Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
stl07 wrote:Not about emissions
Completely about money
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.
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.
stl07 wrote:Not about emissions
Completely about money
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.
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.
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.
kimimm19 wrote:I hope this is the beginning of a major evolution into streamlined rail and air travel cooperation in Europe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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.