Sam you've got to try driving I80 across NJ, PA, OH, IN and IL or I81 thorugh NY, PA, MD, VA into the South to understand congestion, 18 wheelers at 80+ mph side by side alongside (or being pushed by?) a Toyota. Or be in a fogbound row of 35mph traffic across the NJTurnpike scuking in those diesel fumes....find out what traffic is really like.
As for the "compartmentlaizing" of Amtrak...it is historical, of course. Routes and corridors compounded by union rules and long time railroad division points, rote operations, a fixed plant, and geography; and the individual cities and city pairs that devleoped in the 20th Century. It is what Amtrak inherited or was given in hopes that it would all go away and big railorads would run big freight trains on thier private tracks while people would drive big cars on the Eisenhower Interstate. It was a plan. A plan that time changed, that time caught up with. So here we are today.
And also, through these arguements and comments I get confused about being an American, about my patriotism. What am I missing? Why isn't something like Amtrak good for America and me as much as the highway, waterway, and airway systems? I get the feeling it is pro American to support the three latter forms of transportation yet it is anti American to support a national rail system. The most confusion comes when I think of the United States being a powerful and successful world power which so many here wants to take apart state by state less one gets the better of the other. Who is a real American? what is a real American? Is it patriotic to say you can't have something when you need it because I get nothing at this time? Let's stop playing the game and start building a United States instead a group of parochially defined settings.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
schlimm Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive.
What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
Some of our older posters that have lived in southern California have heard much the same arguments when the additional San Diego trains were being debated; then Metrolink and Santa Barbara service all that is now under Pacific Surfliner banner . I was there enough during all those times to hear this. Then later the Capitol corridor and the San Joaquin service (which by the way in todays newswire said "San Joaquin ridership up 6+% in our down economy").
IMHO there would never been voter approval of the California HSR if the voters had not seen the results of the afore mentioned CA projects. The most important item may ( I only say may) have been the voters awareness that there have been incremental improvements in all these services by the various authorities. Not the loss of service and timekeeping so prevelant by 1960.
I almost forgot the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Although they only have run 4 round trips a day they are now getting feedback that they may need another round trip to fill in what some riders are having to deal with changed working hours.
Sam1I commented on SWA in large part because of the notion that it single handily killed the proposal for high speed rail in Texas. The proposal died because it was constructed poorly and was premature
That statement I can really believe. The lack of a detailed proposal submitted last fall would reinforce this statement.
Some people might say the HSR proposal was planned that way but I won't go that far. However we are seeing the same thing here in Georgia.
schlimm Paul MilenkovicThe idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure. Revisionism? For starters, I would respectfully suggest you look again at the real purpose on Amtrak from the beginning (the Budd statement). I would also suggest that SWA has never had to deal with un-business-like problems like having Congressional mandates to run pointless planes to nowhere at big losses as Amtrak has with trains.
Paul MilenkovicThe idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure.
Revisionism? For starters, I would respectfully suggest you look again at the real purpose on Amtrak from the beginning (the Budd statement). I would also suggest that SWA has never had to deal with un-business-like problems like having Congressional mandates to run pointless planes to nowhere at big losses as Amtrak has with trains.
And who is it behind the Amtrak mandates that SWA lacks? Could it be the advocacy community? Would Amtrak, on balance, provide more and better service (although not our "pet" service -- cough, Sunset Limited, cough) if the advocacy community weren't lobbying Amtrak and lobbying Congress?:
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet Yes, but Southwest Airlines didn't have to build and maintain their own air traffic control system, navigational aids, and pay property tax to every political entity that it overflies. I bet that helped a lot in their quest to be profitable.
Yes, but Southwest Airlines didn't have to build and maintain their own air traffic control system, navigational aids, and pay property tax to every political entity that it overflies.
I bet that helped a lot in their quest to be profitable.
One of the advantages befalling the airlines, as well as other common carriers, is their sharing of common facilities. That is to say, they don't pay the full cost of the facilities because they are not the exclusive users. The same is true for Amtrak, which is a niche user on most of the rail systems that it runs its trains over. The exception, of course, is the NEC, where Amtrak is the major but not exclusive owner.
With respect to property or other taxes, the following should be kept in mind. "Pursuant to the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 24-301, Amtrak is exempt from all state and local taxes, including income and francishe taxes that are directly levied against the Company. Accordingly, there is no provision for state and local income or francishe taxes recorded in the consolidated financial statements....." This statement is contained in the 2009 Financial Statements, which are included in Amtrak's Annual Report.
The nation's airlines pay federal and state income taxes, assuming that they had a profitable year, which clearly has not always been the case. In addition, they pay franchise, inventory, and sales taxes. For example, each year SWA takes down as much of its inventory as possible just before valuation of its inventories in Dallas in an attempt to mitigate its local inventory taxes. The taxes are a significant burden.
blue streak 1IMHO there would never been voter approval of the California HSR if the voters had not seen the results of the afore mentioned CA projects. The most important item may ( I only say may) have been the voters awareness that there have been incremental improvements in all these services by the various authorities. Not the loss of service and timekeeping so prevelant by 1960.
Now the northern New England rail group has announced that Feb 2010 ridership up 5% from 2009 (no cancellations?) even though a 3 day sold out weekend was cancelled because of the Feb storm. Conservative projections of those cancellations would put potential close to 10% increase assuming that some persons traveled after the cancellations. That seems to beg the question "does Downeaster trains need more coaches on some days?" Same old lack of equipment problem.
Question: Does this mean that the incremental improvements on the BOS - Portland are attracting passengers? The improvements are certainly different from the 1950s B&M decline. I cannot answer the question.
blue streak 1 Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline. Sam: Most of your statements are correct as I remember but this sentence is not. Remember SW started service out of Dallas airport (DAL) - Houston HOU Hobby). Fortunately for SW Braniff airlines whose main operating and maintenance base was at DAL (some at MIA for South America) went bankrupt and to fill all the infrastructure that BN vacated SWA got a sweet heart deal on the monorail, parking concessions, hangers, terminal, BN gate space, etc, then gate space that was vacated by all the major airlines that moved to DFW. I do not remember the deal at HOU when IAH was moved into by majors. I would believet that some sort of the same deals were proffered. The Wright ammendment also had some effect.
Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline.
Sam: Most of your statements are correct as I remember but this sentence is not. Remember SW started service out of Dallas airport (DAL) - Houston HOU Hobby). Fortunately for SW Braniff airlines whose main operating and maintenance base was at DAL (some at MIA for South America) went bankrupt and to fill all the infrastructure that BN vacated SWA got a sweet heart deal on the monorail, parking concessions, hangers, terminal, BN gate space, etc, then gate space that was vacated by all the major airlines that moved to DFW. I do not remember the deal at HOU when IAH was moved into by majors. I would believet that some sort of the same deals were proffered. The Wright ammendment also had some effect.
SWA got little at Dallas Love Field except a broken down terminal that no one else wanted. It began operations in the early 70s. Braniff did not go belly up until 1982. I began flying SWA in 1975, when I moved to Dallas from the Northeast. I remember walking into a terminal that looked and felt like a morgue.
SWA got a deal on the gates, parking, etc. at Love Field. But no one else wanted them. It was the only deal that the city could get. The facilities were lousy. Flying Southwest during the early years gave a new meaning to budget airline.
Southwest's management saw an opportunity to launch an intrastate air service that turned into a winner. It has made it possible for millions of Americans, who otherwise could not afford to fly, to see their families half way across the country.
Moreover, as Herb Keller has stated, we recognized that many people did not want to fly from a cow pasture between Dallas and Fort Worth to a cow pasture outside of Houston when they could fly from close-in airports. Grabbing an opportunity like this is what makes the competitive market system so dynamic and, although it has its faults, has resulted in the highest living standards around the world. Whoops, hopefully no one will consider this a political statement.
SWA was put together by visionaries who understood the importance of competitive markets and were willing to bet the farm on their idea. Had they failed, they would have lost everything.
The Wright Amendment came along only after Braniff, American, Delta, etc. failed to run SWA out of business. The SWA story is riveting. It is capitalism at its best, and the story is one of the cases that are studied extensively at the Harvard Business School.
