I thought I read years ago that airlines responded to Skiplagged by penalizing people who didn’t complete every leg of the trip they booked. I’m not sure why they would care.
They care because the real cost of air travel is not equaled everywhere on each mile flown. If the actual costs of flying to many small regional locations was reflected in the cost of the ticket, the ticket would be so absurdly high no one would every flight to that location, and the location would lose critical flight services for the community.
The solution many of those airlines used was to consolidate the majority of the flight into a hub using larger planes which are cheaper to operate per-passenger, and then use much smaller planes from the hub to the remote location charging the passenger the equivalent of a reasonable cost of a ticket for all hops along the way.
What Skiplagging as doing was essentially using the subsidized discount rate provided for the small regional destinations, but consumed by those not going to those places that needed subsidies on their flights going to major hubs. So not only was the airline losing money for each passenger not paying the normal fare to the hub airport, but also showing lower passenger volume to the small regional destinations increasing the cost of flying passengers that wanted to go their even more.
TLDR; Skiplagging screws small cities with low passenger volume risking their ability to maintain flight service at all to their towns.
I get being naturally suspicious especially if we’re talking about messaging that may match some from large companies, but don’t let language that sounds that way turn off your brain to critical thinking. If you interact in a system (such as buying a ticket as an airline passenger) you can have an affect on the system. Understand your actions to personally enrich yourself may have consequences on other people just trying to fly somewhere. Don’t be blinded by big business hate to justify screwing other passengers using the airlines.
my air and weather shouldn’t have to suffer so you can keep your “small town lifestyle”, fuck your luxury bullshit founded on the externality of my life. I’m sorry but I’m sick of subsidizing these obscenely decadent parasites who would probably kill me and mount my blue stained scalp on their wall.
I don’t mind green energy powered trains. That’s cheap, it doesn’t intrude on my life any, and gets you where you’re going fast clean safe. I’m just against flying them out on a jet.
If they can’t manage the 200 year old technology 9f a rail link, perhaps they shouldn’t, barring extreme geography, be considered part of my society worthy of my care?
my air and weather shouldn’t have to suffer so you can keep your “small town lifestyle”, fuck your luxury bullshit founded on the externality of my life.
I have no idea what image you have of these smaller airports supporting smaller cities and their surrounding rural populous, but I assure you most are far away from “luxury”. Lets take one small city in the middle of Kansas called Salina. Its a city of 47,000 people. The median income is $61,783 and the per capita income of Salina is $34,886 and has a 13% poverty rate. The next closest airport to Salina is 80 miles away. They’re not living there just to keep their “small town lifestyle”. Its where they grow the food we both eat.
It has a total of 4 small plane flights a day into its airport:
Salina is also a major agricultural hub supporting 650 farms for total of over 360,000 acres growing grains and livestock.
I don’t mind green energy powered trains. That’s cheap, it doesn’t intrude on my life any, and gets you where you’re going fast clean safe. I’m just against flying them out on a jet.
Fast rail service versus flying? Have you ever been on a long haul Amtrak passenger rail train? Amtrak is not fast. Salina doesn’t have an Amtrak station. The closest one is 90 miles away in Newton Kansas. An Amtrak train trip form Newton Kansas to Chicago takes 12 to 14 hours and the service can experience delays making it even longer. A flight (1 of only 4 flights they have) from Selina to Chicago takes 2 hours and 5 minutes.
I’m sorry but I’m sick of subsidizing these obscenely decadent parasites who would probably kill me and mount my blue stained scalp on their wall.
I bet the people of Salina would laugh their asses off at you considering them decadent parasites. You’re happy to eat the food they produce, but you’d put their their 4 flights a day into their city at risk so you personally could save $50 on a ticket to Chicago by skiplagging?
I have been on Amtrak trains. They’re fine. The drinks are bottom shelf and overpriced, the cocktails are a little basic, the seats don’t all recline, but they’re fine.
Another advantage: you can move agricultural products on train! Livestock, even! Sounds like a pretty good case for having trains, and Amtrak uses the same rail standards as freight, not that Amtrak is the only option for having a train.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Train stations can be pretty minimal. They’re not hard to build. Maybe they should get on that. Especially if they’re so poor. Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW. I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
I’ve been on Amtrak too and have firsthand experience with them also. The goalpost wasn’t if they were “fine” or not. I was quite happy to use it, but was not in a hurry to get to my destination. Your ascertain was they are fast. For longhaul travel (which is what the flight replaces), Amtrak is not fast.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
Because of lots of the infrastructure, rail capacity, rolling stock availability that makes a passenger rail line isn’t viable to be self sustaining for that small a population without subsidies, and you’re already given them the finger on anything that costs you something.
