5 ms·

Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose? I'd wager not, in which c

Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose? I'd wager not, in which case a large quantity of the fuel used in the normal course of operations is also 'wasted' - or, at least, used sub-optimally - the passengers being the only reason the flights are undertaken in the first place.

bnegreve 13y ago
No, I am not. You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this. But let say that if I had to cancel one flight to save money / fuel, I would cancel this one rather than a standard flight.
- jowiar 13y ago
  That sounds an awful lot like "we don't have enough time to test our code"
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  But dude, football! And the twelfth man! And stuff! >You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this. Don't you hate when arguments get to this point? You know what else isn't a waste of fuel? Dumping thousands of gallons of it onto the ground and burning it. I mean, who doesn't enjoy a good bonfire, right? You cannot prove that I don't! Apparently, this route was the result of a test flight. Really the only legitimate explanation for something like this.
- voxic11 13y ago
  So you would cancel this test flight of a new 747 freighter variant and possibly end a multi million dollar program just because they flew it in the pattern of the number 12?
logicallee 13y ago
"Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose?" Are you implying that nobody should spend so much as a thousandth of a second hesitating before wasting trillions of dollars worth of a resource which represents 100% of the world supply that will ever be available, when retaining even a single ounce of that same resource could have been used to save the lives of 3 billion people? /s (jeez, read what you're responding to and your response. I'm making fun of it with this post because your style of response is so ridiculous.)

bnegreve 13y ago

No, I am not. You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this. But let say that if I had to cancel one flight to save money / fuel, I would cancel this one rather than a standard flight.

jowiar 13y ago
That sounds an awful lot like "we don't have enough time to test our code"
BlackDeath3 13y ago
But dude, football! And the twelfth man! And stuff! >You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this. Don't you hate when arguments get to this point? You know what else isn't a waste of fuel? Dumping thousands of gallons of it onto the ground and burning it. I mean, who doesn't enjoy a good bonfire, right? You cannot prove that I don't! Apparently, this route was the result of a test flight. Really the only legitimate explanation for something like this.
voxic11 13y ago
So you would cancel this test flight of a new 747 freighter variant and possibly end a multi million dollar program just because they flew it in the pattern of the number 12?

logicallee 13y ago

"Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose?" Are you implying that nobody should spend so much as a thousandth of a second hesitating before wasting trillions of dollars worth of a resource which represents 100% of the world supply that will ever be available, when retaining even a single ounce of that same resource could have been used to save the lives of 3 billion people? /s (jeez, read what you're responding to and your response. I'm making fun of it with this post because your style of response is so ridiculous.)