henry6 Sam you've got to try driving I80 across NJ, PA, OH, IN and IL or I81 thorugh NY, PA, MD, VA into the South to understand congestion, 18 wheelers at 80+ mph side by side alongside (or being pushed by?) a Toyota. Or be in a fogbound row of 35mph traffic across the NJTurnpike scuking in those diesel fumes....find out what traffic is really like. As for the "compartmentlaizing" of Amtrak...it is historical, of course. Routes and corridors compounded by union rules and long time railroad division points, rote operations, a fixed plant, and geography; and the individual cities and city pairs that devleoped in the 20th Century. It is what Amtrak inherited or was given in hopes that it would all go away and big railorads would run big freight trains on thier private tracks while people would drive big cars on the Eisenhower Interstate. It was a plan. A plan that time changed, that time caught up with. So here we are today. And also, through these arguements and comments I get confused about being an American, about my patriotism. What am I missing? Why isn't something like Amtrak good for America and me as much as the highway, waterway, and airway systems? I get the feeling it is pro American to support the three latter forms of transportation yet it is anti American to support a national rail system. The most confusion comes when I think of the United States being a powerful and successful world power which so many here wants to take apart state by state less one gets the better of the other. Who is a real American? what is a real American? Is it patriotic to say you can't have something when you need it because I get nothing at this time? Let's stop playing the game and start building a United States instead a group of parochially defined settings.
Having lived in the Northeast for nearly half of my 70 years, I am familiar with traffic in the areas you mention. In fact, I drove in or near Philadelphia twice last year. The traffic is no more challenging than the traffic in and near the major cities of Texas. The passenger rail service, however, is much better. I took the train on several occasions from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.
sam1: Try driving from the Chicago area to somewhere in Michigan along the lake. You have to go through a bottleneck of I 80 and I 94, with all their local and transcontinental traffic all squeezing together (and adding I 65 and I94 for fun). I doubt if you'll find it as much of a breeze driving as on your Philadelphia journey.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Oh I have driven all the highways I have mentioned at times being the only car on the road except for I80 in PA. It can be done except Mondays after 3AM, other weekdays after 5AM city bound or after 3PM anyday outbound; Summer Fridays, ya better get the gas peddle to the floor by the end of the lunch hour or you'll not get there till almost midnight! I don't think she understands how bad certain hours on main arteries can be these days. I moved out of the area over 40 years ago and it ain't like it used to be.
How do you put up with/justify the lunatic drivers in the DFW area? They are crazier than those in New York, Illinois, and even Boston! I'll even include New Orleans and Los Angeles in the mix. Ontario might be a close second. Ever do "The 401?". Good training!!!
Hays
BNSFwatcherEver do "The 401?". Good training!!!
You "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well.
There are 3 stretches along there that have a nasty habit of being closed or reduced in laneage for a long time. The 3 are--
1)--along the southern edge of London---Highway 4 and Col. Talbot Rd interchange to Veteran's Memorial Pkwy
2)--Between Ingersoll ON and Woodstock ON and ---
3)--anywhere from Drumbo Rd interchange and the Kitchener-Waterloo area.
Snowsqualls during the winter have been known to cause multi-vehicle pile-ups in no time flat!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinderYou "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well.
Sounds like a candidate route for fast, frequent and convenient service!
Sam1To claim that the project was defeated exclusively by Southwest Airlines is to state a clear lack of understanding of Texas politics.
Yeah, your doing it again, making a claim that was never made and then responding to it. I never made any such statement in my post, even in what you bolded the statement was not made that Southwest single handely defeated HSR. So not sure who your responding to with that quote.
Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline. In fact, they faced substantial government and competitor opposition. Having overcome significant opposition to their proposed intrastate airline, it is little wonder that they did not want government money used to launch a high speed rail system that had no possibility of covering its costs but would bleed off some of its passengers.
Southwest was formed in the era of regulation. A fact you continue to omit in your posts. Southwest was formed in the early 1970's, I don't think the airlines were deregulated until 1978 or thereabouts. So I am scratching my head here trying to figure out why your seperating Southwest from the rest of the regulated industry. Their niche and their main money maker while getting started were flights within the state of Texas during the era of regulation. Amazing how the Wright Amendment just happened to pop up out of nowhere as airlines were being deregulated. Just so happens that the Wright Amendment protects flights within the state of Texas for airlines operating out of Dallas Love Field it was setup to protect Southwest Airlines current position at Love Field as other airlines were being deregulated. What other airline was operating out of Love Field in the late 1970's? What other airline even had an interest in returning to Love Field in the late 1970's? So lets be honest about the entire history here on Southwest airlines..........a look back in time. I don't normally use Wiki-Pedia as a source but I am pressed for time:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the early 1960s, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that Love Field in Dallas and Greater Southwest International Airport in Fort Worth, Texas were unsuitable for expected future air traffic demands, and the FAA refused to provide continued federal funding for the municipal airports. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) then ordered the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth to find a new site for a joint regional airport. The result was Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW International), which first opened to commercial air traffic in 1974. To make the new airport viable, each city agreed to restrict its own passenger-service airports from commercial passenger service use, and all airlines serving the old airports at that time signed an agreement to relocate.
