From time to time the nation’s airlines run into problems, like the current dust up over MD80 inspections.  But the problem will be resolved.  In a month or so most people will probably have forgotten about it. 

Airlines have come and gone.  They will continue to do so.  But the industry will survive the current problem and the fuel cost crunch. 

Before train enthusiasts snicker over the airlines’ troubles, they should remember Amtrak’s problems with the brakes on its Acela trains.  If I remember correctly, they had to be pulled out of service for months.  Also, weren’t the Talgo trains pulled out of service because of a mechanical problem? 

To imply that the country should have an extensive train network for the few times a year that the airlines hit a rough patch is unrealistic.  The network would require a large subsidy (train passengers enjoy the largest per passenger mile subsidy of any common commercial carrier), which is not a good recipe for a country that is up to its ears in red ink.

Quoting a comedian, who probably knows little about air transport safety, is over the top.  What is his expertise regarding airline safety?  Is he a pilot or maintenance officer for an airline?

What is meant by ridership has gone through the roof?  Stating the per cent of increase in riders would be meaningful.  Gone through the roof is meaningless. 

What is fragile about the U.S. transport system?  There are, to be sure, problems that must be addressed, but fragile, according to Mr. Webster, means easily broken or destroyed.  Hmm.  Last year the fragile U.S. commercial airlines flew 679 million domestic passengers to their destinations in safety and relative comfort.  Another 53 million passengers arrived from overseas.  Presumably most of them left the country on a plane similar to the one that they arrived on. 

Apparently part of American’s problem arose from a misinterpretation of the FAA airworthiness directives, which are not always crystal clear.  According to American Airlines, they interpreted the regulations incorrectly and, therefore, upon subsequent inspections, learned that their work did not pass muster. 

FAA critics believe the agency’s new rigor is a bureaucratic, political knee-jerk response to well-publicized congressional hearings. 

The seriousness of the inspection issue should be interpreted properly.  No accidents occurred during the 18 months that American, as well as the other carriers, had to respond to the directive.  MD80 pilots and airline executives insist the MD 80 is safe. 

Air travel is one of the safest forms of transport in the world.  It will remain the mode of choice for people who are traveling more than a couple of hundred miles, especially business people as well as others who are time constrained. 

About half of American’s Austin passengers were delayed seriously.  But most of them were flown out of town within 24 hours of their scheduled departure.  If they had taken Amtrak’s consistently late running Texas Eagle, it would have taken them more than 28 hours to get to Chicago, not to mention the east or west coasts.  If they had gone home, slept, and taken a flight the next day, they would still have beaten the train to Chicago or points beyond. 

Passenger trains are a good choice for relatively short, high density corridors.  But anyone who things large numbers of people are going to give up flying to take a train half way across the country, or from Austin to Little Rock, is unrealistic.

Comment by Paul J. Smith, Jr.  on  04/12  at  09:55 AM

< To imply that the country should have an extensive train network for the few times a year that the airlines hit a rough patch is unrealistic. >

No one is implying that.

< Passenger trains are a good choice for relatively short, high density corridors.  But anyone who things large numbers of people are going to give up flying to take a train half way across the country, or from Austin to Little Rock, is unrealistic. >

Then you can start explaining why a train like the Empire Builder is filled up as much as any NEC train on any given day for much of its journey. By the way, the population between MSP and SPK is nil, most airports are a couple of hundred miles away, and 9% of the ridership travels between endpoints. Likewise a long distance trains serves a series of overlapping corridors. It is time you idelaogues woke up and understood ridership patterns and load factors.

The argument you a are making could just as well dismantle NYC subway routes: since no one takes a train between Bedford Park, Bronx, or Jamaica, Queens and Coney Island, and it is faster to drive,we should dismantle the B, D and F trains.

As for 24 hour airport strandings verses taking the train, given a choice, most would rather be on the move on a train than laying on a cot in the terminal for most of that time.

Comment by Joe M. Versaggi  on  04/14  at  07:12 AM

<< it would cost approximately $25 to $40 million a mile>>

That is not all that far out of line. Construction costs for a mile of four lane freeway is in that same range.

Comment by James Toy  on  04/14  at  09:58 PM

The cost to build a mile of limited access highway is irrelevant to the question of whether the U.S. should build high speed or rapid rail.  The relevant questions are how much would it cost to build either; who would use it, how much would the users be willing to pay, and who would cover the revenue/cost gaps, if any.  The larger questions are what social, economic, and transport problems would it solve?

Mr. Smith rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in 2006.  My observations confirm Amtrak’s statistics.  The load factor was relatively high from Milwaukee to Minneapolis.  Beyond Minneapolis the load factor, especially in the coaches, was light.

Comment by Paul J. Smith, Jr.  on  04/15  at  07:37 PM