5 ms·

I fully refuse to fly with them, no matter what. Once was enough. I wouldn’t say they’ve delighted, but they certainly impressed.

heavenlyblue 5y ago
Uhm. I come from a pretty poor country. When I was a student I would fly Ryanair because otherwise I would just not fly. Ryanair provided me with a service that would otherwise be not available to me at all if it was not making be nervous. So it provides services to a bunch of poor people who are probably _used_ to being nervous anyway in other situations. "Refuse to fly with them". Would you refuse to fly at all if you could not afford alternatives?
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  I refuse to fly at all nowadays. Even on a relatively short flight, I would be responsible for more greenhouse gases than all my other consumption and transports for several months give rise to.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    In case you live in an US style suburb detached single family home lifestyle, I feel like suburb living contributes far more greenhouse gases than a short flight, since living in dense communities reduces how far all mass has to move, and suburb living increases how far all mass has to move.
  - Aloha 5y ago
    As an American not flying simply means not traveling anywhere further than 500 miles from home, or it means an extra 2-3 days to get there. It means never really leaving North America, heck, parts of North America are not accessible but by air. I don't have high speed rail options, I can either, take the (slow) train (if it goes there), take the bus, drive or fly. Removing flying also removed the ability for the poor to travel. That doesn't strike me as fair or reasonable either. I do try to minimize my flying time, but, none? That's not a reasonable option for me.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      Train connections between countries are quite miserable in big parts of Europe too, but with increased demand, they are quite rapidly improving. Maybe that would happen in the US too if people used the trains more. For many relative short distance flights, you don't lose that much time taking the train. If you take into account that most airports are far from the city centers, and you have to be there early to check in luggage, go through security, spend 20 minutes boarding the plane and then wait to get of, wait for luggage and then take the time to get to your final destination from the airport, total travel time by train is often faster than by plane when the flight time is an hour or less. The train usually go from city center to city center, you can show up as late before departure as you dare, no security on no luggage check. The leg room is better and nowadays all trains I have been traveling in Europe have had decent wifi so you can use the time for work or entertaining yourself. And that poor people fly is usually not the problem. They don't go to Hawaii or Singapore or Rome just for fun. I understand that flying is important for some people, in particular when you have family in the other of the country or even on another continent. But we, as a world, certainly can't afford to fly just for pleasure.
      - Aloha 5y ago
        It's rare that I'm getting on a flight that lasts less that 3 hours, unless I really need to be there right now, or it's a connecting flight. There however is functionally no passenger rail network in the United States, outside of the northeast corridor, trains are at most at a daily headway. It's not practical for me (or most people) to spend five days on the train to get from Seattle to Dallas, because I need to go to either Chicago or Los Angeles first. FWIW, The distance between Hawaii and Los Angeles is roughly comparable to that of Los Angeles and Newark, so you're also telling some kid in California that they can't visit their grandparents in New Jersey too. I think taxing non-connecting travel on short hop (sub 90 min) flights is a way to offset this. But even that is with controversy. So while I conceptually agree with you, your flight-free lifestyle ignores the reality of life (and geography) in North America.
        Ma8ee 5y ago
- kinj28 5y ago
  Poor countries would have rich people too!

heavenlyblue 5y ago

Uhm. I come from a pretty poor country. When I was a student I would fly Ryanair because otherwise I would just not fly. Ryanair provided me with a service that would otherwise be not available to me at all if it was not making be nervous. So it provides services to a bunch of poor people who are probably _used_ to being nervous anyway in other situations. "Refuse to fly with them". Would you refuse to fly at all if you could not afford alternatives?

Ma8ee 5y ago
I refuse to fly at all nowadays. Even on a relatively short flight, I would be responsible for more greenhouse gases than all my other consumption and transports for several months give rise to.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  In case you live in an US style suburb detached single family home lifestyle, I feel like suburb living contributes far more greenhouse gases than a short flight, since living in dense communities reduces how far all mass has to move, and suburb living increases how far all mass has to move.
- Aloha 5y ago
  As an American not flying simply means not traveling anywhere further than 500 miles from home, or it means an extra 2-3 days to get there. It means never really leaving North America, heck, parts of North America are not accessible but by air. I don't have high speed rail options, I can either, take the (slow) train (if it goes there), take the bus, drive or fly. Removing flying also removed the ability for the poor to travel. That doesn't strike me as fair or reasonable either. I do try to minimize my flying time, but, none? That's not a reasonable option for me.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    Train connections between countries are quite miserable in big parts of Europe too, but with increased demand, they are quite rapidly improving. Maybe that would happen in the US too if people used the trains more. For many relative short distance flights, you don't lose that much time taking the train. If you take into account that most airports are far from the city centers, and you have to be there early to check in luggage, go through security, spend 20 minutes boarding the plane and then wait to get of, wait for luggage and then take the time to get to your final destination from the airport, total travel time by train is often faster than by plane when the flight time is an hour or less. The train usually go from city center to city center, you can show up as late before departure as you dare, no security on no luggage check. The leg room is better and nowadays all trains I have been traveling in Europe have had decent wifi so you can use the time for work or entertaining yourself. And that poor people fly is usually not the problem. They don't go to Hawaii or Singapore or Rome just for fun. I understand that flying is important for some people, in particular when you have family in the other of the country or even on another continent. But we, as a world, certainly can't afford to fly just for pleasure.
    - Aloha 5y ago
      It's rare that I'm getting on a flight that lasts less that 3 hours, unless I really need to be there right now, or it's a connecting flight. There however is functionally no passenger rail network in the United States, outside of the northeast corridor, trains are at most at a daily headway. It's not practical for me (or most people) to spend five days on the train to get from Seattle to Dallas, because I need to go to either Chicago or Los Angeles first. FWIW, The distance between Hawaii and Los Angeles is roughly comparable to that of Los Angeles and Newark, so you're also telling some kid in California that they can't visit their grandparents in New Jersey too. I think taxing non-connecting travel on short hop (sub 90 min) flights is a way to offset this. But even that is with controversy. So while I conceptually agree with you, your flight-free lifestyle ignores the reality of life (and geography) in North America.
      - Ma8ee 5y ago
kinj28 5y ago
Poor countries would have rich people too!