You're viewing a single thread.
Where are the overhead baggage bins? No carry-on bags? If they go in the hold, how do you make it bigger?
This design is similar but not the same as OG post. Although still shitty, its quite an improvement over the orgional.
Those steps DEFINITELY aren't a safety hazard.
The newer version from the link looks less bad than this picture, but still dystopian as fuck. We need to make airline travel cheaper somehow rather than having the airline industry come up with their own ideas to try and pack people in like cattle.
Cheaper? What kinda crack are you smoking? Shit is destroying the planet, it needs to be a LOT more expensive.
what kind of crack are YOU smoking? So practically "banning" poor people for traveling anywhere further than 500km than their hometown is the solution? And allow rich people go on as usual?
The not-wealthy will be the only ones affected by this. Business people were traveling since the birth of the aviation and will continue travelling. This will be just an increased cost in their cost planning.
So if you're rich you're allowed to destroy the planet. If you're poor stay at home, the planet is in danger.
Uh, you know, it is possible to care about two things at once. Wanting airline travel to be cheaper/more comfortable and also less environmentally unfriendly are not mutually exclusive positions.
As others have pointed out, making it more expensive isn't going to get rid of air travel, it'll just be reserved for the ultra-wealthy who will not give a damn either way.
We could subsidize biofuels. Just spitballing.
I agree, but it's mostly the Uber wealthy, not regular travelers. It's bad, but it's not that bad. Using a whole plane to carry one or two people is horrible though.
You get points for being an environmentalist but lose points for accusing any differing opinion of being the result of drug use. That cliche is often used on autistic people to attack them for thinking differently. You should try making your point without cliches.
I don't think he meant that literally.
Yeah, that's usually how people use cliches. They hear something and think it sounds quippy in a rhetorical sense, even if it's not what they mean. It's a lazy way of participating in a conversation without actually putting forward any ideas of your own. It's the death of sincerity.
What I'm reading is you just fail to understand anything that isn't literal.
This extra passenger density would make it cheaper per person, right? More fuel efficient, too.
Looking over my original post, perhaps my phrasing wasn't clear. Yes, this is one way to decrease costs, but it comes at the expense of comfort. Airline companies are no stranger to this process, and have been rolling out new methods of packing as many passengers onto a plane as physically possible since the very first commercial airplanes took flight.
Awkward and regressive ideas like this, where the airlines are contemplating stacking people in uncomfortable looking double-decker seating to save precious inches of space are only coming out now because no significant strides have been made in making air travel less expensive to operate as a whole. It is always going to be easier to shave off a few inches of legroom and pack in another row of seating in the next generation of jet airliner than it is to invent a new type of jet fuel that is cheaper and burns cleaner without sacrificing performance, or developing a new more efficient fuselage that can fly just as far as a conventional plane while carrying less fuel, etc.
It would be nice to see air travel improve for a change, rather than continue to get worse and worse over time out of necessity.