>traveling is going to get better because the economy is declining and people will be more desperate for tourist/expat bux
>traveling is going to get worse because Westerners are flooding everywhere and Americanizing it
Which side is right?
>traveling is going to get better because the economy is declining and people will be more desperate for tourist/expat bux
Everything is already ruined thanks to smartphones and the internet. Just do what you think sounds fun.
Nothing matters anymore.
FPBP
If you’re balding get a hair transplant
Hair transplants are for homosexuals and TV anchors.
this. its over. travel is nothing now. every experience will be wrapped in plastic and served to you.
Everyone complains about smartphones and how easy it is, but then we had a China thread where everyone was complaining that their favorite smartphone apps won't work and they'll have to spend cash. What is it?
Fact is you don't have to go far, even in your own country, to get away from technology. Nobody is forcing you to have a smartphone either, I've lived on a flip phone, laptop and iPad (I'm a pilot, so its required) for the last three years. I have zero issues.
There is nothing stopping you from using the same groceries/markets as the locals and the same transportation infrastructure as the locals. That's probably your #1 (transport) and #3 biggest (food) costs of travel right there, if you want to sacrifice the comfort of being coddled and some faux luxury you can do those things very cheap.
Lodging, easily #2, will move to keep rooms filled. If the economy goes down they'll slash prices to keep up occupancy, if the economy goes up they'll charge more. As a westerner you should be able to stay ahead of these costs easily.
>Everything is already ruined thanks to smartphones and the internet.
this. global culture is being erased.
I think there are a few things that are going to change travel and the world massively over the next 10 years.
1) boomers dying, and passing on their wealth
2) more of gen x getting to retirement age - they're used to travel and luxury that most boomers didn't experience, so there will be a huge market catering for them
3) Millennials and beyond will either inherit wealth and be rich, or be struggling to pay off their ridiculous mortgages... so you'll probably have more insufferable rich cunts travelling all the time because of their family wealth (we already see this a bit) and you'll see fewer 'normal' tourists because they've got bills to pay.
4) governments will force their 'race to net zero' shit on us making international travel more and more expensive, a bit like the UK already does with air passenger duty, but worse.
what about us zoomers 😀
>3) Millennials and beyond
>passing on their wealth
lel, lmoa
>more of gen x getting to retirement age
implying we get to retire
>Millennials and beyond will either inherit wealth and be rich,
lul , lmoa
>governments will force their 'race to net zero' shit on us making international travel more and more expensive
yeah this basically, leisure travel will be insanely expensive, but if you're a penniless nagger 'migrant' from Guatemala you will get a full ride and cost of living if you walk to the nearest white(ish) country
>1) boomers dying, and passing on their wealth
KEK
Countries are easing up on travel restrictions and making it easier to encourage tourism and it still has not recovered precovid levels. Less people around with money, less people who can make enough money, less motivation because anyone can watch travel vlogs, maybe remote workers and tech fags can go but they are boring and never really explore new places so the same clogged areas will be congested.
Quietest places to go are Russia and China, both easing back visa and requirements for travel just recently and few want to go because of conflicts. Then everywhere between these countries are low visited places. Europe is still popular but it feels less busy this summer than it used to be. It feels so empty.
>4) governments will force their 'race to net zero' shit on us making international travel more and more expensive, a bit like the UK already does with air passenger duty, but worse.
This is the future of travel. Get in all your dreams in the next few years because it only gets worse from now on. France already banned domestic flights if you can make the trip in a train within a few hours (private jets excluded, not even joking). Also this article recently https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/31/france-eu-cheap-air-tickets-flights-environment-emissions/
banning flights within the domestic confines of France is basically resetting the a world before the LCC's. Which almost everyone agrees was a better, if not more expensive, travel experience. Seriously, why on earth are you flying within metropolitain France anyways? I cannot believe the government has to step in and force this.
You are really missing the point by focusing on the whole "metropolitan France" thing. The legal basis for banning flights because of climate change is already here. It's just a case of how slow/fast they will boil the frog to keep pushing further (which they ARE already doing, as the article shows they are laying the groundwork for this). Any time a measure gets some pushback, they simply come back next year with plans further than before. It's how the powers that be operate.
(And I can't comment on the domestic France flights because I'm British. For me to get to Edinburgh from southern England, a domestic flight in a similarly small country, flying is half the price and twice as fast when also considering getting to the airport + time in airport compared to taking the train, with several flights per day. Go figure that one out)
oh, and flying is like 50x less likely to get cancelled because of a strike, since this fucked me over good a couple of times this summer
Climate change is really just a pretense. The French just want people to take the trains because they spent a fucking insane fortune on building out the train network to be as fast, efficient and useful as it is. The maintenance and staffing of big regional airports is a redundant expense when you already have something that can do the same thing in the form of the rail network.
