s and early 90s. Sure that may look like a nice steak in that 60s picture but it made people who ate it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Being able to just shoot the shit with a customer before/after a meeting, or at a lunch/dinner is just something you don't get with a webex, but it's an important part of the process.
I think this is going to be biggest driver of business travel coming back.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to just shoot the shit with a customer before/after a meeting, or at a lunch/dinner is just something you don't get with a webex, but it's an important part of the process.
I think this is going to be biggest driver of business travel coming back.
The self interest/ desire for people to have the perks (lunch, time to socialise, "maybe I'll see that while I'm in this city", ...) that went with travel - especially by those high enough to hold the purse strings will see it return.
But a lot of workers will just have to work out how to build that social relationship for closing the sale in other ways (yes that will be a herculean task sometimes).
Re: (Score:3)
The only people who think that socializing on business trips is essential to business are sales and marketing people. They don't realize that buyers have to buy from someone; business will go on regardless of whether the salesman gets his fix of face time and his fill of booze and other perks.
Business travel time is a dead loss. Hotel bills and expensive dinners are a waste.
As an engineer, more than half of the visits from salesmen were nuisances; the only thing of value imparted was they sometimes left beh
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is bribes/kickbacks and such are much better done in person. Perhaps this will make business more honest.
Re: (Score:3)
As a retired engineering manager, I disagree that it's only for sales/marketing. We always tried to have some sort of socialization on these trips below.
I went on plenty of business trips where we were working with other companies to develop a product as a team with another company.
I also went on many to explain our plans to customers, as well as getting direct feedback on requirements, and design. At virtually every social event after the meetings, the business discussions continued. You won't get that o
Re: (Score:2)
Shaking hands to close a business deal is going to come back.
Preferably not with the spitting in your hand first to “clean it”, never is too soon to bring that back.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we could brig back the mutual blood-letting, AKA blood brothers/sisters?
Draw the ceremonial knife, slice open your hands/forearms, and mingle each others' blood.
Re: (Score:1)
You're saying things, but you're not justifying them.
> they've been around for as long as I've been in the workforce
Yet until they were recently forced to, many companies hadn't invested in rolling them out across the business. They've made that investment now because they had to, so why would they waste an investment they've now made to instead pay loads of money for what is now unnecessary travel due to this investment?
> Hard to install hardware at a remote location over the phone.
Of course, that's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying things, but you're not justifying them.
It's merely my opinion. I don't have to justify shit. Especially to an AC. Further, you literally just did the same thing: Voiced your opinion without a single sourced fact.
many companies hadn't invested in rolling them out across the business.
Where's the last place you've worked at that didn't have skype? It's been a part of Office for how long now? They may not have used it like they have been lately, but it was there.
now people have invested in doing that and you can achieve higher attendance for less overhead
I think you underestimate the social nature of people. I've been to a couple of "online concerts", while they are indeed awful, it's the best we have. D
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shaking hands to close a business deal is going to come back. And gigantic corporate expense accounts aren't going anywhere.
On the other hand, clients who previously insisted on consultants being on site have been seeing no drop in performance but a big drop in the monthly invoices from consultancies, because travel and accommodation are suddenly out of the game.
For a couple of my clients, my work volume actually increased, as that dead money could suddenly be put to something more productive than my backside on a plane or in a motel room.
So yes, there may be a bounce-back for sales folk, but a lot of stuff that was forced remot
Re: (Score:2)
but a lot of stuff that was forced remote is probably going to stay that way.
I'd love to agree with you, but I just don't see it. Most of the people in charge of companies are still 60-year old men. They that "grew up" in the business world with technology around, but they are still the generation that grew up rubbing elbows and view that as an essential part of business. I see it in my current company...the statement from leadership was to the effect of "most teams have done extremely well adapting to a remote work environment, but at our core we are a 'work from the office' com
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people in charge of companies are still 60-year old men. They that "grew up" in the business world with technology around, but they are still the generation that grew up rubbing elbows and view that as an essential part of business..
If this particular round of COVID does not fix that a future pathogen will.
Re: (Score:2)
but a lot of stuff that was forced remote is probably going to stay that way.
I'd love to agree with you, but I just don't see it. Most of the people in charge of companies are still 60-year old men. They that "grew up" in the business world with technology around, but they are still the generation that grew up rubbing elbows and view that as an essential part of business. I see it in my current company...the statement from leadership was to the effect of "most teams have done extremely well adapting to a remote work environment, but at our core we are a 'work from the office' company and will be returning to such as soon as possible." I'd be happy proven wrong, I love working from home.
