Idea: Western LD trains split up into multiple shorter trains?

[iggy]

A bit off-topic.

"TSA is Amtrak's best marketing."

Not so much anymore = TSA has invaded Chicago Union Station for awhile now. So that advantage is going away quickly.

As to Never Happened's comments - many of those things on that list can easily be proven with a bit of reading. The scanners are nudie - ask some of the TSA employees who have been busted for collecting the scanned results of attractive women. Radiation levels for the scanners have been show to be at a very unhealthy level. It has been show that the devices were NOT properly tested and that radiation levels haven't always been properly reported - stated as lower when they are much higher. This is also why the scanners have been or should be in the process of being eliminated.

I'd be more than happy to provide a long list of links to reading material to support everything I have stated.

Many sleeper passengers would prefer a quicker ride. Most who prefer slower "old fashioned" train experience are a bit older. While I enjoy looking out the window and seeing what the view has to offer. I would prefer to travel at speeds many other nations do - making it less possible to enjoy the view and get to where I'm heading faster.

Reality is in this country we will most likely never have a platypus nose train or better experience anytime soon.

Adding more complications / hassles to a passenger's trip - long distance or short is a great way to lose business.

 

[JoeBas]

TSA at CUS involves a dog, a pony, and a show, in that order... there's a MICROSCOPIC chance they ask to check your bag. There's a zero chance they try to search your person.

 

[Texan Eagle]

You seem to be very clearly implying here that if it hasn't happened to you, it isn't happening.

Now let's go through your list of TSA-hatred. Let me tell you, I am a brown-skinned young male, so fitting perfectly in the stereotype demographic that paranoid Americans consider "terrorists", so you'd guess if TSA indeed did all that you mention, it should have happened with me more than average Joe in my 50+ flights in last 4 years, but did it happen? Let's see-

Also, checked "just put it in checked luggage" is a crap solution that costs both time and money.

Well, sorry but you can't have everything delivered to you on a silver platter. If you have specific hard requirements, then be prepared to spend time and/or money for it. If carrying your nail filer or custom specific brand toothpaste in a gigantic tube is so important to you, you have to pay for it, as simple as that. And its not like Amtrak is some utopian system where everything is accommodated. How many times have you see threads started on AU about folks wanting to carry pets on Amtrak but can't do it because of rules? Every mode of transport has its pros and cons, all I was suggesting was that Amtrak is not some holy grail of amazingness and neither are airlines incarnation of devil.

 

[jis]

Never happens regarding TSA is an unsupportable position of course. However, it is a long long way from that unsupportable position to the other dubious position that it is very common.

All that an individual can say with certainty is what happened to him or her or not. Beyond that one has to look for statistics that are hard to come by. But my surmise is that if say 20% of the people were on an average being groped each day, TSA would have ceased to exist by now. Just my guess.

OTOH, I think with some careful research the following is a sustainable position: Business travelers who happen to travel often enough to have become part of the TSA Pre program by one of the several possible paths into it, are likely to no longer have to wait in extremely long lines, to have to pass through anything more intrusive than a magenetometer, and to have to take their laptops out of their bag. Again. Never say never. But what is important is what is the common case.

So any relative measure of time for a trip that uses a number like 1 hour to get through security for a business traveler will not align very well with reality under normal circumstances. Again there would be exceptional circumstances where anything can happen. But people don;t plan trips based on the worst case exceptional circumstance.

<sarcasm>

As for nudie pictures, now that you know that the British intelligence agency (apparently with full knowledge of the American intelligence community) has all your self created nudies and other video shots form your sexy Yahoo video calls anyway, you hardly need to go to the airport to have that pleasure.

As someone said, at least in 1984 it was the big brother who provided the cameras. This is one better than that wherein your own camera is used by big brother.

</sarcasm>

 

[Green Maned Lion]

*shrugs* One has to accept that the future is going to bring a large and uncertain degree of misery for most people, and agony for many. I fight for it to say I fight for it. I have hopes to win a battle here and a battle there. Winning the war? The odds make the Americans over the British seem a surefire thing.

