[SR2Z]

I think the context that's missing from this discussion is just how long the 747 was in service. When it was new, pilots didn't directly control the engines - a flight engineer did. There were no moving maps and navigation was done with radio beacons and pilotage (of course, this required lots of fiddling with knobs and a notepad). There were no flight envelope protections, and we knew next to nothing about the dangers of rocketing across the ocean at Mach 0.9. The first encounter between a jetliner and volcanic ash was a 747; despite all four engines flaming out and the whole plane being wreathed in St. Elmo's fire, the pilots were able to safely restart all of them and nobody got hurt. People who love this jet love it because they see the problems it solved and how it kept on rising to the occasion as the world changed around it.

I'm not going to pay 2x ticket prices to keep it alive either, but it is terribly romantic. If human beings are allowed to fall in love with machines this one is as good as any.

[sandworm101]

And the context of the different regulatory environment. Those fancy cabins in the 60s/70s were because prices/routes were controlled by government. Unable to compete on price, airlines competed on luxury. Which, at the time, largely boiled down to who which had the shortest miniskirts in the TV ads.

Today's flying cattlecar hell is the result of the opposite, a dramatic market-driven race to the bottom of quality... followed by a price bounce to see how much money they can pull out of use before we give up and drive.

The day we have self-driving cars good enough that we can sleep, domestic air travel is dead. Ill take 10 hours curlled up in the back seat of my car rather than the 10+ hours it takes getting to/from airports for a domestic flight.

[shipman05]

Or we could just build trains (in the US, other wealthy places seem to already get this)

[Forgeties79]

Seriously it is embarrassing how under developed trains are in the US. Yes there are some routes that don’t make sense but there are tons that do. It makes no sense. We’ve simply resigned to this general feeling of “well everything is probably too far apart and even if they aren’t it’s just not going to happen.”

[sandworm101]

Trains will also be killed by fully autonomous cars. Trains still need stations, loading times, tickets, horrible food, waiting in lobbies, luggage limits, government ID ... check in. Trains are literally unable to ever deliver door-to-door transport. And, in north america, biulding tens of thousands of stations (one in every small town) plus millions of miles of track ... it just isnt going to happen in our lifetimes.

[Forgeties79]

Train travel is not this horrible experience you’re implying. When I’m in DC I swipe a card, walk on, walk off. Same with New York and Amsterdam. Even Netherlands into France is walk on/walk off - they recommend you get there 20min early. Luggage limits? First off, how often do you need to haul multiple suitcases and bags? Even then, I have walked on to trains with multiple suitcases. It is definitely not a big deal. This reads to me like how whenever bikes come up suddenly everyone has to haul a refrigerator uphill in the rain.

Autonomous cars would absolutely be the most convenient, comfortable experience. But it is incredibly inefficient/wasteful and it will never be economical. Trains are a great way to travel. Also, how far are you expecting autonomous cars to take you? I can’t imagine it’s economical after more than a couple of miles. It’s certainly wasteful out the gate because everyone expects to have their own cars in the US in particular. And not everything needs to be door to door, nor do we need trains for literally every town in the US. These are all absurd bars you’re setting that no one is calling for. You’re basically saying “trains aren’t luxurious enough for me and don’t go literally everywhere so therefore they should be killed.”

There’s also the wrinkle that we keep being promised they’re about to be here and yet we’ve seen very minimal deployment of any kind so far. I just don’t think personal, autonomous cars are going to be here in any reasonable timeframe, if for no other reason then how litigious the US is, and trains are just far more efficient at the end of the day for most cases.

Edit: forgot the food and waiting around… at least you have food available to you at a train station. If you’re in a car stuck in traffic, you just have to grin and bear it with no options. There’s also nothing stopping you from packing your own food, while eating in a vehicle isn’t yours is generally frowned upon in a car.

[lucumo]

> When I’m in DC I swipe a card, walk on, walk off. Same with New York and Amsterdam. Even Netherlands into France is walk on/walk off

What train did you take to France? Everytime I go to Belgium I have to be careful to pick a train that doesn't require me to book a ticket on a specific train. I really like the "I'll get the next train whenever I reach the station" that domestic trains have. For long distance international trains that seems to only still be available to a limited set of trains to Belgium.

[bobthepanda]

there is a large, well connected domestic auto industry that wants Americans to keep driving bigger and more gas guzzling cars because that's the only thing they know how to sell to Americans these days.

Though this is not really limited to the legacy automakers; the Hyperloop was a media stunt to try and divert investment away from transit, and in some places, it actually worked.

[SR2Z]

Sure, but when the 747 was new and gas was a few cents a gallon?

An airplane is a very efficient way to move people. There is no ground friction, the route is pretty direct, and once the airplane is loaded 100 passenger-miles a gallon is not unreasonable.

Even today the EU has to ban short-haul flights along rail corridors because jets are still competitive. I say this as someone who likes trains and chooses them whenever possible.

[lukan]

"because jets are still competitive"

Yes, because airports and everything around is heavily subsidized and there is no tax on jet fuel.

"There is no ground friction"

And that argument is not so strong considering that air friction grows quadratic with speed.

And considering side effects like climate change - contrails combined with lots of other chemicals in the jet fuel are really not helping, their effect is worse than just the CO2 released which is also already huge.

So high speed trains are superior in almost every way - once a rail network is build. That is the advantage of planes - they just require start and landing strip.

[SR2Z]

I cannot fathom why you think airport subsidies matter here. Airports are way, way cheaper than HSR.

Yeah drag grows quadratically with speed but reduces with altitude. At 40k ft a modern jet delivers up to 150 pmpg.

Yes the carbon emissions argument is a good one, and I personally prefer taking trains when they're available. I think that people are not appreciative enough of how efficient air travel is.

[Forgeties79]

I just don’t understand how anybody can take a domestic flight and go “yeah, that sounds way better than a train.“ Even the worst train experience is better than a midtier plane experience. Plus unless you’re traveling particularly far, once you factor in all the nonsense of getting to an airport, through security, then out of the airport when you arrive, train is often the faster method.

[Forgeties79]

I don’t need a plane to travel 1-10mi and long distance trains are on the whole far more pleasant than domestic flights. Plus you don’t have to get there 90min-2hr early to go through invasive security theater.

[dolphenstein]

I bet if you pay the equivalent 60s/70s dollars to fly today you'll get much better service than back then! Modern first class cabins are a class above what was available back then.