Comments on: A Peace Tunnel Instead of A Grand Canal?

By: Japan Advocates for “Peace Tunnel” to Korea

Japan Advocates for “Peace Tunnel” to Korea — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:58:22 +0000

[...] have to agree with R. Elgin that this project would be much more beneficial to Korea than building a canal across the country, [...]

By: R. Elgin

R. Elgin — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:07:09 +0000

If LMB is serious about improving relations with Japan, he could use much cheaper fares between the two countries as a start, like a business shuttle service. As it is, it is too expensive to get to any “hub” in Korea.

As a side note, I can not say I thrilled about going to Japan since they started treating all foreigners like criminals, taking photos and fingerprints — as if all terrorism in Japan has not been homegrown. This is one thing the U.S. has encouraged other countries to do and has set a bad example to the point that I am afraid everyone will end up being treated like English teachers in Korea.

By: Railwaycharm

Railwaycharm — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:54:48 +0000

Mr. Carr, great points. KAL is creating their own LCC, Air Korea. Asiana is going to bed with Busan International Airways. Incheon city is also creating their own LCC. Money and airlines are springing up like Texas tea. Jeju just bought 737 NG’s with ETOPS capability.

Do you recall Samsung’s attempt to get into the industry? Stay tuned. I never thought of K-16 as a commercial port. I like the idea. Gimpo will expand as will other ports. The 64K question is when will the airspace saturate? Why do all domestic flights take 50 minutes????? Air traffic control.

By: Brendon Carr (Korea Law Blog)

Brendon Carr (Korea Law Blog) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:55:08 +0000

Stay tuned. Purple, Hansung and Busan International Airways may get us there.

No, they won’t. The way that entrenched full-service airlines choke off competition from low-cost carriers is through encouragement of high landing charges by airport authorities. Keep airport costs high, and the price delta is artificially reduced.

Low-cost carriers tend to do better in large markets where there may be multiple, alternative airports. But Seoul only has Incheon and Kimpo, both of which are relatively far from the populations which travel — and Kimpo has been closed to international travel except for very limited service on just two routes.

While I think Kimpo would be a great hub for short-haul international travel of the sort that is suited to the low-cost carriers (whose flights would not be longer than three hours), that’s the very reason it won’t be developed that way.

A truly progressive idea would be to make Seoul Air Base / K-16 (the former Camp Colbern, I believe), which abuts the booming districts of Seocho, Kangnam, and Chamshil, into a civilian airport for low-cost carriers and short-haul international flights.

Instead, Purple, Jeju Air, Hansung Air, and all the other soon-to-be-ill-fated startups will be largely confined to limited slots at Kimpo (and none at K-16) and forced to try to lure Seoul flyers to drive two hours to places like Cheongju.

Korean Air, although privately owned, is thought of as a quasi-flag carrier. Anything that jeopardizes Korean Air’s business model will be strangled, consumers be damned.

By: bumfromkorea

bumfromkorea — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:48:48 +0000

@#9

No… no, she doesn’t… ^^; Damn.

By: Bad Monkey

Bad Monkey — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:41:58 +0000

Back during the late Colonial Period and Pacific War the Japanese first floated this idea of an undersea railway tunnel to southeastern Korea. But re #1, I’m afraid your aunt would end up having to spend a whole lot more on a train ticket to get to Korea from Hokkaido than the plane costs, even if she were willing to ride ‘donkku’ slow local trains, in which case it would take her several days of really tedious travel. Even if she takes the fastes and most expensive trains in Japan, and assuming she lives near Sapporo, we’d still be talking about 10 hours or so minimum. But maybe she really, really loves train travel?

By: Jodi

Jodi — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:27:59 +0000

Interesting that this should make headlines right now as there have been talks about this going on for years. Perhaps the timing might be connected to LMB as the new president? It’d be interesting to see if this ever happens.

By: Zonath

Zonath — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:55:29 +0000

Sounds cool enough… And putting a couple of stops on Iki and Tsushima would probably provide some nice tourism boosts to those areas… But if the dream really is Tokyo to London by rail, wouldn’t it make more sense to go north through Sakhalin? Less water, shorter tunnels… And hey, let’s face it — ain’t no tunnel in the world going to get you past Kim Jongil’s fat ass.

By: Jong

Jong — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:26:09 +0000

I agree with #2 frederick. ‘Peaceful’ undersea tunnel can sound charming but it is obvious that Korea will only have an additional way to go to Japan from it while Japan will obtain a precious way to the continent. I think Japan shall provide more charming benefits in return to go with this plan. (anyway it’s yet just an opinion.)

By: Railwaycharm

Railwaycharm — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:53:08 +0000

The korean airlines are a rip-off. I hope that the new LCC model that is coming in will bring long-haul city pairs into the mix.