5 ms·

I would take the train, but it's vastly more expensive than flying, almost always. It takes more time, but that's often not a problem; the price is. I mean it's

I would take the train, but it's vastly more expensive than flying, almost always. It takes more time, but that's often not a problem; the price is. I mean it's literally 3-10x more expensive to go by train. With the added loss of time, I cannot see many people doing that. Also when you take business flights, and the company paying for it (I am a freelancer so the companies pay me to fly directly) would be not amused if I add on CO2 there. So I have to do that personally to fly for business?

adwww 7y ago
It doesn't account for the full difference in price, but air travel is still widely unfairly subsidised compared to trains. For example, jet fuel is not taxed for international flights, whereas diesel for international trains (almost the same actual fuel) is taxed. Airports also enjoy very favourable planning and tax treatment.
- yread 7y ago
  You also don't pay VAT on flight tickets
- Leherenn 7y ago
  Aren't trains mostly electric?
  - adwww 7y ago
    A lot of cross border trains are not, due to a lack of a common standard voltage, transmission, etc.
systemtest 7y ago
The loss of time is minimal for small distances (< 500km) as you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first. For longer distance flights: Wake up at 07:00, take the train to the airport at 08:00, take the 10:30 flight from Schiphol to Barcelona and get out of the airport at 15:00. Take a taxi to the city center and arrive at 15:30. Or take the 08:00 train, sit back, relax and get off right in the center of the city at 20:00. You have may lost a couple of hours but you could sit down and read a book the entire time. Luggage is easier. Nobody groping you or giving you troubles about fluids. And good food in the trains too. Ever better: Night trains. Take the 21:00 train. Fall asleep. Wake up at 09:00 having passed two countries.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  Yes, I am not bothered by that. I'm bothered by the price. The time is usually fine; there are plugs in the train and it's comfortable. But for trips I do Malaga-Amsterdam or Malaga-London return we are talking 400-600 for train vs <150 for a flight. Bus is the same price as a plane ticket but unsafer (than both train & flight), longer and vastly more uncomfortable (I am Dutch; tall and not a spring chicken).
  - Maarten88 7y ago
    So you're one of those Dutch people living in Andalusia, flying out to work in the Netherlands or other places during the week? I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes. And it is, imo, not a very sustainable lifestyle. Aviation should be taxed like other transportation (fuel, vat), I do not understand why it is taking forever for politics to come around to doing this. Airplane tickets need to cost at least twice what they are now, the tax income used for sustainable energy investments, that would work much better than that CO2 add-on that they try to shame you into buying at KLM.
    - tluyben2 7y ago
      I fly to NL twice a year :) I fly mostly to Asia for clients. But I would do that twice a year by train if it were cheaper as that's (usually) not for business. And yes, I agree they should add it on. I am not bothered with paying a bit more and making it more sustainable, so I try to convince clients to do more via video conferencing, but it is just not as good. I suffer from terrible tinnitus and I found that a lot of (men) suffer from that as well but don't talk about it (shame?) so in conference calls often just no-one can understand anything and politeness/shame prevents anyone (but me) from saying anything about it. Face to face that issue is just not there. Edit: also I would Find it a better idea if the gov subsidizes the NS like they used to; you want cars of the streets and people travel less by air; make trains really really cheap. Inside NL it's often cheaper (and definitely more