When to fly vs drive?

D

drotto

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,162
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
drotto
Simple. Provided there is an airport within reasonable distance of your destination, how far must a drive be before you say the plane is a better option?

Regardless that flying is more fun, I have a weekend trip coming up in a few weeks. The no traffic perfect drive is 2 hrs. The destination airport is about 15 minutes from my destination, and the flight (in an Archer) clocks in on Foreflight at 45 minutes. Figuring 15 to 20 minutes of preflight, and tie down at the destination, total flight and car to destination would be about 1:15 minutes. A savings of 45 minutes. Granted, I can not predict weather, but I can also not predict traffic either. Is this enough of a difference to matter? I should also add that I have tons of things going on that weekend, so my schedule is very tight to start with.
 
No personal plane yet, but my "home" airport is 5 minutes from my house, and I can get an easy rental there.
 
2 hr. drive and must be there ... drive.

If it's a maybe be there ... fly.

You are entering another machine into the equation. Machines break.
 
Not really a must just really want to be. We will be going but no definite time, just visiting friends that will be in that area for a few days.
 
Yep. Fly. But that is coming from an owner. I will drive 45 min north to my airport to fly 30 min south west to meet people (non-pilots) for lunch. There is no logical reason to fly, other than I can.... So I do. :)
 
You have to ask,plan to fly and if weather goes down drive. No big deal.
 
I have a trip coming up Thursday that is similar. It takes me 1.5 hours to drive or about 50 minutes to fly (not considering pre-flight). But, the meeting I am going to is at the destination airport. I will be flying, weather permitting. Much more fun. I have already done enough driving in my life :).
 
I try to talk the g/f into flying whenever possible. We drive separately to the airport and I leave 20 minutes before her to preflight. I enjoy the preflight, she doesn't. I don't count it against the commute, she does.

So if she can pull up, get in the plane and go, all diva like, all the better for her and so be it.

Our 3 y/o brings the equation down some, but that will get better with a couple more birthdays. I hope.

A lot of places around here make the drive much less enjoyable or timely. EG, fun islands that would require parking the car and a ferry ride vs flying directly to the island. Or the mountains that you'd have to wind through in a car that you can fly right over.

Her mother lives next to a busy paved strip. 3 hours drive vs 1 hour no wind flight. That's a no brainer, but difficult to guarantee until I complete my IR.

Our vacation house (it's a run down cottage don't get the wrong idea) is a 5 minute bike ride from a grass strip. 4 hour drive, 2 hour flight. I won't drive up there any more or ever again. Just not worth it when the plane is available.
 
It has to be over 1.5 hours of driving for it to make much sense to me. By the time I pre-trip, taxi, fly, taxi, park get rental car, drive remaining distance both ways then do it all again on the return, it rarely would save much time for me. That is of-course if the destination airport is close by.
 
Totally depends if I need my car or not. I travel from my home to Sacramento all the time for work which is a little over 2.25 hours no traffic driving and .50 on the Hobbs flying. I am 50/50 on average flying vs driving. Always prefer to fly and have a lot of my staff that can pick me up in Sac without any inconvenience, but sometimes need my own car.

Not having to give traffic a second thought (which can be brutal) is worth flying in my book even if door to door is the same time and avgas cost more in my plane than regular gas in my truck!

...but I own and can go on a whim and am IR rated...that flying rate would probably me much lower for me if I was renting.
 
Last edited:
Anything over an hour and I start looking for airports
 
Shawn said:
Totally depends if I need my car or not. I travel from my home to Sacramento all the time for work which is a little over 2.25 hours no traffic. I am 50/50 on average flying vs driving. Always prefer to fly and have a lot of my staff that can pick me up in Sac without any inconvenience, but sometimes need my own car.

Not having to give traffic a second thought (which can be brutal) is worth flying in my book even if door to door is the same time and avgas cost more in my plane than regular gas in my truck!

...but I own and can go on a whim...that flying rate would probably me much lower for me if I was renting.
Click to expand...

The people we are meeting have a SUV that fits us all, we have been in it.
 
for me, if it's a 4 hour drive or more I'll fly my own plane.

if it's work travel and own plane is not allowed then I'll drive 12 hours before taking the airlines
 
I had to make the choice of either drive to an Ag strip that was 5 miles away or fly.. So I flew..
 
JasonM said:
It has to be over 1.5 hours of driving for it to make much sense to me. By the time I pre-trip, taxi, fly, taxi, park get rental car, drive remaining distance both ways then do it all again on the return, it rarely would save much time for me. That is of-course if the destination airport is close by.
Click to expand...

