From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jun 21 2002 - 16:54:58 MDT
Phil writes
> Hot Damn! There's GOT to BE a way to sneak
> infanticide in here, just to raise the overall temp.
> Oh... I just did. ;)
Tut, tut. It's as simple as pie. You just refer to
immature artificial intelligences, or some other
euphemism, and the usual suspects don't see through
the ruse. (Or, actually, their emotions don't get
ignited quite so fast, and this tiny millisecond
delay, believe it or not, allows their rationality
to become engaged before the blow up occurs.)
On to weightier matters...
> Actually, it would make sense to have a per-pound
> surcharge plus a per-seat charge.
Ah, the usual presumptuousness of the typical
contributor to this forum, who wants to lecture
Southwest Airlines on what would and would not
make sense. Anders (and someone else, I think)
said it best: this is something for the market-
place to decide.
> They can't be expected to alter the number or
> size of seats per each flight
Yes, we shouldn't "expect" them to do anything...
> so somebody has to pay for that fixed cost.
> But then there is a cost in fuel for each pound that
> is shipped, whether baggage or adipose tissue.
Yes; more seriously, we can indeed try to *understand*
the reasons that certain things come to pass, (and, yes,
I admit that that's probably what *you* are really trying
to do here) but it certainly gets tiresome hearing some
people lecture others on what the others have a "right"
to do and what they don't have a "right" to do, e.g.,
"SW has a right to charge fat people more."
The truth is, if people appreciated economics and
freedom, an airline would be able to charge anything
whatsoever that it liked, or make any rules at all
that it wanted, and without anyone complaining.
(If you don't like it, you just fly some other airline.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:56 MST