17 hours ago, Mace said:

I took Amtrak once, a short trip from St. Louis to Springfield IL -- very enjoyable.

In Europe I have ridden the ICE trains in Switzerland and Germany.  I wish we had that here in the USA.  They scared me at first with the speeds...took some getting used to.  Speaking of speed -- have any of you ridden the Shin-Kansen trains in Japan?

I got to ride the Bullet Train once on a business trip, but rode it at night so it was a very different experience. For one, there was very little sense of speed, and the ride was very smooth. We sat all the way to the rear of the car, and I became transfixed watching the front of the car (they are quite long) warp slightly as it entered and exited the curves. We were going so fast it was hard to see what was outside the window, but I do remember the illusion that buildings were tilted because the train was at such an angle in the curve. Again, zero sense of speed, and smooooooth. 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Yes, you make a valid point.  Southwest has a huge domestic presence.  I'm not sure they have a lot of leverage over other airlines like Delta, United, and American, though.  There does exist a fair amount of competition in the airline industry.  Despite the mergers over the past 20 years, we still have quite a few airlines to choose from.

To clarify, I was talking about leverage one has as a consumer, which compared to the airline is somewhere between unmeasurable as zero. Southwest certainly has influence with Delta in that flights are substantially cheaper when the two compete on a route.

You say that we have plenty of airlines - we do, but how many fly where you want to fly? I live next to the busiest airport in the world but outside of Southwest and Delta/SkyTeam, there's not a lot of meaningful choice unless I want to get routed out of the way via ORD or CLT. I would venture that almost every airline outside of WN and DL flies into Atlanta from only one place, maybe two. And as choice reduces, fares go up. The airlines cheerfully admit it each time they merge.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

What I don't want is for the govt., which routinely sets a poor example for efficiency, competence, and responsibility in many areas, to start stepping in and trying to "fix" problems with private companies.

At the risk of being political, even in areas where there is a clear state role, at least one group (sometimes both) has no interest in the government succeeding. If you believe the government should do less, what better way to prove your point than to ensure it does not succeed at what it does?

Cheers

 

OK, I think this has been hashed enough and you are starting to bring Govt/politics into it!  Finito!