• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, planes are good for that. But there’s a ton of domestic travel that could easily be replaced with a decent rail network.

      • sudo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Which, given the context that planes are necessary, you continue to ignore the OP:

        Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen.

        And then your justification for not privatizing is cronyism. So the government contracts for air travel = bad, but the ones for your project are… good??

        Your comment was really just a soap box to say air=bad, trains=good. I’m not going to argue trains are bad, but maybe make an honest argument for it.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          I didn’t claim that at all. I claimed that competition on travel is good. If people don’t feel safe flying, there should be another, viable option, like trains. If enough people take trains instead of airplanes, airplanes will need to improve to get those customers back.

          Trains have a lot of advantages vs airplanes, but I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that we should have viable alternatives.

    • Patch@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, it’s always going to be unfeasible to cross the Atlantic or Pacific by train.

      But the vast, vast majority of air journeys taken every day aren’t trans-oceanic ones. Most journeys are between destinations within the Americas or within Eurasia and Africa. There are an awful lot of journeys by plane that could be moved to trains if the infrastructure was right.