3 ms·
There are a lot of indirect subsidies going into air travel. To me this has always seemed rather perverse, and the money should have been invested in proper rai
by fnordian_slip 2y ago
There are a lot of indirect subsidies going into air travel. To me this has always seemed rather perverse, and the money should have been invested in proper rail infrastructure instead, from a climate standpoint as well as for convenience (a proper rail network deposits you in the middle of a city without the need for a car, you don't have endless security controls etc.).
- fastball 2y agoWhat indirect subsidies go into air travel that don't also apply to rail?
- fragmede 2y agothe TSA?
- missedthecue 2y agoThat's not really a subsidy for air travel, in fact it's a cost. People here are talking about how they would prefer rail so that they don't need to go through security at the airport. That's bad for airlines.
- iancmceachern 2y agoBut who pays the TSA agents salaries? Buys the equipment?
- iancmceachern 2y agoTo be fair, rail is also heavily subsidized, just in different ways.
- Symbiote 2y ago(In Europe.) Aircraft fuel isn't taxed, but train 'fuel' (electric or diesel) is taxed. Airlines can base their staff in a cheap country and pay lower wages, avoid unions etc. Local governments subsidise airports to attract tourists/business. The railway already exists and doesn't get this subsidy.
- fastball 2y agoLocal governments don't subsidize rail stations?