Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Just because someone wants to go somewhere doesn’t make it essential. These cancellations won’t prevent people from going there if they want to because there are other airlines that will still fly to those destinations.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be able to go these places if they would like to, but calling those types of trips essential is a bit much.
I didn’t say that flights being cancelled was a good thing or that people shouldn’t be upset about it if it affects them. Try to calm down a little.
|
I'll try to calm down; thanks for your advice.
Having people visit from places like Calgary is fairly essential for the tens of thousands of people who live in Honolulu and Cancun and depend on tourism for their livelihood.
I'm not sure how your life will improve if an airline has more money in their account than if a Calgarian resident who travels can keep it in their purse or wallet. It makes zero impact on my life.
They're still going to go there, whether or not you approve of their lifestyle. The only difference is a transfer of wealth to airlines who serve the route, or previously unnecessary connections due to the traveler's cost sensitivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
None of that points to why air travel is "essential."
Given the amount of pollution air travel produces and the amount of resources required to make happen, it should be expensive and should not be expected to be the most convenient form of travel, no? Just a way to get across large distances when absolutely necessary, or if you can afford to do it out of pure luxury?
COVID showed us the amount of business travel that occurs is completely unnecessary and could be reduced substantially, and I don't think there's anything wrong with making vacations where you have to fly more of a "treat."
I can fly to Vancouver cheaper than I can drive to Vancouver and in less than 1/4 the time. That seems pretty silly if you think about it, so it's no wonder airlines are struggling.
|
If it isn't essential, then the government wouldn't be
subsidizing passenger air service in smaller, more remote cities. I'd like to think similar programs exist in Canada. It's akin to using the same stamp to send a letter next door or to a remote exclave like the Northwest Angle of Minnesota.
Air travel produces vastly varying amounts of pollution based on the aircraft type and the load factor. The destinations mentioned by the OP are all medium or long haul destinations from Calgary, making them far preferable for air travel compared to ground travel for a single traveler with respect to pollution.
You can fly to Vancouver for less money because it's more efficient to share transportation with 200 other people who want to go to the same place at the same time.