Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#31

Post by kaybe »

britta wrote: post #19
vacri wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in California in 2009 and found it weird that there was no daily train between LA and SF - it only runs (ran?) every second day. The day I left, I had to get a bus to Bakersfield to connect to the train. The other striking thing was train travel in the South being heavily subsidised - huge distances travelled for not much money, with power for your laptop and lots of space to move around. If the train schedule…

The Coast Starlight ( http://www.amtrak.com/coast-starlight-train ) has been running once a day between LA and Oakland for years, with a connecting bus to SF - here's its schedule: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/935/314/Coast-Starlight-Schedule... It takes about 12 hours if there are no delays. It's a lovely and relaxing trip, but that's a long time compared to flying or driving. If you want to leave SF/Oakland later th…

Would that trip be interesting for a high-speed train connection? It's approximately 600 km (380 miles), that should be possible in about 3 hours. The terrain doesn't look too bad either at first glance.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#32

Post by Aloha »

kaybe wrote: post #31
britta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Coast Starlight ( http://www.amtrak.com/coast-starlight-train ) has been running once a day between LA and Oakland for years, with a connecting bus to SF - here's its schedule: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/935/314/Coast-Starlight-Schedule... It takes about 12 hours if there are no delays. It's a lovely and relaxing trip, but that's a long time compared to flying or driving. If you want to leave SF/Oakland later th…

Would that trip be interesting for a high-speed train connection? It's approximately 600 km (380 miles), that should be possible in about 3 hours. The terrain doesn't look too bad either at first glance.

They appear to be working on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#33

Post by JHof »

I'm a PC-12 pilot in the Northeast and have been watching this company since it was little more than an idea and a Twitter account (original name Plane Red). Their marketing and execution is so much better than other small airlines. I'd love to see a service like this come to the NYC area. So many people spend far more than this per month on tickets to go to Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, the Hamptons and coastal Maine.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#34

Post by driverdan »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #21
vacri wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in California in 2009 and found it weird that there was no daily train between LA and SF - it only runs (ran?) every second day. The day I left, I had to get a bus to Bakersfield to connect to the train. The other striking thing was train travel in the South being heavily subsidised - huge distances travelled for not much money, with power for your laptop and lots of space to move around. If the train schedule…

What you actually need there is sleeper cars. Imagine getting on the train at 7 in the evening, lying on your own bed reading books and drinking tea, sleeping actually then getting off the train at 9 in the morning at the railway terminal in another city.

They do have sleeper cars but the trip between LA and SF is far too short to make it overnight.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#36

Post by Sanddancer »

kaybe wrote: post #31
britta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Coast Starlight ( http://www.amtrak.com/coast-starlight-train ) has been running once a day between LA and Oakland for years, with a connecting bus to SF - here's its schedule: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/935/314/Coast-Starlight-Schedule... It takes about 12 hours if there are no delays. It's a lovely and relaxing trip, but that's a long time compared to flying or driving. If you want to leave SF/Oakland later th…

Would that trip be interesting for a high-speed train connection? It's approximately 600 km (380 miles), that should be possible in about 3 hours. The terrain doesn't look too bad either at first glance.

As was stated, it's being worked on. It also runs into one of those things that a lot of people from outside of California don't realize about the state. There are a /lot/ of mountain ranges. The Starlight itself meanders along and through various bits of the coastal ranges of California, which, while absolutely gorgeous, leads to a path that's not particularly amenable to high speed travel.

So, the state needs to build new trackage through a 3000 ft (~1km) pass getting out of LA, and more trackage through a 1500 ft pass getting out of the SF area in order to use the much more straight and speedy right-of-way going through the middle of the state. Once that's done, and the rights of way along the corridor are upgraded, high speed rail will run between the points. Just gonna take another 15-20 years to do so.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#37

Post by snowwrestler »

temphn wrote: post #30
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fly a fair amount and don't find that I wait significantly longer for airport security now than I did before 9/11. I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but I don't think they're the major cause of commercial airport delays.

But of course they are, or more general the web of DHS/TSA/FAA/etc. regulations is the reason why commercial air travel has not advanced in door-to-door speed. Without the regulations you could imagine an airport that pre-screened travellers. You roll up to the curb, get valet parked, and your bags checked, and then you get on the flight. You'd build the entire airport around this rapid on/off experience. You could h…

Pre-screening is not only legal, it has just been expanded to the general public.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#38

Post by cscheid »

rdl wrote: post #27
sjtgraham wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turboprops or even piston are a better choice for routes like SB to Burbank than turbofan aircraft. > Single engine aircraft are objectively better in a lot of ways. Do you feel like giving us any reasons? :)

Turboprops (and some pistons) are way more efficient at low altitudes. For a short route, most of your time is spent a lot altitudes, so the prop is going to be a lot more efficient. Saves fuel, makes it cheaper to fly, thus lower fares. Single engine aircraft have been shown to be essentially as safe as twins, at least on light aircraft like these. Engines very rarely fail, and a twin engine light craft failing ofte…

I remember reading (~10-15 years ago?) that although the general public's impression was that propellers make planes unreliable, it was actually turbines that made airplane engines reliable (which means you really want turboprops rather than piston-propeller aircraft)

Have airplane piston engines become as reliable as turboprops?

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#39

Post by Jazonk »

natnat wrote: post #3

It's funny that a huge part of the reason that a business like this exists is the TSA. If flying commercial airlines didn't require an hour and a half of waiting in line for security and a fair dose of humiliation, I think people would be much more willing to fly from SFO to LAX. Instead, we're running inefficient propeller planes for short distances and really high prices, and people are treating it like it's some a…

It's not just the TSA that will make this popular - I see the convenience as a big draw. As this expands to more regional airports, it will be even more practical. Being able to drive to a smaller, less crowded airport will be a selling point. You don't have to deal with the stresses of huge terminals and tons of people.

Re: All-You-Can-Fly Airline Plies the California Coast

#40

Post by mseebach »

temphn wrote: post #30
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fly a fair amount and don't find that I wait significantly longer for airport security now than I did before 9/11. I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but I don't think they're the major cause of commercial airport delays.

But of course they are, or more general the web of DHS/TSA/FAA/etc. regulations is the reason why commercial air travel has not advanced in door-to-door speed. Without the regulations you could imagine an airport that pre-screened travellers. You roll up to the curb, get valet parked, and your bags checked, and then you get on the flight. You'd build the entire airport around this rapid on/off experience. You could h…

> pre-screened travellers

The problem is that you can't reliably pre-screen for terrorists, the signal is plainly undetectable in the noise - there are 95 million passengers a year at Atlanta alone and 19 hijackers on 9/11.

You're bound to get a lot of false positives, and then what do you do with them? In the meantime, the actual terrorists just wait until they successfully get a guy pre-screened, and he then just walks on board with a bomb.

Post reply on HN