Samoa Air Rolling Out "Pay As You Weigh" Fares

cylonlover writes "Thrifty Samoans looking to take a trip may want to shed a few pounds before booking a flight with Samoan Air after the airline announced the implementation of a 'pay as you weigh' system. Unlike some other airlines that have courted controversy by forcing some obese passengers to purchase two seats, Samoa's national carrier will charge passengers based on their weight." They have a demo fare calculator for the curious.

Comments

Not too surprising

[mbone]

I have been to Samoa, and you see a lot of extremely obese people there, even by American standards, so this does not surprise me.

Re:Not too surprising

[azalin]

Looks like the slashdot effect still works. Samoa air is offline with a "508 Resource Limit Is Reached" error. Mind you not just the calculator but the whole page. Just like in the good old days.

Re:Not too surprising

[Joce640k]

Why is that? Is it their diet? Or is being big considered attractive in their culture?

They live on Spam fritters, Spam "Musubi", etc.

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578329/Spam-at-heart-of-South-Pacific-obesity-crisis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_Pacific

Re:Not too surprising

[omnichad]

Yes - it is considered attractive. It connotes wealth.

Fairplay

[hedwards]

I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#? Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

Re:Fairplay

[Rob the Bold]

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

From the fare calculator:

Step 2. Enter your details, including your estimated weight(s) of passengers and baggage

Re:Fairplay

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. Because it costs the airline more to move 180lbs than it does 100lbs. Simple way of pricing tickets, you and all your luggage step on a scale and you're charged a per lb rate for your ticket. Very fair.

Re:Fairplay

[mwvdlee]

You got to go on carnaval rides a lot younger than the woman; is that fair?

Re:Fairplay

[Nite_Hawk]

I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#?

It's easy: Because it costs more to ship you.

Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

None of this is the airline's problem. It's entirely reasonable for the airline to charge people based on how much it costs to fly them somewhere. In a lot of ways it's more honest than the current system where that 100lb woman is helping to subsidize your ticket.

Re:Fairplay

[Anonymous Coward]

The airline doesn't care whether you are "overweight", they care about how much fuel they need to get you from A to B. Your weight is relevent, your BMI is not.

Re:Fairplay

[h4rr4r]

Why would the airline care if you are healthy or not?

They don't care about "weight" they care about normal weight.

Re:Fairplay

[losfromla]

An airplane does not give two shits about BMI, it deals strictly with weight that needs to be lifted and carried.

Re:Fairplay

[Chris Mattern]

The chair, and more importantly, your slice of the aircraft, weights far more than your lard.

I sincerely doubt that just the chair weighs significantly more than the passenger. Your slice of the aircraft? Well, let's see here. Let's go with a Boeing 747-400, since that's an extremely common jumbo. Operating weight, empty, is 394,100 lb. We'll assume a two-class configuration with 524 passengers, which is pretty common. 394,000 divided by 524 is about 750 pounds. So, yeah, it's definitely more than the passenger + luggage. But passengers and luggage are *still* probably over one quarter the weight (not counting fuel). That's enough to be really significant. Your excess poundage does matter. "Dignity"? Dignity is paying your own way. More weight costs more. Pay for it.

Re:Fairplay

[tompaulco]

It's easy: Because it costs more to ship you.

That is correct. Because you weigh 50 pounds more than the woman, on an average 737, that extra 50 pounds represents a 5/100ths of a percent increase in total weight, and so therefore, you should pay an extra 15 cents on a typical $300 ticket.
Okay, so that is tongue in cheek, but according to wikipedia, an extra 700 pounds represents a 1/2 percent increase in fuel burn. So let's assume a 70 pounds overweight person to make it easy. That is 1/20th of a percent increase in fuel burn. A typical two hour flight will burn 10,000 pounds of fuel. A 1/20th of a percent increase is about 5 pounds. Let's round up to one gallon. In bulk Jet fuel prices, you are looking at $4 a gallon, so an extremely conservative estimate of what it costs the airlines to fly a 70 pound overweight person is about $4.

Re:Fairplay

[Opportunist]

With Ryan it's amazing that they don't charge you extra if you want to breathe on their planes. Their infamous tack-on fees get a wee bit insane by now. Next the "standard fare" will probably be you being locked in a 1x1x0.5m box so they can stack you, if you want a seat it's extra.

