644
U.S. proposes ban on airline fees for seating parents next to kids
(www.cbsnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
644 points (98.9% liked)
Uplifting News
11241 readers
340 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're confusing "an increase of 100%" with "an increase to 100%". An increase of 100% means something is twice as dangerous as it was before, not that it will certainly cause death.
The last flight I took covered a distance of approximately 2,500 miles. Estimates of aviation safety vary based on the time period considered but Wikipedia says:
If we use that estimate, a 100% increased risk corresponds to an additional chance of dying of 0.000005%. According to actuarial tables, a person my age has a chance to die on any particular day of roughly 0.001%. This means that doubling my chance of dying on that flight is about as dangerous as just living my normal life for 432 seconds.
(The data from the actuarial table is the weighted average over the large majority of time that a person is very safe and much shorter intervals of much greater danger, so 432 seconds is actually an underestimate. I think my point stands.)
No, I understood it. The thing is I would never want a corporation deciding what risk I should take so they are more profitable.
What you describe is a race to the bottom and even when it's currently more or less hypothetical, we have already seen, recently in this industry, how penny pinching can lead to people's deaths.
There is zero (ZERO) logic for airlines to charge customers to chose a seat except greed. You are so brain washed by the idea that it is the right of corporations to be as greedy as possible that you are now completely blind to it.
I also wouldn't want a corporation deciding what risk I should take. That's why I support safety ratings. They're probably not practical for airplanes, but they work well for automobiles. The government tests how safe cars are and then lets me make an informed choice between buying the safest car or prioritizing something else.
As for greed: price discrimination is the reason why airlines have all those charges for things that don't cost anything to provide. It actually benefits people who can't or won't pay much at the expense of people who can and will. (Of course it benefits the airlines too.) Here I trust greed more than I trust government regulation because deregulation made tickets a lot cheaper. Even the Atlantic (not exactly a conservative publication) is in favor of fees because they make flying more affordable.