4 ms·
> There will be fewer flights, but the ones that remain will be more expensive and more polluting on a per-seat basis. So less polluting in total, which is at
by hiq 3y ago
> There will be fewer flights, but the ones that remain will be more expensive and more polluting on a per-seat basis.
So less polluting in total, which is at least one of the goals?
> The wealthy will continue to pay and enjoy less crowded planes.
If there are less planes available and flying is less practical, "the wealthy" might start considering taking a train instead. Trains are mentioned in the article so I think that's yet another goal.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting instead. This proposal is not perfect because nothing is.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fakedang 3y agoThe wealthy in Europe go by private jets. The upper middle class travels by business class (some of them fly via rented private jet too, if they have an expensive hobby, or if they're flying as part of work), and don't really care for the price either. It's the middle middle class who will be shafted once again. Just observations of my circle of private flyers. This proposal is bullshit of the Eurocrat variety, since it's meant to put all the blame on the middle class, instead of on the former. France could have proposed shifting all the EU entities in Strasbourg to Brussels, which will have an immediate positive environmental impact. But obviously the canards in the French govt and the EU won't.
- true_religion 3y agoHow wealthy can you actually be if things as basic as how much your transportation costs still worries you? The wealthy will continue to flit around on private jets, large SUVs, super cars, or even yachts if they are considering taking the trip slowly.
- lrem 3y agoNot private-jet wealthy, but solid upper middle class here. I regularly take a trip across Europe that is a 1h 50m flight. It is about 18h by train, with three transfers, four different operators. If I can't afford flying, I'll drive. And that's from someone whose daily commute is a train.