5 ms·

This is good news, but we still have the idiotic habit of using airplanes for mid-distance travel, due to the lack of a decent train system.

ars 18y ago
That's fixing itself too - airplanes are so unreliable that people are using them less and less. That plus security checking, long lines, drive to the airport; and flying takes about as long as driving. Hmm, what's better: fly, together with a bunch of people, or drive all by yourself? Anyway, you'll see a lot of airlines go bust this coming year - unless they start offering on-time guarantees.
- time_management 18y ago
  On-time guarantees will never happen, given the miserable shape the airlines are already in. This would further increase their costs. I was stuck on the tarmac at Amsterdam's airport for 8 hours and got a EUR 50 voucher from Northwest Airlines toward a future ticket (yeah, right). I tore it up in front of the woman, and told her that anything less than a free ticket was an insult. This was in 2003, and if airlines weren't going to offer on-time guarantees then, they certainly won't do so now. Frankly, I don't think it's high oil that is hurting the airlines, because they can (and almost certainly do) hedge against this by buying oil futures. I think the collapse of demand for first-class and last-minute seats is hurting them. The fussy rich people who used to demand 1st class, and were willing to pay 4x the regular price for 50% more space, now prefer to fly chartered or private planes. If you have a pilot's license, taking a family of four in a small plane is comparable in cost to 1st-class commercial. Also, the growth of videoconferencing is causing a massive decline in short-notice business travel, formerly a source of demand for overpriced late tickets.
  - eru 18y ago
    Those future hedges will cost a lot more if the market expects oil prices to rise.
    - eru 18y ago
      No free lunch.
  - ars 18y ago
    Only southwest hedges their fuel prices, apparently the other airlines don't have the money to do it. They complain that it's "not fair".
    - mhb 18y ago
      So when a customer buys a ticket, the airline is in such bad financial shape that they can't use some of the cash from that ticket payment to buy the future fuel for that customer's flight? That is pretty dire.
- neilc 18y ago
  airplanes are so unreliable that people are using them less and less Really? I think that airline travel was actually at an all-time high in the USA in 2007: http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/airtraffic/annual/1981_present.html http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_...
tx 18y ago
I upmodded you because I share your wish, but unfortunately what you're asking for is impossible. Both of my parents have been railroad engineers all their lifes, and the main thing I learned was this: railroads are not economical at transporting passengers. Nearly all countries with "decent train systems" use government subsidies to effectively sponsor passenger railroad transport. Even subways can't make any profit. And I am against paying more taxes. Period. Therefore, no government subsidies to Amtrak from me.
- halo 18y ago
  So contrary to the initial sentence, you're actually saying it isn't impossible just that you're just against funding it for other reasons...
- time_management 18y ago
  I'm okay with paying higher taxes if I'm getting something for it-- cheap transportation, universal high-quality healthcare. It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich that I have a problem with. The problem with the train system now is that it's dilapidated, expensive, and slow, which leads to low use, leading to disrepair... and so on. However, air travel is going that way right now, and something will fill the void. Trains at 80 mph are not competitive with airlines, but maglev trains are capable of 250+.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich Paying high taxes to support tax cuts for the rich? I'm okay with paying higher taxes if I'm getting something for it-- cheap transportation You do realize that "paying for something to make it cheap" just changes who pays for something, yes? Like...I'm in favor of YOU buying ME a nice present, like cheap transportation. At gunpoint. Basic stuff. A train passes by my office occasionally. I don't think it is subsidized. It carries coal. Now...if it was practical for that train to carry people, it would do so, without subsidies. It's not like government is actually needed to make trains profitable.
albertcardona 18y ago
Trains are not so bad. A major problem is the lack of a local area support network of public transport. Example: there is a train from Los Angeles Union Station to San Diego. But how can one go to LA Union Station? From Santa Monica, Venice Beach, West LA, Pacific Palisades, etc. it's just plan impossible. The Metro bus is a joke: it takes over an hour, and likely you need a previous bus with added waiting times in between (and buses are unreliable because they have no exclusive lanes to avoid heavy traffic). A taxi is very expensive ($60+). You need a friend to drive you there. And once in San Diego the situation repeats itself. Same situation, but a bit less bad, in the East Coast: nice trains from Washington DC to NY and Boston. While Boston and NY have very decent local transport systems, Washington's doesn't really go anywhere. Again one is stuck with $60+ taxis to go anywhere.

