Another airline scare

[TKM.368]

Beware!


IMPORTANT FRONTIER AIRLINES UPDATE


Frontier Airlines files Chapter 11
Frontier Airlines continuing normal operations following chapter 11 filing.

Click here for details

[Protronie]

And some people wonder why I don't fly...
Good thing Champs wasn't this week! With American & Southwest grounding their MD-80's I be willing to bet some wouldn't make it.
I'm still wondering if anything will be flying go get folks down to Atlanta.
Maybe Amtrash umm Amtrak not such a bad idea after all.

Are any team planning on going by bus or rail just because the airlines are having so many problems?

-p

[ChrisR_522]

Southwest doesn't have MD-80's

[Protronie]

Originally Posted by ChrisR_522

Southwest doesn't have MD-80's

Okay... what ever they do have... they did have to ground them to inspect them didn"t they? Or was the FAA just pulling a April fools joke?

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Protronie

Okay... what ever they do have... they did have to ground them to inspect them didn"t they? Or was the FAA just pulling a April fools joke?

They did have to ground 38 Boeing 737 planes for inspection. As of Wednesday 28 of the 38 had been inspected and were reentering service.

[jacob07]

Yeah, we were going to fly but were A. worried about the flight costs and B. Flight being cancelled. So we decided to caravan our ways down. 13 straight hours from Flint MI wed night to make it there just before pits open the next day

[Chris Herold]

It's nice if you can actually drive there yourself. I mean 13 hours is still a lot and the gas prices make it not better at all.
For other teams from the Westcoast, etc. there is not possibility like that, well unless you start like 3 days early. I think we're flying on Delta, not sure though, should be a problem though.
It's funny though how much is canceled and grounded around now. I think SAS or Alaska grounded several Q400 not too long ago...well better grounded than crashed!

[artdutra04]

While reading Google News a few days ago, I saw an incredibly funny contrast of news articles. The first one was about the failings and vankruptcies of the air travel industry, and here was the second article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...in-807789.html

Sure, it's British Rail, but I don't think it would be impossible to replicate their success over here. It'll just take some commitment to passenger rail, as opposed to the "Oh, Amtrak..." mentality.

[Chris Herold]

Hey,
as a European (German), I think I know the value of trains. The trains are usually faster/cheaper than the most other alternatives. Especially the high speed trains are very good for Europe since flights are not necessary to cover most distances. Unfortunately, the trains lost a lot of their networks and its popularity since WW II. My town doesn't have any train access since the 1960's. Surprisingly though, trains are very cheap in Europe. I would pay for a bus to our neighbor community more than for a train to Hanover (about an hour away).
I had to make the experience though that the Northwest here is not able to do provide anything similar at all. Seattle has buses and (pretty soon) a light rail but cargo has the attention on the tracks. Passenger trains are seldom and to funny times. I know back East its different. But in order to achieve a switch from flights to trains, America would have to spend billions and billions of dollars! I don't know how one would finance such a massive project!

[Pavan Dave]

So the elaborate on the trains idea. Right now, there is a LightRail that passes by the Reliant Park (where Nats were a few years back and LSR the past few years minus 2008) and METRO is planning on doing something of the sort around the whole area. I am already aware that Dallas has one but it would be even neater if we (Americans) could standardize a lightrail track (if we haven't) and begin to start joining several major cities that are close like Dallas and Houston which are only about ~250 miles apart.


Pavan

.

[waialua359]

For us Hawaii teams,
if we didnt already start swimming or paddling our canoes already, we would miss the event.

Well, that's why we have no choice, BUT to fly.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Pavan Dave

(...)it would be even neater if we (Americans) could standardize a lightrail track (if we haven't) and begin to start joining several major cities that are close like Dallas and Houston which are only about ~250 miles apart.

Light-rail is not inter-city capable. A trip of 250 miles would take at LEAST five hours on a light-rail train, which means equipping them with bathrooms and some provision for food. With the frequent stops typical of light rail, that trip is probably more like 7-8 hours.

The big advantage of rail in Europe is that western Europe is small. Americans have trouble realizing that, just like Europeans generally have trouble visualizing North American distances. I once drove from Dusseldorf, Germany, to London in about the same amount of time it takes to drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento. It's 2,700 miles from Seattle to Atlanta. It is less than 1,600 miles from London to Moscow. London is less than 2,600 air miles from Baghdad, Iraq. North America is big -- it's why trains are not preferred for long distances. Even the Eurostar train takes two hours to go from London to Brussels, a distance of 230 miles. If you could build a dedicated high-speed rail line from Seattle to Atlanta that didn't stop along the way, it would still take 20 hours to make the trip. Adding in the problems of crossing the Cascades and the Rockies, and the necessity to stop and add or discharge passengers, I can't see how a coast-to-coast trip could take less than 48 hours, even on a modern super-train. I can fly to Atlanta in six hours. For distances up to maybe 600 or 700 miles rail is competitive, but over that people are going to want to fly.

