[emersonbiggins]

Air France Can't Beat 'Em, So it Joins 'Em

Say you're a contestant on The Amazing Race and you need to get from Paris to Lyon, France. You could spend two hours dealing with a flight and all the headaches that go with it, or you could hop a hassle-free train and glide into central Paris nearly as quickly. Which is the better bet?

Unless you're really dumb, you'd take the train. And Air France knows it. After years of losing market share to sexy, speedy trains in the domestic market, the airline is rumored to be considering a joint venture to operate its own high speed trains within France and to destinations in Belgium and the UK.

Air France and a company called Veolia Transport are said to be interested in leasing or purchasing a new generation of train known as the AGV. It can carry 900 passengers at speeds of up to 224 mph, which is a big jump over France's current top-speed rail rider, the 186 mph TVG. Traveling between Paris and Amsterdam on an AGV would take just one and a half hours, which is impressive when you consider that a flight between the two cities takes an hour and 15 minutes, without accounting for time spent at the airport.

To hear Air France tell it, they don't really have a choice but to collaborate with the enemy. "Limiting our activity to aircraft operations and ignoring market trends constitutes a risk," Air France CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta said at a shareholder meeting in July. "We have reached the logical conclusion that we need to seriously examine the possibility for Air France to operate trains under the Air France brand to several destinations in partnership with a rail service provider."

He's not kidding. The trains are kicking Air France's ass on many domestic routes -- the airline's market share has dropped to 10-percent between Paris and Lyon, and 30-percent Paris to Bordeaux. Things are so bleak that the airline has suspended or discontinued service on several routes, including Paris to Brussels.
...

link

[americandream]

All they're doing is maintaining the infrastructure to keep workers, consumers, bank, derivatives experts, oil oligarchs, and all the other functionaries in a dysfunctional system rolling along at speed. The underlying problem remains...wasteful use in an instant of resources that took this planet many epochs to generate.

[mos6507]

"operate trains under the Air France brand"

That sounds pretty stupid. Like "Amtrak Airlines". I mean, can't they come up with a new subsidiary name?

[dinopello]

"operate trains under the Air France brand"

That sounds pretty stupid. Like "Amtrak Airlines". I mean, can't they come up with a new subsidiary name?

Just add an "L" and rearrange the letters and you have "Rail France"

[cube]

"operate trains under the Air France brand"

That sounds pretty stupid. Like "Amtrak Airlines". I mean, can't they come up with a new subsidiary name?

In America trains are operated by train companies, NOT airlines.
I guess things work differently in France.

my 2 cents on HSR (high speed rail in the USA):
I think there will be an electrified Transcontinental (coast to coast) train system built in the USA (eventually).
Whether it happens within my lifetime I'm not willing to speculate.

However I'm absolutely certain it will never be a HSR line.
Even if ALL the domestic airlines cease to exist, except for the rich and the freeway interstate system collapses......basically imagine a future world where almost all interstate travel is done via rails I still do not think there will ever be a "true" HSR in America.
We currently have the Acela trains which operate at 110 mph but I wouldn't call that "true" HSR.
I think a train has to do 160 mph (operating speed) before I consider it a bona fide HSR.
//
Why such a gloomy outlook? simple economics
Speed costs $$$ and that's going to be in short supply real soon.
Perhaps starting right now *takes another look at the stock market*

[pogoliamo]

All they're doing is maintaining the infrastructure to keep workers, consumers, bank, derivatives experts, oil oligarchs, and all the other functionaries in a dysfunctional system rolling along at speed. The underlying problem remains...wasteful use in an instant of resources that took this planet many epochs to generate.

Yep. The other name of inefficiency is France. If a system is inefficient as it is in France then developing a powerful infrastructure helps it loose even more money.

You can think of it as an alcoholic which gets better access to booze. How can that be an improvement on its own?

[emersonbiggins]

All they're doing is maintaining the infrastructure to keep workers, consumers, bank, derivatives experts, oil oligarchs, and all the other functionaries in a dysfunctional system rolling along at speed. The underlying problem remains...wasteful use in an instant of resources that took this planet many epochs to generate.

