4 ms·

High speed rail isn't exactly cheap in terms of tickets. The path I used in the past (Zurich - Paris) is more expensive than the plane. I still choose the train

High speed rail isn't exactly cheap in terms of tickets. The path I used in the past (Zurich - Paris) is more expensive than the plane. I still choose the train because it's nicer and connects city centres. Also, it's at 600km, and I do agree with the GP that my percieved benefit of the train would disappear if it was any further. I.e. it's at the limit of what I consider useful. You can almost always get more planes going on the busy route.

adrianN 7y ago
The plane gets subsidies: there are no taxes on fuel for example.
- wormseed 7y ago
  No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Meanwhile, in Germany and France nearly 30% of the total cost of rail service is directly covered by the government, and it’s still more expensive than flying.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    It's still a subsidy (if the rail traffic is taxed and not supported by govt), except that it's a weird kind of subsidy that's near impossible to eliminate. Also not necessarily true, you can't land a big plane with too much fuel.
  - alexgmcm 7y ago
    >airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Wouldn't you then end up using a lot of the fuel just carrying the extra fuel? This cost could negate the tax savings.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. There is not, simply because the maximum take-off weight is way larger than maximum landing weight - you can't just shuttle around fuel because you can't land the plane when it's loaded. This is also the reason why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing. While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage.
    - iggldiggl 7y ago
      > why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing Though perhaps that's not the best example - for a really urgent medical emergency where every minute matters, an overweight landing would certainly be considered ahead of wasting precious time dumping fuel. Equally, there are a few more other types of emergencies where you'd want to get back onto the ground ASAP even if that means exceeding the maximum landing weight. > While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage. At least these days, all aircraft certified under Part 25 must be able to land at maximum take-off weight with a descent rate of 6 ft/s (360 ft/min), which is already at the border towards what would be considered a hard landing (at maximum landing weight, planes need to allow a landing with 10 ft/s / 600 ft/min without structural damage). So of course you still need to consider whether the changed performance characteristics (approach speed, required runway length, climb gradient for go-arounds, etc.) at MTOW will still allow you to land safely in that specific situation, but fear of "heavy damage" is not something you need to consider. You might want to bring the plane down a little even more careful than usual, the brakes certainly have to work harder and maybe the plane needs to be inspected afterwards just to be sure, but otherwise you should be fine.
  - gruez 7y ago
    That's not how it works. Arbitraging fuel isn't as easy as driving to another state/indian reservation and buying cheap gas. Planes have maximum rake-off and landing weights. All that extra fuel you're carrying is freight that you couldn't carry. Planes carrying too much fuel (typically because they're making an emergency landing shortly after take-off) have to dump their fuel to meet their maximum landing weight.
- mises 7y ago
  I know of no nation that places a special tax on rubber duckies. Is there a conspiracy to give massive subsidies to the production of rubber duckies world-wide? Not taking action against is not the same as acting in favor of.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    When there is a tax on rubber duckies when used by the public or road hauliers, but not when used by aviators, there's a subsidy on aviation rubber duck use.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      The lack of a tax is not a subsidy. Just because something isn't as taxed as you think correct does not mean it is subsidized. Yes, you can argue that the lack of a tax is a "relative" subsidies but that's just an exercise torturing words until they say what you want them to. Whether not taxing a particular thing is right or wrong is a totally separate issue.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        The EU consider the lack of a tax on a specific sector to be a subsidy. e.g. The UK government's reduction in tax on domestic fuel bills amounted to a subsidy. That made the UK the EU's largest subsidiser of fossil fuels in the face of EU efforts to phase them out. Good enough for me. Edit: WTO definition of subsidies includes "government revenue that is otherwise due, foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)". Pdf: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf
        mises 7y ago
        That's a crazy definition. By that logic, every dollar up to the optimal point on the Laffer Curve is a "subsidy". Not taxing is not a subsidy. Also, I'm not really concerned how the EU defines any thing; I whole-heatedly disagree with almost every thing they do. The article is about America; we can stick with her definitions. Let's try "government hands you a check for doing something", which is basically what most economists use.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
I recall doing LON ->EDI 20 years ago Train was £130 and took an entire day one way. BA was £200 and you could do a meeting at 10:00 in Edinburgh and be Back in London for 17:30. If you went via Easy Jet from Luton it was < £40.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  Well that's not a fast train :) At 650 km of distance a 200 km/h train would do it in slightly over 3 hours. Which makes it even more sad because it should have definitely been cheaper than planes ...
- pm215 7y ago
  If you do London->Edinburgh by train now, then assuming you're willing to book to a specific train and book a couple of months in advance (which is probably what you were doing with your plane ticket) then you can get a ticket for 50 or 60 quid each way, total time of about 4 and a half hours. Of course if you're starting a little further north (say, Cambridge), then the train is cheaper still. Plus you have to allow for the cost of getting from where you start to the airport if you're flying. So the economic argument has tilted considerably since your experience of two decades past (though the plane still wins if time-elapsed is your primary requirement). Personally I take the train for this journey -- last time I did Cambridge to Edinburgh I paid less than 30 quid for the outbound leg and not much more for the return. And you can get decent prices for first class if you want a little bit more luxury at way less of a premium than the airlines will charge you for that...
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    No these are walk up fares. I volunteered on a Wednesday and was told to report to the Balmoral hotel on Friday not much scope for powergaming. And time elapsed is a thing here - at the time internally our internal day rate was £300, externally £600 and our peers in the Big 4 consultancies would be north of 1K (but not as good as us)
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
I’ve done Beijing to Chenzhou a couple of times on China’s HSR. 8 hours, 1700km, but there is no airport in chenzhou so it works out vs flying into Changsha or Guangzhou and transferring to the train for another hour or two (China doesn’t have many airports with train stations, so the transfer is 1+ hours).

