12 ms·

The more I read and hear about luggage handling (this article, lost luggage last summer, cbikes are often damaged in planes...), and after unsatisfying experien

The more I read and hear about luggage handling (this article, lost luggage last summer, cbikes are often damaged in planes...), and after unsatisfying experiences (waiting for hours to check in or to claim bags), I'm more willing to take the train than the plane ! In Europe, you show up into a train station, handle your bikes or precious bag yourself, get in your train, and step out to leave the station immediately. To anyone in the airline industry : the bad user experience with bags doesn't encourage me to carry bags in the cabin. It makes me get buses or trains whenever I have stuff with me. This should be a reminder that _users_ know best, not management. They have _needs_ not because they're picky, and won't adapt to your service. They will get an service to match their needs. I feel like airlines don't want you to check in bags because they say it's premium, and _good_ passengers don't need them. Well, if your feature is 'premium', you don't develop it it to offer a satisfying user experience. Bags should be on the MVP. You want bags and to get them bag, not just money. Or users move on to others company products.

kjkjadksj 4y ago
If only we had a choice in the U.S. Flying across the country costs about the same as taking a train with amtrak. It takes 5 hours to make that flight or so, call it 8 hours dealing with the airport. The train ride on the other hand is 3 days, like its still the 1800s. The train could also face big delays.
- jeoqn 4y ago
  In Spain taking a train costs much more than taking a plane. Take all the “here in the eu” comments as what they are: anecdotes of a certain country or plain propaganda.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    The main reason is that airlines and their operations are heavily subsidised, it's not an immutable law of physics
    - jeoqn 4y ago
      I’ve been reading about it and it seems that most “subsidies” are tax exemptions - those should be extended to train transport then.
      - TylerE 4y ago
        Most of the european rail systems are at least semi-nationalized.
      - filleokus 4y ago
        Most of the exemptions are for e.g taxes on fuel, or land taxes for airports etc. Taxing flights the same way e.g cars are taxed would make trains more competitive, but wouldn't really lower the price for trains. In many places train infrastructure is also heavily subsidised. The sad reality is that air travel has much lower cost for fixed infrastructure (≈ airports) compared to trains, per passenger km. If we build an airport, an airline can more or less just fly wherever from that airport. If someone wants to fly 2 hours west to a large city, and others would like to fly 2 hours south, they can just do that without really impacting the other (except for taking up slot times). With trains every single km of track you lay can only be used going in that direction (duh), and needs to be maintained year around. You have expensive tunnels, bridges and "advanced" control systems and infra all along the track. To extend the rail network to another city is an enormous up-front const, and only "unlocks" one new city (or direction). A (large) airport can be used to go both 45 minutes away on domestic flight or half across the globe.
        sagarm 4y ago
        Tracks form a network that can be used to reach more than just the directly connected cities. Similarly, airports require a high up front capital cost and form a network that allows you to reach further than the infrastructure at the starting point allows. On rail having high maintenance cost for the infrastructure: every flight requires expensive and fragile planes + lots of fuel, so the marginal cost of each trip is high. So it's a little more complicated to compare the costs than you suggest.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Uhm. Is this propaganda? https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-medium-distance-trains-will-be-free-this-autumn-thanks-to-a-windfall-tax https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-m... https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-trains-in-spain-september https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-tra... https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-for-free-by-train-for-all-of-2023/ https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-f...
    - jeoqn 4y ago
      That’s only for short distances (where you wouldn’t catch a plane) and it will only be this year.
      - hinata08 4y ago
        it wasn't a discussion about price. It was about the service that is offered Price attracts new customers, quality loyalises them (Its a quote from a local rapper. Not train related, but it applies to any business) Bus is dirt cheap and ok for some trips. Plane is a bit more expensive. but I'm still willing to take the train (first class) for the extra convenience, especialy when I cross the country several times over a weekend. Also, plane is only kinda cheap when you book it a long time ago and for peculiar hours and dates. It gets really expensive last minute or on days when demand increases, while train companies can just scale up the number of seats by using more carriages
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  To go from coast to coast even with a dedicated high speed train would easily take a day or two. It’s just not competitive over 1000km.
  - comte7092 4y ago
    Definitely, there’s a ton of low hanging fruit to be picked in the US, in both the NE and the Midwest alone. Pretty much everywhere east of the Mississippi is a prime target for high speed rail.
    - Operyl 4y ago
      Brightline is giving us a decent high speed rail in Florida, and I’ve heard they’re doing something on the west coast too. I can’t wait for it to be connected state wide, all the Disney trips … heh.
      - TylerE 4y ago
        Beightline travels at the normal federal limit of 79mph. The _lowest_ internationally accepted limit for high speed rail is 125mph. Even if Beightline ever actually upgrades to 110mph that still won’t be real HSR. They also have a real problem with Florida drivers being Florida drivers. True high speed rail is fully grade separated (no road crossings)
        Operyl 4y ago
        Sorry, I thought I put that in quotes when I posted. It’s high speed compared to everything else here, and better than what we had before. That said, this is their plan for the expansion to Orlando: > Brightline will terminate at this station once the 170-mile (270 km) Orlando Extension track is built. Trains will run up to 125 mph (201 km/h) with a travel time of approximately three hours from Orlando's airport to Miami.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        Disney specifically said no (so far) because Brightline said yes to Universal.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Passenger jets travel about 500 miles an hour or faster. Bullet trains (which we don't even have in the US) are around 100-200mph at best. That's still a huge difference unfortunately, especially going 2500+ miles across the entire country.
  - anaganisk 4y ago
    That's a bad way to compare. You are obviously not factoring in the checkin,boarding,de-boarding, and travel to airport times, which will almost add up to similar times. Japan has literally bought major cities in commute distance with bullet trains. What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains. You factor that into your plan and travel comfortably and peacefully. If America is serious about trains, all it has to do is add more sleeper cars, and you will see how liberating train travel is.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      It's not a bad way to compare when looking at flights traveling 2500+ miles...
      - anaganisk 4y ago
        If US like the rest of the world, make trains popular and brings the costs down for trains and actually has more connectivity. The distance will quickly not become a problem. Like I said all we need is a sleeper coach, and we just have comfortable nap to the destination over night. India is able to transport millions of people in 2500+ KMs routes a day, you are looking at the people who are forced to pay and travel in those forsaken airliner comfort. Trains will only bring more people together when they connect more and make it affordable.
        areyousure 4y ago
        In case anyone is curious, India has a single train route over 2500 miles long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_Vivek_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_... It runs twice a week and takes over 3 full days. Meanwhile, the fastest train in India averages under 60 mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express
- burkaman 4y ago
  Also, the bike situation is much worse than in Europe. Here's how it works on Amtrak in my experience: 1. Show up to the train station with your bike. 2. In most places, get turned away because you were supposed to pay extra to reserve a bike spot in advance and now they're out of space because there are only like 4 spots in the whole train. 3. Assuming you planned ahead, remove your front wheel so you can hang the bike in a designated luggage rack, there is nowhere else you're allowed to put it. The train cars have not meaningfully changed in 100 years and are not tall enough to fit a bike with the front wheel attached. Seriously, go to the Smithsonian African American History Museum and look at their train car from the 40s, the interior is almost the same as a modern car. 4. Cringe as the train car sways and your bike's front fork repeatedly slams into the wall. 5. At your stop, the conductor starts letting people on before you've unhooked your bike so now you need to fight your way down the aisle against the current of people while holding your partially disassembled bike and bag so you can get off before the doors close. That said I take Amtrak over a plane every chance I get, I will pay more for it, and I really really wish we had more trains here. I have taken a 48 hour train from Boston to Denver before instead of flying and I'd do it again, even if I can't convince anyone else to do it with me.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Conversely, I’ve had this experience: - show up with 5 people and bikes 30 minutes before the train leaves with no reservation. They see that we have more bikes than the standard 4 on the train and hook up a special bike storage car with ~50 bike racks that require nothing more than hanging your bike on it. - get on train. - get off at destination and go to bike car where they give you your bikes and off you ride. Not to say thats every time I’ve ridden a train with a bike but its happened more than once.
    - burkaman 4y ago
      Nice, that sounds great. I guess like everything else it always depends where in the country you are.
      - 8note 4y ago
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  Honestly, I like the ability to drive in US for comparable distances that you would take the train in EU. Everything happens on my own schedule without having to deal with people when I drive.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    As with many tradeoffs in life, awesome for the individual in the present (assuming they can afford it), terrible for the collective and the future.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pif 4y ago
    Sure, I like driving to places, too, but having more trains would not hinder your journey by car.
  - 8note 4y ago
    I think of driving as near constantly dealing with people. They're around you the whole time, more or less aggressive, skilled and less skilled, and more or less caring about their own life while operating their own deadly machine. Traffic is like riding the train but everyone's got a gun pointed at each other
  - earthling8118 4y ago
    I don't get any control over my schedule when driving long distance. I have to drive. A constant focus on keeping myselr alive. If I was on a train I could read, code, play games, or do whatever I felt like.
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  Los Angeles to New York is 2800 miles. That's about the same distance as from Lisbon to Moscow. That trip if done entirely by train takes 4 days, according to Google. https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8 https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8
  - burkaman 4y ago
    LA-NYC on Amtrak right now can be done for $251 in 70 hours. If you want a sleeper car it's $1500+, though you can split that with another person.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  That's a terrible excuse. Most flights in the US aren't to cross coast to coast. If you take the top 10 most used flight routes in the US: LAS-LAX Las Vegas - Los Angeles 286,262 - Take a damn train HNL-OGG Honolulu - Kahului 281,548 - Maybe don't take a train for that one unless you want to dig a tunnel. JFK-LAX New York JFK - Los Angeles 274,909 - Alright, plane is useful LGA-ORD New York La Guardia - Chicago O'Hare 263,499 - Take a damn train DEN-LAS Denver - Las Vegas 253,959 - Take a damn train LAX-SFO Los Angeles - San Francisco 247,571 - Take a damn train ATL-MCO Atlanta - Orlando 239,281 - Take a damn train LAX-ORD Los Angeles - Chicago O'Hare 231,252 - Flight DEN-PHX Denver - Phoenix 226,666 - Take a damn train JFK-SFO New York JFK - San Francisco 215,323 - Flight Most of your busiest routes could easily be done by train, and even land right in the city instead of being in the middle of nowhere when you land. And that's the busiest routes! Most lesser used flights will be for cities close to one another. Being in a train also lets you work, use your laptop, have internet, get up and walk, grab (overpriced) food in a bar wagon, have a wagon for children to play in, etc. Trains are just better. So, no, you can't use the "but the US is big" argument every time, sorry.
  - bsder 4y ago
    Many of those "take a train" routes aren't really your destination, though. For example, practically everything involving LAS is connecting to something else which goes further. Orlando is probably the terminus thanks to Disney, but ATL is likely not the originator. Probably the only route which definitely isn't a hub connector is LAX-SFO as both LAX and SFO are already hubs in and unto themselves. Maybe, LGA-ORD also falls into a similar category.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Amtrak is supposed to get first priority, but lines are still owned by freight companies who culled many passenger-heavy lines for "efficiency" and run extremely long trains that clog up traffic for hours, again for some spreadsheet-worthy target metric of "efficiency". Here's a video from Wendover Productions about the laws surrounding ownership vs control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  So the market found equilibrium where trains are much more fit for cargo. Why should we regulate it otherwise?
- Fatnino 4y ago
  Try actually booking a train from San Francisco to Chicago that doesn't involve travel on a weekend. It just doesn't exist.
  - ac29 4y ago
    The California Zephyr goes from the Bay Area to Chicago every day and its a ~2 day journey.
jebarker 4y ago
> I feel like airlines don't want you to check in bags because they say it's premium, and _good_ passengers don't need them. I hope/wish this isn't their motivation. I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.
- safeimp 4y ago
  > I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane. I imagine you're a casual flyer? As someone who has traveled a lot for work I can't agree. I'm someone who needs to move from A->B quickly and can't be bothered worrying about luggage being lost or dealing with delays at the carrousel. > Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane. Like what? If it's your laptop/similar it can be in a backpack/small bag under the seat. If it's a jacket it can rest behind you on the seat or if you have a bit of space in your bag (under seat or overhead luggage) toss it in there prior to boarding, it's what I always did.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I do wish more people would use soft sided luggage rather than roll-aboards which disproportionately consume overhead space for the most part. But, in general, I agree. I pack light and only check luggage when I have to--e.g. gear for outdoor activities.
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    The biggest annoyance while flying is other people. Luggage is just a proxy.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    So you, as an important businessman, are deserving of the overhead luggage space, but the casual riff-raff should stuff their belongings around their feet? There obviously isn't enough space on the plane for every passenger to take a max-size carry-on suitcase. Therefore, anyone taking one is using more than their fair share, and they should be the ones accommodating the other passengers -- yet it's usually the opposite . These people are usually the ones rushing to board first and taking longer to arrange the luggage. I agree with the GP that these people are the most annoying feature of short-haul flights.
