> 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.
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.