Light rail is only suited for intra-urban transport. If you want to go between cities or carry lots of people you want heavy rail on restricted tracks with no level crossings. Twenty years ago I did a 15-month consulting project for a transit agency. It's amazing how life experiences come in handy later on.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Chris Herold

I had to make the experience though that the Northwest here is not able to do provide anything similar at all. Seattle has buses and (pretty soon) a light rail but cargo has the attention on the tracks. Passenger trains are seldom and to funny times. I know back East its different. But in order to achieve a switch from flights to trains, America would have to spend billions and billions of dollars! I don't know how one would finance such a massive project!

Currently, the Northeast Corridor is the only part of Amtrak's operations that is profitable. Especially on the four-track stretch between New Haven, CT and New York City, you'll see various trains every fifteen minutes, whether they are Amtrak Regional service, Amtrak Acela, or Metro North Commuter Rail. As it stands, this stretch of track carries nearly as many people every day as I-95, which parallels the route.

The reason why the Northeast Corridor is profitable is because we have a lot of people using the service, and since these [electrified] tracks are mostly for passenger only, they are in really good shape. This is in complete contrast to almost everything else that Amtrak operates.

Almost everywhere else, Amtrak was given horribly-maintained freight railroad tracks in the 1970s, and an annual budget that can barely cover operating costs. Without any additional funds, they can never hope to repair the 100+ year old infrastructure that sometimes it seems is held together with duct tape and prayers.

The only way out of this is to start investigating the best possibilities for profitable service (basically any trips between 50 and 500 miles), and then proactively start upgrading those routes, including track, signals, bridges, stations, etc., as well as concentrating on maximizing transfer hubs between existing modes of transit (airports, ferries, light rail, subway, etc).

Increasing grade separation is also a must; with a drastically reduced number of level crossings, higher speed can be attained, thus making it a more attractive choice.

As of right now, most of the states are all working on their own plans to bring new light rail and commuter rail service into their metropolis' areas, and this is a very good start. However, very little attention is being spent towards creating a national vision or goal. We need another Eisenhowen-type plan, with the focus on rebuilding America's once great passenger rail network as opposed to more highways.

And before someone starts complaining that this sounds like big government socialism, it kind of is. But the intent of government should never be to compete with business; as such any improvements should be made with the hope that one day the system would be profitable enough to denationalize/deregulate and let industry take over operations. It worked with ConRail for freight rail, and it worked with British Rail in Britain, there's no reason if done right it won't work here, either.


(That is actually how I would propose a funding source for the projects; direct some ($3-5b) of the $33b spent annually on the Interstate Highway system into rail travel. The Interstate Highway System, as envisioned by Eisenhower as a dual purpose military/public transportation network is now done.

We should only be spending money on maintaining the system, as every highway widening project I've seen has only cost the taxpayers much over original estimates, snarled traffic for years during construction, and yet we still end up with traffic jams as bad as before. How many years are we going to continue this inane cycle before we realize that we aren't ever getting the results we want?

That, and I'm pretty sure that most cities now regret building Interstate Highways right through the downtown areas. They lost a lot of taxable (and very expensive) real estate in the process. Roads, highways, and parking lots now often account for 40% of urban areas. I'm sure city planners, as well as the local economy would prefer to see some of that land returned as more residential/commercial real estate.)

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

We should only be spending money on maintaining the system, as every highway widening project I've seen has only cost the taxpayers much over original estimates, snarled traffic for years during construction, and yet we still end up with traffic jams as bad as before. How many years are we going to continue this inane cycle before we realize that we aren't ever getting the results we want?

Cite? When CalTrans widened the Santa Freeway through Orange County from six lanes to twelve and improved several interchanges, there is no doubt that congestion and average trip times were both reduced. The problem with road and highway projects is that they are usually done too late, and upgrade an underbuilt road to another underbuilt road. Tacking rail transit onto an urban area that grew up around a road grid is a fool's task. Urban rail only works well where the urban area grew up around that rail system, not the other way around. How would you do urban rail in a place like King County, Washington, or Denver, Colorado? Unlike Chicago or New York (both of which grew up around rail) people do not live in one spot and work in another. Areas like LA/Orange County in California have residences and work locations spread around a vast area -- it's hard to link the residential areas with inner-city factories and offices when they are spread fairly evenly.

Anyway, there is no magic bullet. No one transportation scheme is going to fit every urban area.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by TKM.368

Frontier Airlines files Chapter 11

Another airline I've never heard of that's in trouble... Big surprise.