Fuel costs money

[eksith]

That's really the bottom line here. Despite the negative stigma this may cause to the airline, I'm actually suprised this hasn't come about sooner. As it says, these are not big jets; they're small planes and the population doesn't exactly have a reputation for being skinny (and we can blame industrial "progress" for that).

Re:Fuel costs money

[Will.Woodhull]

And college basketball teams are discriminatory. If you are less than 4 feet tall, it does not matter that you are a pretty good player for your size, you cannot get on a team. And Mensa is highly discriminatory. If you happen to be born stupid, you cannot join.

That second example is clearly germane to the current line of reasoning.

Re:Fuel costs money

[Nemesisghost]

In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.

Not necessarily. The thing about discrimination is that you can get away with it, if you have reasonable cause to do so. For example, fire departments can and routinely discriminate against women. Why? Well, the job has a reasonable expectation that you will be forced to lift a certain amount(I believe it's around 75lbs) of weight up a large amount of stairs. For your averagely fit man, and even some below average, this is not much of a requirement. But the same cannot be said for most women. Women can still be firemen, but it requires more work.

Re:Fuel costs money

[Richard_at_work]

Sometimes discrimination should just be called "life" - we are all in fact different, and some of us cost more to move around so why shouldn't those that cost more get charged more? Its this continuous PC bullshit that tries to make us all artificially the same, but only in a way in which other people have to ignore obvious physical and mental traits to reach that artificial conclusion...

Fat people weigh more. Taller people sometimes weight more. More weight costs more to move from point A to point B. Thats the basic reality.

Re:Fuel costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the desire to join an organisation like Mensa is itself cause for concern about ones maturity if not intelligence.

Re:Fuel costs money

[FooAtWFU]

Right. So essentially you're taxing people who want health insurance and are very healthy to pay for people who want health insurance and are at risk of becoming ill, to make life a little more equitable.

That's.... problematic. It's not the "to pay for the at-risk" part that's the troublesome part, specifically - let's put aside the partisan considerations and assume that's desirable for the moment - it's the fact that you're implementing this wealth transfer by making health insurance more expensive for everyone else. That's one of the most regressive tax regimes you could possibly imagine. Way to stick it to the poor and middle-class!

Re:Fuel costs money

[Sircus]

We're talking about charging people for things they have no control over.

I have no control over the increasing average weight of the population at large, but am currently being charged for it by all airlines other than Samoa Air.

Re:Fuel costs money

[Bearhouse]

Last time I was in the States, I was stopped by a lady cop.
She was very petite, feminine, and polite.

Ah, and she kept her well-manicured hand on her gun all the time she was talking to me.

OK, maybe she would have had more difficulty dragging me out of a crushed automobile than a hefty dude, but I think that for traffic enforcement she was more than capable of doing her job.

Linear Cost

[MarioMax]

It appears that their cost formula is a strictly linear equation:

Cost (price) = weight (kilograms) x rate (price per kilogram)

Though their cost formula doesn't take into account the amount of airplane that each person also needs to haul around in addition to themselves; the price to fly children is disproportionately cheap, while larger adults are disproportionately expnsive.

I probably would have priced it as such if my goal were to meet expenses

Cost (price) = fixed_cost (price) + weight (kilograms) x rate (price per kilogram)

Re:Linear Cost

[slashkitty]

They should take into account volume as well. Next time I'm taking a crap load of helium balloons!

Re:sounds good

[X0563511]

Yes they are. "Step 2. Enter your details, including your estimated weight(s) of passengers and baggage"

More person, more cost. Fine.

[fyngyrz]

I'm big, and this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Weight and size affects the cost of transport, and it may affect seating as well.

Though I have to say, if you charge more, but don't arrange for the comfort of both the larger persons and those that might be seated near them, you really aren't addressing the issue all that well. Pretending a seven foot tall guy fits in, or behind, or in front of, a seat designed for a five foot tall person (who apparently only has one arm, judging by the armrest configurations) isn't fooling anyone. Likewise, for widebody people, a seat designed for narrow hips doesn't cut it. If I sit in front of you, my head will be in your dinner plate if I recline at all. Well, ok, your peanut bag, anyway. If you sit in front of me, you're likely to find my feet right behind yours. This is part of the reason I no longer fly. The rest being accounted for by the TSA nonsense.