scottLobster 4y ago
To be fair you only hear about it when there's a problem. I'm not a frequent flier, but on the dozens of flights I've taken over the course of my life I've never lost a bag. That said, your odds vary wildly by both airline and airports involved. https://www.price4limo.com/lost-luggage.html https://www.price4limo.com/lost-luggage.html
- hedgehog 4y ago
  I used to travel a lot and lost, delayed, and damaged luggage was a recurring problem. In one case we had to pay a local expediter to go get our stuff.
- ghouse 4y ago
  I am a frequent flyer. When traveling by myself, I don't check. When traveling with my family, I do check. In the past 10 years, at least five times we've had bags delayed more than 48 hours. Like the linked article, I also had a bag lost returning from honeymoon. That bag was never returned. It took me more than a year to get the airline to provide any compensation. (SDR 1,500) SDR = "Special Drawing Right, roughly $1,300 at today's conversion rate.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  I'm an extremely frequent flyer and I've only ever had bags delayed due to reasons I find completely understandable. One such case was a connection through Houston where there was a huge electrical storm that delayed flights and forced ramp crew indoors for their protection. After the storm passed the decision was made to get the passengers out even if their bags were late. My bag was delivered to my hotel the following day. Other cases have been extremely tight connections (that I have willingly chosen to book, against my better judgement) where there is barely enough time to get ME to the connection much less a bag buried in a hold somewhere. From your link, the success rate for bag transportation ranges from 99.85% to 99.07%. I honestly don't know how much better it can get. There must be something going on that people have a perception that bag loss is common, because I take 30-50 trips per year, almost all of them through Chicago (which has a reputation) and almost all of them 2 legs, which is 160 loading operations per year (~40 trips, two legs each, round trip) and no unexplained bag losses or delays. Is there a specific mode of air travel, like the crazy weird itineraries that people come up with to save $60 on airfare? Or weird, oddly-shaped, hard-to-handle bags? (I've seen taped-up coolers and trash bags used as checked luggage) Broken luggage? That's a different story. Airlines have broken so many of my suitcases that I now transport my dirty laundry home in a Pelican Air 1615. (edit: and they're doing their best to break that-- good luck!)
orev 4y ago
Airlines don’t want you checking bags for at least two reasons: 1) For every bag that’s carry-on is one that a baggage handler doesn’t have to deal with (as well as reducing risks of losing it and all those logistics), so they can reduce the number of people they need to pay. 2) Unused overhead space is wasted space. They’re spending a huge amount of fuel to transport X cubic feet of space from one place to another. If the overheads are half empty, that’s wasted space. They want all the overhead space to be used so they have more space available in the hold. That extra space in the hold is something they can sell. They can carry tons of FedEx envelopes, Amazon packages, etc. as cargo, and of course they can make more money from that than if they used the space for passengers who already paid for the space in the cabin.
- jedberg 4y ago
  They sell the overhead bin space too. It's just smaller and less useful. Definitely been on planes where some of the empty bins had packages in them.
AlbertCory 4y ago
... and why I will never, never ship my dog on a plane. He rides in the cabin with me, or he stays home. If that means private aviation, so be it.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  There are people allergic to dogs (and there's no such thing as hippoalergenic dog)
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    People already bring their helper dogs on regular commercial airlines. I sat next to one (in the airport boarding lounge) on my last trip. So I assume the flight attendants just move people.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I don't disagree but at the same time, I'd like to know stats. Given just how much baggage air lines handle, it always seemed a miracle to me so much of it got where it needed. I will never put important stuff in checked luggage but how much of it is lost? 10%? 1%? 0.1%? How much of it delayed?
chemmail 4y ago
I have a friend who use to do luggage at the airport. If you put FRAGILE on your bag they actually kick it more for shits and giggles. Don't do that.
lurking_swe 4y ago
you forget who most of their flyers are. Frequent travelers for business. These customers almost always have just a carry on bag or small luggage, which fits in the cabin. This trend may be changing post-covid (still remains to be seen).
dzhiurgis 4y ago
Given train costs are on par with flying business class - you’d probably get similar attention to your bags. Personally, having moved with 2 kids and ~8 pieces of baggage to and from Europe recently (and getting priority treatment about 60% of time)… I don’t wanna see a suitcase in my life ever again.

kjkjadksj 4y ago

If only we had a choice in the U.S. Flying across the country costs about the same as taking a train with amtrak. It takes 5 hours to make that flight or so, call it 8 hours dealing with the airport. The train ride on the other hand is 3 days, like its still the 1800s. The train could also face big delays.

jeoqn 4y ago
In Spain taking a train costs much more than taking a plane. Take all the “here in the eu” comments as what they are: anecdotes of a certain country or plain propaganda.
- lm28469 4y ago
  The main reason is that airlines and their operations are heavily subsidised, it's not an immutable law of physics
  - jeoqn 4y ago
    I’ve been reading about it and it seems that most “subsidies” are tax exemptions - those should be extended to train transport then.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      Most of the european rail systems are at least semi-nationalized.
    - filleokus 4y ago
      Most of the exemptions are for e.g taxes on fuel, or land taxes for airports etc. Taxing flights the same way e.g cars are taxed would make trains more competitive, but wouldn't really lower the price for trains. In many places train infrastructure is also heavily subsidised. The sad reality is that air travel has much lower cost for fixed infrastructure (≈ airports) compared to trains, per passenger km. If we build an airport, an airline can more or less just fly wherever from that airport. If someone wants to fly 2 hours west to a large city, and others would like to fly 2 hours south, they can just do that without really impacting the other (except for taking up slot times). With trains every single km of track you lay can only be used going in that direction (duh), and needs to be maintained year around. You have expensive tunnels, bridges and "advanced" control systems and infra all along the track. To extend the rail network to another city is an enormous up-front const, and only "unlocks" one new city (or direction). A (large) airport can be used to go both 45 minutes away on domestic flight or half across the globe.
      - sagarm 4y ago
        Tracks form a network that can be used to reach more than just the directly connected cities. Similarly, airports require a high up front capital cost and form a network that allows you to reach further than the infrastructure at the starting point allows. On rail having high maintenance cost for the infrastructure: every flight requires expensive and fragile planes + lots of fuel, so the marginal cost of each trip is high. So it's a little more complicated to compare the costs than you suggest.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Uhm. Is this propaganda? https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-medium-distance-trains-will-be-free-this-autumn-thanks-to-a-windfall-tax https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-m... https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-trains-in-spain-september https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-tra... https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-for-free-by-train-for-all-of-2023/ https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-f...
  - jeoqn 4y ago
    That’s only for short distances (where you wouldn’t catch a plane) and it will only be this year.
    - hinata08 4y ago
      it wasn't a discussion about price. It was about the service that is offered Price attracts new customers, quality loyalises them (Its a quote from a local rapper. Not train related, but it applies to any business) Bus is dirt cheap and ok for some trips. Plane is a bit more expensive. but I'm still willing to take the train (first class) for the extra convenience, especialy when I cross the country several times over a weekend. Also, plane is only kinda cheap when you book it a long time ago and for peculiar hours and dates. It gets really expensive last minute or on days when demand increases, while train companies can just scale up the number of seats by using more carriages
bobthepanda 4y ago
To go from coast to coast even with a dedicated high speed train would easily take a day or two. It’s just not competitive over 1000km.
- comte7092 4y ago
  Definitely, there’s a ton of low hanging fruit to be picked in the US, in both the NE and the Midwest alone. Pretty much everywhere east of the Mississippi is a prime target for high speed rail.
  - Operyl 4y ago
    Brightline is giving us a decent high speed rail in Florida, and I’ve heard they’re doing something on the west coast too. I can’t wait for it to be connected state wide, all the Disney trips … heh.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      Beightline travels at the normal federal limit of 79mph. The _lowest_ internationally accepted limit for high speed rail is 125mph. Even if Beightline ever actually upgrades to 110mph that still won’t be real HSR. They also have a real problem with Florida drivers being Florida drivers. True high speed rail is fully grade separated (no road crossings)
      - Operyl 4y ago
        Sorry, I thought I put that in quotes when I posted. It’s high speed compared to everything else here, and better than what we had before. That said, this is their plan for the expansion to Orlando: > Brightline will terminate at this station once the 170-mile (270 km) Orlando Extension track is built. Trains will run up to 125 mph (201 km/h) with a travel time of approximately three hours from Orlando's airport to Miami.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Disney specifically said no (so far) because Brightline said yes to Universal.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Passenger jets travel about 500 miles an hour or faster. Bullet trains (which we don't even have in the US) are around 100-200mph at best. That's still a huge difference unfortunately, especially going 2500+ miles across the entire country.
- anaganisk 4y ago
  That's a bad way to compare. You are obviously not factoring in the checkin,boarding,de-boarding, and travel to airport times, which will almost add up to similar times. Japan has literally bought major cities in commute distance with bullet trains. What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains. You factor that into your plan and travel comfortably and peacefully. If America is serious about trains, all it has to do is add more sleeper cars, and you will see how liberating train travel is.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    It's not a bad way to compare when looking at flights traveling 2500+ miles...
    - anaganisk 4y ago
      If US like the rest of the world, make trains popular and brings the costs down for trains and actually has more connectivity. The distance will quickly not become a problem. Like I said all we need is a sleeper coach, and we just have comfortable nap to the destination over night. India is able to transport millions of people in 2500+ KMs routes a day, you are looking at the people who are forced to pay and travel in those forsaken airliner comfort. Trains will only bring more people together when they connect more and make it affordable.
