Skip to comments.
'Person Of Size' Angry About Need For Spill-Over Ticket
Sacramento Bee via Scripps Howard ^
| June 18, 2002
| Bob Shallit
Posted on 06/17/2002 5:13:16 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-190 next last
To: alaskanfan
I guess now, people will feel discriminated against for having to shop in the Big and Tall or Plus Size clothing sections.
To: sockmonkey
You know those things they make you place your carry on in to see if it fits the "size" requirements before you board...I can't wait until they have one that they measure people's butts with...too funny. They have something like that at Six Flags - one of the ride seats mounted outside the ride so you can see if you'll fit before you go.
To: all
I sympathize with all you flyers, but this happened to me at a theater(to see We Were Soldiers).
I got there early to get a good seat and the theater filled up rapidly...my luck, there was an empty seat next to me...you guessed it, I spent the next two hours leaning on my right side with no place to move!
To: Reaganwuzthebest
the only fair way to do this is to charge by the pound
To: Paul Atreides
We should demand reperations!!!!
To: Reaganwuzthebest
Seems to me they could avoid offending anybody (too seriously anyway) by just having 'weight classes'. After all, isn't weight of the plane directly correlated to fuel usage, and hence, profit loss? Just have three classes: under 100, 100-250, and 250+. And they can pick some weight/height ratio limit that determines whether you have to pay for the adjacent seat or not. At least it's more dignified than having your ass measured!
To: sockmonkey
Actually, I have had to sit next to people whose largesse pokes through the space under the arm rest. They always pretend not to notice that they are spilling over into your seat, and squashing you. That's a new one for me, but I'll tell you - I'm getting awfully tired of elbow-wrestling over the armrest with some fool who's convinced that he's sitting in front of the tube in his La-Z-Boy at home. The last jack*ss I had that happen with waited until I reached for my drink from the stewardess and practically glued his elbow in place. And then he took his shoes off. That SOB.
To: sockmonkey
Actually, I have had to sit next to people whose largesse pokes through the space under the arm rest.
You win the Tactful Expression of the Day award! Too funny!
28
posted on
06/17/2002 5:40:40 PM PDT
by
Xenalyte
To: Reaganwuzthebest
Isn't this just a logical extension of the bag limit?
29
posted on
06/17/2002 5:42:08 PM PDT
by
ellery
To: TrappedInLiberalHell
You are dicriminating against me because of my genetic inheritence!!!!
To: Reaganwuzthebest
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. There is already one that hit the news here in Canada from some woman of size claiming discrimination from the airlines for making her pay for two seats.
31
posted on
06/17/2002 5:43:41 PM PDT
by
xp38
To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I meant to say that the three different classes would each get one seat, but pay different ticket prices. If you reduce the issue to something abstract and justifiable, such as weight vs. fuel usage, it is less offensive to the paying customer. What's more, it makes sense. Children pay less at fast food restaurants. Why? Because they get less food. That, and they're loss leaders, i.e., they get the parent(s) in the store, where they too may buy food. That's the whole logic behind the 'kids stay free' or '1/2 price' things you see. People are more likely to travel with that sit-on-lap baby if the baby doesn't cost anything. But that's a different issue.
The point is, the airlines are trying to maximize profit. Period. Telling people they're too fat for one seat is effective IF people do not use that as a reason to shun your airline in the future. Therefore, it may make more sense to choose the more tactful, quantifiable route I described, or not implement it at all. Sometimes, enforcing a rule that gets you more money in theory, backfires because it drives away the customers.
To: alaskanfan
Al Sharpton would get a double-settlement.
To: xp38
Hear! Hear! I would not be charged because of ass size (28 inch waist) but because of chest size(xxxl).
Those airline seats are made for marvin milktoast.
To: ghost of nixon
the only fair way to do this is to charge by the pound But if you charge by the pound Democrats will pay more - they're denser than regular people.
To: Reaganwuzthebest
Huh, his ticket was "supersized".
Now, will they serve him two meals? "I'm eating for two."
36
posted on
06/17/2002 5:49:36 PM PDT
by
csvset
To: ellery
Isn't this just a logical extension of the bag limit?No, I think it's more like a slot limit where you can take a certain size,but not bigger or smaller. But with airlines there is a money factor also. Babies under a certain age fly free, 'normal' (per averages that the seats were built for) size pays regular price, porkers 'super sized' flyers pay a premium.
;-)
To: sockmonkey
Actually, I have had to sit next to people whose largesse pokes through the space under the arm rest. Doesn't that make the armrest pop up?
-PJ
To: Honcho Bongs
It's not THAT funny. Have you ever been seated next to a double-wide on a flight? Makes me claustrophobic - not to mention that I'm then paying for less than a full seat since the out-sized one takes up some of my space. Worse yet is when that double-wide removes, or persuades you to remove, the chair arm that separates your seats - then that behemoth really spills over into your space. It's not a matter of claustrophobia, I'm getting crushed by their spill-over.
you'd think if they could afford that extra food, and the prices for extra-large clothes, that they could afford the price of the wider first class seating.
39
posted on
06/17/2002 5:52:11 PM PDT
by
DonQ
To: alaskanfan
You are dicriminating against me because of my genetic inheritence!!!! I assume you're just joking. The whole deal with equality is ridiculous in certain applications. Should we allow someone of Jerrold Nadler's size to be a jockey?
I have lost 70 pounds in the past 18 months. I don't have a point, just boasting. Man, it's been a tough eight months! I actually started this current weight loss effort when I was at 215 pounds, in mid-October. Now I'm 158, which is 70 pounds less than my all-time-high, which was right around the time Katherine Harris certified President Bush in mid-December of 2000.
But anyway, if it was a joke, it was funny. If it wasn't, then I apologize for any offense you may have taken.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-190 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson