Tribune Chronicle Story

 

Airline may bring flights

 

By JOHN GOODALL Tribune Chronicle

 

WARREN - Allegiant Air denies that plans are set for next month to unveil flight service to Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport, but won't rule out that an announcement will be made then....

 

[email protected]

 

Great News! I will for sure be buying the tix within a week. $59 ONE WAY TO ORLANDO!

Vindicator Link

 

WARREN — A large airline carrier is close to making a decision on providing regularly scheduled flights out of the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport, an airport official says. Steve Bowser, director of aviation, told Trumbull County commissioners Tuesday that he has been in contact with a "mainstream carrier," and it should be making a decision soon.

 

For more airport insider info and info on Allegiant Air tickets: check out the Fly Youngstown Blog...... The Youngstown Warren Regional Airport..... The Sky's the Limit

Kudos to Youngstown/Warren Regional and Allegiant. Considering G4's track record, I could definitely see their YNG-SFB service being bumped up to 4x weekly service by year's end, assuming aircraft availability allows for such an increase. I'm glad to see Allegiant's venture into Youngstown met with so much success.

 

In regards to a major carrier joining Allegiant at YNG, I think the prospects are good. The rumored Colgan Air service on behalf of a major carrier sounds like it could be a possibility. I've always thought that Comair to CVG would be an excellent route for YNG, since it would provide jet service to one of the most user-friendly hubs in the nation with access to over 100 cities across the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Europe. However, with Delta's recent cutbacks at the hub, such service might not be as viable as it once was. Either way, it definitely sounds like things are looking up for YNG, here's hoping for even greater success in the near future.

Just want to say that Colgan Air rumor appears not to be true. The President of Colgan-Bob Colgan, told me although they aren't in talks with Youngstown, its rumored United Express may fly a CRJ or ERJ regional jet 2-3 times per day from Youngstown to Dulles.

 

Of course I've heard other rumors from insider sources I can't discuss, but thought I should let that one out... Thanks for the interest in Youngstown Airport and we hope to see you on our blog!

 

Two more links for you.

WYTV Story and Video

 

Tribune Chronicle Story

My blog, The Fly Youngstown Blog, has been working to bring back the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport. We said we need Allegiant Air to come, they did. Now my blog is saying we need Low Cost Carrier Spirit Air! So we have released a  survey for anyone in Northeast Ohio-Western Penna to take, a survey which will be given to Spirit Air executives.

 

The survey: LINK HERE takes less than 2 minutes, and all the info is held privately, it will only be released to Spirit Air at an upcoming meeting.

 

I have been told by the YNG Airport that we can bring Spirit Air to Youngstown, they have talked in the past numerous times.

I know CAK is doing great, but adding another low cost carrier to this area makes air travel that much nicer.

 

PLEASE FILL OUT THIS SURVEY, IT WILL BENEFIT ALL OF US IN CLEVELAND-AKRON-CANTON-YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN!

We need the Ohio Hub to be built to serve Youngstown, not more air traffic. 

^^ While I think anyone would fully support more passenger rail service in Ohio, Y'town needs a shot in the arm now...not in 5 or 10 years when ORDC/Ohio Hub would get going to that area. Ohio Hub is still just in the idea phase from what I gather while Y'town airport already exists. I give Y'twonNewsandViews alot of credit for trying to give the regional airport down there a boost in the arm by petitioning Spirit Air. At least he's drawing attention to another airline to start service in an area that was completely abondoned by commercial air service for years. Y'town, good luck with your efforts.

Passenger Rail will be great, but lets be real: It won't happen and even if it did, it won't be for another 25 years!

 

Secondly. We do have Allegiant Air at the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport, but 2 flights a week is not enough. We believe if we can bring Spirit Air to Youngstown, more flights will come with more airlines.

 

We want every single low fare airline in NE OHIO, and Spirit isn't heading back to CLE, or even going to where competition sits at CAK, they can get people from Cleveland - Akron - Pittsburgh all to come to YNG.

 

Read my airport blog... Youngstowns #1 Blog: www.yngair.wordpress.com

Thanks for your concerns!

All that is needed for the Ohio Hub to be built is for Congress to pass a passenger rail bill like they almost did last year (i.e. Lott-Lautenburg Bill) and then fund it.  Once that happens, trains start running in just a few years with the FULL buildout in 25 years.

 

Of course, you can argue that as long as this administration is in power, this won't happen (especially when you consider that the USDOT recently issued a congestion report that made ZERO mention of rail as a means to help alleviate the problem). 

 

On the other hand, with the end of cheap oil on its way out, we need to put some serious thought into where our transportation dollars should go.  In this context, you may get your "shot in the arm" for a few years in the short run, but over the long run, air travel in Youngstown and other places is a losing investment.

 

Personally, I'd rather do it right the first time and thus spend public tax dollars once rather than twice. 

 

So, we agree to disagree...

 

 

 

 

^^ Funny...I work for an airline, last I checked my company made a profit even with oil prices climbing. It's not like air travel is expensive these days, it costs less to fly now (inflation adjusted) than it did in 1970...there's lots of room to grow. Passenger rail is far from a winning investment..it's subsidized far more than airlines per pax used and is still more expensive than flying. I'm all for a changing infrastructre in transportation...but you're fooling yourself if you think in a few years everyone will use a train because a bill was passed. Y'town for the forseeable future would be better off with Spirit Air.

Preach it, AmrapinVA! :banger:

 

Regional rail will only be good for that; regional travel. Spirit would be able to take people to Florida and points beyond such as San Juan, Cancun, and Montego Bay in mere hours. Trying to deminish the importance of proper air service for a train to Cleveland is absolute nonsense.

Bring back the canals!

Water travel is the most cost effective of any type.  :-D

AmrapinVA.. What airline do you work for?

And passenger rail failed in Youngstown, kinda why Amtrak is out of downtown! The only rail I would like to see his high speed rail, but like I said before, it just won't happen.

 

Spirit Air would take me to where I want to go in less than 2 hours, not 2 days on a damn train!

Please all of you sign our survey! http://eguins.frihost.net/yngair/survey.html

^^No beef with canals or trains for that matter.

 

Anyway...I don't work for Spirit. I wish I knew some folks from Spirit as well..but I don't. But Y'townNews that's a smart move trying to move Spirit there. I'm with ya all the way.

Put the rap on passenger rail if you want, but the fact is Ohio has no intrastate coimmuter air and what little short-haul air travel out-of-state there is is expensive.  That's what makes the Ohio Hub Plan work: it serves a very underserved market.

