In response to Sam1, I don't think it's at all appropriate to treat the "spread" between Acela fares and regional fares as a "subsidy" because the passengers paying them may pass the costs on to their customers or clients. The same can be said of virtually any expense incurred by a business traveler that's reimbursed by his/her employer. For example, put that "high level manager" paying the Acela fare on an airplane. The air fare will be passsed on to customers or clients the same as the rail fare. Why isn't that a "subsidy" to the air lines? And, based on this theory, why would you distinguish between the regional fare and the Acela fare at all? After all, if the manager uses a slower regional train and pays the lower fare, that fare will similarly be "passed on" to his/her customers or clients. Further, on the corridor, even the regional fares will likely be higher than Megabus. Is that "spread" a "subsidy" too?
And let's not stop with rail fares. How about cost of the nice hotel room and meal the manager had while on his/her trip. Those, too, will be ultimately "passed on" to customers or clients. Are they "subsidies" to the hotel and the restaurant?. Or are they "subsidies" only to the extent that the costs exceed the price of a Motel 6 room and a Big Mac.?
The fare actually paid for the service received by the passenger is not a "subsidy", regardless of whether it is "high" or "low", and regardless of whether it is ultimately passed on to customers, clients or strockholders as part of a business' cost or price structure or the value of its shares. To call user charges like this a "subsidy" would mean all expenses incurred by business people and reimbursed by their employers are "subsidies" to those who provided the goods or services for which they were incurred, In the case of rail fares, that would mean that the only fares that wouldn't be "subsidies" would be the fares paid by non-business travelers.
henry6 REA has nothing to do with this argument line. REA was railroads trying to keep a product line they thought they needed at the time and was an inside industry decision.
REA has nothing to do with this argument line. REA was railroads trying to keep a product line they thought they needed at the time and was an inside industry decision.
Sorry Henry. I always referred to Railway Express as REX or REAX. Should have clarified REA as the Rural Electrification Agency.
REA on this thread refers to the New Deal's Rural Electrification Administration, which, through loans to local co-ops, allowed America's farmers to get the electricity that private electric utilities refused to provide them because of lack of profitability. In 1934 only 11% of farms had electricity; by 1942 almost 50% did. Another good example of how society can solve some problems that were beyond the reach of capitalism.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
REA has nothing to do with this argument line. REA was railroads trying to keep a product line they thought they needed at the time and was an inside industry decision. Sam's comment about government involvement being problematic as to whether or not private enterprise would have capital to build it is the crux of it all. Her example of private utilities building the grid does not really apply since most utilities are or were monopolies within their own regions and districts, therefore, at the time, without real competition. The two most blatant examples of government building was The National Road on the Federal level, and the Erie Canal on a state level. Neither would or could have been built by private enterprise but both allowed for greater economic expansion than was otherwise feasible. Likewise, land grants to speculative railroad builders helped open areas to people, agriculture, and industry otherwise not feasible. And all that was back in the 19th Century. Rural power grids did in fact get help from the Federal Government if you look at the Tennessee Valley project come to think of it. If a town didn't pave its streets, build sidewalks and street drainage back 75-150 years ago, they'd never have attracted industry and commerce. Where does subsidy begin and where does it end?
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.
Sam1 . Without government involvement, it is problematic whether private enterprise would have the capital to build it, although most of the electric grid in the United States was built by investor owned utilities.
. Without government involvement, it is problematic whether private enterprise would have the capital to build it, although most of the electric grid in the United States was built by investor owned utilities.
But Sam how was REA financed? Didn't the utilities later buy in to REAs when they had developed the market?
Historically, the government has played an important role in facilitating the development of the nation's transport infrastructure. Its involvement was predicated on the basis that the users would ultimately pay for the use of the infrastructure. For the most part, that has been true, although the payment streams have not always been transparent, e.g. property taxes are used to pay for city streets and county roads, monies are transferred from the general fund to the highway trust fund (a relatively recent development), etc.
