this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
596 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
3837 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
596
Whistleblower 'would not' put family on Boeing 787 jet (www.bbc.com)
submitted 7 months ago by BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Woozythebear@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You gonna build a bullet train across the ocean?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, planes are good for that. But there's a ton of domestic travel that could easily be replaced with a decent rail network.

[–] sudo -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months 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.

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 5 points 7 months 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.