Thousands of Planes Are Flying Empty and No One Can Stop Them(wired.com)
wired.com
Thousands of Planes Are Flying Empty and No One Can Stop Them
https://www.wired.com/story/airplanes-empty-slots-covid/
4 comments
Airports can stop these flights but it's not in their financial interests to do so. Seems like Airports could just fine the airlines for unused slots. If the fine is less than cost of the flights everyone would win.
Or just recognize that a global pandemic is worthwhile changing the rules temporarily. We changed a thousand other rules and social norms...
I don’t get it. Why should the airline care if you actually fly the plane or not?
Every 6 months auction off all the slots. Then use the slot however you want. If you want to retain the slot, you have to pay higher than the other bidders.
Every 6 months auction off all the slots. Then use the slot however you want. If you want to retain the slot, you have to pay higher than the other bidders.
You can’t reroute and change routes every six months based upon a stupid auction.
It puts pressure on prices. They need to make minimum amount of flights, if not enough passengers options are to lower prices, take loss or cancel flights... due to the rule, they cant just cancel flights.
The number of slots is limited. Am airline not using a spot could be replaced by one that will. This is good because it allows more travelers to travel.
I've caught a few of these flights last year going Singapore to Europe. Never more than ten passengers on a 787, I guess because of regulations they still need full flight crew, so often there's more staff than pax.
It's such a pleasurable experience all round, shame they couldn't remove a bunch of seats in one area for some walking/stretching space.
It's such a pleasurable experience all round, shame they couldn't remove a bunch of seats in one area for some walking/stretching space.
Air travel won't be back to normal (if that's even the intention) until vaccination, mask, and testing requirements are abandoned.
Sitting on an 11-hour plane ride with a German woman shouting at you every 30 minutes that your mask is too low (my experience flying from the US to Berlin last week) is a very unpleasant experience.
Sitting on an 11-hour plane ride with a German woman shouting at you every 30 minutes that your mask is too low (my experience flying from the US to Berlin last week) is a very unpleasant experience.
That won't fix it. The world is kind of split between those who see covid as dangerous and those who don't. Ditch all these requirements and the former group stops travelling.
There's also habit destruction. The longer travel is subjected to these types of restrictions, the more people who were in the habit of travel, especially by aircraft, will decide to do something else, especially for leisure. Business travelers also will be impacted long term as companies have discovered that Zoom meetings can replace many (though not all) in person meetings. Trade shows were already in danger of dying but had inertia from the good times behind them. Probably half of pre-covid trade shows will never come back. Lots of long term demand destruction is being generated.
It could fix it. Some airlines may opt to serve fearful passengers by maintaining safety restrictions, while others would rather serve the risk takers and let passengers do as before the pandemic. or the same airliner having many flights per day for the same route could reasonably offer both options.
That's pretty much what happened before restaurants were forced to ban smoking altogether. There was non smoking areas and smoking areas, and some restaurants entirely non smoking, and some allowing smoking anywhere. I don't want those days back but it worked. it's not the most cost efficient but better than have half customers abandon the service altogether.
To open the possibility to see it work, restrictions as a blanket regulation first need to drop to let service providers and their customers base figure things out.
It's not ideal, but the current situation is even less ideal in term of business and also universal access to flight travel.
Why should the flight regulation be dropped? to me on the simple basis that it's perfectly legal for me to rent a van, take 11 other people with me and do a 17h road trip without anybody masked, without anyone vaccinated, nor tested. and I could charge for that trip. it isn't a perfect parallel but I doubt the spread risk is higher on a 4h flight than on a 17h van trip, probably the contrary.
Some could advocate to address the logical flaw and regulate van trips as well, the same advocates would then complain 6 months later that they see too many nearly empty vans on the road.
Opinions are debatable, and I don't engage in that debate there. Logic should be universal, I beg everyone to give some respect to logic whatever path we take.
That's pretty much what happened before restaurants were forced to ban smoking altogether. There was non smoking areas and smoking areas, and some restaurants entirely non smoking, and some allowing smoking anywhere. I don't want those days back but it worked. it's not the most cost efficient but better than have half customers abandon the service altogether.
To open the possibility to see it work, restrictions as a blanket regulation first need to drop to let service providers and their customers base figure things out.
It's not ideal, but the current situation is even less ideal in term of business and also universal access to flight travel.
