this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
10 points (69.2% liked)

Solarpunk Travel

606 readers
1 users here now

Community for those focused on sustainable travel. Our society's current levels of energy intensive and frequent travel are not compatible with life on a finite planet. We advocate for long-term slow travel to see the world, and low energy local travel to deeply experience your community. Green washing free zone.

related to sustainable travel:

related to travel generally:

The communities listed above are decentralized. Centralized instances are omitted as they go against the fedi purpose and it’s better to cultivate digital rights in the free world. That means instances that have a disproportionately large population or are centralized on Cloudflare are not listed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
bonkerfield@slrpnk.net
activistPnk@slrpnk.net
10
wing suits for Boeing passengers (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/solarpunktravel@slrpnk.net
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just wanted to run this idea past folks.

If you generally boycott Boeing over their safety scandals or over their extreme right lobbying contributions that support that climate denying political party, but you find yourself taking a Boeing anyway (e.g. your employer books you on one), why not show up to board the plane wearing a wing suit?

The idea is to convey the idea that a panel can fall off at any moment, inconveniently suck you out, and you have a sudden unplanned need to fly on your own. A parachute is likely too bulky. It’s kind of a way to make a statement.

I’m not sure if the wing suit can be comfortable enough to sit in and actually simultaneously somewhat functional. Would we have to choose between sufficient comfort and sufficient gliding capability, or could we have both?

It doesn’t have to be ugly. Consider those Nepalese and African pants with knee-high crotches. Those are borderline wing suits for the bottom half. When legs are spread, it could reveal something like “Boeing passenger safety pants”.

I suppose the big question would be: would a Boeing pilot exercise their discretion and refuse to carry such a passenger?

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you generally boycott Boeing

how do you "generally boycott boeing"? are you buying lot of aircrafts on a daily basis? 😂

I’m not sure if the wing suit can be comfortable enough

oh my, you are not thinking of some silly photo op, you are actually thinking it might work? well it would not for a lot of reasons.

  • you might not even know that accident is in the progress.
  • you can't open the plane doors during flight, because of the higher pressure inside than outside and because of how the doors are constructed. so you leaving the plane on your own will is not possible
  • in case of some catastrophic mid-air "decomposition" of aircraft into multiplle pieces, which theoretically give you some exit points, you would be subject to such violent forces that you can't really move anywhere unless these forces move you against your will

so the upvotes for publishing your photo online could really be the only real profit for you - in which case this would be cheaper and you can take it off when you board the plane and sit comfortably

think about it for a minute - if this could technically work, planes would be routinely equipped with a parachute for every passenger. they are not and there is a reason for that.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

how do you “generally boycott boeing”? are you buying lot of aircrafts on a daily basis? 😂

Boeing is not simply an aircraft. It’s an infrastructure of aircraft, pilots, airlines, and flights.

I answered that question several years ago and it got censored on every Reddit venue it was posted to (so some of the figures would be different by now but the basic idea is the same):

(drafted in Jan.2017)

How progressive travellers can boycott Boeing and General Electric

Suppose you want to boycott Boeing. A Boeing aircraft is probably not on your shopping list, so you can't simply scratch Boeing off your shopping list as easily as you can with a company like Dell, for example. But there are some things you can do to reduce money that ultimately feeds Boeing.

Boeing has a duopoly with Airbus (detailed on wikipedia).

Most airlines own both Boeing and Airbus products, so it would be impractical to extend the boycott to all airlines that have Boeing’s in their inventory. But there is a bias. Some airlines have a strong majority of Boeings in their fleet compared to Airbus. Here is a sampling of some of the large carriers:

Airline Active Boeing assets (%) Notes
Aer Lingus 7.8% (4/51) source
Air Berlin 0.0% (0/84) source
Air Canada 36.9% (62/168) source
Air China 51.7% (200/387) source
Air France 31.6% (71/225) source
Alitalia 9.8% (10/102) source
American Airlines 48.7% (452/928) source
British Airways 47.0% (126/268) source
China Eastern Airlines 3.7% (16/428) source
Delta 57.0% (479/840) source
Finnair 0.0% (0/47) source
Iberia 0.0% (0/78) source
Japan Airlines 100.0% (163/163) source
KLM 88.8% (103/116) source
Korean Air 75.3% (119/158) source
Lufthansa 13.7% (37/271) source
Swiss Global Air Lines 33.3% (6/18) source
United Airlines 78.6% (578/735) source
Virgin Atlantic 56.8% (21/37) source

I recommend boycotting airlines with a Boeing inventory over ~40%. In addition to avoiding Boeing-dominant airlines, it's also a good idea to exclude flights on Boeing aircraft from your air travel search. Here's how:

  1. Go to itasoftware.com
  2. Fill out the search form as you normally would
  3. Click on "Advanced routing codes", and noticed that a new box appears to enter outbound and return routing codes.
  4. In all the advanced routing codes boxes, paste this:

/-aircraft t:703 t:707 t:70F t:70M t:717 t:721 t:722 t:727 t:72B t:72C t:72F t:72M t:72S t:72X t:72Y t:731 t:732 t:733 t:734 t:735 t:736 t:737 t:738 t:739 t:73C t:73F t:73G t:73H t:73J t:73M t:73W t:73X t:73Y t:741 t:742 t:743 t:744 t:747 t:74C t:74D t:74E t:74F t:74H t:74J t:74L t:74M t:74N t:74R t:74T t:74U t:74V t:74X t:74Y t:752 t:753 t:757 t:75F t:75M t:75T t:75W t:762 t:763 t:764 t:767 t:76F t:76W t:76X t:76Y t:772 t:773 t:777 t:77F t:77L t:77W t:788 t:789 t:B72

That will exclude all flights that make use of a Boeing aircraft from the search results. Why is that a good idea? A pilot is either a Boeing pilot or an Airbus pilot. Rarely is a pilot trained in both. Riding on a Boeing aircraft feeds Boeing pilots, who exclusively cator for Boeing products.

Commandline nerds who want to know how to derive that syntax may want to run this:

$ lynx -dump -nolist https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/table_accodes_iata_en.php | awk 'BEGIN{ORS=" ";} tolower($0) ~ /boeing/{print "t:"$1}'

Don't forget to prefix the /-aircraft .

Why boycott Boeing and General Electric?

See the rationale chart.

Boeing has made a deal with General Electric to ensure that some Boeing aircraft can only be fitted with GE engines. It turns out that General Electric (a former ALEC member) is itself very boycott-worthy anyway because it's involved with the same evils as Boeing. Also note that Airbus does not contribute to any of the below-illustrated problems. It will not be immediately obvious to everyone why drug testing is such a bad idea. I suggest ~~this article~~ for more detail.

Note the Reddit links are all bad. Reddit moderators and/or Reddit bots censored the above info in like 3 different places (including an “unpopular opinions” subreddit and most ironically the “Boycott_Boeing” subreddit also censored it). All the air fleet links are now Cloudflared.. the article needs to be updated and reworked to have links reachable from the open free world.

you can’t open the plane doors during flight

On Boeing flights you don’t have to open the door -- the panels simply fall off. IIUC, the only reason no one was sucked out was because everyone close to the panel wore their seatbelt.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

jesus, you used lot of words to admit that you actually can't 😂

look at your list - what remains if you exclude anything with >40% of boeings? not much. and even after that, it is still a lottery.

not even selecting specific flight based on an aircraft type is going to help you, because airlines swap aircrafts routinely, same as bus operator would swap buses. bus has a problem, just take another one.

if something changes in the industry in will be battle behind the scenes and it will happen by airlines gradually buying more from one manufacturer at the expense of the other, not as a result of enlightened traveller's action.

On Boeing flights you don’t have to open the door – the panels simply fall off

oh so you are preparing for one specific past war and you assume every future war will look exactly like that?

well in that specific case you are probably hurt from leaving the aircraft, your suit may be already damaged, and you are disoriented and subjected to temperatures of -50 degrees celsius. chances are you are already unconscious and won't regain consciousness before hitting the ground. good luck with your circus trick.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

look at your list - what remains if you exclude anything with >40% of boeings? not much. and even after that, it is still a lottery.

You can’t see that 10 out of 19 on that list are <40% Boeing? If you fail that step, then boycotting Boeing is indeed hopeless for you. You should also be able to use your head and derive a cutoff that’s tuned for your local options. The 40% was a good threshold for that sample 7 years ago.

That list is a very small sample of airlines worldwide. And why are you trying to draw conclusions from figures that I said were 7 years old in 1st place? The guide is not going to do your homework for you. It shows you /how/ to derive the info and how to use it. It’s not written to give precise answers when some people live in regions where many of those airlines don’t even operate.

not even selecting specific flight based on an aircraft type is going to help you, because airlines swap aircrafts routinely, same as bus operator would swap buses. bus has a problem, just take another one.

No, it is not the same as swapping buses. Bus drivers are versatile. They can drive a Saab bus just as well as a Mitsubishi. You can’t just take an arbitrary Airbus pilot and put them in a Boeing. Very few pilots are trained in both. So if you’re going to swap brands, you have to send off two pilots and bring in two others. And if your Boeing fleet is small (as my advice suggests), then you also have fewer Boeing pilots to be able to spontaneously call to duty. If you lose on the odds that a/c are not swapped, and you also lose on the odds that brands are not swapped, passengers have demanded not to fly on Boeing then they discover they boarded one, and airlines /have/ been accommodating anyway.

