The Future of Travel

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.
User avatar
SternAAlbifrons
Expatriate
Posts: 5752
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:31 am
Reputation: 3424
Location: Gilligan's Island
Pitcairn Island

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by SternAAlbifrons »

newkidontheblock wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:24 am
SternAAlbifrons wrote:Ryan, can i let you in on a little secret. The ekonomy is already badly damaged. It is broken. It does not work for us, it is there these days to enrichen a handfull.
The economy gave the world smart phones. I am so far down the totem pole yet I own an iPhone. And so do a lot of other members on CEO.
If one chooses to see the glass as always empty, then it will always be doom and gloom no matter what.
Nuke, i am not a doom and gloom kinda guy. sure i see the realities but i am always looking for the sunny side of the street.
I just don't see that in The Ekonomy, nor in smartphones.
But each to their own.
User avatar
phuketrichard
Expatriate
Posts: 16792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:17 pm
Reputation: 5734
Location: Atlantis
Aruba

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by phuketrichard »

BR549 wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 4:03 am Another thing..
You all are so concerned about old folks dying but have no qualms about the abortion clinics being deemed essential. More babies are being murdered than the wuhan chinese virus is killing the elderly.
Go figure.
I thank the powers that be that allow abortion clinics to remain open and allow women control over their own bodies!!!

Old people die, its un avoidable

"I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to"
In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. HST
User avatar
Kammekor
Expatriate
Posts: 6376
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:50 pm
Reputation: 2918
Cambodia

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by Kammekor »

BR549 wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 4:03 am Another thing..
You all are so concerned about old folks dying but have no qualms about the abortion clinics being deemed essential. More babies are being murdered than the wuhan chinese virus is killing the elderly.
Go figure.
I guess I should consider your ability to link each and every subject to abortion a skill?

But I don't. The future of travel has nothing to do with abortion, nor does the current economic crisis, nor does the novel corona virus.

Men created a place for people to preach. Called churches. Why don't you do and preach there?
monomial
Expatriate
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:48 pm
Reputation: 140
Thailand

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by monomial »

Ryan754326 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 1:30 pm Going back to my original post, what we are dealing with is a virus that is killing a very small percentage of people who are mostly old and sick already. The question I have been asking since early on, is why can’t we isolate those people and let the rest start getting back to normal? The most common answer I am getting from my older friends and relatives is that it wouldn’t be fair, and it’s better to just keep everyone home until the virus disappears. I don’t believe that this is feasible, and I think it’s likely that the economy will be badly damaged if we keep trying.
Question:

Why is it "not fair?" I mean, I agree it sucks. But not fair? How is that even relevant?

Anyone should be allowed to go out and take the risk of catching the disease or not catching the disease. There are good arguments for both positions, and a society destroying lockdown to artificially suppress the R value is quite clearly unsustainable. The minute you release it, the R value is going to rise again. The same number of people are going to get sick eventually anyway (assuming you don't develop a vaccine before herd immunity) so in actuality the more people you keep locked down, the more you suppress the R value, the longer everyone is forced to stay in isolation (because it takes longer to reach critical mass of infections) and so the aggregate pain is increased like a square law.

The only critical parameter is whether or not you overload the health services. That is what "flattening the curve" meant. If you have free beds, you are clamping down too hard and you need to relax the restrictions. Lower infections through lockdown is not a good thing. It is a suboptimal thing that only increases aggregate pain.

Is it fair that some people are born handicapped? Do we cut off everyone's legs at birth to make sure everyone experiences the same level of inconvenience? Is it fair that some are blind? Does that mean everyone should have their sight removed? Is it fair that old people are more vulnerable to Covid-19? Hell no, but fairness has nothing to do with it.

This is just an awful predicament. Those who need to self isolate should be given every assistance in doing so. Those who do not want to self isolate should be educated on how to make the best of their choice. Both strategies are necessary to get past this thing.

I'm sorry. I just don't get the "fair" argument. Life has never been fair. We can't make this fair. We can only optimize the result based on situation. And that means people who are seriously at risk should stay home, and those who aren't seriously at risk need to get out and get immune so that the breeding ground for this virus goes away. It is your choice which category you want to place yourself in.
User avatar
hanno
Expatriate
Posts: 6780
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 12:37 pm
Reputation: 3146
Location: Phnom Penh
Contact:
Germany

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by hanno »

rogerrabbit wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 5:14 am
hanno wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 6:11 pm
rogerrabbit wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 5:46 pm
hanno wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 11:33 am @x@xandreu I think the cost of social distancing in planes will be passed on to the punters, but let’s see.
Social distancing will not last for long. Once quick tests and vaccinations are available there is no need for social distancing. Meanwhile airlines are desperate to get even some money coming in, get people back to planes and travelling so tickets will be cheap in near future too.

