Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Don't Americans Like Trains?  
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8093 posts, RR: 54
Posted (12 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Question: why don't Americans like trains? Someone pointed out elsewhere that the US is too reliant on air travel (America has hundreds of 100m or less sectors which you'd never see jets flying in Europe - Detroit to Flint MI, Miami to Orlando etc). So why not build some fast trains? The land is mostly incredibly flat, the fastest train in the world (and I can't believe this doesn't appeal) could be American (cue Star Spangled Banner). Any thoughts?


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNwafirstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2944 times:

Amtrak de-rails too much?

User currently offlineChepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6215 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2926 times:

There is nothing like flying.
Chepos



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2909 times:


Not nearly the kind of marketable cachet that the car, and air service have enjoyed, and been fed, by lobby and interest groups WWII onwards. Particularly while passenger rail travel is seen as kind of a 'socialist' enterprise, in many quarters.


User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Amtrak is our only choice for train travel in the US. Unlike airlines, where we have many choices of carriers to choose from. People hear too many negative things about Amtrak, rather than the positive side of the company. Given current events, I would like to see Santa Fe & Union Pacific get back into the passenger aspect of train travel again. Only time will tell. Just my two cents worth. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8093 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

SOCIALIST! HAHA! That's BRILLIANT! I read this book by a guy who worked for the British Labour Party in the 80s and he met a party supporter who was so obsessed with being PC/Socialist Worker/god knows, who thought SMILING was right-wing.

And now trains. Keep it coming.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineQuestioning From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Absolutely this counrtry needs to promote high speed rail travel. There should be a network of high speed trains radiating out from Chicago to places like Minneapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Indiannapolis, Cleveland, Cincinatti. There should be high speed rail up and down the west coast from San Diego to L.A. to Las Vegas to Phoenix to San Francisco and Scaramento and from Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. Other areas in the country would benfit as well, like Florida and Texas.

The answer as to why trains in the US are not like they are in Europe or asia is quite simply explained in two words: politics and lobbying. Especially by the airlines.....

Europe has done it, there is no reason why we can't either except for this countries own resistance.

I for one have been a member of NARP: National Association of Railroad Passengers, and fully support a more balanced transportation system in this country.


User currently offlineDelta777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2827 times:

Americans like fast things, we like to get things done simply and efficiently. taking AmTrak from NYC, BOS, or PHL to SAN, LAX, or DEN would take ALOT longer than flying.(And would be more expensive) and Amtrak still isn`t as safe as airlines. there was another AmTrak derainment a couple weeks ago in Texas.

D E L T A 7 7 7


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

For the most part, it is simply that America is too spread out. Train travel in America is impractical for those with tight schedules on all but the shortest routes. And, even there, most trains are not fast enough to make them competitive with driving. I agree that short distance rail travel has great potential to grow in the coming years, but the necessary infrastructure does not yet exist.

And, it's not just that the trains are slow. Amtrak's on-time performance makes even the US commerical airlines look good. And food on the trains is at best marginally better than in-flight fare.

Furthermore, I feel that Americans resent the fact that they are forced to support passenger rail travel with their tax dollars. They are forced to pump dollars into the system, yet they receive a very marginal product in return.


User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3940 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Well, here in Texas there are those (myself included) who are strong advocates of a TVG or Bullet type service between Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. This was given some various consideration in the late 80s by the state, so much so that an official study was done on the possibilites of such a service as well as the French rail authorities being brought in for advice as well as making a number of proposals for helping to setup such a service. However this did not set too well with ol'Herb and WN and after their concerns were voiced in Austin, any prospect of a high speed rail service quickly disappeared by the early 90s.

Don't get me wrong, I love Soutwest, but I also love rail travel and I would hope that one day that it would return as a serious alternative to commuter air travel. I have not been on a train in this country since the late 60s and that was a Southern Pacific trip to Dallas.

Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

Atleast in train wrecks there are people ho survive. In the plane forget about it. Atleast the probablitly of pax survival on a train is high. Right now Amtrak is doing a gret job with the acela service NYC-boston and NYC-Washington DC. I hope to see the Acela run down to Flordia. Rumor has it that Acela will run to Chicago. It's too bad we no longer see trains like the Zepher or the Super Cheif like the way it was. Obersvation and domecars like what VIA has. I can't beleive amtrak got rid of them for those ugly superliners. I hope to see the railroads comeback int oaction. I'd love to see the Zepher and the Super Chief run again


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

Amtrak still isn`t as safe as airlines. there was another AmTrak derailment a couple weeks ago in Texas

Amtrak certainly has worse accident rate than the airlines, but it's also important to remember that a "train wreck" and "airplane crash" are not necessarily comparable events.