Frankly, I'm amazed that "regular" size people put up with typical airline seating. Outside of first class. That's something else again.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Put up with?" What's your alternative?

I certainly don't like the cramped quarters, the one armrest per person, the tsa cancer/molestation, any of it.

But again, what are you going to do?

If I'm in Washington and tomorrow I'm supposed to be in Chicago, what am I going to do? drive for 12 hours? sure I could do that, but at current gas prices, unless I'm driving something getting 60mpg, I'm not saving much money vs flying. Not to mention the time lost. assuming 2 hour flight, and an hour and change at the airport before my flight to account for security, driving takes 3-4 times longer than flying. If it's a business trip, is your company ok with you essentially not working on tuesday so you can get to chicago on time for wednesday's meeting (and then skipping work again on thursday to drive back). if it's your own vacation time, you cool with blowing two entire vacation days just for driving? and what if we're not talking 1/3 of the country like chicago to washington. what if we're talking DC to LA. That's a 5 day trip at 9-10 hours of driving a day.

ok, how about I take the train. I did that once, it took 23 hours. TWENTY THREE FREAKIN HOURS from leaving the front door of my house (at the time) in chicago to reaching my destination in washington. there were times the train was flying along at the awe inspiring speed of 30mph for hours at a time. Not to mention that it was the middle of August, the AC was broken (wheee 90' and humid even at midnight), and amtrak didn't care. "oh, yeah, we'll get right on that".

So no, I don't like flying, but what's the alternative?

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Joce640k]

ok, how about I take the train. I did that once, it took 23 hours. TWENTY THREE FREAKIN HOURS from leaving the front door of my house (at the time) in chicago to reaching my destination in washington. there were times the train was flying along at the awe inspiring speed of 30mph for hours at a time. Not to mention that it was the middle of August, the AC was broken (wheee 90' and humid even at midnight), and amtrak didn't care. "oh, yeah, we'll get right on that".

Last time I took a train it whooshed along at 300km/h all the way to Madrid (180mph in old units).

It's quicker than flying once you factor in the travel to the airport, airport security, boarding, etc. Much nicer, too. You get a big seat with a proper table (if you want one) and huge bathrooms.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[jeffmeden]

So I'm betting that 10 tones is far less than a 5% increase in overall weight. So the increase in costs divided among the passengers is going to get pretty small pretty quickly.

It seems like they're being penny-wise/pound foolish on this...

If Samoa Air were a normal international airline, you would be right. However, they are a regional airline with small prop planes, where individual passenger weight does make up a significant percentage of the total flying weight.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[tirefire]

If you sit in front of me, you're likely to find my feet right behind yours. This is part of the reason I no longer fly. The rest being accounted for by the TSA nonsense.

Same here, pretty much. The security took way too long at McCarran Int'l last time I was there. Then the plane ride was uncomfortable, even for a little guy like me.

What we need is a new approach to passenger seating that takes into account security, comfort, and economy. How about this: Replace all the airline seats with padded tubes stacked like firewood (think Bruce Willis's trip to Phloston Paradise in The Fifth Element). Mix nitrous oxide in with the passenger tube's air to sedate them (I imagine it would be hard for a terrorist to hijack a plane while sedated). Safety procedure for an emergency landing is: you do nothing, because you're already limp (and therefore less likely to break bones) and you're wrapped in a giant padded burrito. Awesome. Maybe wake people up if you're ditching the plane in water, but otherwise, nah. Just eject their tubes a safe distance away from the aircraft upon landing.

Imagine boarding a plane in Los Angeles, lying down on a comfy pad, and then the next thing you know... you're waking up in New York, or Paris, or Moscow, hearing the local time and weather from the soothing, confident voice of a captain who you just *know* held an eight-hour orgy with the rest of the flight crew while everyone else was sedated.

Some people would throw up from the gas as they disembarked, sure, but that's a small price to pay. Plenty of people get airsick during turbulence and the airlines just give them a sack.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[unrtst]

WRT the fair calculator showing a direct 1:1 relationship with weight, I noticed that too, and that was the most surprising aspect of it I found.

There is definitely some basic overhead per-person that has nothing to do with weight. On the low end (think 5 year old), that overhead could even be more (attention needed, assistance, etc). Seems silly not to have a base + price per pound (ex. $30 + $1/kg). I do hope the weight includes luggage weight - I can pack light enough to make up for much of my weight

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[CohibaVancouver]

what are you going to do?

Vote for politicians who have the 25-year vision to fund and build an American high-speed rail network.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Opportunist]

Don't compare "socialist" Europe to "capitalist" US. It just ain't fair.

Sorry, but that's exactly what privatizing some sectors get you. Investing will happen when there is absolutely, positively no way around it (like, say, the thing falls apart and cannot pass even the laxest security controls anymore) and service will be just as good as minimally required to keep people from not using the system at all.

In a nutshell, I'd always prefer our "communist", train system. Yes, my taxes pay to no small extent for it and I hardly use it myself. Still, knowing that I'd be able to zip across the country for a fraction of the price of flying and knowing that this system is actually attractive enough for freight to clean the highways from trucks is enough for me to gladly pay for it.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[milkmage]

"Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl)."

no.

RTFA.... NINE seats on the BIG planes.

Samoa Air’s fleet of Britten Norman (BN2A) Islanders that carry nine passengers, and a four-seater Cessna 172 are likely to be particularly sensitive to the extra burden of such passengers.

empty weight is about the same as a full size sedan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten-Norman_Trislander
Empty weight: 5,843 lb (2,650 kg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
Empty weight: 1,691 lb (767 kg)

compare to 2013 Volkswagen Jetta: curb weight - about 3100 lbs
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Volkswagen-Jetta-2013/specs/

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Joce640k]

And trying out the calculator, the fare seems to be at a direct 1:1 ratio with weight. Someone who weights 3 times as much, pays about 3 times as much. No fixed costs accounted for.

The "fixed cost" is probably the fact that very few people weigh zero kilograms.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Hoi Polloi]

But trains are for commie pinkos! Unless you are talking about the old west in which case trains were all American and built this nation.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Runaway1956]

Not in this country. No one has a vision longer than the next election. I mean, NO ONE! And, they don't have a memory longer than the last election, either. This is why we have no five year plans, ten year plans, 25 year plans, or 100 year plans. We have no plans, period. We just lounge around, taking it easy, bullshitting the world into thinking we're something great.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Alioth]

I'd disagree that they are being penny wise and pound foolish.

This airline is a tiny airline (island hopper) operating local routes in small aircraft - they aren't flying huge behemoths like A380s or even the much more modest A320 series. Or even anything as "massive" as an ATR-42. They are flying light twins and singles (Britten Norman Islander and Cessna 172s). A Cessna 172 after filling the fuel tanks gives you about 600lbs useful load left over for passengers and their stuff. Add the pilot and you've probably got 400-450lbs left over. If you have a 300lb passenger it literally costs you a passenger seat extra. You could carry three 150lb passengers or one 300pounder and one 150 pounder.

Things aren't that much better in an Islander which is a light twin. A couple of obese passengers mean you have to carry fewer people.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[knarf]

It is quite a statement about the level to which commercial aviation has dropped when people start recommending a full day worth of Amtrak over a few hours of flying.

Back in the days before the TSA I used to frequent the USA for business and pleasure trips alike. It so happened that I had appointments in NYC, Boston and Chicago within a 2-week period. When I told people I planned on taking the train from NYC to Chicago to Boston they looked at me as if I had been struck by lightning. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to close to a full days' worth of bone-rattling Amtrak service when they could just take a plane was beyond them. Well, I just happen to like the freedom which comes with train travel. Yes, I was delayed by 5 hours because of freight trains holding us up. No, compared to the Dutch, German and French trains I was used to Amtrak had (quite) a bit to learn. It felt a bit like going back to the 50's, in a rather nice sort of way. Riding that stainless steel monster I could imagine hearing news about daring feats of space exploration on the wireless. Yes, some of the faster cows seemed to be able to keep up with the train. And? I got to walk around the train, talk to interesting people, play my guitar, had access to my backpack, all the while getting closer to my destination.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[bitslinger_42]

I actually like most of this idea, with two small caveats: 1) general anesthesia is risky; a small percentage of surgical patients die every year simply from the anesthesia, and 2) pretty sure I'd want my burrito to lock from the inside, so the flight crew doesn't steal my wallet or include sedated passengers in their in-flight orgy.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[ColdWetDog]

I'm part owner of a DeHavilland DHC-1 Beaver - just a bit bigger than a 172. It's used in a bush airline in Alaska. They have had weight based pricing for years, albeit in fairly rough steps - above 110 kg passenger plus luggage, you get an extra charge. In small planes like these, one obese person (or someone trying to take everything they own on a trip) makes the difference between one run and two.

On a couple of occasions, I've embarrassed myself by dragging along too much gear and having to switch from the 172 (the airline's other plane) to the Beaver. Those damned telephoto lenses (and the 12 V battery and the dog) add up.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[mbone]

Yes, and a 747 might (in cargo mode) be able to carry several of the 9 passenger Britten Norman (BN2A) prop planes they actually fly (if the wings could be folded or detached). The smaller the plane, the more the weight matters.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[lgw]

Vote for politicians who have the 25-year vision to fund and build an American high-speed rail network.

Rail (in the US) is pork, and nothing more. We've already spent millions nation-wide on high-speed rail projects and gotten no actual trains out of it. The idea might seem nice, in principle, but in fact it's just a pretty scam.

Anyhow, in trains were popular, they'd just add the TSA to every train stop, and have TSA agents re-check your bags every hour just in case. You can't fix the TSA by making trains popular! The purpose of the TSA is to get people used to totalitarianism, so the TSA will be there wherever lots of people go.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[mbone]

I actually like most of this idea, with two small caveats: 1) general anesthesia is risky; a small percentage of surgical patients die every year simply from the anesthesia,

That is not a small caveat.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[tlhIngan]

My issue is that the price difference per pound isn't going to be more than a few cents is it? Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl). The 'heavier' people are going to add maybe a few tons, I'd guess 10 at most. So I'm betting that 10 tones is far less than a 5% increase in overall weight. So the increase in costs divided among the passengers is going to get pretty small pretty quickly.

Passenger weight (and distribution) is actually quite important, depending on the equipment.

Samoa airlines runs smaller aircraft - 12 passenger ones are common. The deal is that weight and balance are VERY important in ALL aircraft, but especially so on smaller ones.

The deal is, if you flew larger equipment with a hundred or more passengers, you can get away using standard weights for passengers (this varies by country - and the FAA has I believe been conducting a study to see how much they have to be revised for ever-growing waistlines). After all, the more people you have, the closer to the average they would be. The baggage carts aren't actually randomly loaded - they're weighed and loaded, and they're actually put on the plane in a specific order to keep CG in check and the plane balanced.

For a smaller plane, though, averages don't work too well - one big guy can throw your whole calculation off. Or if your passengers are all skinny.

So now you have a problem of weight and balance - if your plane is too heavy, it can be illegal to take off (you have to remove cargo and/or passengers). And these planes weren't made for super-heavy passengers - they were probably designed for standard weight people plus some baggage. Too heavy or too much baggage and you exceed designed payload, which means you either unload cargo and passengers, or take on less fuel (and there's an absolute minimum fuel that has to be carried per the aircraft design (Zero Fuel Weight - the maximum payload that can be carried with no fuel - the rest of available payload must be fuel). Never mind the necessary fuel to make it to the destination and required reserves.

And if your average passenger weight has wide deviations (as you would with only 12 passengers), then assuming the wrong weights could put your plane outside the CG envelope VERY easily.

A plane outside of CG is dangerous - it means the controllability is compromised as the controls may not have sufficient authority to overcome the out-of-CG condition.

So yes, the passenger weights do matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if seating order is changed once everyone's weighed to keep everything in check.

As to whether this is the right way to do it? Well, a lot of aviation administrations are starting to demand actual weights of passengers be used for smaller aircraft because MANY have crashed due to potentially out-of-average people being carried.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Obfuscant]

Don't compare "socialist" Europe to "capitalist" US. It just ain't fair.

Don't compare relatively densely packed Europe to relatively spacious US, it just ain't fair.

The issue is not socialism or capitalism, it's the fact that large parts of the US just don't have the population density to support rail travel of any kind, much less the high speed modern stuff.

Let's put it this way, using cell as an analogy. Or driving. Or both. I just made a cross country trip on a major interstate highway. I was using my cell GPS for navigation. (Very boring. "Stay on I80 for 857 miles...". But a good experiment.) I was out of the central timezone for almost a day and a half before my cellphone picked up a signal and adjusted to mountain time automatically. There just aren't enough people in that region of the country for T-Mobile to bother providing service. They aren't making a lot of high-speed rail commutes, even if they ship all their grain and cows by rail.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[MooseTick]

You are atypical. Most people would prefer to but less comfortable for maybe 2 hours than to be on a train for 21 hours. You could literally day trip from Chicago to Boston and back on a plane. Via train the way you did it, it would be 42 hours of travel plus the time spent in Boston. Thats nearly 4 solid days of sitting on a train! I also suspect you can get multiple flights a day to/from those locations while trains may be daily at best.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[serviscope_minor]

Don't compare "socialist" Europe to "capitalist" US. It just ain't fair.

Ah you see here in the UK we have the both of best systems. It's run by private companies but subsidised by the tax payer, so we get both the public cost and the private investment in infrastructure. As a bonus it means that subsidies are channeled to the shareholders with minimnal intervention!

Brilliant!

Actually, funnily enough it's not quite run by private companies, it's often run by state owned train countries from other countries. Which means that we're subsidising the German and French rail systems!

Double brilliant!

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Albanach]

Why do Americans keep accepting this excuse?

The entire East Coast has a population density easily capable of sustaining high-speed rail if you looks at the density metrics from other countries that have it, yet it doesn't exist there either.

Sure, Chicago to Washington might not be the most populous route - though you could connect several large cities and reduce the travel time between them to under 2 hours which might be good for commerce. But it's not like there's high speed rail anywhere.

When the feds offered money for states to role it out as part of the stimulus, Republican governors rejected the offer in seconds.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Opportunist]

Actually, I was under the impression that high speed rails make MORE sense on long distance due to rather long acceleration and breaking distances trains have. Here they use the 250+ kph trains only for trips where the stations they actually stop at are at least 50-100 kilometers apart, the rest is serviced by rather slow (80-100 kph) local trains.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[HungWeiLo]

It's hard to have long term plans in a direct or indirect democracy. Too many people having too much say in things.

Ignoring the social and economic costs for a moment - prior to the Beijing Olympics, the government built an entire subway line under a crowded world capital city in 7 months. Projects like this require a "benevolent" dictator.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Opportunist]

I was in the UK, and honestly I was shocked what the privatization did to your fine rail system. I was especially appalled by the famous London subways (and took a double take when I saw what they wanted from me to ride on it).

Anyone claiming that privatization leads to "better service" or "more competitive pricing" should take a good look there. Then try a few other, government owned and operated, public transportation systems around Europe. And then tell me again with a straight face that privatization is a good idea.

If he can, he might just be a politician...

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[atriusofbricia]

Actually, I was under the impression that high speed rails make MORE sense on long distance due to rather long acceleration and breaking distances trains have. Here they use the 250+ kph trains only for trips where the stations they actually stop at are at least 50-100 kilometers apart, the rest is serviced by rather slow (80-100 kph) local trains.

The thing you have to remember with the US is that there are large sections of the country where you can go and not see another person for weeks (or hours if you're moving fast enough). Not a car, not a house, nothing. So that high speed train would go out all that way and find no one who wants ride most of the time.

There are parts where it would make sense. Along the Coasts and down certain corridors currently served by Interstates. A line that follows Interstate 65 from top to bottom might do well. One that runs along Interstate 40 out west to Dallas might do well too.

The biggest thing that kills trains here though is a combination of relatively cheap cars with excellent roads and frequently cheap flights. You can fly half way across the country, from Kansas City to San Diego, for about 300 bucks round trip and do it in just 4 or 5 hours. No train will ever match that speed and even that cost might be a stretch. $400 will take you from New York to San Diego and back. 7 hours of travel time.

Unless airline prices spike stupid high why would we want to take a train which can't help but take at least twice as long, if not three times as long. Given it would likely take billions of dollars to build at this point for relatively little benefit.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I'll click my magic shoes together and make a large scale high-speed rail system appear in the US.