I am not quite that optimistic. And for airlines it might be cheaper to leave the planes on the ground that operate them at 50% capacity.
It's surprisingly expensive to keep them grounded too. The planes needs pretty much the same maintenance for example even if not flying.
True, but I should think it is more expensive to fly them: crew, fuel, airport fees. Admittedly, I do not know much about it.
Ryan754326
Expatriate
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:09 am
Reputation: 179
Canada

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by Ryan754326 »

monomial wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 8:43 am
Question:

Why is it "not fair?" I mean, I agree it sucks. But not fair? How is that even relevant?

Anyone should be allowed to go out and take the risk of catching the disease or not catching the disease. There are good arguments for both positions, and a society destroying lockdown to artificially suppress the R value is quite clearly unsustainable. The minute you release it, the R value is going to rise again. The same number of people are going to get sick eventually anyway (assuming you don't develop a vaccine before herd immunity) so in actuality the more people you keep locked down, the more you suppress the R value, the longer everyone is forced to stay in isolation (because it takes longer to reach critical mass of infections) and so the aggregate pain is increased like a square law.

The only critical parameter is whether or not you overload the health services. That is what "flattening the curve" meant. If you have free beds, you are clamping down too hard and you need to relax the restrictions. Lower infections through lockdown is not a good thing. It is a suboptimal thing that only increases aggregate pain.

Is it fair that some people are born handicapped? Do we cut off everyone's legs at birth to make sure everyone experiences the same level of inconvenience? Is it fair that some are blind? Does that mean everyone should have their sight removed? Is it fair that old people are more vulnerable to Covid-19? Hell no, but fairness has nothing to do with it.

This is just an awful predicament. Those who need to self isolate should be given every assistance in doing so. Those who do not want to self isolate should be educated on how to make the best of their choice. Both strategies are necessary to get past this thing.

I'm sorry. I just don't get the "fair" argument. Life has never been fair. We can't make this fair. We can only optimize the result based on situation. And that means people who are seriously at risk should stay home, and those who aren't seriously at risk need to get out and get immune so that the breeding ground for this virus goes away. It is your choice which category you want to place yourself in.

I guess their line of thinking is that if they have to suffer then everyone should. “Do your part for the cause”, and all that.

A lot of people have also convinced themselves that we can completely eliminate the virus in a few weeks if we stop every single person from transmitting it to anyone else. “We just need to work together, follow the rules, stay inside, and this will be gone in no time!”
Ryan754326
Expatriate
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:09 am
Reputation: 179
Canada

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by Ryan754326 »

SternAAlbifrons wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 2:57 am
Ryan, can i let you in on a little secret. The ekonomy is already badly damaged. It is broken. It does not work for us, it is there these days to enrichen a handfull.
The top few have hijacked every single .01% of economic growth since the GFC. People used to be a able to work to get ahead. now they strive and stress to keep their heads above water. The boomers (my gen) have snookered the system. The ekonomy is bankrupt and living on our grankids credit card. The finite and very precious environment is not factored in except as a free resource and as a consequence the planet is dying.
To tell you the truth - i have rejected The Ekonomy as i have done with all other false Gods. It's a con.
In the meanwhile i listen to the best scientist going - and none i know have suggested locking up all the old folks so that the super-rich can buy a new yacht.
Just my slightly bent out of shape view on the value of our fab Ekomony over the lives and freedom of my old folks.
I’m going to have to disagree with your very pessimistic view.

The poorest people on earth are significantly less poor than they were even 30 years ago. Cambodia is an example that you should be able to see with your own eyes. The fact that those at the top have become disproportionately wealthy should not distract from the fact that many more now have access to better food, electricity, medicine, and even cell phones and motorbikes.

