NationStates Jolt Archive

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".
no but they have agitated at fast food resaurants to have more chairs instead of booths so that they can be more comfortable eating at them.

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".

Makes sense.

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".

Yep. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I'm actually quite happy with this verdict; not because I'm obese but because I have rather long legs. According to the same reasoning, this would actually give me the right to a seat with enough leg space :)

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".

They call them buffets.

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".

How about agitating at resaurants, as we have, to make portion sizes smaller and to offer more appetizing selections of healthy and heart friendly foods?

The average portion size at any restaurant is enough to feed three people well. The average restaurant meal has more fat and salt than you would find in my cupboard.

Were that the case, boarding passes wouldn't bother with seat assignment numbers at all, would they?

On quite a few airlines, they don't. Just sayin'.

I'm actually quite happy with this verdict; not because I'm obese but because I have rather long legs. According to the same reasoning, this would actually give me the right to a seat with enough leg space :)

Fat chance.

Fat chance.

Myrm!:eek:

:D

How about agitating at resaurants, as we have, to make portion sizes smaller and to offer more appetizing selections of healthy and heart friendly foods?

The average portion size at any restaurant is enough to feed three people well. The average restaurant meal has more fat and salt than you would find in my cupboard.

How about not stuffing everything on the plate into your piehole?

Myrm!:eek:

:D
Come on. Could you have resisted that? It's like -- I guess I should use a soccer/football analogy -- having a free kick at an open goal.

Come on. Could you have resisted that? It's like -- I guess I should use a soccer/football analogy -- having a free kick at an open goal.

Well... I tried to resist. But it's hard not to giggle after that remark. :tongue:

How about not stuffing everything on the plate into your piehole?

That was just a bit ... angry?

I don't eat out often and always take home boxes that then sit in the fridge for three weeks until I throw them out. I think that most people, particularly women, do the same - I've seen men inhale the whole lot. American restaurants serve too much and charge too much for it.

The problem isn't their sales model is per seat, because it isn't. The problem is you don't know what you're talking about. You book a trip, not a seat.

Mr Black and Mr White both book a seat with a fictional airline company. Same flight, same class, some price and so on.

Mr Black gets a seat next to the toilet and some stale fries.
Mr White gets a comfy seat with a view, a 3 course meal, a footmassage and a private tv.

They both only booked a trip - so Mr Black cannot feel discriminated against, right ?

Mr Black and Mr White both book a seat with a fictional airline company. Same flight, same class, some price and so on.

Mr Black gets a seat next to the toilet and some stale fries.
Mr White gets a comfy seat with a view, a 3 course meal, a footmassage and a private tv.

They both only booked a trip - so Mr Black cannot feel discriminated against, right ?

It's because Mr Black is Black. :p

It's because Mr Black is Black. :p

Maybe the cabin crew prefer listening to the White Stripes to watching Nacho Libre.

It's because Mr Black is Black. :p

Nah - it is because Mr White is a famous advocate of equal rights treatments who was crippled a few years ago, while Mr Black is a completely healthy member of the WBC and the Klan ;)

So.. how many people still think Mr Black was treated unfairly ?

Mr Black and Mr White both book a seat with a fictional airline company. Same flight, same class, some price and so on.

Mr Black gets a seat next to the toilet and some stale fries.
Mr White gets a comfy seat with a view, a 3 course meal, a footmassage and a private tv.

They both only booked a trip - so Mr Black cannot feel discriminated against, right ?

Right.

Most instances where that sort of disparity takes place are probably to do with the difference between 'classes' on flights, but even there, you don't pay for a seat.

You are confusing the cost of the goods or services, with the costs of the benefits.

"First Class" costs more because you pay for a benefit package. Like getting a DVD player in your SUV.

Most instances where that sort of disparity takes place are probably to do with the difference between 'classes' on flights, but even there, you don't pay for a seat.

No, as I said, what they booked was completely the same. Just like thin and obese people would now pay exactly the same.

Do however look at the second post ;)

Hell, no, I'm not opposed to giving special consideration to disabled people.

I am concerned that there are no objective standards with which to determine whether or not a person is entitled to two seats because of obesity...

'Obesity' actually has a specific objective standard. That's why (much earlier in the thread) I advocated a doctor's note (or some such) as documentation that should/might be needed when you book your seat.

No, as I said, what they booked was completely the same. Just like thin and obese people would now pay exactly the same.


I looked at the second post, and Mr Black clearly doesn't belong to WBC, because he has the wrong surname, and they're all incestuous motherfuckers.

If you and I book the same seat, and you get bumped to First Class because they overbooked... should you have to pay more? Did I get ripped off?

No - benefits, not services.

There is also something that need to be taken into account.

Planes are very sensitive to weight. Airlines assume certain standard weight for each passengers. (like 80 kilos for men, 70 for women, 50 for children and 0 for infants). They calculate this and sum it up to determine the weight & balance of the plane. With this data the pilot proposes a take off plan and the plane is loaded with fuel according to this. The heavier the plane goes, the more fuel it will need for take off. That's the reason why they charge for excess luggage. If you are going to use two seats you should pay extra, maybe not double but neither the same.

In many airlines people with special need are specially charged.

and if you want to travel on comfortable seats don't travel on a LCC.

There is also something that need to be taken into account.

Planes are very sensitive to weight.

No, they're not.

At least, not in the anal fashion that you (and Wilgrove) suggest.

No, they're not.

At least, not in the anal fashion that you (and Wilgrove) suggest.

Anal fashion!?!? :confused:

Maybe you are confused about the thread you should be posting.

I have first hand experience on the increased costs of fuel that extra weight imply for planes.:mad:

How about not stuffing everything on the plate into your piehole?

How about not being such a completely worthless troll?

Okay, I keep reading this point, and right at the time when I'm ready to type "fair enough" and just leave it alone, I can't. If they're not selling seats, then why are there so many seats on the plane? Seems to me they could pack more in if they used a Japanese-nap-automat-style rack system. Probably safer, too. Everyone napping and all.

Somewhere along the way, it was decided that seats would be the airlines' M.O. The terminology is interchangeable -- fare/seat/ticket. So I'm pretty convinced that you really are purchasing a seat, no matter how it's being spun. Until I see an airline try it some other way, that is.

Most of what you said doesn't address the point I made, so I deleted it.

According to the airlines, you don't book a seat, you book a trip. You don't even book a particular flight. They can send you to a different layover.

Moreover, try skipping the part before the layover. Go ahead. Book a trip and then tell them you're just jump on the flight when it reaches the layover. They won't let you on. You missed the beginning of your trip, you have rebook the whole trip.

This actually happens to me because I used to end up with a layover in Chicago. I've called them and asked to just jump on in Chicago, since I was up there visiting family. Not allowed. They are under no obligation to allow you to continue your trip if you aren't in the place where the trip originates. That's because they aren't your seats. Like I said, feel free to check it out.

Most of what you said doesn't address the point I made, so I deleted it.

According to the airlines, you don't book a seat, you book a trip. You don't even book a particular flight. They can send you to a different layover.

Moreover, try skipping the part before the layover. Go ahead. Book a trip and then tell them you're just jump on the flight when it reaches the layover. They won't let you on. You missed the beginning of your trip, you have rebook the whole trip.

This actually happens to me because I used to end up with a layover in Chicago. I've called them and asked to just jump on in Chicago, since I was up there visiting family. Not allowed. They are under no obligation to allow you to continue your trip if you aren't in the place where the trip originates. That's because they aren't your seats. Like I said, feel free to check it out.

Actually some airlines allow this.

As long as the criteria is objective and can be applied before bumping another passenger, fine. If the criteria can't be applied at ticket purchase, and there is no room to rearrange passengers to accommodate the disability, the disabled should be bumped to the next suitable flight.

How does that play with the "it's not my fault crowd"?

Very well, actually, It's almost like this has already been addressed. Unfortunately, rather than know what you're talking about and THEN talk, you prefer to talk and then let us educate you.

Well, fine, I'll educate you again. See, there is this rule that if you have special needs that you let the airline know. If you don't, they don't have to accommodate you. But, hey, why find out stuff before you speak on it, right?

Anal fashion!?!? :confused:

Maybe you are confused about the thread you should be posting.

I have first hand experience on the increased costs of fuel that extra weight imply for planes.:mad:

Get mad all you like, you're talking crap, and I'm not going to pretend you're not just because you also have a temper.

If one looks at the weight ration we're talking about, and one does even basic calculations of (for example) moments of rotation, it is blindingly obvious that a passenger that is 150 lbs, 300 lbs or 450 lbs... is effectively identical in the equation.

Get mad all you like, you're talking crap, and I'm not going to pretend you're not just because you also have a temper.

If one looks at the weight ration we're talking about, and one does even basic calculations of (for example) moments of rotation, it is blindingly obvious that a passenger that is 150 lbs, 300 lbs or 450 lbs... is effectively identical in the equation.

/facepalm

if you say so. :rolleyes:

/facepalm

if you say so. :rolleyes:

I do. Clinching argument you presented, there. The crushing grip of reason.

/facepalm

if you say so. :rolleyes:

Prove him wrong instead of this spewing this bullshit arrogant demeanor. You have firsthand experience, then demonstrate it. Until then, your posts are worthless.

Prove him wrong instead of this spewing this bullshit arrogant demeanor. You have firsthand experience, then demonstrate it. Until then, your posts are worthless.

*shrugs shoulders*

whatever... :rolleyes:

This in no way proves my point but you may find it interesting...

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/wt_bal.htm

Passenger Weights: Actual passenger weights must be used in computing the weight of an airplane with limited seating capacity. Allowance must be made for heavy winter clothing when such is worn. Winter clothing may add as much as 14 lbs to a person's basic weight; summer clothing would add about 8 lbs. On larger airplanes with quite a number of passenger seats and for which actual passenger weights would not be available, the following average passenger weights may be used. The specified weights for males and females include an allowance for 8 lbs of carry-on baggage.

*shrugs shoulders*

whatever... :rolleyes:

This in no way proves my point but you may find it interesting...

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/wt_bal.htm

Passenger Weights: Actual passenger weights must be used in computing the weight of an airplane with limited seating capacity. Allowance must be made for heavy winter clothing when such is worn. Winter clothing may add as much as 14 lbs to a person's basic weight; summer clothing would add about 8 lbs. On larger airplanes with quite a number of passenger seats and for which actual passenger weights would not be available, the following average passenger weights may be used. The specified weights for males and females include an allowance for 8 lbs of carry-on baggage.

You're right - this in no way proves your point.

Unless you believe an unladen 747 weighs 1000 lbs.

You're right - this in no way proves your point.

Unless you believe an unladen 747 weighs 1000 lbs.

Not all airlines and private transporters have 747's.

Not all airlines and private transporters have 747's.

While this is true, unless you believe that the scope of the conversation is limited to Cessna 400s and the like, then the quibbling about the divergence from the 'industry standard' 175 lb passenger is mental masturbation.

What do they do with you when there are no seats in the restaurant? I've not yet been to one where they offer a window box or a seat in the restroom. It's a rotten analogy, but they, too, are selling seats. That's kinda the whole restaurant experience. A "seated" meal. But hey, enough reality.



That's a different service. It's called "take out". Many restaurants offer it, some do not. You're not compelled to tip as much either, as you've received only the bare minimum of service. I don't think this analogy works in your favor.



Have you flown recently? You can change your seat assignment -- funny term that, "assignment"...it's almost like they're telling you exactly what seat you'll be expected to occupy, aren't they? -- as you check in, and flight attendants are usually very generous in allowing those who could not book seats together to ask other passengers to switch in order to accommodate those traveling together, but on the whole, they'd rather you stay where you were slated to be. Just because they make occasional exceptions doesn't mean that you didn't pay for a seat. Were that the case, boarding passes wouldn't bother with seat assignment numbers at all, would they?
Intangeleon, they don't sell seats, they sell meals.
You have, I assume, bought a meal from a place that is not just a take out place, and taken it home?
You have the convenience of being served, if there is room. They don't charge per seat used -- else the chair that people throw jackets on would be charged on the bill as well. And they would seat complete strangers at your table to maximize seat sales. But they don't, generally speaking, seat strangers together.

The reason for the boarding passes and seat assignments is simply a tally of how many are on board, and where they've requested to be. (For instance, I always request a window seat on the wing as first preference, and have rarely had to take another seat assignment.)

While this is true, unless you believe that the scope of the conversation is limited to Cessna 400s and the like, then the quibbling about the divergence from the 'industry standard' 175 lb passenger is mental masturbation.

I don't believe the conversation is limited to Cessna 400s. YOU seem to believe the conversation is limited to jumbos.

Planes like the Cessnas and other light weights are vastly used, ESPECIALLY in Canada. I wonder if the guys who approved this ever though of that?



and seriously whats going on with the sexual references? What happened to good old puritan NSG?

what next?
Fat people suing restaurants, demanding they serve them twice as much food for the same cost, because "it's unfair to expect them to pay double to satisfy their hunger".
They pay for a meal, same as you pay for a meal. They pay the same price for the identical meal you bought, and get the identical amount of food.

You pay for a ticket on a flight. They pay for a ticket on a flight. You buy the same class of travel on the same day and all things being equal, pay the same price.

Now what's so hard to understand about that?

I don't believe the conversation is limited to Cessna 400s. YOU seem to believe the conversation is limited to jumbos.


No, the conversation originated talking about the results of legal appeals from Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, and WestJet. Sure, we're not JUST talking about 747's, but we ARE talking about bulk commercial carriers.


Planes like the Cessnas and other light weights are vastly used, ESPECIALLY in Canada. I wonder if the guys who approved this ever though of that?


Again, I think, in the specifics of the discussion - yes, it would appear so.


and seriously whats going on with the sexual references? What happened to good old puritan NSG?

NSG has never been 'puritan', as far as I've seen. Forbidding the presentation of goat sodomy hardly counts as draconian.

Beyond the point if its fair or not and the weight and balance issue. It will represent a considerable loses for the airlines. And the sector is currently in one of its worse crisis. I believe the airlines will raise their tariffs for everybody else to compensate their loses. How would this affect the canadian air transport industry, I'm not sure. They are facing a lot of competition of late.