 

And don't judge the merits of passenger rail by what happened in Y-town. That was the product of limited and lousy service by Amtrak, and was ended more by Washington politics than ridership numbers.  The Hub Plan calls for daylight, same-day passenger service with from 6 to 8 traisn a day in each corridor.  Youngstown sits in the middle of the Pittsburgh-Cleveland corridor.  Let's see, that would 6 to 8 more trains than they have now.  If the market drives more service, which I think it will, you could see ten or more trains a day. 

 

Regional travel? Yes, but regional travel that covers all of Ohio and reaches cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toronto and Chicago, as well as major airports in all of those cities.  The system also connects to passenger rail systems either planned or already operating in these same areas.

 

Won't happen?  Don't bet on it.  The Hub Plan could go into the Environmental Impact Study next year.  Completing that study means it becomes an official federal transportation project and then it must be built.  The first trains could be up and running within two years of that determination.

^^No beef with canals or trains for that matter.

 

Anyway...I don't work for Spirit. I wish I knew some folks from Spirit as well..but I don't. But Y'townNews that's a smart move trying to move Spirit there. I'm with ya all the way.

 

Thank you. So far we have about 30 entries in 2.5 days.

 

A man from the Vindicator interviewed me and late this week or next week I will get it into the paper.

^^ Funny...I work for an airline, last I checked my company made a profit even with oil prices climbing. It's not like air travel is expensive these days, it costs less to fly now (inflation adjusted) than it did in 1970...there's lots of room to grow. Passenger rail is far from a winning investment..it's subsidized far more than airlines per pax used and is still more expensive than flying. I'm all for a changing infrastructre in transportation...but you're fooling yourself if you think in a few years everyone will use a train because a bill was passed. Y'town for the forseeable future would be better off with Spirit Air.

 

The subsidies to aviation are huge and no airline company would be "profitable" without them.  In fact, the commercial passenger aviation industry, as a whole, has made ZERO money net over its lifetime. 

 

It's not as easy to compare subsidies to Amtrak, for example, with subsidies to the aviation as you want it to be because a chunk of the money given to Amtrak goes to pay for  things that no airline company has on its balance sheet.  For example:  the air traffic control system receives about $2 billion per year from the federal government's general revenues.  Part of Amtrak's annual subsidy goes to pay for their traffic control system on the Northeast Corridor.  There is no airline company that has air traffic controllers and the capital investment in the equipment on its balance sheet.  No airline company employs people to maintain runways.  Part of Amtrak's subisidy is to pay for maintenance-of-way crews on the NEC.  Part of Amtrak's even subsidy goes to pay the retirement benefits for people who NEVER WORKED FOR THE COMPANY.  No airline company has an expense like that on its balance sheet. 

 

Passenger rail is a much better investment compared to, for example, short-haul flights when you have an honest apples-to-apples comparison.  So, if you are going to argue subsidies, get your facts straight. 

 

As for rail in Youngstown, public dollar for public dollar, the Ohio Hub will return far more to the local economy than a few short haul flights out of the airport.   

Bring back the canals!

Water travel is the most cost effective of any type.  :-D

 

Actually, one of the things we need to do as the peak oil screws tighten is ship more freight on waterways because waterways are by far the most energy efficient way to move freight.  I'm talking more in the realm of navigable waterways here rather than canals. 

Preach it, AmrapinVA! :banger:

 

Regional rail will only be good for that; regional travel. Spirit would be able to take people to Florida and points beyond such as San Juan, Cancun, and Montego Bay in mere hours. Trying to deminish the importance of proper air service for a train to Cleveland is absolute nonsense.

 

If you want to fly to Florida and points beyond from Youngstown, then the way to do it is to hop an Ohio Hub train to Cleveland Hopkins airport or to Pittsburgh with a shuttle connection to the Pittsburgh airport or to Detroit Metro. 

 

 

^^ Funny...I work for an airline, last I checked my company made a profit even with oil prices climbing. It's not like air travel is expensive these days, it costs less to fly now (inflation adjusted) than it did in 1970...there's lots of room to grow. Passenger rail is far from a winning investment..it's subsidized far more than airlines per pax used and is still more expensive than flying. I'm all for a changing infrastructre in transportation...but you're fooling yourself if you think in a few years everyone will use a train because a bill was passed. Y'town for the forseeable future would be better off with Spirit Air.

 

The subsidies to aviation are huge, and public expenditures over and above Aviation Trust Fund exceed Amtrak's annual subsidy many times over, and NO airline company would be "profitable" without them.  In fact, the commercial passenger aviation industry, as a whole, has made ZERO money net over its lifetime-- subsidies ASIDE.  Ask Warren Buffet why he has never invested in an airline company. 

 

It's not as easy to compare subsidies to Amtrak, for example, with subsidies to the aviation as you want it to be because a substantial chunk of the money given to Amtrak goes to pay for things that no airline company has on its balance sheet.  For example:  the air traffic control system receives about $2 billion per year from the federal government's general revenues.  Part of Amtrak's annual subsidy goes to pay for their traffic control system on the Northeast Corridor.  There is no airline company that has air traffic controllers and the capital investment in and maintenance of traffic control equipment on its balance sheet.  No airline company employs people to maintain runways.  Part of Amtrak's subisidy is to pay for maintenance-of-way crews on the NEC.  Part of Amtrak's subsidy even goes to pay the retirement benefits for people who NEVER WORKED FOR THE COMPANY.  No airline company has an expense like that on its balance sheet.  So, if you are going to argue subsidies, get your facts straight.

 

Passenger rail is a much better investment compared to, for example, short-haul flights when you have an honest apples-to-apples comparison.

 

As for rail in Youngstown, public dollar for public dollar, the Ohio Hub will return far more to the local economy than a few short haul flights out of the airport and it will provide more mobility to area citizens because there are a lot of people who are unable to fly or don't fly for legitimate personal reasons (like Ohio's Amish population).     

 

 

So much for this being an aviation thread!  :-P

O ya I'm gonna waste 50 bucks to take a train to CLE-PIT to fly... This thread became a joke!

 

BACK ON SUBJECT!

 

Allegiant Air flies from Youngstown to Orlando-Sanford as well as Toledo. They are going to announce St. Pete next, so would you fly there?

I suppose you could always spend $58-$73 on the 130-mile round trip drive instead (IRS deductibility is 44.5 cents/mile but doesn't including parking costs, AAA is 56 cents per mile and does include parking costs).