Why should the flight regulation be dropped? to me on the simple basis that it's perfectly legal for me to rent a van, take 11 other people with me and do a 17h road trip without anybody masked, without anyone vaccinated, nor tested. and I could charge for that trip. it isn't a perfect parallel but I doubt the spread risk is higher on a 4h flight than on a 17h van trip, probably the contrary.
Some could advocate to address the logical flaw and regulate van trips as well, the same advocates would then complain 6 months later that they see too many nearly empty vans on the road.
Opinions are debatable, and I don't engage in that debate there. Logic should be universal, I beg everyone to give some respect to logic whatever path we take.
I agree, but it a few months it won't matter. As omicron recedes (and barring the emergence of another scary variant) the segment of the population that remains frightened enough to stay off of places and out of restaurants will rapidly shrink into economic insignificance.
Until yet another variant is announced.
You could also take 17 people on the van without taking their luggage through an X-ray machine and they could take liquids on board. Doesn't seem to be a good parallel.
The comparaison with liquid ban and scanners isn't good rather, since they could argue that flight hijacking poses a far greater risk than a van hijacking.
But as we are on it... I'm not in favor of x-ray nor liquid ban, it is to note forcing an x-ray scan is illegal in many juridictions, travelers should be given the choice of going through traditional search if they wish to. So here as well the comparison makes no sense since x-ray isn't mandatory to travel. And it is a questionable measure due to potential health consequences for frequent travellers put through it.
No liquid is another absurdity that came up at the height of anti terrorism efforts, one guy managed to concoct an explosive with a small quantity of liquids and all liquid containers above a certain threshold got banned. At that rate bans could apply to all sort of common things to want to carry with us. Such as clothing since some clothes can be made highly inflammable. All it would take is one creative criminal to somewhat succeed with that and we will have to swap our clothes with airport issued garnements. It's a stretch, but since we have no choice, i bet most of us would tolerate the absurdity once in a while so that we can get to travel.
I think x-rays make economical sense for airports so it got adopted. Ban on liquids didn't get much push back because it made security checks simpler for airports and leads to far more water bottles sales past the checkpoints. Airports are first a business.
But as we are on it... I'm not in favor of x-ray nor liquid ban, it is to note forcing an x-ray scan is illegal in many juridictions, travelers should be given the choice of going through traditional search if they wish to. So here as well the comparison makes no sense since x-ray isn't mandatory to travel. And it is a questionable measure due to potential health consequences for frequent travellers put through it.
No liquid is another absurdity that came up at the height of anti terrorism efforts, one guy managed to concoct an explosive with a small quantity of liquids and all liquid containers above a certain threshold got banned. At that rate bans could apply to all sort of common things to want to carry with us. Such as clothing since some clothes can be made highly inflammable. All it would take is one creative criminal to somewhat succeed with that and we will have to swap our clothes with airport issued garnements. It's a stretch, but since we have no choice, i bet most of us would tolerate the absurdity once in a while so that we can get to travel.
I think x-rays make economical sense for airports so it got adopted. Ban on liquids didn't get much push back because it made security checks simpler for airports and leads to far more water bottles sales past the checkpoints. Airports are first a business.
You should be wearing your mask over your mouth and nose though. There could definitely be someone there who because of a medical condition cannot be immunized. Like my own kid. Everyone wants to throw away their masks but what's going to happen for people they can't get immunized?
People aren’t going to wear masks forever and COVID is never going away.
So what’s going to happen to people who can’t get immunized? They’re just going to have to choose between biting the bullet and taking on the risk, or safely stay inside forever.
Probably not what you want to hear but there simply is no way around it. Perhaps someone can invent a mask that filters air coming in so they can protect themselves but as of yet, it doesn’t exist.
So what’s going to happen to people who can’t get immunized? They’re just going to have to choose between biting the bullet and taking on the risk, or safely stay inside forever.
Probably not what you want to hear but there simply is no way around it. Perhaps someone can invent a mask that filters air coming in so they can protect themselves but as of yet, it doesn’t exist.