They will go away eventually because money talks and if their big competitor suddenly gets ahead through $ or time savings by doing it remotely then they will either change their ways (unlikely), get replaced (unlikely) or the company will just continue to lose market share/ go out of business.
I know that my company have just announced yesterday they are going to "remote first" permanently (ie office is now officially an optional thing).
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's worked with remote teams over the last 20+ years, I'd argue that you simply can NOT be as efficient as a group in the same lab/building. You miss all of the water cooler/hallway discussions, and social events where people share things you wouldn't learn otherwise.
Also, tribalism didn't start with politics (not say that you said so...but it affects teamwork). When something goes wrong, who do we all blame...it's the other group...those other guys did it wrong. You see it in every business
Re: (Score:2)
We view it that way because it is that way. If you had to make a sale online through zoom, skype, etc., vs. making your pitch in person and then socializing afterward, I guarantee you're going to make fewer sales. When you make a social connection with someone, they're much more likely to trust, and buy from you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're underestimating the strength of cultural inertia in a corporate environment. The reason people used to fly out for meetings was simply because that's how things are done. After all, flights aren't as cheap as Skype calls. They certainly aren't as fast as Skype calls. And they generally aren't anywhere close to as productive as Skype calls once you consider all the lost productivity while waiting in terminals or on the flight. Sure, a person might Skype someone living on the other side of the globe be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Put yourself in the shoes of a typical Program Manager. Are you gonna do things some new way, and take a risk? Who gets blamed when the delays/overruns happen then? If you do things the way they've always been done, you can still stand up in the bosses review and safely say it was something else. It was the same with buying IBM many years ago...people did it because it gave the appearance of low risk. There was literally a phrase "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but now that that dam has broken with everyone working from home, people have seen that it isn't a risk and that it does work. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's no longer the perceived risk it once was.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, much more could be accomplished remotely than previously believed. But, there is much that is more productively done in person. Before retiring last year, I was part of an engineering organization that has several hundred employees over a couple dozen locations for 37 years. So, I've got a bit of experience in doing remote work. I've also spent part of those years on software dev projects that were both local and some with remote teammates (or other companies). You'll never get as much produ
The problem is that this shows how much business (Score:2)
Sure, You'll still see some business travel to close deals, business people like to read body language to check if they're being ripped off. But you'll see a lot of other types of travel, like say for training, done remotely. You'll see a lot more work from home too.
Re: (Score:2)
Install *what* hardware? Videoconferencing can be done by anybody with any smartphone or tablet that's come out in the last 5 years or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Please disregard the foregoing--judging by subsequent replies, I think I took your remark in the wrong context. Sorry about that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Never" is a long time. It's not like Skype/Zoom/Teams/Teleconferencing are new things, they've been around for as long as I've been in the workforce.
Indeed, but just like the introduction of a car which many people viewed skeptically, it often takes experience to warm up to an idea. What's the saying, "Don't knock it till you've tried it". Well teleconferencing has been tried by more people in more scenarios than ever before, and there's absolutely going to be an affect as a result.
Re: Never is a long time (Score:2)
Not in our house (Score:2)
Re: Not in our house (Score:2)
Exactly this, I've been chasing work from my team for ages. Had our first face to face last week and got everything done in one session. The quality of a lot of collaborative work massively increases with face to face time.
Oh, I don't think so. (Score:2)
People are only afraid of COVID because it is on their minds at the moment, and also because restrictions are still being enforced by governments around the world. Once we have a proper vaccine, people will feel safe again and return to old habits like nothing happened.
We don't remember lessons learned, that isn't how people operate. In America at least, most people are extroverts,who don't have paranoia about disease exposure, and who LOVE travelling. That will overpower any vague fears about some appar
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever savings businesses are realizing by having video conferencing instead of sending people on-site will be overpowered by their leadership's own preference for travel
Absolutely. Because travel is a perk, whether it is written in the contract or not. It's why management does lots and front line workers not so much, even if it would actually benefit the company more.
It's basically so they can brag to each other how much more effective they are over a few drinks at the hotel bar.
Hopefully less crowded, better customer service (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to get people back to travel, especially as it's very likely that a magic vaccine isn't going to make COVID disappear for a considerable time into the future, I would hope there would be a return to customer service. Airlines that don't throw you off or beat you up, maybe pack you in less like sardines. Cruise ships that aren't trying to pack ten thousand people together for a blitzkrieg through the Caribbean but rather designed to give a great experience, restaurants that aren't trying to feed you quick and get you out, etc. All of this will be done in recognition that traditional business demands are evaporating, as we're proving daily that travel isn't really needed for most of that. Business travel is necessarily economy: employees being sent have little choice, and have to take what they're given and like it.
