Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure what point your trying to make. Whenever we spot lightning within 10 miles of our Airport, we shut everything down. Planes stay on the Tarmac, and baggage claims go off. In North Texas we can go from sunny weather to Rain, hail, lightning, along with Tornadoes. Safety always come 1st in Aviation, customer service will always come 2nd to it. Believe me, Airlines want their Aircraft to take off on-time. Anytime a plane stays on the ground they're losing money.
His/her point, I surmise, is that society overall has become skittish and risk-averse; air travel is no exception.
A percentage of infant-mortality, of deaths per passenger-highway-mile driven, of patients dying from contaminated drugs and so forth, that would have been acceptable in say 1950, is deemed to be completely intolerable today. "Back in the day", the expectation was simply greater, than people would die from accidents and communicable diseases and the various travails of daily life, be it machinery failing or buildings collapsing or chance infections. So, the emphasis was more on getting that hydroelectric dam built, that spacecraft launched, that mine-shaft excavated, and that airplane taking off. Today we're much more willing to cease operations, in effort to forestall comparatively remote dangers. That has an economic cost – including of course to the airliners. But it also has a cost in inconvenience – to everyone, including passengers.
Simply put, it is inconvenient to be safe – even if the danger is legitimate and not overhyped, and the concerns are driven by actual engineering considerations, rather than by politics or fear of litigation. Safety doesn't come for free! And yet, who ever is going to advocate for LESS safety? Can we imagine raising the blood-alcohol-standards for intoxication, because the current ones are too safe (too inconvenient)? Can we imagine relaxing fire-safety building codes, because the current ones incur too many inspections or double-checking of drawings or widening of staircases? The drive to more safety – at the cost of less convenience – is monotonic and relentless. Maybe we can't change that. But it would be cathartic to at least acknowledge it!
The drive to more safety – at the cost of less convenience – is monotonic and relentless. Maybe we can't change that. But it would be cathartic to at least acknowledge it!
Ya until, it leads to more accidents and lawsuits against the Air carrier.
In the 1930s-1970s air travel was a glamorous experience. You had plenty of leg room, free alcoholic drinks, attractive stewardesses in pleasing uniforms, hassle free boarding experiences, deluxe luxurious accommodations, steak and lobster meals, and comfortable seating.
Since the 80s the industry has consisted of sardine can-like seating, hellish boarding procedures with cavity searches, free peanuts if you're lucky, and frumpy airline staff who look and act like they escaped from a prison chain gang.
It makes me sick.
Hmmmm, from about 1977 till 1994, my traveling from Texas to the East Coast consisted of Mooney 201 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20
which consisted of little better than a sardine can, no bathroom, the meals you could stuff into the pockets of a flight suit, and 4-6 hours traveling like that where you can't even get up...........................and it was WONDERFUL!
Dad said he could leave his law office at noon in Austin TX and be at Hilton Head by that evening.
So, sure, Mooney 201 was nothing like an airliner in the Nixon Administration and before. In the air liner afterwards, it makes it interesting to note why is one so terrible and the other so wonderful?
I agree. If time could go back, I guess the Big 3 in Detroit would fight to the death to ban introduction of cars made in Japan in early '70s.
Competition is not just between airlines. For whatever reason, the US never developed a real, at least real in modern sense, passenger rail system, which could compete with air travel. Transportation system is often the most heavily protected, anywhere in the world. But different modes of transportation do compete with each other within countries, and that could explain the difference between airlines that suck elsewhere and airlines here that quite often suck much more even though competitively speaking, the US commercial aviation market is actually more competitive than most.
Nice rail system could provide real competition to short haul flying, like between cities of either coast, and unlike driving, taking train usually doesn't mean you have to concentrate for 5 hours on the trip itself purely for safety reason.
Competition is not just between airlines. For whatever reason, the US never developed a real, at least real in modern sense, passenger rail system, which could compete with air travel.
Because the U.S. is too big?
Even at 200 mph, it would take 15 hours to go from New York to Los Angeles.
I don't have 15 hours.
Chicago to Cleveland? It might only take two hours, but you have to add the time to and from the train stations. It is easier for most people to get to the airport than to a downtown train station.
And airplanes don't use expensive tracks that have to be razor straight, requiring whole sections of cities to be demolished. Fast airplanes can fly around slow airplanes; fast trains have to wait for slow trains. Trains are fun but they are an absurdly expensive luxury in the U.S.
Even at 200 mph, it would take 15 hours to go from New York to Los Angeles.
I don't have 15 hours.
