What was the benefit of these flights anyways when you have a good rail and highway system?
I see that pre 9/11 security was fast and easy but now just the worst case security checkup time makes me shrug at short-distance flights.
I see that pre 9/11 security was fast and easy but now just the worst case security checkup time makes me shrug at short-distance flights.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flie...
Most air passsengers were transit passengers. If you wanted to go from Nuremberg to Madrid, say, then flying via the hub in Munich made sense, and the train wasn't much of a competitor for that case. The train is good if you want to go to the city of Munich, not so good if you want to go to the airport and check in for a long-distance flight. By air you check in in Nuremberg, hand over your luggage, take a half-hour flight, arrive not very long before your flight to Madrid, go to gate, and fly on. If there's a problem before Munich it's the airline's problem. By train (or car) you leave longer in advance, and even longer because you leave a buffer against delays on the way to Munich airport.
Still, as you've said, it makes more sense to book a connecting flight than a train ride, because of the ease of checking in.
Didn't read the article but might they just be repositioning the planes for flights elsewhere?