4 ms·

Why? comes to mind. Why limit the options of consumers. This comes off as some sort of protectionism that will lead to a worse service for the end user and a wo

Why? comes to mind. Why limit the options of consumers. This comes off as some sort of protectionism that will lead to a worse service for the end user and a worse product due to lack of competition. You can solve this problem without resorting to archaic overreach. Make the customer experience better for those taking 2.5 hour train rides. This should be the ideal case to take a train and if people still prefer to fly something is seriously wrong with your product.

almatabata 3y ago
It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. Some people might still prefer the plane but they will probably be the minority. With shrinking usage prices will go up to compensate and eventually airlines will reduce the amount of flights naturally.
- palata 3y ago
  > It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. I believe it is slightly different. You assume that "superior" means "when given the choice, more people will choose it". But what if you say "superior" means that it uses less fossil energy? Then surely the train is superior, but people tend to choose the inferior solution because they find it more convenient. We need the ban to make sure that the superior solution is the one that gets used. And you could say "it's not fair if individuals are forced to do something they wouldn't do otherwise". But again it is relative. I find it unfair that I have to pay more and spend more time in the train because I care about the energy/climate crisis while my neighbours don't give a shit. Many people take the plane right now because everybody does, but are favourable to regulations: "I am find not taking the plane if I know that everyone else has the same constraint, but if everybody takes the plane, I don't see why I should not".
  - almatabata 3y ago
    I realize I should have specified that in this specific scenario if the train works reliably it will be quicker and more convenient than the plane for short distances. For the train: * I do not need to come at least 1 hour early to check-in * I do not have a limitation on the weight I can carry * I do not have any limitations on the things I can put in my bags * I have internet access the whole time If I give someone the choice between the plane and the train, same ticket price, same travel time, people will pick the train most of the time. Of course in some cases you have to ban stuff when convenient solution causes more damage. I would prefer though if they kept bans to when they have no other option. In this case they could just make a superior service and they would achieve a better result.
    - palata 3y ago
      > If I give someone the choice between the plane and the train, same ticket price, same travel time, people will pick the train most of the time. But it is complex: first, it works in such a way that the plane tends to be cheaper. Should you tax the flights? But then you basically say that rich people can take the plane. Banning is more fair in that sense. Then, the perception is different: people tend to trust the plane more (even though planes have delays, too) and underestimate the commute time for the plane (I often hear people compare the time between two train stations against the time between two airports, completely forgetting all the time to the airport and back, checking in, fetching the bags, etc. And finally, what we need to do goes way further than just making it more convenient to take the train for some journeys. The whole aviation sector is going to have a huge problem because it can't reasonably replace fossil fuels (no, there is not enough electricity and hydrogen for planes in a post-oil world), and therefore we need to heavily prepare for that. It means that we will have to go towards a society where we almost don't fly and mostly take the train, and that will be less convenient. We just don't have a choice, and we have to prepare for it.
      - almatabata 3y ago
        > Should you tax the flights? But then you basically say that rich people can take the plane. Rich people will pay premium for a superior experience. If the train is faster than the plane they would like to use it I think. Could railway companies add a very expensive business class to help fund cheaper tickets? They could try a pilot project where they deploy this kind business class between two major cities. Trains do not have that great of an internet connection as well. Why not provide a yearly internet subscription for a fee? Businesses might pay for this for their employees when they travel between cities and they can keep working. > But it is complex: first, it works in such a way that the plane tends to be cheaper. Currently yes that is the case a lot of the times. With renewables getting cheaper and the ever increasing electrification of trains why could trains not become cheaper in the future? Maybe it is not possible but I feel like by banning it we are giving up before really trying. Airlines have international competition which forces prices down. On the other hand railway companies often face little competition because the states maintain a public monopoly. Public monopolies have little incentive to keep prices low as they are the only game in town. I would like to see them try more things to increase efficiency, convenience and push prices down to become closer to planes. Maybe they could try to sell more services to fund the rest of the system. Maybe as you say it is impossible to match current planes prices no matter what improvements we make. I just have not seen evidence that it is impossible to make a system where you can sell train tickets at similar rates to planes. But before doing it I need to see at least an honest attempt at bringing in more revenue. > the perception is different: people tend to trust the plane more (even though planes have delays, too) and underestimate the commute time for the plane (I often hear people compare the time between two train stations against the time between two airports, completely forgetting all the time to the airport and back, checking in, fetching the bags, etc. Ok then maybe try to change the perception. If you tell people how much time they waste, you could convince at least some people to change. Do they already have some advertisements that try to change this perception? I have not seen any but maybe they already have.

almatabata 3y ago

It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. Some people might still prefer the plane but they will probably be the minority. With shrinking usage prices will go up to compensate and eventually airlines will reduce the amount of flights naturally.

palata 3y ago
> It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. I believe it is slightly different. You assume that "superior" means "when given the choice, more people will choose it". But what if you say "superior" means that it uses less fossil energy? Then surely the train is superior, but people tend to choose the inferior solution because they find it more convenient. We need the ban to make sure that the superior solution is the one that gets used. And you could say "it's not fair if individuals are forced to do something they wouldn't do otherwise". But again it is relative. I find it unfair that I have to pay more and spend more time in the train because I care about the energy/climate crisis while my neighbours don't give a shit. Many people take the plane right now because everybody does, but are favourable to regulations: "I am find not taking the plane if I know that everyone else has the same constraint, but if everybody takes the plane, I don't see why I should not".
- almatabata 3y ago
  I realize I should have specified that in this specific scenario if the train works reliably it will be quicker and more convenient than the plane for short distances. For the train: * I do not need to come at least 1 hour early to check-in * I do not have a limitation on the weight I can carry * I do not have any limitations on the things I can put in my bags * I have internet access the whole time If I give someone the choice between the plane and the train, same ticket price, same travel time, people will pick the train most of the time. Of course in some cases you have to ban stuff when convenient solution causes more damage. I would prefer though if they kept bans to when they have no other option. In this case they could just make a superior service and they would achieve a better result.
  - palata 3y ago
    > If I give someone the choice between the plane and the train, same ticket price, same travel time, people will pick the train most of the time. But it is complex: first, it works in such a way that the plane tends to be cheaper. Should you tax the flights? But then you basically say that rich people can take the plane. Banning is more fair in that sense. Then, the perception is different: people tend to trust the plane more (even though planes have delays, too) and underestimate the commute time for the plane (I often hear people compare the time between two train stations against the time between two airports, completely forgetting all the time to the airport and back, checking in, fetching the bags, etc. And finally, what we need to do goes way further than just making it more convenient to take the train for some journeys. The whole aviation sector is going to have a huge problem because it can't reasonably replace fossil fuels (no, there is not enough electricity and hydrogen for planes in a post-oil world), and therefore we need to heavily prepare for that. It means that we will have to go towards a society where we almost don't fly and mostly take the train, and that will be less convenient. We just don't have a choice, and we have to prepare for it.
    - almatabata 3y ago
      > Should you tax the flights? But then you basically say that rich people can take the plane. Rich people will pay premium for a superior experience. If the train is faster than the plane they would like to use it I think. Could railway companies add a very expensive business class to help fund cheaper tickets? They could try a pilot project where they deploy this kind business class between two major cities. Trains do not have that great of an internet connection as well. Why not provide a yearly internet subscription for a fee? Businesses might pay for this for their employees when they travel between cities and they can keep working. > But it is complex: first, it works in such a way that the plane tends to be cheaper. Currently yes that is the case a lot of the times. With renewables getting cheaper and the ever increasing electrification of trains why could trains not become cheaper in the future? Maybe it is not possible but I feel like by banning it we are giving up before really trying. Airlines have international competition which forces prices down. On the other hand railway companies often face little competition because the states maintain a public monopoly. Public monopolies have little incentive to keep prices low as they are the only game in town. I would like to see them try more things to increase efficiency, convenience and push prices down to become closer to planes. Maybe they could try to sell more services to fund the rest of the system. Maybe as you say it is impossible to match current planes prices no matter what improvements we make. I just have not seen evidence that it is impossible to make a system where you can sell train tickets at similar rates to planes. But before doing it I need to see at least an honest attempt at bringing in more revenue. > the perception is different: people tend to trust the plane more (even though planes have delays, too) and underestimate the commute time for the plane (I often hear people compare the time between two train stations against the time between two airports, completely forgetting all the time to the airport and back, checking in, fetching the bags, etc. Ok then maybe try to change the perception. If you tell people how much time they waste, you could convince at least some people to change. Do they already have some advertisements that try to change this perception? I have not seen any but maybe they already have.