I believe that Trundle Air should reconsider their in-flight food service.  I will outline and evaluate two major reasons that have been offered in support of this conclusion, and show why a major objection that has been made fails.

The first reason offered relates to the financial risk of microwaving food on planes, a practice Trundle Air follows.  Microwaving food on a plane can cause an explosion, since food intended for high-altitude reheating needs special packaging according to Damien Bentley, chief safety officer of an international airline.  Damien is an expert speaking in his area of expertise, so we ought to accept both the claims that special packaging is required, and that there is the potential for a microwave-related explosion on planes.

I will now examine the possibility that a microwaved food explosion could be financially disastrous for Trundle Air.  This is thought to be the case because a food-related explosion would ground Trundle Air's main plane for some weeks, and the replacement plane has a 75% lower theoretical carrying capacity – so this line of argument assumes that reducing the theoretical carrying capacity by 75% would be financially disastrous.  Bill Pilsner, the chief pilot and CEO of Trundle Air is the source of the information that the plane would be grounded for some weeks, and he is in a position to know about such matters, so I accept that claim.  Bill Pilsner is also the source for the data supporting the claim that the replacement plane has a 75% lower carrying capacity.  Again, he is familiar with both planes and I have no grounds for doubting that the seating situation is as he says, so I accept that claim.

The assumption that reducing Trundle Air’s theoretical carrying capacity by 75% would be financially disastrous is more problematic, as the objection has been made that in practice Trundle Air flies at 25% capacity most of the time already.  Vic Parkes, the Pilsners’ neighbour is the source of this information.  This is not a matter for specialist investigation: it would be readily apparent to any observer whether a plane on the ground was carrying one passenger or four.  This objection provides strong opposition, as it is directly relevant to the matter under consideration.  Given this is so, I reject the claim that reducing carrying capacity by 75% would be financially disastrous.

Since I reject that claim, I also reject the line of argument that a microwaved food explosion would be financially disastrous for Trundle Air.  Consequently, I reject the concern that financial risks might result from a microwave-related explosion.  It provides no support for the claim that Trundle Air should reconsider their in-flight food service.

The second reason that Trundle Air should reconsider their in-flight food service is that they serve horrible food, since their sandwich fillings are hideous.  Examples of these hideous fillings include the ‘Mile High’ (sultana, egg & mayonnaise), the ‘Aviator’s Fuel’ (ham & marmalade), and the ‘Skydiver’ (tuna, onion & honey).  I accept that these are horrible combinations, as they combine poorly suited ingredients.  Given that is so, I accept that the sandwiches are hideous, and so that the food Trundle Air serves is horrible.  This is a strong reason supporting the view that Trundle Air should reconsider their in flight food service, since it would not be difficult or costly to provide more palatable sandwiches by switching the existing ingredients around.

In examining whether Trundle Air should reconsider their in-flight food service the objection has been made that doing so is a waste of time.  This is supposed to be so because Trundle Air’s main plane – a Beechcraft Bonanza – is a doomed plane, according to Iris Gilvrey, a local conspiracy theorist.  This assumes that it would be a waste of time to reconsider the in-flight food service on an airline whose main plane is doomed.

The Beechcraft Bonanza is supposed to be doomed since a number of famous people have died in accidents involving Beechcraft Bonanzas.  Examples of famous people who have died in such accidents include the musicians Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, The Big Bopper and Ozzy Osbourne’s guitarist Randy Rhoads.  I accept this example, since these people did die in Bonanza accidents: Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and The Big Bopper died together in 1959 when their Bonanza crashed in a snowstorm, and Randy Rhoads died in 1982 when a an attempt to ‘buzz’ a tour bus went horribly wrong.

However this reasoning assumes that a number of famous people dying in accidents that involve a particular kind of plane is proof that that kind of plane is doomed.  I reject this assumption, since it overstates the case: these musicians died in just two incidents, and it was simply coincidence that Bonanzas were involved in both cases – over 17,000 of Bonanzas have been produced in the past fifty years and they are well regarded small planes.  Given that the assumption is flawed, I reject the claim that Bonanzas are doomed planes, and the objection that it would be a waste of time to reconsider Trundle Air’s in-flight food service.

I believe that Trundle Air should reconsider their in-flight food service, based on strong support from the reason that they presently serve horrible food.  The other reason offered, which related to the financial risk of microwaving food on a plane, was found to provide nil support for this conclusion, and the possible objection that reconsidering the in-flight food service was a waste of time also failed.