Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4530898/

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 05:15:28 and read 15252 times.

What a surprise! The red neck of the airline industry, O'Leary, thinks the UK would be 'insane' to replace short-haul air travel by HSR, as proposed by the government. Presumably, this is because it has been so spectacularly successful in doing so everywhere else and he loses market share. Personally, I can't think of a better reason:

HSR has completely eliminated short haul flights on many French, German, Spanish and Belgian regional routes, as well as in Japan. The south of the UK is more densely populated than almost any part of continental Europe and is a STRONGER candidate for HSR than France or the the other listed countries other than Japan. It only political confusion, mismanagement and opportunists that have held back UK's HSR network after they were such pioneers of rail from its inception.

Isn't it rather 'insane' that the UK has neglected it's once glorious rail network so long and that there is still such an uninformed debate running?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...05/high-speed-rail-airline-flights

[Edited 2009-08-26 05:31:11]

[Edited 2009-08-26 05:38:27]

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Dogbreath
Posted 2009-08-26 05:37:13 and read 15129 times.

A bit of competition is great for the consumer, but what is not so great is that this Govt wants to replace air travel with rail travel. I'm guessing that's what MoL is not so keen on.

Bring on the HSR, and if the fares equal LCC's then wonderful. But I just don't see it. As it is today, an average rail service from Portsmouth to London and return (2 hour round trip) costs me in the region of Stg25. Can't even imagine what a HSR fare would cost.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tobias2702
Posted 2009-08-26 05:38:42 and read 15121 times.

Which FR services would be affected? They don't serve London-Manchester, which would be the best idea for a high speed rail link.
Here in Germany some route were replaced by rail: TXL to HAM and HAJ, FRA-CGN (were you can even check in your bags). MUC-NUE is also served by high speed train, though flights survived, the same with MAD-BCN or London-Paris.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 05:41:37 and read 15098 times.



Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 1):
A bit of competition is great for the consumer, but what is not so great is that this Govt wants to replace air travel with rail travel. I'm guessing that's what MoL is not so keen on.

Bring on the HSR, and if the fares equal LCC's then wonderful. But I just don't see it. As it is today, an average rail service from Portsmouth to London and return (2 hour round trip) costs me in the region of Stg25. Can't even imagine what a HSR fare would cost.

The government can't force air travel to be "replaced". It can only facilitate other options. Careful of the propaganda machine.

What is there so special about the UK to condemn HSR to failure whilst it is a spectacular success elsewhere, appart from perhaps a lack of imagination?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2009-08-26 05:42:02 and read 15077 times.

He is allowed to say what he thinks, and to spin it however he wants for his business. Obviously he would always discuss it in his characteristically forthright manner.

I find it quite interesting on two fronts. Firstly, FR barely operates domestic UK services if you exclude BHD. Nevertheless, its number-one route is STN-PIK-STN that carried 402,615 in 2008, and this would obviously be impacted by the proposed HSR between London and Glasgow. Secondly, if this idea materialises it won't be fully implemented for 10+ years.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Davehammer
Posted 2009-08-26 05:46:45 and read 15037 times.

Should have been built years ago and connected to both LHR and LGW. I hope that work finally gets started and we can have a proper High Speed network running. LON-GLA/EDI in 2 1/2 hours would be brilliant as well as MAN in just over an hour.

Hope they finally agree to the plan and just get on with it!

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Styles9002
Posted 2009-08-26 05:50:18 and read 15006 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
What a surprise! The red neck of the airline industry, O'Leary

I don't understand why you refer to O'Leary as a 'red neck' in the industry. Would you please clarify what the reference is to and how it relates to your point?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 05:59:04 and read 14961 times.

Quoting Styles9002 (Reply 6):
Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
What a surprise! The red neck of the airline industry, O'Leary

I don't understand why you refer to O'Leary as a 'red neck' in the industry. Would you please clarify what the reference is to and how it relates to your point?

In my opinion, O'Leary :

- Maintains an often vulgar communication style in public and shows contempt for alternative points of view, for his competitors and for his customers
- Maintains a cynical attitude to customers and customer service, that cannot be explained by the low cost nature of the business alone, as Easyjet and others do not replicate this behaviour
- Based on the events of recent years, 3 emergency landings in France, 2 after explosive decompression at altitude with 16 passengers with burst eardrums,due to loose panels on newish 737's that were simply used too often and not maintained sufficiently, I would propose also, a potentially casual attitude to maintenance.

And this relates to my point because branding the much needed government proposed HSR network in UK as 'insane' because it eats into your market is more of the same from this guy.


[Edited 2009-08-26 06:02:27]

[Edited 2009-08-26 06:03:26]

[Edited 2009-08-26 06:05:55]

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-26 06:04:53 and read 14913 times.



Quoting Styles9002 (Reply 6):
don't understand why you refer to O'Leary as a 'red neck' in the industry. Would you please clarify what the reference is to and how it relates to your point?

I would consider that statement as an insult to red necks as well.

 Wink

There is no reason for airlines to be afraid of HSR. It depends on how the poulation centres are spread over a country. In centralized France, HSR has indeed killed a lot of air routes, in Germany the few routes have been mentioned above, CGN-STR can be added as the remaining other one. It may have thinned out some routes like FRA to DUS/HAJ/STR as well as DUS-STR but the impact really has not been that big.

The UK is a centralized country as well but with the exception of LON-MAN most routes will remain, eventually some will be thinned out or the effect will be taken by increased ridership.

What MOL may have to fear is, that coach or second class on trains may be more comfortable, without the ridiculous baggage restrictions FR imposes and that is the real threat to his business.

In any case, the completion of HSR lines takes a long time, nothing to be set up about today.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: DLPMMM
Posted 2009-08-26 06:11:03 and read 14874 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
HSR has completely eliminated short haul flights on many French, German, Spanish and Belgian regional routes, as well as in Japan.

Sorry, but you have lost all credibility with this statement. I don't know the truthfulness of your statement WRT high speed rail in Europe (I assume it is a gross exaggeration) but high speed rail has not come close to eliminating any reigonal routes in Japan. None. Period. The statement is an out and out falsehood.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Oldeuropean
Posted 2009-08-26 06:11:05 and read 14873 times.



Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 2):
FRA-CGN

Well, these hops of 20 minutes in the 727 were really to short. Big grin

Axel

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Shankly
Posted 2009-08-26 06:16:35 and read 14832 times.



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 4):
Secondly, if this idea materialises it won't be fully implemented for 10+ years

Hopelessly optimistic. 15/20 years is the true timescale for such a significant public sector project in the UK. Absolutely nothing in place at this time planning or funding wise to even get excited about. For a case study check out Crossrail.

MOL, bless him, will be in his low cost bath-chair (painted blue and yellow with non-adjustable footrests and non-pneumatic tyres) by the time the first train pulls into Glasgow

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-26 06:16:42 and read 14831 times.



Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 1):
Bring on the HSR, and if the fares equal LCC's then wonderful. But I just don't see it. As it is today, an average rail service from Portsmouth to London and return (2 hour round trip) costs me in the region of Stg25. Can't even imagine what a HSR fare would cost.



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 4):
Nevertheless, its number-one route is STN-PIK-STN that carried 402,615 in 2008, and this would obviously be impacted by the proposed HSR between London and Glasgow.

This is a prime example of the competition that HSR would provide. FR's low cost service from London to Glasgow, actually runs from about 30 miles out of each City. Most people spend more money and time on the journey at each end than they do on the flight.

HSR could be 3x the FR STN-PIK fare and probably still be a bargain to many travellers.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BCAL
Posted 2009-08-26 06:19:29 and read 14815 times.

The much needed HSR network will never appear in MOL's lifetime or that of his children or even probably his grandchildren. How long did it take to build the high speed rail link in the UK between London and the Channel Tunnel, which is not even a quarter of the length of the proposed HSR? MOL has nothing to worry about, besides which the cost of travelling on the HSR will probably only be for the wealthy, MPs and businessmen on expenses accounts.

For once I agree with everything that MOL says. In fact I think he put his case across brilliantly, in particular

Quote:
"On [return] domestic flights from Glasgow to London, passengers are paying £20 in taxes while they continue to subsidise the sh$t out of the railways. Substituting one form of transport that is heavily taxed for a form of transport that is heavily subsidised is not the answer."

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 06:23:15 and read 14796 times.



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
HSR has completely eliminated short haul flights on many French, German, Spanish and Belgian regional routes, as well as in Japan.

Sorry, but you have lost all credibility with this statement. I don't know the truthfulness of your statement WRT high speed rail in Europe (I assume it is a gross exaggeration) but high speed rail has not come close to eliminating any reigonal routes in Japan. None. Period. The statement is an out and out falsehood.

Sorry, but if you don't know the 'truthfulness' of a statement and "assume it is a gross exaggeration" then credibility I suggest will be difficult for anyone to maintain for you.

For Germany: please see reply 2

For CDG - Brussells - ALL flights have been discontinued and are now sold as train ticket sectors. Further, AF will soon start ITS OWN HSR train services from CDG-Brussels-Amsterdam.

AF flights Paris to Lyon, Avignon, Lille, Dijon, Strasbourg and Marsaille are all etiher eliminated or 80% reduced.

Paris - London - 80% HSR 20% air travel, same for London - Brussels

Madrid - Barcelona is a recent line but currently has more than 50% of traffic I believe and steadily increasing.

Japan - I may be wrong and will check which routes are concerned.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Humberside
Posted 2009-08-26 06:30:52 and read 14743 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
For CDG - Brussells - ALL flights have been discontinued

Picky, but Brussels Airlines retain one daily flight for African connections at BRU (There is no Paris-Brussels Airport train service is there?)

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: GrahamHill
Posted 2009-08-26 06:34:50 and read 14722 times.



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):

Sorry, but you have lost all credibility with this statement. I don't know the truthfulness of your statement WRT high speed rail in Europe (I assume it is a gross exaggeration) but high speed rail has not come close to eliminating any reigonal routes in Japan. None. Period. The statement is an out and out falsehood.

Eliminating, no. But in France, there's strong competition between TGV and air carriers. We're not a large country, so taking the HST is much more convenient than taking the plane.

So his statement is not entirely false.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: EI564
Posted 2009-08-26 06:40:43 and read 14685 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
For CDG - Brussells - ALL flights have been discontinued and are now sold as train ticket sectors. Further, AF will soon start ITS OWN HSR train services from CDG-Brussels-Amsterdam.

How well trains replaces flying partly depends on whether the HSR actually goes to an airport. CDG is a good example of an airport with HSR. But some flights survive between London and CDG because there is no HSR in any of the London airports.

Of course, there are a number of other factors too.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2009-08-26 06:44:01 and read 14672 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
HSR has completely eliminated short haul flights on many French, German, Spanish and Belgian regional routes as well as in Japan

That's rather overstating it.

Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
Isn't it rather 'insane' that the UK has neglected it's once glorious rail network so long

Yes, it certainly is. It's a national disgrace.

Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
and that there is still such an uninformed debate running?

I should imaging that Michael O'Leary is far from uninformed about such matters.

In general, I am not exactly shocked that the boss of a major airline would speak out in favour of aviation over rail travel. Hardly the surprise of the century now, is it?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-26 06:46:04 and read 14651 times.



Quoting EI564 (Reply 17):
How well trains replaces flying partly depends on whether the HSR actually goes to an airport.

take an example - if STR airport gets connected to the HSR line STR-south-MUC, that will elimiate the remaining FRA-STR flights.

OTH - NUE-MUC flights still exist because MUC was not conncted to the HGSR and it takes about as long to get from MUC central station to the airport as it takes from NUE

The flights on the above mentioned routes however already today mainly serve connecting traffic, hardly any local passengers. That goes for the LON/PAR flights as well..

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 06:57:35 and read 14594 times.



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 18):
Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
HSR has completely eliminated short haul flights on many French, German, Spanish and Belgian regional routes as well as in Japan

That's rather overstating it.

Then check details in reply 14. The principle stands.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2009-08-26 07:04:58 and read 14551 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20):
Then check details in reply 14. The principle stands.

And? I'm not saying it hasn't had a large impact, it obviously has, but it almost reads as though it has totally killed off domestic flying in those countries and that is clearly not the case.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: FlyingSicilian
Posted 2009-08-26 07:11:50 and read 14519 times.

This happened with Southwest Airlines in Texas back in the late 80s and early 90s.

Texas had one of the first serious high speed rail plans in the US, basically a triangle linking Houston, San Antonio and Dallas (similar to WNs first routes). Southwest lobbied hard to kill the commision and the plan. To be fair there were other groups involved, but the HSR would already be running if WN and others hadn't killed it.
Texas has no rail link between its two largest metros Houston-Dallas.

as for FR, seems MOL is doing what he does best-his personal PR musings/rants.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2009-08-26 07:21:30 and read 14459 times.



Quoting Shankly (Reply 11):
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 4):
Secondly, if this idea materialises it won't be fully implemented for 10+ years

Hopelessly optimistic. 15/20 years is the true timescale

I got it from BBC News who got it from others. Hardly the first time projects have been exaggerated time-wise.  Wink

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: MogandoCI
Posted 2009-08-26 07:33:20 and read 14416 times.

yea, i'm, like, TOTALLY shocked that the master of short-haul nickel-and-dime would be against the convenient reliable environmental-friendly alternative of HSR  Embarrassment

LCCs can't thrive in French or German domestic markets because of the immense success of HSR. The trend is inevitable, esp with all the hassle dealing with airport security and stuff. Instead of fighting the trend, how about considering a partnership with DB or SNCF (or any rail), then he can sell tickets like Dublin to Interlaken Switzerland, or Madrid to Bonn Deutschland.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-08-26 07:42:47 and read 14365 times.

- At the opening of the HSR route Tokio-Nagoya flight were abandoned.

- In 2005 between Tokio and Osaka HSR traffic share was 81%, air traffic share was 19%.
- Today the numbers are 88% HSR traffic share.

http://www.c-direct.ne.jp/public/english/ue/pdf/10109020/2000ar/09.pdf

And from the US for our US rail skeptics:

Quote:
How competitive are high-speed trains versus air transportation in other countries?

In Japan, their high-speed train, “the Shinkansen”, has been a very effective competitor with air transportation. In the market between Tokyo and Osaka (the two major metropolitan area in Japan), the Shinkansen accounts for about 88% of the market share. Throughout Japan, where the Shinkansen trip time is about 2.5 hours, it has about 75% of the market in comparison with air transportation. It is not until distances exceed 620 miles that air travel gains a higher market share.
In Europe, high-speed trains have also historically captured the major share of combined air/rail traffic along routes where high-speed train journeys are under 3 hours. Currently, with air transportation becoming more complicated and increasing air congestion (from longer-distance flights), high-speed rail now wins 50% of the traffic where rail trip times are 4.5 hours or less. On routes where high-speed train times or 2 hours or less, high-speed rail traditionally wins 90% of the market share over air transportation.
"Examples of high-speed lines winning dominant market share:

In France, rail held only 22% of the combined Paris-Marseille air-rail market before TGV Mediterranean went into service (2001), but in four years that market share rose to 65% and in 2006 it was 69% and EasyJet abandoned its Paris-Marseille flights. Spain’s Ave has 53% of air/rail/road traffic on the Madrid-Seville route. Thalys train between Paris and Brussels holds 52% of air/road traffic; after the high-speed rail line went into service, airlines discontinued flights Paris-Brussels – the only competition remaining is road. Eurostar has more than 70% of London-Paris market, 64% on London-Brussels. Last month BMI discontinued its London-Paris flights.” (www.prenewswire.com)

(from here www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/other-systems.htm )

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2009-08-26 07:53:38 and read 14876 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
- At the opening of the HSR route Tokio-Nagoya flight were abandoned.

Why does Nagoya airport's website show arrivals from Narita then?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-26 08:11:45 and read 14804 times.

With regards to the whole HSL projects going on or already been build in Continental Europe and in a way also in Japan there are always two things that are being conveniently left out in the discussion and those are the cost of it all and the inmpact on the environment.

In most areas in Westen Europe space is at a premium and it takes an enormous amount of it to build dedicated HS tracks , from what we can tell from past experiences there is almost always a new track being laid (at least dubbel railed for both directions) in stead of using existing tracks.
Also the need for a large amount of bridges or underpasses and also huge changes that sometimes have to be made when comming into mountainous terrains have a severe impact on the environment as a whole.
Also overall the occupation degree (load factor) on trains compared with planes is almost always lower , train schedules are much more rigid and therefore all those trains that have to ride during the day when most people are working are usually pretty empty (below 50%), except for some really busy routes like BRU-PAR or LON-PAR.

As far as the cost of it all goes, even the Japanese high speed railways who have the most extensive and oldest system in todays world struggle hard to make a profit if you take all costs in account , not only operating costs and the acquisition cost of the trains themselves but also construction costs for all those railroad tracks, the enormous costs when it comes to disowning peoples land and houses and the overall costs to keep all those miles of track in tiptop condition.

There is a reason that usually mainly governments are involved in building all those HSR infrastructure, the privatised world just cannot economically carry all the costs involved alone (many 10's of billions of Euro's/dollars ) and they always have to remember that the whole railroad business , certainly the HSR, brings very low ROI , even lower than the already troubled aviation industry.

If the whole things was privately run without any help from the governments like most privatised airlines have to work these days (and also the airports that they use to operate from) and was bound by the same standards for noise restrictions and such , there would be only a handfull of lines that maybe could be run profitably and only with higher ticket prices.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Nighthawk
Posted 2009-08-26 08:18:10 and read 14748 times.



Quoting Shankly (Reply 11):
15/20 years is the true timescale for such a significant public sector project in the UK. Absolutely nothing in place at this time planning or funding wise to even get excited about.

so should MOL instead wait until funding IS in place before voicing his opinion? How about waiting until the first train pulls into the station before objecting?

