583
Delta Will Use AI To Cut Costs And Set A Different Ticket Price For Every Passenger—CEO Says Profits Could Rise 50% (viewfromthewing.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
190 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (15 children)

Few of these places need to be flown to. They should have trains if they're worried about efficiency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I'm not sure I've ever read a more subtle or concise way to say "fuck you" to all of smaller city America simultaneously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    my air and weather shouldn't have to suffer so you can keep your "small town lifestyle", fuck your luxury bullshit founded on the externality of my life. I'm sorry but I'm sick of subsidizing these obscenely decadent parasites who would probably kill me and mount my blue stained scalp on their wall.

    I don't mind green energy powered trains. That's cheap, it doesn't intrude on my life any, and gets you where you're going fast clean safe. I'm just against flying them out on a jet.

    If they can't manage the 200 year old technology 9f a rail link, perhaps they shouldn't, barring extreme geography, be considered part of my society worthy of my care?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

    my air and weather shouldn’t have to suffer so you can keep your “small town lifestyle”, fuck your luxury bullshit founded on the externality of my life.

    I have no idea what image you have of these smaller airports supporting smaller cities and their surrounding rural populous, but I assure you most are far away from "luxury". Lets take one small city in the middle of Kansas called Salina. Its a city of 47,000 people. The median income is $61,783 and the per capita income of Salina is $34,886 and has a 13% poverty rate. The next closest airport to Salina is 80 miles away. They're not living there just to keep their "small town lifestyle". Its where they grow the food we both eat.

    It has a total of 4 small plane flights a day into its airport:

    source

    Salina is also a major agricultural hub supporting 650 farms for total of over 360,000 acres growing grains and livestock.

    I don’t mind green energy powered trains. That’s cheap, it doesn’t intrude on my life any, and gets you where you’re going fast clean safe. I’m just against flying them out on a jet.

    Fast rail service versus flying? Have you ever been on a long haul Amtrak passenger rail train? Amtrak is not fast. Salina doesn't have an Amtrak station. The closest one is 90 miles away in Newton Kansas. An Amtrak train trip form Newton Kansas to Chicago takes 12 to 14 hours and the service can experience delays making it even longer. A flight (1 of only 4 flights they have) from Selina to Chicago takes 2 hours and 5 minutes.

    I’m sorry but I’m sick of subsidizing these obscenely decadent parasites who would probably kill me and mount my blue stained scalp on their wall.

    I bet the people of Salina would laugh their asses off at you considering them decadent parasites. You're happy to eat the food they produce, but you'd put their their 4 flights a day into their city at risk so you personally could save $50 on a ticket to Chicago by skiplagging?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    I have been on Amtrak trains. They're fine. The drinks are bottom shelf and overpriced, the cocktails are a little basic, the seats don't all recline, but they're fine.

    Another advantage: you can move agricultural products on train! Livestock, even! Sounds like a pretty good case for having trains, and Amtrak uses the same rail standards as freight, not that Amtrak is the only option for having a train.

    Why do they have an airport but no train station? Train stations can be pretty minimal. They're not hard to build. Maybe they should get on that. Especially if they're so poor. Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.

    I'm vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW. I probably don't eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I have been on Amtrak trains. They’re fine.

    I've been on Amtrak too and have firsthand experience with them also. The goalpost wasn't if they were "fine" or not. I was quite happy to use it, but was not in a hurry to get to my destination. Your ascertain was they are fast. For longhaul travel (which is what the flight replaces), Amtrak is not fast.

    Why do they have an airport but no train station? Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.

    Because of lots of the infrastructure, rail capacity, rolling stock availability that makes a passenger rail line isn't viable to be self sustaining for that small a population without subsidies, and you're already given them the finger on anything that costs you something.

    I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.

    This is a strange level of hate for people you've never met just trying to live their lives. Brother, you need some socialism in your life and empathy for your fellow man. We're in this together.

    I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW.

    Ahh, okay. Thank you for this critical information. I have a MUCH better understanding of your positions now. Thank your for conversing up to now. Have a great day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    without subsidies

    They already get those. Money is whatever, climate is a bigger deal.

    And it seems like they already need to move a lot of freight. You're really attached to that airport. Have you tried telling it about your feelings? Might be willing to fuckyou. You never know til you ask.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    So the thing about trains is they need tracks. Building tracks involves a lot of carbon output. You need to make steel, you need concrete, you need lumber, you need gravel. You need to ship all of these things to wherever you want to build the tracks. You need to buy the land that you’re going to build the tracks on. If you want high speed rail, the tracks have to be very straight and have very specific routes. If you want to electrify the train, you need even more metal for wires.

    All that infrastructure, versus just an airport. It would take a lot of math to convince me one is better than the other, here. Once we have electric planes (the tech is mature, you can ride zero emissions planes in Canada right now, we’re just waiting on FAA approval in the USA), I think the balance will be clearly in their favor.

    I love trains, but I think there’s room for both trains and planes in an environmentalist future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I completely agree that "major cities" should have trains, but look at Alaska and tell me how many places would be remotely hospitable to trains or their tracks?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Switzerland and Japan too. Some places trains just can't work. You got a point I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    both of those places have way too many people so overcoming the geographic challenge makes sense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Alaska has a really interesting rail system that was built during the gold rush specifically to get people into remote parts of the state that were otherwise almost completely inaccessible at the time.

    There's tons of remote villages that don't have trains still mind you, but my point is that if there's a will there's a way. Right now airlines and fuel are subsidized and encouraged by the govt to keep costs down, which relieves development demand for rail. Flip the incentives and rail could theoretically take off in the USA; but that requires politicians with stones and a will to do good instead of... Whatever they are right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Ironically, parts of Alaska have pretty decent passenger train access. It’s mostly for tourists, but still. Better than most of the USA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •