4 ms·

But if we allow people to take off on a plane for fun, why shouldn't we allow people to collectively share a plane and get to their destination for a variety of

by epups 3y ago

But if we allow people to take off on a plane for fun, why shouldn't we allow people to collectively share a plane and get to their destination for a variety of reasons? This partial ban seems unfair otherwise

vel0city 3y ago
I imagine this ban doesn't affect a GA pilot taking a few of their friends along for a flight. But this is a pretty rare use, it's impact is extremely less than commercial operators doing constant flights on much larger planes every day. GA pilots generally aren't flying Airbus A320s with like 120 seats, they're flying Cessnas and Pipers with like maybe half a dozen seats. They're maybe flying every couple of days instead of back and forth a few times a day, every day of the week. Its a pretty major difference.
- epups 3y ago
  Ok, but the commercial planes are taking a lot of people for reasons that impact commerce (tourism, business meetings, etc). A private flight for pleasure should obviously be banned before those use cases if we're purely thinking of global warming. I am against banning any aviation use btw, this is too unfair to a particular group of people and is not based on any objective standard. Any aviation restriction that doesn't start with not letting the rich have private flights is unfair.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    That private flight every now and then has such extremely negligible emissions compared to a whole industry of much larger planes which fly as much as economically possible. Can you really not see the difference between these two different usages?
    - epups 3y ago
      I can, and I think the utility of private flights is decreased, and the per capita footprint too high.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        Sure, the per-capita emissions are higher, but the capita is also like what a million times less?
josephcsible 3y ago
You're right. That's yet another reason why this ban shouldn't exist at all.

by epups 3y ago

vel0city 3y ago

I imagine this ban doesn't affect a GA pilot taking a few of their friends along for a flight. But this is a pretty rare use, it's impact is extremely less than commercial operators doing constant flights on much larger planes every day. GA pilots generally aren't flying Airbus A320s with like 120 seats, they're flying Cessnas and Pipers with like maybe half a dozen seats. They're maybe flying every couple of days instead of back and forth a few times a day, every day of the week. Its a pretty major difference.

epups 3y ago
Ok, but the commercial planes are taking a lot of people for reasons that impact commerce (tourism, business meetings, etc). A private flight for pleasure should obviously be banned before those use cases if we're purely thinking of global warming. I am against banning any aviation use btw, this is too unfair to a particular group of people and is not based on any objective standard. Any aviation restriction that doesn't start with not letting the rich have private flights is unfair.
- vel0city 3y ago
  That private flight every now and then has such extremely negligible emissions compared to a whole industry of much larger planes which fly as much as economically possible. Can you really not see the difference between these two different usages?
  - epups 3y ago
    I can, and I think the utility of private flights is decreased, and the per capita footprint too high.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      Sure, the per-capita emissions are higher, but the capita is also like what a million times less?

josephcsible 3y ago

You're right. That's yet another reason why this ban shouldn't exist at all.