• @Woozythebear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1621 year ago

    Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen. This could have devastating effects and I think enough is enough and the government needs to step in and take over running the airlines. It’s too important to leave gold hoarding dragons in charge of it.

    • @BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      591 year ago

      Boeing is the only company actually trying to reach their net zero target. Once no Boeing plane are flying anymore that’s it, no more CO2 emissions

    • ProdigalFrog
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Silver lining: less flights booked means less emissions for the environment.

          • ggppjj
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Well, it doesn’t really contribute to less people that much considering the global birth rate, and also it removes a usable car from service that will at this moment be replaced using materials and processes that are likely not too great and probably loaded with an interface that sucks worse ass and breaks more often. Tricky all around.

        • ProdigalFrog
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          That’s not great… I can only hope more people opt for trains instead this time.

          • BubbleMonkey
            link
            fedilink
            English
            91 year ago

            If we had high speed rail, I’d absolutely love to take a train to just go places, but cross country trains in the US take absolutely forever. If you aren’t in a hurry, sure, great option, cheap, but doesn’t really work well for vacations or emergencies or whatever when you have very limited time.

            For example, Chicago to Seattle takes 46 hours by train but 30 hours by car. Even with stops for food, gas, and bathroom, even staying somewhere for the night, you aren’t adding 16 hours on.

            https://www.amtrak.com/empire-builder-train

            We really need to invest more in high speed rail… like everywhere here. Until then, unfortunately, I doubt people will shift that way overall.

            • @iheartneopets@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Idk… That might even out. During a 30 hr drive, I’d probably add on at least 8-9 hours for every 8-9 driven, because that’s as long as I can stand to drive at a stretch without needing to find a hotel to stop for the night. Driving for that long is goddamned miserable, and at least in a train you can book an overnight car to sleep in so that even when you sleep travel keeps happening.

              Idk, maybe I’m totally off base and this is totally personal preference, but if I’m already driving that far, I’d rather just take the train to not have to worry about driving myself.

              • SeekPie
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Also driving for extended periods of time really fucks with your perception of speed and your reaction time.

              • BubbleMonkey
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Personally I also hate driving, so I’m sort of with you on that (tho for me, unless it was a trip where stops are the point, I couldn’t see adding almost an entire day to a trip that’s barely over a day to begin with, but I also wouldn’t be doing that sort of trip solo, and driver swapping helps a ton), but I find people have 2 modes typically and neither one of them does all that well with the current rail infrastructure.

                First mode is “get there as fast as we can so we can enjoy the accommodations/ locations we are traveling for”, which most people fly for, but many will drive for if they need to move a lot of people or equipment. You can do that on a train, assuming one stops anywhere near where you intend to go, but when you have multiple people to switch off driving and don’t stop, that extra time matters.

                The other mode is the “journey is the destination” with frequent stops to get out of the car and do stuff… but then we typically just call those road trips. I’ve done several of those where most of the trip is traveling between stops. Trains don’t do well for that currently since they have so few stops and run so infrequently, so the journey isn’t particularly exciting. Busses are better for this sort of travel, with the present infrastructure, but not a very comfortable trip. Busses would also very likely take about the same time as a train, since they make a lot of extended stops.

                Very few people seem to fall into the grey area between these two things, where they both don’t care to stop anywhere, and don’t care how fast they get there. And I think this is largely because most people don’t have time for leisurely travel. Most people get extended-weekend trips and maybe one week-long vacation a year, so 4 days round trip of just traveling but not being able to stop anywhere would ruin most plans for people, unless they just want to ride the train.

                But if we invested in high-speed rail, you could both get there faster than driving -and- have a better experience than driving, which would get many people to switch right quick. It shouldn’t have to be a “pick one or the other” situation, when literally the only barrier is infrastructure spending which would be great for the economy, and it would be better for literally everyone to have it. Amtrak is a private entity, technically, but the US government is the majority shareholder, the board of directors is appointed mostly by the president of the US, they get a lot of funding from state and fed government, and thus govt has considerable power to make that happen.

                It just really sucks that the only significant passenger rail options we have now are designed to be slow scenic trips, a gimmick where the whole point of them is the leisurely trip. They aren’t really meant for actual commute use, and that’s just super short-sighted and wasteful. And I think until they get faster, with more routes and stops along the routes, we aren’t going to see people adopting them in the numbers we need them to.

            • ProdigalFrog
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Gah! I wish so desperately that wasn’t the case, but I can’t dispute that. It really does feel like without investment in our rail network, there’s no good way of long distance travel, so it’s currently just a shit sandwich all around.

            • @Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I took a high speed train to Beijing, and it was one of the best travel experiences of my life. Way above any airplane I’ve ever been on, for sure.

        • @stellargmite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          As someone who lives on an island, lol. But still a good point assuming a North American car centric viewpoint. I’ll be resorting to wind power, jetski, breath stroke, or airbus. Perhaps other options including rail ( yes we have it on Islands too ) may look competitive again.

          • lobotomo
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            They don’t have boats on your island? Sounds like a lack of conviction to me.

            Kidding, of course.

      • Encrypt-Keeper
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s not a silver lining at all. Jets are actually very fuel efficient compared to driving when they’re full of passengers.

        One less plane in the air could potentially mean 300+ more cars on the road. Not a great outcome.

        • @Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Yeah but one less airplane in the air with 300 people in a train is a lot better. The issue is the infrastructure that’s shit in North America.

          • Encrypt-Keeper
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            We would actually need trains that go all the places people want to go for a better price. That would definitely be cool.

      • @Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Gold lining: Never go home for Holidays

        Platinum Lining: Work from Home is even more commonplace, and no more random flights to the office, or on-site.

    • @emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      261 year ago

      Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is something I absolutely want to happen. This will have devastating effects on carbon emissions, and push more people (and governments) towards trains.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      251 year ago

      Why promote flying? Why not invest heavily in really fast ground transportation? Let’s build a bullet train between major hubs so people have a choice. If there’s a serious competitor to flying, Boeing will have to improve or they’ll lose a ton of business.

      If the government takes over airlines or airplane manufacturing, we’ll just end up with lots of cronyism.

      I say start with LA to SF and LA to LV. The current infra there sucks, and there’s a lot of worthwhile stops along the way. Then perhaps upgrade NYC to DC and related lines. It’ll be incredibly expensive to roll out, but should be very cheap to run and maintain.

    • @Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      The government already heavily subsidizes the “struggling” industry (that somehow still makes outrageous profits). The government really should exercise more control over the industry, given that they (we) pay a very high annual price for it to exist.

    • @Moreless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -41 year ago
      1. Normal people work on planes
      2. Government takes over
      3. Government hires contractors
      4. Contractors are normal people
      5. Profit
    • @werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -91 year ago

      Welcome to this Boeing 737, thanks to government regulations each seat is fitted with a cop that will feel you up through the flight. If you don’t put your phone in airplane mode he or she will shoot you in the back 10 times only. 7 crashes per year is the legal limit and we already had 6 so you are all lucky!

  • @foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    381 year ago

    I’m just waiting for the warcries of WWIII so I can buy Boeing stock as it bottoms out before daddy Warbucks saves them, and hopefully me! 🤞

  • @WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    I’ve had a lot of trouble searching for a concrete answer to this, but does anyone know what percentage of commercial jets in the US are made by Boeing? I know it’s a duopoly between them and Airbus, but to what extent is Boeing’s domination?