Chicago to Cleveland? It might only take two hours, but you have to add the time to and from the train stations. It is easier for most people to get to the airport than to a downtown train station.
And airplanes don't use expensive tracks that have to be razor straight, requiring whole sections of cities to be demolished. Fast airplanes can fly around slow airplanes; fast trains have to wait for slow trains. Trains are fun but they are an absurdly expensive luxury in the U.S.
I live in East Bumble (fictional town) in Southwest Ohio... about 300 miles by highway from Chicago. When flying from my regional airport to O'Hare, the wheels-up to wheels-down time is 39 minutes. This is the time that the pilots announce, shortly before taking off. I fly the same airline (United) on the same type of airplane (CRJ) to the same hub (O'Hare) more or less once a month, if not more frequently. However, it takes me an hour to drive to our regional airport, another hour (or more) to check-in, go through security, board, wait for the flight and so forth... and then there's the layover in O'Hare. Due to "weather", it often happens that my regional flight is delayed, and I miss my connection in O'Hare. If it's an international flight to Heathrow or Frankfurt, I might still be OK, as there are multiple daily departures from O'Hare to those destinations. For less common destinations, or a later flight, I might get stuck overnight.
The solution would be high-speed rail. It's maybe 250 miles as the crow flies (or goes by rail). Trains presumably are less affected by summer thunderstorms or winter snows, than regional airliners. The regional airplane has no first-class cabin, and limited overhead luggage space. From my front-door to my connecting gate in O'Hare, a high-speed train might take an hour longer than a regional flight - assuming that the regional flight isn't delayed. In the case of delays, the train might actually be faster.
Why is the rail option not available? And by "high speed", I don't mean a TGV going 300 km/h. 150 km/h would be sufficient.
Even at 200 mph, it would take 15 hours to go from New York to Los Angeles.
I don't have 15 hours.
Chicago to Cleveland? It might only take two hours, but you have to add the time to and from the train stations. It is easier for most people to get to the airport than to a downtown train station.
And airplanes don't use expensive tracks that have to be razor straight, requiring whole sections of cities to be demolished. Fast airplanes can fly around slow airplanes; fast trains have to wait for slow trains. Trains are fun but they are an absurdly expensive luxury in the U.S.
A "real" rail system should include the infrastructure to support transportation to and from rail station (which could easily be located in downtown).
Short haul flight could be seriously under threat by and have to respond to rail either by lowering price further or improve services.
Long haul, yes, the longer it is, the more obvious the speed advantage flying possess over train. But even at 15 hours, it's totally doable with leaving during the day and wake up tomorrow to arrive at your destination, totally feasible for most trip if you're not super time sensitive. Even with flying, it takes 6 hours, take 6 hours out of your work day, plus jet lag and stuff, that day is ruined for you in any case. You'd not gonna be able to do much with the other hours left in the day in any case.
Of course, high speed rail is a much better choice than airplane, especially for trips that spans short and medium distance.
Rail saves time and passengers are less fatigued.
For example, a journey by air from SFO to LAX takes 90 minutes (60 minutes in the air while 30 minutes taxiing in and out). But you have to add on about 3-4 hours in checking and commuting since the airports are far from the City Center. And their schedule is easily affected by weather.
But for high speed rail, usually the station is located right in the city center where passenger can easily transfer to other modes of transportation (in case of Japan's Shinkansen). The schedule can be extremely punctual and less affected by weather. Moreover, the seats have more room and passengers are more relaxed. The same distance, SFO to LAX, can be covered in 2-2.5 hours by high speed rail.
So in fact high speed rail can cut the time in half for the same trip.
That is why in countries where there is high speed rail, the plane ticket is usually much cheaper than the rail ticket because most passengers prefer rail.
"And airplanes don't use expensive tracks that have to be razor straight, requiring whole sections of cities to be demolished. Fast airplanes can fly around slow airplanes; fast trains have to wait for slow trains. Trains are fun but they are an absurdly expensive luxury in the U.S."
Air travel takes up much much more land than rail does.
The airport is getting bigger and bigger and the planes are getting larger and larger too. A lot of airports are expanding and taking up the adjacent farm land or industrial land.
But rail is very efficient. On top of the rail station, hotels, shopping malls, commercial buildings and even condominium can be built on top of it. Rail track takes a narrow path and can be built very close to residential neighborhood (noise can be insulated by barrier).
And high speed rail can be very efficient in term of capacity utilization. It is interconnected with major metropolis. A 5-minute stay at each station can drop off hundreds of passengers and then pick up hundreds of passengers to fill up the vacant seat.
How much time does it take airplane to do the same routine? At least 90 minutes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
