Aiden

I agree that Australian airlines ideally should have the same access to foreign ports as foreign airlines should have to Australian ports.

But if such access is not granted by say Qatar, Australian travellers are still better off with Qatar Airways flying say Melbourne-Perth on their run to Qatar.

Both Australian consumers of air travel and in this example, Qatar Airways win from such trade. And whatever money Australians save by not flying the duopoly they can spend at other Australian businesses.

Jonathan J. Ariel, I'm not saying we should demand equal access. But I don't think it would be fair to grant cabotage rights to Indonesian airlines if Indonesia won't even let ours stop there on the way to somewhere else.

One interesting angle on all this is the battle presently being waged between the "US Three" and the "Gulf Three". The core issue is the use of government money to underwrite airlines - the US sees itself as fully commercial, and views the Gulf airlines as being supported by their governments.

There is of course a lot of conceptual wiggle-room on both sides - for example, the US government has on many occasions allowed its airlines significant protection from their creditors through Chapter 11, which the Gulf carriers see as a form of financial support. Which of course it literally is.

Underlying it all is the boundary between being government-supported and being fully commercial, and it is in this light that restrictions on foreign competition come along to blur the line even further.

Such restrictions are clearly a form of subsidy to the native industries, as is any form of protectionism. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we respect the laws of commercial competition, that lower the cost of goods and services to our citizens, there should be no such curbs. If, on the other hand, we feel that air travel is a key component of our global infrastructure, and should be guarded as a national asset, then the obvious path would be to have the government own the airlines.

Oh, wait...

When we put tourists on Australian planes, we are exporting something and or earning foreign capital!

However, when we put Australian travelers on foreign planes, we are buying an import and or contributing to an unsustainable record foreign debt.

Our 1.5 trillion plus super funds, would earn more money more reliably here and for them if invested in (tax free) self terminating thirty year bonds?

And where would one invest such a huge windfall?

Well we could start with a rapid rail system along the eastern sea board!

Our entire rapid rail system should be built underground, which needs only be in covered shallow trenches in many cases.

And as such, no longer mix or mingle with problematic traffic or stock! And as such, allow maximized speed to become the norm!?

Given solid rock walls, enable a lean as tight as 45 degrees? Which would be enough for speeds of 500 klicks or more?

Private financiers are already canvassing fast overnight rapid, mile long double decker rail, averaging 130 klicks!?

Trucks invariably burn fully imported diesel, electrified trains burn vastly cheaper local fuel!

Trucks also need to cope with considerable aerodynamics and hills, the later of which never ever applies to rail transport!

Trains also enable slipstreaming, which considerably reduces the drag anyway and provide far less surface resistance than occasional trucks or b Doubles, moving as a similar load moving convoy!.

Trains don't get bogged in the wet, even where the rail is covered in a foot of water!

Trains would compete with air, even where the speed was say as slow as 130 klicks!

What killed train travel was old unmaintained rail/rolling stock!

I've yet to see gridlocked commuter trains!

Road upkeep and maintainence is far more costly than properly maintained rail.

Rail travel is far safer and less costly than any other form of transport!?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,

Yes, tickets on foreign airlines are a form of imports. But I see this as a relatively minor issue when much of the cost is imported fuel, and Aussie airlines are largely foreign owned and not very profitable. There would be costs, but I think a cabotage tax at the low rate I suggested is enough to make up for that. And, as I said, I would exclude our four busiest airports (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth) as demand there is already sufficiently high without cabotage.

Whether bonds are the most lucrative super fund option depends on many different factors, but there's no limit on the amount of money that could be sourced domestically.

Railways have to be designed so that a train won't fall off the track if it has to stop in an emergency. Tunnels are much much more expensive to build than surface track and aerodynamic resistance is much greater in tunnels than on the surface. So although they have obvious advantages, it's generally better not to build everything underground.

Railways can cope with hills (some in Switzerland manage 1 in 11 on adhesion alone) but it's not what they're best at, and trains usually have a much lower power to weight ratio than trucks. For new railways (for freight) it makes sense to avoid gradients of more than 1 in 50, and if possible keep it below 1 in 100 or even 1 in 200. This is much less important for high speed and suburban passenger railways.

Aerodynamics becomes more important the faster you go, and at high speeds even the small gap between containers is significant. But the situation is far worse for double stacked trains because those on the bottom are too low slung to go above the wheels, so where the wheels are there are big gaps between containers. But 130km/h is doable if the track is good, though competition with air would be very limited at that speed.

(continued)
If the railway track is under a foot of water, it could mean the ground under it has washed away, so generally the trains would not proceed. If they did and it was, it would be a lot worse than a truck getting bogged.

I'm not quite sure what you'd count as "gridlocked commuter trains" but I think some of what I've seen in London comes pretty close to that description.

What killed train travel isn't the same in every place where train travel was killed, but it's generally not the quality of the track or rollingstock. As for the upkeep and maintenance cost of rail v road, it depends on what you start with and what the requirements are.