**ABANDONED** The Only Way is Up

[Candlewhisper Archive]

TITLE:
The Only Way is Up

VALIDITY:
capitalism, aeroplanes

DESCRIPTION:
The journey between @@CAPITAL@@ and @@ANIMAL@@ City is not a long one, but recent statistics have shown that a significant proportion of travelers prefer to use internal flights rather than take a train to cover the trip.

OPTION 1
"The ecological impact of short haul domestic flights is immense, and wholly unnecessary," complains eco-activist Russell Sprouts, who has personally expelled significant volumes of carbon dioxide and methane into your air space in the last hour. "I suggest banning any flight that can be covered by overland train in less than four hours. They've implemented this in Skandilund, to undisputed environmental benefit."

OUTCOME:
air ambulances are increasingly rare

OPTION 2
"Methinks my lily-livered compatriot doth thrust his rapier too lightly, rather than at the heart of the issue," interrupts fellow eco-activist Lord Winged-Breaker, who has come straight from his weekend LARPing session, and remains in character as a swashbuckling dragonslayer. "These fume-belching airborne beasts need to be brought permanently to ground. You must deny flights of any kind! If the gods of the Third Age of Mankind had meant us to fly they would have made us Birdmen! Have at thee, blackguard!" @@HE@@ pokes your aide with a foam-cladded sword.

OUTCOME:
there's less choice in the supermarket fruit aisle these days

OPTION 3
"Look: train journeys are often more expensive than flights, and almost always far slower," points out entrepreneur, former footballer and media celebrity Ed Lesch-Icken, who was giving a talk in @@ANIMAL@@ City this morning, and is due to attend a charity event in the village of Stittle Woad this afternoon. "I wouldn't make it to my many engagements on time without air travel. But if you want more proles to use the train, then do something about the costs. Subsidise rail travel, and tax air travel. You might break even, and those of us whose careers require airplanes could enjoy quieter flights."

OUTCOME:
lawyers are arguing that planes launched from aircraft catapults should count as rail travel

OPTION 4
"Excuse me for believing in the free market, but why should we punish a more competitive sector for outperforming an outdated one?" asks Kristoff R Brian, founder of budget airline BrianAir. "If anything government should be allowing a level playing field, by reducing the unnecessary bureaucracy around internal flights. Really, there ought to be no more security or checks needed for an internal flight than there is for an internal train journey, and fewer restrictions on where and when we can fly. Free market competition will deliver best prices to customers, and the train companies will be forced to lower their costs and prices too if they want to stay viable. Cheaper is better, and a victory for the ordinary @@DEMONYM@@!"

OUTCOME:
trains charge lower prices for carriages with no seats

[Kaschovia]

DESCRIPTION:
The journey between @@CAPITAL@@ and @@ANIMAL@@ City is not a long one, but recent statistics have shown that a significant proportion of travelers prefer to use internal flights rather than take a train to cover that trip.

The only change I would suggest is replacing 'that trip' with 'the trip'. Reads a little better in my opinion, but it's up to you.

OPTION 2
"Methinks my lily-livered compatriot doth thrust his rapier too lightly, rather than at the heart of the issue," interrupts fellow eco-activist Lord Winged-Breaker, who has come straight from his weekend LARPing session, and remains in character as a swashbuckling dragonslayers. "These fume-belching airborne beasts need to be brought permanently to ground. You must deny flights of any kind! If the gods of the Third Age of Mankind had meant us to fly they would have made us Birdmen! Have at thee, blackguard!" @@HE@@ pokes your aide with a foam-cladded sword.

Should be dragonslayer, not dragonslayers. Otherwise very amusing to read.

[Verdant Haven]

- I think this needs at least a moderate public transportation score as a validity, as there would be no argument unless that service existed to be ignored

- Random vocab for realism purposes if desired: the industry term for non-international flights (ie, internal) would be "domestic." Flights of the type described here are "short-haul domestic" (which you reference in your first option).

Almost all of my other thoughts are outcome related:

- Option 1 is interesting in that it does specifically call out public transit as the test, rather than just distance. Obviously that is a real world practical consideration, but I'm not sure it leads to the elimination of medivac/air ambulances, as arguably that's not a service that public transit can replace, being as specifically point to point as it is, and having such intense en-route medical needs.

- Option 2 has an inadvertent pluralization of "dragonslayer." While the fruit aisle outcome is absolutely accurate, I'm not sure if it really feels like it captures the idea of a flight ban, especially for people seeing it without context on the nation page. This might be a strong contender for calling out the impact on air ambulances from above.

- I love the idea behind option three's outcome, and hope it is retained, but are there actually planes launched from a catapult anywhere other than on a CATOBAR aircraft carrier? Land-based launch assist tends to be JATO these days. Perhaps something about airports installing steam catapults in order to claim rail subsidies?

- Option four's outcome might land better by reversing the wording. Rather than seatless travel being cheaper, how about an upcharge for sitting down? That would be a good extra poke at Ryanair, to boot.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

DESCRIPTION:
The journey between @@CAPITAL@@ and @@ANIMAL@@ City is not a long one, but recent statistics have shown that a significant proportion of travelers prefer to use internal flights rather than take a train to cover that trip.

The only change I would suggest is replacing 'that trip' with 'the trip'. Reads a little better in my opinion, but it's up to you.

OPTION 2
"Methinks my lily-livered compatriot doth thrust his rapier too lightly, rather than at the heart of the issue," interrupts fellow eco-activist Lord Winged-Breaker, who has come straight from his weekend LARPing session, and remains in character as a swashbuckling dragonslayers. "These fume-belching airborne beasts need to be brought permanently to ground. You must deny flights of any kind! If the gods of the Third Age of Mankind had meant us to fly they would have made us Birdmen! Have at thee, blackguard!" @@HE@@ pokes your aide with a foam-cladded sword.

Should be dragonslayer, not dragonslayers. Otherwise very amusing to read.

Thanks, I'll make those changes to draft 1.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

- I think this needs at least a moderate public transportation score as a validity, as there would be no argument unless that service existed to be ignored

Oops. I can see that speaker one saying "public transport" is a mistake. I'll change that to "train"

My inspiration from the issue is largely drawn from the UK, where aviation enjoys sizeable tax breaks and subsidies, while privatisation of trains int the 1980s was the turning point when train fares started rising, as that transport medium was no longer subsidised by the Treasury. The issue isn't meant to assume trains are state run.

- Random vocab for realism purposes if desired: the industry term for non-international flights (ie, internal) would be "domestic." Flights of the type described here are "short-haul domestic" (which you reference in your first option).

Good point, I'll alter the draft 1.

- Option 1 is interesting in that it does specifically call out public transit as the test, rather than just distance. Obviously that is a real world practical consideration, but I'm not sure it leads to the elimination of medivac/air ambulances, as arguably that's not a service that public transit can replace, being as specifically point to point as it is, and having such intense en-route medical needs.

Yeah, good point. I'll think of a better line.

- I love the idea behind option three's outcome, and hope it is retained, but are there actually planes launched from a catapult anywhere other than on a CATOBAR aircraft carrier? Land-based launch assist tends to be JATO these days. Perhaps something about airports installing steam catapults in order to claim rail subsidies?

Good one, I was struggling to deliver that line. I'll change for Draft 2.

- Option four's outcome might land better by reversing the wording. Rather than seatless travel being cheaper, how about an upcharge for sitting down? That would be a good extra poke at Ryanair, to boot.

You're right. Will do that.