KLM to replace one daily flight to BRU with Rail service

MileHFL400 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:03 pm

Looks like KLM was serious about its carbon emission reduction aims. It plans to reduce from five daily to four through a partner ship with NS Dutch Railways.

flyingclrs727 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pm

It's probably faster to take the train. By the time you pass through security, you've added quite a bit of time to the trip. If there is only one daily flight for such a short distance, it makes sense to just standardize on train connections and have multiple connections possible per day.

jetblueguy22 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:58 pm

More like it’s cheaper to put people on a train and use a slot in a severely slot constrained airport for a profitable route.

airzona11 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:11 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Looks like KLM was serious about its carbon emission reduction aims. It plans to reduce from five daily to four through a partner ship with NS Dutch Railways.

Unless they replace the shorter/lower yielding flight with another flight.

ATLgaUSA · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:29 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
It's probably faster to take the train. By the time you pass through security, you've added quite a bit of time to the trip. If there is only one daily flight for such a short distance, it makes sense to just standardize on train connections and have multiple connections possible per day.

There are five daily flights. They’re cutting one flight to leave four. There are few if any O&D passengers going through security to take those flights. They’re filled with connecting passengers.

flyingclrs727 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:33 pm

ATLgaUSA wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
It's probably faster to take the train. By the time you pass through security, you've added quite a bit of time to the trip. If there is only one daily flight for such a short distance, it makes sense to just standardize on train connections and have multiple connections possible per day.

There are five daily flights. They’re cutting one flight to leave four. There are few if any O&D passengers going through security to take those flights. They’re filled with connecting passengers.

But going from BRU to AMS to connect at AMS, you do have to go through security first before boarding. Then there is the issue of the train station in Brussels being closer to the city center.

SIVB · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:34 pm

jetblueguy22 wrote:
More like it’s cheaper to put people on a train and use a slot in a severely slot constrained airport for a profitable route.

Even if that’s the case, which I think it is, still makes sense towards a future strategy in Europe on reducing short-haul flights by using train feed for long-haul. A combination of feeder flights and trains might be very efficient.
You can already see this type of connections in AMS, CDG and to some extent in MAD.
I think is a very positive development and we might see future growth in this type of approach in Europe’s hubs.

aldrigsomandre · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:34 pm

I reckon we'll be seeing airlines become hybrid rail operators in the future as rail gets faster with maglev etc. (Especially in Europe.)
KLM is just igniting the fire.

afgeneral · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:46 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Looks like KLM was serious about its carbon emission reduction aims. It plans to reduce from five daily to four through a partner ship with NS Dutch Railways.

Not that serious really. This was easy pickings and passengers have figured it out by themselves ever since the BRU train station opened a few years ago. BRU and AMS may be the only two major airports in the world which are directly connected by high speed / semi-fast speed rail. I'm not aware of any other. Plus it's impossible to use these trains late night / early morning because they do not run. It's a bit like using trains from LGW to LTN really, just longer distance and faster trains.

This singular example under extremely favorable circumstances is a not a real sign of them implementing the entire vision of a short range train feeder network. Most likely they want to replace all BRU flying with trains eventually to use those slots for some other long haul destination.

Kilopond · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:49 pm

This makes perfectly sense. Brussuls Main Station (Bruxelles Midi, IATA:ZRY) is already a de-facto Air France terminal with check-in, baggage handling and lounges.

Turnhouse1 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:49 pm

SIVB wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
More like it’s cheaper to put people on a train and use a slot in a severely slot constrained airport for a profitable route.

Even if that’s the case, which I think it is, still makes sense towards a future strategy in Europe on reducing short-haul flights by using train feed for long-haul. A combination of feeder flights and trains might be very efficient.
You can already see this type of connections in AMS, CDG and to some extent in MAD.
I think is a very positive development and we might see future growth in this type of approach in Europe’s hubs.

There will be a general increase in travel, using Wind/Nuclear powered trains for the parts which they can be used for is a good idea. Only burn oil for the long haul flights where there is currently no alternative.

