It *is* the equivalent of a visa because it dictates whether or not you can travel to the US. If you cannot travel to the US, you cannot use your visa waiver privilege.

They can call it whatever they want, and you can fixate on the name if you want to bury your head in the sand.

There is literally no way to travel to the US currently without either an ESTA or a visa. At this point, visa waiver doesnt matter because its been nullified by the ESTA requirement.

"Hey, you no longer need prior permission to travel to the US, how cool is that!!! Oh, but you need to ask permission to travel to the US before you can use that privilege..."

Sorry but I disagree - an ESTA dictates whether you can travel at all, it does not fill the same role as an arrivals card because you are already in transit at that point, and arrivals cards also cover things like bio security, customs requirements etc.

With the expansion of ESTA to entry by land in 2022, you literally cannot present at any US entry point without having been approved first by the US government - if you do not have that permission, you cant use your visa waiver privilege at all, and the point of that privilege was that you did not need prior permission!

If you were eligible to get an ESTA, then you were eligible for VWP - without the ESTA existing you wouldnt be going to an consulate, you would just be flying/driving/sailing/walking/whatever to the US. And you still have the same likelihood of being granted entry.

My point is, the VWP is pointless because it was supposed to be a "you dont need to apply for permission before travelling" privilege for some countries citizens, and now it very much is a "theres no way to go to the US without applying for permission before travelling".

Effectively, you now need prior permission to travel to the US. Either its with an ESTA or its with an actual traditional visa.

Also, the ranking is flawed because most western nations these days require a pre-travel electronic authorisation of some sort, which basically is the equivalent to a visa (you cant travel to the country without one).

For example, the US has a Visa Waiver Program with many countries, which technically means you can travel to the US without applying for a visa.

But, since 2007 you have needed either an ESTA or an actual issued visa before you can travel to the US by sea or air.

And the ESTA requirement was expanded to travel by land in 2022, basically meaning there is no way to arrive at the US without prior approval - so in actuality, the ESTA is now a visa for the US, but not one which allows actual entry, just the possibility of entry.

Oh piss off.

Several of the manufacturers involved here either are, have been or will shortly be, involved in motor sports - where they will collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year eeking out another 1% performance gain or efficiency gain out of an engine which is already vastly more performant or efficient than the engines we use as consumers.

These manufacturers can meet the regulations, they choose not to.

She really does seem to be trying to speed run a redemption arc - hopefully no one actually falls for it.

One shipping charge from Amazon (whether thats covered under Prime, or is free or whatever) vs five shipping charges from buying from non-Amazon websites - no one offers free shipping where I live.

New Zealand.

Our Ebay alternative is TradeMe, and it sucks. You can use Ebay.com but Ebay forces most sellers to use Ebay Global Shipping, which charges high shipping and also applies import duties to *everything* up front, even when the item falls under the personal allowance for importing into NZ (I remain convinced Ebay are pocketing that).

Our Amazon alternative is MightyApe, and it sucks. At a pinch you can use Amazon AU or US, but its very hit and miss as to what products can be sent to NZ, and shipping prices are high.

So you presume to know why I moved and what my personal preferences are?

I definitely prefer a world where I can use them. Having used them for so long and then being forced to not use them cements that for me. And the alternatives have not got any better over the past 8 years either.

The whole Uber thing has been quite amusing to watch.

It was pitched originally as "share someone elses journey for less money than a taxi" for the end user, and "make money when you want to" for the driver.

It allowed people who had zero chance of breaking into the taxi business of acting like a taxi - which is why there is a long history of Uber fighting regulation as a taxi company, they didnt want to be regulated like the thing they are competing against. At the same time, drivers didnt want to be regulated as drivers, because they were getting away with only running the trips they wanted, and avoiding pesky things like business insurance on their cars...

The benefit of "work when you like" for Uber was that the driver was not an employee - they could pick up work here and there without commitment, and there was no benefits associated.

The benefit of "work when you like" for drivers was that they could pick up work when they were free, and also work for multiple ride share companies at the same time - just accept or reject work from each app.

Now, Uber is a taxi service - everyone agrees with that. And drivers are taxi drivers, with all the associated extra liabilities that entails. Which means that drivers are also employees now, again with all the associated positives and negatives that entails. And Uber is an employer, again with all the associated positives and negatives...

Over the years, the acceptance of what the situation is has changed from one where the drivers thought they had all the power to one where they realised they needed more power.

And so we are back to the original situation of taxi company and employees.

One shipping charge vs five...

I moved from the UK where Amazon and Ebay were widely used, to a county where they don't exist.

There are local equivalents, and they are shit.

8 years later, I still miss Amazon and Ebay. They had their problems, but I prefer a world where I can use them to one where I cant.

And my point still stands.

When the next generation of engines become available, Airbus could choose to do a refresh of the A320 family at a fraction of the cost of a brand new aircraft.

Airbus can choose to do that because theres still a massive amount of development potential in the A320, whereas Boeing has run to the end of the 737 - even if there was still technical room in the 737, the public wont accept it any more.

Boeings only hope is Airbus choosing to do a clean sheet for the A320 replacement.

How does Airbus manage to build its sub-assemblies in geographically diverse locations, and then integrate those sub-assemblies on multiple FALs around the world? Airbus seems to have great success doing that - their only issues recently was with the A380, and that was due to a CATIA software issue at the design stage, rather than the actual manufacturing stage...

Boeing is considering a new plane because Airbus is considering a new plane.

If Airbus decide to refresh the A320 family again (and they can, theres plenty of development room left in it - it hasnt had a new wing since the 1980s for example), then Boeing will be in a bad spot.

The problem Boeing has is that most of the efficiency gains come from the engines, so if Airbus can chuck a new engine under the A320s wing for a fraction of the price and timeline of a whole new aircraft design, Boeing is stuck. They would be bringing an equivalent efficiency aircraft to the market, years later than Airbus, and have to charge significantly more than Airbus for it.