Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the on-the-road-again dept.

Phys.org:

Losing even one in 10 customers would substantially reduce airlines' revenue. They don't make much money on each flight as it is; less income would likely cause them to shrink their service, flying fewer routes less frequently.

The problem wouldn't just be customers who chose not to fly. Some passengers might split trips between self-driving cars and airplanes, which would further reduce airlines' revenue. For instance, a person in Savannah, Georgia, who wants to go to London could choose to change planes in Atlanta—or take a self-driving car to the Atlanta airport, and skip the layover.

These changes could substantially change the aviation industry, with airlines ordering fewer airplanes from manufacturers, airports seeing fewer daily flights and lower revenue from parking lots, and even airport hotels hosting fewer guests. The future of driverless cars is appealing to consumers—which means the future of commercial flight is in danger.

A personal fondling session from a TSA agent named Brad, or 5 hours in your self-driving Mazda that your four-year old smeared peanut butter in?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:48AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:48AM (#854574) Journal

    If the algorithms have been refined by years of testing and millions or billions of miles driven, then your new self-driving car shouldn't need to send data back to anyone.

    Since AI learning is trial-and-error based (with errors being used in the optimisation), the only issue would be how many fatal errors the market is able to accept before dropping the idea completely.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:14AM (1 child)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:14AM (#854580) Journal

    judging by how many deaths from ordinary vehicles people are willing to accept, I expect the number will be quite massively larger than 1.

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:13AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:13AM (#854599) Journal

      I don't know about that "massively".
      It's one thing to accept "If you die in a car crash, it's mostly because of you, the driver" and just another to accept "get in the car and if you live or die is a matter of pure chance from your PoV, you or any other human have no control over it".

      Humans are some weird creatures like that. For instance, you remember MH370 and MH17? Well, the govt of Malaysia nationalized the airline [economist.com] to save it from collapsing, despite the two air incidents being something beyond the airline's control

      Both crashes appeared to have been beyond the firm’s control but hurt business nonetheless. Customers deserted the airline. Chinese flyers feared it was jinxed: sales in China, a crucial market, fell by 60% immediately after the first crash. Shortly after the second disaster, in August 2014, Malaysia’s government renationalised the airline, rescuing it from collapse.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford