BiggAW

No they don't. Most of the airports mentioned here are within 2 hours of commercial mainline service.

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.

JAC is in a pretty crappy situation in terms of air service, although at least by distance it's not that far off from where northern Michigan is. That being said, there's nothing there, so it's not surprising that there is effectively no market for commercial air service. At JAC, the nearest service would be DL's hub at SLC, which also has WN service.

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.

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. 5 of my 6 airports aren't in my own state, and are spread out amongst 4 other states. Vermont is served by WN at MHT and ALB, while much of the population base, although not most of the land area, is served by WN at DEN. South Dakota is tougher, but they do serve part of it via MSP and Omaha. I'm not sure where else they have commercial mainline service, or how much.

No, you gave 9 that WN serves via adjacent airports, 2 that aren't in the CONUS, and 6 that have DL mainline service, some via adjacent airports.

If DL is able to drop about 1600-1800 passengers a day, then it's a legitimate commercial air market. That's the equivalent of WN's 13 737's a day required to make operations efficient. The 717's shouldn't be in any of the big capacity constrained coast airports, but flying them to some smaller markets that still warrant mainline service to a hub like DTW or ATL isn't bad. But that's absolutely as small as commercial air service should get. And all commercial planes should be configured as economy-only like WN. That's a more efficient use of runway capacity.

DougSkymiles

Congrats BIGGAW, we have allowed you to become the leading FT troll for 2015. For some reason we keep feeding you.

SJC ORD LDR

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.


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.

BiggAW

We also have the TSA, congested airports and generally hated airlines. The American people are ready for good rail service, but we have decades of neglect of our passenger rail system to overcome, as well as the world's best freight rail system that's really bad at sharing the tracks with passenger trains, although for dedicated 225mph high-speed mainlines, this wouldn't be an issue. True 225mph HSR can be plane competitive for most trips that originate and terminate east of the Mississippi, when you factor in the transit time to the airport, arriving early for security and hubbing somewhere. 225mph HSR will also blow flying or driving out of the water in California, where currently it takes about the same amount of time to drive or fly from San Francisco to Los Angeles door to door, as it will in the Northeast, where the comically slow "165mph" Acela already reigns supreme BOS-WAS.

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!

And?


Does FSD even have commercial mainline service?

HOLY ****. DL has 31-32 on their A320's, which is knee-banging territory for me. WN has 31-33 on their 737's, AS has 32 on their 737's, which is just enough. NK has 28". That's ridiculous. Humans have to fit on their planes at some point. I guess NK is for short people! Even the notorious RyanAir is at 30. The window shades and reclining seats could use to go on all airlines though! The other issue with NK is that when you add bag fees back in, you may as well just go WN. And NK assigns seats, which is far less efficient than WN's pick your own method, which is waste.

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!

BiggAW

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.

jb1012xna

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.

BiggAW

HUH? WN's 12 smallest planes out of their 670+ plane fleet carry 122 passengers. Most carry 143 or more. Regional jets typically carry 50-90. Spirit gets 145-218 per plane.

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.

SJC ORD LDR

Yes

gooselee

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.

gooselee

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?

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.

BiggAW

Who's flying mainline there? If it's reasonably priced WN probably isn't going to do that well then. I do know that MSP serves a huge area. I was on a plane to MSP, talking to some people, and they were from all over, places like Duluth, MN, and using the big hub at MSP.

Hey if people want to check their bags, that's fine with me. I'm just saying that I like that WN has free checked bags, even though I don't use them, because it removes the cost incentive... then it's just purely a choice between checking them and carry-on, without any additional cost. There are some people who want to check bags, but won't if they have to pay for them. The problem on modern airliners is that the math doesn't work on everyone bringing maxed-out carry-ons on the plane.

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.

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.

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, plus travel time to get there, and get from the other airport to where you are going. Even many of the big city airports are an hour away from the city they serve. LGA is an hour, JFK is about an hour and 15, SFO is 45-50 minutes. If you're coming/going from the 'burbs, it's often even longer, plus traffic.

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.

MS02113

I never arrive more than one hour prior to departure at any domestic airport, and I still have time to check a bag, clear security, and visit a lounge. Since you don't check bags, I don't know why you would plan on arriving any earlier.

gooselee

Nice of you to separate out the part where I said not everyone chooses to drive to the airport the day before. I'd say that most of the pax on those TCONs aren't doing that.

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.

MS02113

Acela can be quicker than flying for NYC-BOS/WAS travel, depending on weather and your final destination. But between Boston and D.C., flying reigns supreme. Compare 1 hour 45 minutes flying vs. 6 hours 45 minutes on Acela vs. 7 hours and 50 minutes on Northeast Regional.

Even allowing a ridiculous amount of time for driving to the airport and clearing security, it's not even close.

gooselee

You're not taking into account the 4-hour drive to the airport and stay at the airport hotel the night before, which are apparently requirements for flying on a WN 737.

As I'm learning in this thread, that would be the appropriate math if you are comparing flight times to train times.