Is it OK to fly if rail is too expensive?

neu

I need to travel from london to madrid for a conference. Flights cost ~£80-£90 and rail is ~£250. It apears my expenses wont cover the cost by rail and as a student I can't stump up the cost myself.

I vowed to myself never to fly again when there is an alternative. I always assumed rail was accessible but I can't find a cheaper ticket. I really don't want to fly, I think I might have to refuse to go.

What should I do?

cristo

Fly. The plane will not only take less time, but as you say, it's a lot cheaper. Why would you not want to fly?

junglebeast

I know how you feel...the airline industry is such a pain, so rude, and so irresponsible with luggage...I keep vowing that it's the last time, but it's a promise I can't keep.

Moonbear

Look into hidden fees too. For example, airlines in the US are now trying to rip off their passengers by charging to check luggage and for their puny in-flight meals. It doesn't show up in the airfare, but is still an expense of travel.

Actually, that reminds me I need to look into how reimbursement is going to work for stuff like that on official travel. I can appreciate preferring to just avoid the hassle, but if rail fares are not competitive, it's hard to find alternatives.

cristo

Indeed. I rarely check luggage for European flights if I'm flying a low cost carrier, since it makes the process a lot more expensive. You can also take pretty much unlimited cabin luggage, so long as you can carry it. In flight food also costs money, but no-one really buys food on a plane nowadays!

Of course, sometimes the 'real' airlines are cheaper if one needs to check baggage, etc..

robphy

This probably won't factor into your decision... but it may be amusing...
news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/0041205/Analysis-Says-Planes-Might-Be-Greener-Than-Trains

Moonbear

The problem is that even buying food in the airport costs a lot and the days of getting a sack lunch through security are long gone (unless you can figure out a way to get it all into 3 oz or less containers within a 1 qt clear bag ). I can deal with the luggage fees, since I too often can manage with just a carry-on bag, so can appreciate getting a discount if you can manage that, but when I can't even bring along some beverage with a snack and then they charge a fortune for it in the airport or on a plane, I get annoyed. Maybe if flights were ever actually on time, it wouldn't be an issue, I could properly plan stopovers to include time for a meal, but usually, I end up on the delayed flight connecting to one trying to leave early right during the time when the slowest kid on the planet is serving food at whatever the nearest place to eat in the airport is and the line is down to the next terminal.

Ben Niehoff

One solution to the drink issue is to bring an empty water bottle and fill it up at a drinking fountain after passing through security.

signerror

Fly, of course.

neu

Sorry I forgot to mention that my motivation for not flying is climate change.

I know that high speed trains are probably more polluting than plane travel, however I don't intend to use high speed trains.

I've read several aparantly conflicting studies about aviation emmisions versus other transport, but I often notice that the effective amplification of CO2eq is often not taken into account. I don't dispute that high speed trains are possibly worse, but I believe that "ordinary" trains are far cleaner; although not travelling is obviously the cleanest.

According to IPCC the aviation amplification factor is approx x2.7 of that of CO2 alone, but some deem this too conservative, e.g:

Cyrus

The fact that you 'believe' that "ordinary" trains are "far cleaner" shows you haven't even done your homework before making such an irrational decision on your lifestyle. Either way, I fly for fun when I have the chance, I highly recommend it. The train is slow, makes frequent stops and is a time sink (you said no high speed trains).

This report seems to say:

I really don't care enough to change a mere 4.9% of pollution. That's a very bad way to try and save the planet. You're probably better of trying to reduce the other 95% of the problem.

mgb_phys

Since you would be mostly travelling through France on a TGV powered by France's nuclear power this is probably not true.

The planes better than trains is a per/km trick, in litres/km the space shuttle looks like economical!

If you compare a full 747 on a long haul flight with an empty diesel train you can just about make the train look worse (if you include lots of infrastructure) but comparing a regional jet with 10 passengers to an electric metro/tube train with 1000s of passengers crammed on it looks very different.

Cyrus

Take one of those trains in India with people hanging all over it!

Office_Shredder

I'm confused, since you're traveling the same distance either way, why is per kilometer not a good way to measure things?

Cyrus

The metric needs to be something along the lines of per/km/useful load.

turbo

Neu, the plane will be making the trip whether you are on it or not. It's commendable that you want to save energy/reduce pollution, etc, but the fractional extra fuel that plane will burn because you are on the plane won't have much impact in the big picture.

Pengwuino

damn it you beat me to it! I completely agree, obviously. Both methods of transportation are going to go ahead whether or not you pick them. If you want to argue that one less person means 1 less persons worth of demand and if everyone did it there'd be less flights... ok but really? You might as well simply row your way there on a boat then bike the rest of the way with that thinking.