▲ 596 ▼ Whistleblower 'would not' put family on Boeing 787 jet (www.bbc.com) submitted 2 years ago by BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world 76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Woozythebear@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) You gonna build a bullet train across the ocean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, planes are good for that. But there's a ton of domestic travel that could easily be replaced with a decent rail network. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sudo@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which, given the context that planes are necessary, you continue to ignore the OP: Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen. And then your justification for not privatizing is cronyism. So the government contracts for air travel = bad, but the ones for your project are... good?? Your comment was really just a soap box to say air=bad, trains=good. I'm not going to argue trains are bad, but maybe make an honest argument for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that competition on travel is good. If people don't feel safe flying, there should be another, viable option, like trains. If enough people take trains instead of airplanes, airplanes will need to improve to get those customers back. Trains have a lot of advantages vs airplanes, but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should have viable alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Patch@feddit.uk 5 points 2 years ago Yes, it's always going to be unfeasible to cross the Atlantic or Pacific by train. But the vast, vast majority of air journeys taken every day aren't trans-oceanic ones. Most journeys are between destinations within the Americas or within Eurasia and Africa. There are an awful lot of journeys by plane that could be moved to trains if the infrastructure was right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Ekranoplan when? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Ekranobahn. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, planes are good for that. But there's a ton of domestic travel that could easily be replaced with a decent rail network. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sudo@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which, given the context that planes are necessary, you continue to ignore the OP: Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen. And then your justification for not privatizing is cronyism. So the government contracts for air travel = bad, but the ones for your project are... good?? Your comment was really just a soap box to say air=bad, trains=good. I'm not going to argue trains are bad, but maybe make an honest argument for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that competition on travel is good. If people don't feel safe flying, there should be another, viable option, like trains. If enough people take trains instead of airplanes, airplanes will need to improve to get those customers back. Trains have a lot of advantages vs airplanes, but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should have viable alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sudo@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which, given the context that planes are necessary, you continue to ignore the OP: Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen. And then your justification for not privatizing is cronyism. So the government contracts for air travel = bad, but the ones for your project are... good?? Your comment was really just a soap box to say air=bad, trains=good. I'm not going to argue trains are bad, but maybe make an honest argument for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that competition on travel is good. If people don't feel safe flying, there should be another, viable option, like trains. If enough people take trains instead of airplanes, airplanes will need to improve to get those customers back. Trains have a lot of advantages vs airplanes, but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should have viable alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that competition on travel is good. If people don't feel safe flying, there should be another, viable option, like trains. If enough people take trains instead of airplanes, airplanes will need to improve to get those customers back. Trains have a lot of advantages vs airplanes, but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should have viable alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Patch@feddit.uk 5 points 2 years ago Yes, it's always going to be unfeasible to cross the Atlantic or Pacific by train. But the vast, vast majority of air journeys taken every day aren't trans-oceanic ones. Most journeys are between destinations within the Americas or within Eurasia and Africa. There are an awful lot of journeys by plane that could be moved to trains if the infrastructure was right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Ekranoplan when? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Ekranobahn. permalink fedilink source parent