High speed train VS. Airlines

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 06 Jul 2007, 01:29

Like there is a Star Alliance,a One-world or a skyteam, there will be a Railteam, a partnership between the 9 great high speed railway companies in Europe. Members will be the SNCF, NMBS (SNCB), Die Bahn, Eurostar,...

Teaming up, they have ambitions to take-over part of the airline activity.
They will process by arranging schedules so that connections will be made possible, and build up a common ticketing network so passengers only need one ticket to connect to different destinations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6262236.stm

Critics consider this as unfair competition seen that most of the high-speed tracks are state-owned and backed by tax-payer's money.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 06 Jul 2007, 01:51

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:Critics consider this as unfair competition seen that most of the high-speed tracks are state-owned and backed by all the tax-payer's money.

Probably the same critics found it unfair that national airlines were state-owned. But aren't tax-payer's not the consumers. I never went to the opera, but that's also paid by tax-payer's money. Everybody will have some return of his taxes, I hope.
Some countries charge non-tax-payers differently. That is non-nationals pay more than nationals for services in many countries. Many of these countries call us, Europeans, also racists, where their countries charge us sometimes double for services in their country. Where in Europe that is not the case.
That aside, but the air passengers and critics, should not forget that also the infrastructures at and around airports are paid from tax-payer's money.

No commercial aircraft, nowhere in the world can operate without tax-payer's money. No cruise ship can, no train, no HST. Not even a bus.
btw, Military aircraft operate entirely on tax-payer's money.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 06 Jul 2007, 03:47

I tend to agree except for the fact that the high-speed railway industry is a very loss-generating industry:Receipts only account for about 40% of the total costs (EU average). The rest comes from our pockets...
Although airlines require airport structures, most airports are now managed by private entities.
Airlines are mostly private-owned which means they pay millions in taxes on their profit in the EU (at least for the EU registered airlines), which compensates the costs the states invest in infrastructures in and around airports.

Parallel competition from the railways means that the airlines will see their profit decrease, thus the EU states will earn less taxes on profit...This all to pull up an industry that already has a loss-margin of 60%...and this despite the fact that tickets are sold at higher average rates per kilometer than airfares.

A Thalys train costs approx. 25 million euros a piece...without counting operating costs...

There are things in this world I don't understand...

Gate-A1 · Post by **Gate-A1** » 06 Jul 2007, 08:42

Thaly is rentable, actualy Bruxelles Paris was before the TGV the only profit making international train link.

Eurostrar is going to make profit in the futures years even with low prices.

Train is doing the job that Airlines did in the 80' 90' by going from Loss making opperation for political purpose to profit making operations for business purpose. It take times and even in some airlines you see that this shift is not always 100% performed.

sab319 · Post by **sab319** » 06 Jul 2007, 11:08

I'm sure that the high speed train is good (if not better) alternative for the plane on short distances (flight - time of less than 2 hours), don't forget the high speed train offers the passenger less hassle (no need to be at the station 2 hours in advance, no silly security checks (except for eurostar), unlimited baggage, the ability for business people to work all the time on the train including phone calls etc.)

So for trips from Brussels to Paris, London, Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt I think the high speed train might be (or at least become) the most convenient traveling method (especially after some new high speed lines have reduced the traveling time)

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 06 Jul 2007, 11:24

SN30952 wrote:.
Some countries charge non-tax-payers differently. That is non-nationals pay more than nationals for services in many countries. Many of these countries call us, Europeans, also racists, where their countries charge us sometimes double for services in their country. Where in Europe that is not the case.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with the statement that we do not have such practices in Europe: what to think of the elevated taxes on 2nd residencies in Spain, the péage system in france (I just went to southern france and in total must have spent some €160 for the return trip),...

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 06 Jul 2007, 11:33

sab319 wrote:I'm sure that the high speed train is good (if not better) alternative for the plane on short distances (flight - time of less than 2 hours), don't forget the high speed train offers the passenger less hassle (no need to be at the station 2 hours in advance, no silly security checks (except for eurostar), unlimited baggage, the ability for business people to work all the time on the train including phone calls etc.)

So for trips from Brussels to Paris, London, Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt I think the high speed train might be (or at least become) the most convenient traveling method (especially after some new high speed lines have reduced the traveling time)

All those who like to make constant phone calls are welcome to use the train - there is nothing more annoying than the never ending yell of "hi, I'm on the train..." every few seconds. It will be hell when airlines start to allow phones to be used and then you will be repeatedly disturbed by "hi I'm on the plane..." and air rage will probably soar to a new high as passengers get sick of constantly being disturbed by inconsiderate phone users.

