Im intimately familiar with range-payload charts.
You have to take my sentence as a whole - I say that its both low density and premium heavy. The low density is because of the range-payload drop off, the premium heavy is because Qantas will make more money with the premium cabin, so thats where the bulk of the weight allowance goes.
The airlines reputation isnt going anywhere, DVT is a known risk on a lot of long haul currently in operation, yet you dont hear anything about airlines getting negative PR about it. This route will be no different. Its a bit longer, but not massively.
Qantas already have it set at around 40% premium seating, with around 140 economy or economy plus seating at 33 inch pitch, and 98 premium seats (first, business and premium economy).
Its a low density, premium heavy cabin precisely because thats what the route demands - they have structured it around what premium seating they can fill, and what economy they might fill. Its no secret that airlines make almost all of their passenger profit from premium seats, and economy is often just about break even, so theres no point in cramming more economy in for this route.
Yes, its a stunt - but it also shows off the capabilities of the aircraft perfectly.
Boeing dis something wimilar years ago with the 777.
Then the health issues are on the passenger in that case, the airline provided facilities to use but the passenger chose to not use it. But the facilities were provided, thats the important thing.
Its a route proving flight, part of the A350-1000ULRs certification - and Toulouse is Airbuses biggest base of operations, where the A350 production line is based.
The aircraft was going there to be painted and handed over to Qantas after certification is granted.
When it goes into airline service, Qantas will be flying it from Melbourne and Sydney to London Heathrow.
The final cabin layout when this route starts in customer service will be significantly premium heavy with less economy than normal, and has standing exercise areas for all cabins, so you are encouraged to get up and stretch your legs.
"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.
The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.
We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.
IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.
There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.
THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.
Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.
The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.
Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.
US centric, so this wont be coming to the rest of the worlds Youtube subscribers
Yay, another system that *has* to work.
Just to avoid the fucking passengers taking some responsibility and listening to the damn safety briefing and taking a precious moment of their lives to understand it.
Free speech includes lying.
Wasnt there a SCOTUS ruling recently that ruled that agencies cannot enact their own rules, but can only enforce rules as laid out in law? And if Congress wanted the agency to enforce a rule, it should pass a law to that effect?
We all know that that was targeted at agencies like the EPA, FDA etc, to get rid of the agency-created limits on things, but it feels like it should equally apply here - the law says X, the agency cant change the law.
Merit should always consider strictly value.
Plus this only blocks Youtubes adverts - these days you often have to wade through the content creators own ads, at least one for the “sponsor of this video”, and then at least one for the content creators own Patreon or equivalent merch site
Just timed a 9 minute video I was watching while browsing this story - 3 minutes of content creators ads, 6 minutes of content.
And theres no way around the content creators ads even if you do become a Patreon.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
