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.