I would never opt for the train over the plane unless it was a dire emergency.

FlyA330 · Post by **FlyA330** » 06 Jul 2007, 11:40

I'm sure that the high speed train is good (if not better) alternative for the plane on short distances (flight - time of less than 2 hours)

VLM did the test not long ago and they were faster than the Eurostar to the center of London. The test persons started from different places in Belgium and had to go to the center of London. Both with VLM or Eurostar. Each tim VLM was faster. From 30min to more than an hour.

Stij · Post by **Stij** » 06 Jul 2007, 11:56

For short distances and from city centre to city centre the high speed trains are more convenient.

In fact it's easy: the fastest wins.

If you're in the centre of Brussels and want to go to the centre of Paris nothing beats the Thalys.

Kind regards,

Stij

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 06 Jul 2007, 12:31

FlyA330 wrote:
I'm sure that the high speed train is good (if not better) alternative for the plane on short distances (flight - time of less than 2 hours)
VLM did the test not long ago and they were faster than the Eurostar to the center of London. The test persons started from different places in Belgium and had to go to the center of London. Both with VLM or Eurostar. Each tim VLM was faster. From 30min to more than an hour.

Not every HST destination has an airport in the middle of the city.

BRU-CPH · Post by **BRU-CPH** » 06 Jul 2007, 12:49

FlyA330 wrote: VLM did the test not long ago and they were faster than the Eurostar to the center of London. The test persons started from different places in Belgium and had to go to the center of London. Both with VLM or Eurostar. Each tim VLM was faster. From 30min to more than an hour.

When the new high speed train track in the UK will be finished, the Eurostar will reach London 30 min faster than now. So, VLM's advantage will be gone soon.

Also within the framework of CO2-emissions, high speed trains emits at least 50 % (or even less) greenhouse gases. Moreover, these gases are emitted at the ground level, where their impact on global warming is less.

Also the comment on state-subsidies for high speed-tracks and trains are (partly) untrue. EU rules forbid state intervention in international rail transport, so international high speed trains cannot get any subsidies anymore. High speed national transport is something else. Internal TGV's (within France) f.e. still can be subsidised. The Eurostar track in the UK to is privately built and financed. I am not quite sure about high speed tracks in Belgium e.g. but I do think Infrabel has to finance them at least partly by themselves (and recover the costs by the fee rail operators have to pay to use the tracks).

And finally, I think airlines are happy being able to free up slots and planes by making use of high speed trains for their feeding traffic. I can imagine KLM prefers flying his Fokkers to e.g. London/Helsinki/... than let them hopping over between Brussels and Schiphol

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 06 Jul 2007, 12:52

BRU-CPH wrote:
FlyA330 wrote: VLM did the test not long ago and they were faster than the Eurostar to the center of London. The test persons started from different places in Belgium and had to go to the center of London. Both with VLM or Eurostar. Each tim VLM was faster. From 30min to more than an hour.
Also within the framework of CO2-emissions, high speed trains emits at least 50 % (or even less) greenhouse gases. Moreover, these gases are emitted at the ground level, where their impact on global warming is less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6562621.stm

b720 · Post by **b720** » 06 Jul 2007, 14:21

to SN:

You are right about some countries that charge foreigners more for the same services rendered to both nationals and foreigners. I can name 3 countries egypt, syria, and Argentina. In the case of the first nationals (and foreigners living in egypt) pay less for DOMESTIC flights. Unfortunately the reason for that is not to give tax payers something back, reason being most people in Egypt do not pay taxes as their incomes are almost below zero. Same goes to Syria. In Argentina (domestic and regional) prices differ if journey originates in Argentina reason being of the violent devaluation of the Arg. pessos a couple of years ago..

N.B. Nothing racist about their practices, in some cases economically backward (specially in Syria) that is it. Althou I have to agree with the policies of Argentina.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 06 Jul 2007, 15:00

b720 wrote:N.B. Nothing racist about their practices, in some cases economically backward (specially in Syria) that is it. Althou I have to agree with the policies of Argentina.

You must be joking, their leaders are much richer than the average European citizen. They steal from their nationals and from the foreigners, but that's a different subject.

