Don’t know where this “mini-meme” cropped up, but Steyn has weighed in, and now Ms. McArdle. Her explanation is fine, as far as it goes. But I’m not sure its even the main one. Maybe…these days, hot women can get much better renumeration elsewhere?
It’s odd that an economist like Megan doesn’t even consider that possibility. Look at our world of music video babes, booth babes, porn stars as mainstream pop contributors. Look at “girls gone wild” mentality and the generational change in work attitudes. Then look at how hard stewardesses (flight attendants, whatever) have to work for their dough.
Sure, that still leaves millions of beautiful, chaste, hard-working American gals. A few of them surely get into the airline biz. But the babes willing to flaunt their hotness, old-school Pam Am style? They’re working at Hooters now, hopefully. The jobs get less savory from there, as the pay increases.
Fly ANA. Can’t type more, too much drool.
BTW, link is broken.
You could synthesize these theories with your neutrino theory.
In an absolute vacuum of hotness, the better looking stewardesses (erhem, I believe the word is “cabin attendant” these days) do not present to the retina because their image is transmitted by neutrinos rather than those sluggish photons. They’re there, but they’re just not seen.
Larry Miller had a pretty good synthesized theory. He said Einstein’s Theory of Relativity demonstrates that “time moves more slowly when you’re with your relatives.”
Speaking of “hot stewardess”…
I’ll have to vote for Singapore airlines.
I remember Lufthansa as being pretty respectable, including (or maybe, especially) their Japanese crew.
Delta is a nightmare of non-attractiveness.