NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

1) NO! you are not buying a physical airplane seat. You are buying a flight seat.
2) NO! you are not leasing a physical airplane seat. You are buying a flight seat.

*cries....and leaves*

1) NO! you are not buying a physical airplane seat. You are buying a flight seat.
2) NO! you are not leasing a physical airplane seat. You are buying a flight seat.

*cries....and leaves*

and there you go again, with an attempt at creating a nonsensical definition over a "seat that's not a seat". If you're getting frustrated that your explanation isn't working, maybe because it's a shit one. I'm "buying a flight seat", except it's not a seat, and I'm not actually buying it?

Bullshit.

Awww, leave Santiago alone...
His avatar looks so forlorn....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/customavatars/avatar1662351_1.gif

Awww, leave Santiago alone...
His avatar looks so forlorn....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/customavatars/avatar1662351_1.gif

Puppy! Puppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppy!

...what, it's about as useful a contribution to this thread as anything in the last 50 pages or so. :tongue:

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


Fixed that for you.

Look, it's very simple, despite your attempts to try and create some nonsensical distinction, there are really only three posibilities here.

1) I am purchasing a seat, in which case it's mine and I can take it home with me
2) I am leasing space on the airplane, in which case the plane can pretty much go willy nilly wherever it wishes, since I've only contracted for a right to occupy the space in the plane
3) I have contracted with the airline to provide me a service of transporting me from one destination to another

That's really it, that's pretty much the only options there. Nonsensical bullshit about "but it's a flight seat!" are meaningless. Either it's a sale of property, a lease, or a contract for services, those are the only possibilities (or a combination therein).

Since the results of #1 and #2 are nonsensical, the only option we are left with is that it's a contract for services.

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.

I believe that it does matter, at least a little bit, how the providers handle their business. I'm not so sure its the place of the government to determine what the business model of a private industry should be. But that's another issue.

Also you must understand that airlines are regulated by an international agency, IATA. IATA standards are seat centric. Reason why almost all the airlines under IATA use the same model (seat centric). But that's beyond the point.

What I was trying to illustrate with this is why airlines are so touchy about giving two seats for the price of one. Airlines are very sensitive about seats because that's how they handle the business.

Planes are currently built with standardized one-size-does-not-fit-all seats in a given "class" or cabin.

Suppose, just for argument, that instead of all seats in tourist class being the same size, that seats vary in size ... and vary enough in shape and size and spacing to be comparable to the distribution of tall, short, thin, fat, etc. passengers. Suppose there are ... 15 ... different kinds of seats, the largest being able to accommodate a 390 lb 6 foot 8 guy who was a football player two decade ago, but who is now mostly flab. The smallest might comfortably accommodate a 98 pound, short wizened octogenarian, or a small child.

I'm not talking about the difference between the plushy cushioned seats in first class versus the barely padded sort in coach. Just seat width, depth, and spacing from the front seat edge to the back of the seat in front.

Now, also suppose that to buy a seat on a flight ... the airline requires that you indicate your weight and height ... step right over to this scale, madam (that would encourage a lot of internet vs in-person shopping) ... and then shows you the costs and seat locations and "relative comfort" afforded by the various seats available on the flight.

You're 6'3 and 280 and want to try to cram yourself into a seat that costs $50 less but is designed for a skinny teenager who's stunted his growth by smoking? Maybe we will let you, or not.

But my point is that if the otherwise rather creative airline industry would re-think their airplane design requirements, they could actually make ~more~ money and serve their customers better.

Hell, design and make the seats "snap and lock" moveable/removable and you could "re-seat" the cabin to fit a flight of 200 jumbo customers on one run and then pack twice as many women's Olympic gymnasts on the next flight.

Meh.

In my opinion is should only cost 1 for the price of 2 if the obeese person can present a doctor signed note of some kind stating that he has a disfunction or disease that made his body into what it is, lets say diabetes. But if its just some fat bumb who cnat be bothered to excersize then they should pay

What I was trying to illustrate with this is why airlines are so touchy about giving two seats for the price of one. Airlines are very sensitive about seats because that's how they handle the business.

airlines are sensitive about seats because federal rules require all passengers must have a place to sit down during transit to their destination.

The less places for passengers to sit, the less passengers they can take. it still doesn't make it about leasing a seat. It is about maximizing the number of people who can contract for their transportation services

1) NO! you are not buying a physical airplane seat. You are buying a flight seat.
2) NO! you are not leasing a physical airplane seat. You are buying a flight seat.

*cries....and leaves*

A 'flight seat' is a euphemism. It means 'contract for transport'.

Look, it's very simple, despite your attempts to try and create some nonsensical distinction, there are really only three posibilities here.

1) I am purchasing a seat, in which case it's mine and I can take it home with me
2) I am leasing space on the airplane, in which case the plane can pretty much go willy nilly wherever it wishes, since I've only contracted for a right to occupy the space in the plane
3) I have contracted with the airline to provide me a service of transporting me from one destination to another

That's really it, that's pretty much the only options there. Nonsensical bullshit about "but it's a flight seat!" are meaningless. Either it's a sale of property, a lease, or a contract for services, those are the only possibilities (or a combination therein).

Since the results of #1 and #2 are nonsensical, the only option we are left with is that it's a contract for services.

1) No you are not purchasing one of the seats of the plane. You are purchasing one of the seats of the flight. The seat of a flight is a more abstract concept. It's the compromise that there will be a physical seat to be determined in a physical airplane to be determine that will fly and itinerary previously agreed upon. That's how they are called by the airlines and the industry (i.e. IATA).
2) You are not leasing space in an airplane. You are buying a seat in a flight. The flight may be flown by one airplane or another, you don't know. And for the effects of your flight seat it doesn't matters which plane is it as long as it has one physical seat matching your flight seat.
3) If that was the case the airline would have to compromise to transport you from one place to another. That would mean that you could pretty much fly willy nilly whenever you wished. That is not the case.

We tried to be reasonable.


Actually, just like Wilgrove, what you tried was 'an appeal to authority', and it's a logical fallacy.

We tried sources.


Bullshit. The sorts of sources we've had presented have been things like 'schematics of a 747 that show number of seats' or 'picture of a two seater, and description of passenger-to-plane weight ratio'.

We tried arguments.


Yes, you have. They were bad arguments, based on bad information, which is why they were discarded so readily.


We tried logic.


If your idea of logic is 'the allocation table says 'seats'...' then, yes.

That's not my idea of logic.


I even tried puppets.


Errr... okay.


But you are beyond common sense.


Not at all. Your arguments are just weak.

And wrong.


whatever...

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

Of course you have. You came to preach, got called on it, tried to appeal to authority, got called on it, and have now tried to claim that you have presented nothing but good arguments... and that, the reason you're not making conversions is because I'M immune to common sense...

...and you're getting called on it.

You've had enough because you're bringing nothing worthwhile to the table, and now you've shot your entire load, so it's either pout out or stick around, 'defeated'.

A 'flight seat' is a euphemism. It means 'contract for transport'.

A contract for transport as understood by the IATA implies that the customer can choose the time and sometimes also the date of departure. Airlines do NOT operate like that.

3) If that was the case the airline would have to compromise to transport you from one place to another. That would mean that you could pretty much fly willy nilly whenever you wished. That is not the case.

the fuck?

A contract for transport as understood by the IATA implies that the customer can choose the time and sometimes also the date of departure. Airlines do NOT operate like that.

that is...so utterly and totally bullshit that I must wonder if you know what a contract actually is.

Actually, just like Wilgrove, what you tried was 'an appeal to authority', and it's a logical fallacy.



Bullshit. The sorts of sources we've had presented have been things like 'schematics of a 747 that show number of seats' or 'picture of a two seater, and description of passenger-to-plane weight ratio'.



Yes, you have. They were bad arguments, based on bad information, which is why they were discarded so readily.



If your idea of logic is 'the allocation table says 'seats'...' then, yes.

That's not my idea of logic.



Errr... okay.



Not at all. Your arguments are just weak.