I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
This is a strange level of hate for people you’ve never met just trying to live their lives. Brother, you need some socialism in your life and empathy for your fellow man. We’re in this together.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW.
Ahh, okay. Thank you for this critical information. I have a MUCH better understanding of your positions now. Thank your for conversing up to now. Have a great day.
They already get those. Money is whatever, climate is a bigger deal.
And it seems like they already need to move a lot of freight. You’re really attached to that airport. Have you tried telling it about your feelings? Might be willing to fuckyou. You never know til you ask.
So the thing about trains is they need tracks. Building tracks involves a lot of carbon output. You need to make steel, you need concrete, you need lumber, you need gravel. You need to ship all of these things to wherever you want to build the tracks. You need to buy the land that you’re going to build the tracks on. If you want high speed rail, the tracks have to be very straight and have very specific routes. If you want to electrify the train, you need even more metal for wires.
All that infrastructure, versus just an airport. It would take a lot of math to convince me one is better than the other, here. Once we have electric planes (the tech is mature, you can ride zero emissions planes in Canada right now, we’re just waiting on FAA approval in the USA), I think the balance will be clearly in their favor.
I love trains, but I think there’s room for both trains and planes in an environmentalist future.
I completely agree that “major cities” should have trains, but look at Alaska and tell me how many places would be remotely hospitable to trains or their tracks?
No, dude, I said you were right. Like THE mountains, just entirely in THE mountains. Or the mountainy islands? Doing trains there is silly and stupid And impractical. Just doesn’t make sense some places.
Alaska has a really interesting rail system that was built during the gold rush specifically to get people into remote parts of the state that were otherwise almost completely inaccessible at the time.
There’s tons of remote villages that don’t have trains still mind you, but my point is that if there’s a will there’s a way. Right now airlines and fuel are subsidized and encouraged by the govt to keep costs down, which relieves development demand for rail. Flip the incentives and rail could theoretically take off in the USA; but that requires politicians with stones and a will to do good instead of… Whatever they are right now.
They care because the real cost of air travel is not equaled everywhere on each mile flown. If the actual costs of flying to many small regional locations was reflected in the cost of the ticket, the ticket would be so absurdly high no one would every flight to that location, and the location would lose critical flight services for the community.
The solution many of those airlines used was to consolidate the majority of the flight into a hub using larger planes which are cheaper to operate per-passenger, and then use much smaller planes from the hub to the remote location charging the passenger the equivalent of a reasonable cost of a ticket for all hops along the way.
What Skiplagging as doing was essentially using the subsidized discount rate provided for the small regional destinations, but consumed by those not going to those places that needed subsidies on their flights going to major hubs. So not only was the airline losing money for each passenger not paying the normal fare to the hub airport, but also showing lower passenger volume to the small regional destinations increasing the cost of flying passengers that wanted to go their even more.
TLDR; Skiplagging screws small cities with low passenger volume risking their ability to maintain flight service at all to their towns.
Sounds like something an airline would say.
I get being naturally suspicious especially if we’re talking about messaging that may match some from large companies, but don’t let language that sounds that way turn off your brain to critical thinking. If you interact in a system (such as buying a ticket as an airline passenger) you can have an affect on the system. Understand your actions to personally enrich yourself may have consequences on other people just trying to fly somewhere. Don’t be blinded by big business hate to justify screwing other passengers using the airlines.
Few of these places need to be flown to. They should have trains if they’re worried about efficiency.
I’m not sure I’ve ever read a more subtle or concise way to say “fuck you” to all of smaller city America simultaneously.
my air and weather shouldn’t have to suffer so you can keep your “small town lifestyle”, fuck your luxury bullshit founded on the externality of my life. I’m sorry but I’m sick of subsidizing these obscenely decadent parasites who would probably kill me and mount my blue stained scalp on their wall.
I don’t mind green energy powered trains. That’s cheap, it doesn’t intrude on my life any, and gets you where you’re going fast clean safe. I’m just against flying them out on a jet.
If they can’t manage the 200 year old technology 9f a rail link, perhaps they shouldn’t, barring extreme geography, be considered part of my society worthy of my care?
