LaHood to airlines: Get onboard the high-speed train

This news item appeared in the Wall Street Journal. What annoys me is the Airline Industry certainly has short memories, after receiving at least two massive bailouts since 911, totaling nearly $ 30 Billion.. However, one has to appreciate Secretary LaHood's candor in the matter of High( er )Speed Rail.

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=29536

I think the airlines are not so anti-rail per se (except perhaps Southwest), but are disconcerted in having to share the government largesse pie (subsidies or investments- depending on your pov) with another form of transportation. I would think the airlines would support the building of HSR routes under 500 miles in length, as that would draw passengers away from unprofitable short haul flights, which they could then kill off (most of these puddle jumper flights are operated by subsidiaries or on contract anyway). Even better, would be for the HSR lines to feed passengers into airports, where they could catch a (profitable for the airline) long haul flight.

Southwest Airlines has a history of intensely lobbying against any HSR projects. Their business model is much more profitable on those short hops so they saw it as THEIR ox being gored.

if the airlines were remotely smart instead of ignorant, they would be diversifying by investing in rail, like virgin has in the UK..

Highball wrote:This news item appeared in the Wall Street Journal. What annoys me is the Airline Industry certainly has short memories, after receiving at least two massive bailouts since 911, totaling nearly $ 30 Billion.. However, one has to appreciate Secretary LaHood's candor in the matter of High( er )Speed Rail.

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=29536

I honestly can't understand the purpose of these rather crude remarks. The airline industry doesn't have any commercial interest in publicly funded HSR. Why should the airline industry lobby on behalf of HSR? Actually, I can't imagine there is very much lobbying against HSR either, except when there is a conflict over funding priorities. From where I stand, the air traffic control system is far more vital than some of the utterly worthless HSR proposals that have recently been funded.

I know there is a myth concerning the airlines lobbying against high speed rail, which is just about as accurate as the plot of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Oh, I'm sure that someone will refer to the "Texas TGV," which SouthWest airlines supposed lobbied against. The simple truth is that the Texas TGV simply represented a poor investment for private capital, as it was a surefire money losing venture. In contrast, SouthWest has expanded nationwide in the last couple decades. It's pretty obvious that SouthWest was far more viable than the Texas TGV.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:It's pretty obvious that SouthWest was far more viable than the Texas TGV.

Only because SouthWest Air for reasons I can't fathom doesn't have to pay for the external costs of running its planes. Add in those external costs, and even an admittedly half-baked scheme like the Texas TGV starts to pretty good.

Also, once fuel prices get much over $4 a gallon the "viability" of most airlines seems to disappear.

A new high-speed rail link between two inland Chinese cities (314M) has cut travel times so dramatically that all competing air services on the route have been suspended, state media said.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1269607232.html

Similarly air service between Seoul and Daegu, Korea (under 300M?) is almost gone due to the KTX.

jtr1962 wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:It's pretty obvious that SouthWest was far more viable than the Texas TGV.

Only because SouthWest Air for reasons I can't fathom doesn't have to pay for the external costs of running its planes. Add in those external costs, and even an admittedly half-baked scheme like the Texas TGV starts to pretty good.

You're quoting a German study trying to calculate aesthetic numbers. An environmentalist will put a far greater 'cost value' to a pound of CO2 in the atmosphere than a capitalist. It's like trying to say how much more expensive 'red' is over 'blue'.

I'm not saying there aren't costs - but *nobody* has agreed on any formula for calculation.

Lincoln78 wrote:A new high-speed rail link between two inland Chinese cities (314M) has cut travel times so dramatically that all competing air services on the route have been suspended, state media said.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1269607232.html

Similarly air service between Seoul and Daegu, Korea (under 300M?) is almost gone due to the KTX.

Again, to repeat the old saying:

"What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

Lincoln78 wrote:A new high-speed rail link between two inland Chinese cities (314M) has cut travel times so dramatically that all competing air services on the route have been suspended, state media said.

"What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"

Proof that a well built rail link can compete with, perhaps even replace, air services between two cities.
Hope that if you build it they will actually come!

I don't think the airlines will be too worried about the loss of short haul business . by all accounts , its unlikely any of them make a decent profit out of them . ( although in NZ ,where everything is shorthaul , we now have 3 or 4 airlines discounting domestic services , but govt owned , and been subsidised by international flights i'm sure ) .
The smart ones will use HSR as feeder services , and push for airport stations .