Regular Passenger Service From San Jose to Sacramento?

[CHANGE USERNAME TO westes]

Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service between
San Jose and Sacramento? What about any city in the Bay Area and
Sacramento? There was an outfit out of Mather that was supposed to be
doing this with a Cessna Caravan, but their web site appears mostly
abandoned and no one answers their phone, so I guess they folded.

I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
$150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com

[Franklin Newton]

You can leave your house in San Jose and be at your destination in
Sacramento faster by car than you can by going to the airport, arriving
early for security, standing in line, finally flying the short flight, then
driving back into Sacramento. Probably the same for almost any trip under
say 300 miles.
"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" > wrote in
message ...
> Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service
between
> San Jose and Sacramento? What about any city in the Bay Area and
> Sacramento? There was an outfit out of Mather that was supposed to be
> doing this with a Cessna Caravan, but their web site appears mostly
> abandoned and no one answers their phone, so I guess they folded.
>
> I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
> $150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> You can leave your house in San Jose and be at your destination in
> Sacramento faster by car than you can by going to the airport, arriving
> early for security, standing in line, finally flying the short flight,
> then
> driving back into Sacramento. Probably the same for almost any trip under
> say 300 miles.

Even assuming your time estimate is valid, it doesn't preclude a viable
airline route.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have airline service between Portland and
Seattle (~200 miles), Vancouver BC and Seattle (~150 miles), Bellingham and
Seattle (~100 miles), just to name a few. I won't even bother to mention
the numerous cross-water routes that are short (30 minute flights, or
shorter) but viable because of the lines at the ferries, and the time the
ferries take.

Pete

[CHANGE USERNAME TO westes]

I've had that trip by car take as little as two and one half hours and as
long as five hours. The traffic out of the Bay Area in commute hours and
around Sacramento can be a parking lot.

If someone is running passenger service with a Caravan, the odds are that
they are probably also running charter operations, and those typically leave
from the private pilot's side of the airport. The delays are typically
much less. 30 minutes delay either side for boarding, 60 minutes flying
(Caravans only do about 140 knots), gives about 90 minutes total one way.
If I could get a reliable 90 minutes at $150, I would do it. I would feel
better than on the trips by car that take two and one half hours, and I
would be feeling a whole lot better than the trips that take five hours.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com


"Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> You can leave your house in San Jose and be at your destination in
> Sacramento faster by car than you can by going to the airport, arriving
> early for security, standing in line, finally flying the short flight,
then
> driving back into Sacramento. Probably the same for almost any trip under
> say 300 miles.
> "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service
> between
> > San Jose and Sacramento? What about any city in the Bay Area and
> > Sacramento? There was an outfit out of Mather that was supposed to be
> > doing this with a Cessna Caravan, but their web site appears mostly
> > abandoned and no one answers their phone, so I guess they folded.
> >
> > I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
> > $150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.
> >
> > --
> > Will
> > westes AT earthbroadcast.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:12:46 -0800, CHANGE USERNAME TO westes wrote:

>I would feel
>better than on the trips by car that take two and one half hours, and I
>would be feeling a whole lot better than the trips that take five hours.

don't you have any reasonable public transportation? I thought there is a
train going along the coast connecting major cities (?).

#m

--
The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
Thomas Jefferson

[CHANGE USERNAME TO westes]

Sure, as long as you don't mind spending six hours making the trip that's an
option. The train has lots of stops and one major stopover and switch of
trains.

I'm looking for a way to shorten the trip.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:12:46 -0800, CHANGE USERNAME TO westes wrote:
>
> >I would feel
> >better than on the trips by car that take two and one half hours, and I
> >would be feeling a whole lot better than the trips that take five hours.
>
> don't you have any reasonable public transportation? I thought there is a
> train going along the coast connecting major cities (?).
>
> #m
>
> --
> The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free,
> neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
> Thomas Jefferson

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:03:25 -0800, "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes"
> wrote:

>Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service between
>San Jose and Sacramento? What about any city in the Bay Area and
>Sacramento? There was an outfit out of Mather that was supposed to be
>doing this with a Cessna Caravan, but their web site appears mostly
>abandoned and no one answers their phone, so I guess they folded.
>
>I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
>$150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.

The airline is called Amtrak. There are 12 flights a day each way
between San Jose and Sacto. The flight lasts 3:15 and costs $51 round
trip. You can carry a machete and don't have to take off your shoes
unless you want to.

Don

[CHANGE USERNAME TO westes]

Even using your figure of 3:15, that isn't as fast as 1:30, and I'm just
surprised that no small commuter airline cannot find enough passengers to
make it work.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com


"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:03:25 -0800, "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes"
> > wrote:
>
> >Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service
between
> >San Jose and Sacramento? What about any city in the Bay Area and
> >Sacramento? There was an outfit out of Mather that was supposed to be
> >doing this with a Cessna Caravan, but their web site appears mostly
> >abandoned and no one answers their phone, so I guess they folded.
> >
> >I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
> >$150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.
>
> The airline is called Amtrak. There are 12 flights a day each way
> between San Jose and Sacto. The flight lasts 3:15 and costs $51 round
> trip. You can carry a machete and don't have to take off your shoes
> unless you want to.
>
> Don

[Bob Fry]

> Even using your figure of 3:15, that isn't as fast as 1:30, and I'm just
> surprised that no small commuter airline cannot find enough passengers to
> make it work.
> > The airline is called Amtrak. There are 12 flights a day each way
> > between San Jose and Sacto. The flight lasts 3:15 and costs $51 round
> > trip. You can carry a machete and don't have to take off your shoes
> > unless you want to.

Speaking of useless projects and bullet trains...well, we are now.

You wanna see why our country is so @#$@!! up? Here's why. Nothing
to do with Red or Blue states.

As one responder mentioned, Amtrak provides a great service between
the Bay Area (San Jose/Oakland/Berkeley) and Sacramento. A guy that
works for me commutes twice a week from the Berkeley station to
downtown Sacto. But, it is somewhat slow as another responder
mentioned. Also it is unreliable, because about once a month
something happens to make my guy come in an hour or two late. The
problem is Amtrak "rents" the tracks from Union Pacific or whoever,
which runs freight and doesn't give a damn about Amtrak service.

So it's an ideal route to run some kind of high-speed, dedicated track
passenger service, i.e. bullet train. The demand is clearly there and
the alternate transpo is basically a car, which as yet other
responders pointed out is very problematical.

So what train service is being promoted for California, with no
discussion whatsoever? A friggin' bullet train between North and
South California! Where did this come from??? I haven't seen any kind
of cost comparison between this proposed boondoggle and other forms of
transpo improvement, like adding another lane to I5 (mostly two lanes
now), or upgrading Hwy. 99, or improving airports in the North and
South, or anything else. In fact nobody's said why transpo between
the two regions is so desparately bad that it needs a $20-$30 Billion
Dollar project like this! The transpo that is screwed up just about
everywhere in California is local, not regional. And the two regions
that can really use an improvement, Bay Area/Sacto, are not getting
it.

[Don Tuite]

On 21 Nov 2004 20:57:09 -0800, Bob Fry
> wrote:

>
>Speaking of useless projects and bullet trains...well, we are now.

Last June, I tooks the Amtrak whatchamacallit from Penn Sta in NYC to
the Rte 128 stop near Boston. About the same time as the EWR/BOS
shuttle and half the cost. Some tracks were leased, some were
Amtrak's. Travel on the leased tracks was sucky, but it looked like
we were doing 90 on the Amtrak tracks. I think Amtrak is acquiring
more right-of -way along the corridor.

I'll leave it to somebody else to tell me whether Amtrak or the
airlines are more heavily subsidized. I will acknowledge that the US
government has filled the pockets of thieves with more money than
Midas dreamed of since the days of Crockett, Stanford, Gould, etc.

The SF/LA bullet is stupid because LA isn't a place with a center.
It's bigger than half the countries in Europe. And there isn't
anyplace in the Central Valley that isn't served better by the Hound.

To stay somewhat on-topic, Southwest provides fast, cheap, regular,
reliable service between SF and the LA satellite airports, including
Phoenix and San Diego.

Don (Also pleased with SW on the Oakland/MIdway hop last week.)

[Peter Duniho]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> don't you have any reasonable public transportation? I thought there is a
> train going along the coast connecting major cities (?).

Generally speaking, we don't have trains like exist in Europe, Japan, and
perhaps elsewhere. I know there's a high-speed rail on the East Coast, but
as far as I know, nothing like that on the West Coast.

So, in answer to your question, no...generally speaking we have no
"reasonable public transportation". :) There are certainly exceptions in
certain metro areas, but as a rule, Americans prefer to spend tax dollars on
pavement, not trains and buses.

Pete

[C Kingsbury]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Nov 2004 20:57:09 -0800, Bob Fry
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Speaking of useless projects and bullet trains...well, we are now.
>
> Last June, I tooks the Amtrak whatchamacallit from Penn Sta in NYC to
> the Rte 128 stop near Boston. About the same time as the EWR/BOS
> shuttle and half the cost.

