Opposedly to public misconception, most of the energy is wasted not because of acceleration but because of resistance. And, despite the airplanes are extremely airflow-shaped, the laws of physics say that environment resistance grows as square low with speed, resistance ~ v^2. So, at very high speeds, resistance is pretty high anyway. Furthermore, once head penetrates the air in front of the vehicle, the long tail experiences no resistance. So, in my opinion, very long trains transport thousands of people for free, without spending additional energy. In total, they must waste 100 times less energy than airplane. Nevertheless, when I look at the prices, I start to see the opposite. E.g. Berlin-Geneva train costs at least 250 euros, the flight tickets start at less than 100. So, the market economy accounts the trains as resource wasters. Why?
closed as off topic by Karlson, mindcorrosive♦, Kate Gregory, choster, Stuart Feb 27 '13 at 16:18
Questions on Travel Stack Exchange are expected to relate to traveling within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Your question has more is place on stack exchange economy when it will exist. (And it starts with armchair physics.)
Still an interesting question.
I already asked myself this question, here are some thoughts:
Travel time is employee's time who need to be paid
For the train if the way is inter-countries, you need to split the bill between two or more companies, for the plane it's only the air company.