adrianN 7y ago

The plane gets subsidies: there are no taxes on fuel for example.

wormseed 7y ago
No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Meanwhile, in Germany and France nearly 30% of the total cost of rail service is directly covered by the government, and it’s still more expensive than flying.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  It's still a subsidy (if the rail traffic is taxed and not supported by govt), except that it's a weird kind of subsidy that's near impossible to eliminate. Also not necessarily true, you can't land a big plane with too much fuel.
- alexgmcm 7y ago
  >airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Wouldn't you then end up using a lot of the fuel just carrying the extra fuel? This cost could negate the tax savings.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. There is not, simply because the maximum take-off weight is way larger than maximum landing weight - you can't just shuttle around fuel because you can't land the plane when it's loaded. This is also the reason why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing. While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage.
  - iggldiggl 7y ago
    > why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing Though perhaps that's not the best example - for a really urgent medical emergency where every minute matters, an overweight landing would certainly be considered ahead of wasting precious time dumping fuel. Equally, there are a few more other types of emergencies where you'd want to get back onto the ground ASAP even if that means exceeding the maximum landing weight. > While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage. At least these days, all aircraft certified under Part 25 must be able to land at maximum take-off weight with a descent rate of 6 ft/s (360 ft/min), which is already at the border towards what would be considered a hard landing (at maximum landing weight, planes need to allow a landing with 10 ft/s / 600 ft/min without structural damage). So of course you still need to consider whether the changed performance characteristics (approach speed, required runway length, climb gradient for go-arounds, etc.) at MTOW will still allow you to land safely in that specific situation, but fear of "heavy damage" is not something you need to consider. You might want to bring the plane down a little even more careful than usual, the brakes certainly have to work harder and maybe the plane needs to be inspected afterwards just to be sure, but otherwise you should be fine.
- gruez 7y ago
  That's not how it works. Arbitraging fuel isn't as easy as driving to another state/indian reservation and buying cheap gas. Planes have maximum rake-off and landing weights. All that extra fuel you're carrying is freight that you couldn't carry. Planes carrying too much fuel (typically because they're making an emergency landing shortly after take-off) have to dump their fuel to meet their maximum landing weight.
mises 7y ago
I know of no nation that places a special tax on rubber duckies. Is there a conspiracy to give massive subsidies to the production of rubber duckies world-wide? Not taking action against is not the same as acting in favor of.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  When there is a tax on rubber duckies when used by the public or road hauliers, but not when used by aviators, there's a subsidy on aviation rubber duck use.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The lack of a tax is not a subsidy. Just because something isn't as taxed as you think correct does not mean it is subsidized. Yes, you can argue that the lack of a tax is a "relative" subsidies but that's just an exercise torturing words until they say what you want them to. Whether not taxing a particular thing is right or wrong is a totally separate issue.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The EU consider the lack of a tax on a specific sector to be a subsidy. e.g. The UK government's reduction in tax on domestic fuel bills amounted to a subsidy. That made the UK the EU's largest subsidiser of fossil fuels in the face of EU efforts to phase them out. Good enough for me. Edit: WTO definition of subsidies includes "government revenue that is otherwise due, foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)". Pdf: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf
      - mises 7y ago
        That's a crazy definition. By that logic, every dollar up to the optimal point on the Laffer Curve is a "subsidy". Not taxing is not a subsidy. Also, I'm not really concerned how the EU defines any thing; I whole-heatedly disagree with almost every thing they do. The article is about America; we can stick with her definitions. Let's try "government hands you a check for doing something", which is basically what most economists use.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

I recall doing LON ->EDI 20 years ago Train was £130 and took an entire day one way. BA was £200 and you could do a meeting at 10:00 in Edinburgh and be Back in London for 17:30. If you went via Easy Jet from Luton it was < £40.

H8crilA 7y ago
Well that's not a fast train :) At 650 km of distance a 200 km/h train would do it in slightly over 3 hours. Which makes it even more sad because it should have definitely been cheaper than planes ...
pm215 7y ago
If you do London->Edinburgh by train now, then assuming you're willing to book to a specific train and book a couple of months in advance (which is probably what you were doing with your plane ticket) then you can get a ticket for 50 or 60 quid each way, total time of about 4 and a half hours. Of course if you're starting a little further north (say, Cambridge), then the train is cheaper still. Plus you have to allow for the cost of getting from where you start to the airport if you're flying. So the economic argument has tilted considerably since your experience of two decades past (though the plane still wins if time-elapsed is your primary requirement). Personally I take the train for this journey -- last time I did Cambridge to Edinburgh I paid less than 30 quid for the outbound leg and not much more for the return. And you can get decent prices for first class if you want a little bit more luxury at way less of a premium than the airlines will charge you for that...
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  No these are walk up fares. I volunteered on a Wednesday and was told to report to the Balmoral hotel on Friday not much scope for powergaming. And time elapsed is a thing here - at the time internally our internal day rate was £300, externally £600 and our peers in the Big 4 consultancies would be north of 1K (but not as good as us)

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

I’ve done Beijing to Chenzhou a couple of times on China’s HSR. 8 hours, 1700km, but there is no airport in chenzhou so it works out vs flying into Changsha or Guangzhou and transferring to the train for another hour or two (China doesn’t have many airports with train stations, so the transfer is 1+ hours).