The flipside is that it's going to be more expensive. It will have to be more expensive anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping (but not at all optimistic) that this might finally force the US to build regional train systems, at the very least, up and down the coasts.
Re: (Score:3)
I listened to an interesting discussion on the radio today that mentioned that the SARS-COV-19 virus is closer to the common cold than it is to influenza. Reasonably effective vaccines are available for the latter ``class'' of viruses but may never be for the former.
``The New Normal'' may really suck.
Re:Hopefully less crowded, better customer service (Score:4, Interesting)
It's always been true.
The "Common Cold" (not to be confused with the flu) consists of several different viruses, two of the main ones are Rhinovirus and Coronavirus. (Yes, SARS, SARS-CoV-2, etc are still part of the coronavirus family of viruses). So yes, it's basically a cold virus. Just one that has serious complications attached to it.
Influenza, which is what people refer to as "The Flu" is a single class of viruses. You recognize this because we often distinguish them by their characteristic proteins, that's where we get the HxNy nomenclature (though there are many other proteins as well). Swine flu, avian flu, they are all variations of influenza. And it's what the "flu shot" is all about - it's a vaccine against some strains of the influenza virus, or at least what people predict will be the primary strains.
Traditionally, we worry more about flu because getting it can be quite debilitating - while a cold may get you feeling woozy for a day or so, a flu can have you bedridden for a couple of weeks. That is generally how you tell if you caught the cold or a flu. Even if all you had was the sniffles and felt better later in the day, then you caught a mild cold.
Flu can have bad complications. That's why there's vaccines for them. Colds generally are mild and any protection generally wears off after a few months.
This doesn't mean the vaccine is useless - SARS and MERS aren't really a thing anymore because we contained them until they couldn't spread to anyone and merely disappeared. With enough people vaccinated, the same will happen ' - the virus can't spread anywhere and it too will die out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought there'll be intense competition for your business.
Reduced demand for seats in a restaurant, cruise, or flight *should* mean a price drop, or a combination of price and service, or bonus. Perhaps a free dessert, your first drink free, that sort of thing.
Even if an airline can't fill those profitable business-class seats at full price, it's better to discount them and occupy them, than fly with them empty.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought there'll be intense competition for your business.
Reduced demand for seats in a restaurant, cruise, or flight *should* mean a price drop, or a combination of price and service, or bonus. Perhaps a free dessert, your first drink free, that sort of thing.
Even if an airline can't fill those profitable business-class seats at full price, it's better to discount them and occupy them, than fly with them empty.
We have seen how this plays out already!
The rise of the budget airline - when a crowded market saw an airline not able to fill the business class section at the right price, they ripped it out of the plane and put in economy class seats there (getting roughly 3 seats per business seat removed due to less legroom and narrower). They then change number of flights to meet market demand.
So this is just the move for all airlines to adopt the ryan air type model
Re: (Score:2)
"Reduced demand for seats in a restaurant, cruise, or flight *should* mean a price drop, "
Only if you assume no change in demand elasticity and no change in supply, which is clearly now true. Demand fell for discretionary travel faster than non-discretionary and supply is reduced, so it is just as plausible that new equilibrium is at a higher price. Furthermore, the situation is so dynamic that you can't really expect to see a quasi-static equilibrium anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope there would be a return to customer service. Airlines that don't throw you off or beat you up, maybe pack you in less like sardines.
Every airline I've ever travelled with offer non-sardine tiers of services. If this is important to you why are you unwilling to pay 1980s era non-sardine prices?
The option is there. You can't vote with your wallet and then complain about the result you get. I don't know of any business class passengers who have been punched off a plane, and honestly comparing the entire airline industry to United is like judging a Michelin star restaurant based on that one time you ate out at McDonalds.
The flipside is that it's going to be more expensive. It will have to be more expensive anyway.
This option literall
This was supposed to happen before... (Score:3)
That was supposed to happen back when travel was expensive when oil prices were exploding---remember the days of gas prices hitting $4.50 or more? (Some compoanies were actually beginning to rethink the whole move-the-manufacturing-to-China-where-it's-cheaper idea once the cost of shipping finished goods started costing so much.) At the time my employer took over office space to install special conference rooms with HD video and expensive Cisco networking to support all the meetings between far-flung offices that teams used to travel for. This all lasted, maybe, a couple of years before those conference rooms started going unused and travel resumed. (I guess it's hard to eat out at expensive restaurants on the corporate credit card when you're meeting electronically.) Who knows... maybe this time it'll be different. Cutting into profits is one thing---losing employees to the pandemic is quite another.
