So much this. We’re so spolied by low cost airlines in Europe.

I can either - go for a train trip to the 2nd largest city in Denmark (Copenhagen to Aarhus) for 230 eur (2 adults + a kid) and it takes almost 3 hours. - take a Ryanair flight to Alicante for 240 eur (2 adults + a kid), flight takes 3.5 hours

The weather will be much better, the food and accommodation cheaper by a long shot (not to mention Spanish cuisine). It’s not even comparable how much more value you get when flying.

Is probably an unfair comparison. (And if you think that living in Alicante is cheap, you should see the boring inner smaller cities, easily reachable by train)

My impression is that Air travel to touristic destinations is just too cheap, for a reason. Selling airplane sits for pennies is probably just part of a bigger business. Tourists typically will spend money on services and hotels that could be owned by a sibling company, etc...

In Spain is often discussed how UK tourists can came to Spain for ridiculous prices, while we can't do the same in the opposite direction (or when flying inside the country). Tour-operators altering the market could be the reason for that "magic" IMAO.

Trains are nice in any case (but nobody is armed here, so just copy the system could be more defiant in other places)

It's worse in the UK. Paris to Napoli is a long distance. London to Birmingham walk up fair can be £150.

I think that the hidden benefits of open travel is highly elastic.

That is to say, that if we subsidized train travel, then there are benefits (open trade, comms, etc.) that are easily realised but that we don't see.

I feel it is so elastic (sorry, I'm misusing this term somewhat) that you can subsidize to an extremely high percentage without net cost (if all externalities could actually be known and costed in)

I want train journeys to be 50Euro Athens-Stockholm. 10Euro Paris-Hamburg. I want my taxes to pay the difference.

Maybe “positive externalities” instead of “elastic”.

Yes I suppose 'net-positive externalities' is the most correct - Thanks

This is because of the extreme subsidies air traffic receives. If it were not for these rail would be very competitive.

> This is because of the extreme subsidies air traffic receives.

I don't think so. Railway lines are the epitome of lost fund subsidies by the state. You need to build and maintain a new line for each direct connection you want to create. The construction cost of a railway line, let alone a line that supports high-speed rail, eclipses the cost of a brand new airport.

Once a railway line is in place, getting a train to travel from point A to B costs peanuts.

I have not hear this point before, please would you mind to elaborate, if possible with sources to share? Thanks.

Who subsidizes the air traffic?

Tax payers. In Germany, airplane fuel is not taxed.

See this Greenpeace study (in German) about how much cheaper flying is than train rides and why:

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/regional/nordrheinwestfalen....

Not taxed does not mean it is subsidized. Subsidy is when money is paid by the government to the airlines.

Tax on fuel reflects the externalities to the whole of society, and arguably it is not high enough.

So exempting tax (equivalently not charging for externalities) is indeed a subsidy, a transfer of wealth from government (and so society) to the airline operators.

Regional airports are usually subsidized by local governments to put them on the map. Also jet fuel could be taxes at à similar rate as gas/diesel

For 300 Euros you can get Interrail and and ride around Europe all you want for 4 days in a month.