Yep. The other name of inefficiency is France. If a system is inefficient as it is in France then developing a powerful infrastructure helps it loose even more money.

You can think of it as an alcoholic which gets better access to booze. How can that be an improvement on its own?

I suppose you'd lump the Germans and Japanese in as well?

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Tell me, exactly, how hoisting a 165,000-lb aircraft to 36,000 feet for a brief half hour, only to have it land it in another city a mere 200 miles away is the most efficient form of travel between such points?

[mos6507]

Tell me, exactly, how hoisting a 165,000-lb aircraft to 36,000 feet for a brief half hour, only to have it land it in another city a mere 200 miles away is the most efficient form of travel between such points?

Totally, but still, the most efficient way is NOT to travel at all. Such is the slippery slope of pursuing maximum energy savings.

[emersonbiggins]

Tell me, exactly, how hoisting a 165,000-lb aircraft to 36,000 feet for a brief half hour, only to have it land it in another city a mere 200 miles away is the most efficient form of travel between such points?

Totally, but still, the most efficient way is NOT to travel at all. Such is the slippery slope of pursuing maximum energy savings.

True.

[pogoliamo]

Tell me, exactly, how hoisting a 165,000-lb aircraft to 36,000 feet for a brief half hour, only to have it land it in another city a mere 200 miles away is the most efficient form of travel between such points?

It is the cheapest form of travel - even after the high-speed train ticket prices have been cut in half to compete with the airliners it is still more expensive. Plus, last time I tried to use it the workers decided the nice weather is perfect for a strike.

My guess is that they are loosing money in the end, but isn't that great for the fiat money system?

[Snowrunner]

Tell me, exactly, how hoisting a 165,000-lb aircraft to 36,000 feet for a brief half hour, only to have it land it in another city a mere 200 miles away is the most efficient form of travel between such points?

It is the cheapest form of travel - even after the high-speed train ticket prices have been cut in half to compete with the airliners it is still more expensive. Plus, last time I tried to use it the workers decided the nice weather is perfect for a strike.

My guess is that they are loosing money in the end, but isn't that great for the fiat money system?

So what? You want to go back to a time before rail and just have horse drawn barges go up and down rivers?

As far as mass transit and long distance travel goes the train is probably the "best bet". Does it need to be Highspeed? No, I wouldn't mind if people would stop always being so much in a hurry.

I really would love to go across the Continent in Canada, but after checking the prices a few times it's just a bit too expensive I wish they would attach a "hobo" car to the freight trains that they are constantly pulling, I'd rough it.

[mos6507]

I wouldn't mind if people would stop always being so much in a hurry.

Question. What did people do on their vacations before air travel? Did they really get enough time off from work to go someplace by train, hang out, and come back? I guess it's a trivial thing in the grand scheme of things, but if you removed air travel from people's lives, I think they'd start feeling like George Bailey, never able to see the world. It wouldn't be because they didn't have the money, it would be because their employers would never give them the time it would take to get on a train or a boat to get where they want to go.

I can say in my case I moved back to the Boston area in part because I was concerned that having to fly back and forth twice a year was going to soon suck an unacceptable amount of my yearly salary away. I'm sure a lot of other people who live far from their extended family will have to make similar decisions.

[cube]

Plus, last time I tried to use it the workers decided the nice weather is perfect for a strike.

You must live in France?

//

Thanks to cheap energy, we currently live in a world where a:
1) bus with 50 seats carry only 7 passengers
2) trains with 500 seats carry only 140 passengers
3) a single person sits in a 2,700 lbs car

In the future, transport systems will have a much higher utilization rate.
What that means is the passenger next to you will be poking his elbow up your ass.
That's my vision of post PO transport.

[Snowrunner]

I wouldn't mind if people would stop always being so much in a hurry.

Question. What did people do on their vacations before air travel? Did they really get enough time off from work to go someplace by train, hang out, and come back? I guess it's a trivial thing in the grand scheme of things, but if you removed air travel from people's lives, I think they'd start feeling like George Bailey, never able to see the world. It wouldn't be because they didn't have the money, it would be because their employers would never give them the time it would take to get on a train or a boat to get where they want to go.