      - areyousure 4y ago
        In case anyone is curious, India has a single train route over 2500 miles long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_Vivek_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_... It runs twice a week and takes over 3 full days. Meanwhile, the fastest train in India averages under 60 mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express
burkaman 4y ago
Also, the bike situation is much worse than in Europe. Here's how it works on Amtrak in my experience: 1. Show up to the train station with your bike. 2. In most places, get turned away because you were supposed to pay extra to reserve a bike spot in advance and now they're out of space because there are only like 4 spots in the whole train. 3. Assuming you planned ahead, remove your front wheel so you can hang the bike in a designated luggage rack, there is nowhere else you're allowed to put it. The train cars have not meaningfully changed in 100 years and are not tall enough to fit a bike with the front wheel attached. Seriously, go to the Smithsonian African American History Museum and look at their train car from the 40s, the interior is almost the same as a modern car. 4. Cringe as the train car sways and your bike's front fork repeatedly slams into the wall. 5. At your stop, the conductor starts letting people on before you've unhooked your bike so now you need to fight your way down the aisle against the current of people while holding your partially disassembled bike and bag so you can get off before the doors close. That said I take Amtrak over a plane every chance I get, I will pay more for it, and I really really wish we had more trains here. I have taken a 48 hour train from Boston to Denver before instead of flying and I'd do it again, even if I can't convince anyone else to do it with me.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Conversely, I’ve had this experience: - show up with 5 people and bikes 30 minutes before the train leaves with no reservation. They see that we have more bikes than the standard 4 on the train and hook up a special bike storage car with ~50 bike racks that require nothing more than hanging your bike on it. - get on train. - get off at destination and go to bike car where they give you your bikes and off you ride. Not to say thats every time I’ve ridden a train with a bike but its happened more than once.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    Nice, that sounds great. I guess like everything else it always depends where in the country you are.
    - 8note 4y ago
ActorNightly 4y ago
Honestly, I like the ability to drive in US for comparable distances that you would take the train in EU. Everything happens on my own schedule without having to deal with people when I drive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  As with many tradeoffs in life, awesome for the individual in the present (assuming they can afford it), terrible for the collective and the future.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pif 4y ago
  Sure, I like driving to places, too, but having more trains would not hinder your journey by car.
- 8note 4y ago
  I think of driving as near constantly dealing with people. They're around you the whole time, more or less aggressive, skilled and less skilled, and more or less caring about their own life while operating their own deadly machine. Traffic is like riding the train but everyone's got a gun pointed at each other
- earthling8118 4y ago
  I don't get any control over my schedule when driving long distance. I have to drive. A constant focus on keeping myselr alive. If I was on a train I could read, code, play games, or do whatever I felt like.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
Los Angeles to New York is 2800 miles. That's about the same distance as from Lisbon to Moscow. That trip if done entirely by train takes 4 days, according to Google. https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8 https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8
- burkaman 4y ago
  LA-NYC on Amtrak right now can be done for $251 in 70 hours. If you want a sleeper car it's $1500+, though you can split that with another person.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
That's a terrible excuse. Most flights in the US aren't to cross coast to coast. If you take the top 10 most used flight routes in the US: LAS-LAX Las Vegas - Los Angeles 286,262 - Take a damn train HNL-OGG Honolulu - Kahului 281,548 - Maybe don't take a train for that one unless you want to dig a tunnel. JFK-LAX New York JFK - Los Angeles 274,909 - Alright, plane is useful LGA-ORD New York La Guardia - Chicago O'Hare 263,499 - Take a damn train DEN-LAS Denver - Las Vegas 253,959 - Take a damn train LAX-SFO Los Angeles - San Francisco 247,571 - Take a damn train ATL-MCO Atlanta - Orlando 239,281 - Take a damn train LAX-ORD Los Angeles - Chicago O'Hare 231,252 - Flight DEN-PHX Denver - Phoenix 226,666 - Take a damn train JFK-SFO New York JFK - San Francisco 215,323 - Flight Most of your busiest routes could easily be done by train, and even land right in the city instead of being in the middle of nowhere when you land. And that's the busiest routes! Most lesser used flights will be for cities close to one another. Being in a train also lets you work, use your laptop, have internet, get up and walk, grab (overpriced) food in a bar wagon, have a wagon for children to play in, etc. Trains are just better. So, no, you can't use the "but the US is big" argument every time, sorry.
- bsder 4y ago
  Many of those "take a train" routes aren't really your destination, though. For example, practically everything involving LAS is connecting to something else which goes further. Orlando is probably the terminus thanks to Disney, but ATL is likely not the originator. Probably the only route which definitely isn't a hub connector is LAX-SFO as both LAX and SFO are already hubs in and unto themselves. Maybe, LGA-ORD also falls into a similar category.
uoaei 4y ago
Amtrak is supposed to get first priority, but lines are still owned by freight companies who culled many passenger-heavy lines for "efficiency" and run extremely long trains that clog up traffic for hours, again for some spreadsheet-worthy target metric of "efficiency". Here's a video from Wendover Productions about the laws surrounding ownership vs control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74
dzhiurgis 4y ago
So the market found equilibrium where trains are much more fit for cargo. Why should we regulate it otherwise?
Fatnino 4y ago
Try actually booking a train from San Francisco to Chicago that doesn't involve travel on a weekend. It just doesn't exist.
- ac29 4y ago
  The California Zephyr goes from the Bay Area to Chicago every day and its a ~2 day journey.

jebarker 4y ago

> I feel like airlines don't want you to check in bags because they say it's premium, and _good_ passengers don't need them. I hope/wish this isn't their motivation. I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.

safeimp 4y ago
> I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane. I imagine you're a casual flyer? As someone who has traveled a lot for work I can't agree. I'm someone who needs to move from A->B quickly and can't be bothered worrying about luggage being lost or dealing with delays at the carrousel. > Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane. Like what? If it's your laptop/similar it can be in a backpack/small bag under the seat. If it's a jacket it can rest behind you on the seat or if you have a bit of space in your bag (under seat or overhead luggage) toss it in there prior to boarding, it's what I always did.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I do wish more people would use soft sided luggage rather than roll-aboards which disproportionately consume overhead space for the most part. But, in general, I agree. I pack light and only check luggage when I have to--e.g. gear for outdoor activities.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  The biggest annoyance while flying is other people. Luggage is just a proxy.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  So you, as an important businessman, are deserving of the overhead luggage space, but the casual riff-raff should stuff their belongings around their feet? There obviously isn't enough space on the plane for every passenger to take a max-size carry-on suitcase. Therefore, anyone taking one is using more than their fair share, and they should be the ones accommodating the other passengers -- yet it's usually the opposite . These people are usually the ones rushing to board first and taking longer to arrange the luggage. I agree with the GP that these people are the most annoying feature of short-haul flights.

