4 ms·

"airfare-level prices"? In Germany and Austria my experience was that flying was generally cheaper than the train, and sleeper trains more expensive still. I'm

by ido 7y ago

"airfare-level prices"? In Germany and Austria my experience was that flying was generally cheaper than the train, and sleeper trains more expensive still. I'm on a (day) train between Berlin and Vienna this very minute and it costed me €99 (one way!) where as a flight would have been about €50. You can get cheaper tickets if booking well in advance (months) but the same applies to budget airlines.

alkonaut 7y ago
> where as a flight would have been about €50. To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport.
- thesimon 7y ago
  >To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport. Vienna should be less than 5€ for the airport + VOR ticket.
  - ido 7y ago
    A bit over €3 for a Berlin ABC ticket I believe.
- sunebeck 7y ago
  Berlin AB ticket (for Tegel airport), EUR 2.80. Berlin ABC ticket (for Schönefeld airport), EUR 3.40.
mschuster91 7y ago
The joke is that airfare is way too cheap compared to the damage it causes - be it noise, exhaust gases or land usage for airport infrastructure. In addition jet fuel in Europe is tax-free which enables these ultra low prices.
- dexen 7y ago
  Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. However the railway ought to be more expensive overall due to the other costs: requires build-out and maintenance of extensive ground based network, including some prime real estate; requires much longer occupancy of vehicles; requires much more man-hours for each vehicle crew. Sadly in most settings (like continental Europe) the fixed costs of rail are barely visible to our considerations due to the governmental funding. Meanwhile airplanes only require build-out of the end-points, and the crew required is minimal. The only meaningful way of fixing the problems with rail is 1) high speed (Mach 0.5 ... 1); 2) de-coupling from wheels-on-rails as the source of noise, drag and speed limitation; 3) de-coupling from expensive on-the-ground infrastructure as cause of high costs and NIMBYism; 4) high automation, little to no amenities; 5) smaller vehicles, more frequent departures. All in all, going in the airplane-like direction. Hyperloop may just be the thing, if it ever becomes large scale commercial. [1] per passenger * km. Example: https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-vs-train-bus-car/ https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-...
  - nikodunk 7y ago
    That's a misleading statement. From your linked article: "Trains in countries like Japan are predominantly electric and transport a much larger number of people per cabin than trains in the US. While it’s difficult to broadly compare trains between regions it’s safe to say that trains in European and Asian countries are far more fuel efficient than those in the US, making them a leading option for travel. In most cases outside of the US, trains are probably at least as efficient as buses and are much more efficient than cars and planes." Yours, Physics.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - bdamm 7y ago
      Physics gets removed from the conversation when we start to view trains as endlessly more efficient than airplanes. They aren’t, and in the US part of that equation is the requirement to make passenger trains able to survive a full collision with a freight train, adding a great deal of weight and removing much of the physical advantage of low rolling resistance. Other examples are the overly prescriptive regulations for trains, which is a situation that the aeronautical industry has recently been able to make major gains on. Trains are great, but they’re not necessarily better for the environment or the users than airplanes because of their physics.
_ak 7y ago
In Germany, jet fuel is untaxed, whereas train companies have to pay tax on electricity, in particular renewable energy. Also, VAT is handled differently: if you buy a flight from Germany to another country, only a portion of what you paid for your plane ticket is taxed at German VAT rate, but for train tickets, 100% of the ticket price is taxed with the German VAT rate. These are several factors that make it quite a bit harder for the railway to compete with short-distance flights.
- thesimon 7y ago
  >These are several factors that make it quite a bit harder for the railway to compete with short-distance flights. Main factor for journeys within Germany though is the lack of competition for DB. Compare Lufthansa prices on MUC-TXL vs. STR-FMO.

by ido 7y ago

alkonaut 7y ago

> where as a flight would have been about €50. To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport.

thesimon 7y ago
>To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport. Vienna should be less than 5€ for the airport + VOR ticket.
- ido 7y ago
  A bit over €3 for a Berlin ABC ticket I believe.
sunebeck 7y ago
Berlin AB ticket (for Tegel airport), EUR 2.80. Berlin ABC ticket (for Schönefeld airport), EUR 3.40.

mschuster91 7y ago

The joke is that airfare is way too cheap compared to the damage it causes - be it noise, exhaust gases or land usage for airport infrastructure. In addition jet fuel in Europe is tax-free which enables these ultra low prices.

dexen 7y ago
Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. However the railway ought to be more expensive overall due to the other costs: requires build-out and maintenance of extensive ground based network, including some prime real estate; requires much longer occupancy of vehicles; requires much more man-hours for each vehicle crew. Sadly in most settings (like continental Europe) the fixed costs of rail are barely visible to our considerations due to the governmental funding. Meanwhile airplanes only require build-out of the end-points, and the crew required is minimal. The only meaningful way of fixing the problems with rail is 1) high speed (Mach 0.5 ... 1); 2) de-coupling from wheels-on-rails as the source of noise, drag and speed limitation; 3) de-coupling from expensive on-the-ground infrastructure as cause of high costs and NIMBYism; 4) high automation, little to no amenities; 5) smaller vehicles, more frequent departures. All in all, going in the airplane-like direction. Hyperloop may just be the thing, if it ever becomes large scale commercial. [1] per passenger * km. Example: https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-vs-train-bus-car/ https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-...
- nikodunk 7y ago
  That's a misleading statement. From your linked article: "Trains in countries like Japan are predominantly electric and transport a much larger number of people per cabin than trains in the US. While it’s difficult to broadly compare trains between regions it’s safe to say that trains in European and Asian countries are far more fuel efficient than those in the US, making them a leading option for travel. In most cases outside of the US, trains are probably at least as efficient as buses and are much more efficient than cars and planes." Yours, Physics.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bdamm 7y ago
    Physics gets removed from the conversation when we start to view trains as endlessly more efficient than airplanes. They aren’t, and in the US part of that equation is the requirement to make passenger trains able to survive a full collision with a freight train, adding a great deal of weight and removing much of the physical advantage of low rolling resistance. Other examples are the overly prescriptive regulations for trains, which is a situation that the aeronautical industry has recently been able to make major gains on. Trains are great, but they’re not necessarily better for the environment or the users than airplanes because of their physics.

_ak 7y ago

In Germany, jet fuel is untaxed, whereas train companies have to pay tax on electricity, in particular renewable energy. Also, VAT is handled differently: if you buy a flight from Germany to another country, only a portion of what you paid for your plane ticket is taxed at German VAT rate, but for train tickets, 100% of the ticket price is taxed with the German VAT rate. These are several factors that make it quite a bit harder for the railway to compete with short-distance flights.

thesimon 7y ago
>These are several factors that make it quite a bit harder for the railway to compete with short-distance flights. Main factor for journeys within Germany though is the lack of competition for DB. Compare Lufthansa prices on MUC-TXL vs. STR-FMO.