They pay for a meal, same as you pay for a meal. They pay the same price for the identical meal you bought, and get the identical amount of food.

You pay for a ticket on a flight. They pay for a ticket on a flight. You buy the same class of travel on the same day and all things being equal, pay the same price.

Now what's so hard to understand about that?

The fact that you bring up class of travel brought this to my mind:

A big reason to fly first class is the extra room. You get a larger seat and more leg room. You aren't as close to the other passengers. You're less likely to get hit or have to move to allow the serving cart to go by.

But a person who gets 2 seats for the price of one ticket actually gets extra room without paying for a more expensive class ticket. They get a large part of the benefit of 1st class seating without paying for it.

If the airlines have already set a standard that more room = more money, could it not be seen as discrimination to give some people more room for the same amount of money?

/devil's advocate.

They pay for a meal, same as you pay for a meal. They pay the same price for the identical meal you bought, and get the identical amount of food.

You pay for a ticket on a flight. They pay for a ticket on a flight. You buy the same class of travel on the same day and all things being equal, pay the same price.

Now what's so hard to understand about that?

And what is so hard to understand that we don't apply to the idea that you've bought a trip, regardless of what you have with you, or how big you are, and have bought the right to sit in a designated space.

Because in the former, the slippery slope eventually devolves into passengers buying a single ticket and demanding that they get to bring their five tons of luggage for no extra charge.

After all, you bought a "trip" didn't you?

The fact that you bring up class of travel brought this to my mind:

A big reason to fly first class is the extra room. You get a larger seat and more leg room. You aren't as close to the other passengers. You're less likely to get hit or have to move to allow the serving cart to go by.

But a person who gets 2 seats for the price of one ticket actually gets extra room without paying for a more expensive class ticket. They get a large part of the benefit of 1st class seating without paying for it.

If the airlines have already set a standard that more room = more money, could it not be seen as discrimination to give some people more room for the same amount of money?

/devil's advocate.

But you're not simply paying for square footage of 'seating,' but rather the service of 1st class service and the spaciousness relative to body size. Larger people who get two seats use up the space, nullifying the alleged disparity, and their size means they're not exactly living the good life - in fact, giving two seats is often the only way they are physically able to board at all.

It must be noted that airlines actually sell seats, not trips. All the business model of airlines is around the seats.

Passengers are actually a property of the seat table in the airlines databases. This has been changing of late as the industry tries to be more customer centric

*shrugs shoulders*

whatever... :rolleyes:

This in no way proves my point but you may find it interesting...

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/wt_bal.htm

Passenger Weights: Actual passenger weights must be used in computing the weight of an airplane with limited seating capacity. Allowance must be made for heavy winter clothing when such is worn. Winter clothing may add as much as 14 lbs to a person's basic weight; summer clothing would add about 8 lbs. On larger airplanes with quite a number of passenger seats and for which actual passenger weights would not be available, the following average passenger weights may be used. The specified weights for males and females include an allowance for 8 lbs of carry-on baggage.
And that surely applies to a SMALL plane, not a large commercial jet.

Else why would they start charging for bags over 15 POUNDS?

Because in the former, the slippery slope eventually devolves into passengers buying a single ticket and demanding that they get to bring their five tons of luggage for no extra charge.

After all, you bought a "trip" didn't you?

I dont know how old you are but 4 of the last 5 decades you certainly could bring virtually unlimited luggage at no extra charge. This charge per extra bag thing is a relatively recent phenomena.

And what is so hard to understand that we don't apply to the idea that you've bought a trip, regardless of what you have with you, or how big you are, and have bought the right to sit in a designated space.

Because in the former, the slippery slope eventually devolves into passengers buying a single ticket and demanding that they get to bring their five tons of luggage for no extra charge.

After all, you bought a "trip" didn't you?
We are talking about passengers and the trip they purchased. Now you drag in luggage?
They don't have a weight requirement for passengers. They don't make a 95 pound girl binge until she's 200 pounds, nor a 250lb guy go on laxatives and dieretics to lose 50 pounds to fly.
Could you stick to the topic, please?

It will represent a considerable loses for the airlines.

This part just isn't true.

Even on intra-national connections, I don't think I've ever been on a plane where EVERY seat was filled. Especially in hard times, as less people fly, seats aren't always (often? ever?) sold to capacity.

Thus, flying with 39 passengers in 39 seats... or 39 passengers in 40 seats, is negligible difference, at best.

We are talking about passengers and the trip they purchased. Now you drag in luggage?
They don't have a weight requirement for passengers. They don't make a 95 pound girl binge until she's 200 pounds, nor a 250lb guy go on laxatives and dieretics to lose 50 pounds to fly. They do give everyone the same allowance for luggage though, don't they?

Could you stick to the topic, please?

A passenger is - I believe - 175 lbs according to the industry standard.

It's always been calculated as a sort of 'average', so the weight of an individual has always been irrelevent, overall. Worst comes to worst, passnegers get (on average) heavier - all you do is adjust that industry standard 175lbs to 200lbs, and make your calculations accordingly.

I find it shocking how many on here object to reasonable accomodations to those that have a disability on the grounds that it may cause some (minor) economic hardship. I don't give a fuck whether the airlines sell seats (which they insist they don't) or trips. It makes no difference. The cost to the carriers of the One Person, One Fare policy is approximately 41¢ and 16¢ in foregone revenue per domestic trip for Air Canada and WestJet, respectively.

Accomodating those that are disabled so that they can have access to public transportation is not discrimination against those without a disability. If you need a second seat because you have to fly with an attendant (as required by the airlines) or because your disability makes you unable to fit in one seat, then you aren't in the same position as someone who can fit in/doesn't need another seat. Treating unlike cases differently is not discrimination.

There is also a factor here of the social contract. As a society, we wish disabled people to live as productive lives as possible. That may mean that the disabled get "preferential" parking or an extra seat on an airline flight. Suck it up. It is a minor (if any) slight to you in service of a greater good.

No, they're not.

At least, not in the anal fashion that you (and Wilgrove) suggest.
I'd suggest that most large aircraft have not had problems with weight and balance up to this point and that they probably can continue to use the FAA-standard 170 pounds for each passenger.
This advisory (http://www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/TSB-SS/Air/2004/A04H0001/A04H0001_p2.htm) from Canada indicates that the average passenger weight is a little heavier, at about 183 lbs, but in a 747 only makes up 9 percent of the total aircraft weight.

If we are going to talk about loading down a Caravan class aircraft, then the we are correct to worry about passenger weights because they represent about 22 percent of the aircraft weight.

Incidentally, Wilgrove's opinions on aeronautics should be taken lightly. I remember a story where he related that his engine would have quit if the battery had failed. Not going to happen in a typical PiperCessna aircraft with magnetos. We should probably worry about him at the controls...

I find it shocking how many on here object to reasonable accomodations to those that have a disability on the grounds that it may cause some (minor) economic hardship. I don't give a fuck whether the airlines sell seats (which they insist they don't) or trips. It makes no difference. The cost to the carriers of the One Person, One Fare policy is approximately 41¢ and 16¢ in foregone revenue per domestic trip for Air Canada and WestJet, respectively.

Accomodating those that are disabled so that they can have access to public transportation is not discrimination against those with a disability. If you need a second seat because you have to fly with an attendant (as required by the airlines) or because your disability makes you unable to fit in one seat, then you aren't in the same position as someone who can fit in/doesn't need another seat. Treating unlike cases differently is not discrimination.

There is also a factor here of the social contract. As a society, we wish disabled people to live as productive lives as possible. That may mean that the disabled get "preferential" parking or an extra seat on an airline flight. Suck it up. It is a minor (if any) slight to you in service of a greater good.

Of course most people like to ignore little details like that as well as medical documentations and continue living with the fantasy that everyone overweight are merely lazy parasites. Just like socialists!

Beyond the point if its fair or not and the weight and balance issue. It will represent a considerable loses for the airlines. And the sector is currently in one of its worse crisis. I believe the airlines will raise their tariffs for everybody else to compensate their loses. How would this affect the canadian air transport industry, I'm not sure. They are facing a lot of competition of late.

Bullshit. According to the ruling at issue (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html), the annual cost of the 1P1F policy for Air Canada and for WestJet is about 41¢ and 16¢ per domestic trip, respectively.

And this doesn't include the fact that airlines can pass on the costs to customers. Average domestic ticket prices could increase by 77¢ for an Air Canada flight and 44¢ for a WestJet flight. Is that really too high a price for you to pay for someone who is disabled being able to fly?

This part just isn't true.

Even on intra-national connections, I don't think I've ever been on a plane where EVERY seat was filled. Especially in hard times, as less people fly, seats aren't always (often? ever?) sold to capacity.

Thus, flying with 39 passengers in 39 seats... or 39 passengers in 40 seats, is negligible difference, at best.
Fly from Baltimore to Atlanta -- that route is sold out to at least 99% every time I travel. Airlines will reduce flights to up the capacity on their routes. Granted that there are going to be some routes that just aren't in high demand. Continuing to serve some areas is why airlines get subsidies from the government.

Its simple, the fact that people cant fit in airplane seats isnt thier fault its the airlines fault. Unreasonable airplane seat size causes an artificial need for a second seat. If every seat was say 3 inches wider this wouldnt even be an issue. If the airlines cut the current size of seats 50% and made everyone buy 2 seats except for small children and people under 5 foot would you still think the policy was reasonable?

Why not cut the width of the seats 75% and charge for 3 seats for each person?

Bullshit. According to the ruling at issue (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html), the annual cost of the 1P1F policy for Air Canada and for WestJet is about 41¢ and 16¢ per domestic trip, respectively.

And this doesn't include the fact that airlines can pass on the costs to customers. Average domestic ticket prices could increase by 77¢ for an Air Canada flight and 44¢ for a WestJet flight. Is that really too high a price for you to pay for someone who is disabled being able to fly?

Shhh...you're interrupting the anti-fatty hate fest with your crazy logic.

Its simple, the fact that people cant fit in airplane seats isnt thier fault its the airlines fault. Unreasonable airplane seat size causes an artificial need for a second seat. If every seat was say 3 inches wider this wouldnt even be an issue. If the airlines cut the current size of seats 50% and made everyone buy 2 seats except for small children and people under 5 foot would you still think the policy was reasonable?
there would still be some few people who would not fit into a standard seat no matter what reasonable size they were.

Shhh...you're interrupting the anti-fatty hate fest with your crazy logic.

Fat chicks need love too...

But they gotta pay.

there would still be some few people who would not fit into a standard seat no matter what reasonable size they were.

The wider the seat, the exponentially you solve the problem of people who dont fit to the point that the extra seat for the very few is statistically insignificant

Fat chicks need love too...

But they gotta pay.

Carnivorous Lickers is adamant that fat chicks are better in bed, because they actually put in some effort, unlike their skinny, entitled counterparts.

It must be noted that airlines actually sell seats, not trips. All the business model of airlines is around the seats.

Passengers are actually a property of the seat table in the airlines databases. This has been changing of late as the industry tries to be more customer centric

One of the carriers in question is Air Canada - who I seem to recall recently (that is... maybe the last year or so. My definition of recent circles around it seeming recent.. don't assume I mean 'last week') ran a promotion where you could buy a 'pass' that gave you unlimited flights on certain days, within certain parameters.

That rather suggests that they are not 'selling seats'. The seat is just one of the benefits, if you will, of the service - which is transportation.

Carnivorous Lickers is adamant that fat chicks are better in bed, because they actually put in some effort, unlike their skinny, entitled counterparts.

bigger asses have benefits. Easier targets

there would still be some few people who would not fit into a standard seat no matter what reasonable size they were.
I've never seen anyone need two first class seats -- not that it could be accomplished...

Anyone ever fly Midwest Airlines? Every seat WAS 4 inches wider and they baked chocolate chip cookies on the plane. No, not all the flight attendants were above average.

there would still be some few people who would not fit into a standard seat no matter what reasonable size they were.

Yeah, but the standard seat is what... a foot and a half, I think? They're not really 'reasonable' right now. :)

Anyone ever fly Midwest Airlines? Every seat WAS 4 inches wider and they baked chocolate chip cookies on the plane. No, not all the flight attendants were above average.

That's awesome.

Yeah, but the standard seat is what... a foot and a half, I think? They're not really 'reasonable' right now. :)
im not saying they are. im just saying that there will always be some people who cant fit into whatever IS a reasonable size.

im not saying they are. im just saying that there will always be some people who cant fit into whatever IS a reasonable size.

Did you just ignore my post in response?

I'd suggest that most large aircraft have not had problems with weight and balance up to this point and that they probably can continue to use the FAA-standard 170 pounds for each passenger.
This advisory (http://www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/TSB-SS/Air/2004/A04H0001/A04H0001_p2.htm) from Canada indicates that the average passenger weight is a little heavier, at about 183 lbs, but in a 747 only makes up 9 percent of the total aircraft weight.

If we are going to talk about loading down a Caravan class aircraft, then the we are correct to worry about passenger weights because they represent about 22 percent of the aircraft weight.


That's the point I've been trying to make. If you take a plane that is flying with say... 220 passengers... and that TOTAL passenger load is only a one-tenth fraction of the total weight, and you are talking about ONE of those 200 passengers weighing, say, twice as much as 'normal'... it makes no difference, overall.


Incidentally, Wilgrove's opinions on aeronautics should be taken lightly. I remember a story where he related that his engine would have quit if the battery had failed. Not going to happen in a typical PiperCessna aircraft with magnetos. We should probably worry about him at the controls...

Wilgrove is falling down, for me, by not being able to present any data that counters (what seems to be) relatively simple math that says he's wrong.

That's awesome.
Turns out they still operate in the midwest. They talk about seat pitch, which sounds like legroom. The 717 plan at their website shows seats with as little as 20 in. to seats with as much as 41 in. The best seats cost $25 more than the worst.

This is a model that might make me like airlines again.

Did you just ignore my post in response?
yes.

the number of people who require 2 seats is already insignificant. if they made all seats wider it would help the rest of us but not remove the necessity of sometimes having to accomodate the extra sized people.

im not saying they are. im just saying that there will always be some people who cant fit into whatever IS a reasonable size.

Oh, agreed. But that shouldn't be the factor that determines seat-size.

"Okay, let's make the seat 9 inches across. Well, YES, a lot of people won't fit, but lots of people won't fit at TEN inches either..."

etc.

:)

Turns out they still operate in the midwest. They talk about seat pitch, which sounds like legroom. The 717 plan at their website shows seats with as little as 20 in. to seats with as much as 41 in. The best seats cost $25 more than the worst.

This is a model that might make me like airlines again.

Well, I'm not going to relocate to the Midwest just so I can fly there... but, yes, it sounds kind of like how I'd do air-carriage, if that were my business. They're getting a tentative thumbs-up. (Tentative, because I haven't gone and looked at their website yet).

:)

Oh, agreed. But that shouldn't be the factor that determines seat-size.

"Okay, let's make the seat 9 inches across. Well, YES, a lot of people won't fit, but lots of people won't fit at TEN inches either..."

etc.

:)
yes but to make the seats wider it would require 1 less seat per row. that would affect profits.

yes.

the number of people who require 2 seats is already insignificant. if they made all seats wider it would help the rest of us but not remove the necessity of sometimes having to accomodate the extra sized people.

True, this.

yes.

the number of people who require 2 seats is already insignificant. if they made all seats wider it would help the rest of us but not remove the necessity of sometimes having to accomodate the extra sized people.
Have you ever seen pictures of the PanAm Clippers? How nicely they treated people that decided to spend money and fly with that airline? They obviously understood that passengers were there voluntarily and might not use PanAm next time...

I blame Freddy Laker and the Skytrain for the terrible state of airline travel today.

yes.

the number of people who require 2 seats is already insignificant. if they made all seats wider it would help the rest of us but not remove the necessity of sometimes having to accomodate the extra sized people.

I will just assume your good at math. Wider means less will need extra seats no matter how you twist it right? And if its indeed as statistically insignificant as you say why do the airlines even care to the point they are willing to charge extra?

yes but to make the seats wider it would require 1 less seat per row. that would affect profits.

I agree. And that's why I think the average seats, while not being wonderful, are acceptable... With the (I would have thought obvious, but apparently, airlines don't agree) proviso that - if a passenger just won't fit in the seats that you made small to fit more in, you find some way to fit THEM in.

Have you ever seen pictures of the PanAm Clippers? How nicely they treated people that decided to spend money and fly with that airline? They obviously understood that passengers were there voluntarily and might not use PanAm next time...

I blame Freddy Laker and the Skytrain for the terrible state of airline travel today.
the airlines business is a mystery to me.

they seem to think that if they tried raising the price of all tickets by $20 (so that they wouldnt have to charge for luggage as they have started doing) no one would fly.

and yet they have a different price each day for any particular trip you are looking to book. as i was watching the price of tickets to go from albuquerque to aruba at the beginning of this month, the price would vary as much as $500 from one day to the next. it makes no sense to me.

I will just assume your good at math. Wider means less will need extra seats no matter how you twist it right? And if its indeed as statistically insignificant as you say why do the airlines even care to the point they are willing to charge extra?
beats me. maybe they dont like fat people.

Intangeleon, they don't sell seats, they sell meals.
You have, I assume, bought a meal from a place that is not just a take out place, and taken it home?
You have the convenience of being served, if there is room. They don't charge per seat used -- else the chair that people throw jackets on would be charged on the bill as well. And they would seat complete strangers at your table to maximize seat sales. But they don't, generally speaking, seat strangers together.

They sell the ambiance and atmosphere as well. You may CHOOSE to order a meal for take-out in most places, sure, but do you think they'd be charging what they do for what they serve if the ambiance weren't being paid off? Most people don't sit down at fast-food joints, and most people don't take-out from fine dining establishments for both extremes of the same reason: atmosphere. So yeah, they sell seats.

The reason for the boarding passes and seat assignments is simply a tally of how many are on board, and where they've requested to be. (For instance, I always request a window seat on the wing as first preference, and have rarely had to take another seat assignment.)

And to know where you are. They have to keep track of that, too. You must buy your tickets far in advance. My need to fly lately has been less planned than I'd like, and I've been the filling of a passenger sandwich as a result.

Most of what you said doesn't address the point I made, so I deleted it.

According to the airlines, you don't book a seat, you book a trip. You don't even book a particular flight. They can send you to a different layover.

Okay, I've experienced that (headwinds over Alaska turned Osaka-SFO-SEA into Osaka-SEA-SFO-3-hour-wait-due-to-missed-connection-SEA -- trust me the frustration of being where my destination was and not being allowed to leave was infuriating...and only marginally understandable).

Moreover, try skipping the part before the layover. Go ahead. Book a trip and then tell them you're just jump on the flight when it reaches the layover. They won't let you on. You missed the beginning of your trip, you have rebook the whole trip.

Okay, I can do without the tone ("go ahead"?). I know you can't jump into or abandon a midpoint.

This actually happens to me because I used to end up with a layover in Chicago. I've called them and asked to just jump on in Chicago, since I was up there visiting family. Not allowed. They are under no obligation to allow you to continue your trip if you aren't in the place where the trip originates. That's because they aren't your seats. Like I said, feel free to check it out.

You seem to think that this makes your point so convincingly that you've earned the right to be belligerent about it. I read you the FIRST time you got testy. Yes, you can't change the middle of any itinerary. That doesn't mean they aren't selling seats. I'll agree that the contract is indeed to bring you from point A to point B regardless of how many points in between are scheduled or become necessary.

However, the reason you can't get off and on at will is more because of security than that contract. Does anyone stop you if you've not got checked luggage on Amtrak and you get off early? How about Greyhound? Nope. In fact, if you're not back on at a stop and they're leaving, they'll leave you behind.

On quite a few airlines, they don't. Just sayin'.

This is true -- I had forgotten about the Southwest Airlines cattle call. I've flown mostly Northwest and United in the last three years because I lived in Bismarck, and unless you're going to Vegas (via Allegiant), those are your only choices.

Does Southwest still do that? Airtran and S/W used to just give out boarding passes that determined the order you would board in. You picked the seat when you got on board.

I've flown Southwest four times since they adopted that policy, the first in 1996, but not since 2004. Do they still have the aft-facing seats? I loved the flight crews when they were fun. I flew back from San Diego on St. Patrick's Day, and they asked if anyone knew "Danny Boy", and I raised my hand. They had me sing it over the intercom.

I agree. And that's why I think the average seats, while not being wonderful, are acceptable... With the (I would have thought obvious, but apparently, airlines don't agree) proviso that - if a passenger just won't fit in the seats that you made small to fit more in, you find some way to fit THEM in.
a mandate that all FUTURE seats be wider would force airplane manufacturers to make the planes a bit wider. that would be a good thing.

and i suppose those current wide body 2-5-2 planes could go to 2-4-2 and give more reasonable room to everyone.

the airlines business is a mystery to me.

they seem to think that if they tried raising the price of all tickets by $20 (so that they wouldnt have to charge for luggage as they have started doing) no one would fly.

and yet they have a different price each day for any particular trip you are looking to book. as i was watching the price of tickets to go from albuquerque to aruba at the beginning of this month, the price would vary as much as $500 from one day to the next. it makes no sense to me.

Yes. THAT is a singular frustration. I think I get why it happens -- as demand increases, the price does, too. It comes back down when they've got empty seats close to the flight's departure. I suppose that's how they cut the profit margin so close, but it doesn't seem right. However, with the price variability of so many components of flight (fuel, for one), I suppose they're doing what they must. I just hate it when I say I paid $X for the flight I'm on and some smug bastard says they paid $X-150 or something stupid like that.

a mandate that all FUTURE seats be wider would force airplane manufacturers to make the planes a bit wider. that would be a good thing.

and i suppose those current wide body 2-5-2 planes could go to 2-4-2 and give more reasonable room to everyone.

Couldn't a wider, more ovoid fuselage cross section function as a lifting body and help that way as an incentive? You fancy flying people, how's that work?

Incidentally, Wilgrove's opinions on aeronautics should be taken lightly. I remember a story where he related that his engine would have quit if the battery had failed. Not going to happen in a typical PiperCessna aircraft with magnetos. We should probably worry about him at the controls...

wait, what? I mean, I don't fly or nothin' but I'd IMAGINE that if the battery failed, while it would cause a lot of difficulty STARTING the engine, it wouldn't really do much of anything at all to a plane already in the air.

Couldn't a wider, more ovoid fuselage cross section function as a lifting body and help that way as an incentive? You fancy flying people, how's that work?
uh

what?

I dont know how old you are but 4 of the last 5 decades you certainly could bring virtually unlimited luggage at no extra charge. This charge per extra bag thing is a relatively recent phenomena.

The earliest flight I can remember was at least in the last two decades, and even then there were luggage limitations.

We are talking about passengers and the trip they purchased. Now you drag in luggage?
They don't have a weight requirement for passengers. They don't make a 95 pound girl binge until she's 200 pounds, nor a 250lb guy go on laxatives and dieretics to lose 50 pounds to fly.
Could you stick to the topic, please?

Luggage, passengers, they all weigh something. A median is generally taken in terms of passenger weight and fuel costs, creating the base point from which a fare is determined.

In either case, you still bought the space of a single seat. Subject to positional change at the discretion of the airline, yes, but not the space bought.

Instead of demanding a free extra seat for the obese, you should be demanding a universal increase in seating space on airlines, and of course, be willing to foot the subsequent increase in fares that airlines will have to charge to make up for less people per flight.

Are you?

Of course most people like to ignore little details like that as well as medical documentations and continue living with the fantasy that everyone overweight are merely lazy parasites. Just like socialists!

As opposed to your representation that appears to argue that all cases of obesity are solely because of medical conditions?

uh

what?

So hard to look up "lifting body" on wiki or google, is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

I was merely asking if the widening of the fuselage could be turned into a positive for the flight mechanics of airplanes. Win-win would mean more lift and more room. I am, of course, beyond unqualified to do anything but speculate, hence the speculation.

Instead of demanding a free extra seat for the obese, you should be demanding a universal increase in seating space on airlines, and of course, be willing to foot the subsequent increase in fares that airlines will have to charge to make up for less people per flight.

Are you?

Absolutly but the reason why airlines wont do this because its more profitable to cattle everyone and just write off the 2% that dont fit in thier coffins. Which is fine, unless you happen to be a part of the written off 2% and need to get somewhere.

So hard to look up "lifting body" on wiki or google, is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

I was merely asking if the widening of the fuselage could be turned into a positive for the flight mechanics of airplanes. Win-win would mean more lift and more room. I am, of course, beyond unqualified to do anything but speculate, hence the speculation.
no it was the terror that i had made some faux pas that left the image of wings being installed on 500lb men so that they could fly on their own.

i know nothing about aerodynamics.

wait, what? I mean, I don't fly or nothin' but I'd IMAGINE that if the battery failed, while it would cause a lot of difficulty STARTING the engine, it wouldn't really do much of anything at all to a plane already in the air.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all combustion engines use spark plugs to ignite the fuel and push the cylinders?

Absolutly


If you include willingness to pay for the subsequent fare hike, then we have an agreement. How shocking.


but the reason why airlines wont do this because its more profitable to cattle everyone and just write off the 2% that dont fit in thier coffins. Which is fine, unless you happen to be a part of the written off 2% and need to get somewhere.

I would presume this has something to do with the idea that it is much more expensive to make the overhaul on their fleet than it is to write off that 2%.

no it was the terror that i had made some faux pas that left the image of wings being installed on 500lb men so that they could fly on their own.

i know nothing about aerodynamics.

Oh. Sorry. Usually I get "what"s like that when someone is being obnoxious. My apologies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all combustion engines use spark plugs to ignite the fuel and push the cylinders?

essentially, yes, to my knowledge. The battery is used as a catalyst to start the reaction, but is unneeded after that. So even if the engine were to fall out of the plane while it was in the air, the plane would be able to fly fine. Would have a hell of a time STARTING though, once it landed and tried to take off again.

Oh. Sorry. Usually I get "what"s like that when someone is being obnoxious. My apologies.
no apology necessary. my relief at only being as stupid as the average person is more than enough comfort.

essentially, yes, to my knowledge. The battery is used as a catalyst to start the reaction, but is unneeded after that. So even if the engine were to fall out of the plane while it was in the air, the plane would be able to fly fine. Would have a hell of a time STARTING though, once it landed and tried to take off again.

??? Unless you're talking about glide ratio. Did you mean "battery"?

??? Unless you're talking about glide ratio. Did you mean "battery"?

...shut up, I'm tired.

essentially, yes, to my knowledge. The battery is used as a catalyst to start the reaction, but is unneeded after that. So even if the battery were to fall out of the plane while it was in the air, the plane would be able to fly fine. Would have a hell of a time STARTING though, once it landed and tried to take off again.

Correction.

But here's the thing I don't understand. Every combustion cycle diagram I've looked at involved the spark plug firing once per cycle. That would mean the battery would still be used even after you've started the engine wouldn't it?

Correction.

But here's the thing I don't understand. Every combustion cycle diagram I've looked at involved the spark plug firing once per cycle. That would mean the battery would still be used even after you've started the engine wouldn't it?
no

the battery doesnt provide the spark.

Actually some airlines allow this.

If I purchased the seat rather than a trip, every airline would HAVE to allow it. Since, I purchased a seat on that flight.

If you include willingness to pay for the subsequent fare hike, then we have an agreement. How shocking.



I would presume this has something to do with the idea that it is much more expensive to make the overhaul on their fleet than it is to write off that 2%.

Sure, in the same way its less expensive to write off handicapped passengers instead of building ramps and handicapped accessible bathrooms and wider doorways and giving them more space in the parking lot etc. Is this what you suggest airlines should do?

Beyond the point if its fair or not and the weight and balance issue. It will represent a considerable loses for the airlines. And the sector is currently in one of its worse crisis. I believe the airlines will raise their tariffs for everybody else to compensate their loses. How would this affect the canadian air transport industry, I'm not sure. They are facing a lot of competition of late.

If this were true they would be exempt. Unfortunately, you are still speaking from your anal orifice. If it caused undue hardship as you claim, there is an exemption for this.

You don't know what you're talking about. So once again, why don't you lie and pretend you've got better knowledge on this than we do?

