We have /c/fuckcars but no /c/fuckplanes. Yet a lot of the same arguments apply. They cause air pollution (roughly double the amount per km traveled), noise pollution and they (airports) take up a lot of space near dense living areas. Sure, some places can practically only be visited by plane, just like some places can practically only be visited by car. But people don’t consider not having your holiday that far away or giving pushback on a busines trip that should have been an online meeting. Besides work-from-home being encouraged, work-from-home-country should be too.
Cars need to be discouraged in favor of busses, trams and trains. Planes nees to be discouraged in favor of high-speed trains, staycations and hopefully new alternatives like modern sailboats or electric planes.
You must log in or register to comment.
People don’t usually take a plane to a grocery store.
But flying is by far the most fun mode of transport!
okay, that’s pretty dumb upvoiooote.
A bit off topic but I’m curious what you mean by modern sailboats and what makes them better than conventional ones?
There are many variants but generally they use something more like an airplane wing rather than a cloth sail and the advantage is that they depend less on wind direction.
the advantage is that they depend less on wind direction.
I fully support where you’re coming from, but that is not true. Of course sails still depend on wind. For cargo ships solid sails are an advantage because they require less maintenance.
Yes but since they just generate power for the propeller, they can travel directly into the wind. Which is something sails struggle with.
Planes offer transportation that is unmatched by other means. Also most humans don’t travel by plane and the one who do are not regular flyers as in every day or every week like rape transportation. There are very few people in the pamner wh ok travel by plane all the time. Maybe those people should reconsider their choices as commercial airlines have democratized to a degree the ability for the masses to travel instead of just being a luxury just for the rich and ultra rich. The Elons of the world should definitely travel less by plane or plain out disappear from society but long distance travel by plane I think is a marvelous thing of the modern era and their impact on pollution is minor in comparison to cars. Maybe r restricting plane travel to big planes moving lots of people over hundred or thousands of small plains with few people aboard that coud have taken a regular transportation plane
“Rape transportation”?
Yes, France already banned short flights on routes that have similar train service. More counties should do that and over time increase the restrictions
And, also, they should be building more high speed rail service – both to increase capacity to match that increase in demand, and to add more routes where the train can replace flying.
First, please don’t use the word ‘hate’. Like, at all. We have enough of that in the world, it never made anything better, approachable or appealing. It’s at best clickbaiting.
Secondly, it’s easy to say “things need to be done”. But nobody wants to pay more taxes to build alternatives. Nobody wants to waste half of their vacation traveling by slower means. Nobody wants to wait decades for alternative infrastructure to be built. Nobody wants the alternative infrastructure built near them.
It’s funny that people who want high speed rail instead of plains usually railly up to block building it nearby - “yes, we want it, but not here”.
Planes are similar to income inequality in that a (relatively) small percentage overwhelmingly use services wastefully
Almost 90% of the world’s population doesn’t fly at all in any given year. In the USA 12% of the population takes almost 70% of flights. In France 2% take 50%.
American Airlines report 87% of its customers fly 1 time per year which accounts for 50% of its income. The other 50% is accounted by the remaining 13%. There is a small contingency of the population that basically flies almost every single day
To put it more simply roughly 1% of people taking frequent flights account for about 50% of aviation emissions
Normal people should continue to be allowed to have their once every decade trip to change the endlessly drudgery of their working class lives for a week (even if much of that is not an actual vacation as much as stuff like visiting a home they’ve had to move far away from for employment). Once again blame the greedy selfish people that hedonistically overindulge at the expense of everyone around them.
If you want to get angry at an entire industry that is extremely destructive and genuinely has no point other than excess look at cruises. Just go to a fucking hotel/casino on land, 99% of the experience and like 5% (if that) of the emissions
Question is, would the airlines still be around if we suddenly cut that 50% of income from frequent fliers? 😅
Sure. They would just be smaller and perhaps fewer in number.
Would we be able to go to as many places? 😬
Probably not quite as many. And probably fewer flight options available.
If 50% of air passengers aren’t flying anymore, airlines would need to reduce all flights by about 50% to remain anywhere near profitable. And you’d want that. Because the environmental and efficiency gains would all evaporate if the airlines just keep flying half-empty planes at the same rate they do today.
Airlines are already barely profitable. Most of their income is not actually related to tickets sold.
Once again blame the greedy selfish people that hedonistically overindulge at the expense of everyone around them.
While some of those 13% are hedonistic overindulgers, I’m guessing that a significant portion of them are people who have to travel frequently for work.
Of those who have to travel for work, some of them could probably reduce that air travel significantly if they used remote work instead, or conducted meetings by phone instead of in person, etc.
But there will be some remaining portion of people who travel for work who actually need to travel for work. Usually people who are highly specialized in something. Inspectors, investigators, researchers, technicians, scientists, musicians on tour, sports teams traveling to away games, aid workers traveling to impoverished countries, etc, etc, etc. People whose work needs to be done in person, at specific locations across a wide area, and can’t be easily replaced by local labor.
No idea at all what the actual percentage breakdown would be between those, but my point is not all of those 13% are doing it for selfish, wasteful reasons.
the problem is, it isnt your average commute, people rarely take many flights in one year unless you were going on vacations for months at a time, plus theres a long process in getting a passport if you havnt gotten one before, or havnt renewed in the last 10-15years. many people seem to fly to countries, states for specific conferences(tech, stem, research), or business meetings, likely make up most of the flights.
a lot of the same arguments apply
You’re living in a basement somewhere dreaming about arguments in your head.
people don’t consider
YOU aren’t considering that people aren’t only doing the shitty things you’re fantasizing about.
Commercial air travel is very efficient. You just see the propaganda here about hating the rich and conflate it with private.
Commercial air travel is very efficient.
Relative to what?
Relative to how busses are more efficient to cars and how in general public modes of transport are much more effective than riding a massive tin can all by yourself.
If you drive an average car on your own, you emit only slightly more (10%) CO2 per km, compared to an average plane with average occupancy. Not that efficient tbh.
Is it? The most optimistic numbers I’m seeing puts it close to car travel per km. An ICE car that is, not an EV.
Doesn’t it depend on how full the plane is.
How many empty planes you’ve been on recently? I fly 4 or 5 times a year and rarely have an open seat next to me in eco+ much less regular economy. And if I do have space it’s on a red-eye.
Living without high speed rail is hard. Having family spread among several states or 8 hr drives away is hard - especially with young kids. As a result we take 1 hr flights.
I think in this instance promoting high speed rail is preferable to shaming plane travelAt a continental scale even conventional (non-maglev) high speed train is slow and limited. Right now going to my home town by a combination of plane and train takes me around 9 hours. Even when all planned high speed rail lines in Europe are finished, and even assuming Deutsche Bahn stops being a joke, it would take me around two days to do an equivalent trip by train alone if the schedules align and there are no significant delays (which based on my DB ICE experience is fairy tale territory).
9 hours of travel is also hell. Add some stops along the route, do some sightseeing, visit some cities by rail. It’ll be slower but much more rewarding
That would require taking 1 week of vacations to see my family and friends for a couple of hours.
I would gladly take high speed rail if it was as available as Asian countries.
its non-existent in usa, because it so car centric, and it so ingrained in “american culture” too. and have been lobbyed against many times, so it never happens. HSR would solve alot of things, like tech, biotech jobs which are impractical in other forms of public transports, or even a car sometimes which are usually far from a metro area.
I get where you’re coming from, and I do agree to an extent, but on the very rare occasion I want to and am able to travel to another continent I don’t want to have to spend months travelling by boat to spend a week or two at my destination. I love trains. The US has shitty train infrastructure but I still kinda want to take a train on my next vacation.
I think I’m on-board (heh) if its specifically /c/fuckprivateplanes, but commercial is apparently pretty good, averaging an equivalent of 100 miles per gallon (42.5 km/L) per passenger on a full flight. Yea, it’s not better than a train, but it is significantly better than driving a typical ICE car to the same destination.
I came to mention that people flying fly light which is possible because of the short trip times. even on trains they tend to have a lot more luggage and cars its usually a massive amount more.
I’m just sick of listening to rich people whine that they can’t afford first class plane travel and lecture me about how I’m a planet destroying asshole for driving an ICE on the weekends and I need to buy a 60K EV.
And also it’s ‘not travel’ unless you’re going to another continent.
Outside of maybe the internet I have never seen specific you are destroying the planet with your ice vehicle. Even on the internet its not super common and more ice vehicles are bad and electric is the way to go rather than hey hubertmanne or tubulartittyfrog your ice vehicle is destroying the planet. I like you have one. over ten years old with somewhere around 30k miles.