 

What is a joke is the belief that commercial aviation will last in smaller markets and on short hops after the price of oil rises above a certain threshhold. Is it $100 per barrel? $200? I don't know. But that threshhold will be reached, When it does, you will have wished that this country could have joined the rest of the First World in developing a truly balanced, modern transportation system. Unfortunately, your skepticism is shared by other Americans who no longer believe that we can achieve the things that the rest of the developed has been able to accomplish with their transportation systems.

 

I know you want airline service for bragging rights or some similar superficial marketing boost, but that's all you get from it in Youngstown. How does that mesh with the region's economic plan to develop its core city? Or build linkages between its health care sector and those in Pittsburgh and Cleveland? Or boost linkages between its educational institutions with those in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Separately, these are potent assets. Tied together, accessible for people of incomes, ages and physical abilities, and regardless of what the price of oil is, we can be a great region again.

 

But if you don't want to believe in the future, and that together we can accomplish anything, then I truly feel sorry for you and the people who read your blog.

No... Thats far from what I'm thinking. I want to take the 10 minute drive up to the airport and have someone drop me off to fly. I would say hundreds by doing so.

 

Let's face it, RAIL is never coming back! Why are you all pounding it like it will. AMTRACK Closed in Youngstown because they never had any passengers, while 140+ pack in a MD83 to fly to Florida.

 

Don't gimme this bull Rail will work, it won't and it will never come back.

 

Small airports are the future says Aviation Analyst Mike Boyd, who knows what he is talking about.

Get back to me when the entire state has rail with packed trains, and then tell me I sounded stupid.

Wow. There are a lot of knowledgeable, informed people on this board. You aren't among them. You have zero clue as to what's happening in the rest of the nation, and the world. And I won't get into an informational debate with an unarmed man. Later.

KJP, I do have knowledge and I am well informed, but why do you think rail will work now after failing for so long. You really think that if they brought rail back to Youngstown [which they won't] people will fled to the station to take a train. THEY WON'T!

 

This isn't New York or Europe or the World, its Ohio.

 

We have a wealth of highways to get you where you need to go in 3 hours or less in most cases, we don't need a railroad which you think would help.

 

Aviation is at some of its highest levels ever and fares are at some of its lowest levels ever [inflation balanced]....... so why try trains now! When I can fly from Akron to New York or Boston for $49!

Okay gildone, I was going to let your first post or two slide, but it's gotten way out of hand now.

 

For example:  the air traffic control system receives about $2 billion per year from the federal government's general revenues. 

 

And this is not money well spent? Do you have any idea how many aircraft, be them commercial, private, charter, or business in the air at any one time. While I am typing this response, there are 5,088 planes in U.S. airspace, not including military aircraft. Do you realize just how complex the system is, with dozens of centers, hundreds of towered airports, and thousands of air fields all operating simultaneously? Do you realize there are still towers in this country that rely on technology from the cold war era to move airplanes through the air? Do you honestly think control a metal tube traveling at 530 mph and 36,000 ft with 240 souls on board should be delegated to someone who is willing to work minimum wage? Honestly, given the size and scope of the air traffic control system in the United States, it's no wonder any equally large amount of money is appropriated to its bottom line.

 

Passenger rail is a much better investment compared to, for example, short-haul flights when you have an honest apples-to-apples comparison. 

 

Okay, then let's take, for example, Amtrak's prized Acela high-speed train service, which connects the business centers of Boston, New York, and Washington D.C., which are all under 500 miles from each other, the criteria of a short-haul segment. In addition to a multitude of air service between said cities, two airlines, Delta Air Lines and USAirways operate dedicated shuttle service between these business centers, and make money off it. In fact, both airlines' shuttle products have long been sought after by other carriers, and are worth tens of millions of dollars. Yet, apparently, Amtrak can't even make that route work. The public has voted with their wallet, and obviously the airlines offer the best product for the money compared to the train. There are pleanty of other examples as well, such as the intra-California and intra-Florida markets, where air service remains a very viable means of transport.

 

Ask Warren Buffet why he has never invested in an airline company.

 

Warren Buffet has and currently does invest in an airline company. Buffet is a majority owner of NetJets, a fractional ownership airline with a fleet of over 500 aircraft.

 

As for rail in Youngstown, public dollar for public dollar, the Ohio Hub will return far more to the local economy than a few short haul flights out of the airport.   

 

Short-haul flights are not the current goal. Again, as I previosly mentioned, with Spirit, flights would likely operate between Youngstown and Ft. Lauderdale, the airline's main base. From there, connections would be available to a variety of destination in the Caribbean and Mexico, again, which cannot logistically be afforded through rail travel. As for your assertion that rail will be more beneficial to Youngstown that increased air service, I'd like to see some actual numbers and their sources before even considering that.

 

it will provide more mobility to area citizens because there are a lot of people who are unable to fly or don't fly for legitimate personal reasons (like Ohio's Amish population).

 

That is a HUGE stretch, my friend. Not only are we talking about an extremely minority here, but only the most orthodox Amish have qualms about air travel in the first place. Mennonites and other sects have absolutely no moral objections to air travel, as I have seen them numerous times flying from Port Columbus in full garb and everything.

 

While I have absolutely no opposition to plans to create a regional rail network in Ohio and the surrounding region (in fact, I fully support it) the blatant disregard to the importance and influence of the airline industry is absurd.

 

 

And this is not money well spent? 

 

Where did I say or imply that this wasn't money well spent?  NOWHERE.  Rail subsidies vs. aviation subsidies was brought up in the post I originally responded to .  My point was that no airline company would be profitable without them and I was trying to  put the subsidy issue in the proper context.  Would you please stay on the subject and not distort my statements? 

 

Do you honestly think control a metal tube traveling at 530 mph and 36,000 ft with 240 souls on board should be delegated to someone who is willing to work minimum wage? 

 

Why  are you putting words in my mouth?  Where did I say or even imply anything remotely like this?  Again, a point was made about subsidies and my point was that you cannot directly compare US airline subsidies and Amtrak subsidies because it's not an apples to apples comparison.  You have to put the data in context. Again, please stay on subject and don't distort my statements. 

 

Okay, then let's take, for example, Amtrak's prized Acela high-speed train service...Yet, apparently, Amtrak can't even make that route work. 

 

A couple of issues here.  The Acela trains are doing well and they are very popular with the public-- given what Amtrak has to work with as far as infrastructure and the political gamesmanship that went on that screwed up the construction of the Acela trainsets (the Amtrak model for passenger rail needs serious restructuring and a lot of capital investment, but this is a totally different subject).  The NEC needs a lot of capital investment in order for it to be a truly state-of-the-art system.  A more appropriate comparison for this part of the discussion is the high speed rail routes in Europe that have displaced flights to the point that airlines through-ticket passengers on the trains.   

 

The US Aviation system has, for the most part,  received the public investment needed to keep the infrastructure modern and in good repair.  Rail never has and the result is that our rail system, especially our passenger rail system, is in deplorable condition.  High quality, modern transporation infrastructure costs money.  Big money.  How good of an aviation system would we have if it received less than 1% of the federal transportation budget like passenger rail does?  Not very good at all and nowhere near modern.  Again, I'm only trying to put the argument about rail vs. aviation as things currently exist in US in the proper context.   

 

Warren Buffet has and currently does invest in an airline company. Buffet is a majority owner of NetJets, a fractional ownership airline with a fleet of over 500 aircraft. 

 

I was speaking of common carrier passenger airlines, not a fleet of corporate and charter jets which is what NetJets is.  This thread is about common-carrier passenger services, so I thought it was understood. I apologize. I'll state it more clearly this time: over it's lifetime, the common-carrier passenger airline industry has made ZERO money net.  Buffet has not and does not invest in this segment of the industry.  He has said so.

 

Short-haul flights are not the current goal. Again, as I previosly mentioned, with Spirit, flights would likely operate between Youngstown and Ft. Lauderdale, the airline's main base. From there, connections would be available to a variety of destination in the Caribbean and Mexico, again, which cannot logistically be afforded through rail travel

.

 

And I'm only saying that the best way to connect Youngstown to Ft. Lauderdale and a much larger number of destinations is with Ohio Hub trains to, for example,  Hopkins Airport. 

 

As for your assertion that rail will be more beneficial to Youngstown that increased air service, I'd like to see some actual numbers and their sources before even considering that.

 

I'm talking total economic return on investment.  The Hub's economic study will be completed in the next few to several months, so you will see some numbers. 

 

That is a HUGE stretch, my friend. Not only are we talking about an extremely minority here, but only the most orthodox Amish have qualms about air travel in the first place...

 

I provided this as only ONE example, and one example ONLY.  Yet you stretch and twist my statement to imply that I was saying they are the only ones.  There are several segments of the population at large who cannot or do not want to fly. Why do you have to resort to distorting my statements to make your point?   

 

While I have absolutely no opposition to plans to create a regional rail network in Ohio and the surrounding region (in fact, I fully support it) the blatant disregard to the importance and influence of the airline industry is absurd.

 

And I don't oppose aviation. Not one bit.  It has an important role to play in a BALANCED national transportation system.  Tell me what I said anywhere that implies the airline industry is unimportant?  Tell me what  I said anywhere that blatantly disregards aviation?  Will you stop distorting my statements, please?  All I'm saying is that IN MY OPINION, if public money is going to be expended, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend it on air service in Youngstown when Hopkins, CAK, and Pittsburgh airports are not that far away and when the Ohio Hub can and will efficiently connect Youngstown area residents to a lot of air service offered by several airlines. 

 

 

KJP, I do have knowledge and I am well informed, but why do you think rail will work now after failing for so long.

 

You get what you pay for.  Try giving aviation less than 1% of the federal transporation budget and watch how fast it would fail. 

 

We have a wealth of highways to get you where you need to go in 3 hours or less in most cases, we don't need a railroad which you think would help.

 

Aviation is at some of its highest levels ever and fares are at some of its lowest levels ever [inflation balanced]....... so why try trains now! When I can fly from Akron to New York or Boston for $49!

 

Because people want choices.  They don't always want to pound the interstates and they don't always want to be shoe-horned into an airplane seat.  Where fast, frequent, efficient rail services are offered, people will and DO use trains, even in the US. 

Rail subsidies vs. aviation subsidies was brought up in the post I originally responded to .  My point was that no airline company would be profitable without them and I was trying to  put the subsidy issue in the proper context.  Would you please stay on the subject and not distort my statements? 

 

Your phraseology is what is misleading, as you keep masquerading the monies provided by the federal government to the aviation infrastructure as "subsidies." The air transport system is not used exclusively by airlines. Private companies and private citizens use the system to a far greater extent that the airlines. It's akin to the money provided by the government to fund the highway system. Greyhound, Lakefront Lines, and other bus companies don't outright pay for the maintenance and construction of highways and roads, yet they have free use of the nation's road network. Airlines also do not recieve money outright from the government (i.e. a subsidy), they just use the system made available by the government.

 

High quality, modern transporation infrastructure costs money.  Big money.  How good of an aviation system would we have if it received less than 1% of the federal transportation budget like passenger rail does?  Not very good at all and nowhere near modern.  Again, I'm only trying to put the argument about rail vs. aviation as things currently exist in US in the proper context.

 

If you were to put it in the proper context, then you would also take into account the current sizes of both systems. Of course the aviation system will recieve a greater portion of transportation money; it's far larger and more complex than the railway system, which I was trying to allude to in my previous post. 

 

Buffet has not and does not invest in this segment of the industry.  He has said so.

 

Regardless, that by no means that successful investment does not take place in the commercial airline sector. Take Chase, which is a huge investor in United Airlines. Or the Retirement Systems of Alabama, which bought a controlling share of USAirways when its stock was valued at pennies on the dollar. The airline, which has announced a profit for the past two quarters, now trades at over $40 a share.

 

And I'm only saying that the best way to connect Youngstown to Ft. Lauderdale and a much larger number of destinations is with Ohio Hub trains to, for example,  Hopkins Airport. 

 

Such a scenario would actually be extremely detrimental to Youngstown and the Greater Mahoning Valley. Take, for example, the current situation that exists in Toledo. Due to the easy highway access, most people in Greater Toledo choose to fly from Detroit Metro Airport than Toledo Express Airport, sucking jobs, business, and money from the Toledo economy. It is estimated that the Toledo economy looses $82 million a year due to people choosing to drive to DTW instead of flying from TOL. Likewise, making potential air travelers take a train to Cleveland as opposed to developing a solid air travel base in Youngstown would further drain the local economy by shifting the demand to Cleveland.

 

I provided this as only ONE example, and one example ONLY.  Yet you stretch and twist my statement to imply that I was saying they are the only ones.  There are several segments of the population at large who cannot or do not want to fly.