I have no idea what image you have of these smaller airports supporting smaller cities and their surrounding rural populous, but I assure you most are far away from “luxury”. Lets take one small city in the middle of Kansas called Salina. Its a city of 47,000 people. The median income is $61,783 and the per capita income of Salina is $34,886 and has a 13% poverty rate. The next closest airport to Salina is 80 miles away. They’re not living there just to keep their “small town lifestyle”. Its where they grow the food we both eat.
It has a total of 4 small plane flights a day into its airport:
source
Salina is also a major agricultural hub supporting 650 farms for total of over 360,000 acres growing grains and livestock.
Fast rail service versus flying? Have you ever been on a long haul Amtrak passenger rail train? Amtrak is not fast. Salina doesn’t have an Amtrak station. The closest one is 90 miles away in Newton Kansas. An Amtrak train trip form Newton Kansas to Chicago takes 12 to 14 hours and the service can experience delays making it even longer. A flight (1 of only 4 flights they have) from Selina to Chicago takes 2 hours and 5 minutes.
I bet the people of Salina would laugh their asses off at you considering them decadent parasites. You’re happy to eat the food they produce, but you’d put their their 4 flights a day into their city at risk so you personally could save $50 on a ticket to Chicago by skiplagging?
I have been on Amtrak trains. They’re fine. The drinks are bottom shelf and overpriced, the cocktails are a little basic, the seats don’t all recline, but they’re fine.
Another advantage: you can move agricultural products on train! Livestock, even! Sounds like a pretty good case for having trains, and Amtrak uses the same rail standards as freight, not that Amtrak is the only option for having a train.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Train stations can be pretty minimal. They’re not hard to build. Maybe they should get on that. Especially if they’re so poor. Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW. I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
I’ve been on Amtrak too and have firsthand experience with them also. The goalpost wasn’t if they were “fine” or not. I was quite happy to use it, but was not in a hurry to get to my destination. Your ascertain was they are fast. For longhaul travel (which is what the flight replaces), Amtrak is not fast.
Because of lots of the infrastructure, rail capacity, rolling stock availability that makes a passenger rail line isn’t viable to be self sustaining for that small a population without subsidies, and you’re already given them the finger on anything that costs you something.
This is a strange level of hate for people you’ve never met just trying to live their lives. Brother, you need some socialism in your life and empathy for your fellow man. We’re in this together.
Ahh, okay. Thank you for this critical information. I have a MUCH better understanding of your positions now. Thank your for conversing up to now. Have a great day.
They already get those. Money is whatever, climate is a bigger deal.
And it seems like they already need to move a lot of freight. You’re really attached to that airport. Have you tried telling it about your feelings? Might be willing to fuckyou. You never know til you ask.
So the thing about trains is they need tracks. Building tracks involves a lot of carbon output. You need to make steel, you need concrete, you need lumber, you need gravel. You need to ship all of these things to wherever you want to build the tracks. You need to buy the land that you’re going to build the tracks on. If you want high speed rail, the tracks have to be very straight and have very specific routes. If you want to electrify the train, you need even more metal for wires.
All that infrastructure, versus just an airport. It would take a lot of math to convince me one is better than the other, here. Once we have electric planes (the tech is mature, you can ride zero emissions planes in Canada right now, we’re just waiting on FAA approval in the USA), I think the balance will be clearly in their favor.
I love trains, but I think there’s room for both trains and planes in an environmentalist future.
Just as soon as we get those carbon capture factories working!
I completely agree that “major cities” should have trains, but look at Alaska and tell me how many places would be remotely hospitable to trains or their tracks?
Switzerland and Japan too. Some places trains just can’t work. You got a point I guess.
both of those places have way too many people so overcoming the geographic challenge makes sense
No, dude, I said you were right. Like THE mountains, just entirely in THE mountains. Or the mountainy islands? Doing trains there is silly and stupid And impractical. Just doesn’t make sense some places.
Alaska has a really interesting rail system that was built during the gold rush specifically to get people into remote parts of the state that were otherwise almost completely inaccessible at the time.
There’s tons of remote villages that don’t have trains still mind you, but my point is that if there’s a will there’s a way. Right now airlines and fuel are subsidized and encouraged by the govt to keep costs down, which relieves development demand for rail. Flip the incentives and rail could theoretically take off in the USA; but that requires politicians with stones and a will to do good instead of… Whatever they are right now.
Ironically, parts of Alaska have pretty decent passenger train access. It’s mostly for tourists, but still. Better than most of the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad
it takea 12 hours and is a once a day train, it really isn’t particularly competitive especially because it is more expensive than the plane