Earlier quoted context omitted.
> loophole with those minimum transfer times I have to ask why it’s a loophole. OP consumed just as much train with long stops as someone that travelled directly. It’s odd, in aviation, you’ll pay less with longer layovers and more for direct, even though direct is the least miles in the air. I get it that suppliers like to charge more for more convenience but really, the cost of provision is the same (or less!).
> It’s odd, in aviation, you’ll pay less with longer layovers and more for direct, even though direct is the least miles in the air. What’s odd? Supply and demand. More people want direct flights so they cost more money.
There's simply a pricing model where a more convenient or luxurious travel intiniary is more expensive. Only temporary popularity shifts could do a supply/demand price run, otherwise larger airplanes generally lower costs per passenger, and running more flights on the same line is likely a reduced effort and risk than having more lines.
Low-performance or high-variance lines could be higher priced due to having to pay for empty seats (on the same line of flights) but I believe this is not usual. The remaining passengers would be fewer.
I should think air travel would greatly improve with better customer-risk-treatment (e.g. no security - more like busses) and a 'ticketing model' that's as complicated as buying train tickets. Perhaps then we will see some more imaginative forms of air travel.