Government facilitation of the development of transport infrastructure is appropriate, in my mind, as long as their is a reasonable probability that the taxpayers will get their money back. This has been largely true in most instances, although there are minor exceptions. Without government involvement, it is problematic whether private enterprise would have the capital to build it, although most of the electric grid in the United States was built by investor owned utilities.
The user should see the true cost of transport and should pay the fully allocated cost to use it, unless the transport is dubbed a utility, e.g. local transit systems, para-mobility vans, etc. When subsidies enter the picture, the user does not understand the true cost. Therefore, he is likely to chose a mode of transport that may not be the optimum solution for him and society.
Case in point. Americans drive personal vehicles that get about half the average mileage of personal vehicles in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc. They do so because the full cost of driving does not show up at the pump. So they don't see the consequence of their behavior and most psychologists agree that behavior is a function of its consequences.
Ultimately, all transport should be funded throuogh user fees paid at the price point, e.g. pump, ticket counter, etc. If society decides that lower economic people should access to any mode of transport, it can supplement their income directly to enable them to rent space on the mode of transport in question. This, by-the-way, is how the electric utility industry functions. If people cannot afford to pay their electric bills, in most states they can get help with them. But the price of electricity at the transfer points, as well as the end user point, reflects its true cost. It works reasonable well and is a good method for rationing electric energy, i.e. getting people to conserve its use.
Dragoman Sam1: you say "I would like to see all transport subsidies go away. That is to say, although there is a role for government in sponsoring transport infrastructure, the users should pay for it, as will as any operating and maintenance costs. If they cannot do so they should be allowed to die." So, no General Fund revenus to the Highway Fund, nor to the air traffic control system, nor for TSA, nor for airports generally. In fact, all of DOT should only be funded by various user fees?
Sam1: you say "I would like to see all transport subsidies go away. That is to say, although there is a role for government in sponsoring transport infrastructure, the users should pay for it, as will as any operating and maintenance costs. If they cannot do so they should be allowed to die."
So, no General Fund revenus to the Highway Fund, nor to the air traffic control system, nor for TSA, nor for airports generally. In fact, all of DOT should only be funded by various user fees?
Why not? My wife and I were talking about Federal funding etc, this morning. Billions and Billions and Billions for the war efforts but cut millions and a hundred thousand here and there for other projects like passenger rail services. If the anti rail group is so bent on private enterprise with no subsidy, then why don't they propose the oil companies and insurance companies (auto insurance) and auto manufacturers be required to build and maintain streets and highways? Doesn't make sense, can't be done. We must get over the idea that socialism is so bad because progress can only be achieved by a consortium of government and private enterprise, a proven formula in the United States since 1776!
On another note: Acela's financial success is, in effect, subsidizing the Northeast Corridor.
[quote user="dakotafred"]
Sam1 seems to be arguing a matter of abstract principle rather than meaningful dollars and cents, and I am puzzled as to why unless it's from enjoyment of argumentation for its own sake. It can't be from class envy or resentment, because sam1 has regaled us with plenty of tales of his own first-class travels. /quote]
There is nothing abstract about Amtrak's subsidies, which in 2010 were approximately $3.6 billion, and were intended to cover operating losses as well as make capital improvements. In the scheme of things, i.e. the federal deficit, it is a relatively small amount of money, but I have long believed that one cannot put out a fire (national deficit and debt) by pouring just a little more gasoline on it.
I would like to see all transport subsidies go away. Although there is a role for government in jump starting national transport infrastructure, the users should pay for it, as well as any operating and maintenance costs. If they will not do so, the transport mode, especially commercial modes, should be allowed to whither away.
Since you know nothing about my income, class, etc., your comments are out of place and have nothing to do with the subject. If you think that the Acela service does not receive a subsidy from the federal government or people who use any premium service, irrespective of the carrier, and are paying for it with an expense account, are not passing it on to others, thereby enjoying the ride on someone else, make a case for your view with logic and facts. But stop throwing barbs that have nothing to do with the discussion. Forums are for airing differing points of view. They are not for rants agains the participants.
schlimm Subsidy = 1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. 2. agrant of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings. A subsidy is usually given to promote commercial enterprise: "a subsidy to manufacturers during a war. " I fail to see who is being subsidized in the case of Acela. On operating expenses, it pays its own way. Rather better than the billions in subsidies paid to the oil companies every year through tax credits. So, I guess for sam1, words are what sam says they mean.
Subsidy = 1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. 2. agrant of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings. A subsidy is usually given to promote commercial enterprise: "a subsidy to manufacturers during a war. " I fail to see who is being subsidized in the case of Acela. On operating expenses, it pays its own way. Rather better than the billions in subsidies paid to the oil companies every year through tax credits.
So, I guess for sam1, words are what sam says they mean.
In many cases a subsidy is substance over form and does not necessarily confirm to a dictionary definition..
The Acela receives a direct subsidy from the federal government to help cover the cost of the infrastructure that it runs on, the cost of the equipment that it uses, and the capitalized interest embedded in both. And many of the passengers, in effect, are having their premium ride subsidized by their clients, customers, taxpayers, etc.
The oil companies receive no direct subsidies other than tax decuctions that generally are available to all businesses. They are able to take certain credits that are available to all extractive industries, e.g. coal, gas, etc. They also get a credit for the risks associated with drilling in high risk areas, e.g. Gulf of Mexico, Alaska Slope, etc. But subsidies paid to oil companies have nothing to do with whether subsidies should be paid to passenger rail, especially for premium services, and whether using premium services via an expense account is a form of indirect subsidy.
Many if not most people don't think of the tax deductions associated with home ownership (mortgage interest, property taxes, exclusion from taxation of most of the capital gain on sale, etc.) as a subsidy. But economists and accountants have known for years that they are subsidies, even though they don't a traditional dictionary definition of a subsidy.
So, Henry, what can we do to educate the rest to the fact -- as I believe you have repeatedly alluded to -- that the only way to actually have successful passenger service is to operate an integrated system that actually provides a service to its actual and potential riders, as opposed to just operating trains along a track?
Dragoman Is it "worth the investment to build a railroad just to run Acela?" I don't think that is the best question.
Is it "worth the investment to build a railroad just to run Acela?" I don't think that is the best question.
But, Dragoma, that is the way HSR is being percieved by many people in this country. It is also the way freight railroads want the public to percieve it. Most don't know a railroad exists unless it is 1) commuter and the or someone they know ride it; 2) there is a grade crossing which is occupied by a train and holds them up on thier journies; 3) they live next to the tracks and the trains keep them awake; 4) they work for a company that ships or receives (or both) product by rail; and 5) they work for a railroad. That probably takes care of less than a third of the population. Mention train and they think of a circle of track around the Christmas tree.
Is it "worth the investment to build a railroad just to run Acela?" I don't think that is the best question. The NEC (like most other rail line are, and should be) is an integrated transportation corridor -- Acela, Regionals, various commuter agencies, and yes, even a little freight. Don't forget, Amtrak's financials show income from rents paid by commuter and freight operators. And, just from a passenger-operations standpoint, I believe that the integrated and inter-related nature of the NEC -- different levels of service, serving different groups of stations -- is exactly what contributes to the Corridor's success (such as it is, reagrdless of exactly how you measure it).
This model (local & regional services feedin high-speed lines) is what is found on successful European and Japanese lines. Some adaptation of such a model (rather than one middle-of-the-night train in each direction) might help save long distance services.
Let the arguments begin?
I think, Schlimm, that is is paying is own way of equipment, power (electricity), crew, etc. and then a little bit more. The subsidy in this case would come in that Acela does not own its own track but Amtrak and MNRR do (CTDOT). So because of its earnings Acela is a stellar performer by bringing home its costs and then some. And while we are dazzled by its performance, the question remains is it worth the investment to build a railroad just to run Acela? Therein begins the arguements.
Sam1 seems to be arguing a matter of abstract principle rather than meaningful dollars and cents, and I am puzzled as to why unless it's from enjoyment of argumentation for its own sake. It can't be from class envy or resentment, because sam1 has regaled us with plenty of tales of his own first-class travels.
