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.

  • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    9 days ago

    Question is, would the airlines still be around if we suddenly cut that 50% of income from frequent fliers? 😅

        • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
          2·
          8 days ago

          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.

    • hayvan@piefed.worldEnglish
      1·
      8 days ago

      Yes, half of the current market is still quite a market. It will be different, though.