Comments on: Will high speed rail kill the airline star?

By: polok

polok — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:53:57 +0000

u nos tyz takie byda

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 10 May 2010 09:56:34 +0000

The US rail system is an embarrassment. Developing countries have better systems with a fraction of the budget, and nations like China are developing multiple high speed corridors in addition to existing dedicated passenger lines that already put US infrastructure to shame in efficiency, service and punctuality.

We are literally 20 to 40 years behind much of the developed and developing world in lines of transportation. Its a sad reality that the auto and aerospace industry own both “sides” of Washington and they are doing what benefits them, not a nation of 300 million people.

Transportation is vital to the economy and our antiquated, laughable infrastructure speaks volumes as to why our once unstoppable economy is now in shambles. Its not the only reason, but it is definitely a contributing factor.

By: cubiclegrrl

cubiclegrrl — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:35:29 +0000

You’d have to so some pretty sweet talking to get me to consider rail for anything but in-city transportation. I’ve generally had good experiences with public transport in DC, Boston and London (Vancouver not so much), but long-distance travel by rail sucks, IMO. BritRail and Amtrak seem to have forgotten that they’re carting human beings, not cargo. Horrid experiences, both.

By: Broome Backpackers

Broome Backpackers — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:45 +0000

Europe is connected by high speed trains and they still have a number of competitive airlines…

By: David

David — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:08:18 +0000

I like the Picture of the stacked rail cars. Reminds me of my visit to Lima back in ’04, taxiing down the runway you could see dozens of out of use planes stacked there..

By: ShortWoman» Blog Archive » Here Comes Trouble

ShortWoman» Blog Archive » Here Comes Trouble — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:51:02 +0000

[...] Closing: unseen Chapter 11 wave; anti-stab knives (how British); Will high speed rail kill the airlines? (answer — not if the TSA does it first); “get used to tighter credit“; highest [...]

By: Rico

Rico — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:07:53 +0000

Well, in Europe airlines successfully cooperate with train companys. See for example LH and DB (german rail company). DB operates a high speed train station at Frankfurt Airport. so you actually can check in at a few other stations and connect in Frankfurt like you would connect using a regional flight. You can even drop your luggage at those train stations and it will be checked through to your final destination. You don’t need to pick it up when you transfer from train to aircraft. LH also puts a flight number on those trains. The benefit for LH is that they don’t need to use valuable slots in Frankfurt for such short hops like Cologne or Stuttgart.
Even the Airport operator benefits because the direct connection to a high speed train increases the 1h and 2h catchment dramatically.
It’s a win-win-win. You just need to somehow finance the expensive infrastructure.

By: Mark Ashley

Mark Ashley — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:01:55 +0000

Hermann’s point — “[Airlines] aren’t only in the flying business, they are part of the Transportation business and should utilize all modes suitable.” — is one which came up a recent thread. It would be interesting to see an airline reconceive of itself as a transportation company, and to incorporate rail into its own strategy. But right now, I just don’t see any American airline with the vision, the strategy, or even the capital to do it. It’s cheaper to try to block HSR’s growth, so that’s likely the path of least resistance.

By: F.K. Plous

F.K. Plous — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:22:34 +0000

Flyerist need not worry about driving “60-90 minutes” into downtown Chicago to catch his high-speed train. In the Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s plan for a multi-state HSR system, the lines converging on Chicago from the south, west and east would not terminate in downtown Chicago as they do now but would continue on to a new station integrated into the proposed new terminal on the west side of O’Hare. The line approaching Chicago from the Twin Cities, Madison and Milwaukee would stop at O’Hare before entering Chicago. Travelers who now take short- and medium-distance flights to connect with long-distance flights at O’Hare would simply take a train directly to the airport, eliminating the small feeder planes which are choking O’Hare’s airspace and taxiways and opening up new slots for trans-continental and overseas flights which are profitable for the airlines and cannot be replaced by rail. Residents of suburbs around other cities also will have access to high-speed trains, since the trains must pass through the suburbs on their way out of town and will pause there at a suburban station. Nobody will be forced to go into the center of the city to catch a train.

By: Hermann

Hermann — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:32:14 +0000

I believe HSR is critical. Besides being the optimal mode for regional intercity travel, with airport and airspace congestion, HSR can subsitute commuter flights and free up capacity. It is also more comfortable than an RJ and is likely to run at much higher frequency. Airlines should embrace it as complement to their model, not as competition as it is for them most likely cheaper to buy seat contingents than to operate an RJ. That’s something airlines in Europe are have been more advanced in realizing: They aren’t only in the flying business, they are part of the Transportation business and should utilize all modes suitable.