Commercial jet liners are the safest mode of transport by a massive margin, and several orders of magnitude more safe than anything that is on a public road. If you start driving and flying at the same time, by the time you’ve encountered even a serious, much less fatal, incident in the aircraft, statistically you will have been killed dozens of times over in the car.
Don’t see you raging against buses or taxis here.
Dude. Larger spaced economy seats would LITERALLY be doing the same exact thing. There is no world where you get more space for the same amount of money.
Airlines already don’t make a lot of profit on economy seats, if any. It’s not like they’re price gauging you on the basic economy price. The majority of their profit comes higher classes, baggage and other service upgrades, and at least in America, credit card reward programs. Economy class by itself is already barely, if at all, profitable. Making it significantly more spacious will inevitably and without doubt lead to higher prices. And if you’re willing to pay those higher prices, we’ll that’s literally already an option today. The only thing you’re advocating for here is forcing literally everyone to pay that upcharge, even those that don’t want or need it.
It’s also bad for the environment. As uncomfortable as it is, stuffing as many people as you possibly can into one aircraft reduces the total number of aircrafts/size of aircraft required for a certain passenger number. Not that that’s why airlines do it of course, but it’s a genuinely desirable and positive side effect of the cramped economy seating.
I mean they do have some small number of seats with extra legroom, that you can pay upcharge for. Exit row seats, bulk head seats, premium economy, to a smaller degree simply choosing an airline with a more spacious configuration in their planes.
I’m sorry you have to deal with that but it’s not really a good argument. For one, the airline can still actually sell the seat in front of you.
If a person is so large they physically block 2 seats, then that’s an extra seat that can’t be occupied at all, so it’s not really a fair comparison.
And ultimately, not every mode of transport can reasonably be accommodating to every single possible body type. I know that it sucks for people are stuck being an untypical body type and have to deal with nothing much fitting them, but what do you suggest the alternative should be ? Spacing seats out more just so the few very tall people can sit everywhere is going to increase ticket prices for everyone, even those who neither need nor want that extra space. It will also increase the number of flights required to move the same number of passengers, and therefore increase the fuel use per passenger and mile flown.
I mean they literally DON’T charge you for extra cabin weight, or body weight, even if they could. Most airlines don’t even put weight limits on cabin luggage, only size limits. And even those that have weight limits, in my experience, very rarely enforce them. Generally, only size is enforced for hand luggage.
And they only charge overweight people double if they’re so large they physically block more than one seat, which imo is fine. If you need more than seat, it’s perfectly fine to expect you to pay for that extra seat. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either excessive greed OR mass/fuel issues.
There’s already a solution for that. It’s called premium economy/business class.
And if you’re gonna say “but that’s so much more expensive”, well guess what’s going to happen if you reduce how many pax can fit on an aircraft.
No it isn’t. Not in large airplanes. The typical takeoff weight of an A320 is in the neighborhood of 50-70 tons. The pilots do not give a shit if a few passengers weigh a couple 100kg more than the average, and that’s a narrow body. A couple PAX being grosly obese on a widebody, with typical takeoff weights in excess of 100 tons, is even more negligible.
Fuel calculations and weight&balance is calculated based on assumed average weights for men, women and children, generally something in the neighborhood of 85kg for men, 75 for women and 30-40 for children (includes assumed average hand luggage weight as well)
That’s pretty much universally the view on freedom and rights that today’s neo conservatives have.
They cry states rights and freedom when someone else wants to ban them from doing anything at all, but the instant someone else is doing something they don’t like, they suddenly make up moral panics to justify federally banning those things.
That is to say, conservatives by and large don’t have any principles beyond being selfish and hateful towards minoritied. Everything else, including fundamental freedoms and human rights is negotiable so long as it doesn’t negatively affect them OR negatively affects the people they hate more than them. They just use terms like freedom or rights to virtue signal when it suits them, but are just as happy to drop the pretence the millisecond doing so becomes beneficial to their goals.
A good example is the free speech screeching of conservatives in the heyday of fact checking, Vs. Their tortured justifications and dismissals of Trump’s blatant attacks on free speech and press today.
Or alternatively, many TERFs and their open willingness to draw support, and work together with misogynistic conservative groups and even straight up open Neo Nazis, just because those groups also hate trans people, all whilst turning around and claiming with a straight face that they’re doing this for women.
The quote in the original french version is, at least iirc, let them eat brioche, so cake isn’t even a good translation. More something like “let them eat sweet bread”.
But translating brioche as cake instead makes the quote sound even more tone deaf and outrageous.
The ISS orbits at about 400km, or about 250 miles.
“Thousands of miles” away from earth’s surface would be further than any astronaut, except for the ones on Apollo 8, and 10-17, have ever been.
Did the north not decide to abolish slavery federally until after war was already over? Because surely otherwise, the south would have fought for both of these things.
In general it can be said that poor people do not have the capital to make upfront investments which become profitable over time. Not even just literal investing, but investing in things like a more fuel efficient car, upgrading the insulation in your house/apartment to save on heating, buying non-perishables in bulk when there’s a good deal, buying a dish washer instead of hand washing…
So many things that let you save tons of money in the long run, require relatively large upfront investments, that poor people can’t afford. That’s a big reason why poverty can be such an insidious vicious loop, that can be extremely hard to escape from.
Two identical households, with identical income could have vastly different financial situations, just based on if their income was previously low, and they weren’t able to afford any of these investments, vs. If their income was previously high, having allowed them to previously make these large investments to reduce their long term monthly costs, and secure enough liquidity to be able to continue occasionally making these investments.
“They’re extradonarily narrow” whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.
That’s not even close to “extremely narrow” in scope.
Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.
That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.
And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn’t had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn’t currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you’re technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it’s still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).
Though I’d be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.
Way to demonstrate the intellectual maturity of a 5 year old. And since I don’t engage with random 5 year olds on principle, consider yourself blocked.