CRB - Small Craft chapter

[phavoc]

Don't forget the Acceleration Benches from the Darrian Book, 6 people per dTon for Cr10,000 (pg85)

Here's the entire description:

Acceleration Benches: Acceleration benches are basic seating used for temporary transportation of passengers. Comfort is limited but safety is paramount. The benches are heavily padded with integral safety harnesses in case of gravity failure. They are normally designed to fold down from walls or pull up from floors, so as to grant more usable space when not in use. Each ton of Acceleration Benches can seat six passengers and costs 10,000Cr.

I can see these being used for military transports (if you've rode in a C-130 or the back of a deuce and a half you'll understand), but definitely not for paying passengers taking the local shuttle anywhere.

 

[Infojunky]

if you've rode in a C-130

Hum, almost every flight in a C-130 or worse yet a C-2 I have taken have been more comfortable than my recent flights in 737s... Go figure...

 

[Reynard]

The military want their passengers fit and ready as soon as they get off while airlines want money. And yet airlines get away with worsening miserable conditions on their planes while charging ridiculous prices because passengers endure and pay. Overpacked, crowded space shuttles is not a stretch. The costs to take a shuttle are probably very generous compared to real life costs on comparable airline flights.

 

[phavoc]

Flights aren't as comfortable as they used to be, unless you are not flying economy. But the flying public tolerates the conditions because of price.

And coach still is far more comfy than military transpoet.

 

[IanBruntlett]

When I was knee-high to a grasshopper, I went on a SOAF (Sultan of Oman Armed Forces) flight to Jebel Akhdar.

The landing strip was a football pitch / ledge towards the top of the mountain. Landing was easy.

Take off was rather more colourful. The pilot would put the brakes on, rev his engines up and we'd tear down the football pitch and drop off the edge of a cliff. Then we would eventually get some lift and resume normal flight. The pressure drop hurt my ears. Also, prior to the flight, I had to take a blood test so that if there was a crash, my remains could be identified.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Flights aren't as comfortable as they used to be, unless you are not flying economy. But the flying public tolerates the conditions because of price.

And coach still is far more comfy than military transpoet.

Still cheaper and faster than any other mode of transportation (including trains and busses).

Price a trip from New York to Miami and see how much cheaper it is to fly...

 

[phavoc]

Flights aren't as comfortable as they used to be, unless you are not flying economy. But the flying public tolerates the conditions because of price.

And coach still is far more comfy than military transpoet.

Still cheaper and faster than any other mode of transportation (including trains and busses).

Price a trip from New York to Miami and see how much cheaper it is to fly...

It's difficult to compare prices since the modes of transportation are different. Amtrak has a fare that is about $150 higher than American Airlines, but the AA fare is non-refundable, limits you to one-carry on bag. I didn't check bus service.

My worst experience on a budget airline was still better than every trip I took in the back of a 2 1/2 ton truck.

I don't see what comparing the speed of a plane trip to a train or bus has anything to do with the discussion though. I would expect aircraft would always beat trains, and buses as well. Of course if the US had a better developed rail transport system then rail trips would always beat aircraft for overall times, just as buses would beat both trains and aircraft - but distance and other factors have to be factored into it to offer a fair comparison. I can't take a plane across town, for example.

And if I were taking a short trip then both rail and bus would be more competitive than an aircraft. NYC to Boston is is $700 cheaper to go by rail than by air - using the exact same parameters used for the NYC - Miami comparison. Not to mention rail is downtown to downtown.

So we can compare oranges to pineapples all day, but they are still both fruits.

 

[sideranautae]

It's difficult to compare prices since the modes of transportation are different. Amtrak has a fare that is about $150 higher

Amtrac isn't private carrier. It's prices aren't reflective of its costs. So, you cannot use to compare at all. Private passenger rail service doesn't exist in the US as the prices would be SO much higher than airlines that it would be a bad joke.

 

[phavoc]

It's difficult to compare prices since the modes of transportation are different. Amtrak has a fare that is about $150 higher

Amtrac isn't private carrier. It's prices aren't reflective of its costs. So, you cannot use to compare at all. Private passenger rail service doesn't exist in the US as the prices would be SO much higher than airlines that it would be a bad joke.

Technically the airlines are not purely private carriers either. Nor are any transportation companies that rely upon the state to provide some specific services. Which essentially puts out all forms of transport (even feet!).

Rail fares seem to be based more upon the overall sunk cost of the system (coupled with state subsidies). Airfare is NOT based upon costs. Airline pricing models are based on demand and some crazy attribute known only to the crazy people that develop the costing models, which get adjusted sometimes by the minute. Plus airline tickets typically play with the ticket "cost" and try to put fees external to your ticket price because of how some taxes are calculated. Man did they fight the effort to simplify ticket pricing to the end user. I spent about a year working on software designed to allow an airline to recognize ticket revenue. Man, talk about a bunch of crooks! They are as bad as the bankers for how they'll try to cheat, game the system, etc against their competitors.

 

[sideranautae]

Technically the airlines are not purely private carriers either.

Wrong. Technically they ARE private companies. AND, they don't get operating costs paid by tax payers via the gov to make up margins.

Give it up already :roll:

 

[phavoc]

Technically the airlines are not purely private carriers either.

Wrong. Technically they ARE private companies. AND, they don't get operating costs paid by tax payers via the gov to make up margins.

Give it up already :roll:

Well, you can say anything you want, but since the FAA controls air traffic, sets rules and provides a funds for airport operations, that classifies airlines as subsidized private entities. Amrak is a corporation just like AA, United, or whoever, but it's sole stock holder is the US government.

You better read up on your history of transport, cause you really don't know what you are talking about. Railroads that crossed the continent were given free land as incentive to build (i.e. a subsidy).

The definition of a subsidy is: a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. The FAA has a 2014 budget of $15.6billion. The Essential Air Service is a government subsidy for smaller locales to have air service, to the tune of about $250million/yr.

Taxpayers have been subsidizing ALL forms of transport since walking. Road, water, rail, air... ALL of them receive either direct subsidies or low-cost loans and guarantee's. Who do you think pays for the airports? NOT the airline. Who provides low-cost loans to the airlines to build their owned airport facilities? NOT the banks. Who provides tax breaks to airlines to relocate, add routes or list property at a specific location?

The answer to all of the above is (a) the taxpayer.