People did travel, especially in Europe, and even Atlantic crossings (if affordable) but I was more griping about the whole thing of people literally running around all the time...

And hey, most people don't really WANT to travel that much any way. Most of this is "visiting family" not "flying to Bermuda for two weeks in the sun." At least not for the majority of people.

I can say in my case I moved back to the Boston area in part because I was concerned that having to fly back and forth twice a year was going to soon suck an unacceptable amount of my yearly salary away. I'm sure a lot of other people who live far from their extended family will have to make similar decisions.

True, but it's more a question of money as of time, wouldn't you agree?

We'll see. I don't think we'll be able to "choose", it will be a choice that's going to be made for us.

[Starvid]

All they're doing is maintaining the infrastructure to keep workers, consumers, bank, derivatives experts, oil oligarchs, and all the other functionaries in a dysfunctional system rolling along at speed. The underlying problem remains...wasteful use in an instant of resources that took this planet many epochs to generate.

Yep. The other name of inefficiency is France. If a system is inefficient as it is in France then developing a powerful infrastructure helps it loose even more money.

You can think of it as an alcoholic which gets better access to booze. How can that be an improvement on its own?

You've never travelled in France have you?

SNCF vs. Amtrak... I mean come on!

EdF, Total, Schlumberger, Alstom, PSA, Areva, CGG Veritas, the list goes on...

[mos6507]

True, but it's more a question of money as of time, wouldn't you agree?

It is now, but eventually air travel will just be financially out of reach. Hard to tell when that will be with oil prices going down. Of course, they could shoot up again as fast as they are going down.

[Snowrunner]

True, but it's more a question of money as of time, wouldn't you agree?

It is now, but eventually air travel will just be financially out of reach. Hard to tell when that will be with oil prices going down. Of course, they could shoot up again as fast as they are going down.

Actually I think you're looking too narrowly. Holidays (air travel or any other kind) is not only limited by time but also by disposable money.

Personally, if the airline industry things it had it tough the last year they may be in for a shock, as more and more people are afraid to lose their jobs they will be out to prove that they are worth keeping, and that will mean people will take less vacation and even IF they do they will try to conserve money, even if oil would be at $10/barrel, I don't think you will see as many people travel anymore.

Which is nice, that means the airports won't be so clogged when I go on a trip

[emersonbiggins]

Tell me, exactly, how hoisting a 165,000-lb aircraft to 36,000 feet for a brief half hour, only to have it land it in another city a mere 200 miles away is the most efficient form of travel between such points?

It is the cheapest form of travel - even after the high-speed train ticket prices have been cut in half to compete with the airliners it is still more expensive. )

Airlines are the cheapest form of travel?

Allow me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-pauses-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahh, thanks for that.

1€ seats on EasyJet are a marketing gimmick, not a viable business strategy.

[cube]

Allow me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-pauses-

Are you ready to cry emersonbiggins?

wiki says:

The Korea Train eXpress (KTX) is South Korea's high-speed rail system. It is operated by Korail. The train's technology is largely based on the French TGV system
...........
On January 9, 2006, Korail reported that average daily ridership in December 2005 had reached 104,600
...........
construction cost grew from an initial estimate of 5 trillion to an actual 18 trillion Korean won (approx. 5 billion to 18 billion US dollars). On January 14, 2005,

Lets do the math here
daily ridership = 104,600
capital cost = 18 billion US dollars

$18 billion / 104,600 = $172,084 per passenger

[emersonbiggins]

Cube, allow me to ignore your question, as amortizing infrastructure costs over a one-year operating period for any system seems a bit disingenuous, and pose another one.

How many trillions (in current value) in airport infrastructure was de facto turned over from the defense department to individual cities across the U.S., after WWII, (many for one single dollar) to benefit the civilian and commercial aviation industry, and why was all of this absent from balance sheets that would indicate a large subsidy towards airlines? Concrete runways are among the most cost-intensive infrastructures placed on planet Earth.