 

[greatcats]

I have not read every response to this topic, but find the premise of your shorter run trains abhorrent. To me they would only make sense if there were multiple train frequencies on a route. A long distance train going the whole distance with shorter runs as a supplement. I think that sort of thing used to exist, but can't see that happening again anytime soon.

 

[JoeBas]

Never happens regarding TSA is an unsupportable position of course. However, it is a long long way from that unsupportable position to the other dubious position that it is very common.

All that an individual can say with certainty is what happened to him or her or not. Beyond that one has to look for statistics that are hard to come by. But my surmise is that if say 20% of the people were on an average being groped each day, TSA would have ceased to exist by now. Just my guess.

And all I can say is feduppedness with TSA is a driving factor in Amtraks INCREASED load factors, based on hearing on every LD trip people telling me so. If just 1% of air travelers each year switch to Amtrak because of TSA, think what that means based on order of magnitude of each mode's total passengers.

 

[neroden]

Also keep in mind that for most business travelers who fly frequently, who you hope would use sleepers, the TSA sucks waiting time is down close to zero now.

I'm not looking at the middle-management market, or the CEO market. I explained that.
The core market for sleepers is well-to-do people who *don't* travel that frequently, who *do* have to put up with the ritual humiliation from the TSA, who are travelling on personal business a couple of times a year. The very, very large market of people who visit their families once or twice a year. I explained that. Did you actually read my comment?

The fact that the TSA gives special, preferential treatment to a certain group of frequent fliers is an irrelevance. (It does make it clear how utterly useless the TSA is for its stated purpose -- it's just theater and abuse. Agents of real terrorist organizations will have no trouble getting "pre-cleared", just as real Soviet spies had no trouble getting employed as upper management by the CIA and FBI.)

As for flying first class, most paid first class fliers on domestic flights with the exception of the PS flights appear to be connecting to international legs where they are in BC. At least on the flights I frequent 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the FC cabin is complementary or mileage or certificate upgrades. Domestic is mostly an airline provided perk for frequent fliers.

The first class paid airline market is *now* miniscule, as you note; the airlines have basically driven away the market entirely by sky-high pricing and low capacity.
First class on an airplane might be something which sleeper passengers would consider, but at those prices, apparently the passengers prefer not to deal with the TSA and airports.

 

[neroden]

In the old days, one would actually stand up and stretch in the aisle on the plane. There was, unfortunately a period when the security craziness meant that they were not permitting this any more, which was around the time I swore off the disgusting indignity of US air travel altogether. Has that been reversed yet?

Actually, another, probably much larger, market is anyone who doesn't want to be groped by the TSA, nudie-scanned by the TSA, subjected to dangerous doses of radiation from the backscatter scanners, have their luggage broken into by the TSA, be assaulted and threatened by the TSA... anyone who needs to carry their own liquids on the trip due to special dietary needs... anyone who wants to use a brand of toothpaste which doesn't come in TSA-approved sizes... anyone who needs their nail file... etc.

You seem to have an extreme idea of air travel, much of which is not true. You can stand up, stretch in the aisle and walk up and down the aisles as many times as you want, there is no rule against it.

I'm glad to hear that that rule was changed. This WAS in fact being prohibited in 2002.

subjected to dangerous doses of radiation from the backscatter scanners - the radiation you get out of a brief scan is nowhere near dangerous levels

Yes, it is, you're misinformed.

have their luggage broken into by the TSA - NOT EVEN ONCE

Happened repeatedly to my family.

be assaulted and threatened by the TSA - NEVER

Obviously assaults are relatively rare and I haven't experienced that. Threatened twice.

anyone who needs to carry their own liquids on the trip due to special dietary needs - You can carry it in checked bags, just not on carry ons.

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of "dietary needs". Some people need to drink or eat on the plane.

anyone who wants to use a brand of toothpaste which doesn't come in TSA-approved sizes - You can carry it in checked bags, just not on carry ons.

Have you ever heard the rule "never put anything in checked luggage which you will definitely need at the other end"? That's been a rule of plane travel since before I was *born*.
Have you never had your checked luggage delayed by a day, or more? It's happened repeatedly to me and my family. Maybe you've been lucky.

Air travel sucks and there's really no disputing it.

