Because if it's massively subsidized by the state, and air travel is still competitive (at least for some journeys), I doubt high speed rail is good enough to fully supplant airlines on its merits alone.
>Does China subsidise its air industry like other countries (jet fuel is duty free in the UK)
Why is jet fuel being duty free a "subsidy"? High speed rail is powered by electricity, which as far as I know doesn't have duty applied either.
> Because if it's massively subsidized by the state, and air travel is still around, I doubt high speed rail is good enough to supplant airlines on its merits alone.
Is annihilation of the air transport sector really your bar as to whether or not HSR is good enough?
> Why is jet fuel being duty free a "subsidy"? High speed rail is powered by electricity, which as far as I know doesn't have duty applied either.
When the government taxes all other transport fuels except jet fuel, it sure looks like a subsidy. Of course, fuel duty policy is not the only way in which a state can choose to support a private industry.
> When the government taxes all other transport fuels except jet fuel, it sure looks like a subsidy.
Maybe because planes don't cause massive burden on infrastructure. Look at how much road damage buses do - you're a better off riding in an actual taxi...
>Is annihilation of the air transport sector really your bar as to whether or not HSR is good enough?
"good enough" with respect to "Air travel should be for medical emergencies only"? Yes.
>When the government taxes all other transport fuels except jet fuel, it sure looks like a subsidy. Of course, fuel duty policy is not the only way in which a state can choose to support a private industry.
high speed trains in china run on electricity. I'm not sure how fuel duties are relevant here.
> good enough" with respect to "Air travel should be for medical emergencies only"? Yes.
Seems a little extreme to me, but fine.
> high speed trains in china run on electricity. I'm not sure how fuel duties are relevant here.
Because to highlight how HSR "runs at a loss" without mentioning the enormous state subsidies that go to the aviation sector, without which air travel would also run at a loss, is a little selective.
But, as you say, this is China. I think "profit and loss" mean slightly different things there.
Blame thanatos519, which made the claim and caused me to reply, not me.
>Because to highlight how HSR "runs at a loss" without mentioning the enormous state subsidies that go to the aviation sector
Again, I'm not disagreeing with this line of reasoning, only pointing out that it's incomplete. High speed trains most definitely received subsidies in the form of government financing, and not having to turn a profit. Your response to that is... airlines might be getting subsidies too but you you can't really point out what they are? Or are you claiming that the fact that other fuels are subject to duties, jet fuel isn't, then airlines are getting "subsidies", even if HSRs aren't taxed in the same way (ie. for electricity)?
>But, as you say, this is China. I think "profit and loss" mean slightly different things there.
> Blame thanatos519, which made the claim and caused me to reply, not me.
Sure. I'm just saying that I don't agree that "not making a loss" is a prerequisite for any type of measure of success. Lots of things are successful that don't turn a direct profit.
> Your response to that is... airlines might be getting subsidies too but you you can't really point out what they are? Or are you claiming that the fact that other fuels are subject to duties, jet fuel isn't, then airlines are getting "subsidies", even if HSRs aren't taxed in the same way (ie. for electricity)?
I'm saying lots in both sectors is subsidised, all the way from manufacturing through to runtime costs.
Whether or not a railway or a flight route makes a "profit" or "loss" is really down to level of state funding across the whole industry, so using it as a measure to see which mode of transport is 'better' is (I think) not very enlightening.
Because if they aren't, they are unsustainable. It's good to have self-sustainable industries rather than endless businesses (state owned or not) forever sucking on the public teet.
> It's good to have self-sustainable industries...
There's no such thing as a 'self-sustaining industry'.
They all rely on common transportation infrastructure which they use to ship their materials and goods around and get their employees to work. They all rely on a predictable and fair marketplace whose fairness is governed by the state, and they all rely on people not coming and burning their premises down because they're protected by the state!
Does China subsidise its air industry like other countries (jet fuel is duty free in the UK)