This keeps recirculating over the years and nothing gets done about it!
Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
101–110 of 130 posts
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absurd. You can drive to a bullet train station for a trip across the country just like we already drive to an airport. Density isn't the reason we don't have this stuff. More silly urbanist "density solves all problems" nonsense.
Except even by billet train a trip across the country takes a minimum of 15 hours, instead of a 5 hour flight - and that’s assuming no stops. There is a distance where trains can potentially make sense but it’s NOT across the country.
You’re forgetting to add another two hours to get to and from the airports, another couple hours to deal with the security etc lines, and the absolutely miserable experience that is modern days flying.
A train gets you city center to city center, you have all the freedom you want to walk around, and the luggage restrictions are nowhere as drastic (plus you can keep your 250mL drink you got cheap at the supermarket on the way)
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is indeed ironic, although in my defense all of my flights are going to be on 737/A320 sized aircraft. I can't remember the last time I flew on a wide bodied aircraft, and I'm not likely to do it again soon. My issue is mostly that everything that comes out of Boeing makes me feel like they're more worried about suing them than them hurting me or killing me. Maybe Airbus isn't much better, but it sure seems hard…
Airbus are European, of course they have better safety standards and working culture than American companies ;-)
> Airbus are European, of course they have better safety standards and working culture than American companies ;-)
Substantiate your stereotyping.
I'm not saying it is or isn't true, I'm saying that such broad stereotyping without reasoning comes off as bias.
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think there are France-sized regions in the US that have greater-than-French density? Why don't those regions have these trains if density is the only problem?
France: Pop 67,153,000, Area 247,368 sq mi California: Pop 39,512,223, Area 163,696 sq mi Population density is about the same. 270 vs 240 people per sq mi. Also running rail through flat low density area's tends to be cheap.
[deleted]
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think there are France-sized regions in the US that have greater-than-French density? Why don't those regions have these trains if density is the only problem?
France: Pop 67,153,000, Area 247,368 sq mi California: Pop 39,512,223, Area 163,696 sq mi Population density is about the same. 270 vs 240 people per sq mi. Also running rail through flat low density area's tends to be cheap.
[deleted]
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except even by billet train a trip across the country takes a minimum of 15 hours, instead of a 5 hour flight - and that’s assuming no stops. There is a distance where trains can potentially make sense but it’s NOT across the country.
You’re forgetting to add another two hours to get to and from the airports, another couple hours to deal with the security etc lines, and the absolutely miserable experience that is modern days flying. A train gets you city center to city center, you have all the freedom you want to walk around, and the luggage restrictions are nowhere as drastic (plus you can keep your 250mL drink you got cheap at the supermarket on…
West coast,
What city centers?
Seattle, love it, still "tiny" by city definitions.
Portland is too small to be considered a layover.
So what's next, SF and then LA.
These two tables are why the US doesn't have high speed rail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_p...
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s weird they do that. It’s one of the largest red flags that indicate it actually is a problem.
Exactly! Boeing can't claim that engine bleed air is clean on one hand, and tout that a bleed-less air system improves air quality. It's either one, or the other, not both.
Of course they can. Air quality is not binary. Air can be clean yet it could also be cleaner.
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Airbus are European, of course they have better safety standards and working culture than American companies ;-)
> Airbus are European, of course they have better safety standards and working culture than American companies ;-) Substantiate your stereotyping. I'm not saying it is or isn't true, I'm saying that such broad stereotyping without reasoning comes off as bias.
Its wrong to say without reason. European work culture and overall laws and rules make sure that customer safety and privacy is given more value than its american counterparts.
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly! Boeing can't claim that engine bleed air is clean on one hand, and tout that a bleed-less air system improves air quality. It's either one, or the other, not both.
Of course they can. Air quality is not binary. Air can be clean yet it could also be cleaner.
I don't think Boeings primary reason for switching to no-bleed air was air quality reasons anyway. Electrically powered air is way lighter, more reliable, efficient, etc...
Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
At every turn, Boeing is making it very hard to not commit to flying AirBus.
Several examples of fume events in the article are from Airbus planes as well, especially Jet Blue ones. I suspect because Boeing is closer to home, the journalists have more insider insight as to the internal decisions to not do anything at Boeing, thus putting them in an even more negative light. I would guess Airbus is just as bad. The actual airlines seem to be neglegent as well, fighting to not pay workers comp.
All airliners (except the 787) use the same technology when it comes to air supply. They even buy the equipment from the same suppliers (engines, heat exchanger, ozone converter, packs…).
The risk of fumes is exactly the same on all brands (again, except the 787).