If Airlines Sold Paint

Martin Hotze wrote:

I'd say that there must be a price at which it is cheaper to let the passenger
stay behind than carrying him along. (weight -- fuel, eating, drinking,
cleaning costs).

On a typical domestic U.S. flight, it's negligible. There's almost no additional fuel
cost to carrying the extra 200 pounds or so, the food is a bag of peanuts and half a
coke (total cost about $1), and the cleaning staff have to spend a few hours on that
plane whether you fly or not.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Martin Hotze wrote:

I'd say that there must be a price at which it is cheaper to let the
passenger
stay behind than carrying him along. (weight -- fuel, eating,
drinking,
cleaning costs).

On a typical domestic U.S. flight, it's negligible. There's almost no
additional fuel
cost to carrying the extra 200 pounds or so, the food is a bag of peanuts
and half a
coke (total cost about $1), and the cleaning staff have to spend a few
hours on that
plane whether you fly or not.


There is nothing worse on a flight than finding out someone paid half or
less for the same trip. I suppose airlines have to take into account the
damage done by going for the last $ than keeping those smucks who have paid
through the nose happy. Afterall, if they fly the income is probably worth
more than 5 cheapies.

I'd say that there must be a price at which it is cheaper to let the
passenger
stay behind than carrying him

They probably save a lot of money by leaving a passenger behind if they crash.