During his keynote speech at the America 2050 conference today in Manhattan, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell stressed the need build out a modern passenger rail system in the US. In this context, he suggested that we should begin looking at it as a replacement for airline shuttle and other short-haul passenger flights. “Let’s *end* air travel of less than 500 miles,” he concluded.
He offered the Acela as an example. Invest some money in it now, he said, so that it can actually be a high speed train instead of (in so many words) a really snazzy looking train that goes 82 MPH like normal trains do everywhere and have for more than a century. Quote: “If we cut the travel time between New York and Washington from the current 2 hours 35 minutes to an hour and a half, would anyone *ever* take an air shuttle again on this route?”
Scaling back air travel is an admirable idea — one that Obama expressed in slightly more gentle terms yesterday at the news conference unveiling his rail proposal — and it’s great to have politicians of this stature saying it.
But, out of curiosity, what is the airline industry saying about this? Politicians calling for the elimination of a major chunk of one of the country’s major industries? There aren’t *too* many precedents for that. Does anyone know — are the airlines and/or industry bodies and/or airplane makers starting to kick and scream?
(Photo: AP)
April 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Honestly? Probably not.
At least, not yet.
I doubt they think it could ever happen. I doubt they believe, even with major politicians pushing for it, that rail could ever be a serious contender for passenger traffic again. And until we get genuinely high speed rail, they are right.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
You might find some airlines comfortable with the HSR taking over their regional segments as they don’t tend to make an awful lot of money on them (many times losing money). Regional trips serve to funnel passengers into their hubs so that they can put passengers on their higher profit margin long distance flights or international flights. The hub and spoke system is a damper on their profit margins (exactly the opposite of how low fare carriers operate and why low fare carriers consistently make more money). Lufthansa in Germany, and Virgin in the UK have operations that use rail to funnel their passengers to their hubsn.
The IATA (Intl Air Transport Association) has been quoted in the past as being for such a move to make rail dominant in the short-haul market. Their logic ran on the idea of airport congestion being alleviated by not having so many takes offs and gate slots allotted to regional flights. Imagine if La Guardia didn’t have so many shuttles - the airlines could do numerous things with those open slots.
Just speculation - but one airline you might find putting up more of fight than others would be Rendell’s home state airline US Airways (not really as they are HQd in Arizona but maintain a hub at Philly). They do a lot of shuttle business on the east coast. If the Northeast Corridor actually got better then their shuttle business would suffer. Though they do a lot have slots at National Airport and with Logan being so close to central Boston flying that segment may not be too much at risk. That is just the east coast though.
If I were an airline exec I’d be looking at the long-term: 1) fuel costs will go back up - saving fuel by not running regional routes would lessen their burden; 2) the air traffic control system is Pong era and is not in line for upgrades for possibly decades at the rate NextGen is moving - therefore congestion will be mitigated outside of pinning their hopes on efficiency improvement netted from a new ATCS; 3) HSR will never be a threat over segments beyond 600 miles as business travelers (the real airline cash cow) like the idea of being able to come home the same day if possible - therefore their overall business model will unthreatened; 4) back on the fuel line of thought - any overall conservation in fossil fuels will further the means of the airlines as any alternative away from fossil fuel/jet fuel for aircraft is barely under study and would certainly be so far off that their business model would be exposed to huge risk if conservation in other market sectors isn’t sought.
But looking in the long-term is hardly the timescale from which American corporations look to, rather the short-term quarter to quarter profits.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I almost forgot. This is my question about the airlines: are they or are they not in the business of transporting passengers? Yes of course they are, and therefore if they were astute they could look at the risks to the business model I already outlined above in the long-term and jump on the HSR bandwagon and possibly call for it to be privately operated (like it is sometimes done in Europe) by them! I’m all about inter-modality so I have a desire to make inter-modal links happen wherever possible. I just wouldn’t want the airlines to whittle down high-speed rail to the hell that airline service has become - no frills - we’ll get you there when we can - don’t like too bad. Oh wait that’s Amtrak in its current condition. I guess there is nothing to fret over then is there?
April 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Air France will actually be offering high speed rail serve next year and in Texas, the airlines have seemed to drop their opposition to HSR. They are looking at it as a feeder system for their long-range flights which are more profitable. In the end, they will probably look at it like the rental car business (or automobile in general), which at some level is a competitor but in the end, turns out to be complimentary to their business.
As they say, the best way to make a little money in the airline business is to start with a lot of money.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Great response, T Joey. I might steal “Pong era” hereafter to describe our radar air traffic control system.
There’s also the fact that a lot of the regional airline business is out west, and therefore doesn’t have to worry about competition from passenger rail, at least for the next century or two.
-Jebediah
April 17th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Joey, great point. I’ve talked to Gov. Rendell before when I lived in Pennsylvania — and he’s a really capable (if not always honest) politician. There’s few people as good at cheerleadering issues as Ed Rendell. It’s a great thing to have him behind this idea.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
[...] Ed Rendell: “Let’s END Air Travel of Less Than 500 Miles … [...]
April 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am
[...] Ed Rendell: “Let’s END Air Travel of Less Than 500 Miles … [...]
April 19th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Good for Governor Rendell.
Perhaps the biggest single key to the success of high speed rail is to integrate it with longer haul airline service. HSR lines must serve airports. It will be very interesting, for example, to see what happens at Milwaukee Airport and the airlines based there once the Chicago to Milwaukee Amtrak goes to hourly frequency and takes one hour from end to end, because it directly serves MKE.
And no more of this BWI thing of putting the station two miles away from the terminal simply because that’s where the existing tracks are. If we need to build new stretches of track so that the trains run directly to the terminal, so be it.
Even the states that are already supportive of HSR need to get with the program a little more. Illinois is still aching to blow billions on Peotone Airport, a facility the airlines don’t even want. But with Midwest high speed rail hubbed in Chicago and directly serving O’Hare for sure and Midway if possible, we’d never hear talk of another Chicago airport again. What if the billions earmarked for Peotone, or even some of the billions marked for O’Hare expansion, were instead spent on a dedicated 200mph HSR line to add to what’s coming out of the stimulus package? It would reduce flight delays, it would probably reduce most end-to-end journey times and it would free up a ton of slots at O’Hare that are currently filled by puddle jumpers.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
[...] Rendell has talked about how rail should replace air travel under 500 miles in this country. Do you agree? That’s a [...]
January 13th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
[...] the insanely sexy Virgin Trains in the UK. We all have different taste, but I think Joe Biden and Ed Rendell’s ideas about building up our infrastructure are tres sexy. Let’s help them take it to the next [...]