 

Okay, and that ONE example was wrong, so I corrected it. I didn't stretch or twist anything. As I said in the same statement, the segments of the population that do not wish to fly for whatever reason make up an extremely small percentage of the total population, and even then it's not a guarantee that given the option of rail, that they would take it. There will still be another segment within that segment that will continue using other means of transportation, such as car or bus.

 

IN MY OPINION, if public money is going to be expended, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend it on air service in Youngstown when Hopkins, CAK, and Pittsburgh airports are not that far away and when the Ohio Hub can and will efficiently connect Youngstown area residents to a lot of air service offered by several airlines. 

 

And you are more than entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it for the reasons mentioned above. Attracting improved air service to Youngstown extends the city's abilities to compete far more effectively on a national and global scale and provides a direct shot in the arm to the local economy. In addition, it would bring further capitalize on the facilities that are currently available, giving the city and its citizens a far greater return than the current environment allows.

Your phraseology is what is misleading, as you keep masquerading the monies provided by the federal government to the aviation infrastructure as "subsidies." The air transport system is not used exclusively by airlines. Private companies and private citizens use the system to a far greater extent that the airlines. It's akin to the money provided by the government to fund the highway system. Greyhound, Lakefront Lines, and other bus companies don't outright pay for the maintenance and construction of highways and roads, yet they have free use of the nation's road network. Airlines also do not recieve money outright from the government (i.e. a subsidy), they just use the system made available by the government.

 

I was speaking in the proper context and my phraseology was not misleading.  You chose to see things that weren' there. 

 

And, I hate to disappoint you, but they ARE subsidies.  When the federal government finances something or helps to finance something that the private sector benefits from, it's a subsidy.  The example I gave, the $2 billion per year out of general revenues for the air traffic control is a subsidy to the aviation system and an indirect operating subsidy to any private company that benefits from it.  There are other examples, but I see no need in belaboring this point any further.   

 

If you were to put it in the proper context, then you would also take into account the current sizes of both systems. Of course the aviation system will recieve a greater portion of transportation money; it's far larger and more complex than the railway system, which I was trying to allude to in my previous post. 

 

But comparing the current size of both systems doesn't put it in the proper context.  The current size of the US passenger rail system is the direct result of the policy and funding choices made by the federal government. 

 

You have to look at the past 90 years of how the aviation system, highways system, and railway system have been financed.    Highways and aviation were financed publically and the passenger rail system privately.  Railroads build, maintain, and pay taxes on their infrastructure.  In the context of the pre-Amtrak intercity passenger rail system, they could not compete in the intercity passenger market because the federal government was pouring money into the competing modes. 

 

The railroads knew then their infrastructure needed to be modernized if they were to keep the passenger side of the business viable, but they also knew they couldn't compete with the public purse that was funding the other modes.  So in the 60's they began doing everything they could to kill the business.  By the time Amtrak was formed, the system was a mere skeleton of its former self and has always been given barely enough money to limp along year after year.  It's now the 21st century and what few passenger trains that are left are running on mostly obsolete infrastructure and the government, thus far and to the detriment of the nation, refuses to invest in its modernization. That's why the subsidies are so puny compared to aviation. 

 

Regardless, that by no means that successful investment does not take place in the commercial airline sector. Take Chase, which is a huge investor in United Airlines. Or the Retirement Systems of Alabama, which bought a controlling share of USAirways when its stock was valued at pennies on the dollar. The airline, which has announced a profit for the past two quarters, now trades at over $40 a share.

 

Still, the aggregate lifetime net profit of this segment of the industry, over it's decades long lifetime has been zero, which was my original point that because of this, Warren Buffet does not invest in common-carrier airlines.  That, and without subsidies to the aviation system, no airline company would be profitable. 

 

Such a scenario would actually be extremely detrimental to Youngstown and the Greater Mahoning Valley. Take, for example, the current situation that exists in Toledo. Due to the easy highway access, most people in Greater Toledo choose to fly from Detroit Metro Airport than Toledo Express Airport, sucking jobs, business, and money from the Toledo economy. It is estimated that the Toledo economy looses $82 million a year due to people choosing to drive to DTW instead of flying from TOL. Likewise, making potential air travelers take a train to Cleveland as opposed to developing a solid air travel base in Youngstown would further drain the local economy by shifting the demand to Cleveland.

 

This is only true if you ignore the economic benefits of the Ohio Hub: improving mobility, increasing total transportation capacity (freight and passenger), connecting downtown business centers, attacting downtown development, creating jobs, attracting companies and the jobs that go with them to Youngstown and other on-line cities, business for Ohio's more than 120 companies in the rail supply industry, increase in property values etc. etc. 

 

As for Toledo, that's not an appropriate place for a passenger airlines either.  I came to this conclusion after talking with someone (near the top of the food chain) at the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority.  They aren't trying to develop that airport as a passenger airport because it's far more important as a freight hub.  They see the Ohio Hub as the more effective of the two options for economic development driver for the passenger end of things.  They don't come by these conclusions lightly either. 

 

Okay, and that ONE example was wrong, so I corrected it. I didn't stretch or twist anything.

 

No it wasn't and yes you did. I was refering to those Amish who don't fly. (For example, did I use the word Mennonite anywhere?)  Again, you wanted to see something that wasn't there.  Can we drop this now and stop beating this dead horse? 

 

  As I said in the same statement, the segments of the population that do not wish to fly for whatever reason make up an extremely small percentage of the total population, and even then it's not a guarantee that given the option of rail, that they would take it. There will still be another segment within that segment that will continue using other means of transportation, such as car or bus.

 

It is not insignificant.  A significant number of senior citizens want the option of trains.  A lot of them don't want to fly anymore if they don't have to.  In fact, a few years ago, the AARP heard from enough seniors on this issue that they put passenger rail in their issues book which is essentially the list of issues that AARP lobbies congress for on behalf of their members.  Then there are the disabled.  But I won't belabor this further either.  Long story short, the it's not as insignificant of a number as you assume. 

 

On a different angle:  the population at-large wants trains. There have been many state and national surveys taken over the past several years and they all show that a clear majority of people want modern intercity passenger rail.  Most polls have shown roughly 70%, though some have been as low as 60%. 

 

I referred to the segments who can't or won't fly because these groups most definitely want trains. 

 

Attracting improved air service to Youngstown extends the city's abilities to compete far more effectively on a national and global scale and provides a direct shot in the arm to the local economy. In addition, it would bring further capitalize on the facilities that are currently available, giving the city and its citizens a far greater return than the current environment allows.

 

The Ohio Hub will do a better job of this.  I stated some of the reasons above.  So, we agree to disagree on this point. 

