this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
1470 points (97.1% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5755 readers
833 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If it's only a 2-hour flight, there's probably a better way to get there.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As somebody who flights today a 2h flight....

checks map again

13h hours car drive (without stops so probably more)

checks public transport

11h 30 in train with at least 4 or more trains changes....

Nope.... Still faster by plane, well unless they cancel it or similar ..

[–] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Flight is airport to airport. You neither live or reside at either airport. Measure door to door for a more accurate comparison, I don't fly from my driveway to my destinations back garden when I get a plane. I have to gget to the airport on a train, check in, go through security, wait for delays, wait at baggage collection and get a cab on the other side.

It's not going to change the outcome but if you're going to use numbers to measure a difference, try to consider all the facts.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah sure.

In my case even adding the time on airport reaching it etc and even with my shitty connections as I live in a small town still much less. Of course that changes if there is a cancellation or similar.

And those numbers I provided was the car/train from big city to big city near airport of departure and arrival. Not the towns I end up going to, because they are much less.communciqted and adds more time.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's much cheaper for an average person to fly from Slovakia to London than to go through, like 3 countries by train/car and in the tunnel/on a ferry.

[–] rosymind@leminal.space 5 points 1 year ago

Not in the U.S, generally

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oslo-Trondheim is either 7 hour drive or a 45 min flight. Not everyone are blessed with flat countries and fast trains.

[–] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Terrible comparison. Door to door with up to four people and baggage it's a 7h drive, that 45min flght is not door to door..

My nearest airport is 30 mins to the train station, 15mins walk to the lobby 60mins in check-in, 60mins contingency waiting at the gate, then 45mins flight which is probably delayed 15 mins. Then another 15 mins waiting to get off the plane, then 20mins waiting for baggage and another 60mins to get to your destination.

Yes it's probably still faster, but don't try to compare a flight to a drive in the way you just did lol

Also thanks for fucking our environment to save yourself 2-3h

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's 45min flight + 40 min bus to the airport + ~30 min wait for on boarding (not a lot of security theater/long queues). Let's add another 40 min for takeoff and getting my luggage. 40 min bus from the airport to Oslo for a total of 3 hours and 15 min.

It's literally more time on the bus than on the plane, especially for those of us who don't live in Oslo and need to take the bus for even longer.

If I were to be realistic with the drive, I would add another hour to the drive as you'll likely want to stop to eat during the drive. That's half the time of what it takes to drive.

I'll drive during the summer since I can stop halfway through and take a short hike in the mountains before continuing, but during the winter you run the risk of the roads getting shut down if the weather is bad over the mountains.

Also thanks for fucking our environment to save yourself 2-3h

You're welcome, I'm sure those 2 flights per year by someone who doesn't even own a car and probably never will is ruining the environment lmao.

[–] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah my point wasn't that it's faster to drive, my point was your original comparison was unfair.

What you've described is far more accurate representation of the choices and their durations.

You ended up multiplying your "time it takes on the plane" by over four times. It went from "45m" to "3h15m" which was the main point I wanted to get at.

Secondly, it is an undeniable fact that flying has a larger effect on the environment per person than driving even a shitty old car. Don't try to cop out, the least you can do is own it and say "so what". Remember this next time you fly (2 per year alone is a lot btw).

I'm not going to try to argue what choices you should make, just be educated in the effect of those choices.

Lmao

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel like the added time to and from the airport is something everyone are aware of, it's pretty much the same regardless of flight time. The flight is still a 45 min flight. I don't work for "big air flight", so I don't have anything to gain on convincing someone that flying is more time effective for certain trips.

2 per year alone is a lot btw

In what world is 2 flights per year a lot? It's a single round-trip.

My buddy who works as a robotics mechanic flies every month for his work, my old man working off-shore flies 4 times every month. Your typical family/couple will take a trip or two on vacation every year. I feel like the odd one out since I got a cabin where I spend my vacation instead of seeing the world.

Don't try to cop out, the least you can do is own it and say "so what".

I'm not trying to "cop out", why would I make excuses for strangers on the internet? I don't feel any guilt for what's a literal drop in the ocean. There are other glaring issues that I'm more concerned about than flight traffic. If you hold a different opinion that's fine and I'm happy to hear it.

I'm purely sharing my opinion on a site dedicated for that. It's a good way to get perspective and opinions from people across cultures and at different stages of life.

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There is indeed in most of the world, in the form of intercity and high speed rail. There used to be the former in a way bigger proportion of North America than there is now.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I find out my mother is dying and I want to make it there before she dies, I'd rather take a two-hour flight than a seven-hour drive.

So no, not always.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, just take the flight in the rare case that it's an emergency, and otherwise check if there's a better option

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

We cannot have airlines that exist purely for emergencies unless they are so cost-prohibitive that they are only usable by the rich. In order to have airplanes criss-crossing the world for that purpose, they have to work on a regular basis.

That is not a tenable way to do things.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or at least, there really should be