Within England and Wales, domestic point to point traffic is now very limited the NCL/LBA/MAN to LHR routes are largely long haul connections as rail is <2hours (<3 from Newcastle). There is still some from Scotland, but HS2 could start to reduce this. Europe is further ahead, the USA & Canada behind.

ATLgaUSA · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:51 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
ATLgaUSA wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
It's probably faster to take the train. By the time you pass through security, you've added quite a bit of time to the trip. If there is only one daily flight for such a short distance, it makes sense to just standardize on train connections and have multiple connections possible per day.

There are five daily flights. They’re cutting one flight to leave four. There are few if any O&D passengers going through security to take those flights. They’re filled with connecting passengers.

But going from BRU to AMS to connect at AMS, you do have to go through security first before boarding. Then there is the issue of the train station in Brussels being closer to the city center.

Why? It’s for all practical purposes a Schengen domestic flight, isn’t it?

afgeneral · Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:57 pm

ATLgaUSA wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
ATLgaUSA wrote:

There are five daily flights. They’re cutting one flight to leave four. There are few if any O&D passengers going through security to take those flights. They’re filled with connecting passengers.

But going from BRU to AMS to connect at AMS, you do have to go through security first before boarding. Then there is the issue of the train station in Brussels being closer to the city center.

Why? It’s for all practical purposes a Schengen domestic flight, isn’t it?

No passport check / border crossing but still need to go through security

LH748 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pm

Lufthansa has a similar cooperation with Deutsche Bahn for many years on certain domestic ICE routes like FRA to Cologne or Stuttgart. I think it'll become the new normal on routes where flying doesn't offer a significant time advantage over high-speed trains.

afgeneral · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:10 pm

It would be terribly inefficient to start building check-in facilities at all major train stations within reach of the airport. Sure, KLM could start opening facilities in Rotterdam, Delft, Utrecht, The Hague HS and Central, Eindhoven, Groningen, Maastricht, Cologne, Antwerp, Brussels, Paris etc. but it would be very costly. Need to hire people / take up space in the station / maintain everything etc.

Having a single central check-in location in AMS is much more efficient. Passengers have to go through security anyway and they can carry the luggage with them.

The only thing they need to do really is to treat the train leg as part of the journey and to make sure the passenger gets compensated / taken care of if the train is late and misses the flight or if the plane is late and misses the train. More like comprehensive travel insurance covering both train and plane as long as you get there on time.

aemoreira1981 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:13 pm

I’m surprised that there isn’t more of this in Europe, especially if the airport has a rail station. Lufthansa codeshares with the entire Deutsche Bahn (same with Air France and SNCF) and it’s also notable that AF doesn’t fly Paris to Brussels.

Turnhouse1 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:15 pm

afgeneral wrote:
The only thing they need to do really is to treat the train leg as part of the journey and to make sure the passenger gets compensated / taken care of if the train is late and misses the flight or if the plane is late and misses the train. More like comprehensive travel insurance covering both train and plane as long as you get there on time.

Indeed, if the EU261 protected ticket starts by being at the correct railway station at the correct time, it becomes a lot more appealing to customers, presumably something along the lines of the CIV rail ticket scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIV_(rail_travel)

ro1960 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:31 pm

afgeneral wrote:
BRU and AMS may be the only two major airports in the world which are directly connected by high speed / semi-fast speed rail. I'm not aware of any other.

As mentioned further up in the thread CDG has its own HSR station and LYS, although not a "major airport", too.

lightsaber · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:31 pm

airzona11 wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Looks like KLM was serious about its carbon emission reduction aims. It plans to reduce from five daily to four through a partner ship with NS Dutch Railways.

Unless they replace the shorter/lower yielding flight with another flight.

Slots are too precious to forfeit. Since it will undoubtedly be replaced by a longer range flight, we can applaud KLM for excellent astroturfing.

If they forfeit the slot, JetBlue says thank you.

