Skip Navigation

Why did you go flying?

Travel Forums Europe Why did you go flying?

Page
  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

1. Posted by bentivogli (Travel Guru 2398 posts) 8y

For itineraries on a single continent, I'd be interested to hear people's reasons for taking a plane from A to B, rather than some other form of transport. Is it time? Comfort? Because someone else was paying? Some other reason?

It would be nice if you mention both trip and reason(s). Thanks for your replies!

2. Posted by bentivogli (Travel Guru 2398 posts) 8y

... can someone please move this to GT?

tnx!

3. Posted by BlankFrack (Respected Member 280 posts) 8y

I've only flown once in recent years because, like yourself I would guess, I don't like flying for a variety of reasons (the environment amongst them). It was from Stockholm to Glasgow and I did it because, whilst I travelled to Stockholm from Glasgow by train, I didn't have enough money or time to either get back to the UK overland or by ferry. I would rather have made the journey by ferry from Norway, but the price was just too expensive for the money I had available at that time. Likewise if I'd returned home by train, it would have required at least one or two hostel/hotel rooms along the way and would have taken the best part of 3 days. Given the alternatives I opted for a cheap flight instead.

4. Posted by magykal1 (Travel Guru 2026 posts) 8y

Cost, and time. If I can afford the time/money I prefer to travel by train really - travelled long distance by train twice last year (to the Scottish Highlands, and the south of France). Flew twice (Jamaica and China).

5. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5596 posts) 8y

Well, it certainly is not comfort for me. I really hate flying, but I do fly when time is a problem. And sometimes it enables you to just get something more out of a single trip. I did take one domestic flight in Australia just because the drive would have taken 4 days!
In some occasions, it can be a matter of money as well, combined with time.
By the way, did you know that taking the ozbus from London to Sydney means 2,2 tons of CO2 instead of 1,9 tons when taking the plane

6. Posted by Cool Paul (Travel Guru 611 posts) 8y

shouldn't this be in the general talk section?

anyway I have only ever flown from philadelphia to chicago to los angeles and from philadelphia to miami. The reason being.....time. It would take days to drive to california, but it only take 6 hours by plane. plus gas prices and car maintenance make it more expensive to drive. train tickets cost an arm and a leg just to go 60 miles I can't imagine 3000. no way in hell I'd sit on a bus for 3000 miles either.

also there is a reason why they are called the "Fly-over states" I'm kidding, I'm kidding...sort of.

7. Posted by bwiiian (Travel Guru 768 posts) 8y

By the way both cars and ferries are more damaging to the environment than flying. Just thought I would put that in as flying really does get a bad press. If everyone actually looked into emmisions percentages etc before blowing their trumpet about being 'green' then perhaps the stupid taxes put on flying would be removed and put more onto cars and boats that are causing more pollution than the aviation industry.

8. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5596 posts) 8y

Quoting bwiiian

By the way both cars and ferries are more damaging to the environment than flying. Just thought I would put that in as flying really does get a bad press. If everyone actually looked into emmisions percentages etc before blowing their trumpet about being 'green' then perhaps the stupid taxes put on flying would be removed and put more onto cars and boats that are causing more pollution than the aviation industry.

Totally agree! And to add: in the Netherlands we put taxes on everything. Yes, as a logistics/transport land we sure know how to be friendly

9. Posted by summer910 (Respected Member 1342 posts) 8y

I don't mind flying, though it was fun taking the train from London to Edinburgh - gorgeous scenery. The train journey from Amsterdam to Antwerp was pretty interesting too. I also navigated through Tohoku via train - got to see more things this way, as on one of the train rides, we were entertained by a group of Japanese women playing the shamisen.

I had to fly from Tokyo to Sapporo though - it was to save time as I was on a working trip then and with a group, but it was a bit of a shaky experience, seemed we were going through turbulence for the whole 2-hour flight.

10. Posted by aharrold45 (Travel Guru 1281 posts) 8y

time, comfort, cost and lack of other forms of transport. If it's going to cost you the equivalent of 100 Euro for ground transportation and take a week on the road, or get a flight of 4 hours for a fraction of the cost you'd be foolish to take the ground transport unless you are wanting to waste your life away.

In Europe it isn't so bad, but in a place like Australia where to get from point A to point B (like Perth - Adelaide) either requires a mega expensive train journey and boring as watching paint dry, or a bus trip that goes a couple of thousand kilometres north and then 2500 or so km south westerly ie going Adelaide-Darwin-Perth you could spend a week or so of mind numbing boredom on the road all for a couple of hour flight that costs a fraction of the money.