Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Yet another threat to international flying... >

Yet another threat to international flying...

Search
Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Yet another threat to international flying...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-03-2020, 01:20 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 261
Default

Originally Posted by jetlaggy View Post
Much better train transit system for inter europe travel. Not as many airports needed.
Trains are slower, less flexible and more expensive than aircraft. Trains move bulk freight and liquids better than aircraft. For nearly any other option, they have significant limitations.

There was a reason the ULCC revolution started in Euroland.
acecrackshot is offline  
Old 11-03-2020, 01:52 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 261
Default

Originally Posted by Andrew_VT View Post
No, the airports are privatized in Europe (they might have a 50 year lease or something). We run them publicly here. Considering the respective politics you'd think that situation would be reversed.

"Letting airports go bankrupt" in Europe just means letting the private companies that manage the airports put themselves through the financial reorganization process rather than bail a private company out with public funds.

Here is an article advocating for the same thing here (in a liberal publication no less!)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rports/615331/
Selling off infrastructure is what bankrupt nations do. Its basically burning your furniture to heat your home.
acecrackshot is offline  
Old 11-05-2020, 08:24 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
detpilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Trying not to crash
Posts: 1,260
Default

Originally Posted by acecrackshot View Post
Trains are slower, less flexible and more expensive than aircraft. Trains move bulk freight and liquids better than aircraft. For nearly any other option, they have significant limitations.



There was a reason the ULCC revolution started in Euroland.
They can also move a standard ton of freight over 100 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Crazy impressive, for the items that you listed.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
detpilot is offline  
Old 11-05-2020, 10:18 PM
  #14  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Default

Originally Posted by detpilot View Post
They can also move a standard ton of freight over 100 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Crazy impressive, for the items that you listed.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
Not in Europe they aren’t. Compared to the US, their freight railroads are terribly inefficient.

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/wh...ight-transport

https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploa...htRailways.pdf

an excerpt:


PRODUCTIVITY
To move the same number of tons, around seven times more trains are necessary in Europe. For a thousand tons the U.S. Class I railroads require 0.28 trains; in Europe it is 1.94 (Figure 2). Even taking into account the higher costs of the larger U.S. trains, this is a very significant distinction that implies that European railways have much higher costs per ton and tkm, which is the case. As shown in Figure 3, the operational revenues per ton-mile are higher in Europe, almost two times more than in the U.S. (DB Shenker, being the largest European freight railway, will be used in the comparison, and data for CP Carga the main Portuguese freight railway are also presented). But the operational expenses are almost four times higher than the ones in the U.S. In fact, European railways are barely profitable or not profitable at all (European Commission 2009b).
JTRF Volume 52 No. 2, Summer 2013
Excargodog is offline  
Old 11-06-2020, 06:55 AM
  #15  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Default

Trains get good fuel economy in the US because a very long train can get moving, and then go maybe 1,000 miles without hardly touching the throttle, especially in the west. Can't do that in Europe, or any other densely populated area. Stop n' go wastes a lot of energy.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 11-06-2020, 06:56 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Andrew_VT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 584
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Not in Europe they aren’t. Compared to the US, their freight railroads are terribly inefficient.
Yup. They prioritized their rail for pax, we prioritized freight. Given the population densities and geographic size of the respective land masses I'd say it was the right call on both ends.

*except for US N-S east coast pax rail - missed opportunity there imo
Andrew_VT is offline  
Old 11-06-2020, 12:50 PM
  #17  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,940
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Trains get good fuel economy in the US because a very long train can get moving, and then go maybe 1,000 miles without hardly touching the throttle, especially in the west. Can't do that in Europe, or any other densely populated area. Stop n' go wastes a lot of energy.
Trains are very fuel efficient. Barges and ships are the most efficient.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 02-05-2021, 03:05 PM
  #18  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Default Predicting 2023 to 2024 before normal...

...return to international flying....






https://www.jpost.com/health-science...eration-657898

A report recently published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the research and analysis division of The Economist Group, explained that whereas the rollout of vaccines against coronavirus has started in developed countries, mass vaccination will take time.
The unit predicts that the bulk of the adult population in advanced economies will have been vaccinated by mid-2022. Middle-income countries will take until late 2022 or early 2023.
“For poorer economies, mass immunization will take until 2024, if it happens at all,” the report said.

Last edited by Excargodog; 02-05-2021 at 03:17 PM.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 02-09-2021, 06:10 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Position: 175 CA
Posts: 1,285
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Having lived in Germany, air travel In most of Europe was not a huge thing. The countries are often almost postage stamp-sized. On three day weekends it wasn’t uncommon for MWR to offer bus tours, leaving Friday night and getting back Sunday evening. Seven countries in three days. I’ve been in Lichtenstein when there wasn’t a parking place in the entire country, the whole 62 square miles of it. Don’t know where they would put an airport if they wanted one. I think they do have one helipad though...
Dramatic much? Ryanair flew 148.6 million passengers in 2020, AA flew 95.32 million.

Short haul EU 'domestic' flying is much more competitive than the USA. Europe isn't Cold War 1980's anymore. Air travel trends there lead the USA by about a decade.
Varsity is offline  
Old 02-13-2021, 11:30 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,533
Default

Originally Posted by Varsity View Post
Dramatic much? Ryanair flew 148.6 million passengers in 2020, AA flew 95.32 million.

Short haul EU 'domestic' flying is much more competitive than the USA. Europe isn't Cold War 1980's anymore. Air travel trends there lead the USA by about a decade.
Nope. Your numbers are way off, Varsity.

Per the Ryanair Group Investor Relations page, after muddling through their charts - which are mislabeled badly - and after adding up their month to month numbers, they actually carried 52.01 million passengers in 2020.

Don't believe my numbers? well, another article about Ryanair's 2020 performance come to the same year end figure - 52.1million passengers, as compared to their 2019 number of 152.4 million passengers.

A quote within the article, just before the actual passenger numbers chart: "Those December figures round out a terrible year for Ryanair, during which passenger levels fell by two-thirds, to 52.1 million, down from 152.4 million in 2019."
https://www.flightglobal.com/network...141822.article
450knotOffice is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sunvox
United
24
05-07-2013 03:54 PM
CAL EWR
United
67
11-25-2012 03:46 PM
flaps 9
Major
147
08-08-2010 09:18 AM
AirWillie
Major
6
11-23-2005 04:12 PM
SWAjet
Major
0
05-31-2005 09:35 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices