Where are the world's busiest airline routes?
JEJU, on the South Korean island of the same name, is not one of the country's 20 biggest cities. Yet the island's allure as a domestic tourist destination resulted in 9.9m passengers flying between Seoul and Jeju (in either direction) in 2011. This makes it the busiest airline route in the world, according to Amadeus, a company that provides technology to the travel industry. It measures the cities where passengers start and finish their journeys, so while the busiest actual flight corridor in America is New York-Chicago, it only counts as the third-busiest American route because many of the passengers are connecting to other destinations. It comes just behind New York-Fort Lauderdale (3.1m) and New York-Los Angeles (3m). The number of people travelling between Asia and North America, and between Asia and Europe grew by 9% from 2010 to 2011, but as the chart shows the busiest routes are still domestic. The most popular international route is Hong Kong-Taipei, followed by Seoul-Tokyo (3.1m) and Jakarta-Singapore (3m).
Corrections: The original version of this chart included a "Fukuyama-Tokyo" city pair, when "Fukuoka-Tokyo" was meant. And a reference to "Hongqiao-Shenzhen" should have been "Shanghai-Shenzhen" (naming the city, rather than its airport). These were corrected on May 14th 2011.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Quite true, São Paulo as the financial capital and Rio de Janeiro as down time, tourist spot. Similarly, Johannesburg plays the country's/continent's financial capital, economic hub, and Cape Town one of its many top rated tourist destinations in South Africa -- as well the place of residence for many of the business travellers headed to Johannesburg in the mornings. In the US, New York and Chicago are each powerful economic hubs in their own right, but still, two amongst several others.
China is interesting, having several routes in this list - power concentration. But China also is developing passenger rail a la Western Europe. Even with well developed rail, China is likely to have several routes in such lists because of its immense population, growing wealth.
Several Japanese routes in this list explain why its two largest carriers, JAL and ANA, were the only customers for Domestic versions of the Boeing 747 - special high-cycle 500 seat-plus workhorses for flying the domestic routes no longer than 900 kilometres as often as easyJet flies A320's around Europe.
"Several Japanese routes in this list explain why its two largest carriers, JAL and ANA, were the only customers for Domestic versions of the Boeing 747 - special high-cycle 500 seat-plus workhorses for flying the domestic routes no longer than 900 kilometres as often as easyJet flies A320's around Europe."
True, but the downside of 747SR became all too apparent when JAL flight 123 crashed in August 1985, killing 520 of its 524 passengers and crew.
That's quite an uninformed comment. By the same token, the downside of launching the Space Shuttle became apparent when one blew up and another burnt up on re-entry. But we know better, through exhaustive investigations that followed those painful losses. For example, booster O-ring failure in cold temperatures coupled with a strong stream of air undid Challenger - specifically, undid the saving grace of the aluminium slag working with the twang (ship oscillation) at main engine ignition on the launch pad, that temporarily blocked the booster O-ring failure. The downside of operating the Titanic in frigid waters was that its steel plate and rivets, which formed the ship's haul, became frangible.
No, Flight 123 was the devasting result of incorrect repair of the pressure bulkhead, which had been damaged in a prior tail strike. In effect, a single steel plate where there should have been two, double riveted.
Paul Sergio,
One crash was sufficient to deter bulk of potential travellers, particularly when the competition (Shinkansen) boasts ZERO passenger deaths over 48 years in service, even after 3 major earthquakes.
Shinkansen is awesome. It doesn't currently run through the Seikan Tunnel, so you couldn't travel seemlessly from Tokyo to Sapporo, but then again, TGV doesn't run all the way to London, you need to change to Eurostar.
I was missing the point of your comment, trust had been broken in the worst possible way. And, then regarding the Shinkansen, more padding would be to say that its schedule is written in stone, the opposite for airlines. Thanks
Shinkansen Extension to Hakodate in South Hokkaido is currently under construction, passing through the Seikan Tunnel. This is due for completion in late 2016.
However, operation is going to be a pain as the Tunnel isn't wide enough for two Shinkansens to pass (but just wide enough for a conventional train and a Shinkansen to pass each other).
It would be interesting to show the same stat with the values divided by the route's mileage.
You might see more international connections appear.
I wonder if there are really more flight in Asia can airline companies make money from this ? What about taking smaller routes in Asia so that wecan save on petrol costs and increase more flight out of asia as we have nore certainty that people will sure beed to travel due to leisure work or family i think it will increases a better chance in growth and sustainability at least those people who work here will not lose their jobs and be ble o feed their fmily decentky ... I hope to see some updates coming soon quite relly,..n
I'm surprised at the Tokyo-Osaka route, I would think that the bullet trains would reduce the popularity of this as a flight.
Me too. I lived in Osaka for a year and travelled regularly from Osaka to Tokyo. The Shinkansen was definitely the way to go! Something like 2 hours, 36 minutes from Shin Osaka to Tokyo Station - you could set your watch by it. Can't imagine why anyone would fly this route these days.
depends from which part of Tokyo to which part of Osaka you need to go as travelling within the city can take longer than travelling from one city to the other! also flying is (usually) cheaper
I don't see your point, Andy. Assuming that this statistic is combining KIX, Itami, Haneda, and NRT flights, where are the places that are substantially closer to the airport than a bullet train station?
Itami is not really closer to much of anything than Shin-Osaka, and Haneda is even worse when compared to Shinagawa. Of course, both NRT and KIX are very far from the city cores and it takes you the better part of an hour to get almost anywhere someone is likely to want to be. I doubt more than ten percent of homes and businesses in the Osaka and Tokyo regions are closer to one of the airports than the nearest Shinkansen station.
I am really surprised people fly this route very often as a destination-to-destination trip. I have never heard of anyone doing so, not even once, nor can I imagine wanting to do it. Flying from KIX or Itami to NRT makes sense IF you are connecting to an international flight, but not if you are attempting to go almost anywhere in the Tokyo area. Prices are pretty close to the same. With flexibility, comfort, frequency, and on-time percentage all drastically favoring the train, I really can't imagine flying this short of a distance in Japan if a bullet train is feasible.
I suspect much of the Tokyo-Osaka passengers are international connections, where transfer time via air is much shorter than transfer from Shinkansen.
All, Here is a decent summary of competition on the Tokyo - Osaka route (in Japanese):
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%B1%E6%B5%B7%E9%81%93%E6%96%B0%E5%B9%...
Since the total traffic between Tokyo and Osaka is over 36 million, even a small share (about 20%) would make Tokyo-Osaka one of the busiest air routes in the World. Also, I suspect (from the numbers) that Kobe Airport is counted as one of the airports for Osaka, further increasing the number.
Stunning chart for what it tells of a changing world.
Numbers in Asia are strengthening particularly in China already making 5 of the top 15.
Asia contributes 11 of the total, 13 if Asia-Pacific is counted up.
The USA remains an air traveller's kingdom of its own but Europe has all but disappeared from the top ranks.
I believe Madrid-Barcelona is Europe's busiest air route now facing fierce competition from high-speed rail.
Relatively short distances and highly developed high-speed rail and motorway networks probably explain Europe's no show.
Japan (and South Korea to a small extent) boast high-speed train connections too.
Dear Sir ,
The second place for brazilian airports dont show the reality of two overcrowded and cramped " aircraft carriers ".... Congonhas ( Sao Paulo ) in the middle of city and Santos-Dumont ( Rio) in the middle of the sea
Well, it doesn't say "most pleasant airline routes", just "busiest".
.....and both with 1200 meters
What's with Hongqiao-Shenzhen, shouldn't it be Shanghai=Shenzhen. Since Hongqiao is just one of two airports in Shanghai. It's like saying LaGuardia-Chicago.
You're quite right. We've just changed it. Sorry about that.
This is airport-to-airport measure. One reason why no intra-North-American pairings show up is that most major US cities have a series of smaller airports that serve the local/regional market (e.g. SF-LA is an enormously busy corridor, but there are three airports in the Bay Area and four in greater Los Angeles, so the traffic is divided out over a dozen bilateral pairings, with none making the top list).
On the other hand, no European routes make the list, because the major routes are all dominated by high-speed rail. Madrid-Barcelona used to be one of the busiest corridors in the world, as was London-Paris, but both have been literally grounded by rail linkages.
Actually these are NOT airport-to-airport figures. They are indeed city-to-city. The relevant passenger numbers for all the airports in a given city, as defined by the International Air Transport Association, are included. So New York's numbers include people using JFK, Newark and La Guardia.
