5 ms·

To me it's absurd that flying such a short distance apparently was an attractive option (to some) until recently.

bobthepanda 4y ago
Usually, most small flights of that type are connections onward. It's usually good for passengers because all other things being equal the security procedures at smaller airports, the traffic etc. is a lot less bad.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Trains still should be the alternative for these cases. The only exception I can think of where short-haul flights could be accepted is from small islands that need connection to a larger city inland.
b112 4y ago
It's about 450km, which is between 4 and 5 hours, traffic at each city depending.. A propeller plane shines here. If boarding is quick, and there is no customs as it is in country, and you just carry on? You save time, and it's better than 20 to 50 people driving independantly. A plane can also fly straight too, so it can take even 1/3 of the time to get there. Which is why boarding slow downs are so sad.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  OP likely meant that it is a very sad thing for the environment that we (as a society) privilege air travel instead of train travel for such a short distance and where there’s no need to cross a border. The train brings you in the middle of both city center, directly integrated with transit, you can show up about 10 min before your departure, etc. It’s just the actual rail that is the problem.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    If there's no train, though, the turboprop plane is going to be better for the environment than all those people driving.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      And an intercity bus will beat them both, while also avoiding the issues of getting in and out of the airport and into the city center.
      - jhugo 4y ago
        Mmm, maybe. Average occupancy of buses is usually only around 40%, which probably pushes them above the per-passenger emissions of a modern aircraft, and being typically diesels, they have other emissions than CO2 to worry about. On a personal note, I also hate bus travel with a passion — it's mind-numbingly slow, you have limited ability to move around, it's sometimes too cramped to work, when toilets are available they're tiny and awful, etc. I love train travel and will use trains whenever available, sometimes even for multi-day journeys, but I will take significant detours or even rearrange travel plans to avoid a bus.
        rglullis 4y ago
        I agree that buses are cramped and that trains are way more comfortable, but I think we can also agree that whatever space you don't have in a bus, it will be even worse on a plane... Also, let's not forget that the experience of traveling by bus got worse mostly because of the popularization of low-cost short-haul flights, and that has killed the market for "premium" bus traveling. If short-haul flights were out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started offering bus travel with larger seats (in 2-1 configuration) and even more sleeper buses for night travels [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0
        jhugo 4y ago

Usually, most small flights of that type are connections onward. It's usually good for passengers because all other things being equal the security procedures at smaller airports, the traffic etc. is a lot less bad.

rglullis 4y ago
Trains still should be the alternative for these cases. The only exception I can think of where short-haul flights could be accepted is from small islands that need connection to a larger city inland.

b112 4y ago

It's about 450km, which is between 4 and 5 hours, traffic at each city depending.. A propeller plane shines here. If boarding is quick, and there is no customs as it is in country, and you just carry on? You save time, and it's better than 20 to 50 people driving independantly. A plane can also fly straight too, so it can take even 1/3 of the time to get there. Which is why boarding slow downs are so sad.

jeromegv 4y ago
OP likely meant that it is a very sad thing for the environment that we (as a society) privilege air travel instead of train travel for such a short distance and where there’s no need to cross a border. The train brings you in the middle of both city center, directly integrated with transit, you can show up about 10 min before your departure, etc. It’s just the actual rail that is the problem.
- jhugo 4y ago
  If there's no train, though, the turboprop plane is going to be better for the environment than all those people driving.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    And an intercity bus will beat them both, while also avoiding the issues of getting in and out of the airport and into the city center.
    - jhugo 4y ago
      Mmm, maybe. Average occupancy of buses is usually only around 40%, which probably pushes them above the per-passenger emissions of a modern aircraft, and being typically diesels, they have other emissions than CO2 to worry about. On a personal note, I also hate bus travel with a passion — it's mind-numbingly slow, you have limited ability to move around, it's sometimes too cramped to work, when toilets are available they're tiny and awful, etc. I love train travel and will use trains whenever available, sometimes even for multi-day journeys, but I will take significant detours or even rearrange travel plans to avoid a bus.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        I agree that buses are cramped and that trains are way more comfortable, but I think we can also agree that whatever space you don't have in a bus, it will be even worse on a plane... Also, let's not forget that the experience of traveling by bus got worse mostly because of the popularization of low-cost short-haul flights, and that has killed the market for "premium" bus traveling. If short-haul flights were out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started offering bus travel with larger seats (in 2-1 configuration) and even more sleeper buses for night travels [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0
        jhugo 4y ago