NOW is the time to voice ones opinions, before any money is potentially wasted on the scheme. MOL is perfectly entitled to his opinion, he is obviously biased on the matter, and it doesnt take much to realise this.

His opinions will be taken with a huge pinch of salt by most on this matter (and almost all others!).

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Shankly
Posted 2009-08-26 08:28:53 and read 14721 times.



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 23):
I got it from BBC News who got it from others

Which proves Pe@rson you should not believe everything you read or hear in the media before requoting it on as fact.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 28):
so should MOL instead wait until funding IS in place before voicing his opinion?

No, not really. Gets himself on the telly, gives us all something to chat about, and sells a few more tickets to the gullible punters.

What he should think about is Ryanrail

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: T8KE0FF
Posted 2009-08-26 08:36:43 and read 14688 times.

Im flying BHX-GLA tomorrow afternoon as it's half the price than trains. I would consider train's if they were cheaper...

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2009-08-26 08:47:53 and read 14640 times.



Quoting Shankly (Reply 29):
Which proves Pe@rson you should not believe everything you read or hear in the media before requoting it on as fact.

 rotfl  Thanks, Dad. That cheered me up.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2009-08-26 08:51:29 and read 14596 times.

I would imagine that HSR would be more expensive than the current cheapest LCC domestic flights, but that as it would scoop up the more expensive business flyers (who book later at higher prices) it would then make the overall flight uncompetitive, as there wouldn't be enough expensive tickets to subsidise the cheaper ones!

I would imagine 20 years would be a likely timetable to get the whole line built, the part from Manchester .to Scotland is most at risk to funding delays, but politically easiest as it largely goes though empty countryside, whereas London to Birmingham is heavily built up in places.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Shankly
Posted 2009-08-26 08:58:23 and read 14550 times.



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 31):
Thanks, Dad. That cheered me up

My pleasure. Now off to your room Pe@rson and write 100 times "MOL is my hero, but i do sometimes miss the wood for the trees"
Regards, Shankly

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-26 09:42:02 and read 14424 times.



Quoting BCAL (Reply 13):
Quote:
"On [return] domestic flights from Glasgow to London, passengers are paying £20 in taxes while they continue to subsidise the sh$t out of the railways. Substituting one form of transport that is heavily taxed for a form of transport that is heavily subsidised is not the answer."

In answer to the subsidy question, how much fuel duty does FR pay ?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2009-08-26 09:54:57 and read 14386 times.



Quoting Shankly (Reply 33):


My pleasure. Now off to your room Pe@rson and write 100 times "MOL is my hero, but i do sometimes miss the wood for the trees"
Regards, Shankly

You're my hero Shankly, not MOL!

Regards,

Pe@rson.

P.S. If you're correct with your estimation that it would take 15-20 years, then all the better for airlines.

P.P.S. Personally, I am in favour of HSR. I wonder whether this proposal will actually come to fruition.

P.P.P.S. GO SHANKLY! WOOHOO.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-08-26 10:02:44 and read 14342 times.

A question, if carbon taxes will be levied on existing domestic RyanAir routes, how much money will the govt. loose by "killing" local air traffic or will they simply raise similar taxes on the rail network to compensate?

It is easy to recognize that MOL is lobbying for his airline's survival, but there is another side of the coin which is govt. taxes, usually they do not loose taxes once gained, look at the furor caused by the VAT tax break.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: VV701
Posted 2009-08-26 10:09:16 and read 14327 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
Paris - London - 80% HSR 20% air travel, same for London - Brussels

The claim of an 80 per cent market share even exceeds that made by Eurostar themselves in their own publicity. Here is what they said in a press release dated 21 August 2009, just five days ago:

"From the start, Eurostar has competed head to head with the airlines on the London to Paris and London to Brussels routes and now has market share of around 75%, replacing short-haul air travel as the natural mode of choice."

However here the Eurostar figure if not intentionally inflated certainly fails to paint a true picture. Let me explain.

Assume you plan to travel from, say, Manchester to, say, Paris. If you fly you will almost certainly choose a direct flight such as AF1469 (MAN-CDG). As a result you will not be counted in any statistics relating to a journey between London and Paris. Similarly you might plan to travel from London to, say, Nice. If you fly you are likely to fly direct on, for example, BA8475 (LCY-NCE). Again you will not appear in any London-Paris travel statistics. So you wont be counted in the 100 per cent of Eurostar's London-Paris travelers.

But on the other hand if you decide to travel by train from Manchester to Paris you would take a train from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston. You would transfer from London Euston down the road to London St Pancras. There you would board Eurostar and travel to Paris. And if you traveled by train from London to Nice you would again travel by Eurostar to Paris before switching to a train for Nice. In both of these cases you will be included in Eurostar's 100 per cent of London to Paris travelers.

So in simple terms the Eurostar claim of 75 per cent market share is inflated because it includes everybody travelling by train between St Pancras and Paris but excludes everyone traveling by air except those who used a London airport.

According to the CAA the total number of scheduled air passengers between the UK and France in 2008 was 11,675,910. Of these 6,378,890 (or 55 per cent) flew from LCY, LGW, LHR, LTN or STN, the five London airports with scheduled passenger flights to France. The other 45 per cent were excluded from the Eurostar figures. If all of them were added in the actual Eurostar share would fall to the order 55 per cent, or prety close to half.

On the other hand many of the passengers flying between primarily LHR and CDG will not be London to Paris O&D travellers but will connect with other flights at either of these airports. Excluding these passengers would reinflate the Eurostar market share. But with, for example, only 2,275,380 passengers flying between these two airports in 2008 I cannot see the figure rising to anywhere near 80 per cent. My guess is that their true share might be 60 per cent or just a little higher.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: AirNz
Posted 2009-08-26 10:11:16 and read 14313 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
The government can't force air travel to be "replaced". It can only facilitate other options. Careful of the propaganda machine.

No-one suggested they were 'forcing'......the comment made was 'wants'. Two very different comments entirely.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
What is there so special about the UK to condemn HSR to failure whilst it is a spectacular success elsewhere, appart from perhaps a lack of imagination?

What exactly are you talking about? The comment was made by an airline CEO (which is quite valid), so what are you going on about with "lack of imagination"?

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 7):
In my opinion, O'Leary :

- Maintains an often vulgar communication style in public and shows contempt for alternative points of view, for his competitors and for his customers
- Maintains a cynical attitude to customers and customer service, that cannot be explained by the low cost nature of the business alone, as Easyjet and others do not replicate this behaviour
- Based on the events of recent years, 3 emergency landings in France, 2 after explosive decompression at altitude with 16 passengers with burst eardrums,due to loose panels on newish 737's that were simply used too often and not maintained sufficiently, I would propose also, a potentially casual attitude to maintenance.

As long as you remember that it's only your opinion and nothing more.
So, a 'casual attitude to maintainance' is your attitude to such issues. Hmmm! in that case should we perhaps discuss the airline of the flag you're flying?

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12):
FR's low cost service from London to Glasgow, actually runs from about 30 miles out of each City. Most people spend more money and time on the journey at each end than they do on the flight.

So tell me how far LGW is out of each city......and how much it costs to get into London from either LHR or LGW? What has the cost of such got to do with the cost of the flight? If I fly into LGW on a 'legacy', I still have to pay the same to travel city-bound.....unless you know a different method.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
Japan - I may be wrong and will check which routes are concerned.

You ARE wrong. You should really have checked them before you posted it twice.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 17):
How well trains replaces flying partly depends on whether the HSR actually goes to an airport.

Sorry, but why does it need to go to an airport, and I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the concept? For example, if I wanted to travel by train for London to Glasgow, why on earth would I need the train to go anywhere near LHR/LGW/LTN/STN?????

Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 24):
yea, i'm, like, TOTALLY shocked that the master of short-haul nickel-and-dime would be against the convenient reliable environmental-friendly alternative of HSR

Aye, and like the CEO of any US carrier would naturally embrace such a thing, right??

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2009-08-26 10:19:46 and read 14254 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 36):
existing domestic RyanAir routes

FR has minimal routes on which people could instead choose to travel overland by train, coach or car:

EDI-BOH-EDI
STN-PIK-STN
STN-NQY-STN

Including Northern Ireland that is reachable from the mainland using ferries:

BHD-STN-BHD
BHD-BRS-BHD
BHD-EMA-BHD
BHD-LPL-BHD
BHD-PIK-BHD
LDY-PIK-LDY
LDY-LPL-LDY
LDY-BHX-LDY
LDY-LTN-LDY
LDY-STN-LDY

So, very little presence. Clearly, other airlines, like BA, EZY and BE, have far more at stake should the HSR actually materialise.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BrouAviation
Posted 2009-08-26 10:49:47 and read 13957 times.

I won't react on the MOL-related part, as some people are not going to like it. Just some nitpicking.

Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 2):
TXL to HAM

I thought LH still flies this route?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-26 11:52:46 and read 13348 times.



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 4):
He is allowed to say what he thinks, and to spin it however he wants for his business. Obviously he would always discuss it in his characteristically forthright manner.

Those two sentences are mutually exclusive.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12):

HSR could be 3x the FR STN-PIK fare and probably still be a bargain to many travellers.

That actually is quite possible. As it is, flying one of the old Flag carriers is often cheaper than FR when other costs are taken into consideration, and that doesn't even include the opportunity cost.

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 16):
We're not a large country, so taking the HST is much more convenient than taking the plane.

Actually, by European standards, France is a huge country. HSR could absolutely crush airplane travel in the UK because of how much smaller it is than France.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 26):

Why does Nagoya airport's website show arrivals from Narita then?

Narita is not the airport Japanese people fly into for short haul into Tokyo. It is too far out. Those flights are maintained for connections to international flights.

Quoting AirNz (Reply 38):

Quoting EI564 (Reply 17):
How well trains replaces flying partly depends on whether the HSR actually goes to an airport.

Sorry, but why does it need to go to an airport, and I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the concept? For example, if I wanted to travel by train for London to Glasgow, why on earth would I need the train to go anywhere near LHR/LGW/LTN/STN?????

Look deeper into that. The point isn't about point to point train travel, it is about train-plane connections. This has become really big at places like FRA and CDG.

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 40):
Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 2):
TXL to HAM

I thought LH still flies this route?

They don't anymore.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BrouAviation
Posted 2009-08-26 12:29:26 and read 13052 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 41):

They don't anymore.

They do the other way round though (HAM-TXL). LH3206 leaves HAM tomorrow morning 1055LT for flight to TXL.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-26 12:47:55 and read 12898 times.



Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 42):

They do the other way round though (HAM-TXL). LH3206 leaves HAM tomorrow morning 1055LT for flight to TXL.

Some sort of aircraft positioning flight? OAG does not have any flights between HAM and TXL, in either direction. Neither does Lufthansa's website.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2009-08-26 13:06:16 and read 12753 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 41):
Narita is not the airport Japanese people fly into for short haul into Tokyo. It is too far out. Those flights are maintained for connections to international flights.

Right, and I assumed as much - but either way it is a fact that there are still flights between Tokyo and Nagoya.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-26 13:32:58 and read 12546 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 42):

They do the other way round though (HAM-TXL). LH3206 leaves HAM tomorrow morning 1055LT for flight to TXL.

Some sort of aircraft positioning flight? OAG does not have any flights between HAM and TXL, in either direction. Neither does Lufthansa's website.

No local traffic is carried. These flights continue resp. come from Moscow. Routing is HAM-TXL-DME-TXL-HAM

Quoting N1120A (Reply 41):

Look deeper into that. The point isn't about point to point train travel, it is about train-plane connections. This has become really big at places like FRA and CDG.

In order to be profitable HSR needs to serve the city centres, the airports and the suburbs, the latter can be served through stations alongside motorways. The French have done this first and have been very successful with it.

I have the advantage of living and working 20 minutes from an intermodal hub called Fraport, with an airport, a HSR train station and 2 major motorways. All this close to the demographoic and geographic centre of Europe.,

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-26 14:02:19 and read 12274 times.



Quoting AirNz (Reply 38):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12):
FR's low cost service from London to Glasgow, actually runs from about 30 miles out of each City. Most people spend more money and time on the journey at each end than they do on the flight.

So tell me how far LGW is out of each city......and how much it costs to get into London from either LHR or LGW? What has the cost of such got to do with the cost of the flight? If I fly into LGW on a 'legacy', I still have to pay the same to travel city-bound.....unless you know a different method.

Pray tell me where any reference to LHR, LGW or "legacy" carriers is applicable to my statement.
if you cared to read it, it was a comparison between flying and rail, which at each end uses city centre stations.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BrouAviation
Posted 2009-08-26 14:12:07 and read 12162 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):

Neither does Lufthansa's website.

They are. I found them by searching for actual departures/arrivals AND in the online timetable on Lufthansa.com. Just look for departures tomorrow out of HAM. At 10:55 you'll notice the HAM-TXL flight.

Is is bookable as such?

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 14:20:49 and read 12124 times.



Quoting AirNz (Reply 38):
So, a 'casual attitude to maintainance' is your attitude to such issues. Hmmm! in that case should we perhaps discuss the airline of the flag you're flying?

I live in France, don't often fly AF; but since you've chosen to make an issue of it, bring it on. Not sure what it has to do with O'Leary though.

Quoting AirNz (Reply 38):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
The government can't force air travel to be "replaced". It can only facilitate other options. Careful of the propaganda machine.

No-one suggested they were 'forcing'......the comment made was 'wants'. Two very different comments entirely.

The context is government policy making. The referenced post expresses concern at what the government "wants" to do via this policy. The fear is only justified if the belief is that the government has the power to somehow force its will on the traveling public. The suggestion therefore has been made. I responded to it and stand by my response.

Quoting AirNz (Reply 38):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
Japan - I may be wrong and will check which routes are concerned.

You ARE wrong. You should really have checked them before you posted it twice.

Not a very constructive tone. I posted it once, but since pedantry appears to be the motivation here, "You should really have checked before you posted it"

Wiki on Shinkansen states that "Tokyo - Nagoya (342 km), Tokyo – Sendai (325 km), Tokyo – Hanamaki (Morioka) (496 km), Tokyo – Niigata (300 km): Once there was air service between these cities, but it was abolished after Shinkansen service started. Shinkansen runs between these cities in about two hours or less."

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 14:25:20 and read 12073 times.



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 44):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 41):
Narita is not the airport Japanese people fly into for short haul into Tokyo. It is too far out. Those flights are maintained for connections to international flights.

Right, and I assumed as much - but either way it is a fact that there are still flights between Tokyo and Nagoya.

Which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, as these are not O&D, but rather internationally legs, so it supports the HSR argument as well as extending HSR to major hub airports.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-26 14:31:06 and read 12039 times.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 37):

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
Paris - London - 80% HSR 20% air travel, same for London - Brussels

The claim of an 80 per cent market share even exceeds that made by Eurostar themselves in their own publicity.

Did you read the Guardian article in first thread post? They cite 80%. Happy for you to take it up with them.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2009-08-26 15:24:20 and read 11598 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 49):
Which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, as these are not O&D

But it does have everything to do with the statement that there are no flights between those cities.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Cjpark
Posted 2009-08-26 16:24:32 and read 11289 times.



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
Sorry, but you have lost all credibility with this statement. I don't know the truthfulness of your statement WRT high speed rail in Europe (I assume it is a gross exaggeration) but high speed rail has not come close to eliminating any reigonal routes in Japan. None. Period. The statement is an out and out falsehood.

He is correct about Japan flights have been reduced and the equipment on some routes has been downsized to narrow body aircraft.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 22):
This happened with Southwest Airlines in Texas back in the late 80s and early 90s.

Texas had one of the first serious high speed rail plans in the US, basically a triangle linking Houston, San Antonio and Dallas (similar to WNs first routes). Southwest lobbied hard to kill the commision and the plan. To be fair there were other groups involved, but the HSR would already be running if WN and others hadn't killed it.
Texas has no rail link between its two largest metros Houston-Dallas.

as for FR, seems MOL is doing what he does best-his personal PR musings/rants.

Seems like Deja Vue doesn't it? Thank you I was going to post the same information but you beat me to it.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-08-27 00:08:20 and read 10059 times.



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 26):
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
- At the opening of the HSR route Tokio-Nagoya flight were abandoned.

Why does Nagoya airport's website show arrivals from Narita then?

Get the big picture.

When people claim that HSR did not steal air traffic AT ALL (as happened two times in this thread for the example of Japan) I would agree even if a small percentage moved actually to trains. But it is not a small percentage. The majority of all HSR routes degraded air traffic to a secondary offering.

It seems to me that train doubters are happy to find a remaining flight here and there on certain routes. IMO any route where flight traffic drops below 40...50% after HSR installation proves the point of HSR's.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-27 01:39:35 and read 9640 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 53):

It seems to me that train doubters are happy to find a remaining flight here and there on certain routes. IMO any route where flight traffic drops below 40...50% after HSR installation proves the point of HSR's.

It's a bit like the challenge of proving to the 'Birthers' that Obama has a birth certificate: they never like the one you show them, but can't tell you what their validation criteria are. They are simply 'wedded' to the idea of him not being American, as the HSR Doubters are strongly committed to the idea that it cannot work and that all evidence to the contrary is inadmissible.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: EI564
Posted 2009-08-27 02:23:33 and read 9450 times.

HSR very clearly works. Its just very expensive and takes a long time to build.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Eugdog
Posted 2009-08-27 02:43:21 and read 9371 times.

Whilst I would welcome HSR to the UK I think that $55 billion seems incredibly expensive. That is nearly $1000 per head!!! Some of the cities not served by the HSR will object to payin for it, This could be problematic. When you make a decision you please the party that benefits and make enemies of everyone else! Already politicians from Sheffiield, Leeds, York etc are up in arms.

Also the advantage of city centre to city centre service may not be as advantageous to a vast city like London. Those who live to the West of London or to the South east may find it easier to get to the airport where they can park their car and avoid rush hour traffic to the London rail terminus.

I live in the south east - i had to go to Manchester - it was far more convieniantt to get a flight from Gatwick then go all the way into London to catch the train!

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-27 02:55:16 and read 9323 times.



Quoting EI564 (Reply 55):
HSR very clearly works. Its just very expensive and takes a long time to build.

And air travel isn't? Sure, your ticket looks cheap, but just how much do airports cost? How long does it take to get the land and build an airport, especially in today's world? And that is just one airport. Where is the airplane going to fly to? How about infrastructure like ATC?

Quoting Eugdog (Reply 56):
Whilst I would welcome HSR to the UK I think that $55 billion seems incredibly expensive. That is nearly $1000 per head!!

It took 19 years and 4 billion pounds (not dollars) to build a single terminal at Heathrow. Now imagine the cost, including things like property expropriation, planning, construction, etc. of expanding that place. And don't make the argument that BAA isn't spending the taxpayer's money. The subsidies they get from the government combined with the fees they will charge each person would be insane.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: NEMA
Posted 2009-08-27 03:22:10 and read 9184 times.



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 56):
Whilst I would welcome HSR to the UK I think that $55 billion seems incredibly expensive

Agreed, especially that it will not get used by the East side of the UK population, its totally a West side story.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-27 03:35:10 and read 9127 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 57):
And air travel isn't? Sure, your ticket looks cheap, but just how much do airports cost? How long does it take to get the land and build an airport, especially in today's world? And that is just one airport. Where is the airplane going to fly to? How about infrastructure like ATC?

The advantage of an airport is, that you can use the same runway to go from that place to anywhere and simply switch destinations. The large airports in Europe at least are privately owned and make money, airlines pay their way for ATC and route charges. Even the investment in the airport infraqstructure amortizes. That is the situation in Europe.

HSR works in high population density countries, but never fully pays for its infrastructure. German Rail makes money on HSR but only because they share most of the infrastructure with commuter and freight and both these make money as well. The big stations are retail outlets like airports.

Looks like the planning in the UK is a bit chaotic since the first true HSR from the tunnel ends in a terminal. That looks excellent in terms of architecture, but the logic should have been an underground station with three platforms that can be extended to the north. The station itself could still have been refurbished and used for conventional rail.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2009-08-27 04:25:36 and read 8906 times.

Perhaps MOL's anger is more about that HSR is highly subsidised by or owned by national governments where most of the funding is from general taxpayer funds while most of the airliner industry, including many airports does not get anywhere as much direct subsdies.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-27 04:47:05 and read 8806 times.



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 60):
Perhaps MOL's anger is more about that HSR is highly subsidised by or owned by national governments where most of the funding is from general taxpayer funds while most of the airliner industry, including many airports does not get anywhere as much direct subsdies.

Are you sure?

I think you'll find that most airports' set up costs were government funded. Then there is ATC and many other layers of air transport industry. These have been progressively partially privatized, but usually strongly sweeted through ongoing public subsidies (see BAA in UK).

HSR is simialr, the high speed lines are usually state funded and gradually and only partially paid off by ticket revenues. The train services are progressively being deregulated and direct competion on lines has started in France, Germany and Benelux. The TGV made an 800M euro profit last year within this system and new operators such as DB and Air France are starting to compete with SNCF and Thalys on several lines.

It would be interesting for you to come back with a balance sheet to show the facts. I'm not sure how different the steady state would be between two financailly, except of course that the HSR will be far more energy and CO2 efficient if run on clean electricity (e.g. nuclear in France).

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-27 04:47:19 and read 8805 times.

deleted
e
l
e
t
e
d

[Edited 2009-08-27 04:54:09]

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-27 04:48:04 and read 8800 times.

I doubt very much that MOL cares about the tax payers and how their monies are spent. we all know that his business scheme is based on contributing next to nothing directly to the infrastructure costs of the airports FR serves. They and the municipalities, counties and states must make their income from the tax base that FR generates by dumping hundreds of thousands passengers to their door steps.

Not uncommon BTW. the airports and the railways make a lot of money from retail concessions.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-27 04:57:47 and read 8741 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 62):
The train almost always looses from the plane on almost all economical and environmental criteria.

Sources, please. This is not supported by the majority of facts discussed and presented on this thread and elsewhere. Saying it, don't make it so...

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: R2rho
Posted 2009-08-27 04:59:23 and read 8733 times.

MOL has nothing to worry about. There hasn't been a single ambitious infrastructure project in the UK in the past 30-40 years (except for the Channel Tunnel, and that was almost built despite the British, rather than thanks to them). So even if HSR does ever happen there, he will probably not live long enough to see it.

I wonder what the world-famous British NIMBYs have to say about HSR too - that's a lot of farmland to be crossed, houses to be torn down, bridges and tunnels to be built across the landscape, etc. Or will HSR be more acceptable to them than new runways at the London airports?

In any case, we won't be getting anywhere as long as we consider HSR and airtravel as competitors that are incompatible with each other. The day our politicians realize that their respective potentials are best utilized when they complement each other, we'll have made a big step. IMO, what you have at CDG or FRA is the way to go for the future.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-27 05:20:20 and read 8641 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 27):
If the whole things was privately run without any help from the governments like most privatised airlines have to work these days (and also the airports that they use to operate from) and was bound by the same standards for noise restrictions and such , there would be only a handfull of lines that maybe could be run profitably and only with higher ticket prices.

Don't let the appearance of private airlines and privately-run airports distract you from the large amounts of government money that go, or have gone, into aviation over the years, for the building or maintenance of some airports, the provision of ATC, the subsidies given to aircraft manufacturers; often reduced taxes on aviation fuel...

Quoting EI564 (Reply 55):
HSR very clearly works. Its just very expensive and takes a long time to build.

As would another runway at LHR. Or the estuary airport.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BCAL
Posted 2009-08-27 05:45:53 and read 8606 times.

Reading replies in this thread perhaps reveal some people are unaware of the train network in the UK and the UK Government's transport policy. You cannot draw comparisons with the high-speed trains in other countries. For starters, the British rail system is basically inherited intact from the Victorian days and apart from the new link between London and the Channel Tunnel, and electrification of many lines, no significant new lines have been opened in recent years. Existing tracks have been replaced and successive governments had announced 21st Century rail links but the country that invented the railways has, through years of lack of significant investment and missed opportunities, seen its rail system become outdated, inefficient and inadequate. Furthermore, unlike their European neighbours whose governments will subsidise their railways, the UK Government wants the rail system to be self sufficient. As a result, major projects must be independently financed and the financiers want a return on their investment so fares are ludicrously high.

Does anyone remember the original proposals for Eurostar included direct services to the continent from north of London? However, with the predicted journey times of over 9 hours for Glasgow to Paris the growth of low-cost air travel during the 1990s made the plans commercially unviable against the cheaper and quicker airlines.

The government's plans for a 250mph train network in the UK probably mean new high-speed rail links between Manchester via Birmingham on the West Coast Main Line, and Glasgow via Edinburgh, Newcastle and York on the East Coast Main Line only. Assuming they can acquire the land on which to build the tracks and stations, that would probably absorb all the £55 billion budget leaving nothing to build the network for the rest of the UK. Like MOL said, there is only one highly priced tunnel for people travelling to the continent (or do the plans include building another?), and people are not going to travel to the UK regions on an Eurostar train that only stops at Kent and London St Pancras.

The transport secretary claims that high-speed rail already controlled 80% of the London to Paris and Brussels market. I assume he means passengers who start their journeys in London, and not elsewhere in the south east or indeed other parts of the UK. Most Eurostar trains are non-stop from London St Pancras until they emerge from the French side of the tunnel. Look at the Eurostar timetables. Ashford International has been down graded and sees about 4 trains a day in each direction. Ebbsfleet might have a few more but nowhere near the frequency from St Pancras. So for someone like me who lives on the south coast and wants to travel to Paris I have two simple choices by rail – take a slow train, change frequently and catch one of the Eurostar trains that stop at Ashford (average journey time +7 hours), or travel up to London and catch a Eurostar train which may be quicker but how much more expensive?). Alternatively I could go to Southampton and fly to Paris in half the time and often at a fraction of the cost. If they had flights from LGW, that would be even quicker.

Sorry but I am behind MOL 100% this time. He is the only person speaking sense although you will notice from the article airlines like BA echoed MOL's comments, though in more diplomatic terms.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-27 05:57:14 and read 8576 times.



Quoting BCAL (Reply 67):
So for someone like me who lives on the south coast and wants to travel to Paris I have two simple choices by rail

I'll point out one thing - you can't let your own personal situation dictate how you view an entire endeavour. For some people, rail will make sense for the trip they're making. For others, air. Just because one or the other is not useful for you does not mean that's generally true for everybody, or is a basis for policy. Based on the pax numbers carried, both options are clearly useful for some good number of people.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BCAL
Posted 2009-08-27 06:06:26 and read 8553 times.



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 68):
you can't let your own personal situation dictate how you view an entire endeavour

OK, let's rephrase the question to "so for someone who lives in the south east outside the M25 corridor" so it gets the point across as an illustration rather than a personal situation.

I would edit the post but then that would make your reply seem odd.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-27 06:15:28 and read 8403 times.

I deleted my post because I expected it to be questioned as to my sources and because I'm currently working I cannot hover around in this interesting thread all the time.
First let me say I'm not anti Railroad or HSR per se but people fail to realize sometimes at what expense these luxuries really come.

I refound an engineering study from the mid 90's where a group of engineers studied all the costs involved in building a californian HSR system taking the Shinkansen and more specifically the TGV as the basis of their studies.

It is a rather lengthy and sometimes boring read but it still is very valid today , keep in mind that the prices mentioned are 1994 prices and need to be indexed to todays prices
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/HighSpeedRail.pdf

PS: take note that in 2008 only 2 countries in the entire EU had a railway system that was profitable (includes normal railways/metro and HSR) and those where in Germany and Danmark,
All the others ran with a loss and only survive because of massive government funding year after year.
There is a reason that the US , which certainly has some areas that would be eligable for it has no HSR system, it just cannot compete in a capitalized totally free market system where it has to incorporate all costs involved into the final ticketprice.

[Edited 2009-08-27 06:20:57]

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: EI564
Posted 2009-08-27 06:32:19 and read 8361 times.



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 66):
Don't let the appearance of private airlines and privately-run airports distract you from the large amounts of government money that go, or have gone, into aviation over the years, for the building or maintenance of some airports, the provision of ATC, the subsidies given to aircraft manufacturers; often reduced taxes on aviation fuel...

But it would be very difficult to go back in history and see what industry got the most government support over the last 60 years.

What's important now is that I believe its commonly accepted that rail gets more support at the moment. And throwing another $55bn (at least) makes an impression. I thought LHR T5 was entirely built using self-generated funds but I could be mistaken.

At the same time, there are huge advantages with rail. It would be silly to dismiss the proposal without a proper analysis.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: BuyantUkhaa
Posted 2009-08-27 06:34:19 and read 8358 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 70):
keep in mind that the prices mentioned are 1994 prices and need to be indexed to todays prices

Most of all the fossil fuel prices, that have increased much more than other prices.

This is another paper that tries to explain under what conditions it makes sense to build HSR:

http://florio.economia.unimi.it/Materiali/MEEW5/deRus.pdf

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2009-08-27 06:44:47 and read 8329 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
Get the big picture.

I had it all along, thank you. I was merely responding to the statement that flights between those towns ceased altogether when in fact they have not. I am well aware of the fact that HSR had an impact.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-27 06:50:05 and read 8320 times.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 72):

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 70):
keep in mind that the prices mentioned are 1994 prices and need to be indexed to todays prices

Most of all the fossil fuel prices, that have increased much more than other prices.

This is another paper that tries to explain under what conditions it makes sense to build HSR:

http://florio.economia.unimi.it/Mate...s.pdf

I concur that a high oil/gas price is the HSR's best friend for now but it still wont offset the high initial costs involved and the high maintenance prices either (that are mostly still carried by the states themselves).
Also a high oil/gas price is also a direct reason for a high electricity bill.
Besides all that ,running a vast network of HSR trains needs an enormous amount of electricity too, leading to the perverse effect that every citizen has to pay twice for the HSR powersupply, once in the direct cost (subsidies) and the other the higher than normal price for his own electricity bill which is substantially augmented by a big consumer like the national railroad grid using the HSR.

The best thing that could happen to the HSR is that countries that use it also invest heavily in non fossil fuel or fission power energy supplies and go and develop an energy supply comming from renewable (biiiiiig solar power plants with energy buffering capabilities) and on the very long run even fusion power.

In todays world and in the middle long future it remains too expensive to compete fairly with alternative means of transport.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-27 06:50:33 and read 8323 times.



Quoting BCAL (Reply 69):
OK, let's rephrase the question to "so for someone who lives in the south east outside the M25 corridor" so it gets the point across as an illustration rather than a personal situation.

And if air continued to serve such people better, then those people will fly. But that has little bearing on rail being insane or not. Rail doesn't have to be all things to all people in order to be a useful investment.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 71):
But it would be very difficult to go back in history and see what industry got the most government support over the last 60 years.

Sure, but I'd think somebody somewhere would have tried.

I just want to banish the idea that roads and aviation haven't ever seen government investment or subsidy. That simply isn't the case.

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Eugdog
Posted 2009-08-27 08:16:36 and read 8236 times.

I do not quite understand the arguement that air travel is subsidized becasue there is no tax on aviation fuel. How is not being taxed a subsidy? it is only a quasi subsidy if your competitors are heavily taxed. This is more to do with an unfair advantage then subsidy. In the case of air travel its main competitor for UK domestic travel over 200 miles is the train. There is no tax on train travel or fuel for trains. Morevoer trains get direct operating subsidies. the infrastructure is fully paid for by the government.

In contrast airlines pay passenger duty, landing fees, ATC fees etc. In addition airports get huge revenue from shops and restaurants on site. This substantially if not completely mitigates the cost of airports an d ATC. There is no comparison with subsidies for trains!!! The subsidy per passenger is tiny compared to trains

Do not get me wrong - we should subsidize train travel for economic and enviromental reasons up to a point. Moreover airlines should pay their way - all air traffic infrastructure should be funded by airlines and passenger fees. Howver please do not compare train subsidies with airplane subsidies!

Topic: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2009-08-27 12:55:46 and read 8029 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
Ryanair Boss 'dissapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK

He disapproves because he is deathly afraid of competition?  stirthepot 

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: VV701
Posted 2009-08-27 16:24:23 and read 7898 times.



Quoting AirNz (Reply 38):
Quoting EI564 (Reply 17):
How well trains replaces flying partly depends on whether the HSR actually goes to an airport.

Sorry, but why does it need to go to an airport, and I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the concept? For example, if I wanted to travel by train for London to Glasgow, why on earth would I need the train to go anywhere near LHR/LGW/LTN/STN?????

Virtually all air traffic between other English airports and, for example, LHR and a significant portion of traffic between EDI and GLA and LHR are either passengers with a connecting flight at LHR or passengers traveling to the greater Heathrow area.

If they were traveling today to central London or other parts of the south east from, for example, Manchester, it would probably be quicker (in terms of the elapsed time from starting point to final destination) and cheaper to travel by train. And for many travelling to central London from the Scottish airports, LCY might well be a prefeerable airport to use. So most travellers on domestic flights to LHR are likely to be flying there to connect with another flight or have an end destination in the greater Heathrow area. Further many passengers flying from UK provincial airports to AMS, CDG and FRA are also likely to be taking a shorthaul flight to make a connection with another flight.

A clearly stated objective of the proposed new British HSR network is, for environmental reasons, to significantly reduce short haul passenger flights. Clearly if the network does not at a minimum serve LHR it will fail to meet this objective. Most passengers from British provincial airports wishing to fly to destinations not served from their local airport will continue to fly from their local airport to AMS, CDG, FRA or LHR. So the HSR network's impact on short haul air travel will be between zero and minimal.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 50):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 37):

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14):
Paris - London - 80% HSR 20% air travel, same for London - Brussels

The claim of an 80 per cent market share even exceeds that made by Eurostar themselves in their own publicity.

Did you read the Guardian article in first thread post? They cite 80%. Happy for you to take it up with them.

Yes. Thank you. I did read the article. And thanks for the suggestion that I take it up with them. But I have no need to do this. Let me explain.

I do not necessarily take what the Guardian, the Mail or any other newspaper says as gospel. So whenever I see data they publish that I am interested in but the data seem to me to be dubious or implausible, I try to check out their data from a more reliable source before I accept what they have said.

In this case an 80 per cent market share seemed to me almost over the top. And the first and most obvious place to check this out was Eurostar's own web site.

The Eurostar figure of 75 per cent on their web site was published as recently as 21 August. It seemed to me to be a little more reasonable. However my personal perception was still that it sounded to be on the high side. So I then looked at the CAA published data on their web site. I based my previous contribution to this discussion on their figures for 2008 and included some (I hope) logical conjecture in my assessment.

I have total faith in the CAA data. I was certainly not mislead by the Guardian's very high figure. And while I could accept the Eurostar figure I did see why that figure would, to a significant extent, be comparing apples with pears. Every Eurostar passenger transitts St Pancras station whether they started their journey in the Euston Road or Aberdeen. But many British air passengers to Paris never go anywhere near any London airport.

Those who were mislead by the Guardian's data, including your self, may wish to follow your advice and take it up with them. I certainly have no reason to do this.