ars 18y ago

That's fixing itself too - airplanes are so unreliable that people are using them less and less. That plus security checking, long lines, drive to the airport; and flying takes about as long as driving. Hmm, what's better: fly, together with a bunch of people, or drive all by yourself? Anyway, you'll see a lot of airlines go bust this coming year - unless they start offering on-time guarantees.

time_management 18y ago
On-time guarantees will never happen, given the miserable shape the airlines are already in. This would further increase their costs. I was stuck on the tarmac at Amsterdam's airport for 8 hours and got a EUR 50 voucher from Northwest Airlines toward a future ticket (yeah, right). I tore it up in front of the woman, and told her that anything less than a free ticket was an insult. This was in 2003, and if airlines weren't going to offer on-time guarantees then, they certainly won't do so now. Frankly, I don't think it's high oil that is hurting the airlines, because they can (and almost certainly do) hedge against this by buying oil futures. I think the collapse of demand for first-class and last-minute seats is hurting them. The fussy rich people who used to demand 1st class, and were willing to pay 4x the regular price for 50% more space, now prefer to fly chartered or private planes. If you have a pilot's license, taking a family of four in a small plane is comparable in cost to 1st-class commercial. Also, the growth of videoconferencing is causing a massive decline in short-notice business travel, formerly a source of demand for overpriced late tickets.
- eru 18y ago
  Those future hedges will cost a lot more if the market expects oil prices to rise.
  - eru 18y ago
    No free lunch.
- ars 18y ago
  Only southwest hedges their fuel prices, apparently the other airlines don't have the money to do it. They complain that it's "not fair".
  - mhb 18y ago
    So when a customer buys a ticket, the airline is in such bad financial shape that they can't use some of the cash from that ticket payment to buy the future fuel for that customer's flight? That is pretty dire.
neilc 18y ago
airplanes are so unreliable that people are using them less and less Really? I think that airline travel was actually at an all-time high in the USA in 2007: http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/airtraffic/annual/1981_present.html http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_...

tx 18y ago

I upmodded you because I share your wish, but unfortunately what you're asking for is impossible. Both of my parents have been railroad engineers all their lifes, and the main thing I learned was this: railroads are not economical at transporting passengers. Nearly all countries with "decent train systems" use government subsidies to effectively sponsor passenger railroad transport. Even subways can't make any profit. And I am against paying more taxes. Period. Therefore, no government subsidies to Amtrak from me.

halo 18y ago
So contrary to the initial sentence, you're actually saying it isn't impossible just that you're just against funding it for other reasons...
time_management 18y ago
I'm okay with paying higher taxes if I'm getting something for it-- cheap transportation, universal high-quality healthcare. It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich that I have a problem with. The problem with the train system now is that it's dilapidated, expensive, and slow, which leads to low use, leading to disrepair... and so on. However, air travel is going that way right now, and something will fill the void. Trains at 80 mph are not competitive with airlines, but maglev trains are capable of 250+.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich Paying high taxes to support tax cuts for the rich? I'm okay with paying higher taxes if I'm getting something for it-- cheap transportation You do realize that "paying for something to make it cheap" just changes who pays for something, yes? Like...I'm in favor of YOU buying ME a nice present, like cheap transportation. At gunpoint. Basic stuff. A train passes by my office occasionally. I don't think it is subsidized. It carries coal. Now...if it was practical for that train to carry people, it would do so, without subsidies. It's not like government is actually needed to make trains profitable.

albertcardona 18y ago

Trains are not so bad. A major problem is the lack of a local area support network of public transport. Example: there is a train from Los Angeles Union Station to San Diego. But how can one go to LA Union Station? From Santa Monica, Venice Beach, West LA, Pacific Palisades, etc. it's just plan impossible. The Metro bus is a joke: it takes over an hour, and likely you need a previous bus with added waiting times in between (and buses are unreliable because they have no exclusive lanes to avoid heavy traffic). A taxi is very expensive ($60+). You need a friend to drive you there. And once in San Diego the situation repeats itself. Same situation, but a bit less bad, in the East Coast: nice trains from Washington DC to NY and Boston. While Boston and NY have very decent local transport systems, Washington's doesn't really go anywhere. Again one is stuck with $60+ taxis to go anywhere.