 |
Re: 64% in Favor of Banning Short-Haul Flights with Faster Train Options
Author: Erik H
Date: 03-11-2024 - 15:57
Sgt. Joe Friday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet that some maybe-not-so-small portion of those flights are (a) the first leg
> of a longer trip, or (b) a repositioning move to get an airplane to where it needs
> to be to keep the system flowing. In the latter case, the airline probably doesn't
> run the flight to make money, but having a few bodies aboard helps to defray the
> cost of the flight.
You bet correctly.
Just taking a look at today's flights out of PDX (Portland, Oregon) on a Monday, and out of 200 (exactly 200 today) flights:
20 of those flights are to Seattle, most of which are Alaska with a few Delta flights sprinkled in. Nearly all these flights either came from a further destination or will go to a further destination after Seattle, giving Portlanders a one-seat, one-stop option versus a transfer.
TWO flights are to destinations "less than 2.5 hours away by car/train" - one flight to Redmond and one to Medford. Anyone who has driven between Portland and Redmond (Bend) knows how horrible a drive that is, so having a flight option is very nice. Also, a train would be next to impossible (yes, you could route Portland-Wishram-The Dalles, but you would be better off on a bike than taking the train.)
So, 178 flights - 89% - from PDX would not realistically be replaced by even a high speed train.
And the fact that two private companies run 20 flights a day from PDX to SEA even though there is 12 daily Amtrak trains between the two cities...should speak volumes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet that some maybe-not-so-small portion of those flights are (a) the first leg
> of a longer trip, or (b) a repositioning move to get an airplane to where it needs
> to be to keep the system flowing. In the latter case, the airline probably doesn't
> run the flight to make money, but having a few bodies aboard helps to defray the
> cost of the flight.
You bet correctly.
Just taking a look at today's flights out of PDX (Portland, Oregon) on a Monday, and out of 200 (exactly 200 today) flights:
20 of those flights are to Seattle, most of which are Alaska with a few Delta flights sprinkled in. Nearly all these flights either came from a further destination or will go to a further destination after Seattle, giving Portlanders a one-seat, one-stop option versus a transfer.
TWO flights are to destinations "less than 2.5 hours away by car/train" - one flight to Redmond and one to Medford. Anyone who has driven between Portland and Redmond (Bend) knows how horrible a drive that is, so having a flight option is very nice. Also, a train would be next to impossible (yes, you could route Portland-Wishram-The Dalles, but you would be better off on a bike than taking the train.)
So, 178 flights - 89% - from PDX would not realistically be replaced by even a high speed train.
And the fact that two private companies run 20 flights a day from PDX to SEA even though there is 12 daily Amtrak trains between the two cities...should speak volumes.
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 64% in Favor of Banning Short-Haul Flights with Faster Train Options
|
Commenter | 03-11-2024 - 12:37 |
|
Re: 64% in Favor of Banning Short-Haul Flights with Faster Train Options
|
Sgt. Joe Friday | 03-11-2024 - 13:49 |
|
Re: 64% in Favor of Banning Short-Haul Flights with Faster Train Options |
Erik H | 03-11-2024 - 15:57 |
|
LOL. 64% surveyed in 12 giant, leftist cities : SF, DC, Berlin, London, Paris, etc
|
push polling | 03-11-2024 - 18:01 |
|
Re: LOL. 64% surveyed in 12 giant, leftist cities : SF, DC, Berlin, London, Paris, etc
|
... | 03-11-2024 - 19:58 |
|
Re: 64% in Favor of Banning Short-Haul Flights with Faster Train Options
|
FUD | 03-12-2024 - 10:06 |
|
Re: 64% in Favor of Banning Short-Haul Flights with Faster Train Options
|
AZebra | 03-12-2024 - 13:09 |