Normally I will default to siding with workers, but I’m not siding with the pilots on this one. No way.
Yeah when you look at a flight tracker site it’s easy to conclude that this amount of air traffic can’t be good for the air.
I’m lost in the air travel debate and it sucks. Ignoring the strike and pilots specific concerns, IMHO:
- Emissions of flights are horrendous and will be viewed as barbaric in 30+ years. It needs to stop.
- Denying those of a lower income the opportunity to partake in air travel is also horrendous, and should not be the main mechanism to disrupt the industry.
- There are, in many cases, no alternatives to air travel, so it cannot be abolished.
Smarter regulation is needed, but the finite details will likely never suit a majority of people.
Actual emissions taxing is basically a necessary step when it comes to air travel - currently, the fuel is completely tax free and that’s not great. Take all of that money and pump it directly into rail, which is the actual way forward for intra-continental travel.
It will get more expensive and less accessible for lower income people. There’s just really no way around that.
Unfortunately, affordable long-distance travel for the poor is a relatively recent phenomenon. It may not last.
Barring some technical breakthrough, I am inclined to agree.
We can and should build extensive high-speed rail networks, though. This will provide intra-continental mobility at a price affordable for everyone. While gratuitous trips to the other side of the world will no longer be feasible, fast intra-continental trips can in many cases take their place. Flying can remain a niche for when it’s completely unavoidable, in which case we should be able to absorb the emissions.
That would be better than flying empty planes all over the place so airlines don’t lose their slots at airports.
That policy obviously needs to die a horrible death.
