21–30 of 364 posts
"asking for the rules to be suspended during the outbreak to prevent further environmental and economic damage" It's not like having those planes full of people results in less environmental damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
Because on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). That would inconvenience passengers. Under this regulation they could lose that route to a competitor that is more willing to service customers (or can operate at a lower cost). EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes…
This seems like a sensible rule that leads to unwanted behavior in this unforeseen case. Would make sense to grant a temporary exemption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuel is being burned, creating more CO2, without any benefit to society.
So if I have a corporation I have to benefit society with it? Else what, the government must expropriate my corporation from me?
The first step on this long path is raising public awareness, which this article is doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuel is being burned, creating more CO2, without any benefit to society.
If that’s a problem, maybe fuel should be more expensive.
Maybe that's where we need to get to, all jet fuel based air journeys stopping, but it's not going to please the many rich people - who control the regulations - who wish to use air travel.
If we could properly price in externalities then yes, we'd probably have a better system.
There is a proviso to that, should monetary wealth dictate access to resources like 'ability of the planet to sink carbon' or should that be a separate thing, like access to water. Shouldn't we share such natural resources rather than hand them over to those who already own everything else? In which case, you'd need to price in externalities, and pay to acquire carbon credits (or whatever) if they were available: under such a system people might choose to not "spend" their share of carbon credits in order to faster reduce planetary decline.
In the booms, they fly full, but with high fuel prices.
In the recessions, they fly empty, but fuel is cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
Because on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). That would inconvenience passengers. Under this regulation they could lose that route to a competitor that is more willing to service customers (or can operate at a lower cost). EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes…
This would lead to them getting fewer customers as they got a name for awful reliability, like Alaska Airlines have a reputation for being assholes from top to bottom, or United have a reputation for destroying musical instruments.
If you want to more directly disincentivise cancelling flights when people have booked already set a minimum payment to the affected passengers, as in the V EU.
This seems like a sensible rule that leads to unwanted behavior in this unforeseen case. Would make sense to grant a temporary exemption.
This is a stupid rule. This is not an unforeseeable case. Just sell the slots. You can sell them once and forever or you can auction them yearly or every two, three, five years, whatever. Demanding planes run for no one’s benefit is just setting money, and more importantly resources, on fire.