I wonder, then, why United would send this out On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Eugenio Perea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Responding to the original letter -that places the blame on speculators- > here is a very interesting piece from the Economist, stating the > opposite case: > http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670357 > > Cheers, > > Eugenio > > L . . . wrote: > > maybe they can make hybrid planes :))) > > > > I heard that some airlines were grounding the 747s. I suppose the 777 can > > make it across the pond. > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Scandals & Animals < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> ...... Original Message ....... > >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:48:44 -0400 "Craig Froehle" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Perhaps the consumer airline industry doesn't deserve to survive in > >>> its current state. Could it be that there is simply no way to fly a > >>> person half-way across the globe for anything less than several times > >>> what the typical consumer is willing to pay? > >>> > >> I hadn't realized this, but I heard that a 747 holds 53,000 gallons of > >> fuel, and jet fuel is well over $7 a gallon now. I don't know how many > of > >> those gallons it takes to go from NY to LA, but that has to cost an > awful > >> lot. > >> > >> I heard an airline exec interviewed, and he said soon, air travel will > be > >> only for the rich. The days of the common man flying anywhere except > under > >> unusual circumstances are gone unless the price of oil plummets. Think > of > >> what that does to the Hawaiian tourism industry. > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- PJ O'Rourke - "If government were a product, selling it would be illegal." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
