The Fool wrote:
> The photo-ID requirement is presented as a security measure, but business > is the real reason. Airlines didn't resist it, even though they resisted > every other security measure of the past few decades, because it solved a > business problem: the reselling of nonrefundable tickets. Such tickets > used to be advertised regularly in newspaper classifieds. An ad might > read: "Round trip, Boston to Chicago, 11/22-11/30, female, $50." Since > the airlines didn't check IDs and could observe gender, any female could > buy the ticket and fly the route. Now that won't work. Under the guise of > helping prevent terrorism, the airlines solved a business problem of > their own and passed the blame for the solution on to FAA security > requirements. > > But the system fails. I can fly on your ticket. You can fly on my ticket. > We don't even have to be the same gender.
Heck, before, if the ticket had been bought with a name appropriate to *either* gender, it wouldn't have been a problem! :) (Lynn, Leslie, Kelly, etc. -- I've met people of all those names in each gender.)
. . ., Terry, Kim, Alma, . . . In fact, "Shirley" was originally a man's name, and I know of at least one man with that first name, though for some reason he goes by the initial "S." and his middle name.
A Boy Named Sue Is Probably Destined To Become A Lawyer Maru
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