And wrong.



Of course you have. You came to preach, got called on it, tried to appeal to authority, got called on it, and have now tried to claim that you have presented nothing but good arguments... and that, the reason you're not making conversions is because I'M immune to common sense...

...and you're getting called on it.

You've had enough because you're bringing nothing worthwhile to the table, and now you've shot your entire load, so it's either pout out or stick around, 'defeated'.

That you disregard FAA documents like that is most interesting.

That you disregard FAA documents like that is most interesting.

Like what?

You've presented nothing compelling.

A contract for transport as understood by the IATA implies that the customer can choose the time and sometimes also the date of departure. Airlines do NOT operate like that.

Last time I booked a flight, I did choose the time... and the date... of departure.

Hey, what do you know?

Last time I booked a flight, I did choose the time... and the date... of departure.

Hey, what do you know?

he seems to be under the impression that a "contract" means that one party gets to dictate all terms of the agreement.

A contract is binding legal agreement between two parties, with a bargained for legal benefit or detriment. That is all. The fact that one party in the contract essentially says "this is what we offer, this is when we offer it, and this is what we offer it for, no changes" does not make it less of a contract.

He seems to think that just because I can't walk up to a counter and go "here's 50 bucks, fly me to paris!" that it's not a contract

Last time I booked a flight, I did choose the time... and the date... of departure.

Hey, what do you know?

Did you chose a flight with an already determined hour and date of departure?

Or

You told the airline to have your plane ready for that day at that time?

And on another note about the appeal to authority. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The authority being FAA in this case. The appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area.There is no fallacy involved in telling you the true about how airlines work. This I know since I have worked on airlines.

If you don't like the concept of flight seat go and complain with the airlines. You wont be the first nor the last. I'm just telling you how they see.

And on another note about the appeal to authority. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The authority being FAA in this case. The appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area.There is no fallacy involved in telling you the true about how airlines work. This I know since I have worked on airlines.

If you don't like the concept of flight seat go and complain with the airlines. You wont be the first nor the last. I'm just telling you how they see.

"...this I know since I have worked on airlines... I'm just telling you how they see..."

There's your appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.

Look, it's very simple,... really only three posibilities here.

1) I am purchasing a seat, in which case it's mine and I can take it home with me
2) I am leasing space on the airplane, in which case the plane can pretty much go willy nilly wherever it wishes, since I've only contracted for a right to occupy the space in the plane
3) I have contracted with the airline to provide me a service of transporting me from one destination to another

Well, no.

The actual economic transaction is more fragile and more complex than anything that you've described.

You've deliberately ignored that ~fact~ that you can purchase "service" on a flight, but if you are late for that flight, the airline no longer has nay obligation to transport you from one place to another.

They keep your money and laugh at you ... and sell that ... "service" to someone else, who gets to "use the seat" that you would have used ... and they don't have to refund your cash despite the fact they "sold" the seat at a fare higher than what you originally paid.

They ~might~ give you a ride on another flight, or not. They might refund your money, but typically they only do that if a doctor says there was an unavoidable medical problem that prevented your flying -- say, an ear infection or an infectious disease that they airline should be happy you didn't fly with.

The actual economic transaction looks something like this:

The airline announces the expectation of a "flight" from point A to point B scheduled to depart at time and date X and arrive at time and date Y.

Notice ... the airline does not even need to know what kind of airplane will service the flight at this point, or how many "seat" in which "cabins" will be on the flight. They have an idea when they begin, but "equipment substitution" is still possible on some routes.

The airline then offers to the public a "common carrier accommodation" which, if all of the other conditions are met, will allow a purchaser THE USE OF a "seat" on the "flight".

You are purchasing a LICENSE which has many, many conditions -- more conditions than a Microsoft operating system shrink-wrap license. Your LICENSE entitles you to certain things ... and most important to the airline, you pay for the LICENSE whether you actually use it or not.

The terms of your LICENSE say things like -- if there is an Act of God and the airline decides to land the plane 50 miles away, it can do so ... or that it can decide, for just about any reason, to delay the departure and arrival times, or cancel the flight. Your LICENSE may allow you to check baggage, OR NOT. The LICENSE says that the airline can lose your checked baggage and, no matter how valuable the luggage or contents, they only pay you X. ($400 I think, it's been a while.)

See?

Suppose that I was purchasing an absolute contract of specific performance for transportation service of my living body from point A to point B. What would I charge for such a service, say, from Chicago to New York? Most likely upwards of $5,000. Because in the way you are conceiving this transaction, I have an obligation to "get you there" ... even if I have to carry you on foot, piggy-back over the Appalachian range in the dead of winter because a winter storm prevented all flying. I'll at least need a fleet of limos and drivers prepared to long-haul for a couple of days as a contingency.

But that ~is~ nonsense.

You buy a perishable, highly regulated, limited-terms-and-condition LICENSE to use a seat on a flight, if you meet all of the conditions.

Nothing more or less.

"...this I know since I have worked on airlines... I'm just telling you how they see..."

There's your appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.

I worked on airlines thus I know how airlines works .... this is a fallacy?!?!

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think you need to study a little logic.

Did you chose a flight with an already determined hour and date of departure?

Or

You told the airline to have your plane ready for that day at that time?

It's basic marketing principle: goods/services v's benefit.

When you buy a car - the electric windows... what 'are' they? Are they part of the goods? No - they are a benefit.

The aftercare. Part of the service? No - that is a benefit.

Warranty? Benefit.

Gas free for a year? Benefit

The 'good' in question, is a form of transport, and almost everything that would get mentioned in an ad? Benefit.

In this case - the airline sells a service - transportation. You contract passage on one of their conveyances, at a pre-arranged time, for a pre-arranged price. The flight is the service, and everything else in the ad - including the seat - is a benefit.


Let me give you another example:

There is another industry almost identical - you pay for a service, and are attributed a seat. Sometimes, that seat is even specifically allocated just like most airlines do. In the system of data-handling, everything is attributed by the seat... the person IN the seat, is effectively an attribute OF the seat, as far as the model goes.

That industry is called 'cinema'.

Are you now going to try to convince me that the purpose of cinemas is to sell seats, and that the MOVIE is the benefit?

I worked on airlines thus I know how airlines works .... this is a fallacy?!?!

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think you need to study a little logic.

Does the night watchman at the gate, know how to run the company?

Ok. Maybe this can help us understand this issue. Think for a second on how differently airlines and charters work.

The airline has scheduled flights. You buy a seat in the flight you want from certain options. You either use your seat or lose it. The airline has no compromise to transport you if you fail to show. This is not a contract for transportation.

On the other hand a charter you lease the plane. You can decide relatively freely when the plane departs (the limits being imposed by the airport and not the airline). If you (all your groop) fail to show the plane would not take off. They will reschedule the departure (and charge you a fee for wasting their time). This is a contract for transportation.

Does the night watchman at the gate, know how to run the company?

I'm sure they know better than you how to run it. :p

And no I wasn't a nightward at the gate. I was specifically involved with the business processes and model. And also have been involved in the tortuous project of an airline to become customer centric.

The airline has scheduled flights. You buy a seat in the flight you want from certain options.


No, you don't.

You buy a flight, and they let you pick a seat.


You either use your seat or lose it. The airline has no compromise to transport you if you fail to show. This is not a contract for transportation.


Yes it is.

You apparently don't know what 'a contract' is.


On the other hand a charter you lease the plane. You can decide relatively freely when the plane departs (the limits being imposed by the airport and not the airline). If you (all your groop) fail to show the plane would not take off. They will reschedule the departure (and charge you a fee for wasting their time). This is a contract for transportation.

This is also a contract for transportation - it's just a different type.

Ok. Maybe this can help us understand this issue. Think for a second on how differently airlines and charters work.

The airline has scheduled flights. You buy a seat in the flight you want from certain options. You either use your seat or lose it. The airline has no compromise to transport you if you fail to show. This is not a contract for transportation.

On the other hand a charter you lease the plane. You can decide relatively freely when the plane departs (the limits being imposed by the airport and not the airline). If you (all your groop) fail to show the plane would not take off. They will reschedule the departure (and charge you a fee for wasting their time). This is a contract for transportation.

I reitterate my earlier claim, with far more certainty this time, that you don't know what a contract is.

I'm sure they know better than you how to run it. :p


Why?

You don't know what companies I've run, do you?


And no I wasn't a nightward at the gate. I was specifically involved with the business processes and model. And also have been involved in the tortuous project of an airline to become customer centric.

On the other hand... maybe you're an 11 year old boy, typing on his mom's computer while she's out playing bingo.

You can CLAIM to be or to know whatever you like, it's worthless. What matters, is what you can show.

Why?

You don't know what companies I've run, do you?



On the other hand... maybe you're an 11 year old boy, typing on his mom's computer while she's out playing bingo.

You can CLAIM to be or to know whatever you like, it's worthless. What matters, is what you can show.

:eek:
damn! busted again....:(

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4894088.ece

http://c3dsp.westjet.com/guest/deals/index.jsp;jsessionid=

http://www.calmair.com/seat_sales.htm

https://www.flyairnorth.com/DealsAndNews/SeatSale.aspx

http://www.canadiannorth.com/Sales_Fares/SeatSales.asp

I worked on airlines thus I know how airlines works .... this is a fallacy?!?!

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think you need to study a little logic.

I worked at Fidelity Investments. Therefore, I am an investment banker.

I work at The MathWorks. Therefore, I am a computer engineer.

Just because you "worked" on airlines does not mean you know anything about how airlines work. The janitor who cleans the plane interiors does not have an intimate knowledge of how the airline conducts business.

This is what an appeal to authority means. You claim that, because you work or worked for an airliner, you know what you say to be true. The only evidence you provide is your word. Appeal to authority.

I worked at Fidelity Investments. Therefore, I am an investment banker.

I work at The MathWorks. Therefore, I am a computer engineer.

Just because you "worked" on airlines does not mean you know anything about how airlines work. The janitor who cleans the plane interiors does not have an intimate knowledge of how the airline conducts business.

This is what an appeal to authority means. You claim that, because you work or worked for an airliner, you know what you say to be true. The only evidence you provide is your word. Appeal to authority.

I already answered this. Please don't make me repost everything trice.

I already answered this. Please don't make me repost everything trice.

You responded to it, but your response was just as much an appeal to authority as everything else. You can say

"I was specifically involved with the business processes and model. And also have been involved in the tortuous project of an airline to become customer centric"

all you want, but we have no proof of it at all. Which means your arguments have to rest on something other than "this is the way it is because I work in the airline industry guys."

You responded to it, but your response was just as much an appeal to authority as everything else. You can say



all you want, but we have no proof of it at all. Which means your arguments have to rest on something other than "this is the way it is because I work in the airline industry guys."

well I guess you are right. You shouldn't believe what an eleven yours old in his moms computer tells you. Check the links I posted. :p

well I guess you are right. You shouldn't believe what an eleven yours old in his moms computer tells you. Check the links I posted. :p

I read them all. So, they're selling the actual, physical seats? Because if they're not, then we're just right back to the beginning with this argument.

I read them all. So, they're selling the actual, physical seats? Because if they're not, then we're just right back to the beginning with this argument.

:headbang:

yes I believe we are back at the beginning. any way got to go. Mom came back from bingo. :eek:

well I guess you are right. You shouldn't believe what an eleven yours old in his moms computer tells you. Check the links I posted. :p

What do you think they say?

Santiago, you are absolutely ridiculous.

I think you're all equally being as ridiculous as each other tbh, trying to bring everything down to some arbitrary and simplistic definitions of what you're actually paying for with a plane ticket. I think we need to get out of this hypothetical nonsense and focus on the practical reality, it's completely unreasonable to demand that an obese person pay for two tickets, especially when that could in some cases costs thousands extra!

I think you're all equally being as ridiculous as each other tbh, trying to bring everything down to some arbitrary and simplistic definitions...