What a silly attempt to claim a Boeing boycott is impossible.

if something changes in the industry in will be battle behind the scenes and it will happen by airlines gradually buying more from one manufacturer at the expense of the other, not as a result of enlightened traveller’s action.

The ol' “boycotts don’t work” claim.. that never gets old, but there is always fresh evidence proving the contrary. Such as McDonald’s HQ recently buying up all the McD’s in Israel after the private owner offered free meals to Israeli solders which triggered an international boycott against the McDonald’s brand. Brand protection was important enough for McD’s to buy over 300 stores just to change the policy.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can’t see that 10 out of 19 on that list are <40% Boeing?

now go and count how many aircrafts from that list does that represent? when your jaw drop to the floor, don't forget to pick it up.

mixed fleets are just norm in the industry. for a lot of reasons. period.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-well-known-airlines-by-fleets/

And why are you trying to draw conclusions from figures that I said were 7 years old in 1st place?

why am i dissing the list YOU BROUGHT UP TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT? because you brought it to support your argument.

You can’t just take an arbitrary Airbus pilot and put them in a Boeing. Very few pilots are trained in both. So if you’re going to swap brands

guess what. there are no "airbus pilots". pilots have type rating for specific aircraft, not for an "airbus". for example a320 pilot can't fly a330 (not unless he has both type ratings, which he usually doesn't have).

and here comes the shock. guess what airlines who have lot of aircrafts also have? that's right, they also have enough pilots for these aircrafts. and when they need to switch the aircraft, they also switch it with the appropriate crew. how cool is that? 😂

Such as McDonald’s HQ recently buying up all the McD’s in Israel

and that is definitely valid argument, because mcdonald and airlines have indeed the exact same business model. oh wait, they do not.

mcdonald's are franchises and the hq owns the corporate brand and property and just kicks out the renter whenever he decides.

airliner has service life of 30+ years, so you don't just swap them as buying new phone.

man, you obviously doesn't have as deep knowledge of the problem as you think. why don't you just accept this wasn't your day and move on, instead of stirring up sh.t that wasn't even core of the original problem (it was about your brilliant wing suit idea - remember?)?

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

when was the last time a pilot even noticed they were carrying passengers?

maybe you're thinking they're like bus drivers and check your ticket as you get on the plane?

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Are you perhaps thinking that the crew does not talk to the pilots and inform them about any kind of disruptions or controversy?

(edit) In fact the more I think about this, the less viable it is. If I were a pilot, I would absolutely see a passenger who is equipped to jump as a safety threat -- someone who might very well open the emergency exit latch and jump. If I were a crew member, I would be a fool not to report someone in a wing suit to the pilot.

I think the only way this could work is if the wing suit is clearly irrefutably dysfunctional. And even then there is still probably a risk that passengers feel uncomfortable.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

sure, that's all fine, but a pilot wouldn't see anyone. Even if he was told, he wouldn't have to see them. He'd just say "security, deal with it".

everyone else would, which is fine, and the process would work fine.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago

sure, that’s all fine, but a pilot wouldn’t see anyone.

Is English your first language? The phrase “I would absolutely see a passenger who is equipped to jump as a safety threat” does not imply a visual line of sight. In this context “see” means to have a viewpoint. Pilots regularly make decisions on whether to carry a problematic passenger without actually seeing them.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I were a pilot, I would absolutely see a passenger who is equipped to jump

you would not see him at all, because he would not get through the airport security

someone who might very well open the emergency exit latch and jump.

no, he might not, it is not possible to open door due to their construction (pressure difference), not unless you are really close to the ground, in which case it would not matter anyway. also your main concern, if it were possible, would be being ingested by the plane's engine.

I think the only way this could work is if the wing suit is clearly irrefutably dysfunctional.

it could not. do you really think the airport security would argue with you whether it is functional or not? you would be escorted out either by the police, or the ambulance headed to loony bin.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m trying to get my head around how you reconcile in your own head the contradiction. If someone wearing a genuine wing suit or a fake wing suit cannot be a threat, how can you simultaneously claim they are too much of a threat to get through airport security?

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

stop making contradictory statements for others in your head and you won't have to try to wrap it around those made up contradictions. it can make life lot easier.

If someone wearing a genuine wing suit or a fake wing suit cannot be a threat

yeah, never said that. i explained why your plan to use suit as emergency device is laughable nonsense worth animated sketch in kid's show at most and i mentioned marginal scenario where it might actually be a threat to airplane, but doesn't really make sense to attempt to execute it in such case.

simultaneously claim they are too much of a threat to get through airport security?

you may not be a threat and still not get through security. their job is not to argue with you whether your suit is functional, or to have qualification to asses that and make assumptions about what does its (non)functionality mean.

they will just err on the side of caution, kick you out and make you somebody else's problem.