Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1869 posts, RR: 17 Posted (9 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1911 times:
Today, French railways has launched a new service on the highspeed train TGV, between Paris and Marseille. You can book only on the net, and it is using the same model as the lowcosts for the sales and pricing. Prices start around 20 EUR one way.
As a result, Easyjet will stop flts between ORY and MRS in March, despite an 82% loadfactor. They will use the slots to fly between ORY and Italy.
(Source : French TV news)
Who said there was no competition on the French market?...
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
LegendDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
That is very cool! rail going after popular air routes. It brings this thought to mind, perhaphs the reason that the US is not as developed in that area is due to strong pressure from the airline lobby in DC.
Flpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2120 posts, RR: 32 Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
The same thing will happen on a route like Paris - Metz/Nancy for example.
The TGV rail is under construction right now.
Fly time between ORY-ETZ is only 1 hour but since most connecting traffic is at CDG, a connection from CDG to ORY and then to ETZ can take up to 3 hours all in all. The actual train time right now is also 3 hours but with the TGV it will go down to under 2 hours, if I remember correctly. A friend from the Lorraine region said that consequently, AF will drop the ORY-ETZ route (which is actually operated by Airlinair right now).
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6441 posts, RR: 33 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
"perhaphs the reason that the US is not as developed in that area is due to strong pressure from the airline lobby in DC"
Not so much that as the facts that the U.S. is much, much larger with generally far less population density and that it is much more difficult in the U.S. to fund (via the government) and take the land necessary to implement high speed rail. France is a bit smaller in land area than Texas, and yet it has far more people -- making intercity rail travel a more attractive alternative with the major cities being so much closer together. There are only a handful of corridors in the United States which might be able to support high speed rail (aside from the existing sort-of-high-speed Acela service serving BOS-NYC-WAS), and most or all of those high-speed services would likely require significant government subsidies to operate. And even then, the train is a less attractive alternative when the distance gets over 300-400 miles.
To some degree, highly-subsidized rail service is not a terribly attractive alternative if airfares in the same market are comparable or lower. I know that Southwest Airlines had opposed the proposed high-speed rail project in the "Texas triangle" largely because it called for several billion dollars in state financing for a product that would largely be less efficient than flying, both in terms of cost and travel time. I seem to recall Herb saying that the state could just give the money to WN and they'd fly everyone free for 20 years.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1737 times:
In the US airports and highways are subsidized, whereas energy efficient and environment friendly railways are not thus favored. What is the reason for that?
Because both highways and airports (and the airplanes that fly out of them) are a lot more versatile than trains and the rails they run on. You need highways and other roads regardless of whether you have passenger trains. Planes and the required infrastructure, on the otherhand, have lower capital costs and higher speed and greater flexibility, allowing any two points in the US to be connected directly with minimum cost. You don't have to deal with right of way issues, railroad crossings or bridges and overpasses, and the huge expense of laying and maintaining vast amounts of track. Trains make sense when you are covering relatively small distances between densely populated areas like you find in France or Japan. Such areas can be found in the Northeastern US, and that is the only place other than maybe the California cost where it makes sense to have railroads. But a national rail system makes little sense since the capital investments would be huge and trains are still too slow to cover those distances.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6441 posts, RR: 33 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
"In the US airports and highways are subsidized..."
This is not exactly true, actually. In 1999, the U.S. Government collected roughly $33.8 billion in various fuel excise taxes, truck sales taxes, etc. Federal highway spending was in the neighborhood of $24.5 billion. Mass transit projects are allocated roughly 15% of the revenues from fuel taxes. Airlines generally end up paying for airports and terminals via user fees; the government's role is largely limited to financing the projects (given that things like runways and airport terminals generally contribute to the public good). The federal government does provide money for aviation infrastructure projects, but it also taxes air travel quite heavily.
LegendDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
" I know that Southwest Airlines had opposed the proposed high-speed rail project in the "Texas triangle" largely because it called for several billion dollars in state financing for a product that would largely be less efficient than flying" -
ScottB, since you bring up Texas as a comperable size, you don't think that WN and CO will fight to the "bitter end" to keep such a rail system away from SAT-DAL-HOU-AUS? calling it in-efficient and expensive and so on is part of a tactic as well. I doubt that a high speed train service, that can connect these four cities in an hour and a half or so, avoiding busy airports, TSA, ATC and WX holds and for a similar price as air, would be something they would welcome in open arms.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
The issue with rail against air competition is multilayered - the rail infrastructure has been paid by the french tax-payer - regardless if he takes the train or not - as have been the railway-stations. Airports and air-trafic are privately financed - so each pax in France has to pay 25 Euros ( min. ) taxes ontop the ticket price -which makes airtravel uncompetetive aginst rail.Security taxes and searches on flights are mandatory but not on trains..
it is an unfair competition since biased !
Petazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1548 times:
It is ridiculous that we do not have high speed rail in the US in the NorthEast. Picture WAS-BOS in 3.5 hours... PIT-Philly in 2.5 hours. BOS-NYC in 2 hours...
MUCH faster than the plane, and with FAR more capacity. Environmentally friendly, safe, fast. Gets people out of congested airports and highways, builds stronger financial ies and trade between the regions, etc.
It makes SOOOOOO much sense- but truck and airline lobbies will not let it get off the ground.
You should go to France and see what they have done- its amazing how efficient, smooth, and easy modern train travel is. Save planes for distances over 400 or 500 miles. Americans are environmentally blind! It drives me nuts to see us commute to work in 7,000lb SUV's and flying 70+ flights per day between Washington and DC, when a proper train would literally eliminate this. Some people would even rather drive between large NorthEast cities due to the crummy trains.
Varig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1578 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
it's true that rail infrastructures have been paid for by taxpayers whether they use it or not.
but whatever do you mean by "Airports and air-trafic are privately financed"?
this statement is true for most airports outside Paris which are run by local chamber of commerce, but as far as I know Aeroport de Paris has engulfed billions or euros (let's not open the pandora box of the aborted people mover project at CDG and the ruined E terminal..) and ATC in France is publicly financed
or am I wrong?
AF TW AA NW BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ RG
Aeronuts From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Petazulu, if only we have affordable housing where we work, then there's no need for the commute, hence, the reduction of flights, train, and automobiles. We can all walk, the most environmental friendly mode of transportation....if only