Southwest Airlines, which was founded after the agreement between the airlines and cities to relocate to DFW International was reached, was not a party to the agreement, and felt that their business model would be affected by a long drive to the new airport beyond the suburbs. Therefore, prior to the opening of DFW International, Southwest filed suit to remain at Love Field, claiming that no legal basis existed to close the airport to commercial service and that they were not bound by an agreement they did not sign. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, so long as Love Field remained open as an airport, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwest from operating from the field. However, the ruling was in the pre-deregulated environment where the CAB did not have control of travel within a state, the type of service Southwest offered at the time.
When DFW International opened in 1974, every airline, except Southwest and Braniff (which continued to operate a few flights from Love in addition to the new airport), moved to the new, larger airport. With the drastic reduction in flights, Love Field decommissioned most of its concourses.
After the deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in 1978, Southwest Airlines entered the larger passenger market with plans to start providing interstate service in 1979. This angered the City of Fort Worth, DFW International Airport, and Braniff International Airways, which resented expanded air service at the airport within Dallas[citation needed]. To help protect DFW International Airport, Jim Wright, a Fort Worth congressman, sponsored and helped pass an amendment to the International Air Transportation Act of 1979 in Congress that restricted passenger air traffic out of Love Field in the following ways:
While the law deterred other major airlines from starting service out of Love Field, Southwest continued to expand as it used multiple short-haul flights to build its Love Field operation. This had the effect of increasing local traffic to non-Wright-Amendment-impacted airports such as Houston/Hobby Airport, the New Orleans Airport, and the El Paso and Albuquerque airports.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's really not fantasy to read in between the lines here and see that Southwest benefitted greatly from the protectionism of the Wright Amendment. Entry into the airline industry requires steep capital costs. With it's protected niche at Love Field in effect, nobody could compete head-to-head with Southwest airlines. The airlines that attempted to do so in the era of deregulation could not compete with the frequencies that Southwest offered and it was quite easy for Southwest to drop fares on the routes that were competing with any new service at Love field while maintaining or raising them on other routes to compensate for the lower fares on the competitive routes.
Interesting politics (which should make it pretty clear that discussing transportation without including the political dimension makes for a pretty incomplete discussion). Although that would seem to put the whole SWA business in a different perspective, I bet we haven't heard the end of it. TBC!
CMStPnP It's really not fantasy to read in between the lines here and see that Southwest benefitted greatly from the protectionism of the Wright Amendment. Entry into the airline industry requires steep capital costs. With it's protected niche at Love Field in effect, nobody could compete head-to-head with Southwest airlines. The
CMStPnP thank you for that history lesson. I would like to add a bit of prior history that will illuminate your post.
Bach in the early 1950s an airline ( Southeast I believe ) started service between the citys of Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Bristol, Tennessee (TRI CITY). This service was set up in a very short time. The CAB tried to shut it down but unable due to a frendly fed court injunction sayiing CAB had no jurisdiction. Southeast got a bunch of DC-3s and had various routes between the citys and did a booming business ( there were no interstate hwys and it took 16 + hrs end to end SOU RR service. Car travel was even slower There were no legacy airlines except American air flew some of these routes but not in total. AA had pulled out of TRI city and Chatanooga.
In about 1 -3 years South east applied to serve Atlanta and Cincinnati from these Tn citys because many TN Persons needed to go to those locations. Well IMHO the CAB was going to punish Southeast and when the route awards came out Southeast got nothing and Southern air lines (based in ATL ) got Memphis - ATL and Piedmont got TRI and Knoxville - Cincinnati without even applying for the routes. Southern also got the various citys Memphis - Bristol but with frequency and route restrictions. However Southern received "development fares". Well that sunk Southeast ( a plane running into a mountain close to Bristol did not help). "development fares" disappeared when Southeast went under. Southern service over the years got worse and worse.
Now go to SouthWest air in Texas. Your article did not mention that SW learned from the experience of Southeast. The abillity to run hourly service Hobby - Love using 4 aircraft established that route for them. The ability to fill aiirplanes ( at that time average legacy load factors were 50 -55%) allowed them to make more revenue from identical flights with lower fares. SW undercut fares of the legacy carriers and those carriers could not change their fares without a CAB rate case to change all legacy carriers to same fare then SW reduced fares again. The CAB had tried also to limit SW but we know that history. There was no HSR to compete with SW either.
