While I agree that plane travel needs to be reduced, and trains should be prioritized, most people typically take a plane less than once a year. The problem isn't Joe Schmoe taking a vacation overseas with his family every once in a while, it's the millionaires and billionaires taking flights every other day on their private jets.
Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Nah... the problem is not the vacation "overseas" but the amount of domestic flights that could have been avoided if we had a proper (fast, cheap, comfortable) rail network.
How many flights do we have between, e.g, Boston-New York, LA-San Francisco, Dallas-Houston, Chicago-any city in the midwest? Thousands of flights that are less than 3 hours in duration, but we have to take it by plane. Maaaybe some of them could be made by bus, but buses are slow and super cramped.
Now imagine if we had good train service. Even if we were not talking about bullet trains, if you count the time it takes to board/deboard + the time it takes to get to airport to the city, there is a good chance that the train travel would take less total time.
I think amtrak is super comfortable, it's just ridiculously NOT cheap or fast.
For example, driving from Santa Barbara CA down to San Diego, is about 4.5 hours' drive with light traffic. You can expect to pay like $100 in gas round trip.
Now, the amtrak line is $88 per person round trip last time I checked, and takes like six hours
So
You can drive a sedan and bring several people in your car and spend $100, and have a car in San Diego
Or you can take the train, spend as much as you would on gas for a commuter car for ONE person, take 25% longer to arrive and get home, and then you're in a city with no car instead of having a vehicle...
Why TF am I choosing the train, again?
It's hard to compare with cars because cars/fuel/highways are seriously subsidized.
Both are a problem. Private jets are much more wasteful but only a small portion of total kms traveled
If people stop commuting by plane to do a meeting I think the bulk of airplane travel would stop.
At least the morning and afternoon planes are usually full of people in suits where I live.
How have you gathered apparently representative data on morning and afternoon flights? Do you work at an airport or airline?
only a small portion of total kms traveled
Thats doesnt really prove anything, the fuel burn is at its peak during take off and landing since it requires a lot of force to actually lift up. On the contrary, sustain flight is very efficient.
Shorter distances isnt a valid excuse - in fact, it is the direct problem you're seemingly defending.
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.
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.
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 would gladly take high speed rail if it was as available as Asian countries.
Asian countries are not available in Europe but high speed rail is
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.
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
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".
You don't know enough about boat building if you think a modern sailboat is a good idea ecologically. Boat building uses nasty chemicals, very harsh solvents and produce ginormous waste. A modern sailboat has a gigantic environmental footprint. I have a 50 year old sailboat (with a modern outboard) but I never try to fool myself into thinking I'm making a recreational choice that's good for the environment. I'm just out enjoying the day and trying not to think about the bottom paint poisoning the lake, the microplastics sloughing off the oxidized gelcoat, and the impact of the fire retardant the textile industry dumps into all the fabric I'm relaxing on, to name a few. Nice way to spend the day though!
You’re wrong. Have my upvote.
The issue with cars is people abusing them instead of relying on public transport, where it would be cheaper and more convenient, but some people pay more for the extra comfort, which is seen as wasteful.
This snowballs into urban planning centered on cars, which creates a pretty bad incentives loop.
On the other hand, planes are a necessity for some business travel, and a nice way of visiting the world once per year. Yes, some people abuse flight, but it’s a non issue overall.
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.
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
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.
I live near a small airport and I would gladly join /c/fuckplanes
I cannot fucking stand it. These little private planes the rich folks fly, just for fun, are so loud and distruptive.
When Covid hit, I was astonished to see so many people complain, how they could not fly to have holidays anymore. I had not realized, it has become common fun, to be able to fly for fun at least once a year. It is incredibly wasteful, and I cannot understand people defending that shit. There is no other reason to fly somewhere faraway just for a holiday, than being selfish - it is a luxury expense, not something you cannot live without - and pretending it is okay "just once a year" is creating A LOT of environmental impact, when hundreds of thousands think the same.
Are the rich people making most of the flights more guilty? Well obviously! We should ban that shit too! Someone else doing something even worse, does not justify making bad choices. It is hypocritical to complain about the planet dying, while actively contributing to the problem, just because you want to conveniently visit the other side of the world.
If you make that community we will gladly join
Another unpopular opinion, in reply some of the sentiment in the comments: You don't have to be a heavy polluter to be conscious of your impact on the planet. The biggest polluters care the least anyway. Laws can make a difference there but also normalizing eco-consciousness and marginalizing those that aren't.
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 travel
Agreed. Although "flying" is fun, traveling by plane is not by any means. Trains are a far better option where you can walk around and there isn't so much security theater.
Planes suck, but we all know they're inefficient and the experience is terrible. Most people would rather take a train on most trips.
Cars though. People still defend cars. They kill more, too
It's true that people defend cars. But my problem is that people don't question planes. And when people say they hate air travel it's often about the experience and not about the impact on our environment and cities
I mean, I guess I could fuck a plane, but helicopters are so much sexier.
Cars are pretty great too. /c/fuckcars but literal!
And don't get me started on motorcycles...
-- Frost
Plus you've got all those folks sexually identifying as attack helicopters to choose from!
100%
It's so awful.
I would rather burn an extra day of PTO and drive, if I can, than take a plane fucking anywhere. If trains were a more viable option I'd pick that every time, but that just isn't the case here in the US.