Put the rap on passenger rail if you want, but the fact is Ohio has no intrastate coimmuter air and what little short-haul air travel out-of-state there is is expensive.  That's what makes the Ohio Hub Plan work: it serves a very underserved market.

 

And don't judge the merits of passenger rail by what happened in Y-town. That was the product of limited and lousy service by Amtrak, and was ended more by Washington politics than ridership numbers.  The Hub Plan calls for daylight, same-day passenger service with from 6 to 8 traisn a day in each corridor.  Youngstown sits in the middle of the Pittsburgh-Cleveland corridor.  Let's see, that would 6 to 8 more trains than they have now.  If the market drives more service, which I think it will, you could see ten or more trains a day. 

 

Regional travel? Yes, but regional travel that covers all of Ohio and reaches cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toronto and Chicago, as well as major airports in all of those cities.  The system also connects to passenger rail systems either planned or already operating in these same areas.

 

Won't happen?  Don't bet on it.  The Hub Plan could go into the Environmental Impact Study next year.  Completing that study means it becomes an official federal transportation project and then it must be built.  The first trains could be up and running within two years of that determination.

 

I'm not putting a rap on passenger rail. Far from it....I think it would be a great asset to see ORDC/Ohio Hub begin service and succeed.

Dollar for dollar, more money (in inflation adjusted dollars) was spent from 1860-1920 by the Federal Government on railroads and railroad related interests than in the ENTIRE HISTORY of aviation industry. You'd have to build an major JFK sized airport in every city over 500,000 to even get close to what railroads were subsidized with in their inception. I'm not even counting 1920-2006. So cry me a river Gildone. Every dog has it's time in the sun.

 

But oh shit, Airlines don't land for free at airports. They pay ridiculous landing fees in order to pay for improvements at these airports. Then the jet fuel is taxed, there are fees for using gates, customs facilites fees, cargo facilites fees, ramp equipment fees, safety and security fees, oh and there's just the plain corporate tax. Again cry me a river. Railroads in their hey-dey had it easy. Maybe too easy.

 

As for the regional argument look at Japan. Japan has the best rail system in the world. But instead of destroying regional airline service, it has EXPANDED it. Airlines compete with trains flying 747 and 777's on routes like Osaka-Tokyo, Sapporo-Tokyo, Nagoya-Tokyo, Fukuoka-Tokyo, Osaka-Sapporo, Fukuoka-Sapporo. No first class on these babies, just 300-500 seats of economy and a race to see who will get where first. They leave every hour AND THE PLANES ARE PACKED. There are RJ's to every town that has an airport with runway longer than 4000 feet like Sendai and Niigata. There's low cost carriers as well. And this from a country about the size of California that has more rail service than the US or Europe will ever have. But I'm just another uninformed American. ;)

Wow, thanks CMH for putting those facts to gildone....

 

And my message to gildone.

3 Passengers a day, that is ALL That took at train out of the B&O in Downtown Youngstown A DAY!

 

It has failed in Youngstown-Canton-Alliance and its not coming back!

 

Aviation is the future, you can take an air taxi from almost any airport in this state under SkyTaxi.....

 

Honestly GILDONE, Gimme some proof, like numbers, like I gave you about Youngstown, that would make Youngstown-Canton-Alliance for instance, a good place for a OHIO Train!

 

You are pretty sad to make this such a big argument, The Ohio HUB is a distant oasis, something we will never see!

Wow, thanks CMH for putting those facts to gildone....

 

And my message to gildone.

3 Passengers a day, that is ALL That took at train out of the B&O in Downtown Youngstown A DAY!

 

It has failed in Youngstown-Canton-Alliance and its not coming back!

 

Aviation is the future, you can take an air taxi from almost any airport in this state under SkyTaxi.....

 

Honestly GILDONE, Gimme some proof, like numbers, like I gave you about Youngstown, that would make Youngstown-Canton-Alliance for instance, a good place for a OHIO Train!

 

You are pretty sad to make this such a big argument, The Ohio HUB is a distant oasis, something we will never see!

 

I second that. Gildone you came on here and said Y'town would be better served by OhioHub, yet your argument has been "I think that's the case because I said so".

 

Understand something about Y'town....we in and from C'land bitch and moan about our fair realm and metro...but honestly the C'land/Akron metro had 12 bad years in terms of population decline..1970-1982...since then the Cleveland metro has actually grown a bit. Meanwhile Y'town has been hammered to this freakin day. Telling the civic leaders and residents of the Y'town area to sit on their hands for another 2,3,4 or 5 years is ridiculous. I give Y'townNews alot of credit for trying to do something NOW. While you Gildone (who I'm pretty sure does not live in or near Y'town) act like he's some sort of fool for taking a proactive step in improving that area's business climate.

 

For the life of me I don't see why air and rail can't work in tandem.

 

Oh yeah...I forgot about the original post. You and KJP think the aviation industry is on brink of destruction due to the fact that oil prices are rising. Yet facts bear out the opposite. This year will be another record year in terms of pax flown in the US. It's cheaper to fly now with Jet A at $2.60/gallon vs. 1970 when it was 12 cents/gal. The industry posts profits. I bet when oil was $40/barrel you two bet that $60 was the breaking point. Yet here we are at $75/barrel and the industry is doing better than when it was at $30/barrel. I don't see an end anytime soon.

This is only true if you ignore the economic benefits of the Ohio Hub: improving mobility, increasing total transportation capacity (freight and passenger), connecting downtown business centers, attacting downtown development, creating jobs, attracting companies and the jobs that go with them to Youngstown and other on-line cities, business for Ohio's more than 120 companies in the rail supply industry, increase in property values etc. etc. 

 

As for Toledo, that's not an appropriate place for a passenger airlines either.  I came to this conclusion after talking with someone (near the top of the food chain) at the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority.  They aren't trying to develop that airport as a passenger airport because it's far more important as a freight hub.  They see the Ohio Hub as the more effective of the two options for economic development driver for the passenger end of things.  They don't come by these conclusions lightly either. 

