I've only ridden Amtrak once but I guess there are also security requirements that do take some time also (as opposed to most European countries).
I've also experienced lots of unexpected delays on flights whereas trains seem to be exceptionally on time (especially in a country like Germany). You're also assuming a direct flight also (though this is probably more related to cost which is another issue).
All in all, a coast to coast journey that takes 12 hours vs. 7 doesn't seem so bad if:
- I can spend maybe 8 of it sleeping in a bed - The difference is 5 hours - I can eat some real meals in a dining car - I can walk around reasonably
Not in my experience. You show up at the station and walk onto the train. Dread that changing one of these days based on some incident.
The problem is the terrain doesn't lend itself to trains at all without a super expensive investment, and the population of Peru is spread out so much once you leave Lima.
Flights in general are terrible in Latin America in terms of cost which is why the bus is popular. More so international but even domestic is pricey for the quality and distance. Plus stopping in Paracas/Nazca/Arequipa makes the bus a good way to cheaply hit those spots. Flying back to the start is a good move though
I think lack of competition is a big problem. There aren't a ton of major airlines here. The population is also pretty spread out compared to Asia/Europe.
Domestic is usually okay. I just recently flew to the edge of Peru to visit Bolivia by land because it saved enough money to justify the extra time.
Who cares if it takes 8 to 12 hours if you board the train, have dinner there, sleep a good night and have breakfast before arriving.
Even more since SNCF launched their low cost TGV (Ouigo).
Not to say high-speed rail doesn't have its uses - by far not, the chief one being replacing flights < 2 hours - but anything above the 2 hour flight time is better kept served by plane.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/worlds-fastest-trains...