I also completely disagree that those in more developed countries have to strive to keep their heads above water. What I see around me is an attitude of entitlement. People feel that the guy sweeping the floor should have the same size house and all the same toys as the guy who runs the company.
I’m doing just fine in the current system, because I work long hours, live below my means, and invest my savings. Now people around me who have spent their money on new vehicles, home electronics, cigarettes, beer, drugs, or whatever else, see me as the bad guy because I own a rental house that they can’t afford to live in. I was a guy who flunked out of high school and wouldn’t have gone to university even if I could have afforded it, but I did have work ethic and common sense. I work a blue collar job that all of the baristas and bartenders with degrees think they could do, but choose not to. Every young person in my country had at least the same opportunities as I did. The older generation had even more.

The market economy is not so much a “system” as it is the natural order of things. Everyone expects something of at least equal value in exchange for their labor; a person will not even climb a tree to pick a coconut if they know that the village chief will snatch it from their hands and give it to someone else.
What do you suggest as an alternative to way we currently do things?
User avatar
Freightdog
Expatriate
Posts: 4351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
Reputation: 3446
Location: Attached to a suitcase between realities
Ireland

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by Freightdog »

Doc67 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 4:54 pm
I understood it is a mixture of fresh air and recycled air, 80/20% ratio which can be switched to 100% fresh air if desired?

Maybe @Freightdog can chime in on this with some technical info?
Technical specs, no. But...
It’s a mix of ‘fresh’ and recycled air. We don’t really control this as such. We just have control over the overall system function, temperature. Dealing with system failures.

We could intervene and control to some extent how fast the cabin is depressurised. Sadly, not really an approved option for dealing with the 1-2% of undesirables.

Older generation aircraft, (the majority) the air is actually taken from a part of the compressor stage of the engines, then cooled, mixed and filtered in the air con system. Newer generation aircraft like B787 have a different source of the compressed air, but largely it’s the same basic idea.

Obviously, the air is constantly replenished. 200 SLF in a metal tube, breathing about 8 litres of air* per sip of their G&T, would have the oxygen depleted quite quickly. In some cases, maybe this would not be a bad outcome, but somewhat unfair on the majority of pax.


*at partial pressure
User avatar
Duncan
Sir Duncan
Posts: 8149
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:22 pm
Reputation: 2357
Location: Wonder Why Central

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by Duncan »

Freightdog wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 4:53 pm
Doc67 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 4:54 pm
I understood it is a mixture of fresh air and recycled air, 80/20% ratio which can be switched to 100% fresh air if desired?

Maybe @Freightdog can chime in on this with some technical info?
Technical specs, no. But...
It’s a mix of ‘fresh’ and recycled air. We don’t really control this as such. We just have control over the overall system function, temperature. Dealing with system failures.

We could intervene and control to some extent how fast the cabin is depressurised. Sadly, not really an approved option for dealing with the 1-2% of undesirables.

Older generation aircraft, (the majority) the air is actually taken from a part of the compressor stage of the engines, then cooled, mixed and filtered in the air con system. Newer generation aircraft like B787 have a different source of the compressed air, but largely it’s the same basic idea.

Obviously, the air is constantly replenished. 200 SLF in a metal tube, breathing about 8 litres of air* per sip of their G&T, would have the oxygen depleted quite quickly. In some cases, maybe this would not be a bad outcome, but somewhat unfair on the majority of pax.


*at partial pressure


Any idea on how often the filters / filter system is cleaned on a passenger plane. Seems strange to me that the one common denominator in people returning from o/seas and ending up with the c/virus is the air conditioning and filter system in ships and planes .

No planes flying = no-one picking up the c/virus on the plane = lower infection rates. The stats prove that.
Governments keep reporting the cases that were imported from overseas , but were those cases from people getting the virus on the plane or were they sick before they got on the plane,,,,, dont think so.
Cambodia,,,, Don't fall in love with her.
Like the spoilt child she is, she will not be happy till she destroys herself from within and breaks your heart.
User avatar
Freightdog
Expatriate
Posts: 4351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
Reputation: 3446
Location: Attached to a suitcase between realities
Ireland

Re: The Future of Travel

Post by Freightdog »

Duncan wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 5:32 pm Any idea on how often the filters / filter system is cleaned on a passenger plane.
I couldn’t say, and likely wouldn’t get an easy answer if I asked.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bluenose, Chuck Borris, John Bingham, KunKhmerSR, Majestic-12 [Bot], Province, Semrush [Bot], Stravaiger, truffledog and 769 guests