Air Service and High Speed Rail Policy

1612 views
14 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August, 2009
  • 271 posts
Air Service and High Speed Rail Policy
Posted by BLS53 on Monday, January 22, 2018 10:52 PM

http://aviationplanning.com/monday-flash-2-2-2/

This is from the blog of an aviation consulting firm. I thought some here might find it interesting.

mdw
  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 41 posts
Posted by mdw on Monday, January 22, 2018 11:28 PM

BLS53

http://aviationplanning.com/monday-flash-2-2-2/

This is from the blog of an aviation consulting firm. I thought some here might find it interesting.

I don't find the post rather interesting because his theme of "communication" seems to be a cover for "airlines". His accusations about high speed rail seem to me to be based on a combination of bias and possibly never having ridden HSR.  A immediate giveaway is the claim that "all those stops" will not make it high speed is invalidated by how Eurostar for example operateds.  They have multiple departures per hour and maybe one or two are "non-stops" between end points (London, Paris, Brussels) other departures stop at the various intermediate stops like Stratford, Ebsfleet, Ashford-in UK and Calias, Lile, etc. on the continent.  This statement shows real or willfull ignorance of how fast these trains accellerate. The statements about profitability ignore that the Eurostar runs an approx. $54 million profit and that is after their track access charges that pay for the tracks.  His statements ignore how many medium sized airport (municipal/gov.owned) that lose money every year, yet no one has a fuss about that.

  • Member since
    April, 2015
  • 227 posts
Posted by Enzoamps on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:32 AM

Not only are many smaller airports not profitable, heck, how many interstate highways turn a profit?

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 4:39 AM

I think the writer has a misconception about HSR, at least in Europe. You don't need to have average speeds above 200 mph. You have to be competetive with air transportation.

And his example San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station works. Travelling time is planned at 2 hrs 40 min. Flying time is about 1.5 hours plus check in and check out times.

With HRS you can provide service to cities on the line not limiting the service to the end points.

The new German HSR line between Munich and Berlin is with three intermediate stops a bit faster than the flight including the time at the airports . There are other, 40 minutes slower trains with more intermediate stops.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 7:37 AM

The article is quite delicious, if you have a taste for irony. A major theme is that both rail and small airport studies are virtually worthless, except to keep consultants fed. The article is written by a consulting outfit!

You just can not make this stuff up.

  • Member since
    August, 2009
  • 271 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:32 PM

Boyd has an authoritarian point of view. Whether he's right or wrong is open to opinion. He's been predicting the death of 50 seat jets for a decade. Meanwhile airlines like Skywest continue to bid and fly increasing amounts of Essential Air Service routes utilizing 50 seat jets.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 610 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:52 PM

BLS53

Boyd has an authoritarian point of view. Whether he's right or wrong is open to opinion. He's been predicting the death of 50 seat jets for a decade. Meanwhile airlines like Skywest continue to bid and fly increasing amounts of Essential Air Service routes utilizing 50 seat jets.

 

I believe the initial Federal budget proposal eliminated the EAS program. Of course it might have been reinstated in appropriations.

  • Member since
    August, 2009
  • 271 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Friday, January 26, 2018 2:34 AM

charlie hebdo

The strings have been tightened as to what cities qualify. But there are viable markets. The major carriers demand 80% load factors these days, and when an airport falls beneath that level, they go on the EAS docket. 60% load factors are the sweet spot for an airline making money with an EAS subsidy. Skywest has been soaking them up in the midwest. But yes, the small cities who struggle to fill a 9 seat airplane are falling by the wayside.

 

 
BLS53

Boyd has an authoritarian point of view. Whether he's right or wrong is open to opinion. He's been predicting the death of 50 seat jets for a decade. Meanwhile airlines like Skywest continue to bid and fly increasing amounts of Essential Air Service routes utilizing 50 seat jets.

 

 

 

I believe the initial Federal budget proposal eliminated the EAS program. Of course it might have been reinstated in appropriations.

 

  • Member since
    February, 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,070 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Friday, January 26, 2018 5:09 PM

Enzoamps

Not only are many smaller airports not profitable, heck, how many interstate highways turn a profit? 

 

Airports, highways, etc. are not commercial enterprises, for the most part, and they are not expected to earn a profit.  For the most part they are paid for by the users through a variety of payment mechanisms.

An exception would be the toll roads built with private money and operated for the benefit of the state, as is the case with TX 130.  The private company that put up the money for the highway is expected to earn a profit, which is appropriate since it wears the risks associated with funding the roadway.

From the inception of the Highway Trust Fund in 1957 through 2008 federal user fees (fuel taxes, excise taxes on vehicles, tires, etc.) covered the cost of building and maintaining the Interstate Highway System.  