Re: (Score:3)
This time is already different simply because we've already been doing it.
The status quo is always hard to dislodge. This is why paper is still in offices, and emails are still the primary means of business communication. They have their benefits, certainly, so we're not saddled with useless tech, but they're mainly still around because of inertia.
Well, the pandemic disrupted travel as the status quo for business. Suddenly people started doing video conference meetings because they were the only option, and
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's hard to eat out at expensive restaurants on the corporate credit card when you're meeting electronically.
Totally is! That's my favorite part about business travel.... there was that one time it was $130 for lunch for two at a quite delicious 5 star Mexican place on Long Island.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the only reason travel is likely to return... self interest in getting more at company $ - especially by those who can influence the budget.
Although it does open your business up to the possibility of being leap frogged by competitors who maintain the virtual only culture.
Re: (Score:2)
That was supposed to happen back when travel was expensive when oil prices were exploding---remember the days of gas prices hitting $4.50 or more?
Heh. Only an American would make that argument. I still lived in the US in those days, but once I moved to Europe, I realized that there are a lot of places where that’s the norm. For example, gas currently costs about 6 and a half bucks in the Netherlands.
https://www.bloomberg.com/grap... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This all lasted, maybe, a couple of years before those conference rooms started going unused and travel resumed.
That's because the premise turned out to be false. COVID peculiarity aside the oil price is far higher than $4.50 and flying has never been cheaper. These crippling high costs never eventuated and at the same time teleconferencing was still in its infancy.
What may make this time different is that teleconferencing isn't what it was like back then. You don't need fancy Cisco gear in nicely setup special conference rooms.
Same as before (Score:2)
Except we'll all be riding on ostrich-back for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Travelers unite! (Score:1)
Now is the time to demand comfortable seats that don't require yoga practice. And good food. And service with a smile. And plenty of ty-raps to hold down the drunks. And please, no more emotional support ducks running up and down the aisle
Sneezing (Score:2)
Well I'm sure the first time someone sneezes next to you in public, it will bring back all those COVID memories. And a little getting away from that person.
After a vaccine (Score:2)
Let's assume we come up with a working vaccine that makes Corona all but unheard of in a couple of years. Do you know what will happen?
The risk of catching Corona will stop as many from travelling as the risk of catching measles. It's more or less similarly contagious, dangerous if you get it ... and we have a vaccine so we haven't shut down the world because of it.
Travel will resume. People still want their vacations and handshakes. In a decade we'll be looking back at 2020 and thinking it wasn't all that
For a long term example, Passenger rail. (Score:2)
But the public had found the automobile, and the businessman found the airplane.
By 1960 losses were mounting, and soon few trains would carry people. In 1972, the government took over as AMTRACK. (Not a happy ending!)
Now in 2020, businesses have found Z
Remember (Score:2)
Video (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Masks (Score:1)
Maybe.... (Score:4, Interesting)
but certain things just don't work that well over Zoom. Ask any salesperson and they would surely rather conduct a deal in person. Other tasks, like the kind of work I do, are just fine remotely with the odd Zoom meeting thrown in.
So people will eventually be flying again. Personally, I think the middle seat will be a thing of the past. Fewer seats means that the prices for the remaining seats has to go up. And guess who will end up paying for all that additional cleaning? Us, that's who. On the bright side, it will probably bring an end to the flip flops flyer. The people that get on a plane looking like they just crawled out of bed. A lot of you might be too young to remember this but at one time flying on an airplane was an experience, something you dressed up for, something prestigious. Today it's just a bus in the sky. I think you might see planes reconfigured to provide more first class seats and the higher level of service that goes along with it.
Family vacations, at least for a while, will probably be places they can drive to. With airline ticket prices going up it will be cheaper to just rent a big SUV and pile the kids in and drive somewhere.
Traditionally hotels have been highly reliant on business travelers. I was one for many years and most of the Marriott's I stayed in looked to be almost entirely business travelers. I just don't see as many business people on the road as there were before so the hotels are in a tough spot. Some of them might consider re-configuring some of the rooms as apartments or condos with resort type amenities. Knock the wall down, add a kitchen and a bedroom, and you've got a cozy one bedroom condo. Some of them might even convert completely to apartments. I dunno but they are going to have to come up with something. I just don't see how they can operate at capacity in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ask any salesperson and they would surely rather conduct a deal in person. "
My former employer found that the sales team was more productive without the travel, since they and the people they were trying to contact had more overlapping hours of availability per day. Hours spent on a plane are hours spent NOT making a sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's an interesting perspective. I know that when I was doing consulting and flying all over the place that was my argument to clients that wanted me there in person. If I'm not sitting in airports and on planes that's more time I can devote to doing work for you. Not to mention that it's a whole lot cheaper.