The low level of air traffic in Europe is not because of the train system, but due to compact geography in western Europe and the fact that Europeans have less purchasing power (post tax) than their Asians counterparts.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
The dismal showing of airline traffic for Europe is mainly due to the compact geography and not the train system, As you can see even though Tokyo to Osaka has a excellent high speed connecting train line it still boast heavy air traffic, driving time is 7 hours, train time is 4 hours and air time is 2 hours, it is both time and cost effective to take a plane. In much of Europe it is also much cheaper and cost effective to take a plane vs a train. But due to the compact geography people opt out of both in favor of cars or buses. Europeans are really poor when it comes to disposable income after taxes and this chart clearly shows it.
"Europeans are really poor when it comes to disposable income after taxes and this chart clearly shows it."
????????????
Any discussion of the competition between rail and air needs to be measured in not just the nominal journey time, but also factor in the check-in time required and the time it takes to get through security theatre etc. For example the actual flight time between London and Paris is less than an hour, but the total point-to-point time is more like 4 hours, and perhaps more if one measures city centre to city centre. No one in their right mind subjects themselves to Heathrow unless they absolutely have to.
Why yes! Don't you agree?
Why yes! Don't you agree?
I don't understand the connection or the statement ? I was under the impression that Europeans have the highest disposable income in the world ? Is this not true ??
It's debatable.
We may compare salaries for similar jobs in NY, London, Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong, discount for taxes and adjust for cost of living (rent and food).
I believe Londoners will be left with the least purchasing power here.
Yes, statistics tell us that Europe has the highest per capita disposable income. The distribution is more even and therefore things cost more and purchasing power is lower.
A plumber in Asia makes much less than a plumber in Europe. However, a banker in Asia would make more than a banker in Europe after tax. He only spends a little more than a plumber would, over food.
As a result, he's left with more money to travel around.
Over-simplification, maybe, but hope you get my side of it.
I find it hard to believe that Los Angeles metropolitan area (5 airports) to the San Francisco metropolitan area (3 airports) didn't make the list. I would think even the specific LAX-SFO airport pair would make the cut. Perhaps it depends on how broad the definition of 'city'.
No, I don't really get your side of it ? From what you've said I don't think you really understand it. I think you're confusing 'over-simplication' with 'mistaken'.
Hong Kong has a higher cost of living, yet lower salaries than London, therefore less PP.
'Asia' and 'Europe' are too vague in this context for the last paragraph to make sense. Does a plumber in Japan make much less than a plumber in Ukraine ? I don't mean to be rude but I'm actually sat here in Hong Kong with a few banker friends and they're rolling on the floor laughing at the "He only spends a little more than a plumber would, over food." line.
Ask your banker friends this: if they had the choice of doing this same job in London, Hong Kong and Singapore, which city would they least prefer, and why.
Hope their answer is enlightening.
They all favored Singapore least but for mainly personal reasons rather than financial. They said if they did the exact same job in London they would be paid considerably more, Singapore about the same as HK or slightly less, but they reckon living in Singapore is much cheaper than HK. Also they reckoned taxes are much higher in London which would reduce disposable income closer to HK levels, however they argued over whether there are more opportunities in HK or London right now. (Interestingly the Brit's thought HK, the Chinese and Malay guy thought London)
That's quite interesting indeed. Where we differ is then the assumption on salary levels.
I had this choice. I moved. Being a trader in Singapore, I have a better quality of life, lower expenses (esp. on food, spending a little over GBP 4.00 on lunch, that's what a British plumber would pay) and I travel more for leisure. Given that gross pay for the same job is just a little less here than in London, I sure save much more than I could in London.
Guess I was just talking my book.
Indeed. Careful research is needed when comparing salaries. I live in China and I constantly fall into the trap of assumptions on salaries here. (eg. they are earned in the same ratios and proportions as in my native UK - they're not !)
I teach English and my Chinese colleagues are paid only a fifth of my salary for doing essentially the same job. I thus assumed that the Chinese Art Teacher in our school would be paid a comparably low amount... (because in the UK a high school art teacher would be paid a similar wage to a high school languages teacher). However, the Art teacher is actually paid a similar salary to myself and almost 5 times his English teaching colleagues !!
Anyways, thanks for raising a few interesting points.
The graph does not tell the whole story.
Europe relies mostly on high speed trains for
inter-countries travel. The U.S. does not have
a concentration of industries and destinations
heavily clustered together. The U.S. is not
a third world/developing nation where jobs and
power flows through only a few centers.
