[fnordian_slip]

There are a lot of indirect subsidies going into air travel. To me this has always seemed rather perverse, and the money should have been invested in proper rail infrastructure instead, from a climate standpoint as well as for convenience (a proper rail network deposits you in the middle of a city without the need for a car, you don't have endless security controls etc.).

[fastball]

What indirect subsidies go into air travel that don't also apply to rail?

[Symbiote]

(In Europe.)

Aircraft fuel isn't taxed, but train 'fuel' (electric or diesel) is taxed.

Airlines can base their staff in a cheap country and pay lower wages, avoid unions etc.

Local governments subsidise airports to attract tourists/business. The railway already exists and doesn't get this subsidy.

[fastball]

Local governments don't subsidize rail stations?

[iancmceachern]

To be fair, rail is also heavily subsidized, just in different ways.

[fragmede]

the TSA?

[missedthecue]

That's not really a subsidy for air travel, in fact it's a cost. People here are talking about how they would prefer rail so that they don't need to go through security at the airport. That's bad for airlines.

[iancmceachern]

But who pays the TSA agents salaries? Buys the equipment?