Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People [Archive]

Mike Given

September 10th, 2003, 02:09 PM

Martin W. Smith wrote:
>Jonathan Smith wrote:
>>So your solution would be for skinny people to subsidize
>>low cost extra wide seats for fat people? I don't think so.
>No. They can charge extra fro wider seats.

But you've already lamented is that obese folk can't afford to buy
them so that argument is pretty much shot in the ass.

>They already do that. Didn't you know?

Not all airlines make that accomodation. When I flew out to Chicago
last summer it was on a budget flight with no "first class" section on
the plane at all.

>>I think the US government has done plenty to intrude
>>on our lives.
>That's what the government is supposed to do, when you
>can't solve the problem yourself.

The airlines are handling the problem as they see fit; unfortunately
for overweight folk there are more pressing problems than seat size that
require attention.

>>Let's not try for more. I like SWA approach - if you need
>>more room, buy two seats. This is an option open to everyone,
>>BTW.
>Then you are arguing for allowing the airlines to determine
>what the standard seat size is. Why?

Umm, because they're also responsible for setting the price on that
seat? In a free-enterprise system the airlines can do as they see fit
and everybody else can take the train (or boat) as necessary.

>The standard seat size should be based on the standard
>person size, which is an average that must include fat
>people.

If they did that, fewer people would be able to fit on the plane and
ticket prices would go up accordingly - for everyone, not just people
with extra freight built in. Of the roughly 110 people on the
aforementioned flight to Chicago absolutely NO ONE had any trouble
fitting into a seat. 0%. The average passenger fit well into their
seat.
I weigh 170# at 5'10". If someone else weighs 340# at 5'10" it would
be grossly unfair for me to have to foot the bill for *their* "extra
passenger", which is precisely what you're suggesting.
And your "fair" idea to set an average won't help fat people either -
if you average the two aforementioned weights you'll come up with it'll
come out to 255#, which makes for a nice, big comfy (if overpriced) seat
for me but still isn't big enough for for someone twice my weight.

But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
half-size seat at half the price?

>Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
>into account. That is discrimination.

A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
freight bill.

>Since you can't solve the problem fairly

Here's a fair idea: Weigh-ins. Just like most anything else that
requires shipment, you pay by the pound to cover costs of space on-board
and fuel just as if you were bringing extra luggage along. If you can
provide an authorized medical waiver that states your weight is the
result of something other than overeating (the most common cause of
obesity) then you get an appropriate handicap discount.

>(you have just demonstrated that), the government ought to
>step in.

The government should step in to help mollify the current obesity
"epidemic". Just like it's illegal for a barkeep to continue to sell
anything but soft drinks to a drunk person, make it illegal to sell
anything but lettuce and low-fat salad dressing to a fat person that
isn't overweight as a result of a medical condition.

>Did you think the airline seat size was passed down from God?

No more than the recipie for Hostess Twinkies is.

Mikey (..and I'd be pretty sure that Adam and Eve were pretty svelte.)

Martin W. Smith

September 10th, 2003, 02:24 PM

Mike Given wrote:
>
> Martin W. Smith wrote:
> >Jonathan Smith wrote:
> >>So your solution would be for skinny people to subsidize
> >>low cost extra wide seats for fat people? I don't think so.
> >No. They can charge extra fro wider seats.
>
> But you've already lamented is that obese folk can't afford to buy
> them so that argument is pretty much shot in the ass.

No, I don't mean the increased price should be a business class or first
class fare. That's way too high. Most people can't afford it. But a ten
percent premium, or something like that, for the extra space, is
reasonable. Two seats are far wider than a business class seat. Most fat
people don't spill over that much.

> >They already do that. Didn't you know?
>
> Not all airlines make that accomodation. When I flew out to Chicago
> last summer it was on a budget flight with no "first class" section on
> the plane at all.

Yes, once again they have ignored the fat people demographic, as if
there aren't a lot of fat people in the US.

> >Then you are arguing for allowing the airlines to determine
> >what the standard seat size is. Why?
>
> Umm, because they're also responsible for setting the price on that
> seat? In a free-enterprise system the airlines can do as they see fit
> and everybody else can take the train (or boat) as necessary.

Then they could make the seats even smaller, and pack them even closer
together. You wouldn't like that, but if they all got together and
decided to do it, you would have no choice. That's why the government
intervenes.

> >The standard seat size should be based on the standard
> >person size, which is an average that must include fat
> >people.
>
> If they did that, fewer people would be able to fit on the plane and
> ticket prices would go up accordingly - for everyone, not just people
> with extra freight built in. Of the roughly 110 people on the
> aforementioned flight to Chicago absolutely NO ONE had any trouble
> fitting into a seat. 0%. The average passenger fit well into their
> seat.

Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
much, if at all.

> I weigh 170# at 5'10". If someone else weighs 340# at 5'10" it would
> be grossly unfair for me to have to foot the bill for *their* "extra
> passenger", which is precisely what you're suggesting.
> And your "fair" idea to set an average won't help fat people either -
> if you average the two aforementioned weights you'll come up with it'll
> come out to 255#, which makes for a nice, big comfy (if overpriced) seat
> for me but still isn't big enough for for someone twice my weight.

I was actually think of an adjustable seat.

> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
> half-size seat at half the price?

I don't understand your example.

> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
> >into account. That is discrimination.
>
> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
> freight bill.

A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
requiring fat people to buy two seats.

> >Since you can't solve the problem fairly
>
> Here's a fair idea: Weigh-ins. Just like most anything else that
> requires shipment, you pay by the pound to cover costs of space on-board
> and fuel just as if you were bringing extra luggage along. If you can
> provide an authorized medical waiver that states your weight is the
> result of something other than overeating (the most common cause of
> obesity) then you get an appropriate handicap discount.

Fair enough.

> >(you have just demonstrated that), the government ought to
> >step in.
>
> The government should step in to help mollify the current obesity
> "epidemic". Just like it's illegal for a barkeep to continue to sell
> anything but soft drinks to a drunk person, make it illegal to sell
> anything but lettuce and low-fat salad dressing to a fat person that
> isn't overweight as a result of a medical condition.

Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
state. Diets are religions.

> >Did you think the airline seat size was passed down from God?
>
> No more than the recipie for Hostess Twinkies is.

So you do think the seat size was passed down from God?

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Miguel Cruz

September 10th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
> seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
> much, if at all.

Every inch used for larger seats takes away from the number of normal
seats. Even if they're not being used.

> I was actually think of an adjustable seat.

Where would the other space come from? Or do you mean three seats that could
be converted to two?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

BJ in Texas

September 10th, 2003, 07:48 PM

Founded in 1969, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA)
is a non-profit human rights organization dedicated to improving the quality
of life for fat people.

Get a clue... loose wieght ROTFL BJ

Miguel Cruz wrote:
> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
>> Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very
>> few large size seats would be needed, and ticket prioces
>> wouldn't have to be changed much, if at all.
>
> Every inch used for larger seats takes away from the number
> of normal seats. Even if they're not being used.
>
>> I was actually think of an adjustable seat.
>
> Where would the other space come from? Or do you mean three
> seats that could be converted to two?
>
> miguel
> --
> Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world:
> http://travel.u.nu

Mike Given

September 10th, 2003, 08:20 PM

Martin W. Smith wrote:
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Martin W. Smith wrote:
>>>Jonathan Smith wrote:
>>>>So your solution would be for skinny people to subsidize
>>>>low cost extra wide seats for fat people? I don't think so.
>>>No. They can charge extra fro wider seats.
>>But you've already lamented is that obese folk can't afford
>>to buy them so that argument is pretty much shot in the ass.
>No, I don't mean the increased price should be a business
>class or first class fare. That's way too high. Most people
>can't afford it. But a ten percent premium, or something like
>that, for the extra space, is reasonable.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of offering a 50%-off
second seat as a *courtesy* to oversized passengers. The airline still
loses the 1/2 the price of a second seat but as I'll demonstrate a
little further on there's a certain amount of pragmatism to the idea.

>Two seats are far wider than a business class seat. Most fat
>people don't spill over that much.

I've been airborne to (at rough counts) 20 different destinations on
somewhereabouts 40-50+ different commercial flights and once via private
jet. Excluding the private jet, of all those flights I only ever saw
one passenger large enough for special seating. Recollecting time spent
in airports, I can say I don't recall seeing too much of anyone that
wouldn't fit (or at least squeeze) into a coach-class seat.
Ergo contenplorum, most overweight folk (or at least those prone to
airline travel) are not quite *that* overweight.

>>>They already do that. Didn't you know?
>>Not all airlines make that accomodation. When I flew out to
>>Chicago last summer it was on a budget flight with no "first
>>class" section on the plane at all.
>Yes, once again they have ignored the fat people demographic,
>as if there aren't a lot of fat people in the US.

See above; your alleged demographic doesn't exist, or at least it
doesn't have much significance, or at least not enough to consider
refitting an entire fleet of planes with larger and less-profitable
seating. It'd be cheaper to settle potential out-of-court and continue
to discriminate.

>>>Then you are arguing for allowing the airlines to determine
>>>what the standard seat size is. Why?
>>Umm, because they're also responsible for setting the price
>>on that seat? In a free-enterprise system the airlines can
>>do as they see fit and everybody else can take the train (or
>>boat) as necessary.
>Then they could make the seats even smaller, and pack them even
>closer together.

Don't be silly; besides, you're the one that brought demographics into
play here. Airline coach-class seats are tested by a variety of people,
no doubt some of whom will be wider and/or taller than average; such
things are also tested for smaller passengers (ie. children). A team of
designers then sends the appropriate design spec to Boeing or whomever.

>You wouldn't like that, but if they all got together and
>decided to do it, you would have no choice.

Actually I think the seat spacing is already too small; I can tell ya
about a few semi-nightmare flights as a result thereof. Flying anywhere
nowadays is a major peeve unto itself for lots of other reasons though.

>That's why the government intervenes.

No. The government only intervenes when public welfare would be
threatened. Requiring a passenger to purchase a separate seat for
freight purposes is at the sole discretion of the indivdual airlines.
If the demographic starts to threaten profit margin is the only point at
which an airline might decide to re-engineer its aircraft for larger
passengers.

[..anecdotal example..]
>>The average passenger fit well into their seat.
>Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few
>large size seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't
>have to be changed much, if at all.

See above. Airlines aren't going to refit seating unless a
demographically significant number of oversize passengers make a fuss;
anecdotal monkey business about one passenger on one flight isn't going
to make a host of airline companies change their policy nor will it
likely warrant any goverment action. Which is as it should be.

[...]
>>And your "fair" idea to set an average won't help fat people
>>either - if you average the two aforementioned weights you'll
>>come up with it'll come out to 255#, which makes for a nice,
>>big comfy (if overpriced) seat for me but still isn't big
>>enough for for someone twice my weight.
>I was actually think of an adjustable seat.

Specious reasoning; you still have to leave room for the seat to fully
expand, therefore it's space you can't use for anything else. Some
aircraft I've flown in are already equipped with very limited wheelchair
seating - but that's really only for truly handicapped folk, who should
not be put out by an overweight customer.
Unless of course you're proposing that extremely overweight people be
governmentally afforded handicapped status, which is a whole 'nother
argument altogether.

>>But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>>weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>>be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>>half-size seat at half the price?
>I don't understand your example.

It was simple enough; hypothesize that *all* airline seats would be
created for folks that would normally occupy two of the current-sized
seats. Would it be fair to charge me for a full-price ticket if I will
only occupy half of the seat? Shouldn't I be given a substantial
discount for my svelte frame?

>>>Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
>>>into account. That is discrimination.
>>A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to
>>anyone - they're merely insisting that fat people pay their
>>fair share of the freight bill.
>A ludicrous assertion.

Polly wanna cracker?

>The airline discriminates on the basis of size by requiring
>fat people to buy two seats.

That's *not* discrimination. It would be discrimination if they
refused to allow the person on the plane at all, but that's not the
case. Labeling such a policy as "discriminatory" borders on libel.

If you think there's some foul plot at work by the airline companies
to make fat people feel bad, I suggest you read:

http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/additional_seat.html

..and you'll understand a bit more about the reality of things rather
than making petty whines about "discrimination".

>>>Since you can't solve the problem fairly
>>Here's a fair idea: Weigh-ins. Just like most anything else
>>that requires shipment, you pay by the pound to cover costs
>>of space on-board and fuel just as if you were bringing extra
>>luggage along. If you can provide an authorized medical waiver
>>that states your weight is the result of something other than
>>overeating (the most common cause of obesity) then you get an
>>appropriate handicap discount.
>Fair enough.

It would be except that available anecdotal evidence suggests that
oversize people consider the policy of even reserving (much less
actually purchasing) an extra seat to accomodate their bulk to be a
discriminatory practice. Which is, of course, completely assinine in my
book; wheelchair-bound folk have been doing it for years without almost
no complaints or congressional hearings at all. And the NAAFA's
solution of:

"ARMREST UP - When you get to your seat during pre-boarding, raise the
armrest between seats. This may give you the inch or two of extra space
you need. The chances are that the passenger who will be seated next to
you won't say anything; if he does, smile pleasantly and say that you'll
both be more comfortable if the armrest is up. "

My response to that particular line of bull**** would be, "No, we'd
have both been more comfortable if you'd have had the courtesy to
purchase an extra seat for your freight",
But even the same NAAFA document that I nabbed the above snippet from
at least acknowleges that (considerate) oversize folks are wont to
purchase a second seat, which serves two purposes - it makes the
oversize patron more comfortable and prevents a potentially disastrous
encounter with a fellow passenger whose seat might otherwise be intruded
upon. Which is why I said earlier that airline companies should
consider *some* discount in accomodating oversize passengers, but they
shouldn't have to take it completely on the chin.

>>The government should step in to help mollify the current
>>obesity "epidemic". Just like it's illegal for a barkeep
>>to continue to sell anything but soft drinks to a drunk person,
>>make it illegal to sell anything but lettuce and low-fat salad
>>dressing to a fat person that isn't overweight as a result of
>>a medical condition.
>Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of
>church and state. Diets are religions.

Say what you will, but IMHO selling Twinkies to already-overweight
people is more of a crime than an airline charging extra for freight.

>>>Did you think the airline seat size was passed down from God?
>>No more than the recipie for Hostess Twinkies is.
>So you do think the seat size was passed down from God?

What part of the first word of the sentence I wrote when I replied to
that stupid query the first time did you not understand?

I do, however, get the feeling that you think oversized people should
be afforded all the courtesy and discount that handicapped folk get.
Feel free to refute that thought if the observation isn't accurate.

Mikey (..then we can all buy "Obesity Cripples!" bumperstickers.)

September 10th, 2003, 09:05 PM

"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>Mike Given wrote:

>> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>> half-size seat at half the price?

>I don't understand your example.

Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
required to pay as much money as you?

>> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
>> >into account. That is discrimination.

>> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
>> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
>> freight bill.

>A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
>requiring fat people to buy two seats.

Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
when it is based on factors that do not have practical
relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
undesirable social policy.

Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
thing.

Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
on an airplane is another.

The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
restated another way.

Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?

Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?

Why is that fair to the smaller person?

miguel

Banty

September 10th, 2003, 09:19 PM

In article >, Mike Given says...
>

>
>[..anecdotal example..]
>>>The average passenger fit well into their seat.
>>Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few
>>large size seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't
>>have to be changed much, if at all.
>
> See above. Airlines aren't going to refit seating unless a
>demographically significant number of oversize passengers make a fuss;
>anecdotal monkey business about one passenger on one flight isn't going
>to make a host of airline companies change their policy nor will it
>likely warrant any goverment action. Which is as it should be.

One problem would be, if certain larger seats are made available, a large number
of passengers will want them - not just the obese or even overweight. How does
one deal with that? Query those who reserve by phone or online? Measure them
when they appear for the flight? What do you do with the large-but-can-fit pax
who sign up for these seats? And that minority of folks who always seem to
define for themselves soooome reason they haaaaave to have the better situations
in general? Say you're a ticket agent - you wanna deal with all that??

I also get back to the point that Mike also makes (I think) - there aren't
thaaaaaat many pax who really can't fit in the seats. I got my (at the time)
210 lb 6 foot tall person's pregnant broad beam in an economy class airline seat
- I've observed most large folks can - beer-bellied, overweight, whatever.
There's not much shifting around or slouching room to be sure, but by and large
(pun) the passengers fit in their seats - yes, with the armrest down. So we're
really talking about people several sigmas away from the mean who are really too
large to fit - the truly obese.

I'd be for offering 50% off a second seat - it may still get to the problems of
definition and perception as to need I described above, but I think to a much
lesser extent.

Banty

Allisson

September 10th, 2003, 09:26 PM

In article >,
Mike Given > wrote:
>Martin W. Smith wrote:
>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>Martin W. Smith wrote:
>>>>Jonathan Smith wrote:
>>>>>So your solution would be for skinny people to subsidize
>>>>>low cost extra wide seats for fat people? I don't think so.
>>>>No. They can charge extra fro wider seats.
>>>But you've already lamented is that obese folk can't afford
>>>to buy them so that argument is pretty much shot in the ass.
>>No, I don't mean the increased price should be a business
>>class or first class fare. That's way too high. Most people
>>can't afford it. But a ten percent premium, or something like
>>that, for the extra space, is reasonable.
>
> Actually I was thinking more along the lines of offering a 50%-off
>second seat as a *courtesy* to oversized passengers. The airline still
>loses the 1/2 the price of a second seat but as I'll demonstrate a
>little further on there's a certain amount of pragmatism to the idea.
>
>>Two seats are far wider than a business class seat. Most fat
>>people don't spill over that much.
>
> I've been airborne to (at rough counts) 20 different destinations on
>somewhereabouts 40-50+ different commercial flights and once via private
>jet. Excluding the private jet, of all those flights I only ever saw
>one passenger large enough for special seating. Recollecting time spent
>in airports, I can say I don't recall seeing too much of anyone that
>wouldn't fit (or at least squeeze) into a coach-class seat.
> Ergo contenplorum, most overweight folk (or at least those prone to
>airline travel) are not quite *that* overweight.