At best the graph shows anomalies like the
excessive number of helicopters flying around
in Sao Paulo. To the uninitiated, it looks like
Sao Paulo is as rich (per capita) as Dubai, Zurich,
etc. Even though the GDP per capita in Sao Paulo
is a measly $21,000USD (as reported on TE).
Rio and Sao Paulo have had this disproportional
airline traffic for several decades now. It was
in the past called "Ponte Aerea" (Air Bridge).
These days thanks to Azul (Jet Blue) and other
low cost airlines and longer term installment
payment plans, travelers have exacerbated the
atrophied airports problem.
Compare Rio de Janeiro to the Dallas, Texas hub, and
you will see that Dallas dwarfs Rio in daily
passenger volume. Yet, that volume is diluted
over many destinations not just one as in the case
of Brazil.
This is a chart about city pairings (or airport pairings, as @thebignils notices). It is not about total traveller's numbers of single cities, or their overall wealth.
So, why would this chart make S. Paulo look as rich as Dubai or Zurich? It would take an exceptionally uninformed observer to make this leap.
And there is nothing "disproportional" in the airline traffic between Rio and S. Paulo. Taken together the two metropolitan areas house more than 30 million people. It is the population of whole countries.
The two cities are number #1 and #2 business, manufacturing and research centers in Brazil (Rio has been through rough times, but seeing the city as just a tourist magnet really does not justice to it). As Brazil grows and its wealth becomes better shared, this traffic will surely grow even bigger.
btw, Azul has very little to do with Jet Blue beyond its name and founder and CEO David Neeleman (who left Jet Blue quite some time ago).
Sorry to disagree with you. The chart is there for a reason.
Who exactly flies on airplanes these days? It is about $$$$$.
Rio and Sao Paulo are on the top of the chart. Anyone not
familiar with those two cities and conditions in Brazil would
erroneously assume that Brazil is higher on the economic
food chain than it actually is. Therefore, a little background
(that can be easily checked by readers can open some eyes here.
The reason Sao Paulo and Rio are so big has nothing to do with
Brazil's "emerging" and everything to do with a backwards and
skewed way of developing a country. Thus, it was illustrated that
Dallas airport hub (with roughly 1/3 of Rio's population) dwarfs
Rio in daily passengers.
Azul was started by Jet Blue's founder and former CEO Needleman
as you say. However, six days after leaving Jet Blue in 2008, he
launched Azul. I know things happen fast in the business world,
but launching an airline in six days is not it. He was already
planning Azul while at Jet Blue. Get your facts straight.
As for Brazil becoming fairer with a better distribution (or creation) of wealth,
there is no evidence of that. It is still a very stratified society (with die hard
tradition for it) with lots of bureaucracy (that won't go away anytime soon).
A famous French Chef Pierre Cornet Vernet went to hell and back
in dealing with Brazil's famous anti-business climate. Reported
just a day ago on the BBC. You can probably ask him yourself since
you are in Brazil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18020623
I think the response to your first comment was very justified. Read it again.
You are the one making the assumptions that air flights are more expensive that train journeys. Thats not the case everywhere in the world.
You said "Azul (Jet Blue)" in your comment - that implies to any reader that Azul is a part of Jet Blue. The responder corrected you. They are not sying Azul and Jet Blue are not connected - just that they are not the same thing as your comment implies.
A little politeness and patience would serve you well.
There are more rich people in some Bairros of São Paulo than in Dubai and Zurich ! Quantity is also strength !
More (B)razilian (S)ugarcoating, hey!
Lagos in Nigeria ALSO have many wealthy people, some surpassing some Sao Paulo's
wealthy.
http://www.mtspropertydevelopment.com/images/md_house.jpg <---Lagos Mansion 4 sale
When are you moving to Lagos? ;-p
You have the gist of my post wrong. My original posting was to
shed light on the Brazilian propaganda. Brazil is still very much
a third world country whose only recognition is due to European
economic problems not Brazil rising on its own accord.
If one looks at the chart just on its numbers, and know diddly
squat about Brazil, it is easy to get the impression that Brazil
is the next US in the making. It is definetely not.
The rebuttal poster never touched on the BBC link on the horrendous
Brazilian cancer called Custo Brazil (excessive bureaucracy that
leads and feeds corruption). The rebuttal poster was only concerned
in throwing a dissmissive on what I posted not in really trying to
make a point or dialogue on what I posited.