This. If my destination is actually an airport then I'm willing to fly shorter distances (for example I once flew 30 min to an airport to look at a plane I was thinking about buying). That's because there is no need for ground transportation at the other end.
 
drotto said:
Simple. Provided there is an airport within reasonable distance of your destination, how far must a drive be before you say the plane is a better option?
Click to expand...
As others have said, it depends on whether I need my car and/or how long the drive will end up being. Despite the expense of getting a rental from Enterprise, it was worth it for me to fly back to MI from VT this summer to do a final clean-out of my condo. It was a 4 hour flight vs >12 hours by car, and that would be through Canada with all the uncertainty about long lines coming back into the country and through customs. Avoiding Canada, more like 16.
Regardless that flying is more fun, I have a weekend trip coming up in a few weeks. The no traffic perfect drive is 2 hrs. The destination airport is about 15 minutes from my destination, and the flight (in an Archer) clocks in on Foreflight at 45 minutes. Figuring 15 to 20 minutes of preflight, and tie down at the destination, total flight and car to destination would be about 1:15 minutes. A savings of 45 minutes. Granted, I can not predict weather, but I can also not predict traffic either. Is this enough of a difference to matter? I should also add that I have tons of things going on that weekend, so my schedule is very tight to start with.
Click to expand...
45 minutes doesn't sound like a lot of savings, but if that is one way, then it's an hour and a half in all. How valuable is your time? :dunno:
 
That's easy for me if I want to leave town. No roads in or out of Juneau, AK.

You either take a boat or an airplane to get away..:yes: I don't own a boat and the state ferry is to slow, I fly.....
 
drotto said:
Simple. Provided there is an airport within reasonable distance of your destination, how far must a drive be before you say the plane is a better option?

Regardless that flying is more fun, I have a weekend trip coming up in a few weeks. The no traffic perfect drive is 2 hrs. The destination airport is about 15 minutes from my destination, and the flight (in an Archer) clocks in on Foreflight at 45 minutes. Figuring 15 to 20 minutes of preflight, and tie down at the destination, total flight and car to destination would be about 1:15 minutes. A savings of 45 minutes. Granted, I can not predict weather, but I can also not predict traffic either. Is this enough of a difference to matter? I should also add that I have tons of things going on that weekend, so my schedule is very tight to start with.
Click to expand...

Not quite enough timing details(you didn't include home to airport time), but chances are you will get there faster by car door to door.

edit.. saw that detail in later post... still, probably get there faster driving(unless bad traffic)
 
Last edited:
Cpt_Kirk said:
Always fly.

Never drive.
Click to expand...

I make 2 commutes per week for work. (1) 2 hr drive vs 1 hr flight. I get picked up at the airport. (2) 90 min drive vs 38 min flight. Then a 10 min drive. I leave a $2000 Buick at the airport to use.
 
JHW said:
for me, if it's a 4 hour drive or more I'll fly my own plane.

if it's work travel and own plane is not allowed then I'll drive 12 hours before taking the airlines
Click to expand...

I must say you guys are really encouraging me here!

The specific reason I'm now starting to look into this hobby is because I can't stand commercial flying anymore.

Anything less than 1200 miles, and you bet I'm driving.

Actually... 1200 miles is what I've substituted so far, but if you tell me tomorrow to go to Miami (from Seattle!), I'll still think long and hard about taking the Tesla instead. So realistically, unless I have to cross the Pacific or Atlantic... if at all possible, I'm going to drive. Today.

Even Mythbusters did an episode where they proved that for trips shorter than 6 hours, driving is faster than (commercial) flying.

Add to that the general "I am not a sheep" feeling, problems with travelling with dogs, the luggage lottery, and utter lack of control over schedule, and GA seems so much more freeing.

I was wondering whether I had blinders on, and it's not quite as freeing as it looks, but you guys really make it seem like it is!
 
When I had to rent, any min tach time helped make up my mind. No mins with an owned aircraft so then convenience is it. A 30 minute drive and a 20 minute flight to skip a 35-40 minute drive. Plus, flying is fun. Time to spare gotta go by air!
 
linuxjim said:
Yep. Fly. But that is coming from an owner. I will drive 45 min north to my airport to fly 30 min south west to meet people (non-pilots) for lunch. There is no logical reason to fly, other than I can.... So I do. :)
Click to expand...

I use the same logic...We are a little nuts, aren't we?
 
20 mins to airport, 20 min to departure, so I'm already 40 minutes towards my destination (which is never in the direction of the airport)

So it becomes an equation on whether to drive or fly based on the time leaving my house vs the time to my destination.
 
My initial math is solid. I am only 5 minutes from my airport, and it is technically on the way to where I would be going. The FBO will rent me the plane no minimums, provided they do not need the airplane for other things. They already said If I take the Archer, it should not be an issue since they have 4 Warriors to use for training, as well as a Mooney for complex. Since it is going to the NJ shore on either Friday night or Saturday morning traffic could be a significant issue (but is after Labor Day).
 
If you have to be there on time, drive or fly airline. Because when you're late it's not your fault.

If the timing is fungible and the drive time is more than 2 hours, I'd fly assuming this: owned airplane (read: available on zero notice), hangared (read: minimal untying/preflighting). With a hangared and owned plane, I can get it ready to go the night before and minimize day-of preflight tasks. That makes for a quick launch. In general, adding an instrument rating increases the number of days you'd be willing to go and not have to worry about cloud decks.

If I had to do the full preflight, fuel, and untie the thing the morning of a flight where I was only going to drive 2 hours, I'd probably just drive. In that situation it would need to be a drive of 3 hours or more before I'd fly. :dunno:

Each situation is different. You'll do your own estimations and you'll know when it's worth flying vs driving.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
If you have to be there on time, drive or fly airline. Because when you're late it's not your fault.
Click to expand...
Last week I had a business trip to Tacoma, 135 miles away. I-5 is pretty much a straight shot, and my normal flying route to Tacoma simply follows I-5 for the most part. KTIW is 7 miles from my destination, so I arranged for a rental car.

To guard against being late, I got to the airport early enough so that if I had to scrub the flight because of a mechanical issue, I'd still have time to drive, so obviously flying didn't save any time outbound. But it did offer other benefits, such as ...

IMG_2222.JPG


Coming back it was a different story. On southbound I-5 there was a seven-mile-long traffic jam caused by a motor home fire north of Centralia, and another pileup with a long traffic jam near Toledo. Flying saved hours!

IMG_2229.JPG
 
Owning changes the equation... living with your plane changes it even more. Then flying can become a lifestyle rather than just a hobby.
 
deonb said:
Even Mythbusters did an episode where they proved that for trips shorter than 6 hours, driving is faster than (commercial) flying.
Click to expand...
I travel a lot between Portland and Phoenix, both on airlines and, when I can, in my 180-hp 172. That's about 1,000 nm each way. The 172 has small tanks, so it's usually a three-fuel-stop trip to the Phoenix metro area and around 8 hours on the tach, which adds up to between nine and ten hours elapsed time.*

Most of the time, the airline saves time, but not by as much as you'd think. Figure time spent for security, boarding, shuttle buses to long-term parking at one end and to the rental car center at the other, and longer drive to the destination in Phoenix, you're looking at six hours one way, even for a non-stop flight.

More than once I've spent more time on an airline trip than it would have taken in the 172 on that route.


(*When I had a 260 hp Bonanza it would be about 7 tach hours each way with only one fuel stop.)
 
Last edited:
drotto said:
My initial math is solid. I am only 5 minutes from my airport, and it is technically on the way to where I would be going. The FBO will rent me the plane no minimums, provided they do not need the airplane for other things. They already said If I take the Archer, it should not be an issue since they have 4 Warriors to use for training, as well as a Mooney for complex. Since it is going to the NJ shore on either Friday night or Saturday morning traffic could be a significant issue (but is after Labor Day).
Click to expand...

I suspect that you have taken this trip by car. Fly it and time it(just don't do stupid things like rushing). You will see that by the time you are at your destination, you will have spent a lot more time then you estimate. And from my experience, 2 hour drive(100 miles or so) takes less time to drive than to fly unless you have to take some serious detour.

Delays, rechecks, wind, climbs, joining pattern, waiting for transportation, moving bags around. All that ads time.


As everyone said, flying is more enjoyable, so just do it. :) If you try to justify it too much, you will never set foot into a small plane :)
 
BarryCooper said:
I make 2 commutes per week for work. (1) 2 hr drive vs 1 hr flight. I get picked up at the airport. (2) 90 min drive vs 38 min flight. Then a 10 min drive. I leave a $2000 Buick at the airport to use.
Click to expand...

Barry, We have matching Cherokees
 
Pilawt said:
I travel a lot between Portland and Phoenix, both on airlines and, when I can, in my 180-hp 172. That's about 1,000 nm each way. The 172 has small tanks, so it's usually a three-fuel-stop trip to the Phoenix metro area and around 8 hours on the tach, which adds up to between nine and ten hours elapsed time.*

Most of the time, the airline saves time, but not by as much as you'd think. Figure time spent for security, boarding, shuttle buses to long-term parking at one end and to the rental car center at the other, and longer drive to the destination in Phoenix, you're looking at six hours one way, even for a non-stop flight.

More than once I've spent more time on an airline trip than it would have taken in the 172 on that route.


(*When I had a 260 hp Bonanza it would be about 7 tach hours each way with only one fuel stop.)
Click to expand...

Denver to Tulsa and Denver to Dallas we blow the doors off airlines.

Denver to Houston we usually do too because our destination is far from KIAH and very close to KIWS (West Houston Airport). Houston is a spread out mess of traffic and heat. Landing right at my destination not only beats the airlines but also saves me a traffic-induced anger stroke.

We usually beat the airlines on cost (operating costs only here) to Tulsa and Dallas if the 182 is full. But beating them on cost is pretty debatable.

Beating the airlines on cost AND time is easy when the destination is someplace they don't even fly - like the zillions of little towns back east or even big towns out west that are only served by hopping an RJ or regional turboprop from a hub.
 
EdFred said:
20 mins to airport, 20 min to departure, so I'm already 40 minutes towards my destination (which is never in the direction of the airport)

So it becomes an equation on whether to drive or fly based on the time leaving my house vs the time to my destination.
Click to expand...

Don't forget tying down, covering the plane, renting a car, and then driving to the destination.

If I can drive it in three or less, I can match or beat flying and I save on gas/car rental/ airport fees, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top