For example, the Amtrak Zephyr, headed between Chicago and Emeryville (Oakland) on 9/12, derailied after it rear ended a freight train. But, even though several cars left the tracks and caught fire, nobody was killed or seriously injured.

Obviously, there have been some pretty catastrophic train wrecks in recent years, but still, the chances of surviving a train crash, bus crash or auto accident are considerably higher than that of surviving an airplane accident.


User currently offlineQuestioning From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

El Premier:

Do you know WHY Amtrak's on time performance is so dismal? The are forced to run at the mercy of the freight rairoads!!! In the NE corridor, where Amtrak owns their own tracks, it is not a problem! But that is what is wrong; the government should own and maintain the railroads just like the government owns and maintains the federal interstate highway system, and airports are government owned. In addition, air travel would not dissappear. It would still be used for cross-country trips and be there for people who need that speed. The "America is too spread out" excuse doesn't hold much water when you consider ALL of Europe benefits from rail travel. It's still not as big as the US mabye but how much of Europe's area would cover the United States? ALOT.


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

I'd love to see the Zepher and the Super Chief run again

They are still in service!



User currently offlineQuestioning From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

El Premier and VirginA340 got it right in their assesment of "Train accidents" vs. "Plan accidents". The two are not EVEN comparable. Trains are MUCH MUCH SAFER.

User currently offlineQuestioning From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

El Premier and VirginA340 got it right in their assesment of "Train accidents" vs. "Plane accidents". The two are not EVEN comparable. Trains are MUCH MUCH SAFER.

User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Do you know WHY Amtrak's on time performance is so dismal? The are forced to run at the mercy of the freight rairoads!!!

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The freight companies own the right of way in almost all regions of the country. This limits track speed to about 79 mph (90 mph in cab signaled areas), and it also kills Amtrak's on-time performance (having to wait for freight trains etc...)

But, still 2500 miles from coast-to-coast is too far for the train to be competitive with business travellers. Train travel in the US should be emphasized for short corridors and we should reserve air travel for the longer routes.


User currently offlineQuestioning From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

Well, the Southwest Chief is a sorry replacement for what the Super Chief was, but I know what you mean.

By the way it is spelled "Zephyr" not "Zepher"


User currently offlineQuestioning From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

El Premier:

Yes that is what I said, air travel for coast to coast travel. However, there is no reason why there couldn't be a high speed overnight service from NYC to Chicago or Chicago to Denver.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8093 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Is rail that much slower? You could easily get 250mph between NY and Chicago or the midwest. That's only half as fast as an airliner and there's no hour-long check-in, no taxiway queues, no holding patterns. From Central London to Central Paris, the train is much faster than flying, door-to-door (even with all that water in the way). And about a quarter as stressful. I think on many routes the time would be comparable. From the Empire State Bldg or the NJ suburbs to the Sears Tower or a suburb of Chicago, I bet a train like the TGV in France between two central stations would be quicker than taxis and a JFK-ORD flight on a weekday morning.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (12 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

EIPriemer hit it on the head. US population density is just a little too thin to support a rail network en masse. Probably only viable really in the BOS/WAS/NYC corridor.

Critical distance is about 300mi.....beyond that, air travel is always quicker when you factor in airline check-in, security, avg delays. etc.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

The reason trains are so unpopular here in the US is the lack of dedicated high-speed rail lines. Current "fast" Amtrak trains run on existing tracks that are not designed for high speed.

I love flying myself, but I also love travelling on high-speed trains. (or trains in general) There's just something special about train travel...


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (12 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2732 times:

Destination San Francisco for example

My reasons:

Amtrak costs $359. It takes two days.

Numerous airlines cost $238 and take mere hours. Plus theres nothing like flying!

Now what would you choose?  Big grin


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

You could easily get 250mph between NY and Chicago or the midwest.

You make it sound so easy. What you must realize is that there are generally huge physical obstacles in the way of building a direct rail line over long distances. The only economically viable way to build rail lines is to build them around existing geographic features and man-made structures. And this slows down the speed at which trains can travel, so it is therefore necessary to route the lines through major cities along the route, allowing for the ability to pick-up/drop-off supplies/crew and pick-up/drop-off passengers.

Not only is building the track expensive, but it also costs money to electrify the lines, and to ensure for the grade separations in urban areas (among other things).