But my best advice is not to waste your time in complaining to the Guardian. It will get you no where. Instead I suggest you use your time to assess whether any figure published by the media that interests you seems to you to be reasonable. If you do have any doubts then seek other more reliable data sources to check out the data.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-27 17:32:48 and read 7824 times.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 37):
However here the Eurostar figure if not intentionally inflated certainly fails to paint a true picture. Let me explain.

Assume you plan to travel from, say, Manchester to, say, Paris. If you fly you will almost certainly choose a direct flight such as AF1469 (MAN-CDG). As a result you will not be counted in any statistics relating to a journey between London and Paris. Similarly you might plan to travel from London to, say, Nice. If you fly you are likely to fly direct on, for example, BA8475 (LCY-NCE). Again you will not appear in any London-Paris travel statistics. So you wont be counted in the 100 per cent of Eurostar's London-Paris travelers.

Why should you be? You're not travelling from London to Paris. Your argument is really that Eurostar is not counting all UK-France traffic. But why should they. Noone, or very few I assume, travel from Manchester to Paris by train, much less Glasgow-Paris. So I don't think there is anything particularly misleading in Eurostar's communications. It should reasonably be understood that they are talking O&D and that's how most would read it. The counter argument could also be put that the air travel numbers may be inflated by non O&D, i.e. CDG / OLY bound passengers transiting via LHR.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340Jamaica
Posted 2009-08-27 17:33:36 and read 7821 times.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 78):

I have total faith in the CAA data. I was certainly not mislead by the Guardian's very high figure. And while I could accept the Eurostar figure I did see why that figure would, to a significant extent, be comparing apples with pears. Every Eurostar passenger transitts St Pancras station whether they started their journey in the Euston Road or Aberdeen. But many British air passengers to Paris never go anywhere near any London airport.

How many persons do you realistically think are travelling from Aberdeen via rail to Paris? I bet it is miniscule and has very little effect on that 75% figure quoted. Most Eurostar passengers originate in the Greater London area and I am actually surprised that the 75% figure for the LON to PAR market is so low when the journey time is around 2 hours. I bet eventually the rail market will be more like 90 to 95% with the remaining flights being primarily to service connections at LHR or CDG.

The HSR is a very good idea for Britain. It is called hedging your energy supply bets. HSR operates on electricity which can be obtained by wind, wave, natural gas, nuclear, coal, biomass, tidal, name your favourite renewable energy source etc.!! How many sources are there for kerosene. I can name about three. Oil, primarily or natural gas, coal. at great expense in Fischer Tropsch technology and a greenhouse gas nightmare. As time goes on it will be quite clear which energy supply option and transport mode is more vulnerable. Remember, the most fuel efficient aircraft at full load factor is just barely more efficient than a diesel sedan with one person in it rolling down the highway. Put 4 or 5 persons in the sedan and it is immediately clear which mode is going to suffer more from exposure to high priced or unavailable energy.

On the issue of infrastructure costs. How long will the Channel tunnel last? I am willing to bet centuries. Just observe that the UK is still using 150 year old rail infrastructure in many areas. When was the original Gotthard tunnel in Switzerland built? 18when? Still being used!!!! After the 30 or 40 years to pay off the infrastructure debt in terms of money or energy, what do you have? Our problem nowadays is shortsightedness.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-27 22:52:25 and read 7732 times.



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 76):
I do not quite understand the arguement that air travel is subsidized becasue there is no tax on aviation fuel. How is not being taxed a subsidy?

Pretty much by definition, that's a subsidy. If one good or activity is normally taxed, and an exception is made for one particular group, that's a subsidy. Tax breaks are a common way of fostering or favoring some behavior.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-27 23:08:17 and read 7713 times.

[

Quoting Tharanga (Reply 81):
Pretty much by definition, that's a subsidy. If one good or activity is normally taxed, and an exception is made for one particular group, that's a subsidy. Tax breaks are a common way of fostering or favoring some behavior.

for the simple matter that aviation takes place across borders and would require a supra national taxation in order to be effective, which then would have to be equally imposed by all countries world wide, wise people have already determined in 1943 that this woulds be impossible.

it was then and is still today.

The solution was that, instead of taxation of aviation fuel, route and user charges should be collcted. I don't know for other countries, but in Germany aviation fully pays its way and generates plenty of taxes on top of that. Interesting enough, HSR earns money as well.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Shamrock604
Posted 2009-08-28 01:09:14 and read 7620 times.

So, MOL is sticking his nose in yet again to surface transport policy.

Dont worry, its not just the UK.. he does this here in Ireland too. He is currently engaged in trying to stop the construction of a new Metro System for Dublin, the first line of which will call at Dublin Airport. He argues that this amounts to a subsidy to the people along the line, who should "just bloody well drive to work like everyone else".

Never mind that this is a city with some of the worst urban traffic congestion in Europe, and still no rail link to its airport!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: R2rho
Posted 2009-08-28 02:37:54 and read 7551 times.



Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 80):
It is called hedging your energy supply bets. HSR operates on electricity which can be obtained by wind, wave, natural gas, nuclear, coal, biomass, tidal, name your favourite renewable energy source etc.!!

Except that the electricity doesn't come from renewable sources, and it won't for the next 20 years, which is the minimum time it will take to build up a reasonable renewable energy mix. Fact is that today, the vast majority of our electricity still comes from coal and oil, just like it was 100 years ago. Gas joined in recently too. But the only 'clean' HSR system is in France, which gets its electricity from nuclear plants. Nevertheless, a high-speed train powered by a coal power plant is still a very efficient means of transportation, but don't thing that trains don't emit CO2 just because there's no smoke coming out of them - that's one of the major flaws in the biased statistics that environmental groups base themselves upon.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-28 04:27:40 and read 7468 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 84):
the only 'clean' HSR system is in France, which gets its electricity from nuclear plants.

That's right, if you you want to really push the environmental argument for HSR, it works best if the electicity is nuclear generated, as it is in France. The CO2 footprint of TGV journeys in France is pretty small compared to alternatives.

However, without this 'ideal' clean system, HSR even with coal or other conventional electrical energy is likely to be cleaner than road or air in seat/km over the same distance.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-28 04:40:12 and read 7443 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 85):
However, without this 'ideal' clean system, HSR even with coal or other conventional electrical energy is likely to be cleaner than road or air in seat/km over the same distance.

That statement would be correct if the average load factor would be similar to that of aviation. Unfoirtunmately, in most countries it is not even coming close to the 70+ percent average most airlines enjoy, not speaking of the 80+ of the LCCs.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-28 05:18:31 and read 7410 times.

The day that the HSR can compete on a completely fair base , this means without any substantial government subsidies on a contiuous base, with all other kinds of mass transport is the day that I'm all for it.

I fail to see why anybody would support killing a viable, profitable and fully privatized industry,which in reality doesn't cost anything extra for society as a whole (it even ads to the economy in a big way) ,and in turn would have no problem supporting a mass transport system that costs tons of money year after year and poses significant other problems for the environment besides just air polution and can only be operated functionally as a government program with all the difficulties that come with it.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: CARST
Posted 2009-08-28 05:32:54 and read 7398 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
The day that the HSR can compete on a completely fair base , this means without any substantial government subsidies on a contiuous base, with all other kinds of mass transport is the day that I'm all for it.

I fail to see why anybody would support killing a viable, profitable and fully privatized industry,which in reality doesn't cost anything extra for society as a whole (it even ads to the economy in a big way) ,and in turn would have no problem supporting a mass transport system that costs tons of money year after year and poses significant other problems for the environment besides just air polution and can only be operated functionally as a government program with all the difficulties that come with it.

That is wrong, it is an argument made by the airline industry a lot of times...

The countries build the airports, maintain all the airport and ATC facilities. And afaik all these costs are not covered by overfly, landing and parking fees...

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Shamrock604
Posted 2009-08-28 05:38:51 and read 7388 times.



Quoting CARST (Reply 88):
The countries build the airports, maintain all the airport and ATC facilities. And afaik all these costs are not covered by overfly, landing and parking fees...

Not true in many cases. Here in Ireland for example, the airport authorities are run as commercial, for profit entities, and all airport developments are financed through profits and debt. The Irish state contributes next to nothing, except for tiny investments in some of the regional airports, where they will sometimes contribute a small share of the total required.

The IAA is also self financing through charges, overflight fees etc etc.

Contrast this to Irish rail, which receives massive subventions from the tax payer every year and still manages to lose money.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-28 05:45:42 and read 7378 times.



Quoting Shamrock604 (Reply 89):
Not true in many cases.

Correction, in the free world it is not true in most cases.

Eg. Brussels airport is now owned by a Australian group (that's at least last time I heard about it) and I know there are many more investment groups/companies that own more than 1 Airport around the world.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-28 05:51:18 and read 7364 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
The day that the HSR can compete on a completely fair base , this means without any substantial government subsidies on a contiuous base, with all other kinds of mass transport is the day that I'm all for it.

I take it you will therefore campaign tirelessly for the shutting down of the American Interstate highway network, the UK Motorway Network, government subsidies to airport operators such as BAA, ATC providors, city bicycle programmes, bicycle paths and lanes and existing bus and train services due to their inherent unviablity on the only valid criterion: entreprenerial business sustainability.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):

I fail to see why anybody would support killing a viable, profitable and fully privatized industry,which in reality doesn't cost anything extra for society as a whole

What CAN you mean? Airline operators are exploiting a space created over decades of state infrastructure investment in airports, ATC and other supporting infrastructure. Deregulation has happend over a long period and is ongoing. HSR is closer to the start of this cycle. Deregulation is already kicking off in Europe with the openeing of competing commercial services on high speed lines. There are layers of both infrastructures that lend themselves to privitization and those that are only viable in public or semi public hands. Just as the US or UK who have learned the hard way how NOT to operate rail infrastructure. Btw, the SNCF returned approx 800m Euros profit this year.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-28 05:54:40 and read 7355 times.



Quoting CARST (Reply 88):

The countries build the airports, maintain all the airport and ATC facilities. And afaik all these costs are not covered by overfly, landing and parking fees...

Simply not true. we just see a 7 Billion Euro expansion of FRA airport, totally with private financing. They even build the access roads, which in some countries is paid for by the state. MUC was built without state funding, the total costs are activated in the Flughafen Muenchen corporation.

ATC is financed fully by user fees and they could do a lot to streamline their operations and make it cheaper.

Besides that, the whole airline and travel industry in Germany alone employs 900 000 people and generates Billions in taxes each year. This industry is a vital part of the economy.

More arguments, no economy can prosper or even exist without a proper infrastructure. Airports are as important as river/sea ports, as important as road and rails. Industry and people rely on this.

Contrary to rail, air does finance itself in most economies and contributes to a large amount on top of that in many. Subsidies in the construction of infrastructure of rails sytems are mandatory for the same reasons, since rail cannot fully earn the cost of infrastructiure, but serves as a reliever for roads.

.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-08-28 06:06:18 and read 7328 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
The day that the HSR can compete on a completely fair base , this means without any substantial government subsidies on a contiuous base, with all other kinds of mass transport is the day that I'm all for it.

The operation of HSR's at least is profitable everywhere, so no, on a contiuous base there are no costs paid by the government (it is very likely even highly profitable).

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
that costs tons of money year after year and poses significant other problems for the environment besides just air polution and can only be operated functionally as a government program with all the difficulties that come with it.

This part is wrong.

Also the investments are for centuries and the usage pays back over a long time. New HSR routes mean that old train routes become free for cargo trains which means that countries no longer have to build a comparing road capacity (which saves a lot too).
Building train tracks is more comparable to building roads. For landbased transport each country either has to build roads or trains. If the trains will be HSR's it's good in many other aspects too.

But maybe Switzerland is just a little different. Across the alps the train routes always had and will have again the capacity lead. By law cargo has to be moved by train. And Swiss trains are in a sense mostly driven by water that runs down from the alps. Regenerative, non-atomic, non-CO2...

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-28 06:06:45 and read 7329 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
The solution was that, instead of taxation of aviation fuel, route and user charges should be collcted.

This is true. I was just saying in general, not paying a tax that would normally be paid is a subsidy. Here, the money is found elsewhere.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 91):
Airline operators are exploiting a space created over decades of state infrastructure investment in airports, ATC and other supporting infrastructure.

Exactly. People are looking at the case in 2009, see some private companies managing the airports, and in some cases private financing for expansions, and private companies running the airlines, and then they forget to look at the previous 100 years.

Even with private companies, you may find state funding, soft loans and loan guarantees.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-28 06:33:49 and read 7309 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 91):
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
The day that the HSR can compete on a completely fair base , this means without any substantial government subsidies on a contiuous base, with all other kinds of mass transport is the day that I'm all for it.

I take it you will therefore campaign tirelessly for the shutting down of the American Interstate highway network, the UK Motorway Network, government subsidies to airport operators such as BAA, ATC providors, city bicycle programmes, bicycle paths and lanes and existing bus and train services due to their inherent unviablity on the only valid criterion: entreprenerial business sustainability.

Talking about comparing apples and oranges.
Every single human being benefits from the highway/motorway and all other kind of road system.
It is the bloodline for the entire transport system, without all these basic things there can also not be everything else, including your railway system.
Airports, railroads and canals however serve mainly an economical purpose, if they cannot survive on their own or serve a good goal to the benefit of the entire nation on some extraordinary occasions ,they should not exist or at least not sponsored with public money.
The country that belongs and is funded by everybody should not sponsor the travelling habits of just a few.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 91):
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):

I fail to see why anybody would support killing a viable, profitable and fully privatized industry,which in reality doesn't cost anything extra for society as a whole

What CAN you mean? Airline operators are exploiting a space created over decades of state infrastructure investment in airports, ATC and other supporting infrastructure. Deregulation has happend over a long period and is ongoing. HSR is closer to the start of this cycle. Deregulation is already kicking off in Europe with the openeing of competing commercial services on high speed lines. There are layers of both infrastructures that lend themselves to privitization and those that are only viable in public or semi public hands. Just as the US or UK who have learned the hard way how NOT to operate rail infrastructure. Btw, the SNCF returned approx 800m Euros profit this year.

I think you mean that in the past it was done that way over here in Europe and has prooven to be a sytem that scream Failure.
Airlines, Airports and everything related is either fully privatized these days or at least has to pay for its own expenses, the Railroads on the other hand are still a big net moneyloosing entity.

Besides your 800million € profit numbers are correct if you mean revenue-operating costs, it looks a whole lot different if you include all costs involved.

It pisses many people of these days how the governments of the EU, mainly France, Belgium, Holland and Spain just put a blanket over the entire costs involved and declare the whole thing profitable conveniently leaving out their biggest cost factors.



Like I said before, in another reply, I'm not anti TGV per se but it is more a political-social choice than a purely economical one.
On a 1 to 1 base it just cannot compete in most cases with airtravel if the same norms would be used and the construction of all these 1000's of miles of dedicated HSR track has a very big environmental influence ; it's not only the exhaust gasses which determine environmental impact.
The benefits of HSR travel lie in the melting/fusing of big city centres over big distances and the side effects (comenly known as TGV-effect in continental Europe and Japan) on the economy can be quite substantial.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-28 06:44:46 and read 7289 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 95):
Every single human being benefits from the highway/motorway and all other kind of road system.
It is the bloodline for the entire transport system, without all these basic things there can also not be everything else, including your railway system.
Airports, railroads and canals however serve mainly an economical

I gave up on making 10 am appointments at Zaventem and leave my home near FRA at 6 am simply because of road congestion on the last 10 kilometers. Without rail, roads would be clogged all day. With HSR improved on the CGN-LGG portion ICE is a welcome alternative. Rail and air are for the people as well as for industry and without industry people could not make a living. Whatever is good for the industry serves the people as well.

I get itchy when I read such ill informed comments.





Quoting ArniePie (Reply 95):
On a 1 to 1 base it just cannot compete in most cases with airtravel if the same norms would be used and the construction of all these 1000's of miles of dedicated HSR

HSR is a viable alternative in many cases on routes up to 400 km, also price wise for holders of 50% railcards. Alone the fact that it serves a number of "in between" points makes it viable for many who do not have an alternative by air.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-28 06:58:08 and read 7268 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 93):
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
The day that the HSR can compete on a completely fair base , this means without any substantial government subsidies on a contiuous base, with all other kinds of mass transport is the day that I'm all for it.

The operation of HSR's at least is profitable everywhere, so no, on a contiuous base there are no costs paid by the government (it is very likely even highly profitable).

Yeah , I know the Swiss system rather well, having worked out of Felben a couple of years myself.
It is mainly profitable because it has to do what railroads do best and that is hauling cargo and lots of it.
Besides after the Japanese the Swiss are the biggest users of railroad services and I for one am a big fan of your ways of making it work (yours= Switserland not only you  Silly )

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 93):
This part is wrong.

Also the investments are for centuries and the usage pays back over a long time. New HSR routes mean that old train routes become free for cargo trains which means that countries no longer have to build a comparing road capacity (which saves a lot too).
Building train tracks is more comparable to building roads. For landbased transport each country either has to build roads or trains. If the trains will be HSR's it's good in many other aspects too.

Sorry Rheinwalder but my former Boss' father used to work as an engineer for a big trainbuilder company (shoot me I forgot the name) and he told me more than once that while the railroad system is profitable as a whole it is only marginally so and mostly because of the mandatory rules making the cargo transport rather lucrative.

In most coutries it just wouldn't work as well as in your country because no such laws exist.
I agree however that the true virtue could lay in transporting all kinds of goods and I saw a study once that suggested the use of HSR as a means of transporting goods in large quantities, quickly and cheap over longer distances from mayor ports to the mayor inland cities.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: CARST
Posted 2009-08-28 07:04:15 and read 7263 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 92):
Simply not true. we just see a 7 Billion Euro expansion of FRA airport, totally with private financing. They even build the access roads, which in some countries is paid for by the state. MUC was built without state funding, the total costs are activated in the Flughafen Muenchen corporation.

