heyjoe wrote:
So, I'm bored and surfing the innertubes - enjoy!
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-only-10-things-republicans-and-democrats-can-agree-on
"The Babylon Bee is here with the definitive list of where Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye:"
Haha, thanks, some good ones from above:
"- Pineapple does not belong on pizza: Only the most evil among us could do such a thing
- Five Guys is way too expensive: Even before inflation completely tanked the economy
- Bananas are bad as soon as you see the first brown spot: Nobody eats brown bananas. We're trying to have a society here..."
https://babylonbee.com/news/terrorists-decide-against-hijacking-plane-after-realizing-its-a-boeing
"An attack by a cell belonging to a violent extremist group was averted
last week, as terrorists decided against hijacking a plane after finding
out it was made by Boeing."
Funny...
Apropos of air travel, this *could* be read as a parody - *if* it weren't true:
"There were, once, actual regulations on inflight sandwiches – at least for international flights... Scandinavian Airlines was once fined $20K (about $200K in today's money!) for serving "nicer" sandwiches...SAS, in turn, ran ads saying they’d “
rather pay a big fine than lower our service standards.” Although in truth they did lower their standards – they acquiesced and ensured that “garnishing didn’t cover the entire slice of bread. At least 2.5 square centimeters of the bread had to
remain visible...”
How Airlines Colluded To Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful
by Gary Leff on March 12, 2024
https://viewfromthewing.com/airlines-colluded-bad-food/
"Before US airline deregulation in 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board focused on eliminating ‘ruinous’ competition and ensuring prices were high enough, and competition limited enough, that airlines could earn a consistent profit.
However when you set prices high, airlines compete for customer business in other ways. Each ticket was lucrative, so they’d spend money on customers – for instance on service and food and beverage – to attract more ticket sales.
Airlines also colluded to limit inflight drink service. U.S. airlines entered into an agreement not to serve customers more than two drinks back in 1956, but the agreement fell apart in 1971 as carriers competed for business.
The CAB in 1958 actually discussed whether they needed to regulate the thickness of sandwiches on board, because airlines were getting too competitive on food. They were charging high prices for tickets, but spending that money right back on the customer
– and the government meant to stop it.
Somehow I had forgotten that there were, once, actual regulations on inflight sandwiches – at least for international flights.
In 1958 airlines launched the first ‘economy’ service. This was strictly defined by world airline trade group IATA, to make sure airlines didn’t actually compete with each other on amenities offered. Airlines were allowed to serve coffee, tea, and
mineral water to drink and sandwiches, which were supposed to be “simple, cold, and inexpensive.”
Even that couldn’t stop competition, though. American carriers drove to limit food costs, and Pan Am and TWA offered options like roast beef, ham and cheese, and egg salad between two pieces of bread. Several foreign carriers defected, most notably
Scandinavian Airlines:
"[P]assengers almost had an all-you-can-eat buffet of smørrebrød, the open-faced sandwiches popular in Scandinavia. SAS had 16 different variations and, to quote the Times, would “do something fancy with it, such as arranging it with a rosette, with
perhaps a little pickle and radish added.”
An SAS spokesman was quoted as saying, “Since European loaves are a little smaller than American, we will offer each passenger three sandwiches [free of charge]. Of course, you can’t eat an open sandwich with your hand, so we will give you a knife
and fork...”
Swissair offered appetizer sandwiches, an entree sandwich, and two dessert sandwiches. KLM and Air France were forced to match.
U.S. carriers formally complained about what amounted to coursed meals on bread. Customers might choose an airline based on service and that was supposed to be verboten. Swissair, for their part, claimed “everyman is entitled to his concept of a
sandwich and we have ours.”
A special IATA meeting was held in London* to define a sandwich, and hear violations. The airline industry body declared that sandwiches had to be “cold… simple… unadorned… inexpensive” and had to “consist of a substantial and visible chunk
of bread.” Moreover they could not contain anything “normally regarded as expensive or luxurious, such as smoked salmon, oysters, caviar, lobster, game, asparagus, pate de foie gras” nor could they feature “overgenerous or lavish helpings which
affect the money value of the unit.”
As is typical for the airline industry, though, most airlines were let off with a warning. Scandinavian, though, was fined $20,000.
SAS, in turn, ran ads saying they’d “rather pay a big fine than lower [their] service standards.” Although in truth they did lower their standards – they acquiesced and ensured that “garnishing didn’t cover the entire slice of bread. At least
2.5 square centimeters of the bread had to remain visible...”
TIME: So Much for the Sandwich
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,863368,00.html
Monday, May 05, 1958
"From London last week came a solemn ruling: a sandwich is what Pan American World Airways thinks it is, and not what most other transatlantic carriers would like it to be...
The decision was on Pan American's complaints that its competitors evaded an International Air Transport Association ruling against full meals on transatlantic economy flights by serving sandwiches that were actually sumptuous meals (TIME, April 21)...
Sandwiches may be open or closed, ruled Sir William P. Hildred, I.A.T.A. director general, but they must be "cold . . . simple . . . unadorned . . . inexpensive," and consist of "a substantial and visible" chunk of bread.
The association ruled out "materials normally regarded as expensive or luxurious, such as smoked salmon, oysters, caviar, lobster, game, asparagus, pate de foie gras," as well as "overgenerous or lavish helpings which affect the money value of the unit."
Carriers that have been serving just such lavish sandwiches consoled themselves by reflecting that the ruling, after all, did not affect the chef's imagination. Said a spokesman for one: "We'll serve what we've been serving even if we have to roll up the
ham so that a piece of bread will show as required..."
--
GM
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)