Lightsaber

Dragonlionting · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:36 pm

I always thought it would be cool to have trains inside an airport, you drop off your bags and go through security at an airport but instead of getting a plane you get a train to another airport and arrive in the terminal just like if you’d gotten a domestic flight.
Whether that’s actually feasible or not is a different story haha

afgeneral · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:38 pm

ro1960 wrote:
afgeneral wrote:
BRU and AMS may be the only two major airports in the world which are directly connected by high speed / semi-fast speed rail. I'm not aware of any other.

As mentioned further up in the thread CDG has its own HSR station and LYS, although not a "major airport", too.

Indeed, seems to be a new route I was not aware of. Direct AMS to CDG with Thalys. Low frequency and it's 3:25 h but it's something.

stl07 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:44 pm

Not about emissions

Completely about money

ro1960 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:46 pm

afgeneral wrote:
The only thing they need to do really is to treat the train leg as part of the journey and to make sure the passenger gets compensated / taken care of if the train is late and misses the flight or if the plane is late and misses the train. More like comprehensive travel insurance covering both train and plane as long as you get there on time.

This seems to be the case with Lufthansa Express Rail:

"Particularly convenient: if delays should arise, you are automatically rebooked on the next available flight or train."

ro1960 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:51 pm

Dragonlionting wrote:
I always thought it would be cool to have trains inside an airport, you drop off your bags and go through security at an airport but instead of getting a plane you get a train to another airport and arrive in the terminal just like if you’d gotten a domestic flight.
Whether that’s actually feasible or not is a different story haha

This is exactly what Lufthansa Express Rail does (see link in previous post). Of course you eventually get on a plane at one end of the trip.

ro1960 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:56 pm

stl07 wrote:
Not about emissions

Completely about money

Can't blame KLM for optimizing their operations. Even if it's indeed about money, taking one flight off the air does reduce emissions. It's a win-win situation. Although they will put another plane in their air in the freed up slot. But at least it shows it makes sense to optimize rail/air coordination on such short routes.

kimimm19 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:59 pm

I hope this is the beginning of a major evolution into streamlined rail and air travel cooperation in Europe.

Waterbomber2 · Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:20 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
ATLgaUSA wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
It's probably faster to take the train. By the time you pass through security, you've added quite a bit of time to the trip. If there is only one daily flight for such a short distance, it makes sense to just standardize on train connections and have multiple connections possible per day.

There are five daily flights. They’re cutting one flight to leave four. There are few if any O&D passengers going through security to take those flights. They’re filled with connecting passengers.

But going from BRU to AMS to connect at AMS, you do have to go through security first before boarding. Then there is the issue of the train station in Brussels being closer to the city center.

First of all, ZYR is not so well located in Brussels. It's in a shady neighborhood in the south and parking facilities are expensive. So it's convenient if you live in that neighborhood, but if you live in the suburbs, good luck getting there during the peak rush hour or on a day with a EU summit in town.
Then you are required to check-in at ZYR 30 minutes before the train departure time and it's not exactly convenient to run around with luggage, if you don't know the station well, you could be running around half an hour before you find the Air & Rail office.
Even if you take a train ZYR-AMS, you need to go through security in AMS.
The mess continues in AMS. From the railway station, to the terminal you need to walk through the main and busy hallway, check-in AGAIN, through security and then you could be walking half an hour to your gate. The last part is not different if connecting to a non-schengen flight.

Last but not least, the reliability of Thalys is so poor that tight connecting times are not possible.
Also good luck when your train is cancelled to get a hotel.

This itinerary is not a novelty, KLM has been offering the train on ZYR-AMS an ZAW-AMS since a while.
So they are not really replacing a frequency by a train service, they are really only cutting a flight frequency and advertising their high speed rail connection.

So nothing to get excited about, just marketing drivel.

When booking your trip, you can select flights that are partly operated by Thalys. Pick up your train ticket by showing your KLM ticket and valid proof of identity at your departure station, from 2 hours prior to the train departure time.