It must be noted that airlines actually sell seats, not trips. All the business model of airlines is around the seats.

Passengers are actually a property of the seat table in the airlines databases. This has been changing of late as the industry tries to be more customer centric

Seriously, this has been debunked multiple times. No amount of spewing the same crap over and over will help you.

It doesn't matter how they track passengers. It doesn't matter if they reference seats. What matters is if they can take my seat and give it someone else while still guaranteeing my trip. The answer is... they can. You've admitted that can. They have to get me from point A to point B. They have to give me my class or better. They are not required in any way, shape or form to put me in the seat I request or that they told me I would get when I booked the trip. They aren't even required to put me on the same type of plane.

This part just isn't true.

Even on intra-national connections, I don't think I've ever been on a plane where EVERY seat was filled. Especially in hard times, as less people fly, seats aren't always (often? ever?) sold to capacity.

Thus, flying with 39 passengers in 39 seats... or 39 passengers in 40 seats, is negligible difference, at best.

I have to beg to differ. Many flights I'm on are full. It's pretty frequent, frankly.

Carnivorous Lickers is adamant that fat chicks are better in bed, because they actually put in some effort, unlike their skinny, entitled counterparts.

What about skinny, deprived, definitely-not-entitled chicks? :tongue:

I have to beg to differ. Many flights I'm on are full. It's pretty frequent, frankly.

Full as in 'full'. Or Full as in... lots of people.

?

I've flown Southwest four times since they adopted that policy, the first in 1996, but not since 2004. Do they still have the aft-facing seats? I loved the flight crews when they were fun. I flew back from San Diego on St. Patrick's Day, and they asked if anyone knew "Danny Boy", and I raised my hand. They had me sing it over the intercom.

I haven't seen any aft-facing seats, but the flight crews are definitely still pretty silly, and they've made me sing for the passengers before, too. :p

wait, what? I mean, I don't fly or nothin' but I'd IMAGINE that if the battery failed, while it would cause a lot of difficulty STARTING the engine, it wouldn't really do much of anything at all to a plane already in the air.
It was a truly amazing statement from someone who claims to hold a private pilot license...
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13065771&postcount=3
Now, as most of us who did go to ground school know, the magnetos are the devices that actually provide a spark to the engine. No alternator or battery is needed. You've probably seen folks hand-prop an airplane, if only in the movies. That's relying on the spark from the mags to fire the plugs. Lawn mowers, chainsaws, and other simple gas engines work the same way.

I ended that thread on a quiet note...
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13066168&postcount=13
In fact, I could hear the crickets chirping, it was so quiet.

I haven't seen any aft-facing seats, but the flight crews are definitely still pretty silly, and they've made me sing for the passengers before, too. :p

I love Southwest. They're always my first choice of airline. I think they reconfigured their planes and took out the aft-facing seats. I love their new boarding policy though. All I have to do is be at the internet exactly 24 hours before check-in, and I get to be one of the first 20 people on the plane and get my favorite seat...Emergency Row Window (More legroom, armchair goes up so you don't feel boxed in, wall to sleep against, and no one hopping over you to pee.

Full as in 'full'. Or Full as in... lots of people.

?

Full as in every single seat has a butt in it.

Also, I've never seen anyone who needed two seats. Clearly it's practically putting airlines out of business.

But, I don't fly much so I don't have much experience.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all combustion engines use spark plugs to ignite the fuel and push the cylinders?
Gas engines... Diesel engines work on the principle that increased compression will raise the temp of the fuel-air mixture to the point of combustion. Hence, they use glow plugs for starts only, not for sustained combustion.

Gas engines do that sometimes, too, but it's a malfunction. Spark plugs are what burns gas.

no

the battery doesnt provide the spark.
Pretty good for a girl.

Sure, in the same way its less expensive to write off handicapped passengers instead of building ramps and handicapped accessible bathrooms and wider doorways and giving them more space in the parking lot etc. Is this what you suggest airlines should do?

Your example involves adding marginal costs to existing expenditures. Swapping out seats in the entire fleet however, probably somewhat more expensive, not mentioning the downtime while the aircraft is being refitted.

This isn't something that you can realistically ask them to change overnight or over all of their existing fleet. More likely, it would be a gradual change as new craft are bought and old ones retired.

This isn't something that you can realistically ask them to change overnight or over all of their existing fleet. More likely, it would be a gradual change as new craft are bought and old ones retired.

And their incentive would be? We have established their perfect willingness to write off and disregard the needs of entire segments of the human population as simply not being worth it in terms of profit.

The seat sizes wernt forced on the airlines when the planes were built, they could have ordered them as wide as they wanted. The choice to make small seats was by design and part of the airlines poor business plan that passengers now have to be victim to.

And their incentive would be? We have established their perfect willingness to write off and disregard the needs of entire segments of the human population as simply not being worth it in terms of profit.

Rather than asking me this, shouldn't you be the one suggesting solutions?

The earliest flight I can remember was at least in the last two decades, and even then there were luggage limitations.



Luggage, passengers, they all weigh something. A median is generally taken in terms of passenger weight and fuel costs, creating the base point from which a fare is determined.

In either case, you still bought the space of a single seat. Subject to positional change at the discretion of the airline, yes, but not the space bought.

Instead of demanding a free extra seat for the obese, you should be demanding a universal increase in seating space on airlines, and of course, be willing to foot the subsequent increase in fares that airlines will have to charge to make up for less people per flight.

Are you?
No, that's what you apparently think I should be saying. Sorry.
What I have said, repeatedly, and what you have apparently ignored, repeatedly, is that you buy a TRIP, not a SEAT.

Would I like the seats wider? Who wouldn't? However, they are acceptable for the majority of people, most of the time. Occasionally, by law, they have to accommodate someone with a disability by lifting the armrest -- a statistically insignificant number of times, for a cost of, what was it? Forty one cents on the flight it happens on?

And having the occasional large sized customer who needs a medical accommodation doesn't have anything to do with your ridiculous example of bringing along five thousand pounds of luggage.

Why the hysteria about prices going up, and profits going down? Have you not read the thread?

Now tell me how that takes money out of your pocket, or affects you in any way?

Rather than asking me this, shouldn't you be the one suggesting solutions?

My solution is simple, since you were the dumb company that ordered planes with seats too narrow for a small but significant percentage of humanity, then you pony up for the costs of your poor management decisions.

And their incentive would be? We have established their perfect willingness to write off and disregard the needs of entire segments of the human population as simply not being worth it in terms of profit.

The seat sizes wernt forced on the airlines when the planes were built, they could have ordered them as wide as they wanted. The choice to make small seats was by design and part of the airlines poor business plan that passengers now have to be victim to.
Judging by the comments and my experiences of full and nearly full cabins on most flights, I'd say most people don't object to the poor business plan enough to stay home, or find an alternate way to travel. Something about a bus and the necessary bus stations aren't nearly as appealing as sitting in an uncomfortable seat.

Judging by the comments and my experiences of full and nearly full cabins on most flights, I'd say most people don't object to the poor business plan enough to stay home, or find an alternate way to travel.

Your absolutely right and are proving my point. Its just that much easier to just tell the overly tall, fat, wide, or handicapped too bad the rest of the cattle are tolerating it just fine.

Your absolutely right and are proving my point. Its just that much easier to just tell the overly tall, fat, wide, or handicapped too bad.

I think the point has been made over and over that you just give them a seat that accommodates them a little better. Put the tall guy in an exit row. Give the fat guy a second seat. Give the folks that need assistance a seat for their assistant. Don't fix what isn't broke.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/hl_nm/us_obesity)

What I want to know is what is wrong with the airline charging the obese people extra for taking up two seats? That is one less seat that the airlines can sell to a passenger, so they should be allowed to make up that loss seat somehow, and the fact that they lost that seat to an obese person, it should stand to reason that the obese person should pay for the extra seat.

Correction. Obese people like everyone else have a right to happy healthy lives, they should combat obesity. Making it easier for them gives people less incentive to ovoid falling into such a dismal physical shape. These people need to cured not pampered by the government.

I think the point has been made over and over that you just give them a seat that accommodates them a little better. Put the tall guy in an exit row. Give the fat guy a second seat. Give the folks that need assistance a seat for their assistant. Don't fix what isn't broke.
^ ^

This. But of course it's just common sense -- which very obviously from this thread, is not common at all.

I think the point has been made over and over that you just give them a seat that accommodates them a little better. Put the tall guy in an exit row. Give the fat guy a second seat. Give the folks that need assistance a seat for their assistant. Don't fix what isn't broke.

Im glad you think the point has been made. My argument is that no such thing has occurred and many on this forum still believe you should pay double for 2 seats.(as recently as 2 posts above me)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all combustion engines use spark plugs to ignite the fuel and push the cylinders?

You're wrong

Im glad you think the point has been made. My argument is that no such thing has occurred and many on this forum still believe you should pay double for 2 seats.(as recently as 2 posts above me)

They also believe that obesity is purely a problem of laziness and that the overweight deserve nothing but scorn and contempt. Go figure.

Correction. Obese people like everyone else have a right to happy healthy lives, they should combat obesity. Making it easier for them gives people less incentive to ovoid falling into such a dismal physical shape. These people need to cured not pampered by the government.
What makes you think they don't?

Im glad you think the point has been made. My argument is that no such thing has occurred and many on this forum still believe you should pay double for 2 seats.(as recently as 2 posts above me)
Whatever that number, I'm sure even fewer think that restructuring the cabins of all passenger aircraft is a viable solution. Or do we just put in a row of fat seats and a row of tall seats and a row of seeing eye dog seats, etc?

What makes you think they don't?
Cosmopolitan and GQ.

Gas engines... Diesel engines work on the principle that increased compression will raise the temp of the fuel-air mixture to the point of combustion. Hence, they use glow plugs for starts only, not for sustained combustion.

Gas engines do that sometimes, too, but it's a malfunction. Spark plugs are what burns gas.

Actually myrm, the glow plugs are to heat the fuel for easier combustion, its the act of compression that ignites the fuel.

Whatever that number, I'm sure even fewer think that restructuring the cabins of all passenger aircraft is a viable solution. Or do we just put in a row of fat seats and a row of tall seats and a row of seeing eye dog seats, etc?

I would suggest that airlines create a separate section for those traveling with kids, something far more suited to their needs. I think with the increase of families traveling, a kids section might make good business sense.

As for obese people, if you've ever sat next to one on a plane, you'd wish they'd have two seats, forcing them into one is as uncomfortable for the person next to them as it is for the obese person.

I don't really see a good argument for making them pay extra either, I really doubt planes will now be filled with obese people, I suspect they avoid mass transit as much as possible.

What makes you think they don't?

So how much is being done to deter obesity?

http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/causes-of-obesity.htm

http://www.virilplant.com/obesity-causes.htm#Psychological

According to these and my health teacher there are many pervasive causes for obesity in modern society. The government should put some time, energy and resources into researching obesity and combating it so that obesity will decrease which in turn will reduce illness. I say they should attack the source of the problem rather than focusing on the symptoms.

Whatever that number, I'm sure even fewer think that restructuring the cabins of all passenger aircraft is a viable solution. Or do we just put in a row of fat seats and a row of tall seats and a row of seeing eye dog seats, etc?

We put a row of handicapped parking in front of every store in the nation. Why is an accommodation in a plane any different.

Actually myrm, the glow plugs are to heat the fuel for easier combustion, its the act of compression that ignites the fuel.

Like I said, starts only. You'd crank for a long time without them.

What I have said, repeatedly, and what you have apparently ignored, repeatedly, is that you buy a TRIP, not a SEAT.

And what I have said repeatedly, which you keep denying, is that you buy a seat, or more specifically, space on a transport.


However, they are acceptable for the majority of people, most of the time. Occasionally, by law, they have to accommodate someone with a disability by lifting the armrest -- a statistically insignificant number of times, for a cost of, what was it? Forty one cents on the flight it happens on?


The law is the final say in such matters, I admit, but as some people have pointed out to me, the law does not necessarily have to be fair, or just. It is just that, the law.

And as for it being low in cost, so? What is your point there? I believe that one should pay for exactly what one uses, and I hold to the idea that space/seats, not passage, is what is sold, rented actually, in airlines. How one intends to use that space is your business, so long as you're not breaking any laws that is, but if you're using up more, then one should pay for it.

It is that simple. You believe that you pay for passage, and I believe that you pay not specifically for passage, but for the right to use a certain amount of space at a certain time and date.


Now tell me how that takes money out of your pocket, or affects you in any way?

And this court ruling affects you how? It's rather mmm, dishonest, to argue about whether it affects the debater personally as if that is that was the benchmark as to determine the validity of their stance.

We put a row of handicapped parking in front of every store in the nation. Why is an accommodation in a plane any different.
Okay, we put handicapped parking spaces in front of the airplane, too. Problem solved. We could even add a few at the airport.

Like I said, starts only. You'd crank for a long time without them.

It depends upon the ambient temperature, above 60 degrees it's a little hard starting, but not exceptionally so (I have started a diesel with non-functioning glow plugs in those conditions), below 50 degrees and if you don't have glow plugs (or working ones) and your engine is almost guaranteed to not start...

Okay, we put handicapped parking spaces in front of the airplane, too. Problem solved. We could even add a few at the airport.

In essence your correct. There is absolutely no good reason why a row or two on a plane couldn't be designated to accommodate the handicapped, tall, wide, the wide shouldered and the obese.( Please note you can be very wide pelvis wise and shoulder blade wise thru no fault of your own and not be obese)

This isnt brain surgery. If the seat is 36 inches wide and your shoulder blades are 38 inches guess what you qualify for one of the seats. End of problem.

This. Is. Bloody. Ridiculous.

What. The. ****. Why do I live here?

So how much is being done to deter obesity?

http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/causes-of-obesity.htm

http://www.virilplant.com/obesity-causes.htm#Psychological

According to these and my health teacher there are many pervasive causes for obesity in modern society. The government should put some time, energy and resources into researching obesity and combating it so that obesity will decrease which in turn will reduce illness. I say they should attack the source of the problem rather than focusing on the symptoms.
Are you for real?

You don't see any ads for gyms, health food stores, diet plans, you've never seen the food pyramid, you don't know that the government subsidizes healthy food for people without much money?

