Comparison with Air Transport

Previous page: Comparison with Suspended GRT To Main Page To Header Page for this section  Index to this website Swedish version of this web-page Next page: Cooperation with Electrical Road Vehicles and Hybrid Cars
The first fully automatic flight is due to take off. At start, the on-board loudspeaker announces: "This flight is fully automatic. We have no crew. Just push a button for take-off. Push another button to get a meal. Push a third button to land. Nothing can go wrong - click - nothing can go wrong - click - nothing can go wrong ..."

Airtravel is unrivalled when it comes to long-distance travel. And for shorter trips; if you have your own piper cub and pilotīs licence, you probably wonīt be interested in travelling much with commuter transports. But for the rest of us, there is a breaking point when relatively short trips by air are more comfortably made on the ground. If that ground transport could be made swifter and with more comfort, that breaking point would cover progressively longer distances.

Air Travel, pros and cons

Deciding upon the Breaking Point

Anfang hat is this "breaking point" we are talking about? It is roughly the distance that answers the question "how far away does a destination have to be in order for me to go by air, rather than travel on the ground? In deciding on the answer, one has to consider these drawbacks with regular air flights:
  1. Air travel is always more expensive than travelling the same distance on the ground, if the alternatives are your own car, taxi, bus or rail.
    Fuel typically amounts to about 25% of operating costs of airlines.

  2. Shorter trips by air are proportionately more expensive than longer trips.

  3. You have to consider travel time, getting to and from the airport, maybe negotiating traffic snarls.

  4. Standing in queues to check luggage, getting boarding cards and just idle waiting at the airport at departure takes time. Occasionally, it takes an awful lot of time. Waiting for your luggage and getting through customs at arrival is a tedious matter, too.

  5. Aircraft exhausts pollute the upper layers of the atmosphere. They are not environmentally sound.

  6. Air transport is not as reliable as ground transportation. Bad wheather might ground the flight, or prevent it from landing at its intended destination.

  7. Airspace over most western countries is getting increasingly crowded. This means that it gets more common for every year that your flight misses its assigned time slot and has to wait for the next one. Aircrafts have to queue for take-off, and are increasingly caught in holding patterns when landing.

  8. Overbooking might lead to you not getting away until the next day or so.

For the curious

Airlines come and go. They frequently go into bankrupcy, or merge with other airlines. At the present (i.e. autumn of 2000) the 7 largest airlines are all American, which in a way shows where the heaviest air traffic is to be found. The 8 US airlines on the list below together transport 521.2 million passengers a year.
Ye Olde Transportation Philosopher

The Worldīs 15 Largest Airlines

Pos. AirlineCountry Million passengers a year
1Delta Air LinesUSA105.5
2United AirlinesUSA87.1
3American AirlinesUSA84.7
4US AirwaysUSA58.8
5Southwest AirlinesUSA57.7
6Northwest AirlinesUSA56.1
7Continental AirlinesUSA45.5
8All Nippon AirwaysJapan42.7
9Air FranceFrance39.8
10Lufthansa German AirlinesGermany38.9
11British AirwaysUnited Kingdom36.3
12Japan AirwaysJapan33.0
13Trans World AirlinesUSA25.8
14AlitaliaItaly24.1
15Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS)Scandinavia22.2

To top of Page Aircraft The Worldīs busiest airport used to be Chicagoīs OīHare. But in May, 2000, Hartsfield Airport at Atlanta, Georgia, topped the statistics with 7.2 million passengers.

It is well worth noting that these figures apply to the time before September 11th, 2001. Since that event has led to longer check-in times because of stiffer security at airports, it has become more tedious to fly.

Anfang t should be pretty clear, then, that if ground-based travel alternatives gets improved in regards to speed and comfort, this would be a real boon to air travel as well. If air travel loses passengers to ground transportation on some shorter routes, some airports would be less busy, there would be fewer flights, and it would be a let-up in this development towards waits for time slots and long holding patterns when landing.

Have you ever watched the night sky over Las Vegasī Airport on a friday night? You can behold a long, illuminated ribbon of aircrafts awaiting their turn to land. A beautiful sight, but very costly for airline operators and very time-consuming for passengers!

Aircraft from GOL Transportes Aereos

And air traffic is growing rapidly. The Worldīs airlines are expected to purchase about 16,000 new aircraft between the years 2000 and 2020, at a cost of US$ 1200 billion, altogether. Considering that some aircrafts will be discarded because of old age, there would still be a growth of about 700 new aircrafts in the sky every year. 2 more aircrafts every day! And the aircraft industry will spend another US$ 350 billion on increased aviation infrastructure. Thatīs an awful lot of money!

Air traffic is no small threat to the environment, as well. Exhaust fumes released at those altitudes where inter-continental flights travel might well influence the hothouse effect. Options to reduce climate impact include:

  • less time in holding patterns
  • improved routing
  • removal of tax exemption
  • taxes on emissions
  • promote travel alternatives for short distances
  • reduction of nitrogen content of aircraft fuel
  • maybe penalties for part-filled low occupancy aircraft
  • reduce the role of trade in world industrial production (which means that higher transport costs would result in decentralized production systems).
A well functioning automatic beam network, using the speed and technology that for instance the FLYWAY® system provides, can well compete with air travel up to distances of about 400 kilometers, if you just consider the time it takes to travel from door to door, and nothing else.

Itīs rather interesting to note that both regular air travel and FLYWAY® use the timeslot system to coordinate traffic. Only, beam systems on the ground can do so much more efficiently. Why is that? Well, the obvious reason is that aircrafts need so much space on all sides, for safety reasons. Also, they are confined to travel corridors, because they travel between airports, and these corridors cannot handle more traffic than can be handled by the airports at each end. In year 2002, the permitted vertical distance between aircrafts in Western European flight corridors will be reduced from 600 meters to 300 m. But airlines are actually trading timeslots between them; they are worth a lot of money!

The obvious solution to this would be to build more airports, since that would create more flight corridors, and to extend the capacity of the existing ones. And thatīs what is being done all over the world right now. But airports have difficulty keeping up with demand, as people travel more and more for every year.

The Real Challenge; MagLev!

Recent developments in magnetic levitation could very well fully mature to the year 2005. A US patent has been issued for a new procedure, and working models are at hand. The beauty of this new system is that no super-cooled, super conducting and super expensive magnets are required. Essentially because of this, the MagLev technique could be used also for small vehicles.

MagLev Train

Using MagLev, velocities of up to 500 kilometers per hour will be possible. Speeds over 400 km./hour, using ordinary trains, have already been tested in Japan. Using an independent maglev transit system with stations about 300 kilometers apart would give the airlines stiff competition for trips to the nearer airports and to locations within a 1000 km range. With such automatic MagLev cars going to destinations without airports, such a system would just take over; no checking in one-hour before departure, no reservations, no schedules or unsavory weather conditions to impede traffic.


Read more about how future beam traffic systems could compete with both air travel and fast trains on this page!

Copyright Đ 2004, SwedeTrack System.
Last Updated: 2008-04-26
Webmaster
This site is maintained by Johnson Consulting