train (or ideally a light rail) to the airport should be created in the manner of the brisbane or singapore airport line -- it should be a tourist-focussed premium service, an idealised version of our main public system. ie, timely, clean, quiet, efficient and comfortable. after all, is not Melbourne the city of trams? so why not sell that fact to any visitor to our city? taking that view, the line would be essentially an ambassador of Melbourne, and as such provides an opportunity to sell our features (tourism brochures) and our lifestyle (back to the 'quiet, efficient and comfortable' as opposed to the SkyBus with its slow, noisy, bumpy and smelly service). thus, if any such service was functioning as a loss-leader it would be acceptible, in the ambassador context. i know i would gladly take it and even pay a premium for the service rather than parking at the airport (or god-forbid taking the SkyBus!) am i biased against th SkyBus? YOU BET -- why would i pay to be stuck in the traffic snarl when i could take my own car and at least stay in my microcosm a little longer. . . Chris, With respect, I'm not sure how you think Singapore and Brisbane's airport lines are 'premium' or 'tourist focused'. Both lines use standard rolling stock and in Brisbane's case form part of the larger network. In Singapore's case the terminal station at Changi's great and the cross-platform interchange to East-West line services at Tanah