Here is a simple answer. Stop wasting money on wars all over the world, and put your unemployed people to work building those highspeed rail lines.
Added bonus to my plan is with all those people working, they will go out and spend their pay on goods and services, which will do a lot to get your stagnating economy moving.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Chrisq]

The "fixed cost" is probably the fact that very few people weigh zero kilograms.

Yes but now all of them will have an incentive to fly Samoa airlines ;-)

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[White Flame]

The problem with things like subways is that there's no room for competition. You're not going to have 15 separate companies digging their own tunnels through the city and offering well-distributed terminals to everybody. When there's a tightly shared central resource, especially when based on physical real estate, it makes sense that the government of the area address it.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The problem still is the vast distances with almost no one there because every little shit box town wants the train to stop there. I remember taking the Empire builder from St. Paul, Minnesota out to Glacier National Park when I was younger and stopping in all sorts of of little towns along the way where there wasn't anyone at the station but there was a 10 to 30 minute stop anyway. From what I remember the Empire Builder moves along at 90mph but because it stops at every crappy down the tracks go through it takes forever. They probably could have ditched most of those stops but kept the ones in Alexandria, Grand Forks, Minot, and probably one or 2 other ones along the way but most were just a waste of time. The town outside of Glacier was a destination as lost of people got on and off the train there even if the town was tiny. Even now there is talk of putting a high speed rail line between Chicago and the Twin Cities but every crappy little town along any of the proposed routes wants the train to have a stop in their town.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

A lot cheaper?

$82 on Amtrak last time a looked. No flight will be a lot cheaper than that! And 3 hours travel time is fast.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[smooth wombat]

BBC America has been running articles this past week examining subway systems from various parts of the world. The first one I saw was Moscow and its near art museum-like stations.

Today they did South Korea (a system only 14 years old) and the British Tube (the oldest in the world). The South Koreans pay, roughly, $1 (said the news woman) to ride whereas the Tube will set one back, roughly, $7.

The New York subway is only $2.75.

Just some insights from a reliable source to compare price, service and how its run.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Hognoxious]

The High Population areas,[sic] are actually too highly populated for high speed rail.

That must be why Eurostar terminals aren't in Paris, Brussels or London. The people are so closely packed there was no room to put a line in.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Luckyo]

Hi, I hail from a country with one of the lowest population densities on the planet: Finland. We have similar experiences with railroads as described by grandparent poster. Please try finding a better excuse.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Luckyo]

And Finland has far less then US. And still has rail that functions well. Your move.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Time_Ngler]

Why would you need a plane to fly at all, then?

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Obfuscant]

The real reason is that we Americans don't think problems should be solved. We think if there is a problem then people deserve to have that problem because they are sinful.

That's just nonsense and you know it. You're unhappy that other people don't see the same things as problems that you do, so when they don't think anything needs to be done about it you pretend that they aren't willing to fix problems.

I can't recall the last time there was a discussion about pasteurizing milk, except for the people who want to be able to buy unpasteurized milk for themselves and think the government should not prohibit it. They certainly aren't railing against all processing because "God wants babies to die" or anything even remotely like that.

My governor turned down federal money build a modern train system because he thought federal money must be some kind of trick from President Blackenstein.

Citation required. Actual quote or it didn't happen. The only references to that name I find are linked to Bill Maher. Is he the governor of Wisconsin now?

On the other hand, after getting past the racist reference you just tossed out, you apparently don't realize that ALL federal money comes with strings attached. Many times it's matching money, almost always it comes with rules and regulations about how what you use the money for can be used. Not just how to use the money, but how what you build with it can be used. It's not a bad thing for a governor to consider all the details when accepting a handout from the feds. Some deals really are too good to be true.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[citizenr]

Ah yes, just like rural Estonians get better internet service (cheaper, faster) than New Yorkers, all because of this densely populated rural areas.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[kaatochacha]

Your explanation made my head hurt.

Re:Next Up:

[alen]

this is done already

Re:larger sits?

[Anonymous Cod]

You sir, are an asshole.

Space?

[souporman]

Being a rather skinny guy at 65kg, I'd obviously be OK with this. What I do wonder about is seat sizes/leg room. Does the cost of my ticket entitle me to as much space as someone who weighs 130kg (either by virtue of being tall or wide) who paid double what I did? That's the only thing I can immediately see as being unfair...