I've been flying for as many years as I've been alive. I've flown
more recently, due to living further away from relatives but, I'd say
I've logged about 1.5 times your travel on everything from a Piper
Cherokee to a 747.

In recent years, maybe because I do now reside in the land of
butterfat, I have seen at least one passenger per flight that
has requested the seatbelt extensions. My horror story begins
in Detroit. Our connection from Indianapolis was late and the
only two seats near each other were two aisle seats in the back
of the plane. I'm a smallish woman -- about 20.5% body fat, 5'5"
BMI of 22 -- compared to my 6' 172# husband, so I got the seat
next to the large couple. She had raised the armrest up to allow
herself to spill over into my seat. They both had extensions and
had to ask for a *second* one for her spouse. I lowered the arm so that
I could have more of the room of my seat. She gave me a dirty look.
We had been up since 0330 - to make the hour+ drive to the airport,
negotiate self-park and the bus, check-in, security, etc; I was tired
and fell asleep. I awoke to an elbow jabbing me in my ribs. While
I slept she raised the arm and because I took up slightly more
than half my seat width my ribs were where her elbow would have been
if she put her hands at her side. We were making our intial descent,
so I didn't feel compelled to do anything but lower the armrest, again.
I got another dirty look.

THis is not the first time I have had to accomodate someone else
who failed to fit in their seat and needed some of mine; although,
it was the first time I got bruises. I think we got a bargain
fare of $200 during the peak of summer to a summer destination.
If the people with the 3 extensions had paid for one extra seat,
it still would have been a good fare at $300/pp and they wouldn't
have been so inconvenienced by my size 6 ass.

Alli

--
- "Relata refero. Ne Iupeter quidem omibus placet"
(I only tell you what I heard. Even Jove himself
cannot please everyone) -- Anon.

Banty

September 10th, 2003, 09:26 PM

In article >, GW says...
>
>"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>>Mike Given wrote:
>
>>> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>>> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>>> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>>> half-size seat at half the price?
>
>>I don't understand your example.
>
>Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
>order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
>required to pay as much money as you?

Um - you don't get 1/2 price back if you only eat half a plate, either.

Banty

mrtravel

September 10th, 2003, 09:43 PM

GW wrote:

> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
>>Mike Given wrote:
>
>
>>> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>>>weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>>>be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>>>half-size seat at half the price?
>
>
>>I don't understand your example.
>
>
> Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
> order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
> required to pay as much money as you?
>

Try this one.

They didn't order two plates of food. They ordered transportation for
one person. Unless the airline officially informs the passenger about a
limit on size, they shouldn't charge more if the passenger needs more
space. Howver, consider this. My large shirt is the same price as
medium or small shirt. However, I don't normally see XL, 2XL, or 3 XL
shirts that require someone to pay double the price (like 2 coach seats)

I think they should be able to buy two seats, if available, at a discount.

September 10th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Banty > wrote:

>In article >, GW says...

>>"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>>>Mike Given wrote:

>>>> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>>>> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>>>> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>>>> half-size seat at half the price?

>>>I don't understand your example.

>>Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
>>order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
>>required to pay as much money as you?

>Um - you don't get 1/2 price back if you only eat half a plate, either.

It's not fair!!! We normal sized people are being
discriminated against!!!

miguel

Banty

September 10th, 2003, 10:55 PM

In article >, GW says...
>
>Banty > wrote:
>
>>In article >, GW says...
>
>>>"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>>>>Mike Given wrote:
>
>>>>> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>>>>> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>>>>> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>>>>> half-size seat at half the price?
>
>>>>I don't understand your example.
>
>>>Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
>>>order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
>>>required to pay as much money as you?
>
>>Um - you don't get 1/2 price back if you only eat half a plate, either.
>
>It's not fair!!! We normal sized people are being
>discriminated against!!!
>
>miguel

Heh - yeah :-)

It's a fact - one does not have to eat all that's on one's plate!

Banty

Deep Fish out of Korea

September 11th, 2003, 03:20 AM

GW > wrote in message
...

> It's not fair!!! We normal sized people are being
> discriminated against!!!
>
> miguel

Nice try, Peck.

You may find your little teeny heart breaks less if you give up these
bathetic delusions.

DFooK

Mike Given

September 11th, 2003, 05:27 AM

Banty wrote:
>Mike Given says...
[..passengers overflowing into other passenger's seats..]
>>Airlines aren't going to refit seating unless a
>>demographically significant number of oversize passengers make
>>a fuss; anecdotal monkey business about one passenger on one
>>flight isn't going to make a host of airline companies change
>>their policy nor will it likely warrant any goverment action.
>>Which is as it should be.
>One problem would be, if certain larger seats are made available,
>a large number of passengers will want them - not just the obese
>or even overweight. How does one deal with that?

"Expanded Coach Seating available" - around 1.5x of a regular ticket
price, possibly with discount going to those that can produce some
sort of medical affidavit. Not all the amenities of a "First Class"
seat, obviously, just a bigger chair, possibly with some additional
reinforcement to insure additional freight stays put in the event of
an emergency.

>Query those who reserve by phone or online? Measure them when
>they appear for the flight? What do you do with the
>large-but-can-fit pax who sign up for these seats?

Just work it into the usual service counter routine.
"May I interest you in or do you require an available Expanded Coach
seat?" If the ticket is being purchased in person, so much the easier
to determine whether such an offer should be made.

>And that minority of folks who always seem to define for
>themselves soooome reason they haaaaave to have the better
>situations in general?

And why should just oversize folk benefit anyway? Moms/Dads with
carry-on crotchfruit, people with pulled hamstrings for whom being
jostled is moderately painful, the inevitable dip**** who thinks a
tent is carry-on luggage, and commuting professional wrestlers can all
enjoy a slight cut above for a slight jack in price. Shewt,
considering all the numbnuts I've gotten stuck next to on flights, if
the price was right I'd buy one for pretty much any flight over 3
hours.

>Say you're a ticket agent - you wanna deal with all that??

"Boo-****ing-hoo" to that noise; dealing with that sort of thing is
exactly what ticket agents get paid for.

>I also get back to the point that Mike also makes (I think)
>there aren't thaaaaaat many pax who really can't fit in the
>seats.

Your reading comprehension is impeccable.

>I got my (at the time) 210 lb 6 foot tall person's pregnant
>broad beam in an economy class airline seat - I've observed
>most large folks can - beer-bellied, overweight, whatever.
>There's not much shifting around or slouching room to be
>sure, but by and large (pun) the passengers fit in their
>seats - yes, with the armrest down. So we're really talking
>about people several sigmas away from the mean who are really
>too large to fit - the truly obese.

Yup; I've been trying to keep a distinction between the actual
oversized passenger versus ones that're merely overweight.

>I'd be for offering 50% off a second seat - it may still get
>to the problems of definition and perception as to need I
>described above, but I think to a much lesser extent.

The link to the SWAirlines link I posted explains that they're doing
almost that - if you don't pay for a second seat when you buy the
first and the second is required you'll have to pay for the seat
provided one is available in which case you otherwise take a bump.
But if the plane isn't full they'll actually refund the full ticket
price, thus providing a completely FREE second-seat.
If that's the policy the NAAFA got hackles up about they need to get
much more of a fingerhold on reality, shut the **** up, and elect some
officers that are at least a *bit* more emotionally stable.

Mikey (..or buy a ticket on the next railroad catlle-car headed west.)

Martin W. Smith

September 11th, 2003, 08:14 AM

Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> > Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
> > seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
> > much, if at all.
>
> Every inch used for larger seats takes away from the number of normal
> seats. Even if they're not being used.

Your argument is to get rid of first class and business class altogether
then. And get rid of all the kitchen facilities as well. I'm all for it.

> > I was actually think of an adjustable seat.
>
> Where would the other space come from? Or do you mean three seats that could
> be converted to two?

No, I mean a completely different seating arrangement. I think bunk beds
would be the best.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Martin W. Smith

September 11th, 2003, 08:31 AM

GW wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >Mike Given wrote:
>
> >> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
> >> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
> >> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
> >> half-size seat at half the price?
>
> >I don't understand your example.
>
> Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
> order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
> required to pay as much money as you?

It depends on what we ordered. If I order franks and beans and you order
lobster, you pay more. I don't think your second example clears up your
first one at all.

> >> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
> >> >into account. That is discrimination.
>
> >> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
> >> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
> >> freight bill.
>
> >A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
> >requiring fat people to buy two seats.
>
> Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
> neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
> when it is based on factors that do not have practical
> relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
> undesirable social policy.

As long as the airline charges a reasonable fee for the extra space,
rather than two full fares, then it is fair. But remember that the only
reason there is a problem in the first place is because the seat size
was set by designers who decided that fat people don't deserve a proper
seat on an airplane. They could have designed bench seats. Why didn't
they use bench seats? Safety cannot possibly be the reason, soince if
the airplane crashes, you're dead anyway. Bench seats would have solved
the whole problem.

> Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
> for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
> thing.
>
> Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
> on an airplane is another.

Fine, then charge extra for people with coughs and runny noses. Charge
extra for people who ate garlic the night before. Charge extra for
people who take the shoes off or didn't use deoderant. Charge extra for
people who play their walkman so everyone else can hear it. Charge extra
for crying children. Charge extra for every ounce of luggage. Charge
extra for using the toilet. Charge extra for meals.

> The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
> restated another way.
>
> Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
> they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
> size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
> per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
> number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
> expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?

No. I didn't say they should reduce the number of seats by 40%, and it
wouldn't cause a 40% rise anyway. There would be a lot less weight, so
the fuel cost would drop significantly. There would be 40% fewer meals,
so the cost of that service would drop significantly. And fewer cabin
staff would be needed, so the personnel cost would drop significantly.
The cost of a ticket might not have to be raised much at all, and we
would all be more comfortable.

> Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
> seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?

For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
everyone is better off when it works.

> Why is that fair to the smaller person?

Because he doesn't have to complain about fat people anymore.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Miguel Cruz

September 11th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
>>> Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
>>> seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
>>> much, if at all.
>>
>> Every inch used for larger seats takes away from the number of normal
>> seats. Even if they're not being used.
>
> Your argument is to get rid of first class and business class altogether
> then. And get rid of all the kitchen facilities as well. I'm all for it.

They charge a premium for business and first class that far exceeds the
cost of the coach seats displaced.

>> Where would the other space come from? Or do you mean three seats that could
>> be converted to two?
>
> No, I mean a completely different seating arrangement. I think bunk beds
> would be the best.

Now we're talking. I've been wanting that for a long time. I wonder what's
stopping them.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Jonathan Smith

September 11th, 2003, 09:19 AM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> Mike Given wrote:
> >
> > Martin W. Smith wrote:
> > >Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > >>So your solution would be for skinny people to subsidize
> > >>low cost extra wide seats for fat people? I don't think so.
> > >No. They can charge extra fro wider seats.
> >
> > But you've already lamented is that obese folk can't afford to buy
> > them so that argument is pretty much shot in the ass.
>
> No, I don't mean the increased price should be a business class or first
> class fare. That's way too high. Most people can't afford it. But a ten
> percent premium, or something like that, for the extra space, is
> reasonable. Two seats are far wider than a business class seat. Most fat
> people don't spill over that much.

You are suggesting that a third (fourth) class be established. BA has
this as does Virgin, I believe, though this "premium" economy reflects
leg room not width. If this were a viable business model, then
someone ought to try it. But here's the rub - can you mandate that a
larger than average person purchase in this class or are you
constrained to only offer it?

>
> > >They already do that. Didn't you know?
> >
> > Not all airlines make that accomodation. When I flew out to Chicago
> > last summer it was on a budget flight with no "first class" section on
> > the plane at all.

> Yes, once again they have ignored the fat people demographic, as if
> there aren't a lot of fat people in the US.

That was that airlines overt choice. There business model is NOT to
provide a premium product. Southwest has the same philosophy as do
others, Ryannair, etc in Europe.

> > >Then you are arguing for allowing the airlines to determine
> > >what the standard seat size is. Why?
> >
> > Umm, because they're also responsible for setting the price on that
> > seat? In a free-enterprise system the airlines can do as they see fit
> > and everybody else can take the train (or boat) as necessary.
>
> Then they could make the seats even smaller, and pack them even closer
> together.

There are airlines that have done this. The only linitation is with
respect to safety. Comfort is in the eyes of the beholder.

> You wouldn't like that, but if they all got together and
> decided to do it, you would have no choice.

In the US it is illegal for companies that compete to collude on price
or product offering. If this were to happen, then the government
would be obligated to file suit.

> That's why the government
> intervenes.

In the case of collusion, certainly.

> > >The standard seat size should be based on the standard
> > >person size, which is an average that must include fat
> > >people.
> >
> > If they did that, fewer people would be able to fit on the plane and
> > ticket prices would go up accordingly - for everyone, not just people
> > with extra freight built in. Of the roughly 110 people on the
> > aforementioned flight to Chicago absolutely NO ONE had any trouble
> > fitting into a seat. 0%. The average passenger fit well into their
> > seat.
>
> Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
> seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
> much, if at all.

Once again - are you suggesting that airlines provide a section
(however large or small) of oversized seats sold at a nominal premium
and:

a) REQUIRE that any oversized passenger sit ONLY in those seats
b) OFFER those seats to oversized passengers as a conveninece but not
require that they purchase this more expensive ticket
c) OFFER those seats to anyone willing to pay extra for it under the
assumption that larger people would be more likely to do so?

> > I weigh 170# at 5'10". If someone else weighs 340# at 5'10" it would
> > be grossly unfair for me to have to foot the bill for *their* "extra
> > passenger", which is precisely what you're suggesting.
> > And your "fair" idea to set an average won't help fat people either -
> > if you average the two aforementioned weights you'll come up with it'll
> > come out to 255#, which makes for a nice, big comfy (if overpriced) seat
> > for me but still isn't big enough for for someone twice my weight.
>
> I was actually think of an adjustable seat.

In Europe, this is quite common. The premium between the five across
and six across seating is about 10%, between full fare economy and
full fare business class. The premium is 500% between discounted
economy and business class.

> > But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
> > weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
> > be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
> > half-size seat at half the price?
>
> I don't understand your example.

I do. And it's a good one.

> > >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
> > >into account. That is discrimination.
> >
> > A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
> > they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
> > freight bill.
>
> A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
> requiring fat people to buy two seats.

The example reflects one airline's policy and even that policy is
flexible in the case of undersold flights. It is not discriminatory
at all - airlines charge less for children, charge more for non-stops,
and have all sorts of policies that result in significant different
costs for travelers.

> > >Since you can't solve the problem fairly
> >
> > Here's a fair idea: Weigh-ins. Just like most anything else that
> > requires shipment, you pay by the pound to cover costs of space on-board
> > and fuel just as if you were bringing extra luggage along. If you can
> > provide an authorized medical waiver that states your weight is the
> > result of something other than overeating (the most common cause of
> > obesity) then you get an appropriate handicap discount.
>
> Fair enough.

I always thought that would be the fairest option. I'm far from being
oversized and generally travel with just a small carryon bag - whereas
some of my fellow travelers are fairly large and travel with the
maximum allowable baggage. Seems I shouldn't have to pay for their
weight.

> > >(you have just demonstrated that), the government ought to
> > >step in.
> >
> > The government should step in to help mollify the current obesity
> > "epidemic". Just like it's illegal for a barkeep to continue to sell
> > anything but soft drinks to a drunk person, make it illegal to sell
> > anything but lettuce and low-fat salad dressing to a fat person that
> > isn't overweight as a result of a medical condition.
>
> Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
> state. Diets are religions.

Diets are behavioral.

> > >Did you think the airline seat size was passed down from God?
> >
> > No more than the recipie for Hostess Twinkies is.
>
> So you do think the seat size was passed down from God?

Now that would be a violation of church and state.

js

Martin W. Smith

September 11th, 2003, 10:13 AM

Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> > Miguel Cruz wrote:
> >> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> >>> Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
> >>> seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
> >>> much, if at all.
> >>
> >> Every inch used for larger seats takes away from the number of normal
> >> seats. Even if they're not being used.
> >
> > Your argument is to get rid of first class and business class altogether
> > then. And get rid of all the kitchen facilities as well. I'm all for it.
>
> They charge a premium for business and first class that far exceeds the
> cost of the coach seats displaced.

Yes, I said that. The incomes of the people who pay for those seats far
exceeds the income of almost everybody.

> >> Where would the other space come from? Or do you mean three seats that could
> >> be converted to two?
> >
> > No, I mean a completely different seating arrangement. I think bunk beds
> > would be the best.
>
> Now we're talking. I've been wanting that for a long time. I wonder what's
> stopping them.

Greed.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Martin W. Smith

September 11th, 2003, 10:18 AM

Jonathan Smith wrote:
> You are suggesting that a third (fourth) class be established. BA has
> this as does Virgin, I believe, though this "premium" economy reflects
> leg room not width. If this were a viable business model, then
> someone ought to try it. But here's the rub - can you mandate that a
> larger than average person purchase in this class or are you
> constrained to only offer it?

I think you can mandate that a larger than average person either
purchase in that class *or* purchase two seats in coach.

> That was that airlines overt choice. There business model is NOT to
> provide a premium product. Southwest has the same philosophy as do
> others, Ryannair, etc in Europe.

They should switch to bench seats.

> Once again - are you suggesting that airlines provide a section
> (however large or small) of oversized seats sold at a nominal premium
> and:
>
> a) REQUIRE that any oversized passenger sit ONLY in those seats
> b) OFFER those seats to oversized passengers as a conveninece but not
> require that they purchase this more expensive ticket
> c) OFFER those seats to anyone willing to pay extra for it under the
> assumption that larger people would be more likely to do so?

(a)

But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
solution.

> > Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
> > state. Diets are religions.
>
> Diets are behavioral.

