Re:More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights
by tluyben2 on Tuesday February 18, 2020 @07:04AM
(#22355323)
I travel enough to not be confused when booking :) And sure for 3-4 hrs I would (and do) take the train, but when the hours go up (over 5 hr say), trains are not so good. When you are a frequent business traveler, you pack differently as well; no luggage surcharge, no waiting in line (priority because of points), free food/drink in lounges. For frequent larger distance travel, trains are a very poor alternative at the moment. Still, I would take them (usually, if not in a hurry which is usually not the case) if they were much cheaper (they are almost always more expensive at 5+ hr distance on the routes I frequent), but that's also not the case...
A large part of the comfort factor is that a direct train takes me from city center to city center, while a "direct" flight requires me to first get to the airport, then navigate the airport, then get from the destination airport to the city. That not only easily adds at least 2 hours to the trip (30 min x 2 spent getting to/from the airport, 30 minutes to get through the airport/security in the best case, 30 minutes to be there at the boarding time), you also spend at least half of the time actively having to do something.
A 4 hour train vs. a 1 hour flight? The flight shaves off one hour of wall-clock time at best, at the cost of being a lot more hassle. But you don't think about this when booking, nor about the luggage surcharge etc. You see "4:00" vs. "1:07" and "$99" vs. "$29".