151–160 of 169 posts
1.Jeju-Seoul
2.Melbourne-Sydney
3.Mumbai-Delhi
4.Fukuoka-Tokyo
5.Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo
6.Sapporo-Tokyo
7.Los Angeles-San Francisco
8.Brisbane-Sydney
LAX-SFO is the 7th most busiest.
Source : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/world-s-b...
For folks seeking some context on why LAX-SFO route, here's a list of busiest air routes in the world based on passenger volume :- 1.Jeju-Seoul 2.Melbourne-Sydney 3.Mumbai-Delhi 4.Fukuoka-Tokyo 5.Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo 6.Sapporo-Tokyo 7.Los Angeles-San Francisco 8.Brisbane-Sydney LAX-SFO is the 7th most busiest. Source : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/world-s-b...
And a good reason for California to invest in high-speed rail, in my own opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does a "private terminal" mean ? Or rather, in what precise way is it better ? I have a vague idea of what it can provide but I'm not sure how it can shed up to an hour of time. Does it include a dedicated secrity and immigration service (so no gigantic lines) ?
A private terminal is a smaller terminal in a different location than the main terminal. The private terminals are used for private planes. We don't fly private planes. We fly regional planes, however, they still meet the size requirements to take off and land at private terminals. There are never any lines and they have their own security system. So you can show up 15 minutes before the flight and still make it.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Free-Flight-Inventing-Future-Travel/d...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_light_jet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure. Waiting in line at security and then again at the gate sucks, and I fly maybe once every six weeks. If I flew four times a month for business, I could see a private gate with no wait being worth some money. You're saving time, too, which I assume is worth a fair amount of money to the type of person who flies that often.
Well although I have TSA Pre, and you should too, I can give your argument some merit. Yes one thing I like about trains - their ONLY redeeming quality - is that if the trip says 2 hours, then it is really JUST 2 hours out of your day Whereas with flights, if the trip says 2 hours then it is more like 4 and a half hours out of your day. Always have to consider showing up to the airport at least an hour early, always…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm familiar with trains, I'm just saying the option between SF and LA is... not really any option.
Well sure, but a high speed train could be built, right? In Spain (not really a high-tech country overall) there are trains connecting the country corner to corner with trains that go at like 300 KM/Hour average. Considering that train stations are central, plus there is no need to be there like 2 hours before, plus you can easily work there, etc. it is way faster and more convenient than flight, and of course way mo…
I applaud the audacity of starting an airline from scratch, considering it's way up there in terms of capital requirements and regulatory burden, and the industry has been losing money in the US, collectively, since the Carter administration. But it needs to be said that SFO LAX is, at just 300 miles, and with the high demand shown by such startups, a perfect example of everything that is wrong with transportation in…
SFO-LAX high speed rail is theoretically being built, for 100 billion dollars. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/
Then you need to not take any federal funds, because if you do you'll be forced to buy everything from domestic manufacturers, which treat you exactly as you'd expect a captive audience to be treated. (This is why the US's shipbuilding industry is confined to government contracts and vessels that are below the minimum size to be covered by the Jones Act.) If you take federal money, also expect expensive and lengthy procurement grievances regardless of the merits. California probably has a similar state law, plus all sorts of others (e.g. CEQA), and the BANANAs are very experienced at wielding them.
Add all the union contracts that mandate excessive staffing, constant handing off of work between jurisdictions, etc. and you're paying ten times as much per kilometer vs. a comparable project in a high-wage EU country.
For folks seeking some context on why LAX-SFO route, here's a list of busiest air routes in the world based on passenger volume :- 1.Jeju-Seoul 2.Melbourne-Sydney 3.Mumbai-Delhi 4.Fukuoka-Tokyo 5.Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo 6.Sapporo-Tokyo 7.Los Angeles-San Francisco 8.Brisbane-Sydney LAX-SFO is the 7th most busiest. Source : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/world-s-b...
Interesting, I hadn't realized it's that scale. And a good reason for California to invest in high-speed rail, in my own opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're in the process of finalizing arrangements with our regional airline partners to operate the flights. We'll have our first flights within the next few months.
> We're in the process of finalizing arrangements... I find it a bit misleading that you don't state this more clearly upfront. > We'll have our first flights within the next few months. ... if everything goes as expected, if not then you'll be liable with a whole bunch of angry first customers.
If I get an e-mail in a couple of months that this works, awesome, I'll give them a spin. If not, oh well. But why would their customers be angry? It's pretty clear it's not an existing service yet.