Remix.run Logo
megablast 6 hours ago

What?? In Europe there are lots of viable alternatives. Same as Asia!!

jjice 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For transport you're right. I think the parent your referring to was specifically saying there's no alternative way to power a plane. That's my assumption at least.

K0nserv 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was saying a bit of both. megablast is correct that there are alternatives, but I'd maybe quibble with "viable". For example you can get from Stockholm to Umeå with a 1 hour flight or a 6-8 hour train journey, is the train a viable alternative? For aviation there aren't alternative fuels and on many journeys even the alternative transport options aren't in the same ballpark.

sdoering 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Calling it a “1 hour flight” is a bit misleading when comparing transport options. The relevant number is door-to-door travel time.

Once you include getting out of Stockholm to the airport, security, boarding, the flight itself, possible baggage collection, and the trip into Umeå, I would be surprised if the total were much below 4 hours. Comparable German domestic flights such as Hamburg–Munich usually took me around 4–4.5 hours in practice in the past when traveling for work before the pandemic.

That makes the train a 6–8 hour alternative to a roughly 4-hour flight journey. Whether that is viable depends on the traveller, but it is certainly more competitive than “1 hour versus 8 hours” suggests.

I admit that for me, living about an hour north of the Hamburg main station but only 15 minutes from the airport, the plance for a business trip in Munich can still be a viable (albeit seldom taken) option. More often than not, if time permits, I take the train, work on the train. But as said - there still are situations, that make flying such a distance viable (to me).

I just wanted to point out, that it is not as clear cut as 1 hour vs. 6 to 8 hours.

VBprogrammer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the UK I could get from Central London to Central Glasgow in 4.5 hours on the train. The same trip on a flight, it takes an hour to get the airport (assuming it's not one of the budget airlines pretending Essex or Bedfordshire is London...), I need to be there 2 hours before (maybe less is you are brave and Security isn't messed up) the flight takes an hour and then I have to get out of the airport and find my way from Paisley back to Glasgow Central.

Of course there are a lot of variables, if instead I leave from my house the aircraft would actually be faster, mostly due to the extra time it takes to get to Central London and from Waterloo to Euston.

In reality we usually drive in about 6-8 hours because, as a family of 4 traveling, it's considerably cheaper even before you take into account having transport on the other end.

Findecanor 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd say that 4-6 hours is often the cut-off point for total travel time city-to-city -- provided that the train is fast.

I and a friend once started at Stockholm Central station to Malmö Central Station at the same time. I boarded a bullet train; he took the bus to the airport ... We arrived at the same time six hours later.

I've been looking at travel in Japan recently. Between Hiroshima and Tokyo, the bullet train (fast Shinkansen) and flight are both about four hours.

A bullet train is much more comfortable than flight within these limits because there are so fewer steps: no travel to/from airport, fewer tickets to book and often no check-in or security checkpoint.

K0nserv 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah fair, having experienced Japanese trains I fully agree about the comfort. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't build high speed rail and try to shift more travel to trains instead of aviation either to be clear. I love trains and I especially love Shinkansen style trains, but aviation still has a big edge in big parts of the world and on some journey lengths.

RankingMember 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd like to see an attempt at modern air cruises on giant zeppelins.

lbriner 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Then the plane takes longer than the train!

phoghed 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A price I’m more than willing to pay to for my Final Fantasy IX airship

RankingMember 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly what I had in mind

RankingMember 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah this would be more making the airship part of the experience rather than a means to an end.

bluGill 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For short trips. Most plane trips are at a distance where there isn't a viable alternative. Sure there are some nice trains that can handle the more common trips, but airplanes really shine for much longer trips.

rickydroll 5 hours ago | parent [-]

And planes go to more places than trains do. You want to add a new destination? Go through a few years of planning and construction for a couple thousand feet of tarmac, and people can go there using existing planes. Best of all, you don't need a large passenger base to justify the expense.

For rail? You're looking at an order of magnitude more for planning and construction, all new infrastructure, all new rail stock. It will take a much larger passenger base to justify the expense and effort.

Airplanes don't just shine for longer trips. There have been some interesting developments with commuter airplanes that are either all electric or hybrid with a 200-plus-mile range. If they are as energy efficient as they promise to be, we could see a resurgence in municipal airports for transportation between regional centers where rail is either unavailable or excessively expensive.

FredFS456 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends on where you're flying to and from in Asia, and how far.