So are religions.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Banty

September 11th, 2003, 12:46 PM

In article >, Mike Given says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>>Mike Given says...
>[..passengers overflowing into other passenger's seats..]
>>>Airlines aren't going to refit seating unless a
>>>demographically significant number of oversize passengers make
>>>a fuss; anecdotal monkey business about one passenger on one
>>>flight isn't going to make a host of airline companies change
>>>their policy nor will it likely warrant any goverment action.
>>>Which is as it should be.
>>One problem would be, if certain larger seats are made available,
>>a large number of passengers will want them - not just the obese
>>or even overweight. How does one deal with that?
>
> "Expanded Coach Seating available" - around 1.5x of a regular ticket
>price, possibly with discount going to those that can produce some
>sort of medical affidavit. Not all the amenities of a "First Class"
>seat, obviously, just a bigger chair, possibly with some additional
>reinforcement to insure additional freight stays put in the event of
>an emergency.
>
>>Query those who reserve by phone or online? Measure them when
>>they appear for the flight? What do you do with the
>>large-but-can-fit pax who sign up for these seats?
>
> Just work it into the usual service counter routine.
> "May I interest you in or do you require an available Expanded Coach
>seat?" If the ticket is being purchased in person, so much the easier
>to determine whether such an offer should be made.
>
>>And that minority of folks who always seem to define for
>>themselves soooome reason they haaaaave to have the better
>>situations in general?
>
> And why should just oversize folk benefit anyway? Moms/Dads with
>carry-on crotchfruit, people with pulled hamstrings for whom being
>jostled is moderately painful, the inevitable dip**** who thinks a
>tent is carry-on luggage, and commuting professional wrestlers can all
>enjoy a slight cut above for a slight jack in price. Shewt,
>considering all the numbnuts I've gotten stuck next to on flights, if
>the price was right I'd buy one for pretty much any flight over 3
>hours.

Well, I can see that arrangement going the way of the compact-car parking spaces
that used to be set up nearer the buildings...

But it's worth a try.

You weren't on my flight from London to Philly which featured someone trying to
stash a four-foot long wood rocking horse, were you??

>
>>Say you're a ticket agent - you wanna deal with all that??
>
> "Boo-****ing-hoo" to that noise; dealing with that sort of thing is
>exactly what ticket agents get paid for.

Well, they can buck up and deal with it, but the airlines also need to get a
policy that's either actually enforcable, or accepts whatever result
self-enforcement (enforced by pax habits) brings.

>
>>I also get back to the point that Mike also makes (I think)
>>there aren't thaaaaaat many pax who really can't fit in the
>>seats.
>
> Your reading comprehension is impeccable.

Oh, I know, I know...

>
>>I got my (at the time) 210 lb 6 foot tall person's pregnant
>>broad beam in an economy class airline seat - I've observed
>>most large folks can - beer-bellied, overweight, whatever.
>>There's not much shifting around or slouching room to be
>>sure, but by and large (pun) the passengers fit in their
>>seats - yes, with the armrest down. So we're really talking
>>about people several sigmas away from the mean who are really
>>too large to fit - the truly obese.
>
> Yup; I've been trying to keep a distinction between the actual
>oversized passenger versus ones that're merely overweight.
>
>>I'd be for offering 50% off a second seat - it may still get
>>to the problems of definition and perception as to need I
>>described above, but I think to a much lesser extent.
>
> The link to the SWAirlines link I posted explains that they're doing
>almost that - if you don't pay for a second seat when you buy the
>first and the second is required you'll have to pay for the seat
>provided one is available in which case you otherwise take a bump.
>But if the plane isn't full they'll actually refund the full ticket
>price, thus providing a completely FREE second-seat.
> If that's the policy the NAAFA got hackles up about they need to get
>much more of a fingerhold on reality, shut the **** up, and elect some
>officers that are at least a *bit* more emotionally stable.

Well, the whole *premise* of NAAFA being that all society should accept and
embrace a reversible, extremely unhealthy condition, how much wisdom would be
expected from those who would lead that...

I do understand their points that FF miles should be given based on seats
actually bought, and that two fat flyers (I guess these types often hook up)
should be able to arrange to buy a single extra seat between them.

But if a fat passenger ever tries that line "we'll both be more comfortable with
the armrest up", he or she won't be pleased with my response. It would be
something on the order of ">ahem< - no, just *you* would be more comfortable -
my comfort needs are that the armrest stays down"

Banty ("Hi, neighbor - we'll both be comfortable if my dogs can **** in your
yard too..")

Banty

September 11th, 2003, 01:29 PM

In article >, Martin W. Smith says...
>
>Jonathan Smith wrote:
>> You are suggesting that a third (fourth) class be established. BA has
>> this as does Virgin, I believe, though this "premium" economy reflects
>> leg room not width. If this were a viable business model, then
>> someone ought to try it. But here's the rub - can you mandate that a
>> larger than average person purchase in this class or are you
>> constrained to only offer it?
>
>I think you can mandate that a larger than average person either
>purchase in that class *or* purchase two seats in coach.
>
>> That was that airlines overt choice. There business model is NOT to
>> provide a premium product. Southwest has the same philosophy as do
>> others, Ryannair, etc in Europe.
>
>They should switch to bench seats.
>
>> Once again - are you suggesting that airlines provide a section
>> (however large or small) of oversized seats sold at a nominal premium
>> and:
>>
>> a) REQUIRE that any oversized passenger sit ONLY in those seats
>> b) OFFER those seats to oversized passengers as a conveninece but not
>> require that they purchase this more expensive ticket
>> c) OFFER those seats to anyone willing to pay extra for it under the
>> assumption that larger people would be more likely to do so?
>
>(a)
>
>But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
>solution.

What - so that more people are squeezed by very obese person? (No - I know I
know! - so that obese people can preboard claiming their need for 'more time',
take their places, and leave everybody else to squeeze in around them ...)

Safety requires airlines to have seats. Unsurvivable crashes aren't the only
concern. You're really barking up the wrong tree.

>
>> > Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
>> > state. Diets are religions.
>>
>> Diets are behavioral.
>
>So are religions.

Categorical fallacy. Whether or not religions are behavioral has naught to do
with whether or not diet is a 'religion'.

Diets are behavioral.

Banty

Martin W. Smith

September 11th, 2003, 01:54 PM

Banty wrote:
>
> In article >, Martin W. Smith says...
> >But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
> >solution.
>
> What - so that more people are squeezed by very obese person?

No - so no one will be squeezed by very obese person [sic] - unless the
flight was fully booked, in which case there would be no difference from
the current situation.

> Safety requires airlines to have seats. Unsurvivable crashes aren't the only
> concern. You're really barking up the wrong tree.

What is the safety issue? Bench seats are safe.

> >> > Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
> >> > state. Diets are religions.
> >>
> >> Diets are behavioral.
> >
> >So are religions.
>
> Categorical fallacy. Whether or not religions are behavioral has naught to do
> with whether or not diet is a 'religion'.

Whatever set of rules you follow religiously is a religion.

> Diets are behavioral.

So are religions.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

September 11th, 2003, 02:37 PM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote:

>GW wrote:
>>
>> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>> >Mike Given wrote:
>>
>> >> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>> >> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>> >> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>> >> half-size seat at half the price?
>>
>> >I don't understand your example.
>>
>> Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
>> order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
>> required to pay as much money as you?
>
>It depends on what we ordered. If I order franks and beans and you order
>lobster, you pay more. I don't think your second example clears up your
>first one at all.

Don't be obtuse. You can fairly read into the query
identical foods, just twice the amount.

Now answer the question.

>> >> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
>> >> >into account. That is discrimination.

>> >> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
>> >> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
>> >> freight bill.

>> >A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
>> >requiring fat people to buy two seats.

>> Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
>> neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
>> when it is based on factors that do not have practical
>> relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
>> undesirable social policy.

>As long as the airline charges a reasonable fee for the extra space,
>rather than two full fares, then it is fair. But remember that the only
>reason there is a problem in the first place is because the seat size
>was set by designers who decided that fat people don't deserve a proper
>seat on an airplane. They could have designed bench seats. Why didn't
>they use bench seats? Safety cannot possibly be the reason, soince if
>the airplane crashes, you're dead anyway. Bench seats would have solved
>the whole problem.

They are bench seats, mainly. They just have armrests in
places you don't agree with.

>> Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
>> for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
>> thing.

>> Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
>> on an airplane is another.

>Fine, then charge extra for people with coughs and runny noses. Charge
>extra for people who ate garlic the night before. Charge extra for
>people who take the shoes off or didn't use deoderant. Charge extra for
>people who play their walkman so everyone else can hear it. Charge extra
>for crying children. Charge extra for every ounce of luggage. Charge
>extra for using the toilet. Charge extra for meals.

These people aren't taking up extra space, are they?

>> The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
>> restated another way.

>> Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
>> they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
>> size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
>> per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
>> number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
>> expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?

>No. I didn't say they should reduce the number of seats by 40%, and it
>wouldn't cause a 40% rise anyway. There would be a lot less weight, so
>the fuel cost would drop significantly. There would be 40% fewer meals,
>so the cost of that service would drop significantly. And fewer cabin
>staff would be needed, so the personnel cost would drop significantly.
>The cost of a ticket might not have to be raised much at all, and we
>would all be more comfortable.

Have you sold any of the major carriers on your fascinating
economic proposal?

>> Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
>> seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?

>For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
>everyone is better off when it works.

No. Everyone is better off when they pay their own freight,
if they can.

>> Why is that fair to the smaller person?

>Because he doesn't have to complain about fat people anymore.

That has nothing to do with economic fairness.

miguel

Jonathan Smith

September 11th, 2003, 03:37 PM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > You are suggesting that a third (fourth) class be established. BA has
> > this as does Virgin, I believe, though this "premium" economy reflects
> > leg room not width. If this were a viable business model, then
> > someone ought to try it. But here's the rub - can you mandate that a
> > larger than average person purchase in this class or are you
> > constrained to only offer it?
>
> I think you can mandate that a larger than average person either
> purchase in that class *or* purchase two seats in coach.

Now - you draw the line. Next implement a process to effectively
manage this.

> > That was that airlines overt choice. There business model is NOT to
> > provide a premium product. Southwest has the same philosophy as do
> > others, Ryannair, etc in Europe.
>
> They should switch to bench seats.

They cannot - it is illegal according to the FAA. Wasn't it you who
advocated regulating this to begin with?

> > Once again - are you suggesting that airlines provide a section
> > (however large or small) of oversized seats sold at a nominal premium
> > and:
> >
> > a) REQUIRE that any oversized passenger sit ONLY in those seats
> > b) OFFER those seats to oversized passengers as a conveninece but not
> > require that they purchase this more expensive ticket
> > c) OFFER those seats to anyone willing to pay extra for it under the
> > assumption that larger people would be more likely to do so?
>
> (a)
>
> But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
> solution.

Nope - it is an impossible solution. Seat belts.

> > > Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
> > > state. Diets are religions.
> >
> > Diets are behavioral.
>
> So are religions.

Now understand your logic. Since dogs are pets and cats are pets,
dogs are cats.

Martin - I think this thread is done. At least it is for me.

js

Miguel Cruz

September 11th, 2003, 04:50 PM

Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
>>> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>>>> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
>>>>> Yes, and that would be the case most of the time, so very few large size
>>>>> seats would be needed, and ticket prioces wouldn't have to be changed
>>>>> much, if at all.
>>>>
>>>> Every inch used for larger seats takes away from the number of normal
>>>> seats. Even if they're not being used.
>>>
>>> Your argument is to get rid of first class and business class altogether
>>> then. And get rid of all the kitchen facilities as well. I'm all for it.
>>
>> They charge a premium for business and first class that far exceeds the
>> cost of the coach seats displaced.
>
> Yes, I said that. The incomes of the people who pay for those seats far
> exceeds the income of almost everybody.

But the point is that the airline recoups the loss, which is what justifies
the existence of those seats to the beancounters. This is why my argument in
fact cannot be used to justify removing FC and BC.

>>> No, I mean a completely different seating arrangement. I think bunk beds
>>> would be the best.
>>
>> Now we're talking. I've been wanting that for a long time. I wonder what's
>> stopping them.
>
> Greed.

Seems like some clever monkey out there must be able to find a way to get
the same passenger density with bunkbeds as seats. There's all that extra
vertical space to use, after all.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz

September 11th, 2003, 04:55 PM

Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> Banty wrote:
>> Martin W. Smith says...
>>> But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
>>> solution.
>>
>> What - so that more people are squeezed by very obese person?
>
> No - so no one will be squeezed by very obese person [sic] - unless the
> flight was fully booked, in which case there would be no difference from
> the current situation.

I would categorically not go on any flight longer than about an hour on an
airline with bench seating. That would definitely be the end of it for me.
There are few things I like less than having a stranger squeezed up against
me for long periods of time. I doubt I am alone in that. The armrest is my
salvation.

>> Safety requires airlines to have seats. Unsurvivable crashes aren't the
>> only concern. You're really barking up the wrong tree.
>
> What is the safety issue? Bench seats are safe.

How would the seat belts be fixed in place?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

rosie readandpost

September 11th, 2003, 06:53 PM

PLEASE TRIM YOUR HEADERS!

Eric Toline

September 12th, 2003, 03:55 AM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2003, 7:37am (EDT-3) From:
(Jonathan=A0Smith)
"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>...
Jonathan Smith wrote:

(a)
But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
solution.

Nope - it is an impossible solution. Seat belts.<<<<<<<<

Nope not impossible. Done all the time in cars with bench seats
including shoulder harness.

Eric

Mike Given

September 12th, 2003, 04:16 AM

Allisson wrote:
>Mike Given > wrote:
>>Martin W. Smith wrote:
[...]
>>>Two seats are far wider than a business class seat. Most fat
>>>people don't spill over that much.
>>I've been airborne to (at rough counts) 20 different destinations
>>on somewhereabouts 40-50+ different commercial flights and once
>>via private jet. Excluding the private jet, of all those flights
>>I only ever saw one passenger large enough for special seating.
>>Recollecting time spent in airports, I can say I don't recall
>>seeing too much of anyone that wouldn't fit (or at least squeeze)
>>into a coach-class seat. Ergo contenplorum, most overweight folk
>>(or at least those prone to airline travel) are not quite *that*
>>overweight.
>I've been flying for as many years as I've been alive.

Showoff.
Nice tits, though. Have the old man give 'em a squeeze for me.

>I've flown more recently, due to living further away from
>relatives but, I'd say I've logged about 1.5 times your travel
>on everything from a Piper Cherokee to a 747.

Yah, yah. Even if yer equipped with a nominal pair of ****-me pumps
I'm still taller than you.
(...which for whatever bizarre reasons seems to've become a major
****ing point hereabouts...)

[.."My horror story..."]

Piddling stuff.

>THis is not the first time I have had to accomodate someone
>else who failed to fit in their seat and needed some of mine;
>although, it was the first time I got bruises.

Okay. Set the way-back machine to August, 1995.
Yours truly has spent a few months exchanging hot-n-horny emails
with one of many "email supporters" who wishes in-person speaks. One
has also recently attended his very firstest soc.singles powwow in
Denver graciously hosted by the local FAQKeeper and as a result of
that and much business travel has accumulated enough FFMiles to choke
a size38^H^H^H^H^H^H major hippopotamus. One fateful evening a
long-distance phone call from said (inebriated) supporter and (even
more inebriated) friend making invites for a very long distance visit
is received.
ObSteadfastPersonalRule: When two drunken girlies with lovely
furrin accents phone up with invites to stay over for a few weeks, one
cashes in the FFMiles without hesitation.
So I find myself en route to Heathrow via BA from PHL and thinking
"okay - have a nap to cover the jet lag and I'll be all sortsa party
perky when I arrive" after abouts 7 hours of flying time.
Or so I thought.
I'm in the middle of the three-seat row, portside 747. Simply
adorable sweetie East-End cutie to my left at the window - and the
Eeevil Skinny Smarmy BritMale to my right in the aisle.
ObLongStoryShort: Guy falls asleep. I'm relieved, and so is the
girlie next to me who graciously suffered being chatted-up across my
lap for 20 minutes. I wink at girlie and let eyes slip shut for naps.
But *NOOOO*.
Guy on right falls asleep first and is apparently having some
dreamworld fantasy about flying using his legs as wings and begins
flapping his shanks, repeatedly smacking his left knee into my right
thigh. This of course summons me to wakedness and also amuses the
portside female who's (understandably) unable to resist giggling but
manages a polite and sympathetic squeeze to me left bicep. I call
stewardess for spare pillow to make buffer. As soon as she arrives
w/pillow and positions it, starboard side annoyance actually starts
snoring - really *loud*. This makes portside girlie guffaw and bury
he forehead into my shoulder. Stewardess is somewhat chagrined, so I
solve her problem for her and do my best to politely shake local
annoyance to mild wakefulness.
But the problem not only failed to wake, but promptly snorted and
launched a large and subconscious booger onto his own lap.
Stewardess is appalled. Portside girlie is practically having
orgams of laughter. I'm realizing that my chances of doing an evening
pub-crawl on my first non-business trip to London are rapidly
dwindling away unless I wake this idiot, but the thought of having to
deal with conversation with said prat makes the matter of
"accidentally" spilling an ice-filled drink into his lap something of
a mixed-blessing idea.
Y'all woulda been proud of me. I practiced a level of restraint
that likely remains unheard of in the annals of American touristry.
But I was a disappointedly sleepy sumbitch at primetime 8pm GMT and
didna make much of a showing and ended up snoozing away on an early
departure via comfy Vauxhall passenger seat on long drive "home" to
Ipswitch.
Some "party guy" I turned up to be, huh?. I did make up for it by
ponying-up for booze and dinner for my hostess and some several
uk.singles regs later on that first week, but the first nite set a
pace that I just didna seem to recover from.

[...]
>>my size 6 ass.

Can we get a .jpeg of that in a thong?

Mikey (..little sumptim for the scrapbook, ya know.)

mrtravel

September 12th, 2003, 04:23 AM

Eric Toline wrote:

>
> Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People
>
> Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2003, 7:37am (EDT-3) From:
> (Jonathan Smith)
> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
> >...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
>
>
> (a)
> But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
> solution.
>
> Nope - it is an impossible solution. Seat belts.<<<<<<<<
>
> Nope not impossible. Done all the time in cars with bench seats
> including shoulder harness.

How does that fix the problem of intrusion in the part of the seat that
should be yours?

Mike Given

September 12th, 2003, 04:52 AM

Banty wrote:
>Mike Given says...
[re: who wants larger airline seating..]
>>Shewt, considering all the numbnuts I've gotten stuck
>>next to on flights, if the price was right I'd buy
>>one for pretty much any flight over 3 hours.
>Well, I can see that arrangement going the way of the
>compact-car parking spaces that used to be set up nearer the
>buildings...

Don't let's even get me started on the number of lard-assed
lazy-bones I've seen that manage to obtain handicapped parking permits
and then have the consequent gall to unload a "personal scooter" to
tote their bulk around the market on.

>But it's worth a try.

Actually, if it was worth a try one supposes that some slick airline
marketing 'droid would've managed - but I'm stilll thinking that the
"worth" of such an endeavour is dubiously debatable at best.

>You weren't on my flight from London to Philly which featured
>someone trying to stash a four-foot long wood rocking horse,
>were you??

Scary though that may be coming on the heels of a post I just sent,
I must say that I missed that one.
But I'm still obliged to ask: You a BrotherlyLoveTown homie?

>>>Say you're a ticket agent - you wanna deal with all that??
>>"Boo-****ing-hoo" to that noise; dealing with that sort of thing
>>is exactly what ticket agents get paid for.
>Well, they can buck up and deal with it, but the airlines also
>need to get a policy that's either actually enforcable, or accepts
>whatever result self-enforcement (enforced by pax habits) brings.

I don't think self-enforcement or government regulation are options
nor would I imply such a thing. I'm firmly in the camp that such
matters are at the sole discretion of the airline company.

[...]
[..SWAirlines: The Incident, The Policy.]
>>If that's the policy the NAAFA got hackles up about they need to get
>>much more of a fingerhold on reality, shut the **** up, and elect
>>some officers that are at least a *bit* more emotionally stable.
>Well, the whole *premise* of NAAFA being that all society should
>accept and embrace a reversible, extremely unhealthy condition, how
>much wisdom would be expected from those who would lead that...

Precious little by my observation.

>I do understand their points that FF miles should be given based
>on seats actually bought, and that two fat flyers (I guess these
>types often hook up) should be able to arrange to buy a single
>extra seat between them.

Nope; FAA regs don't permit that (??), but can't much speak for
non-YooEss-based companies.

>But if a fat passenger ever tries that line "we'll both be more
>comfortable with the armrest up", he or she won't be pleased with
>my response.

Nor mine, but my in-flight woes have never had to do with pudgy
passengers; just the garden variety comedic kinda "if Allen Funt is
hiding behind that curtain, I'm gonna beat his ass" thing.

>("Hi, neighbor - we'll both be comfortable if my dogs can
>**** in your yard too..")

Hah. In a newsgroup I frequent that doesn't figure into this
confab, the prevailing opinion (on an entirely different peeevesome
point) would be: "Have a peanut."

Mikey (..but ya didna hear ir from me.)
ps. Message ID: >#1/1

Geoff Miller

September 12th, 2003, 05:10 AM

I hope "lose weight" was somewhere on that list.
After all, being morbidly obese is bad for reasons
that greatly transcend inconvenience during air
travel.

I'll never forget this one flight I made while
sitting next to an enormously fat person. For-
tunately it was a relatively short hop from TUL
to DeeEffDubya.

I boarded an American Airlines 727-200 in Tulsa.
Making my way through the crowd in the front of
the cabin, I made my way aft to locate my seat.

In the midst of reading the row numbers from the
overhead bins, I looked up to see this *enormous*
barrel-chested man sitting in the middle seat in
the otherwise as-yet unoccupied rear of the cabin.
He was so big that he took up not only his own seat,
but fully half of each seat to either side of him.

Sagging with resignation, I stopped counting rows
and trudged aft. I *knew* my seat was the window
seat next to this guy, and sure enough, it was.

I spent the next 45 minutes mashed into the closing
parenthesis of the inside of the fuselage, trying
to read with my book held against the window because
I was unable to get it into my lap. What a miserable
flight that was. That guy should've been strapped
to a pallet and flown as cargo aboard a C-130.

Geoff

--
"It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead
in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be
lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again
demanding we do in Iraq." --Ann Coulter

Martin W. Smith

September 12th, 2003, 08:06 AM

Miguel Cruz wrote:
> But the point is that the airline recoups the loss, which is what justifies
> the existence of those seats to the beancounters. This is why my argument in
> fact cannot be used to justify removing FC and BC.

A justification is a moral argument. Recouping a financial loss isn't a
moral issue. Airlines don't have to distinguish between different levels
of service. They choose to do so because they think they can make more
money that way. No one has ever proved that. RyanAir is disproving it.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

ramraideruk

September 12th, 2003, 08:13 AM

"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2003, 7:37am (EDT-3) From:
(Jonathan Smith)
"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>...
Jonathan Smith wrote:

(a)
But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
solution.

Nope - it is an impossible solution. Seat belts.<<<<<<<<

Nope not impossible. Done all the time in cars with bench seats
including shoulder harness.

Eric
That is an awful idea. All it means is that the fattie would get all the
room they need. Everyone else would have to squeeze into what ever room is
left!

Martin W. Smith

September 12th, 2003, 08:21 AM

GW wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote:
>
> >GW wrote:
> >>
> >> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >> >Mike Given wrote:
> >>
> >> >> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
> >> >> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
> >> >> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
> >> >> half-size seat at half the price?
> >>
> >> >I don't understand your example.
> >>
> >> Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
> >> order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
> >> required to pay as much money as you?
> >
> >It depends on what we ordered. If I order franks and beans and you order
> >lobster, you pay more. I don't think your second example clears up your
> >first one at all.
>
> Don't be obtuse. You can fairly read into the query
> identical foods, just twice the amount.
>
> Now answer the question.

The obvious answer is no, but this has nothing to do with the problem,
since I never claimed the person who required extra space couldn't or
shouldn't be charged for it. If a person is so big that he actually
requires two seats, then he should pay for two seets. Most fat people
don't require two seats. They should pay for the space they use, not
some multiple of the quanta the airlines have established as standard.

And, if you choose a window or middle seat, you have to pay me to get by
me. I always take an aisle seat. If you want me to get up so you can get
out, you owe me a dollar. If you want to step over me, you owe me two
dollars. If the flight attendent blocks my airspace with the drinks
cart, the airline owes me 10 dollars per minute. If you turn on your
reading light while I'm trying to sleep, you owe me one dollar per
minute. I will not be disturbed when I have paid for my space.

> >> >> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
> >> >> >into account. That is discrimination.
>
> >> >> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
> >> >> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
> >> >> freight bill.
>
> >> >A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
> >> >requiring fat people to buy two seats.
>
> >> Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
> >> neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
> >> when it is based on factors that do not have practical
> >> relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
> >> undesirable social policy.
>
> >As long as the airline charges a reasonable fee for the extra space,
> >rather than two full fares, then it is fair. But remember that the only
> >reason there is a problem in the first place is because the seat size
> >was set by designers who decided that fat people don't deserve a proper
> >seat on an airplane. They could have designed bench seats. Why didn't
> >they use bench seats? Safety cannot possibly be the reason, soince if
> >the airplane crashes, you're dead anyway. Bench seats would have solved
> >the whole problem.
>
> They are bench seats, mainly. They just have armrests in
> places you don't agree with.

They aren't bench seeats. A bench seat is a bench, one piece to sit on,
one back rest. No armrests are needed. If you want to pay extra for an
armrest, that's your prerogative. The flight attendant can rent an
armrest to you. If it intrudes into my space, you owe me 10 dollars.

> >> Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
> >> for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
> >> thing.
>
> >> Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
> >> on an airplane is another.
>
> >Fine, then charge extra for people with coughs and runny noses. Charge
> >extra for people who ate garlic the night before. Charge extra for
> >people who take the shoes off or didn't use deoderant. Charge extra for
> >people who play their walkman so everyone else can hear it. Charge extra
> >for crying children. Charge extra for every ounce of luggage. Charge
> >extra for using the toilet. Charge extra for meals.
>
> These people aren't taking up extra space, are they?

No, but they are consuming other resources that are just as important to
me as space. More important, actually, as I can cope with sitting next
to a fat person. I cannot cope with your smelly feet, stale garlic, and
rap "music".

> >> The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
> >> restated another way.
>
> >> Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
> >> they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
> >> size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
> >> per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
> >> number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
> >> expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?
>
> >No. I didn't say they should reduce the number of seats by 40%, and it
> >wouldn't cause a 40% rise anyway. There would be a lot less weight, so
> >the fuel cost would drop significantly. There would be 40% fewer meals,
> >so the cost of that service would drop significantly. And fewer cabin
> >staff would be needed, so the personnel cost would drop significantly.
> >The cost of a ticket might not have to be raised much at all, and we
> >would all be more comfortable.
>
> Have you sold any of the major carriers on your fascinating
> economic proposal?

Most of them seem to be moving toward smaller airplanes and/or one
class, so I'm winning.

> >> Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
> >> seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?
>
> >For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
> >everyone is better off when it works.
>
> No. Everyone is better off when they pay their own freight,
> if they can.

The key phrase being "if they can." That's why collectivism is often a
better way to organize systems. Level of service is sometimes more
important than profit.

> >> Why is that fair to the smaller person?
>
> >Because he doesn't have to complain about fat people anymore.
>
> That has nothing to do with economic fairness.

Who made economic fairness the standard? It isn't the standard.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Miguel Cruz

September 12th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> But the point is that the airline recoups the loss, which is what
>> justifies the existence of those seats to the beancounters.
>
> A justification is a moral argument. Recouping a financial loss isn't a
> moral issue.

Apparently you haven't met many beancounters. You speak heresy, my man.

> Airlines don't have to distinguish between different levels of service.
> They choose to do so because they think they can make more money that way.
> No one has ever proved that. RyanAir is disproving it.

Someone will still make money doing it. Even if McDonald's is the most
profitable restaurant company on earth, plenty of people are going to make
good salaries running foofy high-end eateries.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Martin W. Smith

September 12th, 2003, 08:24 AM

Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> > Banty wrote:
> >> Martin W. Smith says...
> >>> But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
> >>> solution.
> >>
> >> What - so that more people are squeezed by very obese person?
> >
> > No - so no one will be squeezed by very obese person [sic] - unless the
> > flight was fully booked, in which case there would be no difference from
> > the current situation.
>
> I would categorically not go on any flight longer than about an hour on an
> airline with bench seating. That would definitely be the end of it for me.
> There are few things I like less than having a stranger squeezed up against
> me for long periods of time. I doubt I am alone in that. The armrest is my
> salvation.

The armrest is your salvation? But with bench seating, you would be able
to rent armrests from the flight attendant. Why should we mature humans
have to subsidize your childish fear of strangers and pay for your silly
armrests?

> >> Safety requires airlines to have seats. Unsurvivable crashes aren't the
> >> only concern. You're really barking up the wrong tree.
> >
> > What is the safety issue? Bench seats are safe.
>
> How would the seat belts be fixed in place?

On tracks.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Martin W. Smith

September 12th, 2003, 08:32 AM

Jonathan Smith wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > > You are suggesting that a third (fourth) class be established. BA has
> > > this as does Virgin, I believe, though this "premium" economy reflects
> > > leg room not width. If this were a viable business model, then
> > > someone ought to try it. But here's the rub - can you mandate that a
> > > larger than average person purchase in this class or are you
> > > constrained to only offer it?
> >
> > I think you can mandate that a larger than average person either
> > purchase in that class *or* purchase two seats in coach.
>
> Now - you draw the line. Next implement a process to effectively
> manage this.

Rule 1. If you fit the measurements of a fat person and a big seat is
available, you pay for the big seat.

Rule 2. If you fith the measurements of a fat person and a big seat is
not available, you pay for two standard seats.

Rule 3. After all the fat people have paid for their seats, if you are
not a fat person and a big seat is available, you may pay for a big
seat.

Rule 4. There is no rule 4.

> > > That was that airlines overt choice. There business model is NOT to
> > > provide a premium product. Southwest has the same philosophy as do
> > > others, Ryannair, etc in Europe.
> >
> > They should switch to bench seats.
>
> They cannot - it is illegal according to the FAA. Wasn't it you who
> advocated regulating this to begin with?

No, it wasn't me. I doubt they are illegal according to the FAA. If they
are illegal according to the FAA, then change the law. The law should be
based on empirical data about safety.

> > > Once again - are you suggesting that airlines provide a section
> > > (however large or small) of oversized seats sold at a nominal premium
> > > and:
> > >
> > > a) REQUIRE that any oversized passenger sit ONLY in those seats
> > > b) OFFER those seats to oversized passengers as a conveninece but not
> > > require that they purchase this more expensive ticket
> > > c) OFFER those seats to anyone willing to pay extra for it under the
> > > assumption that larger people would be more likely to do so?
> >
> > (a)
> >
> > But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
> > solution.
>
> Nope - it is an impossible solution. Seat belts.

Seat belts can be mounted on tracks. The positions can be locked after
the belt is fastened. Most people won't need to move them at all. Fat
people will.

> > > > Not fair, because it violates the principle of separation of church and
> > > > state. Diets are religions.
> > >
> > > Diets are behavioral.
> >
> > So are religions.
>
> Now understand your logic. Since dogs are pets and cats are pets,
> dogs are cats.

No, that's not my logic. You apparently don't understand the meaning of
religion.

> Martin - I think this thread is done. At least it is for me.

I agree.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

mrtravel

September 12th, 2003, 08:53 AM

Martin W. Smith wrote:

>
> The obvious answer is no, but this has nothing to do with the problem,
> since I never claimed the person who required extra space couldn't or
> shouldn't be charged for it. If a person is so big that he actually
> requires two seats, then he should pay for two seets. Most fat people
> don't require two seats. They should pay for the space they use, not
> some multiple of the quanta the airlines have established as standard.

How does this differ from the other poster's food example?
IF one Big Mac isn't enough, you don't get to order 1 1/2 Big Macs, you
have to buy 2. If a person takes less than a full seat, they don't get
a discount. Life of full is paying for more than you actually need.

Eric Toline

September 12th, 2003, 10:48 AM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 12, 2003, 3:23am (EDT+4) From:
(mrtravel)
Eric Toline wrote:
Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People
Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2003,

Nope not impossible. Done all the time in cars with bench seats
including shoulder harness.

How does that fix the problem of intrusion in the part of the seat that
should be yours?<<<<<<<

It dosn't but as you well know that wasn't the question. The question
was about seat belts and bench seats.

Eric

Eric Toline

September 12th, 2003, 11:00 AM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2003, 11:52pm From:
(Mike=A0Given)

=A0=A0=A0>>>=A0Don't let's even get me started on the number of
lard-assed lazy-bones I've seen that manage to obtain handicapped
parking permits and then have the consequent gall to unload a "personal
scooter" to tote their bulk around the market on.<<<<<<<<<

I know someone like that. Except they're not lard assed lazy bones as
you so insightfully call them.

Their situation is a medical one where they have a diabetic caused
circulatory problem and can't be on their feet for any extended period
of time.

A personal scooter is their only way of getting around and being
somewhat self sufficent in malls and markets.

Next time you comment make sure your brain is engaged before your mouth
is put in gear.

Eric

Eric Toline

September 12th, 2003, 11:07 AM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 12, 2003, 8:13am (EDT+5) From:
(ramraideruk)

Nope not impossible. Done all the time in cars with bench seats
including shoulder harness.
Eric

That is an awful idea. All it means is that the fattie would get all the
room they need. Everyone else would have to squeeze into what ever room
is left!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Agreed but the benchseat idea was not mine. All I did was to show that
seat belts for bench seats are not a new concept.

Eric

Banty

September 12th, 2003, 01:13 PM

In article >, Mike Given says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>>Mike Given says...
>[re: who wants larger airline seating..]
>>>Shewt, considering all the numbnuts I've gotten stuck
>>>next to on flights, if the price was right I'd buy
>>>one for pretty much any flight over 3 hours.
>>Well, I can see that arrangement going the way of the
>>compact-car parking spaces that used to be set up nearer the
>>buildings...
>
> Don't let's even get me started on the number of lard-assed
>lazy-bones I've seen that manage to obtain handicapped parking permits
>and then have the consequent gall to unload a "personal scooter" to
>tote their bulk around the market on.

Um - Mike - do you think that you could possibly, when you reflect back on it,
think of any reasons why those who need handicap permits would be the same ones
who need the personal scooters?

Are you trying to be ironic?

>
>>But it's worth a try.
>
> Actually, if it was worth a try one supposes that some slick airline
>marketing 'droid would've managed - but I'm stilll thinking that the
>"worth" of such an endeavour is dubiously debatable at best.
>
>>You weren't on my flight from London to Philly which featured
>>someone trying to stash a four-foot long wood rocking horse,
>>were you??
>
> Scary though that may be coming on the heels of a post I just sent,
>I must say that I missed that one.
> But I'm still obliged to ask: You a BrotherlyLoveTown homie?

Nope - connecting flight to elsewhere.

Banty

Banty

September 12th, 2003, 02:01 PM

In article >, mrtravel says...
>
>Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> The obvious answer is no, but this has nothing to do with the problem,
>> since I never claimed the person who required extra space couldn't or
>> shouldn't be charged for it. If a person is so big that he actually
>> requires two seats, then he should pay for two seets. Most fat people
>> don't require two seats. They should pay for the space they use, not
>> some multiple of the quanta the airlines have established as standard.
>
>How does this differ from the other poster's food example?
>IF one Big Mac isn't enough, you don't get to order 1 1/2 Big Macs, you
>have to buy 2. If a person takes less than a full seat, they don't get
>a discount. Life of full is paying for more than you actually need.
>
>

Perhaps Martin would have them determine the caloric needs of each restaurant
customer, custom make a meal accordingly, then charge strictly according to
amount.

Wait - perhaps he wouldn't..

Banty

Banty

September 12th, 2003, 02:15 PM

In article >, Martin W. Smith says...
>
>Miguel Cruz wrote:
>>
>> Martin W. Smith > wrote:
>> > Banty wrote:
>> >> Martin W. Smith says...
>> >>> But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
>> >>> solution.
>> >>
>> >> What - so that more people are squeezed by very obese person?
>> >
>> > No - so no one will be squeezed by very obese person [sic] - unless the
>> > flight was fully booked, in which case there would be no difference from
>> > the current situation.
>>
>> I would categorically not go on any flight longer than about an hour on an
>> airline with bench seating. That would definitely be the end of it for me.
>> There are few things I like less than having a stranger squeezed up against
>> me for long periods of time. I doubt I am alone in that. The armrest is my
>> salvation.
>
>The armrest is your salvation? But with bench seating, you would be able
>to rent armrests from the flight attendant. Why should we mature humans
>have to subsidize your childish fear of strangers and pay for your silly
>armrests?

The armrest rests arms, contains utilities, and, yes, does grant some separation
between pax and defines their spaces, including under-seat stowage space.

I don't care not to have them either. I don't care to be smooshed directly
against anyone for long hours, I dont' care to have my under-seat stowage
scooted down 5 feet from me. I don't care have my child smooshed into an even
smaller space between larger people just because they can. These things would
greatly decrease my comfort and would impact my and others' ability to fly.
Even subway cars and busses have some separate seating, at least by molded
indentation.

The *only* advantage of the bench seat idea is to accomodate the obese
passengers who dont' want to take responsibility for their own situations by
buying the seat space they need. At great disadvantage to others and to safety
in general.

The airline seat issue is but one of myriad problems an obese person encounters
due to their particular condition. Their practical choices are to either set up
their lives according to their situation, or to address their situation directly
by reversing their condition.

That's just how it is, setting side 'little' things like FAA regulations.

Banty

rosie readandpost

September 12th, 2003, 03:36 PM

trim your headers please

Mike Given

September 12th, 2003, 04:12 PM

Banty wrote:
>Mike Given says...
>>Banty wrote:
>>>Mike Given says...
>>[re: who wants larger airline seating..]
>>>>Shewt, considering all the numbnuts I've gotten stuck
>>>>next to on flights, if the price was right I'd buy
>>>>one for pretty much any flight over 3 hours.
>>>Well, I can see that arrangement going the way of the
>>>compact-car parking spaces that used to be set up nearer the
>>>buildings...
>>Don't let's even get me started on the number of lard-assed
>>lazy-bones I've seen that manage to obtain handicapped parking
>>permits and then have the consequent gall to unload a "personal
>>scooter" to tote their bulk around the market on.
>Um - Mike - do you think that you could possibly, when you
>reflect back on it, think of any reasons why those who need
>handicap permits would be the same ones who need the personal
>scooters?

No need to reflect; I think "lard-assed lazy-bones" is pretty
descriptive. Not elderly, not really incapacitated; we're talking about
someone that can drive, walk around to the back of the car, remove the
scooter themself, assemble it, then ride it through the grocery store.

>Are you trying to be ironic?

Not at all; just empitomizing the abuse of available privileges. It'd
be trivial if I'd only seen such a thing once, pass-off-able if twice,
but just this summer alone I've seen it three separate time by three
different people on Saturday grocery excursions, at least one of which I
also espied a poor old blue-hair having to make an 8-minute shuffle
across half-a parking lot. If you've got the damn scooter there's no
reason to also occupy a handicapped parking space.

Mikey (..but some people suck-up entitlements like candy.)

September 12th, 2003, 04:19 PM

"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>GW wrote:
>> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>> >GW wrote:
>> >> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>> >> >Mike Given wrote:

>> >> >> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
>> >> >> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
>> >> >> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
>> >> >> half-size seat at half the price?

>> >> >I don't understand your example.

>> >> Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
>> >> order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
>> >> required to pay as much money as you?

>> >It depends on what we ordered. If I order franks and beans and you order
>> >lobster, you pay more. I don't think your second example clears up your
>> >first one at all.

>> Don't be obtuse. You can fairly read into the query
>> identical foods, just twice the amount.

>> Now answer the question.

>The obvious answer is no, but this has nothing to do with the problem,
>since I never claimed the person who required extra space couldn't or
>shouldn't be charged for it. If a person is so big that he actually
>requires two seats, then he should pay for two seets. Most fat people
>don't require two seats. They should pay for the space they use, not
>some multiple of the quanta the airlines have established as standard.

If you go to a restaurant that sells you food by weight, you
get to pay for what you actually consume. If you go to a
restaurant that sells foods by plates or portions, you buy
the plate or portion. An airline sells seats by portions.
If you don't like the portion size, choose another airline
or a different class.

>And, if you choose a window or middle seat, you have to pay me to get by
>me. I always take an aisle seat. If you want me to get up so you can get
>out, you owe me a dollar. If you want to step over me, you owe me two
>dollars. If the flight attendent blocks my airspace with the drinks
>cart, the airline owes me 10 dollars per minute. If you turn on your
>reading light while I'm trying to sleep, you owe me one dollar per
>minute. I will not be disturbed when I have paid for my space.

Can you acknowledge that there is a difference between an
occasional disturbance and having your space violated the
whole flight by a person whose body is pressing against
yours?

>> >> >> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
>> >> >> >into account. That is discrimination.

>> >> >> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
>> >> >> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
>> >> >> freight bill.

>> >> >A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
>> >> >requiring fat people to buy two seats.

>> >> Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
>> >> neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
>> >> when it is based on factors that do not have practical
>> >> relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
>> >> undesirable social policy.

>> >As long as the airline charges a reasonable fee for the extra space,
>> >rather than two full fares, then it is fair. But remember that the only
>> >reason there is a problem in the first place is because the seat size
>> >was set by designers who decided that fat people don't deserve a proper
>> >seat on an airplane. They could have designed bench seats. Why didn't
>> >they use bench seats? Safety cannot possibly be the reason, soince if
>> >the airplane crashes, you're dead anyway. Bench seats would have solved
>> >the whole problem.

The airline cannot, consistent with safety requirements
(ncluding the fixing of seat belts) sell its space on bench
seats. It must have individual seats. There are several
instances of seat belts on airlines saving lives -- not in a
crash from flight altitude, but in takeoff and landing
incidents.

>> They are bench seats, mainly. They just have armrests in
>> places you don't agree with.

>They aren't bench seeats. A bench seat is a bench, one piece to sit on,
>one back rest. No armrests are needed. If you want to pay extra for an
>armrest, that's your prerogative. The flight attendant can rent an
>armrest to you. If it intrudes into my space, you owe me 10 dollars.

Once again you've got it backwards. Armrests don't intrude
on your personal space. They define it for you.

>> >> Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
>> >> for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
>> >> thing.

>> >> Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
>> >> on an airplane is another.

>> >Fine, then charge extra for people with coughs and runny noses. Charge
>> >extra for people who ate garlic the night before. Charge extra for
>> >people who take the shoes off or didn't use deoderant. Charge extra for
>> >people who play their walkman so everyone else can hear it. Charge extra
>> >for crying children. Charge extra for every ounce of luggage. Charge
>> >extra for using the toilet. Charge extra for meals.

>> These people aren't taking up extra space, are they?

>No, but they are consuming other resources that are just as important to
>me as space. More important, actually, as I can cope with sitting next
>to a fat person. I cannot cope with your smelly feet, stale garlic, and
>rap "music".

Whether those resources are important to you is irrelevant.
You don't get to market or price the airline's resources.
The airline does.

>> >> The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
>> >> restated another way.

>> >> Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
>> >> they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
>> >> size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
>> >> per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
>> >> number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
>> >> expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?

>> >No. I didn't say they should reduce the number of seats by 40%, and it
>> >wouldn't cause a 40% rise anyway. There would be a lot less weight, so
>> >the fuel cost would drop significantly. There would be 40% fewer meals,
>> >so the cost of that service would drop significantly. And fewer cabin
>> >staff would be needed, so the personnel cost would drop significantly.
>> >The cost of a ticket might not have to be raised much at all, and we
>> >would all be more comfortable.

>> Have you sold any of the major carriers on your fascinating
>> economic proposal?

>Most of them seem to be moving toward smaller airplanes and/or one
>class, so I'm winning.

Sure you are.

>> >> Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
>> >> seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?

>> >For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
>> >everyone is better off when it works.

>> No. Everyone is better off when they pay their own freight,
>> if they can.

>The key phrase being "if they can." That's why collectivism is often a
>better way to organize systems. Level of service is sometimes more
>important than profit.

Level of service is probably enhanced when carriers are
competing for travel dollars.

>> >> Why is that fair to the smaller person?

>> >Because he doesn't have to complain about fat people anymore.

>> That has nothing to do with economic fairness.

>Who made economic fairness the standard? It isn't the standard.

It is from where I'm sitting. In my own seat, with the
armrests down.

miguel

rosie readandpost

September 12th, 2003, 04:20 PM

please trim headers

Miguel Cruz

September 12th, 2003, 05:10 PM

Martin W. Smith > wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> I would categorically not go on any flight longer than about an hour on an
>> airline with bench seating. That would definitely be the end of it for me.
>> There are few things I like less than having a stranger squeezed up against
>> me for long periods of time. I doubt I am alone in that. The armrest is my
>> salvation.
>
> The armrest is your salvation? But with bench seating, you would be able
> to rent armrests from the flight attendant. Why should we mature humans
> have to subsidize your childish fear of strangers and pay for your silly
> armrests?

I am not afraid of strangers. I find having their flesh resting on top of
mine for extended periods of time to be unpleasant. This is not some weird
psychological problem; it is normal in our society. You may enjoy it, which
is fine. I don't see the point of debating this, actually, since there is no
chance in this personal-space-aware society that armrest-less planes would
ever fly.

The armrest makes the difference between having to fight for my personal
space versus having it defined for me. Having no armrests is like going to a
buffet restaurant where they put out enough food for about 3/4 of the people
and then let everyone go at it to see who gets fed. In a situation like that
I'd rather have my 3/4 portion than all the irritation of having to elbow
people away from the mashed potatoes.

>> How would the seat belts be fixed in place?
>
> On tracks.

How does that fix them in place? Why wouldn't I arrive first and make a land
grab by rearranging the seat belts?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

rosie readandpost

September 12th, 2003, 05:10 PM

please trim headers

Miguel Cruz

September 12th, 2003, 05:11 PM

Eric Toline > wrote:
> Agreed but the benchseat idea was not mine. All I did was to show that
> seat belts for bench seats are not a new concept.

Seat belts in cars with bench seats are irrelevant; they're not movable.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Banty

September 12th, 2003, 05:25 PM

In article >, Mike Given says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>>Mike Given says...
>>>Banty wrote:
>>>>Mike Given says...
>>>[re: who wants larger airline seating..]
>>>>>Shewt, considering all the numbnuts I've gotten stuck
>>>>>next to on flights, if the price was right I'd buy
>>>>>one for pretty much any flight over 3 hours.
>>>>Well, I can see that arrangement going the way of the
>>>>compact-car parking spaces that used to be set up nearer the
>>>>buildings...
>>>Don't let's even get me started on the number of lard-assed
>>>lazy-bones I've seen that manage to obtain handicapped parking
>>>permits and then have the consequent gall to unload a "personal
>>>scooter" to tote their bulk around the market on.
>>Um - Mike - do you think that you could possibly, when you
>>reflect back on it, think of any reasons why those who need
>>handicap permits would be the same ones who need the personal
>>scooters?
>
> No need to reflect; I think "lard-assed lazy-bones" is pretty
>descriptive. Not elderly, not really incapacitated; we're talking about
>someone that can drive, walk around to the back of the car, remove the
>scooter themself, assemble it, then ride it through the grocery store.
>
>>Are you trying to be ironic?
>
> Not at all; just empitomizing the abuse of available privileges. It'd
>be trivial if I'd only seen such a thing once, pass-off-able if twice,
>but just this summer alone I've seen it three separate time by three
>different people on Saturday grocery excursions, at least one of which I
>also espied a poor old blue-hair having to make an 8-minute shuffle
>across half-a parking lot. If you've got the damn scooter there's no
>reason to also occupy a handicapped parking space.

Now wait. The 'lard-ass lazy bones', if you're talking about someone obese, is
likely dealing with the various skeletal problems which are secondary to that.
Knees being the major weak point that breaks down. They have to get the 'damn
scooter' out, and they can't always *use* the 'damn scooter'.

I'd warn against passing judgement against every person you see using a handicap
spot - yeah, there's a lot of real abuse, but that can't be easily separated
from someone you might see with a circulatory or respiratory problem. On the
other hand, you can't say the poor old blue-hair isn't just fine with walking a
bit, and didn't do a 2 mile walking trek that morning as in every morning.

Banty

Banty

September 12th, 2003, 05:26 PM

In article >, rosie readandpost says...
>
>trim your headers please
>
>

To what? What exactly is your concern? Which groups?

Banty

Eric Toline

September 12th, 2003, 06:48 PM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 12, 2003, 4:11pm (EDT+4) From:
(Miguel=A0Cruz)
Eric Toline > wrote:
Agreed but the benchseat idea was not mine. All I did was to show that
seat belts for bench seats are not a new concept.

<<<<<Seat belts in cars with bench seats are irrelevant; they're not
movable.
miguel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It would help if you define what you're referring to. The belts or the
seats? AFAIK neither are movable on planes either, at least not easily.

It's silly to continue this dialogue as nothing said here will affect
any change in the way things are.

Eric
--

Miguel Cruz

September 12th, 2003, 07:46 PM

Eric Toline > wrote:
> It's silly to continue this dialogue as nothing said here will affect
> any change in the way things are.

I think that's the whole point of Usenet arguments. A bunch of people who
are far removed from control of anything having impotent debates over how
they'd run the zoo.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Eric Toline

September 12th, 2003, 08:06 PM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 12, 2003, 6:46pm (EDT+4) From:
(Miguel=A0Cruz)
Eric Toline > wrote:
It's silly to continue this dialogue as nothing said here will affect
any change in the way things are.

<<<<<I think that's the whole point of Usenet arguments. A bunch of
people who are far removed from control of anything having impotent
debates over how they'd run the zoo.
miguel
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
Much like the two fleas arguing about who owns the dog their on.

Eric

spa rk l y

September 13th, 2003, 01:29 AM

In article >,
"rosie readandpost" > wrote:

> trim your headers please
>
>

What, please?

Magic Nose Goblin

September 13th, 2003, 07:36 AM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> GW wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >Mike Given wrote:
>
> > >> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
> > >> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
> > >> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
> > >> half-size seat at half the price?
>
> > >I don't understand your example.
> >
> > Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
> > order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
> > required to pay as much money as you?
>
> It depends on what we ordered. If I order franks and beans and you order
> lobster, you pay more. I don't think your second example clears up your
> first one at all.

You really are going all out to demonstrate the inverse correlation
between IQ and obesity(*), aren't you

* or to put it less politely...the fatter you are, the more stupid you
are, too.

>
> > >> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
> > >> >into account. That is discrimination.
>
> > >> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
> > >> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
> > >> freight bill.
>
> > >A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
> > >requiring fat people to buy two seats.
> >
> > Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
> > neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
> > when it is based on factors that do not have practical
> > relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
> > undesirable social policy.
>
> As long as the airline charges a reasonable fee for the extra space,
> rather than two full fares, then it is fair. But remember that the only

Seating is quantized, you fool.

You are asking the airlines to charge by the 1/8 seat, or whatever,
HOW, exactly?

Goddamn, you really are out to prove that you obese monsters are
absolute knuckleheads, aren't you.

> reason there is a problem in the first place is because the seat size
> was set by designers who decided that fat people don't deserve a proper
> seat on an airplane.

designers design seats for NORMAL people....

95% of the world can fit into those seats...INCLUDING EUROPEANS
What's YOUR ****ing problem, piggy piggy?

> They could have designed bench seats.

Yeah, so that those of use who aren't obese retards like you would
have NO protection from your loathsome sloth...

> Why didn't
> they use bench seats?

Because most of the world LIKES a bit of seperation from strangers...
especially when the stranger in question is a fat sweaty hog retard
like yourself.

> Safety cannot possibly be the reason, soince if
> the airplane crashes, you're dead anyway. Bench seats would have solved
> the whole problem.

Oh yes, it solves the problem for YOU, while CREATING a miserable
problem for ME

YOU are the one who has decided to rebel against society...so YOU
pay the price, you greedy glutton.

>
> > Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
> > for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
> > thing.
> >
> > Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
> > on an airplane is another.
>
> Fine, then charge extra for people with coughs and runny noses. Charge

Are they taking up extra space?

> extra for people who ate garlic the night before. Charge extra for

Are they taking up extra space?

> people who take the shoes off or didn't use deoderant. Charge extra for

Are they taking up extra space?

> people who play their walkman so everyone else can hear it. Charge extra

Are they taking up extra space?

> for crying children.

Does crying take up extra space?

> Charge extra for every ounce of luggage. Charge

They DO charge for excess luggage, you idiot.

> extra for using the toilet.

Toilets are considered a public accomodation

> Charge extra for meals.

If you want to eat extra meals beyond what is included in the flight,
they'll charge you for that too...idiot.

>
> > The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
> > restated another way.
> >
> > Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
> > they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
> > size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
> > per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
> > number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
> > expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?
>
> No. I didn't say they should reduce the number of seats by 40%, and it
> wouldn't cause a 40% rise anyway. There would be a lot less weight, so
> the fuel cost would drop significantly. There would be 40% fewer meals,
> so the cost of that service would drop significantly. And fewer cabin
> staff would be needed, so the personnel cost would drop significantly.
> The cost of a ticket might not have to be raised much at all, and we
> would all be more comfortable.

If you think this is a credible business model, then why don't
you go out, get together a bunch of fat-freak investors, and
start your own Happy Hippo Airlines.

