[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably. Is this somehow *helping* your argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But it wasn't meant to. I'm just pointing out an inconsistancy as earlier you said

[ QUOTE ]
FedEx seems to be able to profitably deliver packages to "remote areas". I don't really see a problem here. Is package delievery to the yukon some sort of basic human right that I'm supposed to pay for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So quite *probably* you do accept that you are 'overcharged' by FedEx on their more profitable routes to compensate for their unprofitable ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

FedEx may find that the loss they take on package delivery to bumblefuck, montana is more than made up for by the increased business they get from a large-scale customers who ship tons of stuff on highly profitable routes, but *require* the occaisional package deliver to the middle of nowhere, and therefore will take their entire business elsewhere if a vendor will not deliver there.

How is this inconsistent?

If I am subsidizing FedEx delivery, and I get sick of it, I can go find another delivery service that only delivers where I want it. I'm not *forced* to subsidize it.