convenient) to take the car as well. To me that makes no sense really. I take the train usually in NL because I don't have a car there, but everyone I know just takes their car everywhere unless they live in the center of Amsterdam and travel inside Amsterdam. Edit: > I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes. I understand this point that yes, that is not fair. And I understand it is not a viable model if I would just fly where I work (which I don't; I work 90% from home) and I know others do though. But the non sustainable model comes from the fact there are too many emissions which are not covered; as a consumer, why would I care, in any other way but that, about how these prices are formed? I see they are (a lot cheaper), so if I cover the emissions, they are still cheaper. So it's far better than taking the train if you look at it like that. And it does not seem to change soon either so seems quite sustainable too.
perfunctory 7y ago
> would be not amused if I add on CO2 there You are a freelancer - negotiate!
- tluyben2 7y ago
  Excellent point.
w0utert 7y ago
This is very much true. Especially for private travel like city trips etc, I wouldn't mind at all if the trip took a little longer, for me the trip itself is part of the experience. But the prices for long-distance train trips are just insane. I can fly from the airport 10 minutes from my home to basically any city in europe for less than 100 euro, London or Paris often for less than 50. But a two-way train ticket to London for example could easily run over 400 euro's. The problem is not so much with the price of train travel, even though I would not mind subsidizing it more so it could be cheaper. The problem is simply that plane tickets are way, way too cheap. I get that people like to fly and free market capitalism pretty much dictates making it cheaper is a good thing, but right now air fares are not including the hidden, socialized cost of air travel (pollution, noise, need for infrastructure, spoiling of touristic destinations, etc) of everyone being able to take flights on a whimsy just because it's so cheap. I would be fully in favor of taxing air travel heavily to compensate for these things, even more so if the proceeds could be used to make train travel cheaper.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Yup, the difference is mostly in personnel cost - in a train you need to pay a staff for the whole x hours, while a plane does the same distance in a fraction of the time.
- mtsr 7y ago
  It’s even simpler: Trains are powered by taxed energy sources. Planes are powered by untaxed kerosine.
  - gruez 7y ago
    I'm not convinced. According to [1], fuel costs make up 25% of airline expenditures. Elsewhere in the thread [2] someone says that plane tickets cost less than 100 euro compared to over 400 Euro for comparable train tickets. This difference simply can not be accounted for using taxes. Even a 500% tax on aviation fuel wouldn't put plane tickets close to train tickets. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/591285/aviation-industry-fuel-cost/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/591285/aviation-industry... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361346
    - Leherenn 7y ago
      I think infrastructure plays a great role. An airport is expensive, but once you have it, you basically don't need infrastructure to link it to other airports. (I guess there's a few beacons, lights and ATC centres, but compared to the price of thousands of kilometres of rail, this is nothing.) Compare to rail where you have to build and maintain all those kilometres that must cost a ton long term. From an article I read recently about trains in France, a high-speed rail line is in the €15B range on average. An airport is in the low billions (even Berlin new airport which is massively over budget is still only around 6B I think). Maintenance of a rail line is €300k/y/km from the same article, when maintenance for the (empty) Berlin airport was in the 20M range.

adwww 7y ago

It doesn't account for the full difference in price, but air travel is still widely unfairly subsidised compared to trains. For example, jet fuel is not taxed for international flights, whereas diesel for international trains (almost the same actual fuel) is taxed. Airports also enjoy very favourable planning and tax treatment.

yread 7y ago
You also don't pay VAT on flight tickets
Leherenn 7y ago
Aren't trains mostly electric?
- adwww 7y ago
  A lot of cross border trains are not, due to a lack of a common standard voltage, transmission, etc.

systemtest 7y ago

The loss of time is minimal for small distances (< 500km) as you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first. For longer distance flights: Wake up at 07:00, take the train to the airport at 08:00, take the 10:30 flight from Schiphol to Barcelona and get out of the airport at 15:00. Take a taxi to the city center and arrive at 15:30. Or take the 08:00 train, sit back, relax and get off right in the center of the city at 20:00. You have may lost a couple of hours but you could sit down and read a book the entire time. Luggage is easier. Nobody groping you or giving you troubles about fluids. And good food in the trains too. Ever better: Night trains. Take the 21:00 train. Fall asleep. Wake up at 09:00 having passed two countries.

tluyben2 7y ago
Yes, I am not bothered by that. I'm bothered by the price. The time is usually fine; there are plugs in the train and it's comfortable. But for trips I do Malaga-Amsterdam or Malaga-London return we are talking 400-600 for train vs <150 for a flight. Bus is the same price as a plane ticket but unsafer (than both train & flight), longer and vastly more uncomfortable (I am Dutch; tall and not a spring chicken).
- Maarten88 7y ago
  So you're one of those Dutch people living in Andalusia, flying out to work in the Netherlands or other places during the week? I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes. And it is, imo, not a very sustainable lifestyle. Aviation should be taxed like other transportation (fuel, vat), I do not understand why it is taking forever for politics to come around to doing this. Airplane tickets need to cost at least twice what they are now, the tax income used for sustainable energy investments, that would work much better than that CO2 add-on that they try to shame you into buying at KLM.
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    I fly to NL twice a year :) I fly mostly to Asia for clients. But I would do that twice a year by train if it were cheaper as that's (usually) not for business. And yes, I agree they should add it on. I am not bothered with paying a bit more and making it more sustainable, so I try to convince clients to do more via video conferencing, but it is just not as good. I suffer from terrible tinnitus and I found that a lot of (men) suffer from that as well but don't talk about it (shame?) so in conference calls often just no-one can understand anything and politeness/shame prevents anyone (but me) from saying anything about it. Face to face that issue is just not there. Edit: also I would Find it a better idea if the gov subsidizes the NS like they used to; you want cars of the streets and people travel less by air; make trains really really cheap. Inside NL it's often cheaper (and definitely more convenient) to take the car as well. To me that makes no sense really. I take the train usually in NL because I don't have a car there, but everyone I know just takes their car everywhere unless they live in the center of Amsterdam and travel inside Amsterdam. Edit: > I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes. I understand this point that yes, that is not fair. And I understand it is not a viable model if I would just fly where I work (which I don't; I work 90% from home) and I know others do though. But the non sustainable model comes from the fact there are too many emissions which are not covered; as a consumer, why would I care, in any other way but that, about how these prices are formed? I see they are (a lot cheaper), so if I cover the emissions, they are still cheaper. So it's far better than taking the train if you look at it like that. And it does not seem to change soon either so seems quite sustainable too.

perfunctory 7y ago

> would be not amused if I add on CO2 there You are a freelancer - negotiate!

tluyben2 7y ago
Excellent point.

w0utert 7y ago

This is very much true. Especially for private travel like city trips etc, I wouldn't mind at all if the trip took a little longer, for me the trip itself is part of the experience. But the prices for long-distance train trips are just insane. I can fly from the airport 10 minutes from my home to basically any city in europe for less than 100 euro, London or Paris often for less than 50. But a two-way train ticket to London for example could easily run over 400 euro's. The problem is not so much with the price of train travel, even though I would not mind subsidizing it more so it could be cheaper. The problem is simply that plane tickets are way, way too cheap. I get that people like to fly and free market capitalism pretty much dictates making it cheaper is a good thing, but right now air fares are not including the hidden, socialized cost of air travel (pollution, noise, need for infrastructure, spoiling of touristic destinations, etc) of everyone being able to take flights on a whimsy just because it's so cheap. I would be fully in favor of taxing air travel heavily to compensate for these things, even more so if the proceeds could be used to make train travel cheaper.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Yup, the difference is mostly in personnel cost - in a train you need to pay a staff for the whole x hours, while a plane does the same distance in a fraction of the time.

mtsr 7y ago
It’s even simpler: Trains are powered by taxed energy sources. Planes are powered by untaxed kerosine.
- gruez 7y ago
  I'm not convinced. According to [1], fuel costs make up 25% of airline expenditures. Elsewhere in the thread [2] someone says that plane tickets cost less than 100 euro compared to over 400 Euro for comparable train tickets. This difference simply can not be accounted for using taxes. Even a 500% tax on aviation fuel wouldn't put plane tickets close to train tickets. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/591285/aviation-industry-fuel-cost/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/591285/aviation-industry... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361346
  - Leherenn 7y ago
    I think infrastructure plays a great role. An airport is expensive, but once you have it, you basically don't need infrastructure to link it to other airports. (I guess there's a few beacons, lights and ATC centres, but compared to the price of thousands of kilometres of rail, this is nothing.) Compare to rail where you have to build and maintain all those kilometres that must cost a ton long term. From an article I read recently about trains in France, a high-speed rail line is in the €15B range on average. An airport is in the low billions (even Berlin new airport which is massively over budget is still only around 6B I think). Maintenance of a rail line is €300k/y/km from the same article, when maintenance for the (empty) Berlin airport was in the 20M range.