Sam1 The issue regarding the Acela is whether it requires a subsidy that is paid by people who for the most part cannot ride it. Clearly, this is the case. All taxpayers are subsidizing the Acela as well as passenger trains in general. The underlying question, in my mind, is whether Joe Six Pack should be required to subsidize upper class riders on the Acela or any other mode of commercial transport,
The issue regarding the Acela is whether it requires a subsidy that is paid by people who for the most part cannot ride it. Clearly, this is the case. All taxpayers are subsidizing the Acela as well as passenger trains in general. The underlying question, in my mind, is whether Joe Six Pack should be required to subsidize upper class riders on the Acela or any other mode of commercial transport,
So what would it cost the taxpayer/customer for regular service, if such service was able to exists at all, without the input from profit from the Acela? In otherwords, Acela is a fund source for the route and its other trains? So, thats the American entrapenurial spirit: do something that makes money! Here it is, the money if funneled into the system rather than to stockholders...oh, I see, it is socialism not capitalism.
dakotafred I think sam1's distinction between first class and coach is meaningless on two fronts. 1. As a pass-on cost to customers of the traveling exec or attorney, you're talking pennies per customer -- which, if the customer finds onerous, he can switch his business to a company whose people travel coach. 2. As a subsidized service -- pretend here that only Amtrak is subsidized -- which does a better job of repaying its cost, Acela or the lesser trains of the NEC? Business class or coach? (Sam1 showed us the difference in the cost of a ticket.) For that matter, on the LD trains, I'll bet those pricey sleeping accomodations, which so often run full, return more of their cost than all those half-empty coaches.
I think sam1's distinction between first class and coach is meaningless on two fronts.
1. As a pass-on cost to customers of the traveling exec or attorney, you're talking pennies per customer -- which, if the customer finds onerous, he can switch his business to a company whose people travel coach.
2. As a subsidized service -- pretend here that only Amtrak is subsidized -- which does a better job of repaying its cost, Acela or the lesser trains of the NEC? Business class or coach? (Sam1 showed us the difference in the cost of a ticket.)
For that matter, on the LD trains, I'll bet those pricey sleeping accomodations, which so often run full, return more of their cost than all those half-empty coaches.
How do you know its pennies per customer. In the legal services audits that we performed (the lawyers screamed bloody murder because we were one of the first large companies in the U.S. to audit its law firms), their travel and entertainment pass through dollars were significant. They were a small percentage of the whole, but they added up. Interestingly, we recaptured a significant portion of them because they had been unauthorized by the letters of engagement. In other words, we caught the lawyers cheating. Who would have thunk it?
Amtrak does a better job of recovering the Acela's costs, i.e. generates an operating profit, because its revenues are generated from premium class customers, most of whom are not paying for the service out of their pocket. The same applies, of course, as I said to first and business class air travel.
Paul Milenkovic I tend to side with Don Oltmann on all of those expense-account business passengers on the Acela. If these captains of industry, Masters of the Universe as it were, deem to spend their expense account dollars on a premium train instead of the NY-DC Shuttle, maybe there is something to the NARP party line of the train providing downtown-to-downtown service, of providing laptop plugs and tables and valuable in-transit work time. As to the buck-a-mile NY-Philly per-mile ticket cost, maybe Amtrak can charge that much because the train is providing that much value, at least to somebody. On the other hand, that the Acela is covering its direct operating cost and contributing to the cost of operating the tracks, and does this by charging taxi-fare levels of ticket prices, maybe that speaks to the fact that for whatever reason, trains happen to be a high-cost way of generating passenger miles. And the Acela is a train without baggage cars, crew-dorm, sleepers, lounge car, diner, etc -- apart from the panache of being the Acela, it is pretty slim on amenities appreciated by the Lucius Beebe's and E.M. Frimbo's of the world. That is, the high cost train competes successfuly, confirming all of NARP's talking points about trains, where the alternatives, say taking a plane from NY-Philly or fighting traffic on the NJ Turnpike is even higher cost and less convenient. That said, maybe the proper application for the train is where such high fares can be charged, and in markets that don't support fares at that level, the train is misapplied.