I have seen no evidence that covid can be spread via nasal respiration. Covid spreads through droplets and aerosols. Normal nasal respiration produces no droplets or aerosols, and even a very hard nasal expiration can produce only a few hundred droplets at most, and usually far less. Contrast this to a single sneeze or hard cough which can produce millions of droplets and a cloud of infectious aerosol. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/]
I believe evidence supports the role of masks as spit shields. But the whole charade of masking on planes and in restaurants is completely useless, since everybody removes their mask completely for every meal, snack, and drink.
I believe evidence supports the role of masks as spit shields. But the whole charade of masking on planes and in restaurants is completely useless, since everybody removes their mask completely for every meal, snack, and drink.
They should isolate or use sufficient protective equipment. Rest of the world can't be forced to suffer for the few.
> with a German woman shouting at you every 30 minutes that your mask is too low
She did this for no reason at all, presumably... /s
She did this for no reason at all, presumably... /s
And then everyone on the plane removes their mask completely while they eat, multiple times on an international flight. So yes, it was literally for no reason at all.
Consider this: it is not possible to make rules that appear sensible in every possible situation, yet if you don't have any rules, you also get no effect.
No, what we have here is exactly that: a rule with no effect. If everyone on a crowded plane removes their masks for extended periods of time, multiple times during a flight, then what exactly is the "effect" of wearing them at other times? Do you imagine covid becomes less transmissible once dinner is served?
Same with restaurants, where we are told we have to wear masks in order to walk to our tables, but we can remove them once seated, and proceed to eat, drink, talk, laugh, and make merry unmasked, because apparently the mere act of sitting deactivates covid.
These are not effective rules in any sense. They are purely cargo cult.
Same with restaurants, where we are told we have to wear masks in order to walk to our tables, but we can remove them once seated, and proceed to eat, drink, talk, laugh, and make merry unmasked, because apparently the mere act of sitting deactivates covid.
These are not effective rules in any sense. They are purely cargo cult.
so what stopped you from complying?, the fact that the rule was stupid was sufficient motivation for you to disregard it and annoy a flight attendant enough that you get screamed at and have your trip made unpleasant? (and possibly annoy and make other people uncomfortable as well?)
What would have been your reaction had a passenger politely asked you to put it on properly as everyone else? (asking since I would do that and not sure what to expect anymore)
What would have been your reaction had a passenger politely asked you to put it on properly as everyone else? (asking since I would do that and not sure what to expect anymore)
Why would you scold someone for wearing a mask improperly when you know everyone's about to remove their masks completely as soon as the snacks come out? What's the point of that?
You could have the decency to answer questions first and not reply with a question.
I would do that as not wearing a mask properly is poor manners, does not respect other people's boundaries and I think it should be corrected.
Now, do you mind answering what your reaction to that would be?, also how come it's such a big enough issue to ruin your trip?
I would do that as not wearing a mask properly is poor manners, does not respect other people's boundaries and I think it should be corrected.
Now, do you mind answering what your reaction to that would be?, also how come it's such a big enough issue to ruin your trip?
Hard disagree. Wearing a mask is not "good manners", it is a sign of weak minded subservience.
> it is a sign of weak minded subservience.
So is wearing seatbelts, following a queue properly, paying taxes, and any other number of things we do while out in society...
It's funny how my parents generation had the same arguments against seatbelts and some refuse to wear them even today and get ticketed... or suddently put them on when seeing a police car...
They're not dead yet so in their mind they are right, and seatbelts are useless.
Are you going to argue against those as well?
So is wearing seatbelts, following a queue properly, paying taxes, and any other number of things we do while out in society...
It's funny how my parents generation had the same arguments against seatbelts and some refuse to wear them even today and get ticketed... or suddently put them on when seeing a police car...
They're not dead yet so in their mind they are right, and seatbelts are useless.
Are you going to argue against those as well?
I'm not the OP, and I haven't flown on a plane since before COVID. But if I do, I'll wear a mask properly if asked simply because I am terrified of getting in trouble with airlines.
Restaurants are different. I've dined in restaurants dozens of times in last two years. I have never worn a mask, and now I don't even carry one with me. On one single occasion I was told by a host at the front to put a mask on. I ignored him and walked to the table, where the act of sitting apparently deactivated the virus and it became acceptable for us all to dine unmasked with dozens of other diners talking, laughing, and in some cases coughing, sneezing, and singing very unsafe birthday songs.
When we rise from our seats after our meals the virus apparently re-activates, however I've never gotten even a glance from anyone while walking out of a restaurant unmasked. Nobody cares, because I think everyone understands that the rules make no sense.
I appreciate your frank admission that masking on planes and in restaurants is merely a ritual done to fulfill other people's irrational expectations. I agree that it has become a intensely strange example of cargo-cultism and virtue signalling, one which I am uncomfortable conforming to simply to respect the "boundaries" of the scolds.
Restaurants are different. I've dined in restaurants dozens of times in last two years. I have never worn a mask, and now I don't even carry one with me. On one single occasion I was told by a host at the front to put a mask on. I ignored him and walked to the table, where the act of sitting apparently deactivated the virus and it became acceptable for us all to dine unmasked with dozens of other diners talking, laughing, and in some cases coughing, sneezing, and singing very unsafe birthday songs.
When we rise from our seats after our meals the virus apparently re-activates, however I've never gotten even a glance from anyone while walking out of a restaurant unmasked. Nobody cares, because I think everyone understands that the rules make no sense.
I appreciate your frank admission that masking on planes and in restaurants is merely a ritual done to fulfill other people's irrational expectations. I agree that it has become a intensely strange example of cargo-cultism and virtue signalling, one which I am uncomfortable conforming to simply to respect the "boundaries" of the scolds.
> I appreciate your frank admission that masking on planes and in restaurants is merely a ritual done to fulfill other people's irrational expectations.
I did not say or imply that it's a useless ritual.
What I did want to say is, it's a rule explained in advance, if people don't agree they can pick an airline that doesn't have it.
To answer the mask off during lunch premise. I don't agree with serving lunches on airplanes.
That said, lunches are served on long flights, they take 30 min out of a 9-10h flight, there is a risk but it's not as high as not having them.
Airlines have to serve food... people go hungry, hungry people are unruly... can't avoid it.
I hope you get my point.
> I am uncomfortable conforming to simply to respect the "boundaries" of the scolds
Respect other people's boundaries and respect the rules of carriage then. It's the same as respecting any other rule in society.
> Restaurants are different.
Sure, I also go to outdoor restaurants that are widely spaced, I don't worry there about catching covid... unless someone starts coughing at which point I would leave. I dont have the space and can't just leave an airplane.
> I'm not the OP,
Oh, I apologize, I'll pay attention in the future.
I did not say or imply that it's a useless ritual.
What I did want to say is, it's a rule explained in advance, if people don't agree they can pick an airline that doesn't have it.
To answer the mask off during lunch premise. I don't agree with serving lunches on airplanes.
That said, lunches are served on long flights, they take 30 min out of a 9-10h flight, there is a risk but it's not as high as not having them.
Airlines have to serve food... people go hungry, hungry people are unruly... can't avoid it.
I hope you get my point.
> I am uncomfortable conforming to simply to respect the "boundaries" of the scolds
Respect other people's boundaries and respect the rules of carriage then. It's the same as respecting any other rule in society.
> Restaurants are different.
Sure, I also go to outdoor restaurants that are widely spaced, I don't worry there about catching covid... unless someone starts coughing at which point I would leave. I dont have the space and can't just leave an airplane.
> I'm not the OP,
Oh, I apologize, I'll pay attention in the future.
If you're willing to scold someone for improper masking simply to enforce "manners" or "boundaries", regardless of whether the rules have any realistic practical effect, then by definition you're talking about ritualistic conformity-- a cultural behavior whose purpose is to signal that you belong to a certain group.
This sort of hyper-conformist signaling is rampant across the political spectrum. For example, American right-wing populists who compete for patriotic points with the number of flags they wave, colors they wear, and the number of references to "the American people" and "our great nation" their favorite politicians utter. To them it's a matter of life and death. To me it's embarassing and a distraction.
> Lunches are served on long flights, they take 30 min out of a 9-10h flight...
No, it's not just 30 minutes out of an entire flight. Any cross-country flight provides at least two meals and several snacks and drinks. Longer international flights provide at least three. And you are explicitly allowed to have your mask off any time you are snacking or drinking, which can happen any time during the flight without limits. My wife flew international a few months ago, and there were many people who effectively went maskless for the entire flight, between snacks, drinks, meals, sleeping, or simply sitting unmasked in the dark reading a book. As long as people dutifully mask up when they get up to move about the cabin, complaints are rare.
> there is a risk but it's not as high as not having them.
Citation please. Please show your evidence that the risk of transmission from allowing people on a crowded plane to remove their masks for indefinite periods of time (which is what's happening) is any less than not having them at all. And then explain why it matters when, in actuality, manners and boundaries are the only reason you need to scold someone for not having their nose covered when they're not eating.
Regardless of how little sense these rules make with regard to safety, it seems clear that we're not actually having a conversation about safety here, but rather about personality conflicts. It's clear to me that in some situations you're making rational decisions based on perceived risk, for example, avoiding indoor dining. That makes sense based on what we know about how covid works.
But you're also displaying a rather conformist personality with your admission that rational justifications for rules are less important to you than fulfilling expectations of the group to which you want to belong, to the extent that you're willing to scold people for insignificant infractions of the code. That just makes you a mask-karen, and predictably sets you up for the fights with anti-mask-karens that I so enjoy reading about.
On the other side there are rebellious personalities who become less likely to do something the moment someone tells them they should. Notice that these two personalities often go together. It's no accident that many of the rebellious anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are also hyper-conformist flag-wavers.
People like me are sort of stuck in an awkward tension between these two extremes. My wife and I are triple-vaccinated, my kids are vaccinated, and we observed masking and distancing guidelines when it was important to avoid possibly exposing vulnerable friends and family members before the vaccines were available.
But I also strongly believe that cargo-culting and ritualistic conformity is dangerous to a society. Non-sensical rules and restrictions make us all stupider, and they divert energy from efforts that do actually make a difference, like vaccination. They also deepen political and cultural divides and create conflict unnecessarily, like mask-karens and anti-mask karens arguing over how much of a nose is uncovered when there are other people nearby completely unmasked while they eat their peanuts. That's actual insanity.
You are vaccinated right? Otherwise this whole conversation is just ridiculous.
This sort of hyper-conformist signaling is rampant across the political spectrum. For example, American right-wing populists who compete for patriotic points with the number of flags they wave, colors they wear, and the number of references to "the American people" and "our great nation" their favorite politicians utter. To them it's a matter of life and death. To me it's embarassing and a distraction.
> Lunches are served on long flights, they take 30 min out of a 9-10h flight...
No, it's not just 30 minutes out of an entire flight. Any cross-country flight provides at least two meals and several snacks and drinks. Longer international flights provide at least three. And you are explicitly allowed to have your mask off any time you are snacking or drinking, which can happen any time during the flight without limits. My wife flew international a few months ago, and there were many people who effectively went maskless for the entire flight, between snacks, drinks, meals, sleeping, or simply sitting unmasked in the dark reading a book. As long as people dutifully mask up when they get up to move about the cabin, complaints are rare.
> there is a risk but it's not as high as not having them.
Citation please. Please show your evidence that the risk of transmission from allowing people on a crowded plane to remove their masks for indefinite periods of time (which is what's happening) is any less than not having them at all. And then explain why it matters when, in actuality, manners and boundaries are the only reason you need to scold someone for not having their nose covered when they're not eating.
Regardless of how little sense these rules make with regard to safety, it seems clear that we're not actually having a conversation about safety here, but rather about personality conflicts. It's clear to me that in some situations you're making rational decisions based on perceived risk, for example, avoiding indoor dining. That makes sense based on what we know about how covid works.
But you're also displaying a rather conformist personality with your admission that rational justifications for rules are less important to you than fulfilling expectations of the group to which you want to belong, to the extent that you're willing to scold people for insignificant infractions of the code. That just makes you a mask-karen, and predictably sets you up for the fights with anti-mask-karens that I so enjoy reading about.
On the other side there are rebellious personalities who become less likely to do something the moment someone tells them they should. Notice that these two personalities often go together. It's no accident that many of the rebellious anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are also hyper-conformist flag-wavers.
People like me are sort of stuck in an awkward tension between these two extremes. My wife and I are triple-vaccinated, my kids are vaccinated, and we observed masking and distancing guidelines when it was important to avoid possibly exposing vulnerable friends and family members before the vaccines were available.
But I also strongly believe that cargo-culting and ritualistic conformity is dangerous to a society. Non-sensical rules and restrictions make us all stupider, and they divert energy from efforts that do actually make a difference, like vaccination. They also deepen political and cultural divides and create conflict unnecessarily, like mask-karens and anti-mask karens arguing over how much of a nose is uncovered when there are other people nearby completely unmasked while they eat their peanuts. That's actual insanity.
You are vaccinated right? Otherwise this whole conversation is just ridiculous.
> Citation please. Please show your evidence that the risk of transmission
I did not ask for citation when you made the reverse statement. For me it's common sense, less exposure time, safer...
> we're not actually having a conversation about safety here, but rather about personality conflicts.
You keep trying to steer things towards that. Answer would be no, I still think its safer to wear a mask as long as reasonably possible.
Now, a yes answer would also be interesting at which point, why is it so hard to respect some rules even if it doesn't make sense for you and are not immediately obvious?
You seem to make an assumption over and over and don't seem to consider that maybe, the foundation for that is wrong... hence dig into your position.
For me, even if what you say is correct, conforming to a rule for a duration of a flight is no different then conforming to any other minor thing such as wearing a seatbelt. Sure, that'd also maybe stupid, but whatever, i have other things to do.
> That just makes you a mask-karen
Have you ever attempted to jump a queue in Britain?, would you call those people karens too?
If yes, the sure.
> On the other side there are rebellious personalities who become less likely to do something the moment someone tells them they should.
Not my problem to psychoanalize and don't care enough to manipulate, just make people aware of the rule, then let flight attendant know, no scolding either... perhaps you also misunderstood, there's a difference between polite remark and going full-karen.
> My wife and I are triple-vaccinated, my kids are vaccinated, and we observed masking and distancing guidelines when it was important
Great, me too, so what's the argument about then?
> Non-sensical rules and restrictions make us all stupider, and they divert energy from efforts that do actually make a difference, like vaccination.
What if they are not stupid?
> They also deepen political and cultural divides and create conflict unnecessarily,
Yes, people don't like to be made uncomfortable, I was curious of the internal machinations, I guess its clear now.
> arguing over how much of a nose is uncovered when there are other people nearby completely unmasked while they eat their peanuts.
Rule is if you eat take it off, when you're done, put it fully back on... Why is it so hard to comply?
> You are vaccinated right? Otherwise this whole conversation is just ridiculous.
Of course, I like living...
I did not ask for citation when you made the reverse statement. For me it's common sense, less exposure time, safer...
> we're not actually having a conversation about safety here, but rather about personality conflicts.
You keep trying to steer things towards that. Answer would be no, I still think its safer to wear a mask as long as reasonably possible.
Now, a yes answer would also be interesting at which point, why is it so hard to respect some rules even if it doesn't make sense for you and are not immediately obvious?
You seem to make an assumption over and over and don't seem to consider that maybe, the foundation for that is wrong... hence dig into your position.
For me, even if what you say is correct, conforming to a rule for a duration of a flight is no different then conforming to any other minor thing such as wearing a seatbelt. Sure, that'd also maybe stupid, but whatever, i have other things to do.
> That just makes you a mask-karen
Have you ever attempted to jump a queue in Britain?, would you call those people karens too?
If yes, the sure.
> On the other side there are rebellious personalities who become less likely to do something the moment someone tells them they should.
Not my problem to psychoanalize and don't care enough to manipulate, just make people aware of the rule, then let flight attendant know, no scolding either... perhaps you also misunderstood, there's a difference between polite remark and going full-karen.
> My wife and I are triple-vaccinated, my kids are vaccinated, and we observed masking and distancing guidelines when it was important
Great, me too, so what's the argument about then?
> Non-sensical rules and restrictions make us all stupider, and they divert energy from efforts that do actually make a difference, like vaccination.
What if they are not stupid?
> They also deepen political and cultural divides and create conflict unnecessarily,
Yes, people don't like to be made uncomfortable, I was curious of the internal machinations, I guess its clear now.
> arguing over how much of a nose is uncovered when there are other people nearby completely unmasked while they eat their peanuts.
Rule is if you eat take it off, when you're done, put it fully back on... Why is it so hard to comply?
> You are vaccinated right? Otherwise this whole conversation is just ridiculous.
Of course, I like living...
Yet if you have ineffective rules, you also get no effect.
Indeed. Myself and many I know have simply stopped flying altogether for this reason. These days, if I can't drive, I simply don't go.
Seems to me like there was a simple solution