I'm not a salesperson but I've worked with a lot of them. I can see some of the early sales cycle meetings being done on Zoom or over the phone but when it comes time to close the deal I would b
I just wonder... (Score:2)
how many business trips of the past were simply an excuse for some guy to hook up with his mistress away from home? I'm not suggesting that a majority of men do this but I spent many years on business trips and saw plenty of guys with wedding rings on chatting up ladies at the hotel bar. Maybe they were in a bad marriage or just lonely. Who knows? But I just find it interesting how many people are clamoring to get people back in the office and back to traveling.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific conferences (the ones that require the majority of participants to travel, anyway) have long been known as a popular venue for one-night hookups.
WTF is a "travel pioneer"? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure travel isn't a recent phenomenon... so did they somehow manage to interview someone from ancient Chaldea?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of people skied to the South Pole over the last year, that's pretty pioneering.
Color me skeptical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For things to improve, people have to be prepared to pay more.
Without business travel... (Score:3)
Without business travel, you don’t have nearly as many frequent flyer miles and hotel points to be able to do leisure travel. In today’s world, you can’t really have one without the other.
That said... I don’t think either will be impacted nearly as much as people are thinking. There is likely to be a 20% drop in business travel in the first “post-COVID” year compared to 2019, but any more than that would really surprise me. The quality of most virtual tools is good enough for 20% of the work, but the remaining 80% simply works better with face time. (Actually, the tools might be fine for 20%, ok with a loss of productivity for 20%, and completely ineffective for 20%, with the rest somewhere in between. But, there will be a lot of catch-up with training, conferences, and the like to get people re-engaged once it is “safe.”)
Re: (Score:2)
In today’s world, you can’t really have one without the other.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Flying has never been cheaper. Frequent Flyer miles are one of the industry's biggest scams and go mostly unused for anything other than minor service upgrades.
Don't get me wrong, I use mine, but I consider myself an outlier. And even when I do use them they don't factor into my leisure decision. The holiday is decided before the consideration if I can get a discount for the trip or the stay because frankly holidaying costs are tiny compared to what they were
Re: (Score:2)
People that travel *a lot* for pleasure are usually pretty good at gaming points/miles from business travel. It isn’t a question of having the money to do it anyway or not, but it becomes this whole self-supporting culture. Status levels are the other game, but the free upgrades are so hard to come by now that it matters much less. I see it with both individual travellers and families.
These programs also do a lot to get people to the airports and into flying as opposed to much easier driving trips.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree and so does the industry. The points system exists precisely *because* people are in general not good ad gaming points/miles. People do travel a lot for pleasure, but the reality is that this day the airline ticket barely factors into the cost thanks to flying being effectively the cheapest mode of transport there is.
The points system may have preferred one airline over another to get to a destination, but doesn't make a difference whether someone flies on holiday or not. Now I get that i
Video calls are subpar and will always be subpar (Score:2)
Light/Data travels at a maximum speed and even if all people sit in the same city the lag is long enought so that if you want to quickly put in a comment you end up cutting off someone.
Also if you have 10 people with video on too it still sucks bandwidth wise, especially if all traffic has to go over VPN that is for some reason not upser fast.
Any meeting I had has at least one person with shit microphone where you can barely hear them, or echo or some other shit. I am sick of this crap.
The sooner the whole
Optimization (Score:2)
How will this impact seating? (Score:2)
Local is the new trip! (Score:2)
Over land travels change as lack of dynamic mobile health information supercedes highway signs. Minimizing exposure by thru-driving areas with signs of high contagion drives risk avoidance - speed limit signs not so much. Covid fatality rates/100k posted daily will affect route, strategy and go/no-go decisions until countries get a system like the Interstate built online for travel risk navigation.
Air travel, besides proof of health certificates and insurance to keep you alive when you get sick abroad, need
We can only hope... (Score:2)
If less air travel sparks investment in rail and other low cost options, so much the better. Air trips might be something to look forward to with additional incentives to attract travelers.
Now, COVID-19 might not be a game changer, but it is unique that it forced people to make remote collaboration and work happen. And with that, those companies that make it work will be more attractive to workers and more competitive.
I see people talking about how you can't have meetings with more than seven people on Zoom
the best trip and tours in hurghada egypt (Score:1)