ibrandsguest

For people who have been business travelers for years, when in the US did flying become the only feasible way for long-distance business trips?

We have Amtrak, but except between Washington, NYC and Boston, and perhaps around Chicago and in California (maybe), a typical employee taking a business trip wouldn't even suggest Amtrak to a boss for a long-distance business trip.

The US used to have slews of long-distance passenger trains, and railroads dumped money into them until at least the late 1950s, and kept them in part until the 1970s. It looks like railroads used to have plenty of business travelers. My grandparents took trains on long-distance business trips at least in the '40s and maybe later.

When did the time come when a typical business traveler stopped taking the train as the default choice? Maybe the mid-1950s?

Thanks.

Kagehitokiri

'long distance' on train? from where to where?
incredibly long travel time would cost businesses

time is #1 reason for businesses using private jets >

Non-NonRev

Another factor was that more profitable freight trains could increase their frequency, and their priority to use the tracks, once there were less passenger trains clogging the system.

greggarious

Were "business trips" even a thing prior to modern aviation? I feel like most business would be done via letter (maybe telephone) and then high level employees (C*O today) would go to finalize.

rickg523

US policy considers rail a freight mode, with passenger conveyance a secondary offering, when convenient to the railways. With the exception of the Northeast corridor.
So a business trip from say Des Moines to Minneapolis (about 250 miles) is either flown or driven. I doubt there's a passenger rail connection worth a damn to even consider.
I wonder how many Italian business trips from Rome to Bologna (about the same distance) are flown instead of taking the train.

6P&E

In the 1950's print media such as national magazines (Time, Life, Look, Newsweek, etc.) featured numerous airline advertisements aimed at luring business people off the train and onto the plane. Ads touting a business person's ability to fly from NYC to Chicago, conduct a full day's business, and be home for dinner on the same day were common. This was a direct appeal to the train traveler who would need 3 days to accomplish the same thing.

But airfares in the 1950's and 1960's before deregulation were expensive, limiting air travel to those with big travel expense budgets or a real need to fly.

At some point during the 1960's with jet age and more and better albeit expensive air travel options, the plane eclisped the train as train service began to decline in the US. Fewer trains and therefore rail travel options made it all but impossible to travel in much of the country by rail.

It was not, however, only the airplane that undid passenger rail travel. The 1950's and 1960's saw major highway construction not limited to the Interstate Highway system.

Just as the air travel began syphon off business travelers, the improved highway system and larger cars and the first motel chains such as Howard Johnsons and Holiday Inn took vacation travelers off the train and onto the road.

I guess you could say in the 1950's airlines competed for business travelers with the railroad, trying to extol the benefits of air travel over rail travel. By the 1960's they had pretty much succeeded.

ibrandsguest

Yes. My grandparents would go to NYC (from 600 miles away) on business. One would take the train (sleeping car that was sitting there at the local train station and then picked up by the long-distance train that came through), back in the '40s.

Tchiowa

It came when air travel became safe and reliable. I fly from SFO to SLC on occasion. Slightly over an hour. I took Amtrak once because it was winter and my wife wanted to take a slow ride through the Sierras. Beautiful, but it took more than 10 times as long as flying. If you consider cross country what would that take? 3-4 days? Bosses aren't going to pay for that lost time. Too valuable.

Peoriaman1

I would think the vast majority of "business trips" were pretty short in distance back in those days. Car, bus or train, same thing. When a sales guy from the office in Albany went to see his clients in Utica, Poughkeepsie or Syracuse, he could take the train, because any farther than that there is a guy in the next district's office who handled those other cities. Nowadays, his clients are just as likely to be in Houston, Atlanta or Portland and that means air travel.

lhrsfo

My grandfather worked for a major oil company from the 1910s onward. In the 1910s he used to travel extensively in Europe by train. the real problem came with language. English was generally not spoken on the continent, even as a second language. People rarely spoke fluently another of the principal languages and it was difficult to find any language which the whole room could speak or understand. So, as all were properly educated, they tended to settle on Latin as it was the most widely understood.

But, back on topic, when he was posted to Japan, he went by boat. Trips home were by boat - a trip that took the best part of a month.

wendyg

Well, in 1963 as depicted by MAD MEN, Don Draper and Sal Romano flew from New York to I think Baltimore for a couple of days for client meetings - that's a pretty short distance to fly. And I know there were good trains available on that route around then, because in 1965 my 6th grade class went on a DC trip (from NYC) and we went by train.

My grandfather toured the world in the very early 20th century doing shows with trained dogs. We found his travel diary a few years ago, and the list of places he played was astonishing - multiple trips to Australia, South America the US, all over Europe (he lived in Switzerland). All by boat and train.

wg

Proudelitist

In Europe where there is an actual, civilized rail system, biz trips still take place on the train.

In the US, where rail transport is spotty at best even in places where there is rail, it is simply too much of a time investment, particularly for long distances. Why take a day to ride from LA to San Fransisco when you can fly in an hour? Time is money.

chgoeditor

A friend of mine is an engineer for a major freight train company, and the entire company is required to travel by rail for business meetings. While I understand what they're trying to accomplish, it seems ridiculous to have your CEO on a train for 3-4 days to spend a few hours lobbying on Capitol Hill.

MSPeconomist

Some European countries seem to expect government domestic travel to be by first or second class train and base reimbursement on train fares. In the USA, the government expects air travel, so that you must get permission sometimes not to fly.

Peoriaman1

How do they do that? Put everyone on Amtrak? Or do they ride on a private car (not unheard of as most big carriers have one or more "business cars" for execs).