You don't know about bariatric surgeries, you don't think there's any research being done on obesity and the related diseases associated with it...

You don't think any research has been done on this? And that there's not a lot the government is doing about it already?

Are you for real?

You don't see any ads for gyms, health food stores, diet plans, you've never seen the food pyramid, you don't know that the government subsidizes healthy food for people without much money?

You don't know about bariatric surgeries, you don't think there's any research being done on obesity and the related diseases associated with it...

You don't think any research has been done on this? And that there's not a lot the government is doing about it already?

Sad are the days when mods hijack threads ;) The topic is fat people on planes.

Are you for real?

You don't see any ads for gyms, health food stores, diet plans, you've never seen the food pyramid, you don't know that the government subsidizes healthy food for people without much money?

You don't know about bariatric surgeries, you don't think there's any research being done on obesity and the related diseases associated with it...

You don't think any research has been done on this? And that there's not a lot the government is doing about it already?

I have faith that more can be done and I believe that what is currently being done is inadequate.

The currently "campaign" against obesity is about as effective as our current sex ed. If it was effective obesity wouldn't be an issue.

As I said before the government shouldn't be ratifying silly laws making obese life easy alone, they need to attack this problem at the root and prevent obesity so that citizens can enjoy a happy healthy life as opposed to a diseased one. Also with obesity decreasing how many seats one has a right too needn't be an issue.

Also with obesity decreasing how many seats one has a right too needn't be an issue.

It seems clear you havnt considered the plight of people that simply have wide pelvic bones and wide sholders that cant fit into a seat and it has nothing to do with how fat they are.

It seems clear you havnt considered the plight of people that simply have wide pelvic bones and wide sholders that cant fit into a seat and it has nothing to do with how fat they are.

No threadjacking.

Sad are the days when mods hijack threads ;) The topic is fat people on planes.

I remember the good old days when it was about motherfucking snakes.

No threadjacking.

I cant imagine a more appropriate post. It even had the words wide and fat and seat in it and was talking specifically about airplanes.

And what I have said repeatedly, which you keep denying, is that you buy a seat, or more specifically, space on a transport.



The law is the final say in such matters, I admit, but as some people have pointed out to me, the law does not necessarily have to be fair, or just. It is just that, the law.

And as for it being low in cost, so? What is your point there? I believe that one should pay for exactly what one uses, and I hold to the idea that space/seats, not passage, is what is sold, rented actually, in airlines. How one intends to use that space is your business, so long as you're not breaking any laws that is, but if you're using up more, then one should pay for it.

It is that simple. You believe that you pay for passage, and I believe that you pay not specifically for passage, but for the right to use a certain amount of space at a certain time and date.



And this court ruling affects you how? It's rather mmm, dishonest, to argue about whether it affects the debater personally as if that is that was the benchmark as to determine the validity of their stance.
The law says they have to be accommodated, at the same price as anyone else purchasing a single fare.

http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html

Therefore, they are not buying a SEAT, they are buying TRANSPORTATION.
If you want to continue to insist that it's a SEAT they are buying simply because you think that's the way it should be, then that's your lookout.

I cant imagine a more appropriate post. It even had the words wide and fat and seat in it and was talking specifically about airplanes.

You post only regarded large people who are not obese, why would I consider them when this discussion is purely about the obese, a law giving them two seats and how I believe the gov should put more into curing.

Sad are the days when mods hijack threads ;) The topic is fat people on planes.
Sad are the days when ignorant comments about people being obese because they are lazy or want to be or that there's no research being done about it are repeated over and over. Forgive me for taking a moment to point out reality.

Sad are the days when ignorant comments about people being obese because they are lazy or want to be or that there's no research being done about it are repeated over and over. Forgive me for taking a moment to point out reality.

Sad are the days when mods join in the pretzel making.

I never said there was no research being done, I merely stated that what's currently being done is inadequate.

SL, how about I just say, let the system go on. Who cares?

And what I have said repeatedly, which you keep denying, is that you buy a seat, or more specifically, space on a transport.

Not according to both the law and the airlines. But, hey, if YOU say so, then perhaps both the law and the airlines are wrong.

As for the rest, I love how you constantly demonstrate that your arguments are bullshit. Earlier you complained it was a hardship for them. Now you admit it isn't, in fact, a hardship and your problem is that disabled people are getting something you don't for the same price.

The problem, of course, being that you also cost more than passengers that drink less of the free drinks. You also cost more if you brought a bag and someone else didn't. You also cost more if you occupy more time at a counter than another passenger.

The service is the trip according to everyone who matters. They are paying for the same service you are. Whine all you like, but the facts aren't going to change.

Sad are the days when ignorant comments about people being obese because they are lazy or want to be or that there's no research being done about it are repeated over and over. Forgive me for taking a moment to point out reality.

Im sure. So what exactly are the rules about when you can decide to go completely off topic for no reason again?

Full as in every single seat has a butt in it.

Also, I've never seen anyone who needed two seats. Clearly it's practically putting airlines out of business.

But, I don't fly much so I don't have much experience.

This is true, what would you know? I'm sure whole days go by when you don't fly. I certainly haven't ever talked to you in different timezones (different sides of the country, even)... on the same day.

Or something.

It's probably epidemic, and we've just not noticed.

Not according to both the law and the airlines.


According to Canadian law you mean.


But, hey, if YOU say so, then perhaps both the law and the airlines are wrong.


And what is "wrong" here hmmm? This is a cross purpose of stances.


Earlier you complained it was a hardship for them.


I specified that it represented an increased cost, and lo and behold, even Kat provided evidence that it did.


Now you admit it isn't


Project much?


The service is the trip according to everyone who matters.


Well, if they were to change their minds, would you accept it as is then hmm? Or would you, as you like to accuse me of, "whine"?

According to Canadian law you mean.

You think Canada is the only country that has laws regarding the behavior of airlines?

And what is "wrong" here hmmm? This is a cross purpose of stances.

Not what. Who. Who is wrong? You. Frequently and provably. Regardless of what you claim, both the airline and the law agree that you purchase a trip. What in the world would make you think that you just repeating the same thing over and over would change that fact?

I specified that it represented an increased cost, and lo and behold, even Kat provided evidence that it did.

Actually, you specified that it created a hardship. Then when it turned out it's negligible you cried about how it doesn't really matter. It mattered when you thought it was significant, didn't it? You're wildly inconsistent and it's because you're scrambling to find a relevant and effective argument. Keep scrambling, because you're not there yet.


Project much?

Uh, what? Your argument is now "I know you are but what am I?" Look, you are trying to act like any cost is too much. You originally were pretending this was going to cost them tons. You keep shifting which is what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. As we educate you, you try to pretend like you were always arguing something else. It's rather transparent.
Well, if they were to change their minds, would you accept it as is then hmm? Or would you, as you like to accuse me of, "whine"?

If they would change their minds? Who? The airlines? They don't get to "change their minds" so that they don't have to treat passengers equally. They made their beds. They sold trips when it was convenient for them to make that argument.

As far as whining, if you catch me going "but, it's not fair... I have to pay the same as them and they get to have a seat that they can fit into, just like I... I mean, they are getting... I... well, somehow it's just not fair" *stomps foot* You catch me doing that like you are, and I'll admit to whining gladly. Till then, I'll just point it out in you.

It's funny, though, that your argument has so run out of steam that all you've got left is... "but, but, what if they suddenly changed it to be sold as seats?" Look, when all you have are hypotheticals that don't match reality, you've lost. This is where you bow out gracefully and thank us for being willing to educate you.

You think Canada is the only country that has laws regarding the behavior of airlines?


You think Canadian law regulating aircraft behavior is universal? This is, after all, a single ruling. Now, if you could provide a list of all countries showing that they have the same ruling, you would be correct the claim of "the people who matter" having all the same idea.


Not what. Who. Who is wrong? You. Frequently and provably. Regardless of what you claim, both the airline and the law agree that you purchase a trip. What in the world would make you think that you just repeating the same thing over and over would change that fact?

If by the article in the OP, only one law in one country. Is there a listing showing more countries with the same law?


Actually, you specified that it created a hardship. Then when it turned out it's negligible you cried about how it doesn't really matter.



It mattered when you thought it was significant, didn't it?


Amnesia perhaps? Or simply glossing over an admittance on mine regarding the entire question of hardship?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14240936&highlight=played#post14240936


Uh, what? Your argument is now "I know you are but what am I?" Look, you are trying to act like any cost is too much. You originally were pretending this was going to cost them tons. You keep shifting which is what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. As we educate you, you try to pretend like you were always arguing something else. It's rather transparent.

You are simply trying to drag me back to the trap of an argument that was not part of my original stance. I realized as much and stepped out quite soem time back. Insistence of continuation is either ignorance or projection.


If they would change their minds? Who? The airlines?


Airlines, courts, lawmakers. Did you really think that such things are set in stone, never to be changed?


It's funny, though, that your argument has so run out of steam that all you've got left is... "but, but, what if they suddenly changed it to be sold as seats?"


The sum of your argument is "this court has declared so, thus you should not argue or protest", so there should be no objection on your side should the reverse be applied.

Or does such a possibility make you uncomfortable?


This is where you bow out gracefully and thank us for being willing to educate you.

Now you sound like Canuckheaven.

NAS has lost the same point over and over. The last shred of his case is that somewhere, in some country he won't name, airlines or the law regard a plane ticket as "entitlement to one seat."

South Lizasauria has lumbered in, not even trying to address the rights or wrongs of the legal decision. It's only a matter of time before he says something jawdroppingly stupid about an income tax surcharge for being overweight, or some such.

The hijack about combustion engines was mildly amusing, but otherwise this thread has turned into a complete waste of time.

Well done Canada. I'm finished with this thread.

NAS has lost the same point over and over. The last shred of his case is that somewhere, in some country he won't name, airlines or the law regard a plane ticket as "entitlement to one seat."

You're quite free to take it to PMs if you want. I've said as much.

You think Canadian law regulating aircraft behavior is universal? This is, after all, a single ruling. Now, if you could provide a list of all countries showing that they have the same ruling, you would be correct the claim of "the people who matter" having all the same idea.

If by the article in the OP, only one law in one country. Is there a listing showing more countries with the same law?

You don't read well. I didn't say this was a universal ruling or that any other country has the exact same ruling. What I said is that other countries have legislation regarding air travel. Read THEN post. Not the other way around.


Amnesia perhaps? Or simply glossing over an admittance on mine regarding the entire question of hardship?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14240936&highlight=played#post14240936

Yes, that was when you changed your argument. Why do you think that just because you did it earlier that makes it okay? The fact is whether you "intended to" or not, you argued hardship and then when you were made to look silly, you pretend you didn't intend to and that I made you do it.

It's funny how easy it is to make you scramble. It's damned good evidence you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

You are simply trying to drag me back to the trap of an argument that was not part of my original stance. I realized as much and stepped out quite soem time back. Insistence of continuation is either ignorance or projection.

Except... it was.

"Or maybe you would rather passenger carriers be run to the ground, and everyone can revert to cars, buses, trains and ships." - NAS

That was before I jumped in. You started on that road. Accept responsibility for your crappy arguments.


Airlines, courts, lawmakers. Did you really think that such things are set in stone, never to be changed?

Amusing. So when real arguments fail you have to resort to "what if". Fail.


The sum of your argument is "this court has declared so, thus you should not argue or protest", so there should be no objection on your side should the reverse be applied.

Or does such a possibility make you uncomfortable?

The sum of my argument is "you said you were selling trips for decades because it was convenient for you so the court held you to the idea of selling trips. You don't get to change it now that it's inconvenient."

It would really help if you actually read what you were replying to. My arguments are pretty explicit.

As far as your hypothetical, what if one day airlines REQUIRE us to fly at least once a week, don't you think they should have to give blowjobs? It's equally relevant.

Now you sound like Canuckheaven.

Not falling your bait. You have been provably educated throughout this conversation for free. You should be grateful and bow out gracefully instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself.

So let's sum up:
"It wasn't my fault I made that argument, it was yours. Stop holding me to my crappy arguments."
"Well, sure my arguments are wrong, but what if things changed and they were suddenly right. Then I'd show you."
"Um, wait, I don't have a reply so I'll compare you to another post which is both flaming and flamebaiting. Hopefully the ad hominem will make you not notice that I don't have a supportable argument."

So now that we've summed up the entirety of your argument, you wanna admit you're done here or do we need to argue about what would happen if runways were made out of water?

You're quite free to take it to PMs if you want. I've said as much.

You mean you can't publically post the law in a country because those laws are private?

If you have a link to a law in any country, feel free to provide it. It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with your inability to provide an argument with any merit.

Saying, "I could support my argument but it would blow my cover" is an embarrassment to even the worst of debaters. Providing evidence for your claims doesn't require private information about you. You think I must live in Canada in order to use it in my argument.

The hijack about combustion engines was mildly amusing, but otherwise this thread has turned into a complete waste of time.

Well, let us summarise it then.

Many people consider it unfair that the obese can claim two seats while they can not. They consider thus because:

a. they do not consider obesity to be a disability that "deserves" special treatment, despite the court ruling otherwise.
b. they do not believe that ANY disability deserves special treatment
c. they pity the poor airlines that will lose money
d. some other reason

Next topic ?

Well, let us summarise it then.

Many people consider it unfair that the obese can claim two seats while they can not. They consider thus because:

a. they do not consider obesity to be a disability that "deserves" special treatment, despite the court ruling otherwise.
b. they do not believe that ANY disability deserves special treatment
c. they pity the poor airlines that will lose money
d. some other reason

Next topic ?

And D is, in some cases, because, in the future, it will create a problem if one of the posters is, in fact, prophetic.

Don't want to leave that one out. It's one of the best reasons ever given.

You think Canadian law regulating aircraft behavior is universal?

In a thread based around an article about the Canadian air industry, Canadian carriers, especially Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz, about a law specifically targeted at INTRA-Canadian travel?

Just on virtue of the number of times I had to say 'Canada' in that description, yes - as far as THIS debate is concerned, Canada is god.

I can't believe this thread is at 61 pages.