What I found bizar this week was this in Le Soir:
Liège-Limburg entre en gare
Liège-Guillemins. Connue de tous, l'appellation historique de la principale gare de la Cité ardente aura-t-elle bientôt vécu ? Tirant profit de l'arrivée prochaine du TGV dans un décor réinventé par Santiago Calatrava, une idée fait son chemin : rebaptiser l'endroit Liège-Limbourg ou Liège-Limburg. Objectif : élargir le rayonnement de la gare jusqu'à la province voisine et jusqu'aux Pays-Bas tout proches.

The Walloon city of Liege will have a HST station. They want to rename the station to Liège-Limburg.
This makes me think of an other joke: Charleroi's "Brussels South".
A new example of parasitism. This is really becoming ridiculous.

b720 · Post by **b720** » 06 Jul 2007, 15:08

average european leader is not that poor I have to note...don't discuss politics here..

ERICAIRLINES · Post by **ERICAIRLINES** » 06 Jul 2007, 15:17

tgv /hst is the winner for trips below 3 or 3 1/2 hours ...above the 4 hours mark,the plane is winning ,even if you need to go to and from the airports from city centers...

if you go to toulouse or nice,better to fly ...
otherwise to marseilles or lyons ,it is 50/50...london (as of 14th nov ),paris,amsterdam,koln,and francfort (2008/2009) ..not to mention lille (35 minutes from bmi),no hesitation the tgv is faster and very frequent

lille europe and bruxelles midi will become 'hubs' for railteam as koln,fra and str will in the future...lux is now only 2h05 min from paris

flying will also remain the best option for cities like:gva,bcn,mad,mil,trn,vce,rom,vie,bsl,bud,muc,cph etc...

and the UK ,railteam network will be limited to only London and two small stations in the south

Railteam is mainly a 'central europe' network,and there will be no common gds used before at least mid 2009...

Klm flights will probably be replaced by thalys as of 2009,like it used to be the case for bru/par...now operated by SNCF iso thalys

Zorba · Post by **Zorba** » 06 Jul 2007, 16:30

I travelled on the TGV a few days ago (Brussels Midi - Paris CDG) and I'm very satisfied. Taking a plane on such route would cost me much more time and because I flew with AF it was very cheap.

As said before, I think trains will replace planes in the (near) future if the travel time is less then 2-3hours. And I don't think that is such a bad thing

euroflyer · Post by **euroflyer** » 07 Jul 2007, 20:17

There is no question: For any trip on which the train takes less than 3 hours TGV, Thalys, Eurostar, ICE and so on are the much better choice.

As any plane journey takes about 3 hours minimum time (reaching the airport, checking in, security check, flight, leaving the airport - if you fly Frankfurt-Brussels and you leave with LH at Gate A42 and arrive in Brussels at A68 you feel like you walked half the way from FRA to BRU ...

- going into city centre) on such routes the trains are always faster. At the moment this is for example the case for Brussels-Paris, Brussels-London, Strasbourg-Paris, Frankfurt-Hanover, Hanover-Berlin etcetera.

Nobody looking for the fastest and most convenient travel options will take a plane on these routes if you want to go from City Centre to City Centre. Plus you can walk around in the train, go to the Restaurant car or bar, work all the time, have electricity available for your Laptop or to charge your phone etcetera etcetera (no turbulences

). It is just better in the train. Therefore I absolutely do not mind if some of my taxes are taken to improve the railway network. This increases my living standard because it makes travelling more relaxing. (Of course the same is true for airports and their infrastructure, for longer journeys planes are the best option and so I accept to pay something to make airports

and their surroundings more convenient - e.g. better road connections).

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 10 Jul 2007, 03:06

Thaly is rentable, actualy Bruxelles Paris was before the TGV the only profit making international train link.

Thalys is profitable if you only take operating costs into account. But who pays the trains? The taxpayer....

an-148 · Post by **an-148** » 10 Jul 2007, 11:23

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:
Thaly is rentable, actualy Bruxelles Paris was before the TGV the only profit making international train link.
Thalys is profitable if you only take operating costs into account. But who pays the trains? The taxpayer....

- people who don't have a car: their taxes also help building and maintaining roads.
- people who never take busses: their taxes also help maintaining public transportation
- people who never take a plane: their taxes also help to have an airport infrastucture.

so, Mr Flyforhours, if you take your car along the highway, some other taxpyers, who don't drive help you to have this drive; if you take a plane, some other's taxes help you to have a flight; exactly the same happens when you take a train.

Do you want to live in society, or do you want to live alone on an island and be sure that you are the only one to have benefit from your fishing, hunting,.....?

Aviation24.be

High speed train VS. Airlines

High speed train VS. Airlines

Re: High speed train VS. Airlines

Re: High speed train VS. Airlines