Now I don't agree with it (in fact, I am strongly opposed to the tax exemption), but the reasoning is that this way you create an 'even playing field' for aviators all across the globe. In other words: it's doesn't become more attractive to tank in Arab Gulf states, making their airlines out-compete European airlines.
I wouldn't say madness. But it is certainly very unfair to the rail industry. They should both be exempt or neither.
I know a lot of people are big fans of trains, but I'm not taking a train from Madrid to Copenhagen for business. It's not gonna happen. Madrid->Paris maybe. They're opening a new line that'll cover the distance in 5 hours.
But within countries trains are absolutely the way to go. At least here in Spain Even if you are on the train longer than the plane, there is no security-state bullshit to deal with at the stations and the experience is much nicer.
And you don’t have to show up to the train station that long before your scheduled departure compared to flights. Train stations are also centrally located for most people compared to airports. My thinking has been that if it’s around 5-7 hrs by train, the flight will be faster but the time you spend waiting for the flight makes the time you spend pretty much equal out.
The article presents some good suggestions. It's pretty bonkers that taking the train across borders in Europe is more difficult and expensive than a plane
They often aren't. But where I live there is no train. The closest train station is a 4 hour bus ride from my town and it's only connected to the neighbouring country's rail network.
Trains use a LOT more infrastructure than panes. Planes are expensive and use a lot of fuel but they don't need a railway to connect them to the destination.
Why take a train when you could fly? IDK, why would you? sometimes rail is more comfortable and offers better services and more space for the same price at the cost of being slower. Some people romanticize train travel so they prefer that and some destinations are better connected to the rail system than to airports.
Other than that, we still need trains for cargo but practically speaking and assuming all other factors are the same air travel is usually always better.
Not quite. Trains are more flexible and forgiving schedule-wise. You miss one, you take the next. No crazy airport security either. Train stations are often in city centers, connected to cheap public transport and walkable. More room and less strict.
We need more comfortable and cheaper trains though.
Planes need taxes and externalities costs included also, to get a true price.
Yes trains use more infrastructure but that is largely a fixed cost. I wonder what the marginal cost of running a train on a near full capacity line is verse a plane.
the marginal cost of running a train on a near full capacity line is verse a plane
After a certain threshold train is much cheaper than plane, but that's only true for very busy routes. And it comes with less flexibility than a plane that can serve point-to-point basically every destination.
Trains are cool, but we should also look for a way (propfan engines, less emitting fuel, improvements in fuselage ecc.) to make aviation more sustainable because it's crazy to think it will go away anytime soon
If you can train is less than say 6 hours. Trains are hands down better.
They are much more reliably on time.
The station is usually much closer than to the ultimate destination than an airport.
There's little or no waiting in queues or what not, in a lot places you can roll up the platform 10-20 mins before departure.
The seats are better for pretty much every class of ticket. sans a standing ticket but Planes don't have those.
Once you factor getting to and from the airport, messing about with check in, security, and boarding at around 6 hours a train is better than a 2 hour flight.