3 ms·
This sort of connection should be done by rail that stops within the security perimeter. Rail trips would get flight numbers. You wouldn't touch your luggage.
by souprock 6y ago
This sort of connection should be done by rail that stops within the security perimeter. Rail trips would get flight numbers. You wouldn't touch your luggage.
- bobthepanda 6y agoIt's hard to justify building a billion plus dollar dedicated railway for this, since that reduces the potential pool of people who would use it. I imagine it would also make things like customs a bit of a headache. You generally don't need to go through customs when transiting within the same airport, but a long airside railway would make violating a border as easy as jumping off the train.
- souprock 6y agoIt would make violating a border only a bit easier than jumping off a plane. Unless you literally jumped off, by popping open an emergency exit, there wouldn't be a difference. Gate D7 is a jetway, gate D8 is an elevator down to the train, gate D9 is another jetway, and so on. Your luggage follows you no matter which gate your flight leaves from, even if the flight happens to actually be a train. People would use it almost automatically. It shows up as a plane change when you buy your tickets. Code sharing agreements could be part of the deal, so it doesn't even look like a separate airline.
- bobthepanda 6y agoTrains are slower, so you could feasibly jump off of one without dying. People already try to do this at the Chunnel. People use it =/= people use it enough, and it provides enough benefit to exceed a cost-benefit ratio of 1. Arguably, NY does not need more connecting traffic at its airports. They are already so crowded there is a total cap on hourly flight movements at all three, and all three rank at the bottom of schedule reliability in the US.