On your train ticket, you’ll find the carriage number and reserved seat number. The carriage number can be found next to the entrance of the train carriage, or on the signs on the platform.

Here’s where you can exchange your e-ticket for your Thalys train ticket:

Route Pick up train ticket at
Antwerp Central station to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol International ticket desk at Antwerp Central station
Brussels-Zuid/Midi railway station to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Air France KLM Air&Rail Terminal or NMBS International Ticket desk at Brussels-Zuid/Midi railway station
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to Antwerp Central station or Brussels-Zuid/Midi railway station NS Service Desk at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

Please keep the following in mind:
Save your stamped train ticket, which serves as proof that you have completed the first part of your trip. If you continue by flight, you must be able to show your train ticket at the check-in desk at the airport in order to receive your boarding pass. If you have checked in online, you will still have to show your train ticket when dropping off your baggage.
You may be subject to stricter security checks imposed by the Belgian government, so you are advised to go to the platform well in time.
If you’re travelling with a child younger than 2 years of age who has his or her own booked seat, you will also need a train ticket for him/her.
Baggage
When travelling with the Thalys train, you may bring a maximum of 4 baggage items per person. This also applies if you purchased more baggage than the standard allowance stated on your ticket. Check how to drop off or pick up your baggage:

Route Baggage
From the Thalys train to your flight When you arrive at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, please check in at the check-in desks for your connecting flight. There, you can also drop off your baggage.
From your flight to the Thalys train If you continue by Thalys after your KLM flight, do not forget to pick up your baggage at the carrousel before collecting your Thalys train ticket at the NS Service Desk.

https://www.klm.com/travel/be_en/plan_a ... /index.htm

AirFiero · Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:21 pm

stl07 wrote:
Not about emissions

Completely about money

More specifically, virtual signaling nonsense. And if KLM is publicly traded, anyone who holds onto stock in a company that will undermine their own value deserves to lose their money.

VSMUT · Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:23 pm

afgeneral wrote:
It would be terribly inefficient to start building check-in facilities at all major train stations within reach of the airport. Sure, KLM could start opening facilities in Rotterdam, Delft, Utrecht, The Hague HS and Central, Eindhoven, Groningen, Maastricht, Cologne, Antwerp, Brussels, Paris etc. but it would be very costly. Need to hire people / take up space in the station / maintain everything etc.

Check-in facilities? Why? Just use the app or website. You can't drop the suitcase before you reach Amsterdam anyway.

eamondzhang · Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:09 am

afgeneral wrote:
BRU and AMS may be the only two major airports in the world which are directly connected by high speed / semi-fast speed rail. I'm not aware of any other.

You got plenty in Europe and even in China, e.g. FRA/MUC/DUS/CDG (and that's off top of my head), and SHA/CAN/SJW/WUH/CGQ just to name a few.

Michael

lightsaber · Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:12 am

ro1960 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Not about emissions

Completely about money

Can't blame KLM for optimizing their operations. Even if it's indeed about money, taking one flight off the air does reduce emissions. It's a win-win situation. Although they will put another plane in their air in the freed up slot. But at least it shows it makes sense to optimize rail/air coordination on such short routes.

Nor due I blame them for virtue signaling. I will call a spade a spade. This is good business optimization.

Lightsaber

MIflyer12 · Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:54 am

kimimm19 wrote:
I hope this is the beginning of a major evolution into streamlined rail and air travel cooperation in Europe.

Zurich and CDG2 have been doing this for a long time. They opened the TGV station right in CDG2, what, twenty years ago?

https://www.airfrance.com.ar/AR/en/comm ... france.htm

SierraPacific · Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:18 am

As an American that doesn't know anything about European short-haul, does anyone actually fly this route to go solely between Brussels and Amsterdam or is it mainly a flight that exists for connections like Tuscon to Phoenix on AA?

A 2-hour drive or train ride has to be preferable to driving all the way to the airport with security and other delays to go only 200KM so it makes business sense to transfer the route to a rail partner.

maps4ltd · Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:20 am

Turnhouse1 wrote:
SIVB wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
More like it’s cheaper to put people on a train and use a slot in a severely slot constrained airport for a profitable route.

Even if that’s the case, which I think it is, still makes sense towards a future strategy in Europe on reducing short-haul flights by using train feed for long-haul. A combination of feeder flights and trains might be very efficient.
You can already see this type of connections in AMS, CDG and to some extent in MAD.
I think is a very positive development and we might see future growth in this type of approach in Europe’s hubs.

There will be a general increase in travel, using Wind/Nuclear powered trains for the parts which they can be used for is a good idea. Only burn oil for the long haul flights where there is currently no alternative.

Within England and Wales, domestic point to point traffic is now very limited the NCL/LBA/MAN to LHR routes are largely long haul connections as rail is <2hours (<3 from Newcastle). There is still some from Scotland, but HS2 could start to reduce this. Europe is further ahead, the USA & Canada behind.

North America being "behind" has everything to do with size. I'm not going to give a crap about the environment if it means choosing a 2-day rail journey STL-SFO instead of a 4 hour flight STL-SFO. It's a matter of convenience.

Magnolia · Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:42 am

Who cares if they just did it for PR? It's a good thing. As much as people who are inclined to visit aviation forums would like to forget, air travel is terrible for the atmosphere. Taking steps towards optimizing short routes that don't really need a plane is a step forward.

Thibault973 · Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:04 am

afgeneral wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Looks like KLM was serious about its carbon emission reduction aims. It plans to reduce from five daily to four through a partner ship with NS Dutch Railways.

Not that serious really. This was easy pickings and passengers have figured it out by themselves ever since the BRU train station opened a few years ago. BRU and AMS may be the only two major airports in the world which are directly connected by high speed / semi-fast speed rail. I'm not aware of any other. Plus it's impossible to use these trains late night / early morning because they do not run. It's a bit like using trains from LGW to LTN really, just longer distance and faster trains.

This singular example under extremely favorable circumstances is a not a real sign of them implementing the entire vision of a short range train feeder network. Most likely they want to replace all BRU flying with trains eventually to use those slots for some other long haul destination.

Both CDG and LYS have HSR stations, with CDG being linked by rail to most major French cities + there is a shuttle service from ORY to Massy Palaiseau HSR station. TGV’air is offered at both CDG and ORY airport meaning you travel by air then rail on a single ticket. This service is available with AF, TX, SS, TS and EK.

Max Q · Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:17 am

In other news British Airways is replacing two daily LHR-JFK flights with bi-monthly clipper ship service

Subject to winds..

gadFly · Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:03 am

afgeneral wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Looks like KLM was serious about its carbon emission reduction aims. It plans to reduce from five daily to four through a partner ship with NS Dutch Railways.

GVA and ZRH have been at it since 1987. That said, it is true that there may be fewer stations in between BRU and AMS (whereas GVA to ZRH includes transits through at least five cities including downtown Zurich).

Amsterdam · Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:15 am

maps4ltd wrote:
Turnhouse1 wrote:
SIVB wrote:

Even if that’s the case, which I think it is, still makes sense towards a future strategy in Europe on reducing short-haul flights by using train feed for long-haul. A combination of feeder flights and trains might be very efficient.
You can already see this type of connections in AMS, CDG and to some extent in MAD.
I think is a very positive development and we might see future growth in this type of approach in Europe’s hubs.

There will be a general increase in travel, using Wind/Nuclear powered trains for the parts which they can be used for is a good idea. Only burn oil for the long haul flights where there is currently no alternative.

Within England and Wales, domestic point to point traffic is now very limited the NCL/LBA/MAN to LHR routes are largely long haul connections as rail is <2hours (<3 from Newcastle). There is still some from Scotland, but HS2 could start to reduce this. Europe is further ahead, the USA & Canada behind.

North America being "behind" has everything to do with size. I'm not going to give a crap about the environment if it means choosing a 2-day rail journey STL-SFO instead of a 4 hour flight STL-SFO. It's a matter of convenience.