SW ever since has initiated future routes by making the frequent service frequencys on each route they started.
And most importantly they got the Wright amendment.
OK, well enough of the Southwest Airlines bit.
Back to the topic, which is they need to build a decent HSR system with intermodalism, stations that are convienent, fares that are reasonable for the time saved, etc. I think a proper HSR line will add vs detract from productivity and the Economy where it is located. I lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares. Part of the advantage in Germany is that airports are not convienently located but train stations are. They also have intermodialism at a lot of their stations. I have a choice of Taxi, Rental Car, Bicycle Rental, Foot, Light Rail, Bus, etc. Most American train stations do not come close. So that needs to be fixed. The Germans still have a steep Rail Passenger Subsidy which I think could be brought down with some privitization as well further efficiencies. So I would not use the German model entirely.
Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transporation.
CMStPnPI lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares.
Interesting. I've ridden on DB a lot for 40+ years and seen many changes, mostly for the good. Not as many small towns are served now as even 15 years ago, particularly on the lines in the former DDR (E. Germany). There are very few Kurswagens (passenger cars shunted from one train to another, often in less than 10 minutes) now. But the tremendous increase in really fast, frequent service (not just ICE, but also IC and RE trains) is really something. Getting around is so easy, even with train changes. The waiting time for your connection is short, sometimes a few minutes. The cars are very comfortable. Most stations are places people like to go to. If you've never ridden there or other European countries, you have no idea what a first class rail system can be.
CMStPnP OK, well enough of the Southwest Airlines bit. Back to the topic, which is they need to build a decent HSR system with intermodalism, stations that are convienent, fares that are reasonable for the time saved, etc. I think a proper HSR line will add vs detract from productivity and the Economy where it is located. I lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares. Part of the advantage in Germany is that airports are not convienently located but train stations are. They also have intermodialism at a lot of their stations. I have a choice of Taxi, Rental Car, Bicycle Rental, Foot, Light Rail, Bus, etc. Most American train stations do not come close. So that needs to be fixed. The Germans still have a steep Rail Passenger Subsidy which I think could be brought down with some privitization as well further efficiencies. So I would not use the German model entirely.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a warming this week regarding the excessive debt being piled up by the developed nations. This includes the United States, where the national debt will reach 95 to 100 per cent of GDP by 2011.
According to the IMF, when the debt to GDP ratio reaches 90 per cent, economic growth is retarded by as much as one per cent per year. Amongst other sources of data, the IMF bases its views on the actual numbers from Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc., all of which are having tremedous debt servicing problems.
Given these doleful numbers, how will the U.S.Government, which is tapped out, fund HSR so as to create a postive rather than drag effect on the economy? Every HSR proposal that I have read is looking to the federal government for a substantial portion of its capital and operating funds.
henry6Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transporation.
The term "Intermodal" is used for passenger transport as well. The passengers are the "buggies" that move from train to bus, etc. If you're not from an urban area with more than just transit buses, you may not be familiar with this usage.
Sam1...Given these doleful numbers, how will the U.S.Government, which is tapped out, fund HSR so as to create a postive rather than drag effect on the economy? Every HSR proposal that I have read is looking to the federal government for a substantial portion of its capital and operating funds.
...Given these doleful numbers, how will the U.S.Government, which is tapped out, fund HSR so as to create a postive rather than drag effect on the economy? Every HSR proposal that I have read is looking to the federal government for a substantial portion of its capital and operating funds.
That's been in the back of my mind for the past year even without an authoritative source.
If you (CMStPnP) had read my post carefully, you would have seen that I was replying to Schlimn. And this response is directed to comments made in several posts.
"To claim that the project was defeated exclusively by Southwest Airlines is to state a clear lack of understanding of Texas politics" was the last sentence in one of my paragraphs. I did not bold any of the words in the sentence; I presume you have done it. I usually don't use bold letters. It is considered a form of shouting in emails and forums. If I want to emphasize a point, I use italics.
Most serious researchers view Wikipedia with a jaundice eye because of its loose editorial standards. At a minimum they recommend that anyone relying on Wikipedia cross check the article with more authoritative sources. I don't know of any graduate school, for example, that would allow a student to rely exclusively on a Wikipedia source. Readers who are interested in Southwest Airlines history should read "Nuts", as well as several other excellent histories on the airline, to get an indepth understanding of its history.
The founders of Southwest Airlines did not take their clues from Southeast Airlines. They used Pacific Southwest Airlines in California as their model. In fact, they had originally planned to lease Lockeed Electra's for their operation, which was the plane used by PSA. However, because of the opposition that they encountered in getting the airline off the ground, they realized that the B737 was a better option.
Of course SWA began its operations during the era of airline regulation. That is part of the beauty of its story. It was able to demonstrate, based on what it had learned from PSA, that the regulatory model was flawed, i.e. it promoted inefficient and costly commercial service. Because of regulation, it was unable to operate beyond Texas until the airlines were deregulated in 1979.
Relatively little capital is required to start an airline. Everything is leased. Southwest Airlines, as an example, owns very little. The airlines are 90 day cash flow operations. The reason that they come and go so easily is because the capital requirements to get into the game are relatively low. It is also the reason why they can get out of it quickly.
Southwest Airlines opposed the Wright Amendment. Whether it benefited from it is arguable. The founders claim that it was a major problem for the SWA business model, which contains a lot of features that the proponents of expanded passenger rail should pick-up on.
Sam1 The founders of Southwest Airlines did not take their clues from Southeast Airlines. They used Pacific Southwest Airlines in California as their model. In fact, they had originally planned to lease Lockeed Electra's for their operation, which was the plane used by PSA. However, because of the opposition that they encountered in getting the airline off the ground, they realized that the B737 was a better option.
Sam thanks for reminding me of PSA. According to a few of my PSA friends the original management took a few various other airline personel. If former SE air persons were hired to help form PSA airline they are not aware. However how PSA came up with their business model is lost in antiquity. But you are right that PSA did encounter some of the intrastate opposition that has showed up from the feds to all these airlines. PSA would probably be still be here today if they had not lost their focus on San Diego bypassing LAX area. That and management lost interest in running PSA and essentially sold out to US Air and then US Air left intrastate CA routes later.
HarveyK400 henry6 Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transportation. The term "Inter-modal" is used for passenger transport as well. The passengers are the "buggies" that move from train to bus, etc. If you're not from an urban area with more than just transit buses, you may not be familiar with this usage.
henry6 Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transportation.
Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transportation.
The term "Inter-modal" is used for passenger transport as well. The passengers are the "buggies" that move from train to bus, etc. If you're not from an urban area with more than just transit buses, you may not be familiar with this usage.
The new (coming soon) Charlotte Gateway Station is being called a Multi-modal facility not inter modal.
It will be served by Amtrak, CATS commuter Rail, CATS Trolley, CATS Buses, and Greyhound and is a short Sprinter bus ride from the airport.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm blownout cylinderYou "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well. Sounds like a candidate route for fast, frequent and convenient service!
That was one of the reasons there has been this debate about HSR up here for the longest time.
The only thing is that I'd like to know if there was/is any other mainline that bisects a quarry in two. I keep having to remind people that the CN doubletrack actually goes through a quarry complex at Beachville ON--not around. That will be what someone in a potential HSR will have also to contend with----unless we re-route the dang thing--
blownout cylinder The only thing is that I'd like to know if there was/is any other mainline that bisects a quarry in two. I keep having to remind people that the CN doubletrack actually goes through a quarry complex at Beachville ON--not around. That will be what someone in a potential HSR will have also to contend with----unless we re-route the dang thing--
There is a quarry south of chicago near I-80 that is bisected by a N - S RR track. In fact there is a quarry road E - W that tunnels under the track. All you Chicago people know more details?
That would be the quarry in McCook along the BNSF (xATSF) and crossed by the IHB.
There was talk about using the IHB for a O'Hare-Midway rail connection; but people didn't take into account the capacity of the line nor slow speed of the freights - not unrelated. Beside the quarry, much of the narrow row was hemmed in by industrial buildings and their sidings.
A bit farther south on the Tri-state (I 294) it bisects the huge quarry at Thornton. There are rail lines (not sure who owns them, the east one is a N-S mainline, I believe) on the east and west boundaries, as well.
schlimm A bit farther south on the Tri-state (I 294) it bisects the huge quarry at Thornton. There are rail lines (not sure who owns them, the east one is a N-S mainline, I believe) on the east and west boundaries, as well.
Sounds like the one I was asking about. Now I remember there was more than one rail line involved.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.