The other rebuttal poster paint brushed that Brazil is as rich as
Dubai or Zurich. Quite a preposterous statement and an example
of Brazilian Sugarcoating (B.S.) The per capita income in both
Zurich and Dubai dwarfs Rio and Sao Paulo.
As for the wealthy in Brazil, ask yourself the question. If bureaucracy
is so endemic and the Brazil Cost (Custo Brazil) is so real, how have
these "brilliant" individuals thrived in such environment (read my
bbc link) and do an assessment. Could a lower middle class
individual become wealthy in Brazil under those conditions without
being corrupt???????
Finally, before Azul (Jet Blue) the airlines in Brazil were a cozy group which
welcomed NO COMPETITION FROM BRAZILIANS. Jet Blue founder
Needleman leave Jet Blue and six days later started Blue (an airline
whose only changes were really the name. The business model is the
same). As a foreigner, he was able to thrive in Brazil. I seriously doubt
if a Brazilian from the middle class had the same idea could pull off
a low cost airline against family owned airlines in Brazil who would
find a bureaucratic hurdle impossible for the newcomer to overcome.
As for the Blue/Azul debacle, technically we are both right. Azul is
its freestanding airline, but it is not Brazilian since it is a replant
from Jet Blue. Azul was started by Needleman six days after leaving
Jet Blue (a company he started). Considering the level of bureaucracy
in Brazil, and the international crossover, it is very unlikely that
Azul is a 100% Brazilian airline. The bureaucracy alone tells it so.
thanks, @panzerbjorne.
In the end, this Chinese characters guy, just as his AntiBr clone, has a self-imposed mission: he cannot let pass the slightest hint of something vaguely positive about Brazil in The Economist.
He must then educate TE's readers by way of lengthy rants about all Brazil's real or imagined failings. Or else people could think Brazil is much better than it deserves to and can ever be.
A weird obsession, really. He has to pursue it even when the trigger is no more than a simple figure showing that millions of people shuttle by air between the two biggest Brazilian cities — as should be expected in a huge country of 200 million with no passenger rail service.
"Cada louco com sua mania", grandmas used to say down here (to each nutcase its own mania).
I think it is clear that US and EU airlines are overtaxed, and that further trust busting is urgently needed.
It just isn't natural for the world's richest countries to do so much less inter-city flying than high-middle income countries.
I am european and even when airlines are a little cheaper (which is true only for long travels) i used to travel by train.
It's eco-friendly, more enjoyabled : more space, you can move when you want, no checks, no stress, you get off the train in cities center.. And all western european countries get high-speed rails, at least between main cities.
The UK, Ireland, Italy, Benelux, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe don't really have high speed rail. The connections between Germany/ France/ Spain are all pretty lousy.
*
And really, the prices are incomparably higher. For travelling Munich - Berlin, I would fly or use Mitfahrzentrale (car share). The price is similar (30 euros).
*
For ICE (high speed rail), prices start at about 60 euros - far more than I can generally afford.
If rail is more environmentally friendly then it should use fewer resources - in which case it should be cheaper. The fact that flying is so much cheaper makes me sceptical of rail's supposed credentials.
*
New Airbus planes use less than 2l of fuel per 100km per passenger. That's 580kJ/ passenger km. ICE trains use 70 MJ/ km. Implying operational energy efficiency parity at 121 passengers.
*
With a fully loaded capacity of 350 passengers, most ICE trains pass that threshold by a margin - but that's only considering operational efficiency. Rail also consumes enormous amounts of land, and requires enormous energy and labour cost to maintain a vast infrastructure (several orders of magnitude more than for air travel). Furthermore, the rate of efficiency improvement is far higher for jet engines than for high speed trains.
*
Trains are just orders of magnitude heavier for the equivalent passenger capacity, and suffer friction losses comparable to the air resistance losses faced by aircraft.
*
If we build carbon fibre maglev trains - packing passengers like tuna inside - then we can confidently speak of the environmental credentials of high speed real. Until then, it isn't at all clear that you help the environment by travelling TGV/ ICE.
High-speed rails is even more useful if you have to travel from a town to another town. Instead of taking a train to a big city, a train to the airport, a plane, a train to the second big city's main train station and a train to the second town, you are at your destination with three trains and no airport trouble.
For travel, the US is much more spread out. There aren't a handful of cities everybody flies to. US travelers fly to just about every major (and minor) US city in large numbers, so there is not enough centrality to make it on this specific graph. This graph, as far as I can tell, is taking start to end travel so it will not factor in New York to Chicago, one of the busiest US routes, because most of those are connecting flights.