Its not about size.
China is as big as the USA but has a huge high speed rail network. Beijing Hong Kong in 9 hours.
The same distance in the USA, New York to Dallas is a couple days with the train.

Its explained here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDoll8OEFE

Amsterdam · Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:18 am

Flanker7 · Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:26 am

SierraPacific wrote:
As an American that doesn't know anything about European short-haul, does anyone actually fly this route to go solely between Brussels and Amsterdam or is it mainly a flight that exists for connections like Tuscon to Phoenix on AA?

A 2-hour drive or train ride has to be preferable to driving all the way to the airport with security and other delays to go only 200KM so it makes business sense to transfer the route to a rail partner.

It's mainly transfer. If I go to Brussels from Amsterdam it's either train or car, flying there doesn't even cross my mind.

Blerg · Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:28 am

Yes, Lufthansa has a deal with German railway but equally so they still operate a great number of domestic flights from both Munich and Frankfurt. I guess even Lufthansa realizes that not everyone is willing to go out of the airport in order to catch a train to their final destination. Also, KL should be careful here. If they keep on reducing BRU to a train service then they might be doing a favor to their competitors. Why should someone from Athens, Thessaloniki, Istanbul or Sofia fly on KL and then take the train when he can fly straight into BRU on OS, LH, AZ ...

Yes, AF has a train line but it would be interesting to know how many of those are actually local Belgians and how many are connecting passengers from other countries who are connecting in Paris on their way to Brussels.

Finally, as long as trains are running on electricity from fossil fuels, this can't be described as a win for ecology or the world. The day we get trains fueled by solar power is the day we can celebrate. This is just KLM freeing up a slot to launch another flight that will pollute the world and annoy residents with its noise.

330lover · Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:02 am

[quote="Waterbomber2"]
First of all, ZYR is not so well located in Brussels. It's in a shady neighborhood in the south and parking facilities are expensive. So it's convenient if you live in that neighborhood, but if you live in the suburbs, good luck getting there during the peak rush hour or on a day with a EU summit in town.
Then you are required to check-in at ZYR 30 minutes before the train departure time and it's not exactly convenient to run around with luggage, if you don't know the station well, you could be running around half an hour before you find the Air & Rail office.
[quote]

At least for AF, this is not correct. You can check-in your bags at ZYR, so no need to hassle around with Luggage (unless you chose for it yourself).
So you drop your bags at ZYR, staff gets it on the train and from train to your flight and you pick it up again at final destination.

ZYR is very well connected by rail, all trains going to Brussels call at ZYR station. It would indeed be foolish to take a car to ZYR due to traffic and limited/very expensive parking possibilities,
Only problem is that the train ride to ZYR, if you have to buy a normal ticket, is quite expensive (just as any other train ride in Belgium).

flyingclrs727 · Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:34 am

Amsterdam wrote:
maps4ltd wrote:
Turnhouse1 wrote:

There will be a general increase in travel, using Wind/Nuclear powered trains for the parts which they can be used for is a good idea. Only burn oil for the long haul flights where there is currently no alternative.

Within England and Wales, domestic point to point traffic is now very limited the NCL/LBA/MAN to LHR routes are largely long haul connections as rail is <2hours (<3 from Newcastle). There is still some from Scotland, but HS2 could start to reduce this. Europe is further ahead, the USA & Canada behind.

North America being "behind" has everything to do with size. I'm not going to give a crap about the environment if it means choosing a 2-day rail journey STL-SFO instead of a 4 hour flight STL-SFO. It's a matter of convenience.

Its not about size.
China is as big as the USA but has a huge high speed rail network. Beijing Hong Kong in 9 hours.
The same distance in the USA, New York to Dallas is a couple days with the train.

Its explained here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDoll8OEFE

It's easy to build HSR when the government can just confiscate land and jail anyone who protests. Try building HSR in the Northeast Corridor in the US. It is one of the few places where an HSR could actually work. Unfortunately getting new rights of way to build one is close to impossible.

SIVB · Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:38 am

Magnolia wrote:
Who cares if they just did it for PR? It's a good thing. As much as people who are inclined to visit aviation forums would like to forget, air travel is terrible for the atmosphere. Taking steps towards optimizing short routes that don't really need a plane is a step forward.

I agree, it doesn’t matter if it is a PR stunt or just about money, it makes sense from both a slot allocation and environmental point of view.
Maybe we need more PR stunts like this.

Waterbomber2 · Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:50 am

330lover wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
First of all, ZYR is not so well located in Brussels. It's in a shady neighborhood in the south and parking facilities are expensive. So it's convenient if you live in that neighborhood, but if you live in the suburbs, good luck getting there during the peak rush hour or on a day with a EU summit in town.
Then you are required to check-in at ZYR 30 minutes before the train departure time and it's not exactly convenient to run around with luggage, if you don't know the station well, you could be running around half an hour before you find the Air & Rail office.

At least for AF, this is not correct. You can check-in your bags at ZYR, so no need to hassle around with Luggage (unless you chose for it yourself).
So you drop your bags at ZYR, staff gets it on the train and from train to your flight and you pick it up again at final destination.

ZYR is very well connected by rail, all trains going to Brussels call at ZYR station. It would indeed be foolish to take a car to ZYR due to traffic and limited/very expensive parking possibilities,
Only problem is that the train ride to ZYR, if you have to buy a normal ticket, is quite expensive (just as any other train ride in Belgium).

Very well connected is a bit too generous in my opinion, considering the low frequencies of train services, mostly hourly services from other major cities and the slow trains feom smaller cities are really too slow and irritating, the poor reliability of the network, the lack of indications within ZYR, etc...

If you want to check-in your bags with AF at ZYR or CDG, you need to check-in at least an hour before.
The luggage carousel is gone in most cases after that and there is no appropriate stowage in the cars.

When this 30 minute E190 flight is replaced by a 12 hour B787 flight, the nett result is an increase in greehouse gas emissions.

There is no benefit for the environment here, no matter how KLM spin it.

Toinou · Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:18 am

They could probably offer the service from other stations given that the slightly slower Intercity trains from Brussels to Amsterdam stops in Brussels-Central and Brussels-North (and Antwerp). It would just imply to check-in at AMS rather than at the station, which is a limited problem.

The fact you have only hourly links to Brussels is only partially true : form most large cities in Belgium it is at least half-hourly. And I don't really see how it would be a problem : in the case of an airport, you have to be there at least 1.5 hour before, so a bit latter or a bit earlier...
And for the speed of trains : are there really no traffic jams on Belgian highways? At least, on a slow train, you can work.

The delay risk argument is really interesting. It imply that trains would be more frequently late than planes. I travel quite often all around Europe by train. Time-keeping may not be always perfect but I laugh when someone suggest that planes may do better.

thaiflyer · Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:22 am

lightsaber wrote:
Slots are too precious to forfeit. Since it will undoubtedly be replaced by a longer range flight, we can applaud KLM for excellent astroturfing.

If they forfeit the slot, JetBlue says thank you.

Lightsaber

The slot will never be forfeited as it will be used for a long range destination.
Specially if there is a cap on the slots this makes totally sense for KLM to do.

Toinou · Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:27 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
It's easy to build HSR when the government can just confiscate land and jail anyone who protests. Try building HSR in the Northeast Corridor in the US. It is one of the few places where an HSR could actually work. Unfortunately getting new rights of way to build one is close to impossible.

I guess that the construction of the highway system (and airport system) in the USA was made with some level of expropriation too.

WIederling · Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:38 am

aldrigsomandre wrote:
I reckon we'll be seeing airlines become hybrid rail operators in the future as rail gets faster with maglev etc. (Especially in Europe.)
KLM is just igniting the fire.

Lufthansa had "trains with flight numbers" decades ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Airport_Express

else look out for
"Lufthansa Express Rail"

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net