| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Larrybud
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: Re: Taking Sides: Should Obese Passengers Pay More? |
 |
|
Alan S <nothere@there.com> wrote in
news:1sd5h4hb4b6q268to6sla0j5v1bupaq3n4@4ax.com:
| Quote: | On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:14:57 +0100, "Jochen Kriegerowski"
joinvalid@smtp.ru> wrote:
"Alan S" <nothere@there.com> schrieb
Of course, skinny people would also be charged extra for the
unused space they are taking, that could be utilised by
others, up by not filling the test seat...
Right. Just like I pay twice for everything else I buy and don't
use. If you buy something, it's compulsory to use it. And you
pay for every minute it is not in use, because others could use
it during this time.
Jochen
Nah, not what I was saying at all. To agree with the "pay by
your width" proposals of the earlier posts we would
re-design planes with laterally movable armrests. You would
be measured at check-in and allowed 2" each side of your
thighs when seated. You pay by the inch of width between the
armrests.
Of course it's ludicrous, but no more ludicrous than some of
the nonsense I've seen spouted earlier on this perennial
troll thread.
The simple answer is for airlines to accept that the average
passenger is wider now. But, of course, they won't. Too much
money involved.
|
So retool all airplanes that are flying right now?
It's not ludicrous. When you ship a package, you pay by weight,
and you pay for a baseline package size. When your package
becomes "oversize", you pay more, because it costs more to move
your package from point A to B.
A person is no different, and in many cases, worse. There's not
much worse on an airline than a person spilling over into YOUR
seat that YOU paid for, and having to sit there for hours unable
even move, let alone rest your arm on YOUR armrest. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Stephanie
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject: Re: Taking Sides: Should Obese Passengers Pay More? |
|
|
Mr Wonderful wrote:
| Quote: | Melissa wrote:
http://boards.msn.com/Travelboards/thread.aspx?threadid=791963>1=41000
Planes are expected to be more crowded than ever this fall, so coach
passengers can’t expect to have very much elbow room. For most of its
history (and especially in the past few years), Southwest Airlines
has required passengers who can’t put down their armrests to pay for
an additional seat, to ensure (it says) that everyone has access to
“safe and comfortable transportation.” (The cost of the second seat
can be refunded if the flight is not oversold.) Should every airline
follow suit? How should carriers determine who’s obese? Take a side
and make your argument! Yes, obese passengers should pay extra:
With all the extra fees being piled on to fliers these days, it’s
surprising that an “overweight” fee has not yet been standardized.
Not only is this an issue of comfort for adjacent passengers, it’s
also an economic issue. As a recent Newsweek article pointed out,
the more weight planes have to carry, the more fuel it takes to fly.
I don’t advocate having passengers step on a scale at the check-in
counter, but I think if people can’t fit between their armrests then
they should pay for the extra space they take up. – Heidi
No, they shouldn’t pay extra:
Asking someone to pay an additional fee because of his shape or size
feels as discriminatory as charging more because of someone’s skin
color or ethnic background.
|
I have no strong opinion about the pay or no pay question. I certainly think
it is fueled by the fat hatred that is rampant today. Seems that being able
to point to "personal responsibility" makes hate mongers able to hate
overweight people where nothing else is safe to hate anymore.
That said, this is a stupid analogy. The color of someone's skin does not
affect the airline's ability to sell the neighboring seat to another, where
that seat's occupation by the neighboring person does.
| Quote: | Southwest says that fewer than one in
200 passengers are affected by its policy, and that 98 percent of
those charged for two seats get a refund. So why embarrass someone
who’s obese over an issue that matters only once for every 10,000
travelers? If I’m stuck sitting next to someone who’s unable to
lower the armrests, I’m not likely to be thrilled with the
situation. But it’s just as likely the person sitting next to me
will be wearing heavy perfume, or snoring, or eating a smelly
sandwich. Are we going to ask those folks to pay extra, too? (Now,
there’s an idea …) – Jon
Obese people should have to pay for an extra seat if their blubber
occupies another's seat. I don't want to pay for some fat smelly hog
that can't fit into their space and invades mine. Fat people are
disgusting slobs |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stephanie
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: Taking Sides: Should Obese Passengers Pay More? |
|
|
aemeijers wrote:
| Quote: | AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
news:mQeGk.61822$Mh5.13960@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dave Smith wrote:
Magda wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:18:58 -0400, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
... AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
... > If you flow over your seat or into the aisle (that includes
... > your arms, not just your torso), you should buy 2 seats,
and you ... > shouldn't have to be told to do so. it's just
common courtesy.
... ... Does that include normal-weight people who are very
broad-shouldered, ... like a lot of men? Doesn't sound quite
fair to me.
... ... Marsha/Ohio
If their shoulders encroach on my personal space, then yes, it
does.
It is not your personal space. It is the airlines space, limited by
their efforts to squeeze more seats into a plane. Some airlines
have comfortable seating, but others are not. Never the less, it
is not your space.
That is why I always try like hell for an aisle seat, even if it
means I spent the flight sitting at a 10 degree angle. My ass still
fits in the cheap seats, but my shoulders are a real tight squeeze.