In the end, it doesn't make much economic sense. Airplanes can cover the distance in less time, and you don't have to build rails on which to carry them.

High-speed rail travel is practical for short-distances, but the cost simply become prohibitive on longer routes, such as New York to Chicago.


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2243 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Yep, this train situation in the US is absurd. The problem is two-fold, the massive quantity of funding required to lay new tracks up and down the Eastern/Western seaboards and of course the opposition from the airlines.

Money aside (and that's a damn big aside), if we brought in the French or the Japanese and managed to replicate their technology here, only the plane freaks would be flying the seaboard connections. At 180mph, you'd crush the time required for plane travel between Boston/NY/DC and SFO/LAX, or at least be comparable. Even with a 15-30 penalty taking the train, where would you rather be, in a truly spacious cabin taking in the scenery with full telecom connectivity and a bar car, or wedged between two annoying lardasses on a UA Shuttle or SW flight. No contest.

Unfortunately, I don't have a spare $15B to make this happen. It's too bad because I've been on both the Bullet trains and the TGV and even being one of those plane freaks I mentioned earlier, those rides surpassed any plane trip I've ever had in my life. Doing 180mph at ground level is totally fu*king cool. I can't think of a better way to describe it.


25 Mah4546 : If everything goes as planned, America's first real high-speed rail system (the AmTrak Acela is NOT high-speed rail, just high-speed looking) will con
26 Cpdc10-30 : Its not that Americans don't linke trains, they don't like investing in the rail infrastructure due to a number of lobbies, mainly the airlines and au
27 Lehpron : The thing I have noticed about trains is that they cannot "abort flight" or make and "emergency landing" situation because they are limited to the tra
28 Cba : Problem is, all of the tracks in the USA are ancient. The use of high speed trains requires new tracks to be built. There is nothing wrong with state
29 J_hallgren : Too many people who want to go to too many places at too many times = planes! Even now, if I wanted to get from BOS-TPA, i would have multiple choices
30 TransSwede : Lehpron - Accidents will be much rarer on proper high-speed rail lines, where there are *NO* crossings, and better quality rails. (Of course, having n
31 Mirrodie : As one of the few train and plane lovers here, many of you hit the nail on the head. -The rails themselves are archaic (even the USA's busiest RR, the
32 DCA-ROCguy : Haven't had time to read all the discussion but here's my two cents. Trains aren't popular in the US for several reasons: 1) they take too long for va
33 Railmatt : Did you know that when the Texas TGV proposal was active, officials had made a handshake agreement with American Airlines to code share train/plane pa
34 Penguinflies : What do people call the $70 billion Congress just passed/passing for anyone to study high speed rail alternatives? We can spend $70 billion dollars, b
35 Gsoflyer : As a formal Amtrak employee, I can add to this. First, Amtrak gets bad press. When people think Amtrak, they think train wrecks. Why? Because the only
36 LV : Wow Questioning, glad to see I am not the only NARRP member around here. I love trains in planes equally so I would like to see an equal balance of th
37 Post contains links and images AerLingus : California is the most densly populated state in the US, with about 30 million. Most of the population is centred around SF/Oakland/San Jose and Great
38 Jessman : Other reasons Americans don't like trains. (1) Americans rely on their cars for most travel, having to stop at a railroad crossing is an inconvienienc
39 Airplanetire : I'm an American and I like train travel. I traveled a little in Europe on the highspeed trains two summers ago and it was fun. The US is not totally f
40 VirginA340 : El Primier; apparently you haven't seen the Super Cheif and Zephyer durng the 50s and 60s. When Amtrak wasn't around. i'm talikng about observation an
41 Gsoflyer : You won't see high speed rail in Florida soon. And expanding Amtrak service is only in California and North Carolina at the moment. As NC is adding se
42 Post contains images EIPremier : Apparently you haven't seen the Super Cheif and Zephyer durng the 50s and 60s Personally, I'm glad the "Super Chief" name is no longer used, as there
43 Gregg : Many reasons why trains are not succesful in the US. I believe the main reason, for transportation that has the speed of driving, we'd rather drive.
44 Post contains images EIPremier : But, yeah, the Super Chief was quite an experience. I remember a famous quote from one I must have accidently deleted that part. Anyway, there was thi
45 Mirrodie : I love planes and trains. Our local road, the LIRR, just retired its old diesel fleet. There goes the last of the heydays of railroading. The last her
46 VirginA340 : The LIRR is on the decline. Their equpment is way too beat up. I'm a bigger fan of Metro Morth. But sadly they're retireing their FL-9s next year. Tho
47 Airlinelover : Trains, (IMHO) are just boring.. I prefer getting to my destination SOONER, and SAFER, than SLOWER, and on frikkin RAILS.. Just makes my stomach turn.
48 Cedarjet : Someone above said about terrain and, of all things, level-crossings interfering with beloved cars. Europe is many things, but it sure ain't flat. Tra
49 Hepkat : This summer I interrailed through Sandinavia, and boy, I'm now a big fan of the railroad. Americans would be astounded by Norway's Signature trains, s
50 Cedarjet : Interesting about Euro roads. I don't find them that bad. The gov'ts here actually spend billions of ££s every year on the roads, the reason they're
51 Sebolino : Hepkat, just some corrections: The highways (at least in France) are mostly 3 lanes wide. The signs are nearly all the same within the EU, with small
52 Sebolino : By the way, as far as I know, the fastest train with wheels (not the japanese magnetic train) is the French TGV. US planned to buy it to install an hi
53 FBU 4EVER! : Probably the "Not Invented Here!" syndrome striking again?
54 Sebolino : http://www.transport.alstom.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&inifile=futuretense.ini;futuretense_xcel.ini&c=at_product_typ
55 Ovelix : I tend to aggree that US lost the chance to built a modern rail system mostly because some people wanted to promote their "friendly" bussiness, air bu
56 JonPaulGeoRngo : General Motors played a big part in the dismantling of trolleys, motor cars etc. in U.S. cities during the 40s and 50s by offering buses to transit au
57 Post contains images UTA_flyinghigh : Here in France we have one of the best (if not the best, but that's not the point) trains in the world in the form of the TGV, but I never take it for
58 Ovelix : JonPaul the same happened in Greece during the 50's. Many cities had tramcars (streetcars) on rails but all of them were dismounted in a few hours tim
59 CcrlR : We DO have a fast train(The Acela) and they get a lot of people on it and they are thinking of making a high speed train that goes from Chicago to St
60 Post contains images Mirrodie : JonPaul- that does sound like what I was talking about. I hope to hear more from you about that. AirlineLover- It's not so much the mode of travel but
61 Gsoflyer : Every time I traveled by train from NC to the Northeast, it was snowy, and the train became super-packed. So my question is, is the train faster when
62 Post contains images BA : If you have been on rail in Europe. You would know that riding rail is generally much faster than flying on short distances. Paris-Lyon on the TGV tak
63 BA : Gsoflyer, Flying on the Northeast Corridor is still faster than taking the Acela Express because the tracks it runs on are 60 years old. The 150mph Ac
64 Mirrodie : BA, that's not entirely true. The Acela run, on a point to point basis and on the whole, including time to buy tickets/ check in/getting to the train
65 Flight152 : Some people fail to realize the price of a train ticket. I can fly Jetblue for vurtially the same price of taking a train, and save a lot of time on t
66 BA : Flight152, Because in many cases Rail is faster. When I travel domestically in Europe, I never fly. I always take the train. Its much faster, very com
67 Post contains images Airlinelover : I remember when I was younger, (maybe 12 or 13, if that) my grandfather (RIP) was in town and he, my dad, and myself were on our way to the house, and
68 Post contains images Mirrodie : Yes, just saw. I'll respond later. Hey, one of these days, I ought to bring you along a train chasing trip. It promises to be as fun as plane watching
69 Post contains links Puck : Couple of points from an American in France: 1. The TGV in 20 years of operation has never had a fatal accident. 2. European governments generally vie
70 174thfwff : Its like...Why do people drive when they can ride a bike?
71 Flight152 : BA- European cities are much more spread out than American cities that is why it might be faster than flying, Amtrack in the US would take far more ti
72 BA : Flight152, I know, I've been to Europe many times. The TGV does Paris-Lyon in under 2 hours. High-Speed rail woudl work very well in the East Coast an
73 BA : Errr...sorry not Midwest. The West Coast. However, a few places in the Midwest would work well for high-speed rail. Here is the logic: On short distan
74 RayChuang : I think except for a small number of corridors, train travel is not practical in the USA--after all, the country is too spread out for even today's hi
75 BA : RayChuang, Thats a good point. High-Speed Rail travel will not work everywhere in the US. But it will DEFINATELY work on routes like these: Los Angele
76 AlaskaMVP : I can't believe I'm reading this sorry thread, the reason air travel has won is that it's much less expensive than train travel, and getting cheaper a
77 Hepkat : Another point in the driving vs railing argument, here in Austria you can take your car with you on the train. For example, if you're going on holiday
78 Post contains links Mcdougald : Scientific American published a good article about why the U.S. (and Canada) have not pursued passenger rail development to the same extent as in Euro
79 Woodsboy : Unlike in Europe, the AmTrak network is not very developed except along the East Coast. Much of the country is not served by AmTrak. The other thing i
80 BA : AlaskaMVP, You've got many of your facts wrong. I can't believe I'm reading this sorry thread, the reason air travel has won is that it's much less ex
81 BA : Woodsboy, The fact is modern rail travel (any kind, whether high-speed or not) requires dense populated areas to be successful. It also doesn't work w
82 Rlwynn : I think in America the problen is that Train travel is expensive. Flying is usually cheaper.
83 Mac : This United States citizen loves passenger trains...and everything about them. New trains, old trains, fast trains, slow trains, steam trains, diesel-
84 N202PA : Want to know why passenger rail is generally overlooked by most Americans? First, it is time-consuming and a lot of the routes just don't make any sen
85 N202PA : The part of my previous post regarding the cost of rail should have read "or are exceeded by those of flying. Additionally, I think that one thing we
86 Gsoflyer : Just be patient. Congress and State governments are finally realizing that highway traffic needs to be reduced. And they are finally putting money int
87 Mah4546 : One problem is, as others have stated, that not many "corridors" can support rail service. Also, dense areas are a major factor in filling up trains.
88 Dynkrisolo : Both Europe and Japan have much higher population density and people live much closer together than the US. So, few routes in the US would have enough
89 IMissPiedmont : I have no idea. IMO the train from Washington to New York is quicker and more pleasant than flying. I guess it just boils down to the fact that the ai
90 Sdate747 : Simple answer : GAS IS CHEAP any of those 100 mi trips are cheap so when we do need other modes of transport - it's then either Plane or Train - and g
91 Jimbobjoe : Sometimes I think this question should be instead "why aren't Europeans as dependent on air travel as we are?" The fact that rail travel is generally
92 RayChuang : I think the reason why high-speed rail works in Japan and Europe is simple: look at the distance between their major population centers. Because the d
93 Sebolino : AlaskaMVP wrote: > This is not totally true: Public transportation by train is profitable in France. But railway maintenance is not. And it's that par
94 Sebolino : Jimbojoe, As everybody knows, lobbies in the US are very powerful, much more than they are in Europe. I'm convinced that the oil lobby in the US as su
95 RM-11 : I once wanted to travel by train to Miami from Atlanta. The ticket was triple the cost of a regular airline ticket. I would also have to travel 700-80
96 AlaskaMVP : Look, European high speed trains are cool, trains in general are cool, but they aren't economically viable except in very limited circumstances. BA, g
97 Boeingfan : We would welcome "high speed" rail service, however, airline travel is much more efficient and cheaper for the customer. Another issue, AMTRAK. The hi
98 CO 757 200 : Several reasons from my standpoint: 1)time from point A to point B 2)obsolete equipment 3)Astronomical fares (especially for longer trips).....on long
99 Flying_higher : I really regret that the american cannot experience what is a real High speed train on their territory, except maybe Acela, which runs on existing tra
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Don't People Like Gatwick posted Sun Sep 21 2003 01:25:38 by N6376m
Why Don't You Like The "new" EL-AL Colourscheme? posted Thu Mar 8 2001 11:28:51 by Air Orange
Why I Don't Like "Low Cost" posted Thu Jun 20 2002 12:12:12 by SAA-SAL
Why Don't CX And QF Codeshare On HK - OZ Flights posted Wed Jun 6 2007 17:24:00 by CXfirst
Why Don't They Fit Afterburners To Airliners? posted Mon Feb 5 2007 23:09:46 by RichM
Why Don't BA Operate GB Airways Flights? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 19:43:45 by 8herveg
Why Don't AC Pilots Welcome Passengers? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 00:15:49 by YYZACGUY
Why Don't NW Sell CO's Golden Shares? posted Fri Nov 17 2006 03:15:46 by C010T3
Why Don't UA Fly DEN/HNL/MEL & BNE With 777's? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 08:08:16 by Australia1
Why Don`t Ryanair Fly To Tallinn-Ulemiste/ Estonia posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:24:15 by Sukhoi