Why is flying cheaper than getting the train?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

New topic for an article that's 18 months old ... by Esther Barlow

http://www.1010uk.org/articles/why-flying-cheaper-getting-train

If you've ever tried to book a long weekend in London, or a trip to Paris or cornwall, or... really anywhere, it probably didn^t escaped your notice that flying is very often the cheapest way to get to your chosen destination.

That got us thinking - trains can often be less stressful, more comfortable and closer to town centres than planes. And that's before we even get into the impact on the climate - a round trip from Edinburgh to London produces 87% less CO2 if you travel by train compared to a plane. Despite all this, every year thousands opt for air travel instead because of the price. We went to investigate why the cost is so different.

I was so tempted to quote the whole article to trigger discussion - but instead I'm going to recommend you read it.   And I'm going to ask "for each pound I pay in train fares, where does it go?" ... a question that's been asked before, but I'm not totally sure of the answers.   And I still find it hard to see the wood for the trees.

[LiskeardRich]

I've noticed flying Newquay to gatwick as cheaper than the train looking at flight vs train alone. But Newquay airport has poor public transport and car parking is expensive. There is also the cost getting from gatwick into London.
The train goes from a 2 minute walk from home and goes actually to London rather than a place somewhere outside of London.
On face value flying looks cheaper but has loads of extras to pay for that the railway doesn't

[TaplowGreen]

I've noticed flying Newquay to gatwick as cheaper than the train looking at flight vs train alone. But Newquay airport has poor public transport and car parking is expensive. There is also the cost getting from gatwick into London.
The train goes from a 2 minute walk from home and goes actually to London rather than a place somewhere outside of London.
On face value flying looks cheaper but has loads of extras to pay for that the railway doesn't

In addition to cheaper fares.....2 advantages of flying straight away - guaranteed seat, and a legal obligation on the carrier to make provision for its customers in the event of lengthy delays/cancellations........rather being left to one's own devices and facing a blanket refusal to accept responsibility for "consequential losses" if you make your own arrangements as we get with the railways.

[ChrisB]

Supply & demand basically.....if all the flights were as full as the trains....

[TaplowGreen]

Supply & demand basically.....if all the flights were as full as the trains....

which will never happen of course with everyone sitting down on a plane (.....Ryanair may have a view on that!!!)..........and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have the luxury of being a virtual monopoly too, no need to worry about the competition!

[IndustryInsider]

On face value flying looks cheaper but has loads of extras to pay for that the railway doesn't

Including the ^5 compulsory Newquay Airport Development Fee!

In addition to cheaper fares.....2 advantages of flying straight away - guaranteed seat, and a legal obligation on the carrier to make provision for its customers in the event of lengthy delays/cancellations........rather being left to one's own devices and facing a blanket refusal to accept responsibility for "consequential losses" if you make your own arrangements as we get with the railways.

And two benefits of the train straight away (using the Newquay to London example, but very often the case for others too) - turn up and go rather than having to book in advance (less than ^40 single if you have a railcard, less than ^60 if you don't), and more options with 5 trains a day compared with a maximum of 3 flights.

Basically there are advantages and disadvantages to both options, which is why both options are popular enough to exist in the first place.  There's also the coach option, which is the cheapest, with four departures a day, but takes the longest at a 7h 30m minimum.

[TaplowGreen]

On face value flying looks cheaper but has loads of extras to pay for that the railway doesn't

Including the ^5 compulsory Newquay Airport Development Fee!

In addition to cheaper fares.....2 advantages of flying straight away - guaranteed seat, and a legal obligation on the carrier to make provision for its customers in the event of lengthy delays/cancellations........rather being left to one's own devices and facing a blanket refusal to accept responsibility for "consequential losses" if you make your own arrangements as we get with the railways.

And two benefits of the train straight away (using the Newquay to London example, but very often the case for others too) - turn up and go rather than having to book in advance (less than ^40 single if you have a railcard, less than ^60 if you don't), and more options with 5 trains a day compared with a maximum of 3 flights.

Basically there are advantages and disadvantages to both options, which is why both options are popular enough to exist in the first place.  There's also the coach option, which is the cheapest, with four departures a day, but takes the longest at a 7h 30m minimum.

Agreed, there's room for both options and others, although of course only one of those trains is a direct service, and the quickest still takes over 5 hours, often packed to the gunwhales all the way.......in all honesty though for that trip I'd probably opt for the train, Gatwick is such a nightmare....but for trips to Edinburgh/Glasgow (for example) flights from LHR are fantastic value.......(then again I do live 20 mins from Heathrow!)

[broadgage]

I would normally favour rail over air transport on environmental grounds, and in many cases trains used to be more comfortable than flying especially of peak.
Older trains are still preferable to aircraft on passenger comfort grounds, but the difference is becoming less noticeable on newer trains.
Newer trains are usually shorter and more crowded with less room to move around, older trains have buffets which I like, but as discussed elsewhere on these forums newer trains tend not to have a buffet.
Trains used to have seats around tables, new and refurbished trains have airline layout.
And on a train you used to be able to take in practice almost unlimited luggage, provided that you could stuff it in yourself, certainly cant do that by air ! New trains have limited luggage space.

And of course on a plane they have to give you a seat, on a train this is optional.

The seats and seat spacing on a budget airline are even worse than on a new train. If budget airlines could provide a larger seat at a still affordable price I would use them. If a cramped seat can be provided at say ^50, why not offer a larger seat for say ^75?

[IndustryInsider]

Agreed, there's room for both options and others, although of course only one of those trains is a direct service, and the quickest still takes over 5 hours, often packed to the gunwhales all the way

Yep, all part of the equation for deciding on how you do the trip - three direct trains on summer Saturday's though.  The AT300's reduced journey times will hopefully mean the sub 5-hour mark can be achieved.

[TaplowGreen]

Here's an interesting one to ponder.............if FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was an airline, which one would it be? 

[lordgoata]

If my travel experiences are anything to go by, BA^» (British Airways - about). Overpriced and fecking unreliable! 

Disclaimer: Based on my own experiences!

[TaplowGreen]

........I was thinking more of Aeroflot - 40 year old kit that bits keep falling off, cabin heating set to baking hot in the summer, freezing cold in the Winter......passengers frequently stranded miles from anywhere in a hostile environment (have you been to West Drayton during the hours of darkness?)......uncommunicative staff, non existent catering........having said that, in Soviet days industrial action wasn't quite so common...........unless you fancied a transfer to one of the Siberian depots!!! 

[Surrey 455]

passengers frequently stranded miles from anywhere in a hostile environment (have you been to West Drayton during the hours of darkness?)

Yes most weekdays until 2010. I used to live there. It's not that bad, you've obviously been lucky not to have to stand around outside Hayes and Harlington station. That can be intimidating even in daylight.

[TaplowGreen]

passengers frequently stranded miles from anywhere in a hostile environment (have you been to West Drayton during the hours of darkness?)

Yes most weekdays until 2010. I used to live there. It's not that bad, you've obviously been lucky not to have to stand around outside Hayes and Harlington station. That can be intimidating even in daylight.

I absolutely get your point re: H & H, when Mrs TPG and I were courting she lived nearby and I remember my nightly sprint back to the station past the Herberts congregating outside smoking exotic tobacco (and worse!).........I was much younger then, it would be more of a hobble now!!!

[lordgoata]

H & H is the sole reason I get the train to Paddington and come back past it on the HEx when I travel for work!