[Quanttek]

> My 55-minute flight from Geneva to Zurich didn't land on its first attempt.

I know this is not the point of the article but why would you take a flight from Geneva to Zurich? It's less than 3h by train, which if you count the time it takes to get to Geneva airport and go through security, probably becomes a much smaller difference.

And for that, you're emitting ~100kg of CO2 [1]

[1]: https://curb6.com/footprint/flights/geneva-gva/zurich-zrh

[decimalenough]

As the article says, they were on their way to SFO, and you can't fly there (or most any long-haul destinations) from Geneva.

[kelnos]

Right, and GP suggested a better way to accomplish that would be to take a train from Geneva to Zurich, and then fly from Zurich to SFO.

I've actually done that exact route once, and the train experience was much nicer, and took about the same amount of overall time.

[a2128]

Don't ask me why, but airlines will often use nonsensical pricing where the total trip price with one stop can be cheaper than flying directly

[Quanttek]

That's exactly my point! Take the train to Zurich, then fly out of there and you'll get both a better experience and emit less carbon

[kimos]

Airlines need to offer this as a single ticket option. (They might, I don’t know). Because the average traveller or the business traveller isn’t going to coordinate and book two systems, and the headache associated with one being delayed.

[MandieD]

Lufthansa does in Germany. They've cut their flights from a lot of the regional airports to Munich and Frankfurt (I think the government made them if ground transport time is lower than a certain amount), and replaced the former mostly with shuttle buses (Munich airport is not on a major rail line) and the latter with "AiRail" (Frankfurt is, and it's a high speed line) which makes regional hub train stations look like airports to the booking systems.