Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR
(Post 24695592)
People who live in small cities need regional airports.
If you fly a lot, you want an airport convenient to both your origin and destination. Otherwise, you're wasting your time driving to and from airports. Business travelers have better things to do than go on long road trips. If I want to go skiing at Jackson Hole, I'm flying into JAC, not spending a day behind the wheel driving from DEN so I can fly WN. I have better things to do with my time.
Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR
(Post 24695610)
Who drives 3 hours from Sioux Falls to Omaha to catch a flight? I'll take a connection at MSP over that.
WN serves NOTHING in South Dakota or Wyoming. Heck, they don't serve Vermont either.
Originally Posted by kettle1
(Post 24695691)
I gave a dozen or more routes that WN does not serve.
Originally Posted by jb1012xna
(Post 24698120)
WN doesn't serve MS anymore either. People in JAN would now be looking at 3 hours to either MSY, BHM, or MEM. DL flies 717s and MD88s there though, so not sure if that means it's exempt or still worthless. :)
|
Congrats BIGGAW, we have allowed you to become the leading FT troll for 2015. For some reason we keep feeding you.
|
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24699656)
That's the nature of getting around in this country due to our deficient transportation system, and decades of systematic neglect of our infrastructure, especially rail. If we had rail service like Europe, it would be much easier to get around, sometime on it's own, sometime in concert with big, long-haul, mainline air service.
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24699656)
Well I'm served by 6 airports, which are approximately 1 hour and 1.5 hours by car, with the other 4 about 3 hours either direction by transit. On the flip side, I'm relatively lucky in that, if I wanted to, I could fly to much of the planet non-stop from one of my 6 airports.
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24699656)
I have looked at their map. You seem to have a severe case of confusing service for that state with a WN plane actually touching the ground in that state.
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24699656)
And all commercial planes should be configured as economy-only like WN. That's a more efficient use of runway capacity.
|
Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR
(Post 24700219)
The European transportation system does not work in much of the USA simply because there isn't enough population density to support a multi day high speed train connecting far flung cities. Paris to London is pretty quick, so is Paris to Lyon, or Marseille. However, if I wanted to go from Paris to Istanbul, I'd most likely take a plane.
Even today's slow trains could be made much better with more frequent service, places to connect with rental cars, parking, etc. Trains are not going to be hugely competitive for long-haul routes, although they could probably capture 5-10% of the market for routes like NYC-SF if they offered a really good sleeper experience on an 18-hour super-express with great amenities. It wouldn't take any longer than staying over near the airport at one end or the other and flying, and it's certainly a lot more comfortable. It would probably decimate first class on a few of those long-haul routes, as the more well-heeled customers who want to pay for the better experience would pay. The majority of the market would still probably sardine can on jets though, and some business travelers who redeye between workdays wouldn't be well served by the longer rail runs. In terms of regional transportation, the trains need to share the tracks with freight, would mostly be 90-110mph, and the interconnectivity to long-distance trains, city transit, parking, rental cars, and of course airports would be the most important factors in making them successful. The comfort and convenience factor, i.e. functional free Wifi, a good food and bar car, etc, would also determine how well they do. Many of the few trains that exist today just dump you somewhere without any decent parking, rental cars, or transit connections, making them of limited use. Some trains might even share transit links and/or rental cars with airports. An example of connectivity fail is Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited. As it currently stands, to use it to get to Detroit from here, it would dump me in Toledo at 5:55 in the morning, and the rental car place down the street doesn't open for a couple of hours. And then coming back, it's even worse, it leaves at 3:20 in the morning. If there were multiple trains a day, I could choose one with a better schedule for hitting Toledo, and if there were good rental car options there, I'd take that over WN any day of the week, but there aren't. So I fly WN instead, even though it's way too short of a route to be flying. I recently went on a business trip to PIT. We flew WN PVD-BWI-PIT and PIT-MDW-PVD. It was an absurd amount of flying around for a short trip, but it was a bit too far to drive there and back in two days. If the rail service was better on the old Pensey mainline, it would have been an easy choice to take the train. But it's not. The only route that's longer than the BOS-WAS corridor where it makes sense to take Amtrak is from here to Chicago, because it's timed right for the entire trip. It's probably more expensive than just flying direct on WN, but if I go out there, I'll try to get tickets on the Capitol Limited WAS-CHI instead of flying. More comfortable for sure! I can walk to an airport with lots of WN service in an hour. All that means is that I'm close to an airport. Most people would define service to an area as having a plane land in that area. If I wanted to go to Sioux Falls, that airport has to be in the Sioux Falls metropolitan area. OMA and MSP are not close to FSD. Howo about we configure them like NK. That's even more efficient. I can't fault NK, since they are efficiently using airport resources with the number of people that they are moving around per aircraft operation, but I'm not flying on that sardine can! |
NK's bag thing looks like a PITA too. I like how WN offers free checked bags, and Wifi. I will only do carry-on, but the free bags means more people check them, so there's fewer bags in the overhead bins when I go to put mine in, and the Wifi means that the suckers who pay the absurd rates subsidize my ticket. NK doesn't have Wifi at all, which seems counter to the fee for this, fee for that, the subsidize the seats model. Apparently they are making money like crazy though, so good for them I guess. I'd considering flying on them if they had 32" of legroom, even with all the other restrictions.