If you charge the same prices as the rest of the airline industry,
I'll bet you'll have sold out seats and STILL go bankrupt within
a year

>
> > Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
> > seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?
>
> For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
> everyone is better off when it works.
^^^^

You left out the part about the "when" so far, has never yet occured.

Thus, the following statement is equally true:

For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
everyone is better off when elephants grow wing-ears and fly around
like Dumbo.

But until then, collectivism merely harasses the achievers and
other people who are earning their own way through life.

>
> > Why is that fair to the smaller person?
>
> Because he doesn't have to complain about fat people anymore.

How about you pay for the amount of space you're taking up,
and the NORMAL NON-GLUTTONS *** STILL *** won't have any reason
to complain about your slothlike presence.

>
> martin

Magic Nose Goblin

September 13th, 2003, 07:43 AM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> GW wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote:
> >
> > >GW wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >> >Mike Given wrote:
>
> > >> >> But let's invert this for a bit. Let's say that 340# is a "normal"
> > >> >> weight for a 5'10" human. As a person that weighs half that, would it
> > >> >> be fair for me to demand that the airlines accomodate me by providing a
> > >> >> half-size seat at half the price?
>
> > >> >I don't understand your example.
> > >>
> > >> Okay, try this one. You and I go to a fine restaurant. I
> > >> order one plate of food. You order two. Should I be
> > >> required to pay as much money as you?
> > >
> > >It depends on what we ordered. If I order franks and beans and you order
> > >lobster, you pay more. I don't think your second example clears up your
> > >first one at all.
> >
> > Don't be obtuse. You can fairly read into the query
> > identical foods, just twice the amount.
> >
> > Now answer the question.
>
> The obvious answer is no, but this has nothing to do with the problem,
> since I never claimed the person who required extra space couldn't or
> shouldn't be charged for it. If a person is so big that he actually
> requires two seats, then he should pay for two seets. Most fat people
> don't require two seats. They should pay for the space they use, not
> some multiple of the quanta the airlines have established as standard.
>
> And, if you choose a window or middle seat, you have to pay me to get by
> me. I always take an aisle seat. If you want me to get up so you can get
> out, you owe me a dollar. If you want to step over me, you owe me two
> dollars. If the flight attendent blocks my airspace with the drinks
> cart, the airline owes me 10 dollars per minute. If you turn on your
> reading light while I'm trying to sleep, you owe me one dollar per
> minute. I will not be disturbed when I have paid for my space.
>
> > >> >> >Currently, the standard seat size does not take fat people
> > >> >> >into account. That is discrimination.
>
> > >> >> A ludicrous assertion. The airline is not denying service to anyone -
> > >> >> they're merely insisting that fat people pay their fair share of the
> > >> >> freight bill.
>
> > >> >A ludicrous assertion. The airline discriminates on the basis of size by
> > >> >requiring fat people to buy two seats.
>
> > >> Not all discrimination is bad. The word itself refers to a
> > >> neutral differentiation process. Discrimination becomes bad
> > >> when it is based on factors that do not have practical
> > >> relevance or whose relevance is limited to perpetuating
> > >> undesirable social policy.
>
> > >As long as the airline charges a reasonable fee for the extra space,
> > >rather than two full fares, then it is fair. But remember that the only
> > >reason there is a problem in the first place is because the seat size
> > >was set by designers who decided that fat people don't deserve a proper
> > >seat on an airplane. They could have designed bench seats. Why didn't
> > >they use bench seats? Safety cannot possibly be the reason, soince if
> > >the airplane crashes, you're dead anyway. Bench seats would have solved
> > >the whole problem.
> >
> > They are bench seats, mainly. They just have armrests in
> > places you don't agree with.
>
> They aren't bench seeats. A bench seat is a bench, one piece to sit on,
> one back rest. No armrests are needed. If you want to pay extra for an
> armrest, that's your prerogative. The flight attendant can rent an
> armrest to you. If it intrudes into my space, you owe me 10 dollars.
>
> > >> Telling a fat person she can't be hired because she's fat
> > >> for a job that has no relevant physical requirements is one
> > >> thing.
>
> > >> Telling a fat person she must pay for the space she occupies
> > >> on an airplane is another.
>
> > >Fine, then charge extra for people with coughs and runny noses. Charge
> > >extra for people who ate garlic the night before. Charge extra for
> > >people who take the shoes off or didn't use deoderant. Charge extra for
> > >people who play their walkman so everyone else can hear it. Charge extra
> > >for crying children. Charge extra for every ounce of luggage. Charge
> > >extra for using the toilet. Charge extra for meals.
> >
> > These people aren't taking up extra space, are they?
>
> No, but they are consuming other resources that are just as important to
> me as space. More important, actually, as I can cope with sitting next
> to a fat person. I cannot cope with your smelly feet, stale garlic, and
> rap "music".
>
> > >> The point mikey's trying to get through your head can be
> > >> restated another way.
>
> > >> Airlines have finite interior space. The number of seats
> > >> they can sell is dependent on the size of the space and the
> > >> size of the seats. They have to generate as much revenue
> > >> per seat as they can to be profitable. If they reduce the
> > >> number of seats by 40% to accomodate fat people, you should
> > >> expect the costs of the seats to go up 40%. Correct?
>
> > >No. I didn't say they should reduce the number of seats by 40%, and it
> > >wouldn't cause a 40% rise anyway. There would be a lot less weight, so
> > >the fuel cost would drop significantly. There would be 40% fewer meals,
> > >so the cost of that service would drop significantly. And fewer cabin
> > >staff would be needed, so the personnel cost would drop significantly.
> > >The cost of a ticket might not have to be raised much at all, and we
> > >would all be more comfortable.
> >
> > Have you sold any of the major carriers on your fascinating
> > economic proposal?
>
> Most of them seem to be moving toward smaller airplanes and/or one
> class, so I'm winning.
>
> > >> Why should a person who can fit into one of the current
> > >> seats subsidize a larger seat for someone who needs it?
>
> > >For the same reason collectivism is used everywhere else. Because
> > >everyone is better off when it works.
> >
> > No. Everyone is better off when they pay their own freight,
> > if they can.
>
> The key phrase being "if they can." That's why collectivism is often a
> better way to organize systems. Level of service is sometimes more
> important than profit.
>
> > >> Why is that fair to the smaller person?
>
> > >Because he doesn't have to complain about fat people anymore.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with economic fairness.
>
> Who made economic fairness the standard? It isn't the standard.

Hey retard...

Economics RULES any business endeavor.

You CANNOT ignore the rules.

In case you haven't notices, most fat piggy-piggy people are significantly
lower income than those of us who know when to put the fork down.

So, losing your stupid ass from flight list doesn't bother anyone...
because you'll be replaced by LIGHTER, HIGHER-PAYING, customers.

>
> martin

Dennis P. Harris

September 13th, 2003, 09:09 AM

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:55:49 -0400 (EDT) in rec.travel.air,
(Eric Toline) wrote:

> But actually, I think bench seats with open seating would be the optimal
> solution.
>
> Nope - it is an impossible solution. Seat belts.<<<<<<<<
>
how about bucket seats like the military?

CLK

September 13th, 2003, 02:05 PM

Without fueling the controversy about "fat" people spilling over......who
owns the middle armrest? When 2 peoplke share one armrest do they each get
the 1/2 facing them? Does the first one who puts his arm on the rest own it
for the entire trip? Do they take turns during the flight?

How do you claim your portion?

Miguel Cruz

September 13th, 2003, 06:50 PM

CLK > wrote:
> Without fueling the controversy about "fat" people spilling over......who
> owns the middle armrest? When 2 peoplke share one armrest do they each get
> the 1/2 facing them? Does the first one who puts his arm on the rest own it
> for the entire trip? Do they take turns during the flight?

If there are three seats in a row, I think the person in the middle owns
both armrests. It's the least we can do for them to make up for having that
seat (I don't think I've had a middle seat in years but I always yield the
armrest to them).

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Martin W. Smith

September 14th, 2003, 01:31 PM

GW wrote:
> If you go to a restaurant that sells you food by weight, you
> get to pay for what you actually consume. If you go to a
> restaurant that sells foods by plates or portions, you buy
> the plate or portion. An airline sells seats by portions.
> If you don't like the portion size, choose another airline
> or a different class.

I suggested a better way to do it. All airlines use the same seats,
since only two companies make the airplanes, so your solution is meant
to be flippant.

> Can you acknowledge that there is a difference between an
> occasional disturbance and having your space violated the
> whole flight by a person whose body is pressing against
> yours?

There is nothing in your ticket contract that says you are entitled not
to have someone else's body pressed against yours. An airline sells
seats, not air rights. If you don't like a body pressing against yours,
choose another airline or a different class.

Furthermore, if it was Salma Hayek whose body was pressing against
yours, I'll bet you wouldn't object.

> The airline cannot, consistent with safety requirements
> (ncluding the fixing of seat belts) sell its space on bench
> seats. It must have individual seats. There are several
> instances of seat belts on airlines saving lives -- not in a
> crash from flight altitude, but in takeoff and landing
> incidents.

Seat belts work just fine with bench seats. Put them on tracks, and they
are adjustable with respect to body width. Then four people can sit on
one bench seat, three, two, or one, and each can have a seat belt. The
regulations can be changed.

> Once again you've got it backwards. Armrests don't intrude
> on your personal space. They define it for you.

They take up space that would be your personal space. And who gets the
armrest? Am I allowed to push your arm off the armrest? Yes, I am. Get
your arm off my armrest. NOW!

> Whether those resources are important to you is irrelevant.
> You don't get to market or price the airline's resources.
> The airline does.

Airlines are regulated. When they get out of step with society, society
steps in. No sick people on the airplane. No foul smelling people on the
airplane. Sorry.

> Level of service is probably enhanced when carriers are
> competing for travel dollars.

Usually. So offer the people what they want. More space.

> It is from where I'm sitting. In my own seat, with the
> armrests down.

Sorry. Armrest, singular. One of them belongs to the other guy. You only
get one armrest. Which one you get depends on which side of the plane
you sit on. You should have top pay extra for an armrest, because it
takes up space and adds weight. Pay up. Now.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Martin W. Smith

September 14th, 2003, 01:33 PM

Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> Hey retard...
>
> Economics RULES any business endeavor.
>
> You CANNOT ignore the rules.

Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:

TMOliver

September 14th, 2003, 03:17 PM

(Miguel Cruz) vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

> CLK > wrote:
>> Without fueling the controversy about "fat" people spilling
>> over......who owns the middle armrest? When 2 peoplke share one
>> armrest do they each get the 1/2 facing them? Does the first one who
>> puts his arm on the rest own it for the entire trip? Do they take
>> turns during the flight?
>
> If there are three seats in a row, I think the person in the middle
> owns both armrests. It's the least we can do for them to make up for
> having that seat (I don't think I've had a middle seat in years but I
> always yield the armrest to them).
>
Such a conclusion would be several miles beyond the grasp of most here....

You're right, with the aisle and window occupants each having one of their
own, plus and inch or two of extra shoulder room and leg room (until the
beverage cart severs a leg at the ankle or the guy in the next row forward
window seat object to a leg thrust between their seatback and the bulkhead,
resting on his armrest), those poor *******s sentenced to a middle seat,
late comers, folks without even a frequent flyer membership card, or just
plain ugly and unnappealing, deserve some consideration and two armrests is
the least we can do.

(Along with passing a law prohibiting fat folks from raising the armrests).

TMO

mrtravel

September 14th, 2003, 07:01 PM

wrote:

> CLK > wrote:
>
>>>>Without fueling the controversy about "fat" people spilling
>>>>over......who owns the middle armrest?
>
>
> The airline.
>

But they aren't likley to intervene in the dispute, judging from the
email I got from AA on a problem with a family cranking up the volume of
Tellie Tubbies (no headsets) on their personal DVD player on a recent
DFW to SJC flight...... and this was in first class. I also would like
to know why, with the seatbelt light on, was the 1 1/2 year old
permitted to stand. Not only that, but he wasn't even buckled on T/O or
landing. I think seat should be required of all children........

Mike Given

September 15th, 2003, 04:43 AM

Banty wrote:
>Mike Given says...
>>Banty wrote:
>>>Mike Given says...
>>>>Banty wrote:
>>>>>Well, I can see that arrangement going the way of the
>>>>>compact-car parking spaces that used to be set up nearer the
>>>>>buildings...
>>>>Don't let's even get me started on the number of lard-assed
>>>>lazy-bones I've seen that manage to obtain handicapped parking
>>>>permits and then have the consequent gall to unload a "personal
>>>>scooter" to tote their bulk around the market on.
>>>Um - Mike - do you think that you could possibly, when you
>>>reflect back on it, think of any reasons why those who need
>>>handicap permits would be the same ones who need the personal
>>>scooters?
>>No need to reflect; I think "lard-assed lazy-bones" is pretty
>>descriptive. Not elderly, not really incapacitated; we're
>>talking about someone that can drive, walk around to the back
>>of the car, remove the scooter themself, assemble it, then ride
>>it through the grocery store.
[...]
>>but just this summer alone I've seen it three separate time by
>>three different people on Saturday grocery excursions, at least
>>one of which I also espied a poor old blue-hair having to make
>>an 8-minute shuffle across half-a parking lot. If you've got
>>the damn scooter there's no reason to also occupy a handicapped
>>parking space.
>Now wait. The 'lard-ass lazy bones', if you're talking about
>someone obese, is likely dealing with the various skeletal
>problems which are secondary to that. Knees being the major
>weak point that breaks down.

All posits with which I can do nothing but concede.

>They have to get the 'damn scooter' out, and they can't always
>*use* the 'damn scooter'.

Okay...

>I'd warn against passing judgement against every person you
>see using a handicap spot

I don't. I see lots of other people use them.
People who *don't* have personal scooters.

>- yeah, there's a lot of real abuse,

That would be specifically what I was describing.

>but that can't be easily separated from someone you might
>see with a circulatory or respiratory problem. On the other
>hand, you can't say the poor old blue-hair isn't just fine
>with walking a bit, and didn't do a 2 mile walking trek that
>morning as in every morning.

The biddy I described probably couldn't cover two miles in less than
a day. While circulatory and/or respiratory problems are not readily
apparent to the lay-observer, ambulatory problems are. Her car bore
the appropriate handicapped tags but as the result of an abusive fat
ass with a scooter, she had to woak half the parking lot, whereas the
persona with the scooter could have parked that distance away with
little or no inconvenience.

Mikey

Magic Nose Goblin

September 19th, 2003, 05:48 AM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > Hey retard...
> >
> > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> >
> > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
>
> Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.

Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.

Providing a level of service like that to non-Overeaters is
a quick and sure route to bankruptcy.

Notice that Southwest Airlines (SWA) is the ONLY large company
in the business that mandates that fat freaks like you pay for
the space you consume, WITHOUT GLOBBING INTO THE SEATS OF OTHER
PAYING CUSTOMERS....and notice also that SWA is the ONLY large
airline that is VERY profitable, and has not asked for any
handouts from the federal government. In contrast to the
"overeater friendly" airlines which are all going to hell in
a handbasket without regular infusions of funds extorted from
the tax-paying populace.

>
> martin

Magic Nose Goblin

September 19th, 2003, 06:01 AM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > Hey retard...
> >
> > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> >
> > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
>
> Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.

Yes, that would be you.
Level of Service is a COST for the company, you idiot.

Other than improving EFFICIENCY through better methods or capital
investment, please explain how, in general a company can increase it's
level of service
without ALSO increasing it's operating expenses.

When was the last time you started a business and decided that you
didn't
need to worry about monetary inflows and outflows, and whether the
inflow
was greater than the outflow of money, because providing a high "level
of
service" made up for your monetary losses.

Please tell us the name of ONE company which has, for a long duration
(say,
every year for 10 years or more) consistantly didnt have enough income
to cover all of their monetary outflows, and managed to stay in
business.
Please note that subsidies from governments, grants from charitable
organizations, etc. all count as income money for the purpose of this
exercise.

Please tell us about all of the people that these companies that offer
a high level of customer service while operating at a loss...for
decades
upon decades....

Level of Service is an EXPENSE you ****ing retard.

Thank you, for, once again, providing yet another data point showing
that
idiocy and stupidity are the NORM among overeating monsters like
yourself.

> martin

Martin W. Smith

September 19th, 2003, 07:30 AM

Martin W. Smith

September 19th, 2003, 07:42 AM

Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > Hey retard...
> > >
> > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> > >
> > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> >
> > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> > of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
>
> Yes, that would be you.
> Level of Service is a COST for the company, you idiot.

Everything is a cost for the company. They use all those costs to
determine ticket prices.

> Other than improving EFFICIENCY through better methods or capital
> investment, please explain how, in general a company can increase it's
> level of service
> without ALSO increasing it's operating expenses.

Normally we say improve not increase. In this case, we improve the level
of service by using bench seats with seatbelts mounted on tracks. Then
people can be seated according to size, two, three, or even four to a
row, without causing any discomfort, and then passengers can be charged
fairly for the space they occupy, and if you want an armrest, you can
request one, or two, and pay for them, of course.

> Please tell us the name of ONE company which has, for a long duration
> (say,
> every year for 10 years or more) consistantly didnt have enough income
> to cover all of their monetary outflows, and managed to stay in
> business.

Of course they should cover their expenses, and make a profit. I neither
said they shouldn't, nor did I imply it. But there are such companies,
of course. The public transport system in Oslo is one example. It is the
best mass transit system I have seen anywhere in the world. It has been
in business for decades, and it always loses money. It isn't supposed to
make a profit.

> Please note that subsidies from governments, grants from charitable
> organizations, etc. all count as income money for the purpose of this
> exercise.

No, they don't. If your company is supposed to make a profit, then you
have to earn more than you spend while still improving levels of
service. Public systems are not required to make a profit. They are
required to provide very high levels of service, while always trying to
improve the bottom line without sacrificing any of that service.

> Please tell us about all of the people that these companies that offer
> a high level of customer service while operating at a loss...for
> decades
> upon decades....

That doesn't mean anything to me, sorry.

> Level of Service is an EXPENSE you ****ing retard.

Keep a civil tongue in your head.

> Thank you, for, once again, providing yet another data point showing
> that
> idiocy and stupidity are the NORM among overeating monsters like
> yourself.

And thank you for giving me yet another chance to explain more about how
to solve the transportation problem.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President
www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith email:

Rojosh

September 19th, 2003, 08:13 AM

"Magic Nose Goblin" > wrote in message
om...
> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>...
> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > Hey retard...
> > >
> > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> > >
> > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> >
> > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> > of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
>
> Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
> fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
> that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
> then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
>
> Providing a level of service like that to non-Overeaters is
> a quick and sure route to bankruptcy.
>
> Notice that Southwest Airlines (SWA) is the ONLY large company
> in the business that mandates that fat freaks like you pay for
> the space you consume, WITHOUT GLOBBING INTO THE SEATS OF OTHER
> PAYING CUSTOMERS....and notice also that SWA is the ONLY large
> airline that is VERY profitable, and has not asked for any
> handouts from the federal government. In contrast to the
> "overeater friendly" airlines which are all going to hell in
> a handbasket without regular infusions of funds extorted from
> the tax-paying populace.
>
> >
> > martin

How much longer will this troll post live? Am I the only person getting sick
of seeing this thread? Please, don't feed the trolls, maybe they will go
away.

Yankee Bob
Flush Bush in 2004

TMOliver

September 19th, 2003, 03:41 PM

"Martin W. Smith" vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

>
> Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted on
> tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay extra
> for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate your space.
>

With some experience in "bench seats" of a sort, the metaframed canvas ones
mounted along the outer skin of an a/c which used the floor in the middle
upon which to stack the sinews and detritus of war, I'm comfortable that
you know not of what you speak (and would not like to expereience that
which you advocate).

Having test-marketed such seating on a Transatlantic flight, the long way
around as it were via touristic Newfoundland, Sunny Eesland, Bonny
Prestwick and on to RheinMain, I am willing to testify before any board,
committee, or court of inquiry that the poor human ass is not designed to
be so mistreatedm even for a modest span of time.

Besides, like the spitting and whittling benches which used to adorn the
local courthouse's facade, a good bench, like a cask for fine wine or a keg
to house drinkable whisky, must be made of oak, White or Limousin, a
material so heavy that it would cut passenger loads in half and cause
skinny folks' ticket prices to double.

As for fat people, all we need are aone of those frames like those used to
measure carry on luggage. They either fit or don't fit (or become stuck in
transit). To big to fit the seats, they go in the aft baggage hold (a la
SAAB 340), secured with cargo nets and sturdy tiedowns. Obviously,
bulkheads will need to be strengthened to prevent potential entry to the
main cabin during rapid deceleration, and ground crews will have to be
equipped with heavy duty adjustable tail props adaptable to all a/c in
service, but these alternatives far outweigh destruction of much of the
world's remaining oak forest and the removal of many ornamental trees from
suburban US neighborhoods, cutting the remaining Limousins in the
Limousin, damaging future harvests of Limousines, thus putting dozens of
funeral homes and car hire companies out of business.

Before you know it, Freddy Laker will have introduced shoddy plywood bench
seats, Ryanair and Easyjet will have altogether dispensed with seats in
"More Fun on the Floor/Diddle on the Deck" service to selected Continental
cities, and Fedex will become the industry leader selling tickets by the
pound (with a premium for travel in freight containers with relief tubes
and big funnels for fat fannies).

TMO

Lady Veteran

September 20th, 2003, 01:26 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:30:15 +0200, "Martin W. Smith"
> wrote:

>Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>>
>> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>> > > Hey retard...
>> > >
>> > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
>> > >
>> > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
>> >
>> > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to
>> > level of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
>>
>> Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
>> fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
>> that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
>> then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
>
You act like they would even care. You make the assumption that you
have worth...

Oh yes of little intelligence.

>Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted on
>tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay extra
>for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate your
>space.
>
>martin

People seem to think that fat people are not in favor of paying for
space they use...most are quite willing to do so, because that means
they can get comfortable.

This magic nose goblin idiot seems to think his opinion
matters.....other than to him.

LV

Remove "intel" from address to reply

Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
Support bacteria - they're the only culture
some people have." -Stephen Wright
- -------------------------------------------
Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable.
Those who insist on doing this are living
examples of that old Chinese proverb:

Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool:
Open mouth and remove all doubt.

In other words, they are idiots.
- -------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBP2uencTgtWhYq7BhEQLQDwCfSx2yhLD1QqcQHSlPMvuK5Q DzxXoAoIPu
f5BEfTlKifevSew3e9s2LHQW
=6SAs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Magic Nose Goblin

September 21st, 2003, 07:22 PM

Magic Nose Goblin

September 21st, 2003, 07:29 PM

"Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > > Hey retard...
> > > >
> > > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> > > >
> > > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> > >
> > > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> > > of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
> >
> > Yes, that would be you.
> > Level of Service is a COST for the company, you idiot.
>
> Everything is a cost for the company. They use all those costs to
> determine ticket prices.

Since fatties tend to be lower income than most.... are THEY gonna
pay for this increased level of service for THEIR benefit, or is
the normal-sized public gonna get shafted.

>
> > Other than improving EFFICIENCY through better methods or capital
> > investment, please explain how, in general a company can increase it's
> > level of service
> > without ALSO increasing it's operating expenses.
>
> Normally we say improve not increase. In this case, we improve the level
> of service by using bench seats with seatbelts mounted on tracks. Then
> people can be seated according to size, two, three, or even four to a
> row, without causing any discomfort, and then passengers can be charged
> fairly for the space they occupy, and if you want an armrest, you can
> request one, or two, and pay for them, of course.

Only if it can be padlocked in position so that the snacky=cake and
ice-cream sneaking fatty next to me can't also wait for me to get up
to go to the bathroom and sneak-move my armrest...

>
> > Please tell us the name of ONE company which has, for a long duration
> > (say,
> > every year for 10 years or more) consistantly didnt have enough income
> > to cover all of their monetary outflows, and managed to stay in
> > business.
>
> Of course they should cover their expenses, and make a profit. I neither

Therefore, economics, and economics ONLY rule business.

> said they shouldn't, nor did I imply it. But there are such companies,
> of course. The public transport system in Oslo is one example. It is the
> best mass transit system I have seen anywhere in the world. It has been
> in business for decades, and it always loses money. It isn't supposed to

So, in other words, it's subsidized... either that, or it's no longer
paying it's bills, and fuel suppliers and automotive parts suppliers
are just giving them stuff for free.

Remember--subsidies ARE income for the purposes of this discussion.

Once again, you demonstrate that fatties aren't too bright.

> make a profit.

>
> > Please note that subsidies from governments, grants from charitable
> > organizations, etc. all count as income money for the purpose of this
> > exercise.
>
> No, they don't. If your company is supposed to make a profit, then you
> have to earn more than you spend while still improving levels of
> service. Public systems are not required to make a profit. They are
> required to provide very high levels of service, while always trying to
> improve the bottom line without sacrificing any of that service.

Either you have enough money to pay your goddamned bills or you do not.

It doesn't matter if the money comes from passenger fares, or subsidies.
INCOME is INCOME.

The only difference between passenger fares and public subsidies is that
subsidies come out of the pockets of people who AREN'T using the service.

>
> > Please tell us about all of the people that these companies that offer
> > a high level of customer service while operating at a loss...for
> > decades
> > upon decades....
>
> That doesn't mean anything to me, sorry.

That's because, as a fatty, you don't have the intellectual capability
of parsing a simple sentance that contradicts your idiotic beliefs.

>
> > Level of Service is an EXPENSE you ****ing retard.
>
> Keep a civil tongue in your head.

I reserve civil speech for people I respect.

I have no respect for you.

>
> > Thank you, for, once again, providing yet another data point showing
> > that
> > idiocy and stupidity are the NORM among overeating monsters like
> > yourself.
>
> And thank you for giving me yet another chance to explain more about how
> to solve the transportation problem.

You've only demonstrated even more fully how much of an idiot you are.

>
> martin

Magic Nose Goblin

September 21st, 2003, 07:30 PM

"Rojosh" > wrote in message >...
> "Magic Nose Goblin" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > > Hey retard...
> > > >
> > > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> > > >
> > > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> > >
> > > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> > > of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
> >
> > Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
> > fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
> > that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
> > then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
> >
> > Providing a level of service like that to non-Overeaters is
> > a quick and sure route to bankruptcy.
> >
> > Notice that Southwest Airlines (SWA) is the ONLY large company
> > in the business that mandates that fat freaks like you pay for
> > the space you consume, WITHOUT GLOBBING INTO THE SEATS OF OTHER
> > PAYING CUSTOMERS....and notice also that SWA is the ONLY large
> > airline that is VERY profitable, and has not asked for any
> > handouts from the federal government. In contrast to the
> > "overeater friendly" airlines which are all going to hell in
> > a handbasket without regular infusions of funds extorted from
> > the tax-paying populace.
> >
> > >
> > > martin
>
> How much longer will this troll post live? Am I the only person getting sick
> of seeing this thread? Please, don't feed the trolls, maybe they will go
> away.

It's all about FEEEEEEEEEEEEEDING with you, isn't it twinkie-breath.

>
> Yankee Bob
> Flush Bush in 2004

Magic Nose Goblin

September 21st, 2003, 07:34 PM

Lady Veteran > wrote in message >...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:30:15 +0200, "Martin W. Smith"
> > wrote:
>
> >Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >>
> >> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >> > > Hey retard...
> >> > >
> >> > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> >> > >
> >> > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> >> >
> >> > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to
> >> > level of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
> >>
> >> Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
> >> fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
> >> that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
> >> then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
> >
> You act like they would even care. You make the assumption that you
> have worth...
>
> Oh yes of little intelligence.
>
> >Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted on
> >tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay extra
> >for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate your
> >space.
> >
> >martin
>
> People seem to think that fat people are not in favor of paying for
> space they use...most are quite willing to do so, because that means
> they can get comfortable.

I.e. Fat people are only willing to pay proportionally only to
escape pain. Without the pain, you would never even THINK of
paying for the amount of space you consume.

>
> This magic nose goblin idiot seems to think his opinion
> matters.....other than to him.

The very very profitable Southwest Airlines agrees with me.

The airlines which disagree with me, such a United, American, etc.
are losing their shirts.

Therefore, yes, not only does my opinion matter, agreeing with
this opinion is the difference between staying profitable or not.

>
>
> LV
>
> Remove "intel" from address to reply
>
> Lady Veteran
> - -------------------------------------------
> Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable.
> Those who insist on doing this are living
> examples of that old Chinese proverb:
>
> Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool:
> Open mouth and remove all doubt.

Wrong... that's a pidgeonization of Abraham Lincoln....

Lady Veteran

September 22nd, 2003, 02:15 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:06:29 -0700, Joshua wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:26:07 -0500, Lady Veteran
> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:30:15 +0200, "Martin W. Smith"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>>>> > > Hey retard...
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
>>>> >
>>>> > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers
>>>> > to level of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
>>>> fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
>>>> that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
>>>> then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
>>>
>>You act like they would even care. You make the assumption that you
>>have worth...
>>
>>Oh yes of little intelligence.
>>
>>>Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted
>>>on tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay
>>>extra for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate
>>>your
>>>space.
>>>
>>>martin
>>
>>People seem to think that fat people are not in favor of paying for
>>space they use...most are quite willing to do so, because that
>>means they can get comfortable.
>>
>
>>LV
>>
>
>The morbidly obese should not ride in the cabin of the airliner.
>They should be booked into cargo hold space.
>
>If they want to be treated like real human beings, it is within
>their control to lose weight.
>
>Joshua

It is a sobering thought that by the time Mozart was your age he had
been dead two years.

What a waste of space.

LV

Remove "intel" from address to reply

Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
Support bacteria - they're the only culture
some people have." -Stephen Wright
- -------------------------------------------
Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable.
Those who insist on doing this are living
examples of that old Chinese proverb:

Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool:
Open mouth and remove all doubt.

In other words, they are idiots.
- -------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBP25NTMTgtWhYq7BhEQIL5wCcCzwmctmKLLPGOiBUgnd0xz WLbr4AoPJH
GbVkih30NNmyQej2zBin77V3
=xs3X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

M.W. Smith

September 22nd, 2003, 06:38 AM

Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > >
> > > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > > > Hey retard...
> > > > >
> > > > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> > > > >
> > > > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> > > > of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
> > >
> > > Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
> > > fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
> > > that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
> > > then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
> >
> > Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted on
> > tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay extra for
> > the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate your space.
>
> And since you know it won't be happening any time soon, you're gonna
> continue to use this as an excuse instead of learning to STOP OVEREATING
> YOU UGLY FREAK

But I don't overeat. I'm not fat. I'm not even overweight. You must be
projecting.

--

Martin Smith

Lady Veteran

September 23rd, 2003, 03:30 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:38:08 +0200, "M.W. Smith"
> wrote:

>Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>>
>> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
>> > > >...
>> > > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
>> > > > > Hey retard...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
>> > > >
>> > > > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also
>> > > > refers to level of service. One of us is a retard, I
>> > > > suppose.
>> > >
>> > > Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some
>> > > big fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat,
>> > > the seat that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU
>> > > DID NOT, then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever
>> > > ever again.
>> >
>> > Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted
>> > on tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can
>> > pay extra for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't
>> > violate your space.
>>
>> And since you know it won't be happening any time soon, you're
>> gonna continue to use this as an excuse instead of learning to
>> STOP OVEREATING YOU UGLY FREAK
>
>But I don't overeat. I'm not fat. I'm not even overweight. You must
>be projecting.

They do that a lot here. You have to watch these idiots or they will
project all over you.

LV

Remove "intel" from address to reply

Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
Support bacteria - they're the only culture
some people have." -Stephen Wright
- -------------------------------------------
Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable.
Those who insist on doing this are living
examples of that old Chinese proverb:

Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool:
Open mouth and remove all doubt.

In other words, they are idiots.
- -------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBP2+wUMTgtWhYq7BhEQKqjACg3UPSPVe0PMY8mTBrYxCAuD dz5sgAn1pl
GfOtUPEH4j7yAM4mepjC+tKU
=V6g3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Magic Nose Goblin

September 23rd, 2003, 03:27 PM

Lady Veteran > wrote in message >...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:06:29 -0700, Joshua wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:26:07 -0500, Lady Veteran
> > wrote:
> >
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:30:15 +0200, "Martin W. Smith"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
> >>>> >...
> >>>> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >>>> > > Hey retard...
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers
> >>>> > to level of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
> >>>> fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
> >>>> that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
> >>>> then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
> >>>
> >>You act like they would even care. You make the assumption that you
> >>have worth...
> >>
> >>Oh yes of little intelligence.
> >>
> >>>Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted
> >>>on tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay
> >>>extra for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate
> >>>your
> >>>space.
> >>>
> >>>martin
> >>
> >>People seem to think that fat people are not in favor of paying for
> >>space they use...most are quite willing to do so, because that
> >>means they can get comfortable.
> >>
>
> >>LV
> >>
> >
> >The morbidly obese should not ride in the cabin of the airliner.
> >They should be booked into cargo hold space.
> >
> >If they want to be treated like real human beings, it is within
> >their control to lose weight.
> >
> >Joshua
>
> It is a sobering thought that by the time Mozart was your age he had
> been dead two years.

And the above statement is relevant to your CHRONIC OVEREATING ***BEHAVIOR***
in what way, exactly?

>
>
> What a waste of space.
>
> LV
>
> Remove "intel" from address to reply
>
> Lady Veteran
> - -----------------------------------
> "I rode a tank and held a general's rank
> when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
> - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
> - ------------------------------------------------
> Support bacteria - they're the only culture
> some people have." -Stephen Wright
> - -------------------------------------------
> Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable.
> Those who insist on doing this are living
> examples of that old Chinese proverb:
>
> Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool:
> Open mouth and remove all doubt.
>
> In other words, they are idiots.
> - -------------------------------------------------
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
>
> iQA/AwUBP25NTMTgtWhYq7BhEQIL5wCcCzwmctmKLLPGOiBUgnd0xz WLbr4AoPJH
> GbVkih30NNmyQej2zBin77V3
> =xs3X
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Magic Nose Goblin

September 23rd, 2003, 03:28 PM

"M.W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > > > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> > > > > > Hey retard...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also refers to level
> > > > > of service. One of us is a retard, I suppose.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some big
> > > > fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat, the seat
> > > > that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU DID NOT,
> > > > then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever ever again.
> > >
> > > Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted on
> > > tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can pay extra for
> > > the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't violate your space.
> >
> > And since you know it won't be happening any time soon, you're gonna
> > continue to use this as an excuse instead of learning to STOP OVEREATING
> > YOU UGLY FREAK
>
> But I don't overeat. I'm not fat. I'm not even overweight. You must be
> projecting.

Then your purpose for playing the rule of enabler to the waddling-ass mafia
is what, exactly?

Magic Nose Goblin

September 23rd, 2003, 03:30 PM

Lady Veteran > wrote in message >...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:38:08 +0200, "M.W. Smith"
> > wrote:
>
> >Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >>
> >> "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "Martin W. Smith" > wrote in message
> >> > > >...
> >> > > > Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
> >> > > > > Hey retard...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Economics RULES any business endeavor.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You CANNOT ignore the rules.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Economics doesn't refer to money only. Economics also
> >> > > > refers to level of service. One of us is a retard, I
> >> > > > suppose.
> >> > >
> >> > > Exactly. And if the level of service means that I have some
> >> > > big fat retarded HOG like you, oozing into *** MY *** seat,
> >> > > the seat that **** I ***** paid good money for, and which YOU
> >> > > DID NOT, then I will ***NOT*** fly on that airline ever ever
> >> > > ever again.
> >> >
> >> > Then we are in agreement. Use bench seats with seatbelts mounted
> >> > on tracks, and then when a fat person buys a seat, he/she can
> >> > pay extra for the extra space he/she uses, and he/she won't
> >> > violate your space.
> >>
> >> And since you know it won't be happening any time soon, you're
> >> gonna continue to use this as an excuse instead of learning to
> >> STOP OVEREATING YOU UGLY FREAK
> >
> >But I don't overeat. I'm not fat. I'm not even overweight. You must
> >be projecting.
>
> They do that a lot here. You have to watch these idiots or they will
> project all over you.

