Starbucks' new CEO will supercommute 1,000 miles from California to Seattle office instead of relocating
Starbucks' new CEO will supercommute 1,000 miles from California to Seattle office instead of relocating
Starbucks says incoming CEO Brian Niccol can live in his home in Newport Beach, California and commute to Starbucks’s head office in Seattle on a corporate jet.
Starbucks says Niccol can live in his home in Newport Beach, California and commute to Starbucks' head office 1,000 miles away on a corporate jet
You're viewing a single thread.
The sooner we destroy all private jets the better.
*private jet owners
Both?
…To shreds you say?
There are legitimate reasons for private jets to exist, though the list is admittedly small.
The ability to transport lifesaving medications and things like organs long distances as fast as possible comes to mind.
There isn't much reason for individuals to travel on private jets in non emergency scenarios though
Transporting organs doesn't happen on Private Jets, helicopters and courier craft typically do the job. It's also now well within the possibility for medium sized drones to be able to rapdily move something the size of an organ container reliably long distance, faster and more efficient than a jet can load, fuel, taxi, land and unload.
Private Jets are just luxury items of the rich, and are the carbon equivalent of burning down small forests or power a small town with coal burning. There is nothing they do that can't be done more efficiently by a drone or helicopter for a fraction of the emissions.
What helicopters and drones are flying over the ocean, across Europe, Africa and North America?
And what is a 'courier craft' do you mean a private airplane?
Private != Billionaire owned, it means a privately owned plane that flies general aviation (non FAR 121)
Transferring organs absolutely happens in private jets.
I think you might just not know what the term 'private jet' means.
I'm sure that private (meaning small) jets can have valid use cases, it's the abuse by the rich that is the problem.
"Private" doesn't mean "small". It means "privately owned", which means by a rich person.
Even if we are talking about specifically jets that are owned privately, they could have legit use cases. It's the abuse that is the issue. I agree with the whole "eat the rich" sentiment, but that's a separate issue. In the system where rich people exist, the problem is abuse.
I vote for we start destroying the private jets without reservation and if we encounter a legitimate use case we'll deal with it at that time.
Many could be refitted for worthy uses like fighting wildfires and transporting patients
But that won't solve anything. That's like treating diabetes by drinking diet soda.
That worked for me, that and sugar free Gatorade. Took me down from 8.3 to 4.5 without insuline. That being said, I'm an anomaly in that I don't eat much processed food or bread. Just a really bad pop addiction.
Yeah, maybe it was a bad example, because in some very specific scenario, it can work. My point was that treating a symptom won't cure the underlying disease. Just like as long as there are rich people, trying to take away their planes won't work.
Legit use cases… Make A Wish comes to mind, but maybe that’d be a corporate jet or not a traditionally-private jet.
Any exemptions for sports teams or anything? VIPs whose lives are at risk through no real fault of their own…
What you're describing are use cases for charter flights - renting an aircraft for a specific, temporary purpose, usually from a company specialising in such flights - they own or lease the aircraft and employ the flight crew and maintenance staff.