scottLobster 4y ago

To be fair you only hear about it when there's a problem. I'm not a frequent flier, but on the dozens of flights I've taken over the course of my life I've never lost a bag. That said, your odds vary wildly by both airline and airports involved. https://www.price4limo.com/lost-luggage.html https://www.price4limo.com/lost-luggage.html

hedgehog 4y ago
I used to travel a lot and lost, delayed, and damaged luggage was a recurring problem. In one case we had to pay a local expediter to go get our stuff.
ghouse 4y ago
I am a frequent flyer. When traveling by myself, I don't check. When traveling with my family, I do check. In the past 10 years, at least five times we've had bags delayed more than 48 hours. Like the linked article, I also had a bag lost returning from honeymoon. That bag was never returned. It took me more than a year to get the airline to provide any compensation. (SDR 1,500) SDR = "Special Drawing Right, roughly $1,300 at today's conversion rate.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
I'm an extremely frequent flyer and I've only ever had bags delayed due to reasons I find completely understandable. One such case was a connection through Houston where there was a huge electrical storm that delayed flights and forced ramp crew indoors for their protection. After the storm passed the decision was made to get the passengers out even if their bags were late. My bag was delivered to my hotel the following day. Other cases have been extremely tight connections (that I have willingly chosen to book, against my better judgement) where there is barely enough time to get ME to the connection much less a bag buried in a hold somewhere. From your link, the success rate for bag transportation ranges from 99.85% to 99.07%. I honestly don't know how much better it can get. There must be something going on that people have a perception that bag loss is common, because I take 30-50 trips per year, almost all of them through Chicago (which has a reputation) and almost all of them 2 legs, which is 160 loading operations per year (~40 trips, two legs each, round trip) and no unexplained bag losses or delays. Is there a specific mode of air travel, like the crazy weird itineraries that people come up with to save $60 on airfare? Or weird, oddly-shaped, hard-to-handle bags? (I've seen taped-up coolers and trash bags used as checked luggage) Broken luggage? That's a different story. Airlines have broken so many of my suitcases that I now transport my dirty laundry home in a Pelican Air 1615. (edit: and they're doing their best to break that-- good luck!)

orev 4y ago

Airlines don’t want you checking bags for at least two reasons: 1) For every bag that’s carry-on is one that a baggage handler doesn’t have to deal with (as well as reducing risks of losing it and all those logistics), so they can reduce the number of people they need to pay. 2) Unused overhead space is wasted space. They’re spending a huge amount of fuel to transport X cubic feet of space from one place to another. If the overheads are half empty, that’s wasted space. They want all the overhead space to be used so they have more space available in the hold. That extra space in the hold is something they can sell. They can carry tons of FedEx envelopes, Amazon packages, etc. as cargo, and of course they can make more money from that than if they used the space for passengers who already paid for the space in the cabin.

jedberg 4y ago
They sell the overhead bin space too. It's just smaller and less useful. Definitely been on planes where some of the empty bins had packages in them.

AlbertCory 4y ago

... and why I will never, never ship my dog on a plane. He rides in the cabin with me, or he stays home. If that means private aviation, so be it.

NikolaNovak 4y ago
There are people allergic to dogs (and there's no such thing as hippoalergenic dog)
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  People already bring their helper dogs on regular commercial airlines. I sat next to one (in the airport boarding lounge) on my last trip. So I assume the flight attendants just move people.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I don't disagree but at the same time, I'd like to know stats. Given just how much baggage air lines handle, it always seemed a miracle to me so much of it got where it needed. I will never put important stuff in checked luggage but how much of it is lost? 10%? 1%? 0.1%? How much of it delayed?

chemmail 4y ago

I have a friend who use to do luggage at the airport. If you put FRAGILE on your bag they actually kick it more for shits and giggles. Don't do that.

lurking_swe 4y ago

you forget who most of their flyers are. Frequent travelers for business. These customers almost always have just a carry on bag or small luggage, which fits in the cabin. This trend may be changing post-covid (still remains to be seen).

dzhiurgis 4y ago

Given train costs are on par with flying business class - you’d probably get similar attention to your bags. Personally, having moved with 2 kids and ~8 pieces of baggage to and from Europe recently (and getting priority treatment about 60% of time)… I don’t wanna see a suitcase in my life ever again.