Is that what you do when you find you stuffed even more into your
gullet than in your usual voluminous gorgings???

>
>
> LV
>
> Remove "intel" from address to reply

Reading your posts, it's obvious that all intel was removed from
your head years ago.

Phantom of the Bosque

September 29th, 2003, 12:36 PM

> >People seem to think that fat people are not in favor of paying for
> >space they use...most are quite willing to do so, because that means
> >they can get comfortable.
> >
>
Horse crap. The fat, worthless slobs think that others owe them something.
They should be charged for two seats but would yell foul if it were done.

They should be charged extra anyway because all of that fat that spills out
into the other persons seat causes the plane to use more fuel.

MrEdwardDWebb

October 8th, 2003, 01:01 AM

I am a *FAT* person I am 430 pounds and 5'8"
and I AGREE with you 100%
Fat people should pay for 2 seats
I do
But so should *BIG* people
an NFL lineman who does not have an ounce of fat on him,but *spills* into your
seat like I do should also pay for 2 seats.
Kinda makes your *worthless slobs* comment sound stupid now doesn't it.

you see pal,I see it this way:
1.I am still paying less than Mr.Suit up in first class and while he enjoys his
in flight dinner.........I will enjoy my in flight *DINNERS*........yes
plural,meaning two!!!
I pay for 2 tickets I am entitled to two meals(one for each ticket)
2.Now lets deal with Carry ons
whats that,they allow you *TWO*........well they allow me *FOUR* thats two for
each ticket I bought
3.Oh yeah.........and those double frequent flyer miles......wooohooo !

but the part I like the best,I can S-T-R-E-T-C-H and I have plenty of room.

you see I am an Obese guy who KNOWS i spill into the seat next to me.
So why should I be arrogant?
I pay for 2 seats,take the benefits of 2 seats,still pay less than first class
and everyone is happy.

The *ONLY* area I take issue with you is you calling Fat people worthless
slobs,because paying double has nothing to do with Fatness.............it has
everything to do with SIZE !
a football player,A weightlifter,and a fat man.............they all spill onto
the next seat............they all need to pay double.

I hate to say this but..............thoughts?

Gregory Morrow

October 8th, 2003, 01:30 AM

MrEdwardDWebb wrote:

> I am a *FAT* person I am 430 pounds and 5'8"
> and I AGREE with you 100%
> Fat people should pay for 2 seats
> I do
> But so should *BIG* people
> an NFL lineman who does not have an ounce of fat on him,but *spills* into
your
> seat like I do should also pay for 2 seats.
> Kinda makes your *worthless slobs* comment sound stupid now doesn't it.
>
> you see pal,I see it this way:
> 1.I am still paying less than Mr.Suit up in first class and while he
enjoys his
> in flight dinner.........I will enjoy my in flight *DINNERS*........yes
> plural,meaning two!!!
> I pay for 2 tickets I am entitled to two meals(one for each ticket)
> 2.Now lets deal with Carry ons
> whats that,they allow you *TWO*........well they allow me *FOUR* thats two
for
> each ticket I bought
> 3.Oh yeah.........and those double frequent flyer miles......wooohooo !
>
> but the part I like the best,I can S-T-R-E-T-C-H and I have plenty of
room.
>
> you see I am an Obese guy who KNOWS i spill into the seat next to me.
> So why should I be arrogant?
> I pay for 2 seats,take the benefits of 2 seats,still pay less than first
class
> and everyone is happy.
>
> The *ONLY* area I take issue with you is you calling Fat people worthless
> slobs,because paying double has nothing to do with Fatness.............it
has
> everything to do with SIZE !
> a football player,A weightlifter,and a fat man.............they all spill
onto
> the next seat............they all need to pay double.
>
> I hate to say this but..............thoughts?

Lol...I kinda like yer style there, Mr. Webb ;---)

--
Best
Greg

PTRAVEL

October 8th, 2003, 01:35 AM

"MrEdwardDWebb" > wrote in message
...
> I am a *FAT* person I am 430 pounds and 5'8"
> and I AGREE with you 100%
> Fat people should pay for 2 seats
> I do
> But so should *BIG* people
> an NFL lineman who does not have an ounce of fat on him,but *spills* into
your
> seat like I do should also pay for 2 seats.
> Kinda makes your *worthless slobs* comment sound stupid now doesn't it.
>
> you see pal,I see it this way:
> 1.I am still paying less than Mr.Suit up in first class and while he
enjoys his
> in flight dinner.........I will enjoy my in flight *DINNERS*........yes
> plural,meaning two!!!
> I pay for 2 tickets I am entitled to two meals(one for each ticket)
> 2.Now lets deal with Carry ons
> whats that,they allow you *TWO*........well they allow me *FOUR* thats two
for
> each ticket I bought
> 3.Oh yeah.........and those double frequent flyer miles......wooohooo !
>
> but the part I like the best,I can S-T-R-E-T-C-H and I have plenty of
room.
>
> you see I am an Obese guy who KNOWS i spill into the seat next to me.
> So why should I be arrogant?
> I pay for 2 seats,take the benefits of 2 seats,still pay less than first
class
> and everyone is happy.
>
> The *ONLY* area I take issue with you is you calling Fat people worthless
> slobs,because paying double has nothing to do with Fatness.............it
has
> everything to do with SIZE !
> a football player,A weightlifter,and a fat man.............they all spill
onto
> the next seat............they all need to pay double.
>
> I hate to say this but..............thoughts?

I agree with everything you've written. You _should_ be entitled to two
dinners, twice the carryons, etc. -- after all, you've paid for two tickets.
And I also agree that the two-ticket requirement should extend to anyone who
takes up more than one seat, regardless of the amount of fat that they
carry.

And I certainly don't think you're a worthless slob.

Happy flying!

>

MrEdwardDWebb

October 8th, 2003, 02:42 AM

thank you
My whole point was that I know I am obese,but I don't want to ruin someone
elses flight because of my size 68 trousers.
and Also by being Obese paying double is one thing,but to show up at the
airport,there is always that chance the person at checkin might not extend that
21 day advance purchase price that my travel agent got me.
My left cheek might be in a $150 seat and my right cheek on a fullprice $600
seat.
So I cut to the chase immediately.......The travel agent,the internet and I
look for the cheapest deal...........then go for two.
The travel agent sometimes can Placate the airline into the extra
food/carryon/frequent flyer miles..........after all I did *Pay* double.
then in my TWO seats I can relax in comfort.
you know TWO seats gives a fat man more room than first class gives a thin man.
And some airlines have good food
that double order of London Broil was pretty good the last time I flew on
British Airways

PTRAVEL

October 8th, 2003, 05:04 AM

"MrEdwardDWebb" > wrote in message
...
> thank you
> My whole point was that I know I am obese,but I don't want to ruin someone
> elses flight because of my size 68 trousers.
> and Also by being Obese paying double is one thing,but to show up at the
> airport,there is always that chance the person at checkin might not extend
that
> 21 day advance purchase price that my travel agent got me.
> My left cheek might be in a $150 seat and my right cheek on a fullprice
$600
> seat.
> So I cut to the chase immediately.......The travel agent,the internet and
I
> look for the cheapest deal...........then go for two.
> The travel agent sometimes can Placate the airline into the extra
> food/carryon/frequent flyer miles..........after all I did *Pay* double.
> then in my TWO seats I can relax in comfort.
> you know TWO seats gives a fat man more room than first class gives a thin
man.
> And some airlines have good food
> that double order of London Broil was pretty good the last time I flew on
> British Airways

And that illustrates a point I've tried to make in this ng in the past.
Passengers should try not to impose on other passengers. You know you'll
need two seats, so you buy them in advance and make sure there will be space
for you on the plane without imposing on anyone else. Your attitude is the
exact opposite of the heavy person who buys one seat while needing two and
says to the passenger whose seat he/she has occupied, "It's the airline's
problem, not mine," or the parent who doesn't buy a seat for their
26-month-old, assuming that the FA will find two vacant adjacent seats. If
everyone was as considerate as you, flying would be a much more pleasant
experience.

You are that most rare thing in our modern society: a courteous person. And
for that you have my respect and admiration.

As for airline food, I had an excellent veal chop on Continental a little
over a year ago. It was in first class, but I usually fly in F, and it was
so good that I still remember it fondly.

Do the airlines really give you trouble over a double meal? That's simply
not right. As far as I'm concerned, if you've paid for two tickets, you are
entitled to double everything (including double frequent flyer miles).

>
>

Eric Toline

October 8th, 2003, 05:34 AM

Re: NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2003, 1:42am (EDT+4) From:
(MrEdwardDWebb)
thank you

My whole point was that I know I am obese,but I don't want to ruin
someone elses flight because of my size 68 trousers.

that double order of London Broil was pretty good the last time I flew
on British Airways <<<<<<<<

You think maybe the double order of food is the reason for your size 68
waist.

Eric

Ronnie H

October 8th, 2003, 09:26 AM

Thanks for an entertaining thread. One question: what happens when departure
tax is included in the air fare, as in flights to/from the UK...do you
explain that both seats are for yourself so you should pay tax only once? Or
do you pay tax twice?

Regards, RonnieH
--
Social Policy Bonds:
Policy as if outcomes mattered
http://SocialGoals.com
MrEdwardDWebb > wrote in message
...
> thank you
> My whole point was that I know I am obese,but I don't want to ruin someone
> elses flight because of my size 68 trousers.
> and Also by being Obese paying double is one thing,but to show up at the
> airport,there is always that chance the person at checkin might not extend
that
> 21 day advance purchase price that my travel agent got me.
> My left cheek might be in a $150 seat and my right cheek on a fullprice
$600
> seat.
> So I cut to the chase immediately.......The travel agent,the internet and
I
> look for the cheapest deal...........then go for two.
> The travel agent sometimes can Placate the airline into the extra
> food/carryon/frequent flyer miles..........after all I did *Pay* double.
> then in my TWO seats I can relax in comfort.
> you know TWO seats gives a fat man more room than first class gives a thin
man.
> And some airlines have good food
> that double order of London Broil was pretty good the last time I flew on
> British Airways
>
>

BJ in Texas

January 24th, 2005, 07:33 PM

Gandalf Parker wrote:
|| wrote in
|| ups.com:
||
|||
||| devil wrote:
|||| On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:35:12 +0200,
|||| Steve_Chaney,_aka_Mister_Gunnykins_=AE wrote:
||||
||||| Airline travel can be a nightmare for the large person.
||||| Small seat and aisles, the long walk from the check-in
||||| area to the gate, and the frequent insensitivity of
||||| passengers and crew can all contribute to an unpleasant
||||| flying experience. But with careful planning, your flight
||||| can be safe and enjoyable. Follow the guidelines listed
||||| below in order to maximize your comfort while flying.
||||
|||| Seems like these guys missed the right way to handle this:
|||| buy two seats.
|||
||| What does this say:
||| SECOND SEAT - If you have purchased a second seat for
||| comfort, be sure to let the flight attendant know as you
||| board the plane. This will avoid embarrassment, as an
||| ignorant flight attendant may try to fill your second seat.
||
|| Especially since airlines all "overbook" now gambling on a
|| number of people not showing up. So they will definetly try
|| to fill that seat as a "no show" if the person doesnt mention
|| it.

Might get around it by wearing a wide-load sign......

January 24th, 2005, 11:07 PM

"Service Tech" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Loveembig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>> My wife flies aleast once a month for business. She is a very large
>> woman and her company always purchases two seats for her. She carries
>> her own seatbelt extender and preboards whenever possible. But why is
>> it that the ass in front of her always insists on reclining his or her
>> seat. So that the seat is on my wifes chest. Nobody wants some
>> asshole's greasy bald head or some womans hairspray choked quaff in
>> their face. Most of the time when she politely asks these inconsiderate
>> clowns to raise their seat, they usually give her a dirty look or
>> outright refuse. One miserable turd actually had the nerve to say "If
>> you weren't so damn fat it wouldn't be such a problem for you". Now
>> don't you think that these assholes should be forced to reimburse my
>> wife, or her company for their intrusion on her space? Or to your way
>> of thinking she should just receive free airline tickets.
>
> The reclining issue will go on till the end of time. I personaly don't
> recline as a courtesy to the person behind me, but as long as the seats
> recline, people will recline them. A person pays to "rent" a seat for the
> trip. What ever the seat is designed to do, can be used by that person.
>
>> So exactly where does this end? Purchasing an airline ticket buys you
>> transportation from point A to point B and to cover the cost of fuel,
>> insurance and maintenance. It does not entitile you to armrests, food
>> or personal safe zones. These are merely courtesies extended to you by
>> the airlines. Seating assignments are there to facilitate boarding
>> only. Because without them most of you sheep would rush the jetway and
>> trample each other as you try to board. The only reason airlines are
>> trying to force people of size to purchase two tickets is to cutoff any
>> litigation brought against them by whiny passengers. Most airlines
>> already had regulations regarding larger passengers and never had to
>> inforce them. But because of a rash of lawsuits brought against them by
>
>
>> self-centered people who feel their personal space is more important
>> than the persons next to them they are now forced to implement them.
>
> I'm comfortable in my seat. Why is it self centered to want to remain
> comfortable in the seat that I paid for?
>
>>We have all heard these ridiculous stories about these idiots claiming
>> injuries from someones fat arm rest on them. Please people airfares are
>> high enough without us having to also pay for your nonsense.
>>
>> So in conclusion people when you think the large person next to you is
>> intruding on you, well maybe you are intruding on them.
>
> I don't understand. I sit in my seat with the armrests down. How am I
> intruding on others? Furthermore, you stated that your wife buys 2 seats.
> So what's the problem?
>
>>So suck it up
>
> Suck it up? Shouldn't the large person leave the armrests down and suck
> it
> up?

Too much to suck up....

Carmen

January 25th, 2005, 02:26 AM

Hello,
On 24-Jan-2005, Lilith79 > wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
> > Here we go again with the reclining debate...FWIW, I frequently
> > fly
> > the same airline and on the same routes. One of the flight
> > attendants
> > (who I see over and over on the same flights) and I discussed the
> > "Knee Defender". He told me that if I ever had a problem with
> > someone
> > in back of me preventing my seat from reclining, that I should let
> > him
> > know. He added that seats are designed to recline, and it is part
> > of
> > the normal operation on the aircraft. He also added with a smile
> > that
> > interfering with operation of an aircraft, or failing to follow
> > the
> > instructions of a flight attendant is a federal offense in the US.
>
> That attendant is a liar.
>
> http://www.kneedefender.com/html2/faqs/faq_using.htm
> Am I allowed to use Knee Defenders™ on commercial aircraft?
>
> The FAA has indicated that Knee Defenders™ may be used on commercial
>
> aircraft. As reported in the Washington Post, "FAA spokesman Paul
> Takemoto said the clips were not against federal aviation rules as
> long as they weren't used during taxiing, takeoffs or landings." Of
> course, Knee Defenders are designed to be used with your tray table
> lowered,
> and your tray table must be up and locked "during taxiing, takeoffs
> or
> landings.
SNIP

You've missed what Mike's FA was actually saying. He was saying "All
I have to do is tell someone to remoove them and they have to do it
because *I* say so." It's not a question of what's allowed under the
rules anymore. Since September 11th little to no pretext is necessary
anymore for a FA or any other member of the crew to do what they want
to. Mike's FA was flaunting his power to get people in trouble with
the feds if they don't obey his every command. Hopefully most FAs are
more ethical in their everyday dealings.

Take care,
Carmen

--
Please note change in Reply To address carmensrt <at> gmail <dot> com
Hotmail isn't working and is being abandoned

DaveM

January 26th, 2005, 07:29 AM

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:34:58 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On 24 Jan 2005 21:23:49 -0800, "Trollsbane"
> wrote:
>
>> When you recline your seat YOU are
>>intruding on the passenger behind you
>
>Idiot. The seats recline for a good reason.

You mean they're intentionally designed to upset a significant percentage of
fellow travellers? That does make some sense, now I think about it.

DaveM

Lady Veteran

January 30th, 2005, 02:01 AM

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:33:35 GMT, "BJ in Texas" >
wrote:

>Gandalf Parker wrote:
>|| wrote in
>|| ups.com:
>||
>|||
>||| devil wrote:
>|||| On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:35:12 +0200,
>|||| Steve_Chaney,_aka_Mister_Gunnykins_=AE wrote:
>||||
>||||| Airline travel can be a nightmare for the large person.
>||||| Small seat and aisles, the long walk from the check-in
>||||| area to the gate, and the frequent insensitivity of
>||||| passengers and crew can all contribute to an unpleasant
>||||| flying experience. But with careful planning, your flight
>||||| can be safe and enjoyable. Follow the guidelines listed
>||||| below in order to maximize your comfort while flying.
>||||
>|||| Seems like these guys missed the right way to handle this:
>|||| buy two seats.
>|||
>||| What does this say:
>||| SECOND SEAT - If you have purchased a second seat for
>||| comfort, be sure to let the flight attendant know as you
>||| board the plane. This will avoid embarrassment, as an
>||| ignorant flight attendant may try to fill your second seat.
>||
>|| Especially since airlines all "overbook" now gambling on a
>|| number of people not showing up. So they will definetly try
>|| to fill that seat as a "no show" if the person doesnt mention
>|| it.
>
>Might get around it by wearing a wide-load sign......
>
>
They could rent your head out for an advertising space: it is
certainly not being used at the moment.

LV

------------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank and held a General's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

- - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
----------------------------------------
Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground.

- - -unknown
----------------------------------------

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---