Pointing out that this is in Europe is important I think. My American mind cannot conceive of a flight this would be acceptable in, but I can stand probably up to an hour for a bus ride, so a short flight would probably be ok. But you could probably take a train in Europe, so why bother with the flight.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Because they privatised the trains so the thing is fucked. If I wanna go visit my family by train it's around 75 dollars if I don't get a discounted ticket, while a flight ticket is 50-100 dollars depending on time of day and season, so half the time it's cheaper.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm mostly sure it's only that cheap:

because the train is a realistic alternative

AND

they're probably operating at a loss or near loss and covering the cost from other operations (like if they're a subsidiary of a US company, for example) in order to convince people of how cheap and convenient air travel is. See? You don't need trains! Just dismantle your rail system, you can trust us to have a monopoly on your long distance travel.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

You are absolutely right that this is only possible in part because the train exists as an alternative and there is therefore competition limiting their ability to price gouge.. But the specific flight is taken by a company that operates mostly regionally and this is one of most profitable routes.

The train company is price gouging to a much greater extent, and it is doing so because it has a profit motive and a natural monopoly on many routes.

load more comments (11 replies)