4 ms·
This is some paranoid nonsense. It’s that keeping capacity for one of the leading forms of global travel is a strategic interest. Don’t let your conspiracies
by tsunamifury 3y ago
This is some paranoid nonsense.
It’s that keeping capacity for one of the leading forms of global travel is a strategic interest. Don’t let your conspiracies get in the way of the obvious.
Also I feel like the rail circle jerk is so unearned. Last time I was in London it cost 100 pounds to fly to paris from London downtown airport and 600 to take the Chunnel. How “superior”.
- bee_rider 3y agoI don’t see the paranoia or conspiracy in their comment. Plane based infrastructure could be a local minima that we’ve bungled our way into without any need for coordination.
- adolph 3y agoHey, no paranoid conspiracy intended. Simply thinking out the counterfactuals. Is tying a particular activity to "national interest" itself a form of paranoia? What about passenger aircraft is a strategic interest? For example, the US seems to do ok with little large-scale shipbuilding outside military concerns. People seem to take cruises from the US in ever-larger cruise ships without a domestic capacity for building them. Additionally, no disagreement on my part regarding the high regard people have for hypothetical rail. On the other hand, I'm open to the idea that high capacity terrestrial transportation similar to rail would have cause to improve if airplanes weren't in an optimization sweet spot.