On 2004-12-21T10:38:10-0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
put it this way it starts to make some sense. In other words, avoiding travel whenever possible will (when added to sheeple starting to do the same because of all the terible screening stories) eventually start putting some squeeze on the airlines.
I expect that "eventually" in this context would == (hours to [one or two] days)
Academic. Everyone will not boycott, so the time frame will increase.
(But then again, DC has plenty of our tax dollars ready to bail out an incompetent set of airline managers.) It won't hurt at least.
Even DC can't bail out *all* the airlines. That kind of boycott *would* hurt, and hurt badly. And *fast*.
Never play chicken with the federal government. They can bail out all the airlines (minus one: they don't need to bail out Southwest Airlines). They'd just need to raise taxes or increase the debt, neither of which is a major impediment.
1) Phone it in 2) Do some kind of lameass video conferencing 3) Fly 4) Get a job at McDonalds
First of all, this is a *great* example of why flying is an *option*, and not a "requirement". That said, option number 4 is the obvious choice - however, our leggy bimbo's mileage may vary.
This is a bit misleading. The leggy bimbo can choose option 4 if she's not smart enough to do something else... like _local_ sales, or even starting up a psychic reading shop and making lots of money from other bimbos.