Sorry to say that PanHAM, but you are comparing apples and oranges.

There are some airports which can be run by private companies. The big ones with a lot of traffic. Compared there will always be train lines which can be run privately.

But if you want to compare the whole country with airports and train lines you will see that there are a lot of airports subsidized by the local governments.

And the only train lines which have to be subsidized are the ones where no private company would operate because there is not enough demand. But as per law every citizen in our country must have access to our train network and the Deutsche Bahn has to maintain a lot of small regional, not profitable lines and a lot of bus networks outside of the bigger cities.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-28 07:05:37 and read 7261 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 96):
HSR is a viable alternative in many cases on routes up to 400 km, also price wise for holders of 50% railcards. Alone the fact that it serves a number of "in between" points makes it viable for many who do not have an alternative by air.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 96):
I get itchy when I read such ill informed comments.

Sorry to say this but you seem very well informed as to how you can benefit personally from this wonderfull HSR system which, I agree, is very convenient.
You however seem blind or oblivious for the underlying costs involved and its own set of problems it creates.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-28 07:39:30 and read 7231 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 95):
Talking about comparing apples and oranges.
Every single human being benefits from the highway/motorway and all other kind of road system.
It is the bloodline for the entire transport system, without all these basic things there can also not be everything else, including your railway system.
Airports, railroads and canals however serve mainly an economical purpose, if they cannot survive on their own or serve a good goal to the benefit of the entire nation on some extraordinary occasions ,they should not exist or at least not sponsored with public money.
The country that belongs and is funded by everybody should not sponsor the travelling habits of just a few.

I find this to be a bizarre sentiment. Airports and railroads serve mainly a purpose for the economy, but roads do not? Huh?

The traveling habits of a few? Not only do many people travel, but those who don't benefit from the trade that results from travel. Have you ever bought.. pretty much anything? It or its raw materials were shipped somehow.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-28 09:11:17 and read 7152 times.



Quoting CARST (Reply 98):
But if you want to compare the whole country with airports and train lines you will see that there are a lot of airports subsidized by the local governments.

If a county, a city or a state determines that they need an airport as infrastructure to attracht business, they have to foot the bill if the airport does not sustain istelf. However, you have to see the full picture, not only scheduled service bit general and business aviation as well. Here we are at the term "infrastructure" again. That goes for road, raiöl and waterways, the latter are the most highly subsidized, BTW, but without roads and rails would be even more ocngested.

Quoting CARST (Reply 98):
And the only train lines which have to be subsidized are the ones where no private company would operate because there is not enough demand. But as per law every citizen in our country must have access to our train network and the Deutsche Bahn has to maintain a lot of small regional, not profitable lines and a lot of bus networks outside of the bigger cities.

sorry but private companies run only the rails services which would not be sustainable on their own. In Germany, the 16 states put out tenders for operating commuter lines, that's where private cmpanies pitch in and compete with DB AG. All make monie on the "OEPNV", that's a very profitable business.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 99):
Sorry to say this but you seem very well informed as to how you can benefit personally from this wonderfull HSR system which, I agree, is very convenient.
You however seem blind or oblivious for the underlying costs involved and its own set of problems it creates

Every time I use HSR., last eek it was by ICE to AMS, I contribute to cover the costs for that system. I could go by car as well, but I prefer to work and relax on the way back. Take some lessons in basic economies, helps some times.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For
Username: Arniepie
Posted 2009-08-28 09:36:40 and read 7115 times.

Ok than for all those who believe that roads are no different than railroads and waterways.

Why is it that only those who make use of all these roads by driving their cars/trucks or whatever else have to pay through their nose for the construction and maintenance of the whole system by means of Toll (new tunnels and bridges often use this system), surcharges on fuel (sometimes as much as 70% of the total cost) , roadtaxes (I pay about 618,14€ this year for just one car) and these days also all kinds of automated systems for using certain roads (think London for example).

Why is it that when I have to pay for a flight I have to pay for everything involved in making this flight possible true the price of the ticket?

Why can the same rule not apply to all these people making use of the HSR system and pay fairly for what they use.

It's even worse than that, the whole system is funded mainly by these taxes and tolls I mentioned before (who by the way more than cover the costs for the entire road infrastructure)just for the benefit of a limited amount of travellers that really make use of it.

As an example I give you the SNCF.
In 2008 they carried about 100.000.000 travellers over 5000km+ of dedicated railway, that might seem a lot but actually comes down to 55 people per kilometer per day on a railway which in all ernest cannot be used for anything else but high speed people transport.

That seems like a might inefficient way of doing things.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Tharanga
Posted 2009-08-28 09:44:38 and read 7096 times.



Quoting Arniepie (Reply 102):
Ok than for all those who believe that roads are no different than railroads and waterways.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? It is unclear. Are you saying that roads and aviation are not subsidised by the general taxpayer, but rail is, and therefore rail annoys you?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340Jamaica
Posted 2009-08-28 19:07:28 and read 6925 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 84):
Except that the electricity doesn't come from renewable sources, and it won't for the next 20 years, which is the minimum time it will take to build up a reasonable renewable energy mix. Fact is that today, the vast majority of our electricity still comes from coal and oil, just like it was 100 years ago. Gas joined in recently too. But the only 'clean' HSR system is in France, which gets its electricity from nuclear plants. Nevertheless, a high-speed train powered by a coal power plant is still a very efficient means of transportation, but don't thing that trains don't emit CO2 just because there's no smoke coming out of them - that's one of the major flaws in the biased statistics that environmental groups base themselves upon.

Germany already has better than 25,000 MW of wind power installed which amounts to about 7.5% of electricity supply. They are looking to gradually bump wind up to 25 - 30% with the offshore plans. That alone is more than enough to drive all their electric railways and certainly not miniscule. Add hydro, biomass, solar (better than 5000 MW installed and about 1/2% to 1%) of supply and growing rapidly and your argument is bogus and getting more so every day. Yes, coal is still a large part but I bet it will be declining in the future. The fact of the matter is that overall electricity sourcing, even with the mix in Germany is better from a carbon perspective than sourcing all your energy from liquid fuels that is the case with aviation. Add the 3 to 1 or better efficiency advantage of any ground transport mode you care to list versus aviation and the argument is completely destroyed.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340Jamaica
Posted 2009-08-28 19:21:28 and read 6916 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 92):

Contrary to rail, air does finance itself in most economies and contributes to a large amount on top of that in many. Subsidies in the construction of infrastructure of rails sytems are mandatory for the same reasons, since rail cannot fully earn the cost of infrastructiure, but serves as a reliever for roads.

If we want to talk about subsidies, we cannot ignore the direct and indirect support of Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, Lockheed etc. etc. Aviation is every bit as subsidy dependent as rail, highways etc. The subsidies are just paid in a different manner.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86):
That statement would be correct if the average load factor would be similar to that of aviation. Unfoirtunmately, in most countries it is not even coming close to the 70+ percent average most airlines enjoy, not speaking of the 80+ of the LCCs.

Even at the average load factor of trains, the energy efficiency is superior (2 to 3 times) to that of aircraft. It's physics people. Moving people on the ground will always require less energy than lifting and keeping them 6 miles up and then moving them at 500 mph assuming ground modes are correctly utilized. Compare the aerodynamic profile of a train, even a square fronted one and you will see it puts an aircraft to shame. Very long and very thin forward exposure to air resistance. Very low rolling resistance somewhat counteracted however by their much higher weight.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-28 19:33:51 and read 6909 times.



Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 47):

They are. I found them by searching for actual departures/arrivals AND in the online timetable on Lufthansa.com. Just look for departures tomorrow out of HAM. At 10:55 you'll notice the HAM-TXL flight.

Don't know. Odd that it isn't on the website.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 59):
The large airports in Europe at least are privately owned and make money, airlines pay their way for ATC and route charges.

There's the rub actually. The large European airports were and are still paid for by government investment, both direct and indirect. That isn't written down on the bottom line for the private companies that are essentially gifted them. It also makes it more expensive for the public.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-28 23:10:46 and read 6833 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 106):
There's the rub actually. The large European airports were and are still paid for by government investment, both direct and indirect. That isn't written down on the bottom line for the private companies that are essentially gifted them. It also makes it more expensive for the public.

I mentioned befoe that the investment for Munich airport is fully activated in the Munich airport corporation and written down by that corporaqtion The second terminal was a JV between LH and MUC Airport, private investment,

We just now see an investment of 7 Billion Euros, totally private financed by Fraport. Fraport is run since decades as a private company and is turning out profits bfor its shareholders that by far exceed the initial investment with public money.

What you nay is true for the US where most airports are run by Government authorities who do not understand how to make money from airports. Mots IS airports have no ecent shops,nothing except unedible fast food, there's a bonanza of potential income but you need managers to open that keg, not the board of an authority.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: R2rho
Posted 2009-08-29 11:03:48 and read 6642 times.



Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 104):
Germany already has better than 25,000 MW of wind power installed which amounts to about 7.5% of electricity supply. They are looking to gradually bump wind up to 25 - 30% with the offshore plans.

Wind power is a great complementary energy source, but it's not the solution to everything. Particularly not for a HSR network which needs a constant power output, which wind does not provide. Wind needs to be partially backed up by constant output sources (gas, coal, nuclear, ...), which is why you need a diversified energy mix to guarantee supply.

Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 104):
Add the 3 to 1 or better efficiency advantage of any ground transport mode you care to list versus aviation

any ground transport mode??? Even cars? 3 to 1? No way. Trains, yes. Busses... depending on load factor. But it's certainly not as simple as you state.
Furthermore, airplane technology will not cease to develop in the 20 years it will take to build up renewables to a decent size. By then, engines will be 20% more fuel efficient, and will be likely running on a 50-50 mix of jetA and 2nd generation biofuels...

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340jamaica
Posted 2009-08-29 12:16:02 and read 6609 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 108):
any ground transport mode??? Even cars? 3 to 1? No way. Trains, yes. Busses... depending on load factor. But it's certainly not as simple as you state.

Yes, very much even cars. If you put 4 persons in any average car, it will obliterate any efficiency advantage of air. I know that a mid sized diesel sedan can easily get 5 litres per 100 km about 45 - 50 mp US Gallon rolling down the highway and it can usually comfortably seat 4 sometimes 5. The best airliners barely manage better than 3 litres per passenger km which clearly loses when compared to even two persons riding in the diesel sedan.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 108):
Furthermore, airplane technology will not cease to develop in the 20 years it will take to build up renewables to a decent size. By then, engines will be 20% more fuel efficient, and will be likely running on a 50-50 mix of jetA and 2nd generation biofuels...

I bet the scope for improvement in efficiency in ground modes is more significant than air. Hybrids, fuel cells etc. promise much larger prospects for energy consumption reduction than any aviation technology you care to list. If you understand thermodynamics, you will realize that getting another 20% efficiency out of gas turbines that are about 42 -45% today is going to be exceedingly difficult. Just look at the ceiling that has started to be approached in combined cycle natural gas units and you immediately understand the limits for further improvement. Blame Uncle Sadi Carnot for that. The use as well of biofuels for aviation is a controversial topic that I would not go around touting given recent research and debate.

As I stated, air is working against the natural physical fact that it costs lots of energy to launch your structure, your fuel and your payload 9 km high, maintain them at 9 km and to boot move them at 900 km/h. That will NEVER be more energy efficient than simply moving people along the ground..

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N911YX
Posted 2009-08-29 12:44:38 and read 6580 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
What a surprise! The red neck of the airline industry, O'Leary, thinks the UK would be 'insane' to replace short-haul air travel by HSR, as proposed by the government.

This red-neck knows that HSR is not safer nor more environmentally friendly. HSR can't be quick-changed to haul a full load of freight overnight can it? But most importantly HSR has no competition of its own. If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

Now as to your use of the term red-neck. While some may find it amusing, I find it akin to using the "N" word and I am offended.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: David_itl
Posted 2009-08-29 12:48:02 and read 6564 times.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 78):
Virtually all air traffic between other English airports and, for example, LHR and a significant portion of traffic between EDI and GLA and LHR are either passengers with a connecting flight at LHR or passengers traveling to the greater Heathrow area.

Just to reinforce, VV701's point, the CAA published a report in November 2008 on connecting pax, and the following is an extract (data sourced from the CAA's surveys in 2007):
Columns;

Airline, route. average return services a day, percentage of pax who are connecting and frequency needed if carrying connecting pax only

BA, LHR-MAN, 07.7, 76%, 5
BD, LHR-MAN, 06.4, 68%. 4
BA, LHR-EDI, 10.0, 57%, 5
BA, LHR-GLA, 08.7, 48%, 4
BA, LHR-CDG, 10.0, 48%, 4
BA, LHR-BRU, 07.3, 55%, 4
BA, LHR-AMS, 07.1, 42%, 3
BD, LHR-AMS, 07.3, 34%, 3

The CAA's estimated that 125 daily services are needed just to service the connecting pax at LHR.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-29 19:47:32 and read 6437 times.



Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):


Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
What a surprise! The red neck of the airline industry, O'Leary, thinks the UK would be 'insane' to replace short-haul air travel by HSR, as proposed by the government.

This red-neck knows that HSR is not safer nor more environmentally friendly. HSR can't be quick-changed to haul a full load of freight overnight can it? But most importantly HSR has no competition of its own. If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

Now as to your use of the term red-neck. While some may find it amusing, I find it akin to using the "N" word and I am offended.

Go be "offended" if you want, and then do some research to correct your uninformed view of HSR in 2009 in Western Europe. Or even read the thread if you can find time, to learn that HSR in France, Germany and elsewhere is now de-regulated vis a vis the train services, whilst the HSL's remain public infrastructure. Before you cry 'socialist!' you need to understand that this is the same model that the US and UK use for Interstates / Motorways, and the only way to ensure at once, optimization of service and viability of core infrastructure.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340jamaica
Posted 2009-08-29 20:01:02 and read 6415 times.



Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):
This red-neck knows that HSR is not safer nor more environmentally friendly. HSR can't be quick-changed to haul a full load of freight overnight can it? But most importantly HSR has no competition of its own. If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

While agreeing that HSR is not really about freight, I bet if we were to do any analysis, you will find that it is every bit as capable of hauling the generally light, high value freight that air tends to carry. That argument is specious!!! It is a ground mode running on steel wheels after all. Why do you not see air carrying coal, or even higher value but heavy items like automobiles. It comes back to energy efficiency doesn't it?

On the safety argument, that one is not debatable. In the 40 years of high speed rail operations, there has been one major accident, the German ICE in Eschede that caused fatalities. It has so far proven statistically to be the safest motorized transportation mode known.

Look guys, I am an aviation fan too or I would not be on this site but we cannot have our heads in the sand regarding the benefits and limitations of aviation from an energy, societal and environmental perspective.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-30 00:06:28 and read 6324 times.



Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):
HSR can't be quick-changed to haul a full load of freight overnight can it? But most importantly HSR has no competition of its own. If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

there is a project for a freight TGV in France and neighoruing countris that speeds overnight parcels. It will replace trucks, vans and flights between CDG/BRU/AMS/LGG/CGN and guess what, FEDEX and UPS will participate as well as DHL and TNT.

HSR is not "government run" even when wholly owned by the state the corporations are run like a business same as any other corportations. That's the mistake you guys make with Amtrak, you should run that like UPS or IBM in full business style and have a competetnt CEO like David Gunn in charge.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Signol
Posted 2009-08-30 03:03:35 and read 6237 times.

What they ought to do is build a spur at the London end (or even a curt through to the Heathrow Express line) from the main LGV north to Heathrow. Therefore, direct trains could run from Heathrow to the north and Scotland without the passenger having to change trains / stations in London. Airlines could code-share with the trains, as they do in France and Germany, to reduce shorthaul flights (freeing up runway capacity for the long hauls). Two birds / one stone. And they may not need to build Heathrow's 3rd runway then!

signol

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: SpeedyGonzales
Posted 2009-08-30 04:24:41 and read 6168 times.

All you ever wanted to know about the UK HSR plans:
http://lokreport.de/images/galerien/europa/Strategic.pdf

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-30 04:40:08 and read 6149 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 112):
HSR can't be quick-changed to haul a full load of freight overnight can it?


Oh yes they can!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,534978,00.html

Quote:
in France, where 20 high-speed TGV trains -- which operate at speeds of 300 kilometers per hour (186 miles per hour) and will be equipped with nine unfurnished cars designed to carry standardized airfreight containers -- are slated to being operations in four years. The Carex project (an acronym for "Cargo Rail Express") has strong political support in France. When he first developed the idea in 1994, consortium Chairman Yanick Paternotte, also a member of the French parliament, says people ridiculed him "as a dreamer."

Investors were secured some time ago. The project has largely been supported by the French postal service La Poste and US package delivery service FedEx, which uses Paris' Roissy Airport ("Charles de Gaulle") as its European logistics hub.*

More than 50 FedEx cargo planes take off and land at Roissy every night, connecting Paris with faraway continents, as well as domestic airports like Nice, Toulouse, Lyon and Marseilles.
The freight TGV will serve the latter two cities in the future, as well as Bordeaux, Lille, Strasbourg and European freight hubs London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Cologne. The high-speed freight train will also offer service to more distant cities like Bologna and Madrid in the future.

The French capital already has the best rail connections in Europe today. An unparalleled network of high-speed rail lines connects Paris with major domestic cities, the Benelux countries and southern England. The TGV takes two and a quarter hours from Paris to London, just over four hours to Amsterdam and only three hours to Marseilles, which lies a full 750 kilometers (466 miles) to the south.


