4 ms·

Because light rail/bus to airport is cheap, and $25 fares are cheap. And the trains are expensive. Now, why is flying so cheap vs a train? The whole the US gov

Because light rail/bus to airport is cheap, and $25 fares are cheap. And the trains are expensive. Now, why is flying so cheap vs a train? The whole the US government essentially gives away 737s at a loss to employ people might be one part of it? Nobody is giving away free trains that I know of.

xur17 5y ago
> The whole the US government essentially gives away 737s at a loss to employ people might be one part of it? Do you have more information on this? Is the US government subsidizing aircraft manufacturing or something?
- hadlock 5y ago
  Boeing "is the largest U.S. goods exporter" and represents, pre 737-MAX fallout, about 5% of the US GDP. This might come as a surprise to east-coasters as for most of their existence they were based out of Seattle, and only recently moved their HQ to Chicago. Boeing sells a lot of civilian airplanes, but depending on the year/conflict 35-49% of Boeing's income comes from arms sales, either jets, cruise missiles, spy satellites or what have you. Boeing's manufacturing capacity plays a significant role in US wartime capability. Between Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, those two companies (and their cottage industries) prop up the lion's share of Washington State's economy, or at least it did pre-Microsoft/Intel/Amazon
flavius29663 5y ago
Trains are heavily subsidized in Europe. E.g. Germany paid 17 billions in a single year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies#Europe How many 737s would that buy, per year? around 40-50? This is Germany alone, the rest of Europe is just the same
- allendoerfer 5y ago
  Deutsche Bahn has a (quasi) monopoly on German long-distance trains and is state owned. It has to operate some connections at a loss. It also maintains the railways. German streets a build by the state, not by Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz. Airports are owned by local governments and often a loss-leader, sometimes epic disasters (with the exception of Fraport). It is extremely hard to compare trains and argue about whether they are competitive or subsidized.
  - presentation 5y ago
    I find it silly that people think that train fares should cover a train's value. Few people are riding trains just because they really love to sit on a train. The value is in that you got from point A to point B. Unsurprising that East Japan Rail is super profitable, given that they're only partially a train company - rather they're a real-estate play that builds human conveyor belts into shopping/apartment/office complexes they control. Ordinarily I am skeptical of private enterprise to serve the common good, but in the case of the public transit system here in Japan and other Asian metros it really does seem to have produced great outcomes.
hourislate 5y ago
>The whole the US government essentially gives away 737s at a loss Did you mean Boeing? I imagine flying is cheaper because the cost associated with the Rail Infrastructure is much higher than with the open sky and aircraft.
- mkoubaa 5y ago
  It's hard to believe we are successfully giving Boeings to France when the only major competitor to Boeing is a French company (Airbus). If we actually are I am curious about the story behind it
ur-whale 5y ago
> why is flying so cheap vs a train? In France, the answer is simple: the train company is basically a monopoly (owned via a very thin veil by the state). They are therefore, like all entities not subjected to competition: - expensive - unreliable - low quality of service overall (atrocious food, disgustingly dirty bathrooms, in-seat power supply almost never works, internet non-nexistant).
- presentation 5y ago
  After living in various Asian metros it really does seem that private markets have done wonders for quality of service - I live in Japan now, but while it isn't cheaper per se, it's definitely a phenomenal quality of service, and far from the only great system I've seen in the region.

xur17 5y ago

> The whole the US government essentially gives away 737s at a loss to employ people might be one part of it? Do you have more information on this? Is the US government subsidizing aircraft manufacturing or something?

hadlock 5y ago
Boeing "is the largest U.S. goods exporter" and represents, pre 737-MAX fallout, about 5% of the US GDP. This might come as a surprise to east-coasters as for most of their existence they were based out of Seattle, and only recently moved their HQ to Chicago. Boeing sells a lot of civilian airplanes, but depending on the year/conflict 35-49% of Boeing's income comes from arms sales, either jets, cruise missiles, spy satellites or what have you. Boeing's manufacturing capacity plays a significant role in US wartime capability. Between Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, those two companies (and their cottage industries) prop up the lion's share of Washington State's economy, or at least it did pre-Microsoft/Intel/Amazon

flavius29663 5y ago

Trains are heavily subsidized in Europe. E.g. Germany paid 17 billions in a single year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies#Europe How many 737s would that buy, per year? around 40-50? This is Germany alone, the rest of Europe is just the same

allendoerfer 5y ago
Deutsche Bahn has a (quasi) monopoly on German long-distance trains and is state owned. It has to operate some connections at a loss. It also maintains the railways. German streets a build by the state, not by Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz. Airports are owned by local governments and often a loss-leader, sometimes epic disasters (with the exception of Fraport). It is extremely hard to compare trains and argue about whether they are competitive or subsidized.
- presentation 5y ago
  I find it silly that people think that train fares should cover a train's value. Few people are riding trains just because they really love to sit on a train. The value is in that you got from point A to point B. Unsurprising that East Japan Rail is super profitable, given that they're only partially a train company - rather they're a real-estate play that builds human conveyor belts into shopping/apartment/office complexes they control. Ordinarily I am skeptical of private enterprise to serve the common good, but in the case of the public transit system here in Japan and other Asian metros it really does seem to have produced great outcomes.

hourislate 5y ago

>The whole the US government essentially gives away 737s at a loss Did you mean Boeing? I imagine flying is cheaper because the cost associated with the Rail Infrastructure is much higher than with the open sky and aircraft.

mkoubaa 5y ago
It's hard to believe we are successfully giving Boeings to France when the only major competitor to Boeing is a French company (Airbus). If we actually are I am curious about the story behind it

ur-whale 5y ago

> why is flying so cheap vs a train? In France, the answer is simple: the train company is basically a monopoly (owned via a very thin veil by the state). They are therefore, like all entities not subjected to competition: - expensive - unreliable - low quality of service overall (atrocious food, disgustingly dirty bathrooms, in-seat power supply almost never works, internet non-nexistant).

presentation 5y ago
After living in various Asian metros it really does seem that private markets have done wonders for quality of service - I live in Japan now, but while it isn't cheaper per se, it's definitely a phenomenal quality of service, and far from the only great system I've seen in the region.