At the end of FY07 the Highway Trust Fund had a closing balance of $15.2 billion, and that was after transferring $1.7 billion from highways to mass transit. 

Beginning in 2008, the Highway Trust Fund began receiving transfers from the general fund because the Congress in its wisdom, an oxymoron, refused to increase the user fees - primarily fuel taxes - to a point that would generate sufficient revenues to cover the increased cost of maintaining and finishing the planned Interstate Highway system. 

Approximately 88 to 90 percent of persons over 18 are licensed motorists.  In addition to the user fees, they pay the bulk of property, sales, excise, and income taxes that are used in part to pay for roadways. 

Most of the monies transferred from the general fund were collected directly or indirectly from motorists.  So they in effect are paying themselves through a backdoor payment scheme.  In other words, the users are paying for the roadways that they use, but how they do so is convoluted.  But there is a subsidy involved.

Upper income motorists pay much more in federal income taxes, which are the largest single source – 47 percent - of revenue for the federal government.  For example, in 2014 – the last year for complete statistics – 16 percent of persons filing a federal income tax return had adjusted gross income of $100,000+, but they paid 79.8 percent of the personal income taxes collected.  Assuming a proportional transfer back to the general fund, higher income motorists are subsidizing lower income motorists.

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,230 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, January 27, 2018 10:52 AM

Check out the flight schedule of a non-stop Southwest Airlines 737 from Dallas Love Field to Kansas City..............then compare it to that of an American Airlines jet from Dallas Ft. Worth Airport..............12-15 minute difference?    Why is that?

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,071 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, January 27, 2018 12:39 PM

CMStPnP

Check out the flight schedule of a non-stop Southwest Airlines 737 from Dallas Love Field to Kansas City..............then compare it to that of an American Airlines jet from Dallas Ft. Worth Airport..............12-15 minute difference?    Why is that?

But why stop there?  Look at why Zunum proposes to fly out of Olive Branch instead of Memphis, with part of their analysis involving true net travel time.  

Now if traffic at smaller or regional facilities snowballs up to where there are operational or physical bottlenecks, there may be greater proportional downgrade to their QoS.  But that's a while off, I think.

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,909 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, January 27, 2018 7:20 PM

Bringing up flight times for SAN to OAK in the early 1970's:
Non-stop                 1 hr (PSA)
One stop @LAX        2 hr (PSA)
2 stop SJC SNA        2 hr (Air Cal)

Back then both SJC (San Jose) and SNA (Orange County) were small terminals with at most a half dozen gates. Air Cal had 737's with built in air-stairs. Small airports are quicker to get in and out of than big airports.

Current non-stop SAN to Bay Area (SFO, OAK, SJC) is 1.5 hr.

  • Member since
    February, 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,070 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:56 AM

erikem

Bringing up flight times for SAN to OAK in the early 1970's:
Non-stop                 1 hr (PSA)
One stop @LAX        2 hr (PSA)
2 stop SJC SNA        2 hr (Air Cal)

Back then both SJC (San Jose) and SNA (Orange County) were small terminals with at most a half dozen gates. Air Cal had 737's with built in air-stairs. Small airports are quicker to get in and out of than big airports. 

Current non-stop SAN to Bay Area (SFO, OAK, SJC) is 1.5 hr. 

Two factors, at least, have probably contributed to the increase in the flight time between San Diego and the Bay Area. 

The first would be air traffic congestion.  There are a lot more airplanes jocking for air space today than in the 1970s. San Diego to the Bay Area is a dense air corridor.

The other is the cost of fuel today, even with the current depressed prices, compared to the cos in the early 1970s.  As a result of the run-up in the cost of aviation fuel, the airlines have reduced the cruising speed of their airplanes except for when they get behind.  

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,806 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:46 PM

JPS1

The other is the cost of fuel today, even with the current depressed prices, compared to the cost in the early 1970s.  As a result of the run-up in the cost of aviation fuel, the airlines have reduced the cruising speed of their airplanes except for when they get behind.  

 

 
Before the 1st oil embargo jet fuel could go for at a low of  9 - 11 cents per gallon.  That was before taxes.  Imagine diesel might have  been close to that for big users ?
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,071 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 6:54 PM

blue streak 1
Before the 1st oil embargo jet fuel could go for at a low of  9 - 11 cents per gallon.  That was before taxes.  Imagine diesel might have  been close to that for big users ?

Keep in mind, though, what the value of the same fuel in cents per gallon would be as late as 1970, when the dollar was pegged to 1/35 of an ounce of bullion and private citizens were still not 'allowed' to own bullion.  Even before allowing for the early effects of the float and then rational-expectations-driven inflation on the dollar independent of other determinants of commodity gold's value, I would wonder if the pretax price now might actually be lower in early-Seventies 'dollars' ...

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy