"Aviation’s global economic impact (direct, indirect, induced and catalytic) is estimated at US$ 2,960 billion, equivalent to 8% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."
> is estimated at US$ 2,960 billion, equivalent to 8% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Doesn't this prove my point? And that's including every conceivable thing possibly related to aviation ( direct, indirect, induced and catalytic ). Not just flights. Not quite, "grind down to a halt" is it?
For the last time, if flights stopped, the world economy isn't going to grind down to a halt. Flights are luxuries more than anything. The world can survive without luxuries. The oil industry, gas industry, international shipping, railroads, trucks, etc can bring the world economy to a grinding halt. Not sure why you are still arguing when objectively, your statement was wrong.
Why not just say instead of "the world economy grinding to a halt", you meant to say "the world economy will be slightly inconvenienced"?
Nice.
> is estimated at US$ 2,960 billion, equivalent to 8% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Doesn't this prove my point? And that's including every conceivable thing possibly related to aviation ( direct, indirect, induced and catalytic ). Not just flights. Not quite, "grind down to a halt" is it?
For the last time, if flights stopped, the world economy isn't going to grind down to a halt. Flights are luxuries more than anything. The world can survive without luxuries. The oil industry, gas industry, international shipping, railroads, trucks, etc can bring the world economy to a grinding halt. Not sure why you are still arguing when objectively, your statement was wrong.
Why not just say instead of "the world economy grinding to a halt", you meant to say "the world economy will be slightly inconvenienced"?