After three hours of sitting on a runway at LaGuardia International Airport the night of June 19, and the single glass of water and the mini granola bar issued to her long gone, Alice Norris got off her US Airways flight to look for another plane back to Pittsburgh. None was available. She returned to her seat and sat for another two hours before the pilots announced the federal limit on their flight time had run out and the flight had been canceled.
It was now around midnight. The Butler County woman waited through the crowded customer service line, saying she was an inexperienced flier and didn’t know what to do. The customer representative shrugged.
“I’m tired,” Mrs. Norris said.
“I am too,” the rep replied.
“I’m 70,” Mrs. Norris said.
Such experiences are becoming more and more common this summer, with passengers facing mounting cancellations, delays, lost bags, ruined vacations and emotional scenes at the ticket counter. A product of dangerous summer weather and systemic industry problems, the situation is poised to get even worse as the traveling season gets into full swing this week.
So far this week, members of my nuclear family have had 3 flights cancelled already. Ugh. Read it all.
All this is very irritating. At the same time – and this cannot be exaggerated – we should all be flying less. We all know this. We all do bugger-all about it.
I agree John. An expanded pasenger rail service should be a national priority rather than the stepchild that it is at present. A lot more passengers per barrell of oil could be transported by rail than by air.
I really do not understand why our rail system isn’t better, given our supposed level of technological development and sophistication as a society. Perhaps you are aware that France’s new train runs in excess of 200 m.p.h.
I couldn’t agree more about the rail system. I don’t like to fly, and have found taking trains a good substitute in the Northeast Corridor. But we need to make improving our rail system a much higher priority.
While France has a high speed rail system it is only along the flat coastal areas and the entire country of France would fit into the area from Mass. to N.C. up to Ohio. I believe that we do have a high level of train transportation along the Northeast area. To provide train coverage to all the areas that are covered by air would require a massive amount of expense and who would pay for that?
My brother-in-law is an airlines pilot. He always says, “Time to spare, go by air.” When my wife went from Illinois to Kansas to visit parents, we drove an hour to to the train station. Her train was within a minute of scheduled departure time. She arrived within ten minutes of scheduled time. On the return, she was an hour late leaving Kansas and fifty minues late on arrival. It was easy to check with AMTRAK to verify the status of the train. Oh, so much simpler that if she flew and changed planes at O’Hare. Total time for train trip including travel to the station and waiting was about eleven hours each way. In the old days flying would have been quicker, but not now. The only rub was arrival and departure times in Kansas were both around 3 AM. Still, less stress than flying, and cheaper too. I pray things go better the end of August when I must fly to Oregon via O’Hare.
Sorry typo:
Oh, so much simpler than [not that] if she flew and changed planes at O’Hare.
Hmmm. One trip north a day by rail through Columbia, SC supposed to be at 1am ish (ugh), usual several hours behind (double ugh). US outside the NE corridor is pathetic and we know why. The US has a very low population density and high population dispersion. We love the automobile and in tandem with air travel a for-profit rail system just couldn’t compete. Heck, what happened to Greyhound and Trailways? — cheap air travel. Europe of course also has substantially higher taxes on gasoline.
Many economists are advocating a carbon tax. That may bring the costs of driving less competitive relative to rail.
Slightly related topic.
I once heard something like this (and this is paraphrased, so forgive me):
If you travel by air, you may get there `fastest` (which I understand is now debatable) but you won`t see anything between your departure point and your destination.
If you travel by train, you will get there faster than by bus or car, and you`ll get to see at least some of the country between points.
If you travel by bus or car, you will get there faster than walking or biking, and you will get to see much more than if traveling by train.
If you bike (as in bicycle) or walk, it may take forever to get there, but BOY will you see a lot of the country inbetween.
Wish I had the ability to take off enough time from work to do a walking or biking vacation! Or even to go by car to a far distant point. (sigh) As it is we travel by car 6 hours one-way for the annual family vacation at the beach (and mini-reunion of the immediate family – about 12 people in all).
Anything 10 hours or less, it’s faster for me to drive.
I recently upped it from 8 hours. By the time I’ve arrived 1.5 hours early, had a 1.5 hour layover [since almost nothing is a direct flight for me], done two flights of two hours each . . . that’s seven hours . . . and all the hassle of airports and security and getting a car at the airport. Plus . . . there’s the 1 in 3 chance that there will be an immense delay or cancellation . . . and then I am doomed.
My 8 hour limit came about when I was supposed to catch a direct flight from Washington to home — 1.5 hours . . . and at midnight staggered in on a prop airplane, about 12 hours later. I realized after checking out mapquest that I could have made it faster driving, and in far greater comfort.
As #5 wrote, it’s the low population density leading to relativly few routes. For my most common trip, which I have long wanted to do by rail rather than drive, Amtrak would take 20 hours one way, driving takes 6 hours, flying takes maybe 3 hours all told and costs the same as the train.
Unfortunately, Amtrak’s penetration in many parts of the country are poor. I live in a fairly large southern city, but would have to drive several hours to the nearest Amtrak route. I wish it were an option.
On one level I agree with all that is written here. I have slept overnight on the terminal floor, when planes have been delayed. I have had my share of trials and tribulations. Then I think about my great grandfather moving from South Carolina to Texas, by Conestoga wagon. Maybe 70 days on the road. (What road?) Maybe 10% of the folks on the wagon train dying and being buried along the way. Yeah, the good old days when travel was simple.
Even when I was a kid, we would drive roundtrip from Dayton Ohio to Lubbock Texas every summer. Three hard days each way — no interstates (almost no roads). 1941 Chevrolet — no air conditioner. Plenty of flat tires. Oh yeah, the good old days. In 1948, my dad needed to get the Chevrolet up to Fairbanks. The new AlCan road was freshly graveled. Please allow a couple of weeks for the trip for fording stream and the 10mph portions.
Airline travel today is not as nice as it was when the jets first came out around 1960, but it is almost free compared to then. In those days a round trip to Europe for one person cost almost as much as buying a small sedan — say $15,000 in today’s money. What is it today? Maybe, 900, maybe 700, maybe even 599. You have to play fare roulette, but it is still almost free compared to the good old days. Folks who are willing to pay what it used to cross the country are chartering small planes and really going first class. Most of us would rather fly for closer to free and put up with some delays.
Wishing all on T19 smooth sailing this summer —
I have to agree with #13. Air travel is an incredible bargain, not only in matters of money, but in that most precious commodity– time (on longer trips only!!!!). Expanded rail in the East makes sense, maybe out to the Mississippi. Then up and down the West coast. In the middle rail makes no sense. We go to Wyoming every summer; three days on the road, each way, or 11 hours by air. I drive because I like the Oregon Trail. For my kids, who have two weeks off at most, flying is a necessity, and nowadays, cheaper than driving. PS: retired airline pilot. I flew the NY-DC shuttle some and could never, ever figure why people would fly rather than take Amtrak.
We have not had Amtrack service between Pensacola and the panhandle of Florida since Katrina destroyed the rails in Louisiana. why that should affect FLORIDA is more than I can say. But even when we did have service, it was irregular and the trains were more than five hours late, sometimes even delayed for a day or more.
I would personally love to see at least between Pensacola (where my daughter goes to college) and Tallahassee (where we live). It would certainly cut down on gas when I have to go pick her up beginning, middle and end of semesters!
My vote would be for a nation-wide monorail system!
Jim Elliott
*grumble, grumble, gripe, gripe!*
I would personally love to see [i][b]train service restored[/b][/i]at least between Pensacola …. &c.
By the way, carbon taxes would be a very expensive joke that would only line the pockets of rich politicians.