|
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24700604)
I can't fault NK, since they are efficiently using airport resources with the number of people that they are moving around per aircraft operation, but I'm not flying on that sardine can!
|
Originally Posted by jb1012xna
(Post 24700837)
Then why are "regional" jets being thrown under the bus again? If NK is more efficient than WN at maximizing the 737 (and similar), I don't know why they're being penalized with all argument provided.
What I'm saying is that I'm not going to fly on NK, but they should continue to operate. I'm also not flying on regional airlines, but they should be eliminated, as they are clogging our runways up. NK isn't. |
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24700604)
Does FSD even have commercial mainline service?
|
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24700791)
will only do carry-on, but the free bags means more people check them, so there's fewer bags in the overhead bins when I go to put mine in,
|
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24700604)
an 18-hour super-express with great amenities. It wouldn't take any longer than staying over near the airport at one end or the other and flying
Remember that not everyone chooses to drive several hours to an airport the day before their travel. I tend to leave my home or office at most 2 hours before my flight's departure time. |
Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR
(Post 24701041)
Yes
Originally Posted by gooselee
(Post 24701259)
Translation: I wouldn't dare inconvenience MYSELF with something, but I love it when others do it so that there is more space for MY way of doing things.
Originally Posted by gooselee
(Post 24701283)
I'll give you the comfort factor, but how in the world does an 18-hour train ride not take longer than a 5.5-hour plane ride, even with check in and security?
The other inherent advantage is that a high-speed train can share trackage with other trains for the last few miles to get into terminal cities like Boston, NYC, SF, etc. Depending on the routes they take, they could have suburban rental/garage/lot/bus connection stations, and then a second station a few minutes later right in the downtown. Remember that not everyone chooses to drive several hours to an airport the day before their travel. I tend to leave my home or office at most 2 hours before my flight's departure time. Plus, if you're flying non-stop on a long-haul route, you often have to go to a larger airports (JFK, BOS, EWR for me) as opposed to the mid-sized ones (PVD, BDL for me), so it ends up breaking even whether you hub somewhere from a mid-sized airport, or fly direct from a larger one. The people living in the big cities have the advantage of non-stop service to far more cities. |
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24702299)
That's not realistic for most people, considering that at most airports you have to get to the airports 90-120 minutes ahead of the flight
|
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24702299)
Reading comprehension? I said it takes the same amount of time as flying and staying over at one end or the other in a hotel.
... Plus, if you're flying non-stop on a long-haul route, you often have to go to a larger airports (JFK, BOS, EWR for me) as opposed to the mid-sized ones (PVD, BDL for me), so it ends up breaking even whether you hub somewhere from a mid-sized airport, or fly direct from a larger one. The people living in the big cities have the advantage of non-stop service to far more cities. I think you're again applying your own travel patterns to the masses, and summarily dismissing that many others value and use their time differently. I highly doubt that most passengers on domestic routes, even mid-haul TCONs (most here consider long-haul to be 8+hour intercontinental travel), are arriving the night before and staying at an airport hotel. So let's see, even giving you all the concessions of multiple connections, layovers, and eager beavers arriving at the airport extra early: - Leave home 3 hours before flight time from regional airport - 1.5 hr flight from regional airport to TCON hub - 1 hr layover - 5.5 hr TCON flight - 1 hr layover - 1.5 hr flight from TCON hub to regional airport - 1 hr drive to destination That totals up to 14.5 hours of door-to-door between two regional airports on different coasts using a double connection. Last time I checked, 14.5 < 18. And far more likely for city-dwellers, or people traveling between city centers where your train stations would be, is a direct flight, eliminating 5 hours from that travel time. Train travel can be very nice and has its advantages. But if you want to compare the timing of train travel to air travel, you need to compare train travel to air travel. Not train travel to air travel plus an overnight hotel stay. |
Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 24700604)
225mph HSR will also blow flying or driving out of the water [...] in the Northeast, where the comically slow "165mph" Acela already reigns supreme BOS-WAS.
Even allowing a ridiculous amount of time for driving to the airport and clearing security, it's not even close. |
Originally Posted by MS02113
(Post 24703218)
Even allowing a ridiculous amount of time for driving to the airport and clearing security, it's not even close.
As I'm learning in this thread, that would be the appropriate math if you are comparing flight times to train times. ;) |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:19 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.