You realize localized weather is not always predictable far enough in advance to do much? Moreover, airlines don't require passengers specify their weight when they purchase a ticket, so they can't really plan ahead for going over a specific weight that is itself tied to local weather conditions. Mind you, this could be avoided by building in more wiggle-room, but that is not going to be accepted as a solution because it results in waste much of the time if, for example, you have empty seats because you wanted to be sure that you wouldn't run in to the issue of going over weight.

[–] ibroughtashrubbery@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...right. But, of all airlines this could happen to, it did happen to the one known to cheap out in about every other metric. So, I'd say, shitty planning is also in the mix. Moreover, no more airlines flying that same day/time were affected, otherwise the headline would have been different.

[–] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The headline would only be different if someone had told the paper. Most people probably wouldn't bother and just claim the money or compensation.

[–] buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Poor capitalists trying to squeeze every cent of margin they can't possibly plan for things that's too hard

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get what you're saying, but it's not just monetary efficiency that I meant there. It's fuel/emissions efficiency that would suffer as well. And that should be of concern to everyone.

[–] buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If that's the concern use a fucking train

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!

No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.