 

If Toledo is inappropriate for air service amd Y'town is too (again because you said so)...then surely the Akron/Canton area is as well. Yet lets look at Canton/Akron Regional Airport passenger numbers over the past 10 years:

 

1995 201,463 202,231 403,694 

1996 232,799 232,396 465,195 15.23%

1997 319,386 320,886 640,272 37.64%

1998 349,021 347,376 696,397 8.77%

1999 372,001 372,308 744,309 6.88%

2000 395,713 393,894 789,607 6.09%

2001 355,075 347,717 702,792 -10.99%

2002 448,978 445,820 894,798 27.32%

2003 584,626 580,129 1,164,755 30.17%

2004 680,179 677,900 1,358,079 16.60%

2005 718,238 715,995 1,434,233 5.60%

 

First column - enplanements...second column - deplanements..third column - total pax

fourth column - year-to-year change. This airport is one of the most successful in terms of new pax growth in the Midwest if not the country as whole. Yet using Ohio Hub in your context...let's rip out a successful airport and have these folks take a train to Cleveland or Columbus.

 

Maybe Toledo's lack of action in getting passengers into their airport says more about what's wrong with Toledo than anything good about OhioHub.

Amrapin... You are dead on.

Akron-Canton is the 6th least expensive airport in the country and also top 10 in growth in the country. Asking someone in Akron to take a train to CLEVELAND is stupid!

 

Trains FAILED In Youngstown, Airlines are producing all over the state, such as Allegiant Air at Youngstown. Sure its not a daily flight, but maybe the only way the YNG Airport will survive is with leisure flights.. so be it... thats why I'm pushing for Spirit.

 

Where is your argument now!

Maybe Toledo's lack of action in getting passengers into their airport says more about what's wrong with Toledo than anything good about OhioHub.

 

That is exactly correct. The Toledo Port Authority is the perfect example of a "good ol' boys" government burueacracy. The Port Authority stood complacent in the mid 1990s, when passenger traffic began to deteriorate from Toledo Express. Meanwhile, airports in Flint, Akron, and other cities close to major metropolitan areas began experiencing tremendous growth. More recently, the Port Authority has failed three times in a row to put together a winning proposal for a grant for nonstop service to New York City, watched idely as USAirways pulled out of the Toledo market completely, and has stood by as other carriers have downgraded service from the airport, many times blaming the post 9/11 environment for the lack in growth. It's interesting to note that the exact opposite scenario has happened in Flint, which is just about as far away from Detroit as Toledo. The airport authority there decided in the early 1990s invest in a completely new terminal and since then, passenger traffic has literally taken off, much to the same extent as Akron/Canton.

 

But comparing the current size of both systems doesn't put it in the proper context.   The current size of the US passenger rail system is the direct result of the policy and funding choices made by the federal government.

 

The government began to fund the aviation industry in its formative years since it was the main beneficiary of its services at the time. The successful trial of air mail service in the United States took the contract away from the rail service and the air transport network began to grow. In fact, many of today's carriers can trace their roots back to being contract mail carriers for the government. The speed and reliability afforded to the government by air mail soon thereafter translated to passenger service, and the rest is history. The fact of the matter is, rail service became antiquated by the mere fact that it did not provide the same speed and reliability that air service could provide at the time.

 

This is only true if you ignore the economic benefits of the Ohio Hub

 

There are no numbers to validate such a claim, and many of those potential benefits are outweighed by those provided by the airline industry. That figure of $82 million doesn't include many of the Ohio Hub benefits mentioned that can also be attained through the aviation industry, such as increased jobs, corporate retainment and attraction, and increased revenue to aviation-related businesses.

 

Now, going back to the original topic, the fact of the matter is that by engaging in talks with the airlines and by making the region more desirable to increased air traffic through Spirit, United, or other commercial carrier, Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley is investing in positioning itself as a place for increased commerse, connectivity, and growth in the worldwide market.

And my message to gildone.

3 Passengers a day, that is ALL That took at train out of the B&O in Downtown Youngstown A DAY!

 

By this statement you are trying to prove your point with phony comparisons. 

 

You CANNOT compare the Three Rivers train to the Ohio Hub.  One train at crappy hours on congested antiquated infrastruacture cannot compare with multi-frequency 110 mph daylight service of the OHio Hub. 

 

It has failed in Youngstown-Canton-Alliance and its not coming back!

 

Another phony comparison.  You just don't get it.  You get what you pay for when it comes to transporation.  When it comes to rail, we've never paid what it takes to have a modern system. 

 

Honestly GILDONE, Gimme some proof, like numbers, like I gave you about Youngstown, that would make Youngstown-Canton-Alliance for instance, a good place for a OHIO Train!

 

First, the numbers are there.  Read the OHio Hub study at ORDC's website.  They also have some preliminary economic data.  The detailed economic study will be completed in the next few months.

 

You are pretty sad to make this such a big argument, The Ohio HUB is a distant oasis, something we will never see!

 

Sad?  What's sad is that you have to resort to petty insults.  I haven't done that, nor do I plan to. 

 

Trains FAILED In Youngstown, Airlines are producing all over the state, such as Allegiant Air at Youngstown. Sure its not a daily flight, but maybe the only way the YNG Airport will survive is with leisure flights.. so be it... thats why I'm pushing for Spirit.

 

Where is your argument now!

 

You seem to only be able to make your argument based on a phony comparison.  Again, the Ohio Hub isn't going to offer one train at crappy hours on congested, antiquated infrastructure.  One train at crappy hours on congested antiquated infrastruacture cannot compare with multi-frequency, 110 mph daylight service of the Ohio Hub.

 

It appears that you have no concept of an integrated, multi-modal transportation system and what it means economically, what it means for mobility, and what it means for maximum value returned for each public dollar spent. 

 

Dollar for dollar, more money (in inflation adjusted dollars) was spent from 1860-1920 by the Federal Government on railroads and railroad related interests than in the ENTIRE HISTORY of aviation industry. You'd have to build an major JFK sized airport in every city over 500,000 to even get close to what railroads were subsidized with in their inception. I'm not even counting 1920-2006. So cry me a river Gildone. Every dog has it's time in the sun.

 

This is blown way out of proportion. The western railroads did indeed get things like land grants (which about half of the track-miles benefitted from) and all railroads got some assistance with things like tunnels, but by and large, the tracks were laid and stations, depots and yards built with private dollars. 

 

In addition:

 

--The railroads paid (and still pay) property taxes on the infrastructure they built and maintain.

 

--In exchange for the land grants,etc the railroads received in the 19th century, they had to give the federal government discounted shipping rates in exchange.  In the 1930's it was determined that the railroads re-paid those costs many times over. 

 

--As for 1920-2006, what the railroads have gotten from the federal government is low interest loans and the totals even for those have been dwarfed by the what has been given to the aviation system.  The FACT of the matter is that aviation has received far more government support than the railroads have for the past 80 years. 

