And even if not everyone does, operating entire flights at business class+ fares is probably not viable. Especially given that lie-flat seating (e.g. Polaris) with at least decent food is pretty comfortable for the people who are willing to pay a premium.
JSX operates an entire airline as business-only. They use CRJ-900s, so not long-range, but there's no TSA (they are technically charter flights, you board at an FBO).
You could feasibly run major transatlantic routes once or twice a day like that.
JSX operates based on a loophole in the part 135 rules, but that only allows 30 seats. A CRJ doesn't have the range for (nonstop) transatlantic, bigger planes would be impractical, and smaller ones with the range won't hold 30 people.
BA has, as I understand it, gone back and forth on London to New York business only flights. But that's not designing a whole new aircraft for the purpose.
A CRJ-900 is a very, very common regional jet. They just changed the seats.
I'm not making a comment about the original topic, just the comment that operating an entire airline as business wasn't viable. Not on every route, no, but for the right route? Yeah, there are enough people who fly certain routes and will pay for a better seat that you could fill a plane with them.
If you have demand for 10,000 passengers to be transported on a route daily, and a plane carries 200 people, you would need 50 trips. If the round trip is 4 hours, you could do 6 trips per plane and you'd need 9 planes to service the route.
If the round trip time is 8 hours, you could only do 3 trips per day and you'd need 17 planes.
> There will be a physical titanium card, too, but there’s no credit card number, CVV, expiration date, or signature. All of that authorization information is stored directly in the Apple Wallet app.
Does this mean that the card doesn't contain sensitive information in the chip or mag stripe? Will only work if it's near your phone?
If so, this is quite different from status quo, and touches on what the Coin card failed to do.
It's likely just a regular card and the stripe will be clonable. Saying there's "no number" sounds like a gimmick that has nothing to do with real risks.
This article feels out of touch, as if it was written 7 years ago. I even looked for a published date to verify, but to my surprise, it was published this month! Instagram and snapchat have already dethroned Twiter for the de-facto social platforms of teens. Twitter continues to be a thriving community of activists (on either side of the spectrum) and media types.
Edit: I also recognize that my comment may also already be out of date, with a new platform having dethroned insta/snap.
There's a cost (both time and money) associated with spreading knowledge through USPS or similar physical mediums. The cost of spreading ideas is virtually free on social media so there isn't much of a barrier to prevent the ideas spreading like wildfire. Good or bad.
What about the costs of having the platform centrally regulating the content on the platform based on an arbitrary, context-free, highly politicized, and ever expanding definition of 'socially unacceptable' content?
We all knew that when FB and Twitter started to centrally control content well beyond the obviously really bad stuff (ie, gore, child porn), that mandate would forever expand and expand, where it's almost impossible for FB to not be criticized for not doing enough ...Absent a massive expansion of content controls, which means massively expensive, which mean incentivizing a) simply limiting the ability for people to communicate on the platform AND/OR b) automation. Which ultimately means countless false-positives and examples of bias by machines trained by the most vocal special interest groups deciding what is okay and not okay to say to another person.
The future is going to feature some interesting trolling to see who can game algorithms to get topics banned on social media through phony media outrage campaigns, false reporting, and social engineering.
It's more an argument of whether the flights are considered commercial or private. If the flights in question are judged to be private, they may not have skirted any safety regulations at all.
For example, on a private flight (and on some commercial ones) a co-pilot is not required. The student pilot in the right seat might as well be a passenger.
It seems like TapJats is attempting to use "private flights" to skirt commercial flight regulations (and the safety requirements that tag along). If this turns out to be true, they should be crucified.
Pilots without the required training will fly shotgun (and then low and behold, be required to assume control in a situation that requires it, exceeding their authority), pilots will scud run, or pilots will make other unsafe decisions due to a lack of training, and people will die.
EDIT: I'm mistaken if their website copy is accurate:
"Our partners require their captains to hold Airline Transport Certification and have thousands of flight hours before joining the flight team. First officers are required to have more initial hours than prescribed by regulation, and they are paired with experienced captains to ensure each of your aircraft is piloted by the best at all times. Pilots also undergo rigorous, airline-quality training conducted by Flight Safety International every six months, and Federal Aviation Administration-approved Check Airmen conduct line checks on each of our captains and first officers on a regular basis."
Agreed. Lazy is lacking the desire to achieve what one considers worth achieving. If tasks like cleaning and laundry are accomplishments worth less within one's mental value system than, say, the feeling of spending time enjoying an excellent TV show then choice is clear.
The key to turning around my perceived lazyness, personally, is about trying to control the value of what I spend my time on.
How is that? The way I see it, liberals consider both GMOs and global warming large problems that must be dealt with or fixed. Conservatives tend to not agree with the assessment that either is really a legitimate problem.
In many cases it has been largely settled and we even have decades of data proving it. The article even provides several examples - cherry picked or not [0] - that provide evidence to the irrational fear bits.
The Bt example is a great example. Being produced by the fruit or sprayed on after being produced by bacteria has the same results and the "sing a different tune" to try and pass laws against it is telling that there is a larger (money-driven) agenda behind making people fear Bt-enhanced items compared to Bt-sprayed items.
The claim, in many (but possibly not all!) scenarios is very similar to tobacco companies saying "the science behind tobacco smoke being harmful to humans is far from being settled and science hasn't fully answered some of the so-called issues". I'll call bollocks on the tobacco companies and claim that they might have some other ulterior motive behind making scientific claims that tobacco isn't harmful and their cigarettes do not cause lung cancer.
I don't trust companies that would profit from a GMO ban on the harmful effects of GMO when unbiased results are opposing the findings of the anti-GMO groups. I also don't trust misleading claims used for fear-mongering because people don't really understand something but pretend to. [1].
[0] I don't follow the GMO issues super-duper closely so concede that there might be cases, many perhaps, that aren't as "case-closed" as the examples in the article. But whether these examples are cherry-picked or not they do show several GMO issues that should be "case closed" but aren't.
Pretty simple - we care more about air travel being cheaper and safer than we care about it being faster.