Comment Re:Obviously not! (Score 5, Interesting) 166
There is no universal solution. That's fundamentally the problem, people are looking for a panacea that covers all of the use-cases for flying and is low cost, and none exists nor do any appear visible on the horizon.
The solution is to whittle-away at the use of air travel where it's practical to do so, using technologies that can be powered through means that don't directly consume fossil fuels and may be powered indirectly through any number of means. For some places this means electrified railroads, even high-speed railroads if the nature of the corridors can justify them. For other places this means working to make electric automotive journeys more practical. But this requires a lot of work and cost.
For high-speed rail we've already seen studies that have identified the Boston/DC corridor and the Pacific corridor as potentially viable, and there have been mumblings about a Texas corridor. If the time required isn't massively different than flying due to the headaches of airports and if the passengers have more comfort and the ability to bring more luggage than they can when flying, then suddenly it can become attractive if the costs remain competitive. Which of course will mean understanding that it won't be a profit-maker at first, and possibly not ever. But if that subsidy is the price to pay to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels then so be it.