251–260 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just put a large tax if the short, domestic flight isn't a connecting flight. Short, domestic flight by itself: 100€ Short, domestic flight part of an international itinerary: +30€ It'll mostly work itself out.
Just tax CO2 emissions to a sufficient level and let the market sort itself out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…
The US is pretty exceptional in its lack of rails. There is also a Seattle-San Diego. Enjoyable as a tourist, but probably not suited for business purposes except in the last portions. In France some high speed trains go now directly to airports (CDG,LYO). So it is becoming possible to chain a plane and a train in a few scenarios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is pretty exceptional in its lack of rails. There is also a Seattle-San Diego. Enjoyable as a tourist, but probably not suited for business purposes except in the last portions. In France some high speed trains go now directly to airports (CDG,LYO). So it is becoming possible to chain a plane and a train in a few scenarios.
It's not really that the US lacks rails, we have the largest rail network in the world. The problem for passenger rail here is population density. France is three and a half times denser, and Japan is nearly 10x. I think they would also struggle a bit more to justify rail costs if they were as spread out as the US.
There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. However, if you're already arriving or leaving on a long distance flight, the whole overhead of getting to/from/through the airport disappears and those 1.5 hours start making a difference. I think forcing companies to advertise more honest flight durations and prices could make a huge difference. If the airline tells you that…
I used to regularly travel from Edmonton to Calgary for work. When you add up the extra time required for flying, it's about a three hour trip (45 minutes in the air, the rest is getting to the airport, checking in, etc). Coincidentally, it's also about a three hour drive. My reasons for driving vs flying were usually to do with how long I'd be there. If I was going for one day then flying was preferable since fallin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general though flying is much safer than highway driving. If one wanted to minimize risk, one would always fly.
The difference in relative risk is high, but the absolute risk of dying in a car is still pretty low if you're sober, wearing a seatbelt, and not speeding. Oh, and apparently if you're not driving in the U.S. Geez, didn't realize we're such crappy drivers here. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...
Once you decide it’s worth receding back to the caves to reduce emissions, however slightly, you have to wonder how slippery the slope is.
Edit: To the downvoting conservationists: I support a carbon tax. I don’t support us clipping our own wings out of fear.
How strange it will seem to our grandchildren that some governments were willing to subject their population to a technological regression to reduce emissions, instead of taking the conveniences and productivity of modern society as beyond compromise, and determining how to push forward new technology to maintain it while eliminating carbon emissions. Once you decide it’s worth receding back to the caves to reduce em…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…
The problem is hub-and-spoke approach of many national carriers (Air France included). Covid travel restrictions aside, one can buy an air itinerary that gets them from NYC to Bordeaux (or Nice, or Nantes, or Toulouse, or Marseille, or Lyon, or Strasbourg) all via CDG. That airport train station is set up to transport the passengers from the airport to the city center, not inter-city travel. Air France is right to co…
Maybe one day NYC-YUL-BOD will be a valid option to shave off a few hundred miles in the air, but that is another border.
There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. However, if you're already arriving or leaving on a long distance flight, the whole overhead of getting to/from/through the airport disappears and those 1.5 hours start making a difference. I think forcing companies to advertise more honest flight durations and prices could make a huge difference. If the airline tells you that…
When we compare train and air travel here in Sweden, the issues are far away from being about time, UX or advertisements. The rail system has been stagnated in the last 40-50 years and maintenance neglected. The rail is not straight and gives a lot of lateral movement, vibration and noise. The train departments are not sound isolated or have air condition. The speed limit (as a result of the neglect) makes the trip s…
You might have seen those. Bright color, « futuristic » design. In the vein of the concord Suprasonic plane.
Is this also an attempt to shore up the train system finances, and reduce the money it’s hemorrhaging?