 

[neroden]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the whole point of flying into/out of Chicago Midway, that you're using a cheaper air carrier at a less convenient airport.

Midway is a MUCH more convenient airport. O'Hare's in the freaking middle of nowhere.

especially considering that those who earn enough money to afford a sleeper are those who are going to put the highest value on a shorter travel time.

But they're also the ones who will put the highest value on creature comforts, and the highest value on personal service, and the highest value on respectful treatment, and the highest value on on-time service.
Since 2001, air travel has been really, really awful for creature comforts, personal service, and respectful treatment, and it's become quite bad for on-time service as well. Shorter travel time (when there are no delays) and cheaper tickets is all it's got going for it.

Speaking of delays, a friend of mine recently spent 12 hours waiting in one intermediate airport and then had to sleep overnight in a second airport on an airplane trip from upstate NY to Florida. Which was supposed to be same-day. "Shorter travel time" my ass -- she would have gotten there quicker by train. It was, admittedly, cheaper.

If Amtrak can provide even a modicum of creature comforts, personal service, and respectful treatment, Amtrak can grab the entire market of well-to-do people who have some tolerance for longer travel time, and it's a *large* market. This is more viable in the shorter markets (single overnight or less) and probably less viable in the longer markets (double overnight), due to a larger differential between air travel time and train travel time.

A lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand that a sleeper from Chicago to Denver is actually much, much more attractive than an airplane flight as-actually-exists from Chicago to Denver for the vast majority of people who have the spare time and the money. Well, it is much more attractive.

An airplane flight such as Pan Am or TWA provided in the 1950s, with no security at the airports and "luxury" style on-board service? Well, that's a different competitor, and that's the one where the trains lost the competition back in the day, and probably would lose again. But that doesn't *exist* any more in the air.

(Don't get me started about airline deregulation, which has really been a disaster in the long run; we now have a strange system of airlines almost none of which make a long-term profit, which are bailed out on a routine basis in bankruptcy court, while more and more routes are cut. And they can't afford new airplanes. While their fuel costs keep going up. It's actually kind of where the railroads were in the 50s; a death spiral for the private industry.)

There's a lot of people in this demographic who, finding the air trip particularly unpleasant, will, therefore, compare Amtrak with driving, not with flying. (No security theater as long as you don't cross the border. Take your own car, so you can set the car up for your comfort however you like, and take loads of baggage. Stop whenever you like and whereever you like. Easy to divert to a different route.)

If Amtrak maintains a level of creature comforts, personal service, and respectful treatment which differentiates Amtrak's situation from the disgusting air situation, Amtrak will continue profiting from sleeper service. It doesn't have to be that high a level of service, it just has to be noticeably better than the airline situation -- and it also has to seem competitive with driving (which may actually be harder).

I've run into quite a lot of people who were disgusted enough with the airline experience that they considered driving rather than taking airline trips. Many of them had not thought of train travel and did not want to consider it due to its reputation among their generation. Driving, as you may imagine, takes much, much more time even for trips as short as NY-Chicago, but it's a fairly common alternative under consideration. This should be enough to dispel any myths that travel time is the be-all and end-all.

 

[Anderson]

Going down an incomplete list of comments:
On "eat or drink on planes"...sometimes, someone is going to need something relatively specific due to medical (or other) restrictions, and not all airports are dining hubs. You leave out of PHF and the dining options are restricted; at ORF, the last time I went through, most of the dining was on the wrong side of the gate.

I've had several TSA rummage-throughs as well (I want to say either two or three occasions, but bear in mind that's out of about five round trips I've made by air since 2003). I've never had my luggage lost, fortunately.

As to the no-standing rule, I seem to recall hearing about it once upon a time. It's on the list of particularly absurd over-reactions the TSA has come up with over the years.

Finally, luxury service (or something close to it) does exist...if you're willing to drop several thousand dollars on it, for the most part. From what I can tell, if you think sleepers are the reserve of the wealthy, they've got nothing on the high-end airline services. Had the private railroads gone up against today's airline market, I suspect quite a bit more would have managed to stagger through, and you would have had more than a few markets where the airlines just didn't really bother to compete in the first place.

As to competing with driving, there's a sweet spot here as well. If a drive is going to take less than about eight hours, Amtrak needs to be time-competitive and/or there needs to be an impediment to driving. Such an impediment can be as simple as expensive parking at a destination (for example, the $20-30 parking at hotels in some major cities). There also needs to be viable non-car transportation at the end of the trip. Somewhere above eight hours, you start running into some issues with driving, as a mix of fatigue, necessary stops, and wasted time en route...and this gets worse as the trip gets longer. Basically, you cease being able to consider "just" the drive time and have to factor in rest stops, etc., and if you lose travel time to an overnight stop the train can gain a major edge.

And I agree with Nathanael...there's a certain generation that mainly remembers the disaster that was the last few years of private-sector train travel (or, to be fair, some of Amtrak's misguided service cuts). It takes a lot to reverse that. However, there's a younger generation that doesn't particularly care to be stuck behind the wheel as well, and that has been driving the boom in both train travel and bus travel over the last decade or so.

 

[neroden]

Have you never had your checked luggage delayed by a day, or more? It's happened repeatedly to me and my family.

In the spirit of describing stuff about airlines...

we eventually figured out that on certain routes, USAir (and its successors) would deliberately put your checked luggage on a flight later than the one you were taking. (Thus causing your luggage to miss all your connections and arrive a day late.)

This appears to have been done due to the need to keep the planes below a certain weight in order to get it into the air. Planes with full loads of passengers would have the checked luggage displaced to less-full planes. We've caught other airlines doing the same thing.

 

[iggy]

Love when someone claims I am misinformed - when I have done more reading on the subject from multiple resources - many medical - remember your history - for many years people thought those foot fitting radiation machines were safe - why not ask all those that got cancer later how that worked out for them.

It's a mute point in many ways - the scanners are more show than anything and again the Amtrak advantage is gone - TSA has their hooks in - inside at least Chicago Union Station.

 

[Paulus]

Love when someone claims I am misinformed - when I have done more reading on the subject from multiple resources - many medical - remember your history - for many years people thought those foot fitting radiation machines were safe - why not ask all those that got cancer later how that worked out for them.

It's a mute point in many ways - the scanners are more show than anything and again the Amtrak advantage is gone - TSA has their hooks in - inside at least Chicago Union Station.

Backscatter x-rays (which have been in the process of removal from airports anyhow) have doses measured in nanosieverts (about 30). You have a greater radiation exposure from the flight itself.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the whole point of flying into/out of Chicago Midway, that you're using a cheaper air carrier at a less convenient airport.

Midway is a MUCH more convenient airport. O'Hare's in the freaking middle of nowhere.

Half an hour from downtown is hardly the "freaking middle of nowhere" and as Trogdor noted, it's actually rather closer to the wealthier suburbs and northern Chicago.

especially considering that those who earn enough money to afford a sleeper are those who are going to put the highest value on a shorter travel time.

But they're also the ones who will put the highest value on creature comforts, and the highest value on personal service, and the highest value on respectful treatment, and the highest value on on-time service.

And what makes you think that Amtrak is able to successfully compete with a hotel for that? That's not to mention that the long distance trains are not exactly what anyone might consider to be terribly successful at on-time performance. The competition isn't just against airlines, you also have to woo people away from the hotels because even if the air travel itself is uncomfortable, a short duration of uncomfortable flight is just that: short duration. When they land, they'll be able to head in to a three hundred dollar a night hotel, saving money compared to an Amtrak fare nonetheless, and I guarantee that they'll have far better creature comforts, personal service, and respectful treatment than they would find on Amtrak.

Since 2001, air travel has been really, really awful for creature comforts, personal service, and respectful treatment, and it's become quite bad for on-time service as well. Shorter travel time (when there are no delays) and cheaper tickets is all it's got going for it.

Speaking of delays, a friend of mine recently spent 12 hours waiting in one intermediate airport and then had to sleep overnight in a second airport on an airplane trip from upstate NY to Florida. Which was supposed to be same-day. "Shorter travel time" my ass -- she would have gotten there quicker by train. It was, admittedly, cheaper.

That's fantastic. Shall we bring up Amtrak's ability to be up to three days late, which I've seen happen?

If Amtrak can provide even a modicum of creature comforts, personal service, and respectful treatment, Amtrak can grab the entire market of well-to-do people who have some tolerance for longer travel time, and it's a *large* market. This is more viable in the shorter markets (single overnight or less) and probably less viable in the longer markets (double overnight), due to a larger differential between air travel time and train travel time.

Prove that it is a large market. There are many many studies which show that people prioritize money and time, and find experimental values for both in their interrelation, and they do not bode well for the sleeper market. The travel time is simply far too long.

A lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand that a sleeper from Chicago to Denver is actually much, much more attractive than an airplane flight as-actually-exists from Chicago to Denver for the vast majority of people who have the spare time and the money. Well, it is much more attractive.

Is it really now? It is, after all, two extra days that one must take off of work (including the return). Do you think that they prefer to spend the extra days sitting on a train? Or perhaps they might find it enjoyable to take that extra time to visit sights to see in Denver. Or perhaps they would prefer not to take the days at all and simply use it another time, for another trip. Perhaps it is a business trip, do you think that their employers would prefer that they sit on a train, with very limited connectivity, rather than in their office?

(Don't get me started about airline deregulation, which has really been a disaster in the long run; we now have a strange system of airlines almost none of which make a long-term profit, which are bailed out on a routine basis in bankruptcy court, while more and more routes are cut. And they can't afford new airplanes. While their fuel costs keep going up. It's actually kind of where the railroads were in the 50s; a death spiral for the private industry.)

Uh, American Airlines did the largest aircraft order in history fairly recently. I'm thinking you're a tad more pessimistic about the airline industry than it deserves.

 

[SarahZ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "dietary needs". You can bring bottled water and baby formula on a flight, along with food. It just has to fit in your purse/carry-on/messenger bag/whatever. I bring snacks and water with me all the time, just in case of delays. Additionally, as a pre-diabetic, I have to eat small meals that are mostly protein every 2-3 hours, and I've never had an issue bringing things onto flights. I usually have a bag of beef jerky and cheese cubes, or other things that don't smell weird and won't offend other passengers. I do the same thing on the train just in case we're super delayed. The Amtrak rations are mostly carbs/sugar.

 

[neroden]

Paulus: I have said many times that on-time performance is more important than anything else whatsoever. It's frankly amazing that Amtrak gets any passengers at all with its current OTP.

On other points:

I think it's pretty trivial for Amtrak to compete with an average hotel.

Your ludicrous and inaccurate claim of "two extra days" for Denver-Chicago shows that you haven't looked at the *timetable* lately. You seem quite incapable of comprehension on this issue. If Amtrak is running *on time* (see, there's that issue again), it's two half-days. Two half-days is what you have to burn on the airplane flight too, unless you take the red-eye. *If Amtrak is running on time*.

As for the location of O'Hare, I'm sure some people find it more convenient, just as people living in southeastern Queens find JFK convenient. This isn't the majority of the population in the metro area, though.

As for the airlines, I know the airline industry well enough to see the signs of the death spiral. IIRC, the "largest order of passenger cars in American railroad history!" happened during the railroad death spiral as well. Large single orders can be a sign of a lack of regular smaller orders and the compositing of backlogged equipment replacement requirements, and that's what's going on now. We're still in the early days of the spiral. Obviously the nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations will not have the same problems.

If you will allow me some repetition, the important thing is running the trains on time. Jabbering about "diner" or "sleeper" -- this is just what you provide for trips of particular runtimes. Sleeper service over the right-length trip is as profitable as anything else *in countries where the trains run on time*. Jabbering about "long distance" or "corridor" or "500 miles" or whatever -- silly, arbitrary distinctions.

First, run the trains on time.

Second, make them roughly as fast as driving, for the end to end trip.

All else is, in the broad scheme of things, quite minor. As long as you can't manage to run the trains on time, you have to be very careful about the minor things in order to keep your market... but the core thing is to run the trains on time.

Additionally, as a pre-diabetic, I have to eat small meals that are mostly protein every 2-3 hours, and I've never had an issue bringing things onto flights.

I was in the unfortunate position of travelling by air several times shortly after 2001, and it was hassle over damn near everything for quite a while. Didn't swear it off until 2008, and things seemed a bit better by then, but frankly I don't trust anymore that airport shmuckurity won't make up some insane rule on the spot with no notice, because they were doing that for several years.

 

[SarahZ]

Additionally, as a pre-diabetic, I have to eat small meals that are mostly protein every 2-3 hours, and I've never had an issue bringing things onto flights.

I was in the unfortunate position of travelling by air several times shortly after 2001, and it was hassle over damn near everything for quite a while. Didn't swear it off until 2008, and things seemed a bit better by then, but frankly I don't trust anymore that airport shmuckurity won't make up some insane rule on the spot with no notice, because they were doing that for several years.

It's all well and good if you want to be paranoid, but don't cite it as fact. I recommend you check out the TSA website for rules about liquids and food, because I haven't had a single issue in the past several years. Heck, I see people walking on with McDonald's and Cinnabon all the time.

 

[jis]

I was in the unfortunate position of travelling by air several times shortly after 2001, and it was hassle over damn near everything for quite a while. Didn't swear it off until 2008, and things seemed a bit better by then, but frankly I don't trust anymore that airport shmuckurity won't make up some insane rule on the spot with no notice, because they were doing that for several years.

Would it be safe to assume then that we will never see you at an airport or on a plane for a long time to come then? Just checking to make sure.

 

[Trogdor]

As for the airlines, I know the airline industry well enough to see the signs of the death spiral. IIRC, the "largest order of passenger cars in American railroad history!" happened during the railroad death spiral as well. Large single orders can be a sign of a lack of regular smaller orders and the compositing of backlogged equipment replacement requirements, and that's what's going on now. We're still in the early days of the spiral. Obviously the nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations will not have the same problems.

I know you absolutely hate air travel, so I'll excuse your lack of knowledge of the airline industry.

But airlines have been placing regular, smaller orders as well as large, single orders. The benefit of large orders is 1) really good pricing (and when you're buying equipment that carries a price tag of $100+ million each, discounted pricing is important), and 2) they can get a bunch of planes built to the same spec, which simplifies maintenance and equipment flexibility (oh, right, companies that think in those terms are doomed to failure, so never mind about that).

It's also often necessary for airlines to place large orders to get delivery positions when they need them. Airbus and Boeing have order backlogs stretching into the next decade (mainly because the aviation industry is booming in much of the world, but also because both manufacturers recently started offering new and/or major upgrades to existing products, which will give airlines significant operational savings and so they've all been jumping over each other to buy these planes to replace their existing fleets).

As for your comment about "nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations," well, it seems you stopped following the airline industry in the 1980s or 1990s, because there are few such airlines left in the industrialized world. The vast majority of these major carriers were privatized, and competition has been wide open for quite a while now. For example, in Europe, there are few (if any) state-owned airlines, and privately owned airlines can fly point-to-point throughout Europe, without being tied to a given country for their hubs.

So, no, the airline industry is not in a death spiral. Not even starting.

 

[Anderson]

As for the airlines, I know the airline industry well enough to see the signs of the death spiral. IIRC, the "largest order of passenger cars in American railroad history!" happened during the railroad death spiral as well. Large single orders can be a sign of a lack of regular smaller orders and the compositing of backlogged equipment replacement requirements, and that's what's going on now. We're still in the early days of the spiral. Obviously the nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations will not have the same problems.

I know you absolutely hate air travel, so I'll excuse your lack of knowledge of the airline industry.

But airlines have been placing regular, smaller orders as well as large, single orders. The benefit of large orders is 1) really good pricing (and when you're buying equipment that carries a price tag of $100+ million each, discounted pricing is important), and 2) they can get a bunch of planes built to the same spec, which simplifies maintenance and equipment flexibility (oh, right, companies that think in those terms are doomed to failure, so never mind about that).

It's also often necessary for airlines to place large orders to get delivery positions when they need them. Airbus and Boeing have order backlogs stretching into the next decade (mainly because the aviation industry is booming in much of the world, but also because both manufacturers recently started offering new and/or major upgrades to existing products, which will give airlines significant operational savings and so they've all been jumping over each other to buy these planes to replace their existing fleets).

As for your comment about "nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations," well, it seems you stopped following the airline industry in the 1980s or 1990s, because there are few such airlines left in the industrialized world. The vast majority of these major carriers were privatized, and competition has been wide open for quite a while now. For example, in Europe, there are few (if any) state-owned airlines, and privately owned airlines can fly point-to-point throughout Europe, without being tied to a given country for their hubs.

So, no, the airline industry is not in a death spiral. Not even starting.

It's also interesting to note that those "nationalized, competition-limited" carriers are, for the most part, also the ones taking gambles on fancy accommodations. Singapore Airlines and Emirates are the two that have taken some of the more interesting steps in that direction, and I believe that both are either totally or almost totally state-owned.

 

[Paulus]

Paulus: I have said many times that on-time performance is more important than anything else whatsoever. It's frankly amazing that Amtrak gets any passengers at all with its current OTP.

On other points:

I think it's pretty trivial for Amtrak to compete with an average hotel.

Really now? They start with an automatic disadvantage after all, the moving about, and the difficulty that results in for many people sleeping is, according to other posters, something frequently brought up. Also, as I noted, you aren't necessarily competing with "an average hotel." Remember the price differential; for the price of a round trip sleeper, I can take a coach flight and book a five star hotel.

Your ludicrous and inaccurate claim of "two extra days" for Denver-Chicago shows that you haven't looked at the *timetable* lately. You seem quite incapable of comprehension on this issue. If Amtrak is running *on time* (see, there's that issue again), it's two half-days. Two half-days is what you have to burn on the airplane flight too, unless you take the red-eye. *If Amtrak is running on time*.

No, it means that I considered the use of PTO. Like it or not, Chicago to Denver, even running on time, requires you to burn two days of work (obviously ignoring a trip on weekends or holidays). By contrast, it is entirely possible to leave Chicago after a full day of work (for a 9-5 position) and arrive at a reasonable hour. If one is making the reverse trip, they can not only leave after a full day's work (though with an uglier arrival time), but they can return back home to Denver before work begins. Obviously if you're retired or a student, these might not be relevant considerations. But for the vast majority of travelers, normal business hours and days are highly important considerations.

Aside from that, hotels are oriented around afternoon check-in times which means that the early morning arrival in Denver can actually be disadvantageous for a traveler.

As for the location of O'Hare, I'm sure some people find it more convenient, just as people living in southeastern Queens find JFK convenient. This isn't the majority of the population in the metro area, though.

It is a ten minute difference from downtown. It is by no conceivable means grossly inconvenient compared to Midway or "in the freaking middle of nowhere."

As for the airlines, I know the airline industry well enough to see the signs of the death spiral. IIRC, the "largest order of passenger cars in American railroad history!" happened during the railroad death spiral as well. Large single orders can be a sign of a lack of regular smaller orders and the compositing of backlogged equipment replacement requirements, and that's what's going on now. We're still in the early days of the spiral. Obviously the nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations will not have the same problems.

As Trogdor noted, you're really not up to speed on airliner orders, but you made the explicit statement that "[Airlines] can't afford new airplanes," which was proven false by said record order; don't go trying to change the goal posts. Furthermore, the railroad death spiral has absolutely no relation to any major airliner orders due to the very different natures of railroad and air travel, fare regulations, and the fact that there is no emerging modal alternative to the airline industry as the airline industry was to the railroad industry (along with the interstate highway system, which struck at the rather more important freight business as well).

But airlines have been placing regular, smaller orders as well as large, single orders. The benefit of large orders is 1) really good pricing (and when you're buying equipment that carries a price tag of $100+ million each, discounted pricing is important), and 2) they can get a bunch of planes built to the same spec, which simplifies maintenance and equipment flexibility (oh, right, companies that think in those terms are doomed to failure, so never mind about that).

Having seen some of the freebies that got tossed in when they built a new radiology wing at a former employer of mine, those must be some amazing discounts and extras for the airlines.

 

[jis]

The so called big orders are actually in effect a set of small orders clumped together to get proper delivery positions in the manufacturing queue. That is why they are structured as a number of firm orders for the closer in delivery spots and a bunch of options which leaves the model details yet to be worked out, since by the time it comes to firm them up technology may have moved ahead and there may be new models that make more sense.

But this has very little to do with Western LD Trains. So back to the designated subject......

 

[neroden]

I know you absolutely hate air travel, so I'll excuse your lack of knowledge of the airline industry.

The thing is, I used to like it.

But airlines have been placing regular, smaller orders as well as large, single orders.

OK then. That wasn't what I was reading in the general investment press; I do recheck the industry occasionally.

Airbus and Boeing have order backlogs stretching into the next decade (mainly because the aviation industry is booming in much of the world,

True. Lots of other countries to sell to. The smaller manufacturers of smaller planes do most of their business outside the US, wouldn't be surprised to hear the same of Boeing and Airbus.

As for your comment about "nationalized, competition-limited flag carriers of other nations," well, it seems you stopped following the airline industry in the 1980s or 1990s,

Around 2004 is when I stopped paying close attention, really.

because there are few such airlines left in the industrialized world. The vast majority of these major carriers were privatized, and competition has been wide open for quite a while now. For example, in Europe, there are few (if any) state-owned airlines, and privately owned airlines can fly point-to-point throughout Europe, without being tied to a given country for their hubs.

So they are, in the 2000s, where we were in the 1970s, and determined to repeat the same regulatory mistakes, but in an environment where train travel is more competitive and fuel costs are going up.

Right.

I give the European airline industry 40 years before everyone's gone bankrupt at least once. I'm probably being generous.

So, no, the airline industry is not in a death spiral. Not even starting.

Yep, starting in Europe; well on its way in the US. Current attempted trend is US-foreign mergers, which will drag the whole thing out longer. Other trend is service cuts to smaller airports (except where subsidized) and network shrinkage. I await the other half of the cycle, which is (at best) monopoly and price hikes.

Buffett once pointed out that the airline industry had, on net, lost money over its entire existence. And yet some people still think privatization and competition makes sense for the industry. It's amazing that investors are still willing to provide financing for the airline industry. I guess investing in passenger airlines is a sort of hobby or charity, like investing in the Channel Tunnel. Anyway...

 

[Trogdor]

Current attempted trend is US-foreign mergers

Name one.

 

[neroden]

Aside from that, hotels are oriented around afternoon check-in times which means that the early morning arrival in Denver can actually be disadvantageous for a traveler.

OK, that's a point. (Oddly, easily fixed with a different schedule.)

It is a ten minute difference from downtown. It is by no conceivable means grossly inconvenient compared to Midway or "in the freaking middle of nowhere."

Admittedly, I'm basing my numbers on the long time period when the Orange Line ran relatively quickly parallel to uncrowded roads, while the Blue Line ran very slow next to a congested expressway which nobody in their right mind wants to drive on. The local transportation situation has probably changed just in the last few years.

As Trogdor noted, you're really not up to speed on airliner orders, but you made the explicit statement that "[Airlines] can't afford new airplanes," which was proven false by said record order;

*Shrug*. Just going from the complaints in the press by the airlines (and the aircraft manufacturers), and the analysis in the trade press, saying they're not replacing old equipment because they can't afford to! These have been showing up for about a decade now. It's not every airline, of course. It's only the "weak" ones, including the no-name regional airlines which provide all the feeder flights.

the fact that there is no emerging modal alternative to the airline industry as the airline industry was to the railroad industry

For which market?
The first alternative is not travelling at all (telecommunications), which everyone has been predicting will make big inroads, and it hasn't, but the actual shift is starting to show up. The second alternative is going back to driving (yes, people are doing that), and the third is train service. None of this is going to hurt the giant long haul routes between distant hubs, whether overseas or NY-LA... but the question of how far the damage to the industry is going to go is a very real one.

The global economic trends (both macro and micro) for at least 10 years out are also very negative for air travel.

The current airplane orders look to me oddly like the orders of streamliners by the railroads. I was following plane manufacturer backlogs quite closely until I decided that the long-term trends were seriously against the US airlines. Thanks to the cross-border merger activity, they will probably look fine for a decade or two, or maybe three, or even four.