These travel times are also ideal for express freight, especially since high-speed trains have already been deployed successfully in the industry. The French postal service already uses individual TGV Fret freight express trains, manufactured by domestic rail producer Alstom, between Paris and the Lyon region today.

Alstom will also supply the trains that will be used in the Carex venture. They are based on the double-decker TGV Duplex trains that currently run between Paris and Lyon and will provide sufficient space to accommodate standard airfreight containers up to three meters (9.8 feet) tall. Carex estimates the investment in the trains and infrastructure for the first phase of the project at just under 1 billion ($1.47 billion).



Graphic: Planned Cargo Rail Express Network
"It is an innovative, environmentally friendly project," explains FedEx spokeswoman Bärbel Bussenius. A large cargo aircraft consumes more than 20 liters of kerosene and a truck about one liter of diesel fuel to carry one ton of cargo 100 kilometers (62 miles). According to Carex, the freight TGV emits only about two percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by a cargo plane to achieve the same outcome.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 12:06:58 and read 5974 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 107):
What you nay is true for the US where most airports are run by Government authorities who do not understand how to make money from airports.

Actually, that isn't necessarily true. LAWA "makes money" on its triumvirate of LAX/ONT/VNY (don't count PMD there) but that is because it is essentially isolated away as a quasi-private company, and was handed the basic infrastructure in the same way all of these "private companies" have been.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 107):
We just now see an investment of 7 Billion Euros, totally private financed by Fraport. Fraport is run since decades as a private company and is turning out profits bfor its shareholders that by far exceed the initial investment with public money.

1) Fraport didn't make the initial investment in capital infrastructure.

2) Fraport does far more than running airports, which the agencies that run airports in the US don't. For example, Fraport is paid by airlines to do basically all the ground handling at FRA, whereas US airports don't do this. Fraport then does this at other airports to subsidize its own airport operation.

3) Like BAA, another company that was gifted massive airports by the government, Fraport makes most of its money on retail shops, something done completely differently in the U.S.

http://www.moodiereport.com/document.php?c_id=1178&doc_id=20693

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: JRadier
Posted 2009-08-30 12:20:10 and read 5944 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 118):

3) Like BAA, another company that was gifted massive airports by the government, Fraport makes most of its money on retail shops, something done completely differently in the U.S.

While one and two might be true (although for example the Schiphol Group is profitable as well, and they don't do their own ground handling) point three is moot. The shops have shown to make money, so Fraport, BAA, Schiphol and other capitalize on that. The fact that US airports just means that the European airports are better at attracting revenue.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-08-30 12:39:20 and read 5917 times.

I can't blame MOL for opposing this. The US pax rail industry was destroyed by government's subsidizing of interstates. Now people want to re-built rail infrastructure. Shouldn't have destroyed it in the first place! Who REALLY has his head in the sand is Mr. Adonis and those who have supported this madness.

ps: I'm all for rail, but not the completely insane transport policies that we have.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 12:42:56 and read 5912 times.



Quoting JRadier (Reply 119):
The fact that US airports just means that the European airports are better at attracting revenue.

There are shops in US airports, they are just run differently.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-08-30 12:50:29 and read 5900 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 118):

BAA makes most of it's money from retail because it is not allowed to raise landing fees. It is not allowed to run an airport like a business, just like airports in the NY-NJ PA, and probably many others as well. BAA is authorized to run a shopping mall like a business, not the airports it owns.

And they weren't gifted anything, they paid for the airports.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 13:01:56 and read 5884 times.



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 122):

And they weren't gifted anything, they paid for the airports.

Garbage. They were handed a monopoly and have acted as such.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 122):

BAA makes most of it's money from retail because it is not allowed to raise landing fees. It is not allowed to run an airport like a business, just like airports in the NY-NJ PA, and probably many others as well. BAA is authorized to run a shopping mall like a business, not the airports it owns.

Hardly. BAA has been as guilty as Standard Oil was of anti-competitive behavior.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Davehammer
Posted 2009-08-30 13:20:28 and read 5854 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 123):
Garbage. They were handed a monopoly and have acted as such.

Ferrovial, the current owners paid through the nose for BAA back in 2006. So much so it may bankrupt them.

That they have a monopoly and behave as such I am in full agreement with.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 13:22:59 and read 5849 times.



Quoting Davehammer (Reply 124):

Ferrovial, the current owners paid through the nose for BAA back in 2006. So much so it may bankrupt them.

Right, but BAA had been formed long before Ferrovial did that.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-30 13:32:52 and read 5840 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 121):
Quoting JRadier (Reply 119):
The fact that US airports just means that the European airports are better at attracting revenue.


There are shops in US airports, they are just run differently.

US airports do have shops, however they tend to be much lower scale than in the UK.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 13:37:03 and read 5834 times.



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 126):

US airports do have shops, however they tend to be much lower scale than in the UK.

I know this. Further, the larger percentage of international traffic makes shops more attractive because of duty free pricing.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: JRadier
Posted 2009-08-30 13:41:56 and read 5828 times.

Don't get me wrong, I've been to several US airports as well as European airports, so I know the differences.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 121):
There are shops in US airports, they are just run differently.

That was my point exactly. European airports have shown that they can make money off haveing large scale shopping facilities, and the US airports don't (or do not in the scale a lot of European airports do). Do you think the shareholders care where the money comes from?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 13:58:35 and read 5807 times.



Quoting JRadier (Reply 128):

That was my point exactly. European airports have shown that they can make money off haveing large scale shopping facilities, and the US airports don't (or do not in the scale a lot of European airports do). Do you think the shareholders care where the money comes from?

The point is that they aren't actually better at running airports. They are just good at running shopping malls with a captive audience.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: JRadier
Posted 2009-08-30 14:23:12 and read 5786 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 127):

I know this. Further, the larger percentage of international traffic makes shops more attractive because of duty free pricing.

Keep in mind that a lot of the shops are actually landside, and thus are not Duty-Free, and that duty-free is only to countries outside the EU, as the EU is seen as one (economic) zone. A lot of the flights (as with domestic flights in the US) take place within this zone.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 129):

The point is that they aren't actually better at running airports. They are just good at running shopping malls with a captive audience.

I went back in your discussion with PanHAM to reply 59, and nowhere I can find that it is about being 'better at running an airport'. It was all about being privately owned, making money and the bottom line. Whatever way you turn it, they make money with an airport. A good business uses every opportunity to make money (in a legal way of course). If there is potential for money to be made and you don't do it, why are you in business?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-30 14:38:49 and read 5758 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 129):
Quoting JRadier (Reply 128):

That was my point exactly. European airports have shown that they can make money off haveing large scale shopping facilities, and the US airports don't (or do not in the scale a lot of European airports do). Do you think the shareholders care where the money comes from?


The point is that they aren't actually better at running airports. They are just good at running shopping malls with a captive audience.

I have at times subscribed to the view that the "retail experience" is overdone at UK airports. Last week though when departing from the TBIT at LAX, I realised that perhaps the shops aren't such a bad thing. How could an airport choose to lose out big time on grabbing those left over dollars ?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: VV701
Posted 2009-08-30 15:51:15 and read 5708 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 79):
The counter argument could also be put that the air travel numbers may be inflated by non O&D, i.e. CDG / OLY bound passengers transiting via LHR.

Not really a counter argument. If you have read all I said you will have seen it was actually part of my own argument. What I actually said was:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 37):
On the other hand many of the passengers flying between primarily LHR and CDG will not be London to Paris O&D travellers but will connect with other flights at either of these airports.

I then went on to include an allowance for the impact of transfer traffic in my calculations. So are you just confirming what I originally said?

Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 105):
Even at the average load factor of trains, the energy efficiency is superior (2 to 3 times) to that of aircraft. It's physics people. Moving people on the ground will always require less energy than lifting and keeping them 6 miles up and then moving them at 500 mph assuming ground modes are correctly utilized.

It is a common mistake to look at energy efficiency and to ignore the other factors that impact the overall carbon footprint of a mode of transport. It is important to recognize that the infrastructure that allows a train, a bus, a car or an aircraft to board its passengers and then transport them from A to B has its own carbon footprint. So simply comparing fuel burn efficiency is looking at only part of a bigger picture,

Railtrack has recently provisionally asked the British government for the equivalent of US $ 55 billion to construct a new high speed railway like linking the central lowlands of Scotland to London. To build this new line many tens if not hundreds of thousands of carbon absorbing trees will be lost and lost forever. They will be uprooted by construction equipment that has its own significant carbon footprint. Huge amounts of soil and rock will be excavated and transported to another location leaving another carbon footprint. The concrete sleepers and iron rails for the track will need to be manufactured at a significant cost in terms of carbon emissions.

As far as the lost vegetation is concerned this has a continuing impact. For example, the lost trees will not sprout anew in the middle of the railway track or on the station platform. So their destruction will have an impact, a carbon footprint, for ever. But when we are told how much better it will be for the environment to drive a new four track railway line 450 miles long through the countryside and build multiple parkway stations alongside it, this factor is conveniently forgotten and ignored.

A general forgotten advantage of air travel is that aircraft for the most part can fly over countryside and require only a small amount of trees and other CO2 absorbing vegetation to be destroyed while competitive roads and railways destroy huge swathes of countryside for ever.

If you look back over the last 50 years in the UK roads have destroyed huge areas of countryside. Aircraft have destroyed the vegetation destroyed to build the second runway at MAN and, so far railways have destroyed vegetation only where new parkway stations have been built and relatively small amounts of new track have been laid. But if Railtrack get there way all that is about to change.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 16:48:43 and read 5668 times.



Quoting JRadier (Reply 130):

Keep in mind that a lot of the shops are actually landside, and thus are not Duty-Free, and that duty-free is only to countries outside the EU, as the EU is seen as one (economic) zone. A lot of the flights (as with domestic flights in the US) take place within this zone.

Only sort of. The shops generally try to maintain "duty free pricing" as an advertising gimmick even with EU flights.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 131):
I have at times subscribed to the view that the "retail experience" is overdone at UK airports. Last week though when departing from the TBIT at LAX, I realised that perhaps the shops aren't such a bad thing. How could an airport choose to lose out big time on grabbing those left over dollars ?

Different priorities. LAX is about getting people to and from the airplane. LHR is about getting people to shop.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-08-30 16:51:15 and read 5662 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 123):

Garbage. They were handed a monopoly and have acted as such.

Like it was said above, BAA Airports Limited paid through their noses for the airports. I am not familiar with the history before Ferrovial purchase of BAA.


Quoting N1120A (Reply 123):

Hardly. BAA has been as guilty as Standard Oil was of anti-competitive behavior.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340Jamaica
Posted 2009-08-30 17:04:26 and read 5631 times.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 132):
It is a common mistake to look at energy efficiency and to ignore the other factors that impact the overall carbon footprint of a mode of transport. It is important to recognize that the infrastructure that allows a train, a bus, a car or an aircraft to board its passengers and then transport them from A to B has its own carbon footprint. So simply comparing fuel burn efficiency is looking at only part of a bigger picture,

Nonsense!! Even when ancillary carbon effects are included, the train wins. Believe it or not, a high speed line from say London to Glasgow occupies less area than a medium sized airport and much less than an airport like Denver International that is something like 40 square miles. Remember, the right of way need not be more than about 60 feet wide. When the arithmetic is calculated you realize that while the length of the rectangle is long, the width is a joke thus minimizing consumed area. Remember also that a HSL occupies a narrower right of way than even a high quality two lane rural highway when shoulders and safety buffer areas for the highway are included.

The rail uses concrete sleepers that are what, maybe 1/2 foot wide by about 11 feet long by say 4 inches thick or so spaced three or so feet apart. It becomes immediately clear the airport uses much more concrete as the entire surface has to be covered. The airport concrete also has to be thicker to accomodate the stresses of large jets landing, taking off taxiing, etc. The rail profile with its sleepers (ties for Americans) (such an ingenious invention) resting on ballast which then rests on subgrade is easily capable of supporting weights that roads, runways, taxiways etc. would fail miserably at. The steel used for actual rail is also less than that needed for runway and taxiway reinforcement

If we want to look at ancillary effects, we can also compare the tendency of rail to promote development that is less wasteful of land which has very significant carbon implications.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 22:39:06 and read 5559 times.



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 134):
Like it was said above, BAA Airports Limited paid through their noses for the airports. I am not familiar with the history before Ferrovial purchase of BAA.

BAA was a private (public) company for 20 years prior to the Ferrovial purchase. What Ferrovial essentially did was take the company private, i.e. purchase all the shares from shareholders. That has nothing to do with how it was privatized, which was essentially the Thatcher government floating the ownership interest in the airports on the stock market.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 134):

What does that have to do with what I said?

BAA was handed a monopoly and operates that way, virtually guaranteeing a profit.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-30 23:12:21 and read 5538 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 118):
1) Fraport didn't make the initial investment in capital infrastructure.

which does not mean that the initial investment amortized as well, before the corporate structure of tosay's FRAport was formed

2) Fraport does far more than running airports, which the agencies that run airports in the US don't. For example, Fraport is paid by airlines to do basically all the ground handling at FRA, whereas US airports don't do this. Fraport then does this at other airports to subsidize its own airport operation.

Handling is run in competetion with others, handling is a part of the business that cintributes to income. No one hinmders airports in the US to do likewise, except may be the authorities themselves. Airport management is contributing to other profitable divisions of the company but no way "subsidizes" the FRA ops.

[quote=N1120A,reply=118]3) Like BAA, another company that was gifted massive airports by the government, Fraport makes most of its money on retail shops, something done completely differently in the U.S.[/quote

Again, the corporations that rund airports in Europe seem to have a better understanding of business than the agencies in the US. You can*t even find a decent place to eat at most US airports. I had a meal voucher from BA at ORD once and I walked back into the executive lounge 5 minutes later and gave it back to the hostess.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-30 23:19:17 and read 5537 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 137):
Handling is run in competetion with others, handling is a part of the business that cintributes to income. No one hinmders airports in the US to do likewise, except may be the authorities themselves. Airport management is contributing to other profitable divisions of the company but no way "subsidizes" the FRA ops.

Again, US airports aren't in the ground handling business. They let the airlines or ground handling companies do that themselves. Similarly, they aren't in the business of running shopping malls. Its a very different thing.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 137):
You can*t even find a decent place to eat at most US airports

FRA is just about the worst airport I have ever seen for finding a place to eat. A few carts to buy wurst, a McDonalds and a few bars. The BAA London airports aren't much better.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 137):
Again, the corporations that rund airports in Europe seem to have a better understanding of business than the agencies in the US.

Garbage. They run differently, and one is far better for the consumer.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-08-30 23:53:32 and read 5513 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 138):
Again, US airports aren't in the ground handling business. They let the airlines or ground handling companies do that themselves. Similarly, they aren't in the business of running shopping malls. Its a very different thing.

OK, I know that, what I said is that they give up on potential income from concessions

Quoting N1120A (Reply 138):
FRA is just about the worst airport I have ever seen for finding a place to eat. A few carts to buy wurst, a McDonalds and a few bars. The BAA London airports aren't much better.

Except for T2, the McDonalds is about the most difficult place to find in T1. You have an abundance of eateries from fast food to edible food all over the places, in front and behind of security .

Quoting N1120A (Reply 138):
Garbage. They run differently, and one is far better for the consumer

the consumer should decide himself if he wants to buy so called duty free items or not. I never do, but the fact that you cannot walk away with your purchase and have it delivered to the aircraft door instead keeps a lot of potential customers away.

But OK, most airports oin th US are set up for domestic travel and international is a step child only.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Group51
Posted 2009-08-31 00:47:17 and read 5477 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 27):
There is a reason that usually mainly governments are involved in building all those HSR infrastructure, the privatised world just cannot economically carry all the costs involved alone (many 10's of billions of Euro's/dollars ) and they always have to remember that the whole railroad business , certainly the HSR, brings very low ROI , even lower than the already troubled aviation industry.

Yes there is a reason. Although the railway itself may not be profitable, it acts a a multiplier to growth in the rest of the economy. I mean, this isn't done for fun you know!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-31 02:17:30 and read 5423 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 139):
the consumer should decide himself if he wants to buy so called duty free items or not. I never do, but the fact that you cannot walk away with your purchase and have it delivered to the aircraft door instead keeps a lot of potential customers away.

Sure, and US airports have duty free shops. The difference is that they aren't mini-shopping malls with jetways attached. Not that I mind shopping at airports in the EU. The best, cheapest place to buy my Thomas Pink shirts is at Heathrow, unless they are running the big once yearly sale.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 139):

But OK, most airports oin th US are set up for domestic travel and international is a step child only.

This is very true, and it changes the dynamic of the place.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 139):
Except for T2, the McDonalds is about the most difficult place to find in T1. You have an abundance of eateries from fast food to edible food all over the places, in front and behind of security .

This is true. I'm not a McDonalds fan and the only time I have ever been by the hidden one in T1 is when looking for a bathroom. The point I was making is that the food choices at FRA are terrible.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 139):

OK, I know that, what I said is that they give up on potential income from concessions

It doesn't, however, mean that these private concerns are good for the consumer, run airports better or aren't handed the vast majority of their infrastructure by governments.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Planesmith
Posted 2009-08-31 02:21:46 and read 5421 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
Here in Germany some route were replaced by rail: TXL to HAM and HAJ, FRA-CGN (were you can even check in your bags). MUC-NUE is also served by high speed train, though flights survived, the same with MAD-BCN or London-Paris.

The German train that had the Lufthansa livery was the first HST that I travelled on in Europe many years ago - so much more sensible to get from DUS to FRA for a flight.