Seriously, its the most logical move. The way civil aviation is engineered there's really no way around the state subsidizing it, that's what LCC's and ULCC's have exploited to offer such low fares. The French government had had enough.
Ban private jets for the wealthy and politicians and I'd agree. Until that happens this is just rules for thee but not for me tyranny.
Not really.
General aviation is an entirely different operation than big part 121 (or whatever the European equivalent is) airlines. You can't ban charter ops without screwing over flights schools, hobbyists, recreational flyers or people who commute by plane. And fact is, if were indulging the crimate hysteria, every commercial and private flight in the world over an entire year only creates as much "harmful" emissions as a handful of large oil tankers and/or container ships in that same timespan.
Ideally everyone just takes the train. But really private jets have become this conHispanicuous consumption item that us proles get all butthurt about, but really actually is kind of a nice thing that provides a lot of people with a lot of well paying jobs. I'm a pilot. I view this from a different lens I guess.
OK higher taxes on flying is fine. The whole operation is wildly subsidized to an almost cartoonish degree. The fact is I'm sure the French government initially wanted to just start charging landing fees that were high enough to pay for the maintenance and staffing of these regional airports, but the ULCC's and LCC's (as well as AirFrance) just said they'd never pay them so they skipped that step entirely.
Again, there's an alternative here. They aren't banning flights then asking you to walk from Paris to Provence. The train is pretty superior in every way except price, and that low price was really just because the French govt foots the bill for the ATC, runway maintenance, terminal construction etc.
>I'm a pilot. I view this from a different lens I guess.
Exactly, you're self interested. Politicians and the wealthy take dozens of private flights a year generating an exorbitantly disproportionate amount of carbon emissions. If it was actually for the climate then they would be included. It's not because this has nothing to do with reducing emissions.
If I were self interested I wouldn't be supporting a ban on regional flights.
Just missing the point again focusing on the domestic. I can almost guarantee you within 10 years if your plane goes anywhere near Europe you will be paying a huge climate tax on your ticket price. Notice has we went from gay marriage to tranny teachers deciding your child's gender without your knowledge or consent in like only 10 years. Policy does not go from 0 to 100 overnight, they need a bit of time to chip away at it
> taking planes when you have trains
You're the retarded one. This is a good ban.
t. bootlicker
>private jets excluded
Of course those israelites would. These rules for thee but not for me fuckers deserve to die in the worst way possible.
People greatly overestimate the wealth of the average boomer. A ton of retirees are living off of social security. I don't think you'll see this enrichening of the younger generations, but you may still see a sharper class stratification as the children of native middle-class peoples compare to the huge proportion of immigrants in the country. It won't be "we got richer" it will be "we got poorer and now there are a ton of people who are even poorer than us!"
All the more reason to increase taxes to redistribute to the brown hordes you privilege white bigot.
> 1) boomers dying, and passing on their wealth
Pretending boomers aren't squandering their wealth.
Travel will settle down in a few years once all the boomers develop back problems and can no longer sit on planes for 8 hours. I wouldn’t worry too much. Their yearly trip to Italy wont seem too appealing with a snapped spine
There’s going to be some sort of decline in the coming years, no way these idiots can coast forever. Student loan payments coming back to effect will help bring these people back to economic reality.
Who cares?
Even if the world goes to shit because of an atomic annihilation you can still hitchhike or trek around.
If you really want to travel there will always be a way, travel might be less convenient in the future but nothing can stop the most daring getting from place A to place B.
If traveling gets easier there will be the downside of tourism being more destructive and if traveling becomes harder the upside will be that tourism won't be as destructive.
There is no perfection, only shifting balance.
>Westerners are flooding everywhere
oh i wouldnt call them westerners....
I would choose the first option as it would greatly benefit the economy. I've been enjoying my travels, using both my Tap and Revolut cards for transactions to avoid delays wherever I go. I also enjoy meeting new people and having small talks.
Traveling will get better because it will never be cheap again. Less plebs traveling.
The China economy is bad right now in a major downturn and no expat bucks but I'll probably still wait until spring. Some chinese whore was nonstop talking chinese to me and I was just flabbergasted then I realized I came in an old whore.
Collapsing economies can be fun to exploit, but if you want people to bow down and treat you like a king simply because you have some foreign cash, you will be very disappointed in most countries.
People who travel and complain about tourism are as retarded as people who drive a car and complain about traffic. If you don't like tourists, go where there are few tourists. Mexico for example: 5% of the country sees 95% of the gringos.