I don't qualify as fat (yet), but airline seats ARE too small, and
the rows are too close together. I do think there should be a
minimum size standard for seats and pitch, for safety reasons if
not the simple humanity of it. Some people are so crammed in, their
legs get numb, and getting out in an emergency would be
problematical at best.
agreed that there should be minimum seat standards, but if you've
got wide shoulders, then you need 2 seats. you don't need to be
blocking the aisle. i qualify as overwt, but i still fit completely
in the seat space. being female,
with a proper female shape, if my butt fits in the seat, my
shoulders so as well. again, if you overflow your space, even if
you're a fit, buff guy, you
need 2 seats.
2 seats are not an option for most people. When I am flying on
taxpayer's nickel, it is one cheap seat or nothing. And when I fly on
my nickel, seeing as how I work for the taxpayers and therefore I'm
not a rich man, 2 seats would mean I only get to see the relatives
every other year. That ain't gonna happen- some of them are getting
old.
Anything under 500 miles or so, I'd rather drive anyway.
|
That's what those of us with children do, even though the children rarely
actually SIT in their seats. Some people have less practical ease than
others. And that is just called life. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Magda
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:07 am Post subject: Re: Taking Sides: Should Obese Passengers Pay More? |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:52:59 -0500, in soc.support.fat-acceptance, "Stephanie"
<haaa@noway.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
...
... I have no strong opinion about the pay or no pay question. I certainly think
... it is fueled by the fat hatred that is rampant today. Seems that being able
... to point to "personal responsibility" makes hate mongers able to hate
... overweight people where nothing else is safe to hate anymore.
Personally, what I hate is their encroaching on my space and then saying "It's not my
faaaaaault"... Whose fault is it, mine?!
... That said, this is a stupid analogy. The color of someone's skin does not
... affect the airline's ability to sell the neighboring seat to another, where
... that seat's occupation by the neighboring person does.
=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sharx35
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: Re: Taking Sides: Should Obese Passengers Pay More? |
|
|
"Brian K" <brian1951BLOG@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mYadnQco9OERwY7UnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: | On 11/6/2008 1:35 PM Patrick Paris did a "happy dance", then made these
writings:
On 06 Nov 2008, Wise 1 <W1@delta.com> posted some
news:iqb6h4d5h75ces4v7jev0nhla75pfr5g85@4ax.com:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:14:57 +0100, "Jochen Kriegerowski"
joinvalid@smtp.ru> wrote:
"Alan S" <nothere@there.com> schrieb
Of course, skinny people would also be charged extra for the
unused space they are taking, that could be utilised by
others, up by not filling the test seat...
Right. Just like I pay twice for everything else I buy and don't
use. If you buy something, it's compulsory to use it. And you
pay for every minute it is not in use, because others could use
it during this time.
Jochen
The airline should place stalls in the cargo hold for the use of
outsize ceatures and critters.
Wise 1
Change the door size on the aircraft so elephants cannot board. It will
prevent the obese from entering and offending others. It will also have
the added benefit of slightly increasing the strength of the airframe so
it will be safer.
I thought this thread was funny at first. But, now it has morphed into
something that's just plain mean. You'd be surprised as to how many obese
people try to lose weight to fit the Hollywood norm of what look a man or
woman should have.
It may be true for some that it's just a habit of overeating without
exercise to burn off the excess weight. Yet some men and women are
genetically set to be heavy. No amount of exercise and diet will keep the
pounds off. Just as some struggle with drugs or alcohol addiction, there
are food addicts. Substance is hard to kick no matter what the substance
might be. It doesn't help either having a familial predisposition to be
an addict for some substance. There are 12-step recovery programs for
overeaters. Just as with drugs and alcohol the addict has to "hit bottom"
and admit to his or herself that they are powerless over the substance. In
addition to what I've mentioned, there are those with hormonal imbalances.
I am not making excuses for the morbidly obese. I just think that you
have to look at this issue from all angles. The airlines are loosing
money as it is. We really can't hope that seats will be eliminated to
make room for a comfy chair for all sizes of people. It could be worse.
Visiting a mountain retreat in the Peruvian Andes, I once had the pleasure
of riding in the "Chicken Bus". This bus travels down the mountain
navigating hairpin turns with no safety rails. That's not the bad part.
It's the only transport up and down the mountain. It stops with no rhyme
or reason to pick up local women with live chickens they are bringing to
market. Just imagine sitting a bus with no air conditioning and every seat
occupied with one woman traveling with one or more cackling chicken. When
the bus is in motion some women toss chicken feed in the isle and allow
the chickens to forage up and down the bus' aisle. You really don't know
fowl until you've had a ride in the "Chicken Bus"!
Which would you rather sit next to, Oprah (she's fat again) or a Peruvian
woman with three noisy smelly flea ridden chickens?
|
I'd opt for the chicken women. I'd rather NOT sit next to a
LIEbrawl/DEMONrat.
| Quote: |
--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera "The poor dog is the firmest friend, the first to
welcome the foremost to defend" - Lord Byron
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951 |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
