8 ms·
> In many cases air travel is more convenient and cheaper to operate than rail (no infrastructure needed). This is like saying flipping on a light switch, turn
by throw0101a 3y ago
> In many cases air travel is more convenient and cheaper to operate than rail (no infrastructure needed).
This is like saying flipping on a light switch, turn on a tap, or flushing a toilet is very convenient because there is no infrastructure needed.
There's a whole bunch of stuff that happens in the background that you may not be aware of. See also "Dependency" comic:
* https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
- mytailorisrich 3y agoNot at all, this is disingenuous and a misrepresentation of my comment. You obviously understands my point that railways require massively more infrastructure than air travel, and that their convenience decreases with distance though they do have capacity in their favour.
- throw0101a 3y ago> You obviously understands my point that railways require massively more infrastructure than air travel […] Debatable. First there is all the land, then all the runways that need to be maintained, the terminals, the jet fuel (refinery, pipelines, storage tanks, local pipes and pumps), the entire local/regional/international air traffic control system (controllers, towers, radio, radar, beacons, ILS/GPS). Train tracks take up much less space, train stations are much smaller, coordination on fixed tracks less complicated that managing planes criss crossing the sky, and trains can run on electricity (so you leverage the existing power grid).