 

But oh shit, Airlines don't land for free at airports. They pay ridiculous landing fees in order to pay for improvements at these airports. Then the jet fuel is taxed, there are fees for using gates, customs facilites fees, cargo facilites fees, ramp equipment fees, safety and security fees, oh and there's just the plain corporate tax. Again cry me a river.

 

I wouldn't call them ridiculous.  Airports, like all transportation infrastructure, isn't cheap.  And, they are still subsidized (and again, just to be clear, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with subsidies).

 

Nothing you have said has changed the fact that federal transportation policy has largely ignored passenger rail and we have an antiquated system that some third world countries would be ashamed of.  You get what you pay for. 

 

And who's crying anything?    If you have to resort to statements like that, it weakens your position.

 

As for the regional argument look at Japan. Japan has the best rail system in the world. But instead of destroying regional airline service, it has EXPANDED it. Airlines compete with trains flying 747 and 777's on routes like Osaka-Tokyo, Sapporo-Tokyo, Nagoya-Tokyo, Fukuoka-Tokyo, Osaka-Sapporo, Fukuoka-Sapporo. No first class on these babies, just 300-500 seats of economy and a race to see who will get where first. They leave every hour AND THE PLANES ARE PACKED. There are RJ's to every town that has an airport with runway longer than 4000 feet like Sendai and Niigata. There's low cost carriers as well. And this from a country about the size of California that has more rail service than the US or Europe will ever have. But I'm just another uninformed American. ;)

 

And still, there are cities on the rail lines that do not have air service.  One of reasons for this is because air service isn't appropriate for all cities. 

 

Besides, they have still spent the money necessary to have a modern passenger rail system.  The US has not and continues to refuse to.  Nothing you said here changes this.

 

Every mode has a role to play including passenger rail, even in the US. 

 

 

 

It's also worth noting that high speed rail in Europe and Asia is so good that the airlines have given up serving short-haul routes and have actually worked with the railroads to combine ticketing and even security.  This allows airline passengers to book their intial trip by rail with direct connections to the airports and the long-distance and overseas flights.

 

Hoping for the revival of any significant air service at Youngstown is wishful thinking.  It is simply not a destination for incoming traffic by air, but is perfect for a rail-air connection with other markets.  Y-town can be a huge for passenger rail.  It sits exactly half-way between Pittsburgh and Cleveland and has a metro area where a lot of commuters live who work in both cities.

 

I've had conversations with some local officials and they recognize that Y-town is strategically located in such a way to give the area a distinct advantage as the center of renewed passenger rail service.  That's not to say the Y-town airport is without worth.  Some form of passenger air is still possible (such as charter service), but not much more than that.  On the other hand, it could make a good air cargo hub for the area.

 

I think the argument over passenger vs. air has pretty much been exhausted folks.  Let's move on and make all of the modes work.

That is exactly correct. The Toledo Port Authority is the perfect example of a "good ol' boys" government burueacracy. The Port Authority stood complacent in the mid 1990s, when passenger traffic began to deteriorate from Toledo Express.

 

When you actually talk to people at the Toledo Port Authority like I have on several occasions, then get back to me. 

 

Passenger traffic deteriorated at Toledo Express because with Detroit Metro so close the market wasn't there.  I lived in the Toledo area in the mid 1990's.  I never flew out of Toledo.  It was cheaper to fly out of Detroit Metro. 

 

The government began to fund the aviation industry in its formative years since it was the main beneficiary of its services at the time.

 

You don't know your history well in this instance.  There was a lot of lobbying by the fledgling aviation industry for public funding.  The private sector was unwilling to absorb the full risk of the huge capital outlays necessary to build the needed infrastructure.  They lobbied hard for many years. 

 

That said, I have no problem with the government getting involved in the funding of transporation infrastructure.  I repeat, I have no problem with funding aviation. 

 

I have a problem with the lack of balance in how they continue to fund transportation to this day and I have a problem with the complete lack of a balanced, integrated approach to transporation planning.

 

The fact of the matter is, rail service became antiquated by the mere fact that it did not provide the same speed and reliability that air service could provide at the time

 

This does not mean that passenger rail didn't didn't then and still doesn't today have an important role to play in our transportation system.  Rail became antiquated because the government chose to fund aviation and highways and let rail atrophy.    The railroads knew what the bulk of the future of passenger rail was-- fast, multi-frequency, regional service.  As I said, it was the public purse the private railroads could not compete with. 

 

There are no numbers to validate such a claim, and many of those potential benefits are outweighed by those provided by the airline industry.

 

The ORDC has had some preliminary economic development numbers for a few years now.  The detailed economic study will be complete within the next few to several months.  Air service isn't going to do much for developing downtown Youngstown.

 

That figure of $82 million doesn't include many of the Ohio Hub benefits mentioned that can also be attained through the aviation industry, such as increased jobs, corporate retainment and attraction, and increased revenue to aviation-related businesses....

Now, going back to the original topic, the fact of the matter is that by engaging in talks with the airlines and by making the region more desirable to increased air traffic through Spirit, United, or other commercial carrier, Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley is investing in positioning itself as a place for increased commerse, connectivity, and growth in the worldwide market.

 

And as I've been trying to say, I agree to disagree with those here who think aviation is the better economic development engine for Youngstown.  Freight and charter service is appropriate for Youngstown.  Common carrier service is not-- Again, I agree to disagree with you all on this. 

Amen, Noozer. 

Thanks Gildone.

 

And for whoever made the crack about rail being "antiquated".... take a look at my last post on how freight rail traffic is booming.  The railroads are pretty busy for an antique.

Noozer & Gildone: I'm surprised you're continuing with this experiment to see if an impermeable stone can absorb a new substance. I hope you realize by now that it cannot. Time to end the experiment, and leave the stone alone where it lies.

It's also worth noting that high speed rail in Europe and Asia is so good that the airlines have given up serving short-haul routes and have actually worked with the railroads to combine ticketing and even security.  This allows airline passengers to book their intial trip by rail with direct connections to the airports and the long-distance and overseas flights.

 

I present you the domestic route map for All Nippon Airways:

 

http://www.ana.co.jp/eng/dms/networkmap/main_syuukoutoshi.html

 

Seems to me that domestic service is working just fine. No beef with rail and air working in tandem. Cities much smaller than than the Y'town area in Japan have air service. But then again, I'm probably just "weakening my position". :)

 

And KJP, remember what this thread was about. You even said, so much for this being about aviation. I agree! I'm a very movable force as well, but "this is right because I said so", isn't gonna change my mind. :)