I tend to side with Don Oltmann on all of those expense-account business passengers on the Acela. If these captains of industry, Masters of the Universe as it were, deem to spend their expense account dollars on a premium train instead of the NY-DC Shuttle, maybe there is something to the NARP party line of the train providing downtown-to-downtown service, of providing laptop plugs and tables and valuable in-transit work time. As to the buck-a-mile NY-Philly per-mile ticket cost, maybe Amtrak can charge that much because the train is providing that much value, at least to somebody.
On the other hand, that the Acela is covering its direct operating cost and contributing to the cost of operating the tracks, and does this by charging taxi-fare levels of ticket prices, maybe that speaks to the fact that for whatever reason, trains happen to be a high-cost way of generating passenger miles. And the Acela is a train without baggage cars, crew-dorm, sleepers, lounge car, diner, etc -- apart from the panache of being the Acela, it is pretty slim on amenities appreciated by the Lucius Beebe's and E.M. Frimbo's of the world.
That is, the high cost train competes successfuly, confirming all of NARP's talking points about trains, where the alternatives, say taking a plane from NY-Philly or fighting traffic on the NJ Turnpike is even higher cost and less convenient. That said, maybe the proper application for the train is where such high fares can be charged, and in markets that don't support fares at that level, the train is misapplied.
When a person rides on an expense account, he is not spending his or her dollars. In most instances he or she is spending someone else's dollars, i.e. clients, customers or victims of government services, i.e. IRS.
Amtrak can charge more than a dollar per mile between Philadelphia and New York because there is no comparable premium commercial service for all practicable purposes. It is less than 90 air miles from Philadelphia to Newark or the Long Island airports. Most of the flights are very expensive and, in fact, are intended as connecting flights for overseas travelers. Or at least it appears that way.
Roads do not pay for themselves. The users pay for them through fuel taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, and property taxes. Unfortunately, because of the deceptive way the revenues are collected, most motorists don't see the full cost of building and maintaining the country's roads at the pump. But they pay for them.
The guy or gal who drives a Cadillac pays a somewhat higher portion of the cost to build and maintain the nation's roads. His car gets fewer miles per gallon than most more modestly priced vehicles. In many states he pays more in fees, because of the vehicle's fair market value, to buy and operate it. Moreover, he probably lives in a better house than the Chevorlet driver, which means he pays more in property taxes, which are used to pay for most city streets and county roads.
Roads in general (in total) do not pay for themselves, but require tax money in addition to gasoline taxes and motor vehicle registration taxes, and tolls on toll highways. Nor do I claim that some of this subsidization is bad. "If you have it, a truck brought it." Regardless of intermodal or anything else.
But just because I drive a Chevorlet is no reason to complain that the Cadillac drive should not get the same level of highway subusidization that I get. My correct American attitude, as opposed to one believing in Socialism, is: I am happy he can afford a Cadillac, that makes my Chevorlet affodable to me. (I am 79 years old and no longer own a personal automobile. In my driving career, I owned one Ford and two Chevrolets, and appreciate that I could afford a personal car, and was happy occasionally to ride in friends' Cadillacs, Merecedez, Porsche, Oldsmobiles. Buiks, Chryslers, and Lincolns, without feeling jealous. But many of them never splurged for a private varnish intercity luxury trip.).
Again, I am happy that the Acela service is available and people are willing to pay for it. Their money makes the Regional Express service more affordable and more available.
What is the surprise here? This is the perfect case of Amtrak providing a service instead of just running a train. It is designed, scheduled, staffed, advertised, marketed, and priced for a particular clientle between specific points and does just what they say it will do. If as much care and attention were able to be given to other train routes and service offered to meet the deifferent needs, then maybe there would be more trains and more success. Again: you can't just run a train or a few trains, you have to provide a service that meets the needs of the target clients. NE Corridor Regional trains are often sold out becuse of the frequency and price.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1..... And if your going to claim that the airlines benefited directly from the military spend, as if there otherwise would have been no development of commercial aviation, then you need to make reference to the governmental support for the development of railroads. Would there have been no railroads had there been no government involvement? No one knows. But so what? What does support for the airlines have to do with passenger railroads? Do you honestly believe that air travel would have been thwarted and people would be happy to spend four or five days on a train getting from New York to California? The big difference is that the investment in the railroads, prior to the formation of Amtrak in 1971, was paid back. Equally important, airline passengers and motorists have paid for their infrastructure, although sometimes it is difficult to trace. Only rail passengers have not been able to generate sufficient revenues to pay for their mode of transport. Whether that changes in the future remains to be seen. So I am sticking with my original point. People who ride first and business class on Amtrak, including the Acela, get a subsidy at the expense of the taxpayers as well as their customers and clients. As I said, the same concept applies to the customer and client aspects of first and business class air travel. Presumably we can assume that it is not an issue with the folks who choose to ride the Bolt Bus between Philadelphia and New York, which I might add is a private enterprise operation that gets no subsidies.
And if your going to claim that the airlines benefited directly from the military spend, as if there otherwise would have been no development of commercial aviation, then you need to make reference to the governmental support for the development of railroads. Would there have been no railroads had there been no government involvement? No one knows.
But so what? What does support for the airlines have to do with passenger railroads? Do you honestly believe that air travel would have been thwarted and people would be happy to spend four or five days on a train getting from New York to California?
The big difference is that the investment in the railroads, prior to the formation of Amtrak in 1971, was paid back. Equally important, airline passengers and motorists have paid for their infrastructure, although sometimes it is difficult to trace. Only rail passengers have not been able to generate sufficient revenues to pay for their mode of transport. Whether that changes in the future remains to be seen.
So I am sticking with my original point. People who ride first and business class on Amtrak, including the Acela, get a subsidy at the expense of the taxpayers as well as their customers and clients. As I said, the same concept applies to the customer and client aspects of first and business class air travel. Presumably we can assume that it is not an issue with the folks who choose to ride the Bolt Bus between Philadelphia and New York, which I might add is a private enterprise operation that gets no subsidies.
Several things, Sam. One, the airline industry did not have to pay for research and development of aircraft, etc. because the government did. The railroads had to pay for research and development in the cost of purchase of their equipment. In the US commercial airports are governements built, operated, and maintained. Air traffic control is in the hands of the US government. Airlines do not pay the full cost of all these services and the cost of an airline ticket does not cover the remaining costs, therefore there is a lot of subisdy and it is very clearly traced. Same with highway and commercial users like buses and trucks who do not pay full share of the cost of building, maintaining, and policing in perportion to what damage they do. The Bolt Bus would never be able to operate if the taxpayers didn't build the roads in the first place...subisdies on the highway are also very traceable.
Amtrak has been a political joke and has not paid for itself nor will it ever. It runs passenger trains and in very few cases can actually say it provides a service. Acela and the Northeast Corridor is one place there is service along with several other "corridors". But, the key is to provide service and not just run trains. Can the government do with Amtrak what they did with Conrail? They certainly don't act like they want to by not funding or giving it ways and means to be a service provider instead of a train operator. Today's invstment community is hell bent on getting 80% of every $100 therefore rarely if ever accept 50% of $200. Somewhere along the line here either Congress or business has got to come to the senses!
blue streak 1 Sam1: The last airplane that benefited directly from military research and experience was the Boeing 707, which is a carbon copy, in many respects, of the KC-135. Nope it goes much further. You are correct about the KC-135 however the B-727, B737s were both essentially the same fuselage as the B-707 (KC-135). B-747 fuselage development that came from R & D paid by DOD for the C-5 (which went to lockheed). Another subsidity that is almost the same amount is the cost of engines. The JTD-3 came from the eninge of the KC-135 This was the engine on B-707,720, DC-8s (JT-4s on some DC-8s also subsidized). The JT-8 came from fighter jets and powered the DC-9, B-737- 100, -200s . The CFM-56 a GE jet on other B-737s came from military research. B-747 JT-9s came from early C-5 engines. I could go on and on. But I take umbrage saying the final customer pays all the freight (pass fare) only if riding Acelas. If those business men took an airline instead of train they would bill (either directly or causing employer to hire more persons to do the necessary jobs) for that time they could not work because of work restrictions when flying. Therefore there would be billing for security line waits, taxiing, take offs turbulence etc.
Sam1: The last airplane that benefited directly from military research and experience was the Boeing 707, which is a carbon copy, in many respects, of the KC-135.
The last airplane that benefited directly from military research and experience was the Boeing 707, which is a carbon copy, in many respects, of the KC-135.
Nope it goes much further. You are correct about the KC-135 however the B-727, B737s were both essentially the same fuselage as the B-707 (KC-135). B-747 fuselage development that came from R & D paid by DOD for the C-5 (which went to lockheed).
Another subsidity that is almost the same amount is the cost of engines. The JTD-3 came from the eninge of the KC-135 This was the engine on B-707,720, DC-8s (JT-4s on some DC-8s also subsidized). The JT-8 came from fighter jets and powered the DC-9, B-737- 100, -200s . The CFM-56 a GE jet on other B-737s came from military research. B-747 JT-9s came from early C-5 engines. I could go on and on.
But I take umbrage saying the final customer pays all the freight (pass fare) only if riding Acelas. If those business men took an airline instead of train they would bill (either directly or causing employer to hire more persons to do the necessary jobs) for that time they could not work because of work restrictions when flying. Therefore there would be billing for security line waits, taxiing, take offs turbulence etc.
The operative words are benefited directly.
The other airplanes were developed because the airlines quickly realized that the jet airplane was much more productive than the piston driven airplanes. Of course, they benefited from the technology knowledge base. Had there been no military aviation, the U.S. could have taken a clue from the British, who amongst other things were the first to develop a workable jet engine.
I had a further thought regarding the development of commercial aviation that I did not include in their posting initially. The earliest commercially viable airliners (DC-2, DC-3, and DC-4) were developed as civilian airliners. They were not developed as military aircraft, although the military made great use of them during WWII.
Railroads have also benefited from a technology knowledge base that was spawned in other activities. The earliest application of steam power was not in the railroads, but rather in factories and steamboats. Also, one of the earliest applicaions of diesel engines in the United States was the U.S. submarine program, which had learned the hard way that gasoline engines and submarines do not make good bed fellows.
Sam1 The last airplane that benefited directly from military research and experience was the Boeing 707, which is a carbon copy, in many respects, of the KC-135.
Sam1 ........ Many folks on these forums are quick to point to supposed subsidies received by the airlines, but seem to over look the large subsidy received by passenger rail (higher per passenger mile than any competing mode of transport) or forget that most of the railroads in the U.S. got their start with significant government support. The amount of so-called subsidies received by competing modes of transport is irrelevant. The key question is where is passenger rail a viable option, at what level, and how much should the country invest in it? Obviously, this is a legitimate question. And it is part of the national debate that will be on-going for years, I suspect.
........
Many folks on these forums are quick to point to supposed subsidies received by the airlines, but seem to over look the large subsidy received by passenger rail (higher per passenger mile than any competing mode of transport) or forget that most of the railroads in the U.S. got their start with significant government support.
The amount of so-called subsidies received by competing modes of transport is irrelevant. The key question is where is passenger rail a viable option, at what level, and how much should the country invest in it? Obviously, this is a legitimate question. And it is part of the national debate that will be on-going for years, I suspect.
Passenger rail subsidy appears larger because of fewer riders...if ridership was up, it would be less, and maybe equal to airline and other modes. But you are right about the subsidies being irrelevant when it comes to wanting and paying for higher levels of quality and service; even paying a price for a label!. I know of an instance of a furniture dealer who sold a friend of his a living room set for less than the high end store down the street but had to deliver it in a plain truck so that the neighbors wouldn't know the purchase was made at the low price store. Another instance I had customer who was a gift and antique shop in a touristy town who's prices were double those of shops outside the town! But there were people willing to pay the higher price all the time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.