• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’d gladly trade leg room for a somewhat increased risk of death.

    That would be “made better” to me.

    Better is a useless metric.

    • MoreThanCorrect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I understand your sentiment. On the other hand, I would rather my son have an hour of slight discomfort but arrive safely than be a fatality statistic.

      There is a feasible middle ground that is not realistically going to happen however. Slightly increasing personal space and comfort in the newer, safer planes without squeezing every possible seat in in the name of profit.

      “Better” does need to defined to not be ambiguous. To me a good definition to use in this thread would be “the net changes over time are objectively an improvement for the use”. I think that my middle ground would firmly be “better” but in the current state it is only strictly better for those owning the planes.

    • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      They sold flight insurance, life insurance policies you bought at kiosks in the airport, into the 70s. No thanks.

    • GissaMittJobb
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You can have all the leg room in the world by paying the equivalent price to what it used to cost back in the days, and opt to fly business class. It’s even going to be more comfortable than back then, in fact.

      Seriously, this bears repeating - there was no economy class as it existed today before. If you weren’t rich enough to fly what today is business, you stayed on the ground.