Yet New York and Chicago are vast & rich cities - both are far more populous than Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Sapporo, Naha, Jeju or Fukuoka.
Including the suburbs, both are more populous than Osaka or Seoul.
It is weird that New Yorkers and Chicagoans visit one another's cities so rarely by air. Until you notice that the US has some of the highest air fares in the world (ticket price per km far higher than in the EU, Japan, India or China - only South America, Russia and Africa are more expensive than the US). It's all about cartels - which the American government actively supports (unfortunately).
Why are there still laws against foreign airlines operating domestic flights in the US? Obviously: to protect the cartels. Among many other daft laws that prevent new domestic entrants to the market, and which limit competition between existing airlines.
The Australian routes deserve special mention with its population of barely 21 million.
Melbourne is about 3,5 million and Sydney 4 million. Both large cities by any standard.
Melbourne is about 4m, Sydney is 4.5m. But the popularity of the route is more indicative of the lack of long distrance rail infrastructure in Australia.
@ teastained: "Melbourne is about 4m, Sydney is 4.5m. But the popularity of the route is more indicative of the lack of long distance rail infrastructure in Australia."
Not sure I agree. The popularity of the route is indicative of the high population of the two cities (40% of Australia's total - what other country is so urbanised?) and the great distance between them (876km - far too long to make high speed rail competitive in either cost or travel time).
Wow. If I'm not mistaken, Madrid-Barcelona topped this list just a few years ago. Has the new high-speed rail line really knocked that route off this list entirely? No wonder Spanair went out of business.
..this is not a good sign at all. We really need to start thinking; planet..planet!
just make sure the correct spelling of Rio de Janeiro, not Rio de Janiero
Over long distances, the carbon footprint of taking airplane is actually rather low as far as travelling goes.
Whoops. Good spot. We've made the change.
You will also notice that "Shanghai" and "Hongqiao" both appear on the chart, but Hongqiao is an airport in Shanghai. Unless this means that there is not traffic between Pudong and Shenzhen.
A little due diligence...
Diligence now done. That should have been Shanghai, as you point out. We've corrected the chart. Sorry about that.
As you acknowledged HK-Taipei is an "international route", "strong country" government will soon knock your door.
Jesus Christ,save your witty sarcasm for yourself please.Do some people think using over-used cliche will make them sound smart or something?
Well, even in China, the flights bewtween mainlaind and Hong Kong/Taiwan/Macau are called international flights.
So I really do not see any mistakes here.
10 are East Asian.
Not sure why anyone would fly between Tokyo and Osaka - seems the Shinkansen is far more comfortable, if not more convenient. I have done both, as well as driven and even taken the local train (when in college, for the heck of it).
While Haneda airport is more convenient than Narita, still seems like less work to get on a Shinkansen, much less worry about delays from weather, and a pretty comfortable ride...
Flying is far cheaper.
For anyone on a budget, flying is the only route which is both cost effective and gets you there in a reasonable amount of time.
Shinkansen is for the rich.
I will double check with my wife but I don't believe this is the case:
"Shinkansen is for the rich."
A lot of normal people travel on the Shinkansen - it is not just some oversize club car.
Also, the government for years made the choice of prioritizing on rail transport versus air. Only recently, maybe in the past decade or so, did you have more economy airlines or arms of airlines crop up (we used to take one associated with ANA to Ishigaki Island to scuba dive called Star Flier; took another to Osaka), but don't recall those as exactly being cheap.
Now for some routes, like flights to Hokkaidoo, that may have made sense in the past (or still now) for things like short ski trips (my wife used to do that in college).
To put the Tokyo-Osaka route in perspective, the Tokaido Shinkansen moves 141 million passengers between Tokyo and Osaka every year (based on 2010 data), compared to about 7.5 million that flew in 2011.
pheebel_wimpe,
Good perspective.
Shaun39,
Tried to get a definitive answer from the wife and only got a vague "its about the same" and "maybe the airplane is cheaper sometimes"...
She did confirm that the rail pass for foreigners makes the train a little more of an economical factor (maybe that biased memories)...
Clarification: I think the 141 million passengers is the total number of passengers travelling on the Tokaido Shinkansen line. It includes travel to and from intermediate destinations along the line, such as Nagoya and Kyoto. So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison with the flights between Tokyo and Osaka.