*length=55

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 55 secs - length declared by CrushBug.

*length=04:55

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:55 - length declared by cricket.

*length=05:55

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 5:55 - length declared by cricket.

*length=03:55

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:55 - length declared by cricket.

*length=07:55

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 7:55 - length declared by cricket.

*length=03:55

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:55 - length declared by cricket.

Perhaps it would have been better to say that fuel isn't the only reason. The Airbus A320 in this example has roughly 55% better fuel efficiency than a pre oil crisis Boeing 707, although as Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia points out, that's barely better than the 1950s era prop planes like the Douglas DC-7.

Better automation has also allowed the A320 to reduce the staffing requirements, the 707 required 3 or 4 crew to operate the aircraft, but the A320 only requires 2. The DC-7 also requires 3 crew, but only seats half the passengers (doubling the flight crew costs per passenger).

Greater competition is probably a larger factor. Talking about airline profitability and competition, Warren Buffett joked that had a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk for the Wright Brothers' first flight, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down.

Loved MacGyver.

The theme song sounded like the theme song to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers.

Similar to how the theme song of the X-Men cartoon sounded like Whitney Houston's I'm Your Baby Tonight.

While I agree, the tactics mentioned here may be heavy handed, there's certainly something seriously wrong with the fact that 90% (+-) of 'super delegates' are announcing they will vote for Clinton, but she has less than 55% of the actual VOTE.
It may not be appropriate to accost them outside their homes and hotel rooms, but it certainly IS appropriate to tell them clearly and repeatedly that if they go against the will of the people in this way, they will all be voted out of office.

In Washington, over 70% of the vote went to Sanders....and so far 100% of 'super delegates' have pledged for Clinton. That won't stand, and it is going to cost the Democrats just for trying.

If Sanders was poison to the party in the general election like Trump, this might make sense...but he's NOT. He's BETTER than Clinton in all polls against ALL republican candidates. The only thing that makes sense is they've been paid by Clinton (or her campaign, or the party leaders she's beholding to) to say they're for Clinton to try to make her lead look overwhelming in order to dampen enthusiasm for Sanders. If they actually vote the way they're pledged, the Democratic party will be self destructing just like the Republicans are, because Bernie supporters aren't supporting him because he's a democrat, most support him despite the fact that he's in either party....and those people WILL vote against any of those elected 'super delegates' that vote against the clear will of the people. Those people also mostly won't vote for Clinton...so the whole plan to make her the nominee is doomed to failure from the outset, she absolutely can't win without Sanders' supporters, and she absolutely won't win most of them over.