Nice for child fares

[wile_e8]

As someone with daughter that just turned two years old, meaning we now have to pay for a ticket for her to fly, this sounds like a great deal to me.

Re:larger sits?

[gstoddart]

If this is some sort of non-american english, than deal with my correction as slashdot is an American site.

It's then you idiot. You're too stupid to be a grammar nazi.

Re:racial discrimination?

[gbjbaanb]

women fly for less than men?

the weight that is used for the ticket price includes luggage, so the above is definitely not the case, not even close.

Travel choices

[fyngyrz]

But again, what are you going to do?

I usually drive. I find there's a lot to be said for loading up my camera gear and suitcases in a fine automobile and taking off. There's no baggage limit, I get to eat at nice restaurants, sleep in luxury accommodations, my seating in the car itself is wonderfully comfortable, I control the environment, there are no crying babies or diseased traveling "companions", I get to pick the music, the when and what of mealtimes, I can use my cellphone (or ham/sw radio if I take my own vehicle) simply by pulling over, I get to see the countryside and the cityscapes, I can stop off and visit friends, meet people I've only known online, hit up everything from symphonies to comedy clubs to strip joints, and not once will anyone try to feed me peanuts. :)

I've dug for diamonds in Arkansas, spelunked in Virginia, gone diving off of the Keys, watched a couple of space shuttle launches (and one abort... sometimes you draw the short straw), gone skiing about everywhere you can in the US, entered a couple of martial arts tournaments I randomly came across, marched in several political events, and shot photos of just about anything that would hold still enough for long enough for me to get my gear online. I've been to most major national parks off season and on. When I decide to take a trip, I look forward to it and then I consume it. I have developed business interests on both coasts and live in Montana, so my excuses are legion. :)

The only thing I find slightly annoying is the ratcheting down of speed limits as one gets closer to the coasts. Not that people drive a lot slower, typically, they don't, but I'm not inclined risk my license, so I obey the posted limits. Can be irritating to others on the road. One time I was driving along Rt 6 in NY, near Middletown, with my lady and a friend from the area. I was keeping to the speed limit, which was 50 mph on that winding, hilly road. I was in my own car, so carrying Montana plates. Guy passes me going somewhat faster, yells out the window: "Go back to the grand canyon!" We laughed about that all through dinner.

On occasion, I take an ocean liner or a train. On that very rare instance when someone says "can you be at X by Y" and it doesn't seem doable, I simply tell them, sorry, no.

If your job is so awful that it forces you to fly, well then, you'll be flying. I've simply made it a point to never allow that kind of control to be exerted over me. These days, the "need" to physically be somewhere at a certain time is a lot more limited than it used to be. I can face-to-face interface with just about anyone who can get to a computer, anywhere in the world. I see little reason to insist on smelling people's armpits as well.

if it's your own vacation time, you cool with blowing two entire vacation days just for driving?

Actually, I'm cool with "blowing" my entire vacation driving. I like to drive; I'm good at it, and I make it a point to rent something interesting from time to time. I try to drive a new (to me) route as much as possible. The US is huge and there's more to see than I could ever manage to see. I've done some long haul motorcycling too, but eventually found that to be physically wearing out of proportion to the fun, so no more of that.

ok, how about I take the train. I did that once, it took 23 hours. TWENTY THREE FREAKIN HOURS from leaving the front door of my house (at the time) in chicago to reaching my destination in washington.

Yep. But while you were on there, you had access to power which you could use to keep a laptop, ipad, music player or video player up and running. You could have slept in your chair, or your bunk if you took a sleeper or a full cabin. They'll serve you meals, and you can pay too much for junk food at the concession thing. I'm not saying they couldn't do better,

Re:Doesn't make sense w/ seating

[Alioth]

The summary neglects to mention that this is not a typical large airline operating large turbine powered aircraft like an A320 series.

It's a small island hopper operating light piston aircraft. Their big plane is an Islander. The rest of their fleet are Cessna 172s. A C172 has a maximum allowable takeoff weight (depending on exact model) of round about 2400lbs. With the pilot on board and fully fuelled, a Cessna 172 typically has about 450lbs useful load left. Therefore if you weigh 300 lbs and take another 50 lbs of luggage they can only fly you and no one else. However, if three 150 lb guys show up without luggage they can fly all three of them.