[/irrelevant post]

EDIT: 62

In a thread based around an article about the Canadian air industry, Canadian carriers, especially Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz, about a law specifically targeted at INTRA-Canadian travel?

Just on virtue of the number of times I had to say 'Canada' in that description, yes - as far as THIS debate is concerned, Canada is god.

Even given that all this is true, he wasn't actually responding to what I said. Apparently, "you know that other countries have laws regarding air travel as well, right?" is the same as saying "this particular law is universal."

Now, of course, most people who read them both and understand English would argue they are actually quite different, but, hey, it's not let reading comprehension or the meaning of words have any say in what a post means.

You don't read well. I didn't say this was a universal ruling or that any other country has the exact same ruling. What I said is that other countries have legislation regarding air travel.

Now if you are not arguing that it is a universal ruling, to what point are you using the idea of laws as a universal set for this particular issue then? Because that it how it seems.


Yes, that was when you changed your argument. Why do you think that just because you did it earlier that makes it okay? The fact is whether you "intended to" or not, you argued hardship and then when you were made to look silly, you pretend you didn't intend to and that I made you do it.


You did it? No. I didn't specify anyone being the one to blame other than myself at the time. Note that I dropped that aspect argument then. Would you prefer it if I said I was wrong with that line of debate? Fine. Then I was wrong with that line of debate.


Amusing. So when real arguments fail you have to resort to "what if". Fail.


You asked a hypothetical question, and then go on to declare failure if the answer returned was hypothetical in nature?


The sum of my argument is "you said you were selling trips for decades because it was convenient for you so the court held you to the idea of selling trips. You don't get to change it now that it's inconvenient."

It would really help if you actually read what you were replying to. My arguments are pretty explicit.

You are quite the liar if you claim that this represents the sum of the argument I quoted. This was the statement you made after all.


The service is the trip according to everyone who matters. They are paying for the same service you are. Whine all you like, but the facts aren't going to change.



As far as your hypothetical, what if one day airlines REQUIRE us to fly at least once a week, don't you think they should have to give blowjobs? It's equally relevant.

I see no equivalence. Maybe you can try to link them.

The rest of your argument lacks substance or operates on false attributions.

Even given that all this is true, he wasn't actually responding to what I said. Apparently, "you know that other countries have laws regarding air travel as well, right?" is the same as saying "this particular law is universal."

Now, of course, most people who read them both and understand English would argue they are actually quite different, but, hey, it's not let reading comprehension or the meaning of words have any say in what a post means.

I was trying to comprehend your message, but it was just a load of letters spattered across the screen in some kind of internally consistent order.

Now if you are not arguing that it is a universal ruling, to what point are you using the idea of laws as a universal set for this particular issue then? Because that it how it seems.

Go back. Read the post. Then reply.


You did it? No. I didn't specify anyone being the one to blame other than myself at the time. Note that I dropped that aspect argument then. Would you prefer it if I said I was wrong with that line of debate? Fine. Then I was wrong with that line of debate.

Uh, no, actually, you claimed I dragged you into that aspect of the discussion, though you were actualy discussing it before I'd said anything.


You asked a hypothetical question, and then go on to declare failure if the answer returned was hypothetical in nature?

No, I didn't. YOU brought up a hypothetical and I asked who you were talking about. Seriously, do you speak English? I'm not kidding. You said you're from SE Asia. Because, this really is bad. I mean, really bad. You really seem to be struggling with just basic stuff here.


You are quite the liar if you claim that this represents the sum of the argument I quoted. This was the statement you made after all.

Heh. I'm not sure how you think that quote helps your argument. It's quite congruent with what I said there.

In what way does that quote contradict what I said was the sum of my argument? Am I a liar because you can't keep track of the difference between statements about your hypothetical and statements about reality?

The sum was regarding what I was saying about your hypothetical. The quote you just offered was about reality. In reality, everyone involved currently agrees they sell trips (both airlines and the government). In your hypothetical, the airlines suddenly change and I addressed that. Easy peasy, chicken squeezy.

I see no equivalence. Maybe you can try to link them.

The rest of your argument lacks substance or operates on false attributions.

Heh. So now that I've thoroughly destroyed every argument you've offered, you're now gonna finish with a vague accusation about my arguments and hope no one notices.

You have two options (well three, but the third is to just continue making a fool of yourself).

1) Present arguments that bolster your case and weaken mine.
2) Admit you cannot.

"Your argument lacks substand or operates on false attributions" is too vague to do either.

I was trying to comprehend your message, but it was just a load of letters spattered across the screen in some kind of internally consistent order.

Here is my favorite bit.

The service is the trip according to everyone who matters.
Well, if they were to change their minds, would you accept it as is then hmm? Or would you, as you like to accuse me of, "whine"?
If they would change their minds? Who? The airlines?
Airlines, courts, lawmakers. Did you really think that such things are set in stone, never to be changed?
Amusing. So when real arguments fail you have to resort to "what if". Fail.
You asked a hypothetical question, and then go on to declare failure if the answer returned was hypothetical in nature?

Seriously, this is just beautiful. He got confused between reality and the reality he made up and then pretend it was my hypothetical. This stuff couldn't be funnier if he was doing it on purpose.

Unrelated to the debate but seats are important to airlines, the key indicator they use is average miles per available seat.

Seating is then calibrated so that, although people are paying differently per seat, the average rate means the flight is sustainable.

One could use the argument that where one passenger gets two seats for the price of one, this distorts that average, meaning everyone else, or more likely one other person, will pay more for their seat than they might do otherwise.

In practice, the cost is so minimal that it really shouldn't be a factor.

Unrelated to the debate but seats are important to airlines, the key indicator they use is average miles per available seat.

Seating is then calibrated so that, although people are paying differently per seat, the average rate means the flight is sustainable.

One could use the argument that where one passenger gets two seats for the price of one, this distorts that average, meaning everyone else, or more likely one other person, will pay more for their seat than they might do otherwise.

In practice, the cost is so minimal that it really shouldn't be a factor.

I agree with the major points here.

It should be pointed out that many of the KPIs that I create for projects aren't relevant other than for how they help us look at costs and effectiveness. I say that only so people don't think this argues for the seat thing again.

Night all.

NAS, don't let the windmills get you down. I'm sure your next post will soundly defeat me. All evidence suggests otherwise, but I hold out hope for you, brother.

It's the vegetarians we should really be going after, with their special meals causing no end of trouble, they should either eat the reconstituted gristle and beans offered or bring their own food.

It's the vegetarians we should really be going after, with their special meals causing no end of trouble, they should either eat the reconstituted gristle and beans offered or bring their own food.

No, actually. It's that they let people with disabilities get on first. I'm so tired of having to wait while people are wheeled onto the plane. They don't need to fly. I mean, it's not like it's food or anything. Of course, education is also not food, so no need for equality there. Nor is the first amendment required to sustain life so no need for equality there.

(It's too late at night. You get the point.)

*snip*

You know what? Forget it.

Whatever the case, this entire incident can be summed up as follows. You believe that passage is purchased. I believe that seating space is rented. Canadian courts have ruled in favor of your belief while airlines have pricing practices that fall on either side of the argument. Everything else so far has been argumentative fluff.

No, actually. It's that they let people with disabilities get on first. I'm so tired of having to wait while people are wheeled onto the plane. They don't need to fly. I mean, it's not like it's food or anything. Of course, education is also not food, so no need for equality there. Nor is the first amendment required to sustain life so no need for equality there.

(It's too late at night. You get the point.)

I remember a BA spokesperson responding to criticism that flights were always late with:

"It's not our fault, it's passengers, if they could just get their act together and turn up in a timely, orderly fashion, we'd always be on time"

Something like that, got him in some trouble.

In essence your correct. There is absolutely no good reason why a row or two on a plane couldn't be designated to accommodate the handicapped, tall, wide, the wide shouldered and the obese.( Please note you can be very wide pelvis wise and shoulder blade wise thru no fault of your own and not be obese)

This isnt brain surgery. If the seat is 36 inches wide and your shoulder blades are 38 inches guess what you qualify for one of the seats. End of problem.
I'd agree if commercial aircraft were government-owned public buses. But they aren't. Reasonable accommodations can be made with the facilities available.

The law says they have to be accommodated, at the same price as anyone else purchasing a single fare.

http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html

Therefore, they are not buying a SEAT, they are buying TRANSPORTATION.
If you want to continue to insist that it's a SEAT they are buying simply because you think that's the way it should be, then that's your lookout.
Don't you think that when the time comes that everyone must be reminded what the initial post was, the thread should wind down?

The law says they have to be accommodated, at the same price as anyone else purchasing a single fare.

http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html

Therefore, they are not buying a SEAT, they are buying TRANSPORTATION.
If you want to continue to insist that it's a SEAT they are buying simply because you think that's the way it should be, then that's your lookout.

Only in Canada.

Okay, here's how Southwest (http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_guidelines.html) does it [ It amazes me that it has taken this long to depart from the whimisical "It should be this way", for the practical "This is the way it is"]


Customers who are unable to lower both armrests (the definitive boundary between seats) and/or who compromise any portion of adjacent seating should proactively book the number of seats needed prior to travel. This purchase serves as a notification of a special seating need and allows us to process a refund of the additional seating cost after travel (provided the flight doesn’t oversell). Most importantly, it ensures that all onboard have access to safe and comfortable seating.


As far as I can tell, this way everyone wins. S/W gets to deterministically sell seats, I don't get bumped, and the fat guy gets to sit comfortably while waiting for a refund on his extra seat.

Pretty good for a girl.
i shouldnt have written it. i have no idea how an airplane engine works. well i do but i dont know the specifics. i wouldnt know if jumbo jets have "batteries" at all.

This made me laugh :D...Sure, you fly up here, and I'll let you buy me a drink.
Missed my chance. I was in Saskatoon up until a week ago. Closest that I'll get to BC for a while. Now, it's on to Kenya.

Sad are the days when mods join in the pretzel making.

I never said there was no research being done, I merely stated that what's currently being done is inadequate.
yeah so all those extra-fat people should stay home until they are worthy of travel.

Missed my chance. I was in Saskatoon up until a week ago. Closest that I'll get to BC for a while. Now, it's on to Kenya.
what business are you in that takes you to saskatchewan and kenya?

Sad are the days when mods join in the pretzel making.

I never said there was no research being done, I merely stated that what's currently being done is inadequate.

Come up with a solution, then. Currently, gym memberships and weight loss programs and nutritionist consulting are all 100% tax write offs. The government is doing all that it can do without overreaching to encourage people to lose weight. Other than creating more bureaucracy, there's not much else the government can do.

I predict a lot less connecting flights through Canada. Airlines tend to frown on sorry sir we had to boot you because the fat man checked in first. Also the loss of profit.

I predict a lot less connecting flights through Canada. Airlines tend to frown on sorry sir we had to boot you because the fat man checked in first. Also the loss of profit.
so you are hoping that the "pay for 2 tickets" policies of some airlines will keep the extra-large people from flying at all?

the airlines business is a mystery to me.

they seem to think that if they tried raising the price of all tickets by $20 (so that they wouldnt have to charge for luggage as they have started doing) no one would fly.

and yet they have a different price each day for any particular trip you are looking to book. as i was watching the price of tickets to go from albuquerque to aruba at the beginning of this month, the price would vary as much as $500 from one day to the next. it makes no sense to me.

Let me explain. There are two models to operate an airline. The Low Cost Carrier model (LCC) and the legacy model.

In the legacy model you have different tariff classes (not like first class or tourist class) named after letters of the alphabet (India,Tango, Coca Alpha). Legacy airlines have huge departments called revenue optimization. When an airline opens up a plane to sell seats (legacy airlines sell seats not trips) the people from revenue determine what classes will be open, how many seats of each class will be open and what the tariff of each class will be. To decide this they use very sophisticated (and expensive) software that calculates what is the maximum price a passenger will pay for a ticket at a moment.

http://www.prospricing.com/ <- like this

The revenue optimization software is connected directly to the reservations system so each time some one books a seat all tariffs change for all classes changes. Tariffs also change depending on which channel are you buying (internet is usually the cheapest) and even what time you are buying. Also all airlines oversell their flights. Airlines call this protect the flight. This is because they expect based on historic data that some of the passengers will not fly even when they already paid. This passengers are called no-shows. Also there are passengers who come at last time and are willing to pay HUGE amounts of money to get a seat in the plane (called go-shows). How many no-shows and go-shows can be expected is calculated based on experience and historic data. With this info the revenue people set the oversell limit of the flight, what classes will be opened and what will be the starting tariffs.

LCC don't do revenue optimization this way. The use a single class and a single tariffs and they change it based solely in experience. Some LCC don't change the tariffs at all, even as the date of the flight approaches. generally they oversell a lot more than legacy carriers.

It's estimated that the revenue optimization process gives the legacy carriers a 4% more income than they would get if they didn't do it.

It will be interesting to see what Canadian Legacy carriers do to face this new law. Obviously they will have less seats to protect the flight and will surely impact the tariff optimization process.

Hope I have explained myself and if you understand what I tried to say you will understand why I say there is going to be an economic impact for the airlines.

I came into this thread actually intending to read it all. But 63 pages, fuck me!

so you are hoping that the "pay for 2 tickets" policies of some airlines will keep the extra-large people from flying at all?

that they reserve/pay for two seats when they book the tickets, and the airlines doesn't have to boot anyone from the flight. Southwest has a good system where if it didn't cost the airline extra money (because they had unbooked seats on the flight) they refund the the 2nd seat price.

that they reserve/pay for two seats when they book the tickets, and the airlines doesn't have to boot anyone from the flight. Southwest has a good system where if it didn't cost the airline extra money (because they had unbooked seats on the flight) they refund the the 2nd seat price.
as long as there is an extra-big person on the flight, someone has the chance of being denied the 2nd seat that he takes no matter if he pays for it or not. (or, as people have complained about, they will be forced into 1/4 of a seat because the airline doesnt accomodate the very big people at all)

as long as airlines overbook flights, there will be a chance that you will not get on the flight you have booked and paid for.

the only way to keep anyone from being kept off a flight because someone is taking 2 seats is to not let them on the plane at all.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/hl_nm/us_obesity)

What I want to know is what is wrong with the airline charging the obese people extra for taking up two seats? That is one less seat that the airlines can sell to a passenger, so they should be allowed to make up that loss seat somehow, and the fact that they lost that seat to an obese person, it should stand to reason that the obese person should pay for the extra seat.