Sadly - the British Government has "missed the train" by more than a decade or two for a high speed network in Great Britain but perhaps they should have encouraged an HST network that linked the West, North West, North East, etc., with STN and LHR - I believe this would have helped STN develop a long-haul network. As it is the M11/M25/M4/M1 are littered with thirsty and uncomfortable National Express buses 24-hours a day when an economic, fast and comfortable rail service would make much more sense to connect to a long-haul flight.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-08-31 02:38:52 and read 5403 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 138):
The BAA London airports aren't much better.

Restaurants at LHR: T5 (T3 and others also have good options) has the following very good 22 restaurants and bars; I have gone hungry several times rather than eat at US airports

T5&search=true&category=&shoplocation=All&shop=&ChPath=Heathrow^General^Shop,%20eat,%20relax%20and%20enjoy^Eat^Eating%20A-Z" target=_blank>http://www.heathrowairport.com/porta...lax%20and%20enjoy^Eat^Eating%20A-Z

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: VV701
Posted 2009-08-31 08:00:51 and read 5270 times.



Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 135):
Nonsense!!

Thanks for so eloquently proving my point.

I said

Quoting VV701 (Reply 132):
It is a common mistake to look at energy efficiency and to ignore the other factors that impact the overall carbon footprint of a mode of transport.

And I was discussing a proposal to build a new high speed railway line between London and central Scotland. To deny that the construction of this NEW proposed rail line will have no more impact on the environment than a NEW airport that no one is proposing to build is plainly irrelevant and totally typical of the arguments always put forward in this type of discussion.

What if, as you say, Denver Airport covers a greater area than the proposed railway?

First no one is proposing to build Denver Airport or any other airport in the UK as an alternative to a London to Scotland high speed raqilway line.

Second what exactly is the the relevance of the total area of Denver Airport? On Google Earth most of it looks . . . Well, green. There seems to be a large amount of CO2 absorbing vegitation that absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. And as I have already pointed pointed out, none of the area covered by the proposed London to Scotland high speed railway and the associated infrastructure will be, like most of Denver Airport 'green'. So are you intentionally trying to mislead or simply not understanding yourself the difference in environmental impact of what is effectively largely a field and that of a railway line?

As I very carefully pointed out in my post that you have decided is nonsense, the only new runway built in the UK on a greenfield site in the UK in the last half century is the second parallel runway at MAN. And the only new airport built in the UK since LHR was built imore than 60 years ago in 1946 is LCY. And it was built on old docklands - a brown field, not green field site, minimising its carbon footprint.

So many thanks for proving my point that those supporting new transportation infrastructure, be it an airport or, as in this case a proposed high speed railway line, carefully discount the environmental impact of the infrastructure.

And here is a link provided by another a-netter in another thread to a paper that compares the total lifetime carbon footprint of different transport modes. It will probably give you a lot of food for thought:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024008

Note that lifetime life-cycle emissions relative to fuel emmisions for railway travel are 1.5 greater than railway fuel emissions. On the other hand the equivalent for air travel is less than an additional one-third. And these are the emissions that you would try to persuade us to ignore!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-08-31 08:58:27 and read 5219 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 101):
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 99):
Sorry to say this but you seem very well informed as to how you can benefit personally from this wonderfull HSR system which, I agree, is very convenient.
You however seem blind or oblivious for the underlying costs involved and its own set of problems it creates

Every time I use HSR., last eek it was by ICE to AMS, I contribute to cover the costs for that system. I could go by car as well, but I prefer to work and relax on the way back. Take some lessons in basic economies, helps some times.

Don't be so pedantic, besides you contribute to cover the costs for that system (HSR) only partially , that's what this whole argument is about , Using your car or in the case presented in this thread you pay for the full use of everything you use when going by air.
HSR and railroads in general can only offer competitive prises in most cases because of the subsidies states give to that system year after year.

Quoting Group51 (Reply 140):
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 27):
There is a reason that usually mainly governments are involved in building all those HSR infrastructure, the privatised world just cannot economically carry all the costs involved alone (many 10's of billions of Euro's/dollars ) and they always have to remember that the whole railroad business , certainly the HSR, brings very low ROI , even lower than the already troubled aviation industry.

Yes there is a reason. Although the railway itself may not be profitable, it acts a a multiplier to growth in the rest of the economy. I mean, this isn't done for fun you know!

I think I already made that clear before;

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 95):
The benefits of HSR travel lie in the melting/fusing of big city centres over big distances and the side effects (comenly known as TGV-effect in continental Europe and Japan) on the economy can be quite substantial.



Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 135):
Nonsense!! Even when ancillary carbon effects are included, the train wins

I'm sorry Jamaica, but that's just not right.
HSR needs far more natural resources , apart from the energy factor, to transport people from A to B than any other means of transport.

Like Already said before in this thread, the HSR certainly has its value and a lot more potential in it and has some big plusses going for it.
-the convenience of it all
-the centralised power supply which can more easily be derived from renewable and cleaner energy resources.
-The afforementioned TGV effect which is clearly visible in a lot of cities that have multiple HSR connections.
-the overall inherent safety of it all.
-Last but not least the potential in the cargo transport market , this could be where the real strength and benefits of the whole system really exists and it should be developped to its full potential.

However ,nobody should be blind for its inherent flaws which lie clearly in the continuous costs of it all , certainly if only used for passenger transport.
Also the severe impact on the environment should not be underestimated, it might not have a lot of smoking chimneys but it uses an enormous amount of resources and uses them rather inefficiently, again when used mainly for passenger transport in stead of transport of goods.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-31 09:50:19 and read 5169 times.



Quoting A340Jamaica (Reply 135):
Nonsense!! Even when ancillary carbon effects are included, the train wins. Believe it or not, a high speed line from say London to Glasgow occupies less area than a medium sized airport and much less than an airport like Denver International that is something like 40 square miles. Remember, the right of way need not be more than about 60 feet wide. When the arithmetic is calculated you realize that while the length of the rectangle is long, the width is a joke thus minimizing consumed area. Remember also that a HSL occupies a narrower right of way than even a high quality two lane rural highway when shoulders and safety buffer areas for the highway are included.

The rail uses concrete sleepers that are what, maybe 1/2 foot wide by about 11 feet long by say 4 inches thick or so spaced three or so feet apart. It becomes immediately clear the airport uses much more concrete as the entire surface has to be covered. The airport concrete also has to be thicker to accomodate the stresses of large jets landing, taking off taxiing, etc. The rail profile with its sleepers (ties for Americans) (such an ingenious invention) resting on ballast which then rests on subgrade is easily capable of supporting weights that roads, runways, taxiways etc. would fail miserably at. The steel used for actual rail is also less than that needed for runway and taxiway reinforcement

If we want to look at ancillary effects, we can also compare the tendency of rail to promote development that is less wasteful of land which has very significant carbon implications.

Yes a railway has a footprint of only 60 feet wide, when it is on level ground, with no roads or rivers crossing it. This situation however is not often found. Railway track is generally limited to a gradient of 1 in 40, thus it requires may cuttings and embankments, these have to be sloped and the land grab is then far more than 60 feet, often tripling. Most railway lines have more over and underbridges than they do miles of track. These are where the money and concrete really goes. You make the sleepers sound like ocassional concrete strips beneath the track, whereas the space between them is little more than their width, and the steel in the rails is of great weight compared to steel rebar.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 138):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 137):
You can*t even find a decent place to eat at most US airports

FRA is just about the worst airport I have ever seen for finding a place to eat. A few carts to buy wurst, a McDonalds and a few bars. The BAA London airports aren't much better.

The BAA airports all have multiple eating establishments in each terminal, ranging from waitress service restaurants through pub meals to sushi and oyster bars. Where in the US do you find this ?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 141):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 139):

But OK, most airports oin th US are set up for domestic travel and international is a step child only.

This is very true, and it changes the dynamic of the place.

Granted for domestic, but why are many of the International terminals no different ?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-31 12:03:01 and read 5090 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 145):
HSR needs far more natural resources , apart from the energy factor, to transport people from A to B than any other means of transport.

Actually, that isn't true, unless you are considering land use. Even then, rail doesn't need any more land than building a new highway. In fact, a major highway will take far more space.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 146):
The BAA airports all have multiple eating establishments in each terminal, ranging from waitress service restaurants through pub meals to sushi and oyster bars. Where in the US do you find this ?

Any major airport. If you are at a small, regional airport, you will find fewer choices. This is true in Europe as well. And like I said, while I haven't been to T5, I have found far more choices in major US airports than in major EU ones.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 146):

Granted for domestic, but why are many of the International terminals no different ?

Different styles of airport design. Remember that, until 9/11, there were very few sterile concourses in the US. They just built the places differently.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-31 12:23:18 and read 5074 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 147):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 146):
The BAA airports all have multiple eating establishments in each terminal, ranging from waitress service restaurants through pub meals to sushi and oyster bars. Where in the US do you find this ?

Any major airport. If you are at a small, regional airport, you will find fewer choices. This is true in Europe as well. And like I said, while I haven't been to T5, I have found far more choices in major US airports than in major EU ones.

Doesn't LAX count as major then ?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-31 12:37:38 and read 5059 times.



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 148):

Doesn't LAX count as major then ?

Of course it does and it is far and away the airport I have the most experience with, since I grew up in and live in Los Angeles. All of the numbered terminals have lots of food options for their size. Bradley too has a large, pre-security food court that could be better but could be worse.

Also, given that LAWA is one of the most financially successful airport agencies in the US, I think they have something figured out.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-08-31 15:22:01 and read 5002 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 149):
Bradley too has a large, pre-security food court that could be better but could be worse.

And after security ?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-08-31 15:53:26 and read 5003 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 136):
BAA was a private (public) company for 20 years prior to the Ferrovial purchase. What Ferrovial essentially did was take the company private, i.e. purchase all the shares from shareholders. That has nothing to do with how it was privatized, which was essentially the Thatcher government floating the ownership interest in the airports on the stock market.

Floating ownership interest in the stock market doesn't qualify as a gift either.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 136):

BAA was handed a monopoly and operates that way, virtually guaranteeing a profit.

They have price controls in. That guarantees problems, if anything.

And what I meant is because of that, they can't derive much (or as much) profits from actual operations. Concessions are pretty much just ancillary revenue. Which is why I said BAA isn't allowed to run an airport like a business, just a shopping mall.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-31 16:52:53 and read 4981 times.



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 150):

And after security ?

Again, context. Built before sterile corridors were common here.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 151):

Floating ownership interest in the stock market doesn't qualify as a gift either.

Of course it does. It gave private airport owners airport infrastructure.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-08-31 18:32:00 and read 4949 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 152):

Of course it does. It gave private airport owners airport infrastructure.

It sold them airport infrastructure.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-08-31 22:43:37 and read 4909 times.



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 153):
It sold them airport infrastructure.

Not really. It gave BAA the infrastructure free and sold shares in the company. Big difference.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Planesmith
Posted 2009-09-01 02:45:19 and read 4840 times.



Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):
If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

Not quite accurate, Britain's private railways, including Virgin, are truly appalling whilst French, Japanese, German, Italian and Swiss railways offer very good services.

The whole point of this discussion really grounds on the fact that few countries have an integrated transport system where trains should feed into long-haul air travel which where the airline industry excels. Getting to a local train station is a lot easier than fighting your way into an airport by car, a two hour train ride from the heart of England to LHR or STN would be infinately more comfortable than fighting the Motorways, traffic jams, finding parking, getting to the terminal, checking in two-hours before a flight... Why on earth have they not expanded on the rail/airlink opportunity at LHR, the STN link from Liverpool Street is at best restricted, (people do live in other places than London!) - because planning in England is shortsighted, piecemeal and exceedingly slow.

Any of us that have been able to use airports where the station is beneath the terminal will appreciate the real convenience of that. FRA, ZRH are so much more accessible without all the hassle of road traffic.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-09-01 06:49:28 and read 4725 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 152):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 150):

And after security ?

Again, context. Built before sterile corridors were common here.

Thats no excuse really considering how long they have been up.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2009-09-01 08:45:27 and read 4670 times.



Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):
If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

Apart from being completely inaccurate with respect to European and Japanese HSR, this statement pretty well describes the US airline industry, which doesn't have government ownership to blame (but rather government (ch11) protection).

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-09-01 09:15:30 and read 4655 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 157):
Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):
If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown.

Apart from being completely inaccurate with respect to European and Japanese HSR, this statement pretty well describes the US airline industry, which doesn't have government ownership to blame (but rather government (ch11) protection).

 checkmark 


He will not understand that.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Vinniewinnie
Posted 2009-09-01 11:01:54 and read 4609 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
I fail to see why anybody would support killing a viable, profitable and fully privatized industry,which in reality doesn't cost anything extra for society as a whole (it even ads to the economy in a big way) ,and in turn would have no problem supporting a mass transport system that costs tons of money year after year and poses significant other problems for the environment besides just air polution and can only be operated functionally as a government program with all the difficulties that come with it.

If u really want to talk about costs, why don't u add all non financial items such as noise, pollution (Emitted by planes, adjacant vehicules together with all polluting transport modes being used to access airport). Since there is a monetary cost to effect on the environment, u'd see that air is not such a cheap mode after all. Everybody will agree that talking about profit/loss is just a narrow minded short term view of how things should be run.

Quoting Planesmith (Reply 155):
Not quite accurate, Britain's private railways, including Virgin, are truly appalling whilst French, Japanese, German, Italian and Swiss railways offer very good services.

No later than a week ago I took a train between Lille and Paris. Fast it was, but also very dirty too. Put me on natex train between London & Leeds any time, will take 2 times more time, but at least they are customer orientated. (Free wifi anyone)

ps: Privately run not private railway (see below)

Quoting Quoting N911YX (Reply 110):
:
If it is government-run it suffers from all of the illnesses of indifference to customers and produces no profit as there is no incentive to do so. Productivity suffers and innovation is a relative unknown

Ever heard of the term franchising? Public transport run by private businesses for a set amount of subsidy/a premium to be paid. If service is not good the government can remove the franchise operator.

Holy grail of efficiency u might think: Well no, cause private operators may overstretch themselves, leading to a crap service, and even if it works well, the cost of handover between operators is very high, inefficiencies u don't get if the service is publicly owned.

U need a balance in everything. Nothing is perfect, but in the long term it is very sensible for big conurbations be linked together by high speed train provided that journey time doesn't exceed four hours. Whether publicly run or privately run it doesn't matter, it all depends on the operator!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: N1120A
Posted 2009-09-01 12:45:14 and read 4559 times.



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 156):

Thats no excuse really considering how long they have been up.

How often are airports completely rebuilt? Especially on small footprints like LAX? Besides, at least LAX has 4 runways and the space for a 5th, while Heathrow is never even going to get a third.

Quoting Planesmith (Reply 155):
Not quite accurate, Britain's private railways, including Virgin, are truly appalling whilst French, Japanese, German, Italian and Swiss railways offer very good services.

I wouldn't call the UK's rail system appalling, but I would say that what Thatcher, Major and Beeching did to the system is appalling. After all, the country is still incredibly well connected with its rail network. Still, the others you mentioned, with the possible exception of the Italians, do their jobs better.

Quoting Planesmith (Reply 155):
the STN link from Liverpool Street is at best restricted, (people do live in other places than London!)

Well, they are improving that with the increase in service to Birmingham and points between to half hourly.

Quoting Planesmith (Reply 155):
Why on earth have they not expanded on the rail/airlink opportunity at LHR

Ask BAA about that and their massive surcharge for using mainline rail into LHR, despite shorter distances from London.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-09-02 01:07:18 and read 4419 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 145):
HSR and railroads in general can only offer competitive prises in most cases because of the subsidies states give to that system year after year.

The same with taxi, bus transport, road haulage, bicycle couriers or just anything that uses a road to deliver a paid service. None of these pay the cost to construct roads other than by taxes.

With trains it is the same. The general public interest benefits enormously if train traffic covers a larger percentage of all transportation. Therefore states invest in this kind of infrastructure. HSR's don't change that picture. They only expand the train market to longer routes.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Planesmith
Posted 2009-09-02 02:43:34 and read 4380 times.



Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 159):
ps: Privately run not private railway (see below)

Of course, privately run - although the passenger public have not seen any benefit in the move from British Rail so far are fares go - year upon year increases have left fares at staggering levels - British Rail offered simple "bargain" fares as they do today but it was still cost effective to pay the "full" fare to travel from Euston to Glasgow over the BA/BR services - not so today. I check fares, make a quick calculation and head for my Toyota.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 161):
Ask BAA about that and their massive surcharge for using mainline rail into LHR, despite shorter distances from London.

If both the airports and the rail infrastructre was owned by the country then this issues wouldn't arise.

The real point is, do I want to use a flight for a short journey - no - faced with the drive to the airport (LGW is my local - uugh!) - parking is several miles away from the terminal - two-hour check-in - ¼ mile walk to the gate - delays because of single runway - all such a pleasure.

Not so bad if I'm faced with a 13-hour flight or even like my next one to FNC where the swim would be rather tiring - but I'd prefer to take the 20 minute train into London then walk straight on to a 3 hour rail journey north - providing the fare doesn't require a second mortgage.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 160):
(Free wifi anyone)

Ah! You managed to get a seat!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-09-02 02:53:27 and read 4375 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 161):
The same with taxi, bus transport, road haulage, bicycle couriers or just anything that uses a road to deliver a paid service. None of these pay the cost to construct roads other than by taxes.

You sure do over here in the rest of the EU.
Roadtransport is more than payed for by roadtaxes, a large portion of your gasbill and on many occasion tol on new bridges and tunnels and a new thing introduced all over Europe is the automated kilometer pay system (originated in Singapore IIRC).
Roadbound vehicles (cars ,busses ,trucks and motorbikes) are large net contributors to most states finances and pay far more than the cost for newly build roads and the maintenance on the existing ones.

Besides most of the money invested in public transport (trains and public busses) is usually funded by the surplus earning from all those taxes on private transport.

One of the main reasons many US states have so many problems maintaining their roads and bridges is that they tax cars(and the likes) and the use of them so little that there aren't sufficient funds to do all the work necessary.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-09-02 03:05:36 and read 4368 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 163):
One of the main reasons many US states have so many problems maintaining their roads and bridges is that they tax cars(and the likes) and the use of them so little that there aren't sufficient funds to do all the work necessary.

Huh? If one country is known for extensive use of cars then the US of A. Ever heard of toll bridges, toll roads in the US? But the real point is, about each and every metro area in the US now taxes gasoline or uses sales tax to invest in public transport systems, usually light rail.

They even start thinking about HSR and there is a real intersting master plan.

I am with you when it comes to extensive taxing on road / automobiles, but contrary to you I understand that there has to be public transport by rail as this is a vital part of the infrastructure of a clountry without which the GNP could, to some extend, not be generated.

On the typical Friday, planes and trains are full and roads are congestedd. Imagine there would be no choice and road would be the only means of travel, nothing would move at all.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2009-09-02 03:08:43 and read 4360 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 7):
In my opinion, O'Leary :

- Maintains an often vulgar communication style in public and shows contempt for alternative points of view, for his competitors and for his customers
- Maintains a cynical attitude to customers and customer service, that cannot be explained by the low cost nature of the business alone, as Easyjet and others do not replicate this behaviour
- Based on the events of recent years, 3 emergency landings in France, 2 after explosive decompression at altitude with 16 passengers with burst eardrums,due to loose panels on newish 737's that were simply used too often and not maintained sufficiently, I would propose also, a potentially casual attitude to maintenance.

Add to that list, being a bit of an idiot...

My father used to work at the CAA and to add insult to injury was involved in grounding a number of Ryanair aircraft due to their poor maintainence standards...

Anyway let's compare a trip with Ryanair to Glasgow with a trip on the HSR, both starting in central London:

Ryanair: Expensive train to Stansted, massive queues to check in (with grumpy check in staff), waiting around for an hour or two to get on the plane, scrambling to get on the plane and find a good seat, the 1 hour flight, landing, getting luggage, getting on expensive bus to city centre... I reckon all this will set you back 5-6 hours (centre to centre)

HSR: Get on train with luggage and find reserved seat, enjoy a fast 3 hour journey and arrive in Glasgow city centre without any hassle or stress..

I think I'll go for the latter..

HSR has revolutionised travel in continental europe and is making air travel between London and Brussels/Paris almost redudant... I mean Air France is introducing ATR42s on its LHR-CDG route!!!

It is environmentally friendly and allows you to spend most of your time on the train, therefore giving more time for work and relaxing, which flying short-haul doesn't afford you the luxury of!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-09-02 03:32:46 and read 4345 times.



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 164):
Huh? If one country is known for extensive use of cars then the US of A. Ever heard of toll bridges, toll roads in the US? But the real point is, about each and every metro area in the US now taxes gasoline or uses sales tax to invest in public transport systems, usually light rail.

PanHam,
I clearly stated some US states, not the whole country as states can and do have differing levels of transport taxation.
Some states are good, some OK and some really need to rethink there low level taxation I think.
I lived in Chicago for 18 months and worked there a total of 3 years, I think I have a good idea on how things usually work over there.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 164):
I am with you when it comes to extensive taxing on road / automobiles, but contrary to you I understand that there has to be public transport by rail as this is a vital part of the infrastructure of a clountry without which the GNP could, to some extend, not be generated.

I clearly said before I'm not against funded public transport per se.
However people seem to forget that purely on an economic base it is not always self providing.
The HSR issue in this thread talks about a current situation in England and how the government wants to tackle it by introducing an extensive HSR system.
On itself it might very well be a good idea but MOL has a valid point when he says that it would result in unfair competion.
If it is been done similar to continental Europe with continuous state funding to subsidise a continuing long term debt, I would be very reluctant supporting such an idea.
The total costs should be reflected in the ticket price, it is the only fair way to create fair competion.

The ideas mentioned before about a better use of all these dedicated tracks by means of high speed high volume transport of goods besides and simultaneous with public transport is certainly a very good first important step.

Other things not directly related to the Railway system might also level competion chances for the HSR, like fairer CO2 exhaust taxes on aviation and roadtransport.
It would make investing in renewable (greener) energysources more attractive for powercompanies and give the railways an edge because they, contrary to the other means of transport), can make use of these untaxed sources of energy.
We could slowly tackle the CO2 problem too, only money can finally achieve this IMHO.

Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 159):
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 87):
I fail to see why anybody would support killing a viable, profitable and fully privatized industry,which in reality doesn't cost anything extra for society as a whole (it even ads to the economy in a big way) ,and in turn would have no problem supporting a mass transport system that costs tons of money year after year and poses significant other problems for the environment besides just air polution and can only be operated functionally as a government program with all the difficulties that come with it.

If u really want to talk about costs, why don't u add all non financial items such as noise, pollution (Emitted by planes, adjacant vehicules together with all polluting transport modes being used to access airport). Since there is a monetary cost to effect on the environment, u'd see that air is not such a cheap mode after all. Everybody will agree that talking about profit/loss is just a narrow minded short term view of how things should be run.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 145):
Like Already said before in this thread, the HSR certainly has its value and a lot more potential in it and has some big plusses going for it.
-the convenience of it all
-the centralised power supply which can more easily be derived from renewable and cleaner energy resources.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Planesmith
Posted 2009-09-02 03:32:47 and read 4345 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 163):
Besides most of the money invested in public transport (trains and public busses) is usually funded by the surplus earning from all those taxes on private transport.

Aah! If only that could happen in the UK... Sadly any benefits go straight to the private part of the public/private finance initiatives that are so popular with our politicians. As for tolls, the local river crossing over the Thames on the M25 was increased by 50% last year and ALL the extra "benefits" go to its French owners!!!

The UK's system of pouring largish amounts of "public" money into the railways via subsidies appears to have only one sided results - massive and ever increasing profits for Stagecoach et al. (Unless the operator screwed up their bid Big grin) Fares are increased regularly with the co-operation of a government funded organisation for various and random reasons.

The nightmare that has been created has led us to a society whereby services that are offered are poorer and poorer as is evidenced by Ryanair, Easyjet etc., dreadful bus operators like Stagecoach and First who care not for the passenger and rail operators who make spurious claims whilst providing a level of on-time arrivals that make you think twice before stepping on board. I don't like being dumped miles from my destination because the train is running late - thank First Great Western for that one.

Until we achieve anything remotely like an integrated transport policy linking in minor local services, to area services to regional services to European services and worldwide, we will continue to suffer busy and overused Motorways by drivers like myself who simply cannot face the struggle and waiting lines. Private companies will never achieve this as they are too self-interested and focus only on profit and not on customers. This is a country where trains simply do not run on time - shame the Swiss are so xenophobic...

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Theginge
Posted 2009-09-02 10:41:55 and read 4275 times.

HSR can work in the UK but only as part of an intergrated transport system meaning you can change from train to train to plane to car etc etc seamlessly. Then some domestic flights can be reduced.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: A340jamaica
Posted 2009-09-02 11:06:13 and read 4254 times.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 144):
Note that lifetime life-cycle emissions relative to fuel emmisions for railway travel are 1.5 greater than railway fuel emissions. On the other hand the equivalent for air travel is less than an additional one-third. And these are the emissions that you would try to persuade us to ignore!

And what is the lifetime period being used for the study? I hope it is measured in at least 100 years!!! That is how long rail infrastructure lasts. Do the discount rates used in economic calculations apply that long? But funny enough, even using your figures, it means trains use less fuel overall as fuel use is at least twice as good and probably closer to thrice as good. That means operation plus life cycle emissions are less than just the fuel emissions of aircraft with much greater scope for reduction as renewable and low carbon sources come online 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 years from now. That has to be the timeframe of relevance when talking about rail infrastructure!!

On Denver, I just used it as an example to show one extreme. The fact of the matter however is that airport infrastructure is also land hogging and trying to claim otherwise is being disingenious.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 146):

Yes a railway has a footprint of only 60 feet wide, when it is on level ground, with no roads or rivers crossing it. This situation however is not often found. Railway track is generally limited to a gradient of 1 in 40, thus it requires may cuttings and embankments, these have to be sloped and the land grab is then far more than 60 feet, often tripling. Most railway lines have more over and underbridges than they do miles of track. These are where the money and concrete really goes. You make the sleepers sound like ocassional concrete strips beneath the track, whereas the space between them is little more than their width, and the steel in the rails is of great weight compared to steel rebar.

Even including additional land in difficult terrain, the railway land use is comparatively modest. When you consider that in many difficult areas, tunnels will be utilized for HSR, that argument becomes even less of an issue of course at the energy expense of tunnel building. But the tunnel will last centuries!!! That is an investment for your progeny that I will never consider a bad thing. Similarly, well built concrete bridges will last decades if not centuries.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-09-02 16:04:51 and read 4192 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 154):

Not really. It gave BAA the infrastructure free and sold shares in the company. Big difference.

So you're saying that the British Airports Authority didn't hold title to the infrastructure, so they were given those titles (still a government agency), were set up as a company, and sold?

Your point is ridiculous.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-09-03 00:17:41 and read 4147 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 163):
roadtaxes



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 163):
large portion of your gasbill



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 163):
tol

I know these things. But I really meant all of these too with the simple term "taxes". They all qualify to my definition of taxes: "money which is paid to the state, which is dictated by law, not voluntary, if a physical good like gas is involved with an increase in price which is not accompanied by more service".

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 163):
Roadbound vehicles (cars ,busses ,trucks and motorbikes) are large net contributors to most states finances and pay far more than the cost for newly build roads and the maintenance on the existing ones.

Stop this nonsense! Just quit it!
The first three hits when searching the german words for costs and roadtraffic reveal:
- The follow-up cost of road traffic is 130 billions euros per year alone in germany. This is the largest single contributor to a net deficite!
- One Euro invested to move traffic to trains will return 15 Euro because of reduced health and environment cost.
- Trucks generate on average five times the cost (not paid by the originator) of trains
- Cars generate on average three times the cost (not paid by the originator) of trains
- These facts were found in a EU study which was carried out by the institutes IWW and
Infras.
- EU wide per year 540 billions were used to pay health and environment cost that directly were caused by road traffic and which was payed fully over taxes or health insurances.
- EU wide the same cost for train traffic was 13 billion
- EU wide the same cost for air traffic was 91 billion
- Road traffic consumes 6% of the total EU GDP.

Regarding cost and environment train traffic is far superior to road traffic. Therefore states invest in train networks. Great rewards for the general public are the results. In the light of this train subsidies only relieve states from really large costs. EU wide. You can be lucky if you are able to move significant traffic portions to the rail. HSR included.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2009-09-03 01:42:00 and read 4117 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 171):
I know these things. But I really meant all of these too with the simple term "taxes". They all qualify to my definition of taxes: "money which is paid to the state, which is dictated by law, not voluntary, if a physical good like gas is involved with an increase in price which is not accompanied by more service".

I really struggle what you try to prove with this statement?
Because you don't get more service , you don't count it as a payement for what you use?
I don't know what you would call a decent well maintained extensive roadnet with all kind of different safetyfeatures but that sure sounds like some kind of service to me.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 171):
Stop this nonsense! Just quit it!
The first three hits when searching the german words for costs and roadtraffic reveal:
- The follow-up cost of road traffic is 130 billions euros per year alone in germany. This is the largest single contributor to a net deficite!
- One Euro invested to move traffic to trains will return 15 Euro because of reduced health and environment cost.
- Trucks generate on average five times the cost (not paid by the originator) of trains
- Cars generate on average three times the cost (not paid by the originator) of trains
- These facts were found in a EU study which was carried out by the institutes IWW and
Infras.
- EU wide per year 540 billions were used to pay health and environment cost that directly were caused by road traffic and which was payed fully over taxes or health insurances.
- EU wide the same cost for train traffic was 13 billion
- EU wide the same cost for air traffic was 91 billion
- Road traffic consumes 6% of the total EU GDP.

Regarding cost and environment train traffic is far superior to road traffic. Therefore states invest in train networks. Great rewards for the general public are the results. In the light of this train subsidies only relieve states from really large costs. EU wide. You can be lucky if you are able to move significant traffic portions to the rail. HSR included.


First I really don't care too much for this kind of discussion.
If you think you have a point to make than do so, no need for these reactions.
Besides your interpretations is wrong when it comes to cost in regard to GDP, GDP is not a cost and roadtraffic actually accounts for 6% of EU GDP, which is a good thing economically speaking.
Like it or not the car and their users are big nett contributors to both the economy and state finances.

Besides nobody is disputing the benefits of the train vs road traffic when it comes to overall impact on the environment but you make it sound like fossil fuel use and its effects on the environment is the only determining factor which is a bit disenginuous to say the least.

Whe're talking here about HSR vs airroutes, the way things are done the last 20 years in Europe is not the way forward, having 5000km (in FR) of dedicated HSR-track for the transport of 100 million passengers (in FR) and ,in reality ,little else is just a complete waste of resources.


Contrary to what many of you might think I'm not anti public transport , as an example how things could be done properly I give you the Paris RER system, a wonderfull and unique system in Europe where public transport also has its own tracks and routes all throughout the Paris suburbs and with direct connection to the rest of Paris public transport.
It was also expensive to build but truely visionary and to the benefit of the entire community using it and living around it.
It accounts for 2/3 of the entire use of Paris' public transport (+400mill passengers per year) and has payed more than its cost back over the years of its use.
Something the TGV(the entire system) as it is currently used will never be able to say.
Also, while the RER has a direct positive effect on the city as a whole with ver little if any side effects, the TGV has also a positive effect on citycenter development (the well known TGV effect) it also has some perverse negative side effects.
The wealthier high income class , which accounts fot the bulk of its everyday users, have increasingly taken residence far outside the city limits .
This has lead to an increased rate of ghettoforming of much poorer people in Paris' suburbs and a deficit in the income through taxes for the entire city because while people might still work in and around Paris , they pay their citytaxes in the places they live in.

The TGV as currently used can best be described as wealthcare, the state (= everybody) is funding the living and commuting habits of a selected few.
Exactly those people that are able to pay their fair share when it comes to commuting costs are being funded by the state, I'm sure its totally unnecessary and I don't think I'm far off when I say that they could easily elevate ticket prices to a level whereby all true costs+ a healthy profit margin where included into the ticket.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-09-03 02:34:30 and read 4101 times.



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 172):
Whe're talking here about HSR vs airroutes, the way things are done the last 20 years in Europe is not the way forward, having 5000km (in FR) of dedicated HSR-track for the transport of 100 million passengers (in FR) and ,in reality ,little else is just a complete waste of resources.

I only mentioned road vs. train to support my claim that roads and trains are in the same boat and compete with each other and to support my claim that investments in trains brings large benefits for the general public.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Orlik
Posted 2009-09-03 03:02:17 and read 4078 times.

regarding subsidies
- I have calculated the only withdrawn consumption tax on petrol in case of one small Airline (in this case CSA) means almost 110 mEUR - for 2008 it represents about 80% ! of their personnel cost. In fact this is about half of the planned highway toll revenue for the same year in CZ.
- doesnt matter that the international traffic is free of VAT

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2009-09-03 03:25:01 and read 4073 times.



Quoting Orlik (Reply 174):
regarding subsidies
- I have calculated the only withdrawn consumption tax on petrol in case of one small Airline (in this case CSA) means

now you open another can of worms. Internationbal trade is not only free of VAT but of ALL taxes and there are many good reasons for that.

think about how to collect supra national taxes, that is virtually impossible. You could also have said that is imaginary amounbt equals the loss CSA made, so you ant to double the loss of your airline, right? This is, for a company that is owned by the state, öleft pocket to right poeckt.

Instead of fuel taxes. the 1943 Chicago convention has written route charges, landing fees and navigation charges into the agreement.

There is no subsidy by not taxing kerosene used on international flights.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Boss 'Disapproves' Of 'Insane' HSR For UK
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2009-09-06 12:57:38 and read 3841 times.

This week I travelled by rail for the first time in many years; if rail is to be the future, lets hope they drastically improve their act:
Route travelled Carlisle - Edinburgh and return.
Carlisle station, platform 1, total number of seats for passengers 8.
Until 2 minutes to departure, board lists train as 3 minutes late, suddenly changes to 10 minutes.
Train arrives, we seek carriage D for our reserved seats, can't see any identifiers on exterior, so board in middle of train and find ourselves in carriage B. proceed down train to carriage C, then find this is the last carriage ! Sit in seats which have reservation cards telling us that thse seats should already be occupied.
When ticket collector comes round we ask where carriage D is, he replies that it is at the front, as the train has been assembled in the wrong order !!!
Our tickets consist of one ticket for the trip, and a virtually identical ticket of the same size for the seat reservation, why can't they print the seat number on the ticket ?, or have they noticed that airlines have e tickets, and encourage you to print your own boarding passes.

Train promised trolley beverage service, obviously so inobtrusive as to be invisible.

Return trip
Wait at Station for board to reveal which platform to use, 10 minutes to go and we're off.
Get to ticket barrier, and find that our tickets won't open it. Charmless member of staff tells us that we are using our seat reservation card not our ticket, check we are using right ticket, try again, still doesn't open barrier, so he opens it without so much as agrunt of acknowledgement.
Approach train, guess what this one doesn't tell you from the outside which carriage it is either. Board, and struggle along train heading one way, against people coming other way with same problem. Find seats and sit in them, whilst noting electronic display above seat clearly stating "this seat is not reserved"

I think I'll stick to the plane, at least you see a basic level of competence.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/