I live in BOS and it's gotten to the point that I wouldn't take the shuttle
unless I had to, which you still do if you need to make a 9am meeting in
Manhattan. It's simply more comfortable.

That being said, I can hardly praise Amtrak for it all. They spent 8 billion
IIRC to electrify all the rails and to build the new trains. In the end
though they can't actually run them at top speed except for twenty or thirty
miles of the route because the tracks are too close together most of the way
to allow trains to pass safely at higher speeds. And they didn't realize
this until *after* spending all the money. So, how come the "Acela Express"
is faster than the old Metroliner? Simple: it makes fewer stops. And it
still makes too many- at least three between Boston and New York. They could
easily make the trip in under three hours if they offered a true "express"
service. ANd they could have done it ten years ago with the equipment they
owned then.

Of course, another big problem with Amtrak is that while everyone in
Washington loves to grandstand and cut its operating subsidies, but then
anytime Amtrak tries to cut service on a line through Senator Pothole's
district, he makes sure it doesn't happen. The result is that there are
bridges up and down the Northeast corridor, which is viable and useful,
which are way behind in maintenance because Amtrak is running lines in
between Wisconsin and New Orleans and god knows where else that lose $100
for every passenger that gets on. This makes no sense. Oh wait, it's
Washington DC- makes perfect sense.

-cwk.

[Peter Duniho]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> hm, I asked because I remember some train signs when I was overnight on
> the west
> coast - they pointed out something like a high speed connection between
> some > populated areas.

Around here, "high speed" is a relative term. A "high speed" train is
generally simply one that doesn't make that many stops, and is more "point
to point".

AFAIK, the highest speed train in the US is the Acela Express, between DC
and Boston. It's apparently similar to the TGV and other "bullet" trains,
but due to a variety of reasons, even that train does not approach the speed
of its relatives, at least for most of the route. But other than that, we
have plain old trains for connecting between cities, where there is train
transportation at all.

Pete

[Bob Fry]

Martin Hotze > writes:

> hm, I asked because I remember some train signs when I was overnight on the west
> coast - they pointed out something like a high speed connection between some
> populated areas.

There is a train service--Amtrak--along the US Western States.
Certainly not high speed by anyone's measure, except Amtrak
executives.

[Brenor Brophy]

I can't believe all this talk about trains - this is r.a.p!

Control your own destiny - go get a pilots license, purchase a plane and fly
yourself. Its a lot more fun!

Seriously, for about $7K over 6 months or so you can be a pilot. Add another
$4K and a couple of months and you'll have your instrument rating. You can
buy a very reasonable plane for $100K that will go 160 MPH (there are lots
of cheaper older planes but you will quickly want something that goes faster
and is good for bad weather). Most days of the year you'll make the trip in
45 minutes of flying time (SAC to SJC). Sometimes you'll be grounded by the
weather, a bad winter storm will keep you on the ground unless you invest in
a much more expensive plane that can handle ice and sometimes very low fog
in SAC could prevent you landing. Other than that its a milk run most of the
time.

-Brenor

> Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service
> between
> San Jose and Sacramento?
> :
> I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
> $150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Brenor Brophy" > wrote in message
. com...
>I can't believe all this talk about trains - this is r.a.p!
>
> Control your own destiny - go get a pilots license, purchase a plane and
> fly > yourself. Its a lot more fun!

Maybe you should read the whole thread before replying. For example, the
original post might have been helpful to you. The train conversation was
simply a minor tangent those of us already "acquainted" from this newsgroup
engaged in.

In particular, practically everyone participating in this thread already has
their pilot qualifications.

Pete

[John T]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> AFAIK, the highest speed train in the US is the Acela Express,
> between DC and Boston. It's apparently similar to the TGV and other
> "bullet" trains, but due to a variety of reasons, even that train
> does not approach the speed of its relatives, at least for most of
> the route.

....and that is due mainly to track design. The train itself is very fast
(however you want to measure it), but even with tilting cars, it has to slow
down for much of the route due to curves in the track that are too sharp.
With the level of development on the East Coast and the price of real
estate, straightening the tracks is a very expensive proposition -
especially for a railroad that can't turn a profit.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[David Johnson]

> don't you have any reasonable public transportation? I thought there is a
> train going along the coast connecting major cities (?).

I'd have to say that "reasonable public transportation" doesn't exist
on the U.S. west coast - unless you live in one big city and want to
go to another (like SFO-LAX). And then you have the hassles of going
through all the airport nonsense.

Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA. They
wanted $400 or so for a flight. Forget that. I went to two different
Greyhound terminals - and couldn't get a straight answer out of either
one. I wound up hitchhiking to Chemult, OR to catch the train. It was
an hour late, and I stood on an open platform in a snowstorm waiting
for it. After some time there some people waiting in a car took
pity on me and offered me a seat. The train ride itself was fine -
but I got off in Redding, CA at 4 AM - and NOTHING was open (except
the Greyhound bus station). BLNT.

More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
sure, there are flights - by way of SFO. Figure on the usual airport
hassles times two - including getting reinspected in SFO despite
never having left the transit lounge. I found that I could rent a
car and drive it at about half the cost and maybe an hour more
door to door.

More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like. If you want
Amtrak it's a bus at 7 AM to Martinez (across from Vallejo), then
a train to Bakersfield, followed by another bus to SBA. Total 16
hours (barring delays, which are not uncommon). I can drive it in
12 hours and fly it in 3. Which would you choose?

By the way - the trains are just fine - clean and comfortable.
Pretty cheap, too. However, they are few and far between, frequently
late, and way too slow.

David Johnson

[Bob Fry]

> Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA.

> More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
> sure, there are flights - by way of SFO.

> More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
> airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like.

I have no idea what RDM, SBA, and FOT are, and I live in the state.
Well, SBA I can guess is Santa Barbara. Why should I guess though?
Why not just type out the friggin' city names?

It's much worse when someone posts "I took a trip from SLW to CMI via
WPC, SQP, and XCS and the views were great" and you have no idea even
what part of the country they're talking about, 'cause it turns out
it's on the East Coast 3000 miles from you. I mean c'mon, type out
those place names so we can all read along.

[Bill Denton]

Personally, I think a better practice would be to post both the airport code
and the name of the MAJOR city the airport is associated, much as is done in
the A/FD. Something like "XXX (Chicago)". Here in Chicago we have several
large airports that are just outside the city limits, but are considered
"Chicago" airports.




"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> > Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA.
>
> > More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
> > sure, there are flights - by way of SFO.
>
> > More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
> > airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like.
>
> I have no idea what RDM, SBA, and FOT are, and I live in the state.
> Well, SBA I can guess is Santa Barbara. Why should I guess though?
> Why not just type out the friggin' city names?
>
> It's much worse when someone posts "I took a trip from SLW to CMI via
> WPC, SQP, and XCS and the views were great" and you have no idea even
> what part of the country they're talking about, 'cause it turns out
> it's on the East Coast 3000 miles from you. I mean c'mon, type out
> those place names so we can all read along.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> > Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA.
>
> > More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
> > sure, there are flights - by way of SFO.
>
> > More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
> > airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like.
>
> I have no idea what RDM, SBA, and FOT are, and I live in the state.
> Well, SBA I can guess is Santa Barbara. Why should I guess though?
> Why not just type out the friggin' city names?
>
> It's much worse when someone posts "I took a trip from SLW to CMI via
> WPC, SQP, and XCS and the views were great" and you have no idea even
> what part of the country they're talking about, 'cause it turns out
> it's on the East Coast 3000 miles from you. I mean c'mon, type out
> those place names so we can all read along.

AMEN!

IMHO, those guys who post only IDs are trying to appear "professional"
and "knowlegeable" but fail to communicate clearly.

[zatatime]

On 25 Nov 2004 10:51:16 -0800, Bob Fry
> wrote:

>Why not just type out the friggin' city names?


Because it makes them look like high tech aviators. It's all about
being cooler than the next guy isn't it? ;)

In total agreement.
z

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> bring the cost for fuel to a European price level and see what will
> happen. :-)

Amtrak would still lose money. Besides, we pay too much in taxes as it is -
including gasoline taxes.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[David Johnson]

I see in another thread some grumbling about using airport
abbreviations instead of placenames. In general I agree that
it is appropriate to give the city name first, then use the
abbreviation in following remarks. In this case the topic
was lousy public transportation - and you could substitute
the name of just about any medium-sized city (with airline
service, and the story would be the same. I was also in a
hurry at the time of the previous post.

Be that as it may, the places I was referring to are as
follows:

LAX - Los Angeles CA
SFO - San Francisco, CA
SBA - Santa Barbara, CA
RDM - Redmond, OR
SAC - Sacramento, CA
ACV - Arcata, CA
FOT - Fortuna, CA (no airline service, but an Amtrak stop
- served by ACV).

David Johnson