Agreed.

as long as there is an extra-big person on the flight, someone has the chance of being denied the 2nd seat that he takes no matter if he pays for it or not. (or, as people have complained about, they will be forced into 1/4 of a seat because the airline doesnt accomodate the very big people at all)

as long as airlines overbook flights, there will be a chance that you will not get on the flight you have booked and paid for.

the only way to keep anyone from being kept off a flight because someone is taking 2 seats is to not let them on the plane at all.

if i am not given a seat because of over booking it is not the fat persons fault, provided he booked two seats and this could be calculated in to the how many seats the airlines over sells by equation.

However, If i cant get a seat because they all have been reserved and the fat person has booked two seats that's my fault for not booking soon enough.

However if fat person only books one seat and I lose my seat because the airline must give him two seats then it is his fault.

not to mention it cost the airline money as that's one less paying customer.

if i am not given a seat because of over booking it is not the fat persons fault, provided he booked two seats and this could be calculated in to the how many seats the airlines over sells by equation.

However, If i cant get a seat because they all have been reserved and the fat person has booked two seats that's my fault for not booking soon enough.

However if fat person only books one seat and I lose my seat because the airline must give him two seats then it is his fault.

not to mention it cost the airline money as that's one less paying customer.
obeying the law is a cost of doing business.

right now there are not so many extra-large people flying on fully booked flights to make a difference in airline profitability. just as there are not so many handicapped people requiring an attendant flying that it makes a difference in profitability.

should things change, the airlines will have to raise the price of tickets just like the price of tickets have gone up in response to the extra government fees assessed and the staggering increase in the price of jet fuel.

I predict a lot less connecting flights through Canada. Airlines tend to frown on sorry sir we had to boot you because the fat man checked in first. Also the loss of profit.
This is only on flights within Canada. So no international-Canada flights, just Canada-Canada flights.

So this probably isn't going to affect anyone who doesn't live in Canada or doesn't plan on traveling within Canada. It will mean that when I fly from Toronto to St John's, I don't have to worry about someone overfilling their seat into mine because they'll have gotten a free extra seat to fill (not that I've ever had this issue on a plane *knocks on wood*).

I wonder how this is going to be done.

Will you have to put check on two-seats required on the reservation web page when you do your booking.

How can airlines know that you truly qualify for the two seats when you buy a ticket on the internet?

What will happen if you book a two-seat obese person ticker on the internet and when you reach the airport the airline finds out you actually didn't qualified for two-seats? Will the airline get the chance to charge the not-so-obese passenger the second seat?

Is there going to be some kind of government authority in the airport to check who is obese and who isn't?

I wonder how this is going to be done.

Will you have to put check on two-seats required on the reservation web page when you do your booking.

How can airlines know that you truly qualify for the two seats when you buy a ticket on the internet?

What will happen if you book a two-seat obese person ticker on the internet and when you reach the airport the airline finds out you actually didn't qualified for two-seats? Will the airline get the chance to charge the not-so-obese passenger the second seat?

Is there going to be some kind of government authority in the airport to check who is obese and who isn't?

Hmmm, good questions...

not to mention it cost the airline money as that's one less paying customer.

Not selling an extra service isn't actually costing anyone anything. The airline, at best, just doesn't garner an extra payment.

I wonder how this is going to be done.

Will you have to put check on two-seats required on the reservation web page when you do your booking.

How can airlines know that you truly qualify for the two seats when you buy a ticket on the internet?

What will happen if you book a two-seat obese person ticker on the internet and when you reach the airport the airline finds out you actually didn't qualified for two-seats? Will the airline get the chance to charge the not-so-obese passenger the second seat?

Is there going to be some kind of government authority in the airport to check who is obese and who isn't?
i wonder too.

but im pretty sure that it CAN be worked out.

This is only on flights within Canada. So no international-Canada flights, just Canada-Canada flights.

So this probably isn't going to affect anyone who doesn't live in Canada or doesn't plan on traveling within Canada. It will mean that when I fly from Toronto to St John's, I don't have to worry about someone overfilling their seat into mine because they'll have gotten a free extra seat to fill (not that I've ever had this issue on a plane *knocks on wood*).

Actually a lot of the cheapest Canada - Canada flights are ones which stop in two places in Canada and then proceed to somewhere else. I remember that flying to Germany the plane took off in Vancouver, landed in Edmonton to both pick up and drop off people and took off for Germany.

I don't know what exactly this would mean for carriers but I do know that looking at my ticket - it actually said Vancouver -- Edmonton, Edmonton -- Vancouver. So I imagine that even tough I never got off the plane and the flight number was the same the Vancouver -- Edmonton leg of the journey was a domestic flight.

I wonder how this is going to be done.

Will you have to put check on two-seats required on the reservation web page when you do your booking.

How can airlines know that you truly qualify for the two seats when you buy a ticket on the internet?

What will happen if you book a two-seat obese person ticker on the internet and when you reach the airport the airline finds out you actually didn't qualified for two-seats? Will the airline get the chance to charge the not-so-obese passenger the second seat?

Is there going to be some kind of government authority in the airport to check who is obese and who isn't?

Probably something similar to however they accommodate blind people, or people that need to travel with an aide.

obeying the law is a cost of doing business.

A drop in Canadian revenues from the decrease in international stop over flights is the cost of stupid laws.

right now there are not so many extra-large people flying on fully booked flights to make a difference in airline profitability. just as there are not so many handicapped people requiring an attendant flying that it makes a difference in profitability.

lets look at some rough estimate numbers.
lets say 1% are large enough to require two seats. so a flight of 300 people 3 people require extra seats. for 3 extra seats needed total. normal price of a ticket on an international flight from East Coast US to Asia lets say 1,500 dollars. Now these seats would have likely gone to people attempting to buy seats at the last minute willing to pay double the price. so 3,000 dollars per seat. so 9,000 total for the flight. say 5 of those flights per week. 45,000 a week. 52 weeks per year 2,340,000 dollars a year. Seems like a pretty big dent on Airline profits. See your looking at one seat and seeing a thousand bucks. look at the effect a few seats would have on profits over the course of the year on one single route.

And I have been on a flight with over 50% handicapped passengers it was a group of WWII veterans flying to a national VFW event. But they had the common decency to call the airline and explain their situation. So the airline got the plane landing priority and they were able to land early. On top of this they had extra flight attendants on hand to seat people more quickly. If they had not explained their situation the plane would have been delayed also the plane scheduled to use the terminal after our plane would have been delayed. and this could have caused passengers on both flights to miss connections and the airlines would have lost money trying to seat them.


should things change, the airlines will have to raise the price of tickets just like the price of tickets have gone up in response to the extra government fees assessed and the staggering increase in the price of jet fuel.
why should I pay extra when someone else is getting an additional service for free?? Just like if i want more room to stretch my legs I pay for a first class ticket. The extra seat is an additional service those using that service should pay the cost.

Probably something similar to however they accommodate blind people, or people that need to travel with an aide.

people who need to travel with an aide dont get a free ticket for their aide.

what business are you in that takes you to saskatchewan and kenya?
Satellite antennas and ground station equipment.

A drop in Canadian revenues from the decrease in international stop over flights is the cost of stupid laws.

lets look at some rough estimate numbers.
lets say 1% are large enough to require two seats. so a flight of 300 people 3 people require extra seats. for 3 extra seats needed total. normal price of a ticket on an international flight from East Coast US to Asia lets say 1,500 dollars. Now these seats would have likely gone to people attempting to buy seats at the last minute willing to pay double the price. so 3,000 dollars per seat. so 9,000 total for the flight. say 5 of those flights per week. 45,000 a week. 52 weeks per year 2,340,000 dollars a year. Seems like a pretty big dent on Airline profits. See your looking at one seat and seeing a thousand bucks. look at the effect a few seats would have on profits over the course of the year on one single route.

And I have been on a flight with over 50% handicapped passengers it was a group of WWII veterans flying to a national VFW event. But they had the common decency to call the airline and explain their situation. So the airline got the plane landing priority and they were able to land early. On top of this they had extra flight attendants on hand to seat people more quickly. If they had not explained their situation the plane would have been delayed also the plane scheduled to use the terminal after our plane would have been delayed. and this could have caused passengers on both flights to miss connections and the airlines would have lost money trying to seat them.

why should I pay extra when someone else is getting an additional service for free?? Just like if i want more room to stretch my legs I pay for a first class ticket. The extra seat is an additional service those using that service should pay the cost.
yes but does your hypothetical reflect reality?

no one is getting an additional service.

Satellite antennas and ground station equipment.
oh cool.

people who need to travel with an aide dont get a free ticket for their aide.
yes they do.

I wonder how this is going to be done.

Will you have to put check on two-seats required on the reservation web page when you do your booking.

How can airlines know that you truly qualify for the two seats when you buy a ticket on the internet?

What will happen if you book a two-seat obese person ticker on the internet and when you reach the airport the airline finds out you actually didn't qualified for two-seats? Will the airline get the chance to charge the not-so-obese passenger the second seat?

Is there going to be some kind of government authority in the airport to check who is obese and who isn't?
A lot of these mechanics have been worked out by Southwest. Did you look at the link? SW asks that you reserve your seat with an XS as the middle name of the second person. It's all covered pretty well in their "Customer of Size" section.

Interestingly, the US law on the subject is also covered...One passenger, one seat.

Doesn't your policy violate the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Air Carrier Access Act?
Interstate airline travel is specifically excluded from Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by Section 12141(2). Airline travel is instead covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 1374(c) and the regulations implementing the Act issued by the Department of Transportation as 14 CFR Part 382, et seq. The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) preceded the ADA, and Congress excluded air carriers and other air transportation services from the scope of ADA. As regulated under 14 CFR §382.38 Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased."

oh cool.
I get to see a lot of airports and hotels. Most of the sites look like one another. This is my first trip to Africa, so I intend to take a day or two and do some touristy stuff.

I get to see a lot of airports and hotels. Most of the sites look like one another. This is my first trip to Africa, so I intend to take a day or two and do some touristy stuff.

Ever been here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Island_(Ross_Archipelago)

A really nice site, put there because it's the only place close to McMurdo that has a decent look angle to geosynchronous satellites.

Ever been here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Island_(Ross_Archipelago)

A really nice site, put there because it's the only place close to McMurdo that has a decent look angle to geosynchronous satellites.
Nah, I missed out on the McMurdo fun and games. And I don't think we have any installations on Ross. I did my Antarctic trip to Troll. Got to spend the summer with a bunch of Norwegians.

Probably something similar to however they accommodate blind people, or people that need to travel with an aide.

No. Blind people only occupy one seat. Minors traveling alone have a flight attendant assigned to check them, they also occupy only one seat. People traveling with an aide occupy two seats and pay two seats.

Actually you have to tell the airline you have a disability or that it's a minor traveling alone only two hours before departure. Even when traveling with their guide dogs in the cabin. They are always given the first seat of the plane of the appropriated class (first, business or tourist) to have place for the dog and to be close where the flight attendants are.

Seriously, this has been debunked multiple times. No amount of spewing the same crap over and over will help you.

It doesn't matter how they track passengers. It doesn't matter if they reference seats. What matters is if they can take my seat and give it someone else while still guaranteeing my trip. The answer is... they can. You've admitted that can. They have to get me from point A to point B. They have to give me my class or better. They are not required in any way, shape or form to put me in the seat I request or that they told me I would get when I booked the trip. They aren't even required to put me on the same type of plane.

Nope. They sell seats. You saying they don't over and over again hasn't debunked anything.

And nobody has responded to MY "debunking" of the silly restaurant comparison and an explanation of the trip concept. Seems suspicious.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14244297&postcount=832

I haven't seen any aft-facing seats, but the flight crews are definitely still pretty silly, and they've made me sing for the passengers before, too. :p

Cool -- that makes them one of the only airlines still not too arduous to fly.

No, that's what you apparently think I should be saying. Sorry.
What I have said, repeatedly, and what you have apparently ignored, repeatedly, is that you buy a TRIP, not a SEAT.

I've ignored it because all you've DONE is say it over and over again. Your opinion has no more weight than mine (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14244297&postcount=832). Which I notice that you, too, ignored. So let's not get all high and mighty about who has ignored whom.

Seriously, this has been debunked multiple times. No amount of spewing the same crap over and over will help you.

It doesn't matter how they track passengers. It doesn't matter if they reference seats. What matters is if they can take my seat and give it someone else while still guaranteeing my trip. The answer is... they can. You've admitted that can. They have to get me from point A to point B. They have to give me my class or better. They are not required in any way, shape or form to put me in the seat I request or that they told me I would get when I booked the trip. They aren't even required to put me on the same type of plane.

Look I have worked with airlines for years. Both big an small. With 747's and Cessnas. I know how they operate. Passengers may think they buy a trip but airlines sell them seats. You cannot debunk reality just by saying so.

Nope. They sell seats. You saying they don't over and over again hasn't debunked anything.


Look at the quote I provided from the Southwest site. It quotes the airline exemption from the ADA, as well as the FAA CFR that basically says one man, one fare, one seat.

As regulated under 14 CFR §382.38 Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased."

Looks like airlines in the US sell seats.

Look at the quote I provided from the Southwest site. It quotes the airline exemption from the ADA, as well as the FAA CFR that basically says one man, one fare, one seat.

As regulated under 14 CFR §382.38 Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased."

Looks like airlines in the US sell seats.

Airlines all around the world sell seats, not just the US.

Who cares?

Look at the quote I provided from the Southwest site. It quotes the airline exemption from the ADA, as well as the FAA CFR that basically says one man, one fare, one seat.

As regulated under 14 CFR §382.38 Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased."

Looks like airlines in the US sell seats.

Sweet vindication. Thank you.

Looks like airlines in the US sell seats.

they sell seats? Does that mean I can take it with me?

Sweet.

they sell seats? Does that mean I can take it with me?

Sweet.

Think more of it like rooms in a hotel. Only that they are very very small and move a lot.

Think more of in like rooms in a hotel. Only that they are very very small and move a lot.

the word then you're looking for is not "sell" but "rent" or "lease".

There's a flaw with that rationale though. If I buy a ticket for a flight from New York to Paris, let's say that's an 8 hour flight. If the contention is that the airline is not contracting with me to provide a SERVICE (IE the flight from New York to Paris) but is rather LEASING ME THE SEAT for 8 hours, then if that airline decided instead to rout, not to Paris, but to Madrid, roughly the same time away, I would have no recourse, since, if the contention is true, I did not pay for a service to be provided for me, but rather paid so that I could sit on a plane for 8 hours.

Which is absurd.

the word then you're looking for is not "sell" but "rent" or "lease".

There's a flaw with that rationale though. If I buy a ticket for a flight from New York to Paris, let's say that's an 8 hour flight. If the contention is that the airline is not contracting with me to provide a SERVICE (IE the flight from New York to Paris) but is rather LEASING ME THE SEAT for 8 hours, then if that airline decided instead to rout, not to Paris, but to Madrid, roughly the same time away, I would have no recourse, since, if the contention is true, I did not pay for a service to be provided for me, but rather paid so that I could sit on a plane for 8 hours.

Which is absurd.

OK, I see this is causing much confusing. Let me see if I can explain.

Airlines have scheduled flights(origin<->destination), flights have seats. These seats of the flight are NOT the airplane seats. It's the compromise on part of the airline to fit you in an airplane seat on a plane that will fly the flight. You sell the seats of the flight, not the seats of the airplane. Although these are related they are not the same thing. The flight seat is dependent on the flight, the airplane seat is dependent on the plane.

When you buy a seat in a flight you are NOT leasing a seat on a plane. The plane doesn't matters. Actually if the plane has technical difficulties they could change the equipment and you still will have your seat on the flight.

If the flight leaves and you are not in your plane seat you lose the seat you bought. Flight seats are actually perishable products. Once the flight has been flown any flight seat that wasn't sold is wasted.

Some airlines may give you a seat on the next flight (usually only for local flights with high frequencies). Some may not, because you didn't bought a trip, you bought a seat on a flight.

I have worked for 5 years in airlines in 3 continents. All use this same business model.

Is it good? I don't think so. But that's how they see their business.

So, if you are buying the seat on the flight, not on the physical plane, then the physical dimensions of the seat on the plane should not matter. You have purchased a seat on the flight; they have an obligation to seat you.

It seems that we're hung up on the definitions here. Buying a seat on the flgiht vs. buying a seat on the plane seems distinctly similar to paying for the trip vs. paying for the seat.

OK, I see this is causing much confusing. Let me see if I can explain.

Airlines have scheduled flights(origin<->destination), flights have seats. These seats of the flight are NOT the airplane seats. It's the compromise on part of the airline to fit you in an airplane seat on a plane that will fly the flight. You sell the seats of the flight, not the seats of the airplane. Although these are related they are not the same thing. The flight seat is dependent on the flight, the airplane seat is dependent on the plane.

When you buy a seat in a flight you are NOT leasing a seat on a plane. The plane doesn't matters. Actually if the plane has technical difficulties they could change the equipment and you still will have your seat on the flight.

If the flight leaves and you are not in your plane seat you lose the seat you bought. Flight seats are actually perishable products. Once the flight has been flown any flight seat that wasn't sold is wasted.

Some airlines may give you a seat on the next flight (usually only for local flights with high frequencies). Some may not, because you didn't bought a trip, you bought a seat on a flight.

I have worked for 5 years in airlines in 3 continents. All use this same business model.

Is it good? I don't think so. But that's how they see their business.

So when I book a seat on a flight, I could concievably stand!:D

Or sit in the pilots lap!

So when I book a seat on a flight, I could concievably stand!:D

Or sit in the pilots lap!

Only if the pilot's cute.:D

So, if you are buying the seat on the flight, not on the physical plane, then the physical dimensions of the seat on the plane should not matter. You have purchased a seat on the flight; they have an obligation to seat you.

It seems that we're hung up on the definitions here. Buying a seat on the flgiht vs. buying a seat on the plane seems distinctly similar to paying for the trip vs. paying for the seat.

If you buy a trip (a travel from one origin to a destination) then the airline jobs should be transport you from the origin to the destination. This is what most people think airlines do. It is not the case.

Airlines fly flights. That's what they do. Flights have seats. You buy a seat in a flight. If you miss your flight that's it, you lost your seat (like I said seats are perishable products). The airline has no responsibility to take you to your destination because you lost your seat. Some airlines may book you for next flight, but this is entirely optional and is only recently becoming a common practice (<- with all the change in airline philosophy from seat centric to customer centric that has just recently start to develop)

Don't think that because they are conceptual more than physical flight seat's don't have dimension assigned. That's the whole point of buying in first class instead of tourist.

Only if the pilot's cute.:D

Or there is no standing room!:D

Or there is no standing room!:D

In a plane cabin? Of course not! Pilot's lap it is!:D

in a plane cabin? Of course not! Pilot's lap it is!:d

\0/

\0/

:mad: Thank you for hijacking this airplane-thread. Where are we going? Cuba?

:mad: Thank you for hijacking this airplane-thread. Where are we going? Cuba?

Naaa no need, come round my house I have plenty of Cigars! Ohhh bring the Mojito, I'm all out.:D

:mad: Thank you for hijacking this airplane-thread. Where are we going? Cuba?

I've flown to Cuba. It was quite nice.

I've flown to Cuba. It was quite nice.

It was a joke about people hijacking planes and taking them to Cuba.

Look at the quote I provided from the Southwest site. It quotes the airline exemption from the ADA, as well as the FAA CFR that basically says one man, one fare, one seat.

As regulated under 14 CFR §382.38 Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased."

Looks like airlines in the US sell seats.

No - the seat is a benefit. The 'product' or 'service' is transportation. The accommodations details you quote are talking about additional benefits, which cost extra, according to their pricing scheme.

If you buy a trip (a travel from one origin to a destination) then the airline jobs should be transport you from the origin to the destination. This is what most people think airlines do. It is not the case.

Airlines fly flights. That's what they do. Flights have seats. You buy a seat in a flight. If you miss your flight that's it, you lost your seat (like I said seats are perishable products). The airline has no responsibility to take you to your destination because you lost your seat. Some airlines may book you for next flight, but this is entirely optional and is only recently becoming a common practice (<- with all the change in airline philosophy from seat centric to customer centric that has just recently start to develop)

Don't think that because they are conceptual more than physical flight seat's don't have dimension assigned. That's the whole point of buying in first class instead of tourist.

You keep conflating things that aren't intrinsically connected. What you 'miss' isn't the seat, it's the flight. The fact that air companies will often re-seat you on a later flight is because they agree that the product is transport.

You keep conflating things that aren't intrinsically connected. What you 'miss' isn't the seat, it's the flight. The fact that air companies will often re-seat you on a later flight is because they agree that the product is transport.

The need is the trip or the transport as you prefer to call it. The product that will satisfy that need is the flight seat.

dumb down example:

Customer: Hi I would like a trip from A to B :)
Airline agent: We have flights from A to B. :rolleyes:
C: Good. Sell me transportation to B!
AA: When you need to arrive at B?
C: Next Monday in the morning
AA: We have 3 flights next Sunday from A to B. Flight 1 leaves at 22:00, flight 2 leaves at at 20:00 and flight 3 leaves at 18:00.
C: Oh I would like to fly on flight 2.
AA: Sorry, there aren't any seats left in flight 2.
C: oh well.... how about flight 3? :(
AA: Yes we have seats in flight 3. Tourist seat or First class seat?
C: Tourist will do.
AA: It will cost you $650 simoleons
C: What?!?1! that's that's too expensive. :eek:
AA: Yes. I know. We have sold almost all the seats of that flight and can charge a lot because we know there will desperate people willing to pay for those seats. :D
C: mmmm....and if I go on flight 1? :(
AA: Tourist seat?
C: Yes
AA: $400.
C: Mphhh. Still very expensive, but I guess I don't have other options. :mad:
AA: You want to reserve that seat?
C: Yes. I'll take it. :mad:
AA: Good. Be in the airport two hours before the flight leaves or you'll lose your seat and we will sell it to some other person that arrived at last time. :p

Your seat cushions double as a floation device.

Southwest Airlines would like to remind you that the seat cushions are property of Southwest Airlines, and may not be removed from the aircraft for any reason.

No - the seat is a benefit. The 'product' or 'service' is transportation. The accommodations details you quote are talking about additional benefits, which cost extra, according to their pricing scheme.
Let me see if I understand... The FAA, through it's CFRs, states that a carrier is only required to furnish one seat per ticket. But you say that's wrong because, contrary to the FAA's belief, the airlines are not selling seats, they are selling a trip.

I will agree that they are not selling seats in the literal sense that one can take it with them after the flight's over.

Fat people are not people.

But the question remains, is one fat person people?

Let me see if I understand... The FAA, through it's CFRs, states that a carrier is only required to furnish one seat per ticket. But you say that's wrong because, contrary to the FAA's belief, the airlines are not selling seats, they are selling a trip.


The 'seat' in air transportation, serves two basic purposes. The first, is comfort - not just because it's nice to sit down, but - with increasingly long flights, as people bop around all over the world - it is pretty much essential that you have somewhere to park your pants.

The second - increasingly important in modern times - is safety. It's where the belts are, the air is, the flotation devices, etc. In the advent of 'really bad shit', they want you on or near a seat.

But - that seat is not what they are selling. You can theoretically wander around the plane from end to end during the flight - the seat is just an accomodation.

Ignoring for a fact that 'one ticket' and 'one fare' are not necessarily even remotely similar - the CFR you reference is only saying how many seats have to be attributed per fare. It doesn't say that that is what you are buying.

The 'seat' in air transportation, serves two basic purposes. The first, is comfort - not just because it's nice to sit down, but - with increasingly long flights, as people bop around all over the world - it is pretty much essential that you have somewhere to park your pants.

The second - increasingly important in modern times - is safety. It's where the belts are, the air is, the flotation devices, etc. In the advent of 'really bad shit', they want you on or near a seat.

But - that seat is not what they are selling. You can theoretically wander around the plane from end to end during the flight - the seat is just an accomodation.

Ignoring for a fact that 'one ticket' and 'one fare' are not necessarily even remotely similar - the CFR you reference is only saying how many seats have to be attributed per fare. It doesn't say that that is what you are buying.

Grave....seriously. I'm not making this shit up. I'm telling you from first hand experience. I know how airlines operate from the inside. I know their business model upside down. The product they sell are Flight Seats. That's how they are called in their processes diagrams, in their documentation and in their databases. Passengers are an attribute assigned to the seat. Everything revolves around the seats. HEck...even the food is assigned to the seat. This seat is not the actual physical plane seat, is a compromise to accommodate you in a flight.

There has been a long debate inside the airlines to chance this seat centric vision into a costumer centric vision, but so far, so long airlines till ssell Flight Seats.

The 'seat' in air transportation, serves two basic purposes. The first, is comfort - not just because it's nice to sit down, but - with increasingly long flights, as people bop around all over the world - it is pretty much essential that you have somewhere to park your pants.

The second - increasingly important in modern times - is safety. It's where the belts are, the air is, the flotation devices, etc. In the advent of 'really bad shit', they want you on or near a seat.

But - that seat is not what they are selling. You can theoretically wander around the plane from end to end during the flight - the seat is just an accomodation.

Ignoring for a fact that 'one ticket' and 'one fare' are not necessarily even remotely similar - the CFR you reference is only saying how many seats have to be attributed per fare. It doesn't say that that is what you are buying.
The depth of BS and the fineness of hair-splitting have become too tedious for me. Enjoy the long weekend coming up.

The depth of BS and the fineness of hair-splitting have become too tedious for me. Enjoy the long weekend coming up.

Not a long weekend for me, some of us work for a living.

But, good turkey! or something.

Grave....seriously. I'm not making this shit up. I'm telling you from first hand experience. I know how airlines operate from the inside. I know their business model upside down. The product they sell are Flight Seats. That's how they are called in their processes diagrams, in their documentation and in their databases. Passengers are an attribute assigned to the seat. Everything revolves around the seats. HEck...even the food is assigned to the seat. This seat is not the actual physical plane seat, is a compromise to accommodate you in a flight.

There has been a long debate inside the airlines to chance this seat centric vision into a costumer centric vision, but so far, so long airlines till ssell Flight Seats.

Apparently the only thing you actually managed to get right was this:

"...I know their business model upside down..."

Upside-down is right.

It's funny that you think the database linkages mean anything. It's kind of cute. But it's irrelevent. You have confused the simple fact that ALLOCATION is attributed by the rate-determining-step (i.e. number of seats) with some idea that the seat itself is the commodity being traded.

Rather humourously - even YOU admit that it's a flight that is booked, not a seat, you just prevaricate around the bush a bit, and try to hide it in the language.

Apparently the only thing you actually managed to get right was this:

"...I know their business model upside down..."

Upside-down is right.

It's funny that you think the database linkages mean anything. It's kind of cute. But it's irrelevent. You have confused the simple fact that ALLOCATION is attributed by the rate-determining-step (i.e. number of seats) with some idea that the seat itself is the commodity being traded.

Rather humourously - even YOU admit that it's a flight that is booked, not a seat, you just prevaricate around the bush a bit, and try to hide it in the language.


We tried to be reasonable. We tried sources. We tried arguments. We tried logic. I even tried puppets. But you are beyond common sense.

whatever...

Go on your way and be fruitful. I had enough of this.

What you 'this is what the airline do' people are forgetting is that it doesn't matter. The airlines are regulated by a federal agency, and the federal agency in question does not allow it to be 'about seats'.

Your attempts to be 'reasonable' fail.

We tried to be reasonable. We tried sources. We tried arguments. We tried logic. I even tried puppets. But you are beyond common sense.

whatever...

Go on your way and be fruitful. I had enough of this.

I missed the puppet show?
:(

Let me ask two simple questions:

1) if what I am doing is "buying a seat", am I allowed to take it with me?
2) if what I am doing is "renting" or "leasing" a seat, for a period of time, is the airline allowed to change the destination of their flight to a different airport, on a whim, as long as I have access to the seat for as long as originally intended to?