[spaceborn]

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.

[logicallee]

"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]

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.

[BlackDeath3]

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]

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?

[jowiar]

That sounds an awful lot like "we don't have enough time to test our code"