As Southwest loses reliability, CAHSR looks more enticing

Since at least 2008, one of the most common criticisms of California high speed rail has been the claim that HSR is simply unnecessary because of Southwest Airlines. Southwest offers frequent flights at dirt cheap fares, so why would anyone spend more money to take a slower train?

This argument has always been rooted in ignorance. In order to believe this, one has to ignore the fact that door to door HSR is actually competitive with flights between the Bay Area and Southern California (since the planned HSR stations are more centrally located than are the airports). One also has to pretend that present conditions will last forever, ignoring the fact that gas prices will be rising in the future, making cheap air travel a thing of the past.

You didn’t have to take it from me. The airlines themselves have been saying this for at least the last six years, including Southwest’s founder, Herb Kelleher, as well as JetBlue and Virgin America.

Finally, one of the critics who has been making these flawed “Southwest means HSR isn’t necessary” arguments has woken up to the reality that, in fact, Southwest isn’t providing cheap flights any more.

Click to expand...

Anderson said:

Granted, there probably needs to be a (harsh) regulatory slam-down on last-minute flight cancellations that aren't clearly down to a technical issue or weather (and even then, I'd argue for an addendum of "...and if you have to pull in substitute pilots and run extra flights to accommodate people, guess what? You're doing that.")...but I say this as someone who has pretty much never heard of anything but those sorts of cancellations for trains versus the antics of various airlines.

Click to expand...

XHRTSP said:

Anderson said:

Granted, there probably needs to be a (harsh) regulatory slam-down on last-minute flight cancellations that aren't clearly down to a technical issue or weather (and even then, I'd argue for an addendum of "...and if you have to pull in substitute pilots and run extra flights to accommodate people, guess what? You're doing that.")...but I say this as someone who has pretty much never heard of anything but those sorts of cancellations for trains versus the antics of various airlines.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the method behind the madness isn't always clear, but no airlines don't just cancel flights for no good reason. It's not some kind of 'antic'.

And yes, trains cancel all the damn time, happened to me earlier this year on the Empire Builder. If I weren't a forum member I would probably have no clue of the situation on the Hi-Line and would have chalked it up to stupid Amtrak antics.

Click to expand...

Anderson said:

From what I can tell, and granted this is a view from a long ways out, airlines seem prone to reshuffling schedules on routes rather wildly based on demand. Doubtless there are times that it simply comes down to "one plane out of service screws up the schedule for a bunch of flights". This is, in turn, often down to airlines opting to "live dangerously" in terms of equipment and load factors.

Trains cancel, but very rarely as a matter of demand issues. Moreover, Amtrak's cancellations tend to be a result of an involuntary shortage of equipment and/or maintenance issues that are induced by a lack of funding (I'm setting aside weather-based cancellations, which happen on both ends).

Click to expand...

Edit: To be clear, there seem to be situations where (to offer an example) three morning flights that have load factors will get cut back to two, with passengers redistributed between them (especially if an equivalent cut on the return can be managed).

Click to expand...

jis said:

Anderson said:

From what I can tell, and granted this is a view from a long ways out, airlines seem prone to reshuffling schedules on routes rather wildly based on demand. Doubtless there are times that it simply comes down to "one plane out of service screws up the schedule for a bunch of flights". This is, in turn, often down to airlines opting to "live dangerously" in terms of equipment and load factors.

Trains cancel, but very rarely as a matter of demand issues. Moreover, Amtrak's cancellations tend to be a result of an involuntary shortage of equipment and/or maintenance issues that are induced by a lack of funding (I'm setting aside weather-based cancellations, which happen on both ends).

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that airlines cancel flights simply because they did not feel like running it since there were too few passengers booked on it? If so please submit the information to the FAA. The airline will face a fine for doing so. The regulatory slamdown that you are looking for already exists.

Edit: To be clear, there seem to be situations where (to offer an example) three morning flights that have load factors will get cut back to two, with passengers redistributed between them (especially if an equivalent cut on the return can be managed).

Click to expand...

Again, documented evidence please? A cancellation that is not due to mechanical or due to weather?
Frankly the airlines are regulated way more than Amtrak is as far as passenger's rights are concerned. If the airline rules were applied to Amtrak, each time a train was left stranded in the boonies due to a locomotive failure for hours, with no A/C and working toilet, Amtrak would face a huge fine. That is actually one of the reasons that I avoid Amtrak when I have to really be somewhere for something.

Airlines do have regulatory requirements to get you to your destination within a certain number of hours of the original booking or compensate. They also face much stricter safety rules than Amtrak does. An engine shutdown on a flight is a big deal for obvious reasons. At Amtrak it appears to be a relatively routine occurrence.

Click to expand...

jis said:

Yes they do change schedules, but they cannot last minute cancel a scheduled flight without cause. That is the point I was making. The changing schedules thing actually I like to some extent, since I can use it to manipulate getting myself on a better flight which they had originally said would cost more. Just did so for a trip in late December after they changed the schedule making a connection borderline non-viable. Of course there are possibilities where one could not come out ahead too.

OTOH, I am almost certain that no one will ever pass a regulation saying that flight schedules cannot be changed 6 months out. That would be silly. It could be reasonable to say that they could not be changed beyond a reasonable window of time within say a month of travel, and that whenever a change is made people holding reservations should be notified. I am not sure if all airlines do so, but the one I use most often seems to do such notification, and ask you to go and accept the changes. I have make such changes with no penalty as I mentioned before. Again, i don;t know if all airlines allow so and I think such should be part of the passenger's bill of rights. But not changing schedules should not be IMHO.

Click to expand...

Anderson said:

jis said:

Yes they do change schedules, but they cannot last minute cancel a scheduled flight without cause. That is the point I was making. The changing schedules thing actually I like to some extent, since I can use it to manipulate getting myself on a better flight which they had originally said would cost more. Just did so for a trip in late December after they changed the schedule making a connection borderline non-viable. Of course there are possibilities where one could not come out ahead too.

OTOH, I am almost certain that no one will ever pass a regulation saying that flight schedules cannot be changed 6 months out. That would be silly. It could be reasonable to say that they could not be changed beyond a reasonable window of time within say a month of travel, and that whenever a change is made people holding reservations should be notified. I am not sure if all airlines do so, but the one I use most often seems to do such notification, and ask you to go and accept the changes. I have make such changes with no penalty as I mentioned before. Again, i don;t know if all airlines allow so and I think such should be part of the passenger's bill of rights. But not changing schedules should not be IMHO.

Click to expand...

I would say that folks should be notified; I would also say that they should be given, at their choice, either a full (i.e. no fees or voucher requirements, regardless of fare conditions) refund or first choice for a period of alternative flights at the quoted price (even if the replacement flight is more expensive) rather than being unilaterally rescheduled (which is problem number one with that: People being stuck on a flight that does not serve their needs) if the change is more than, say, an hour one way or the other at either end (a 15-minute shift in schedules is not the end of the world, as a rule...that's a tarmac delay or some rough traffic). Ultimately the issue is that, at least to my thinking, when you gave an airline your money they gave the appearance of committing (regardless of fine print, the appearance is clearly there) to a given schedule in exchange.
And I will agree with some flexibility...but a 30-day window also seems reasonable. I think a clear statement of the airline's policies if they reschedule one's flight is also in order in a lot of cases...as it stands, I do see an issue where the passenger can't alter their reservation but the airline, in effect, can (though this sort of imbalance isn't just an issue in the airline industry).

Click to expand...