Simplistic, yes - but not arbitrary.

It's the fundamental difference between the service and the benefits, and - to be honest - it's kind of scary that someone who claims they worked in the industry doesn't get that.

I already answered this. Please don't make me repost everything trice.

This, frankly, is why I call bullshit.

My entire business is about teaching people how to improve business processes. And, unlike you, people here have in fact met me and some have done business with me. GnI, for example, has a laptop I gave him after I finished training him on some of the ins and outs of my industry. (I have yet to employ him because I suck, but that's beside the point.)

I assure you that there isn't a person worth their salt analyzing business processes that can be as far as you from understanding what a logical point looks like. You claim it's logic to make a claim that if you work in a place you're the expert. It isn't. The people you were supposed dealing with would have been the first to explain this to you. And quickly. Mostly because your dumbass claims are dangerous and most of people dealing with the airline industry would have drummed you out as soon as you opened your mouth and opined on the world of logic you think you inhabit.

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.

Again, you're just denying reality. You've admitted the airlines agree with me as well, so much so that you provided a hypothetical where they suddenly agreed with you.

It's one thing to pretend like I'm wrong. It's a whole other thing to admit I'm right and then suddenly try to claim the opposite is true.

So the correction of your statement would be that the law and the airlines both agreee with you and no one save an imaginary government you can't tell us about agrees with you. Everything else so far has be argumentative fluff.

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.
You act like this hasn't been brought up before. It has. It was said directly to you. Most airlines have proposed the same. Neesika and I both mentioned that. I think there were several others. You wait ten pages and then act like you discovered it.

What does that say about your level of attention to your argument and the rebuttals?

Again, you're just denying reality. You've admitted the airlines agree with me as well, so much so that you provided a hypothetical where they suddenly agreed with you.

If all the airlines agreed with you, there wouldn't be this issue to begin with. Or are you pretending that just because one court has made a ruling in favor of your argument, everyone has fallen lockstep in line with your opinion?

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'm not going address someone else's analogy I don't agree with.

What you have not addressed and cannot address is that airlines say they are selling trips. This is their reasoning why they will not let you get on in the middle of a trip. It doesn't present an issue with security because I go through the same security and experience the exact same things. There is a security issue with leaving in the middle of a trip, but not joining. They don't use a security excuse. What they told me is that they're selling a trip. You have yet to address and you've admitted that what I say is true, they WILL NOT allow you to join mid-trip.

So the law agrees with the airlines. As of yet, no one has presented an airline OR a law that argues that they sell seats.

It's also been pointed out that they can adjust the seats, the space, the plane, the layover, almost anything. But if they take your money they are OBLIGATED to get you from point A to point B. That is their only obligation unless you purchase additional services.

By every definition, that's debunked. Can they take that seat to some other location? Nope. Can they move you to another seat? Yep. Can they change out the plane? Yep. Can they change the path you take to get there? Yep. Can they change the time? Yep. Can they charge you for a flight where you spent two hours in the seat but didn't arrive at your destination? Nope. You only pay if they take you from point A to point B. Otherwise, you didn't get the service.

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.

So will I be charged if I get on a plane, sit on the tarmac for two hours then get out at the same airport? They gave me the seat, yeah?

What you mean to say is that they do some of their reporting on seats, because it's an easy way to count customers. It's not the same thing. Similarly, sometimes I've helped businesses to look at their costs per customer. Does that mean they sell customers? Or is it because customers pay?

This, frankly, is why I call bullshit.

My entire business is about teaching people how to improve business processes. And, unlike you, people here have in fact met me and some have done business with me. GnI, for example, has a laptop I gave him after I finished training him on some of the ins and outs of my industry. (I have yet to employ him because I suck, but that's beside the point.)

On the subject of that training you mention, what do you think of Santiago's 'argument' that they MUST be selling seats because "Passengers are actually a property of the seat table in the airlines databases"?

I thought that was genius...

If all the airlines agreed with you, there wouldn't be this issue to begin with. Or are you pretending that just because one court has made a ruling in favor of your argument, everyone has fallen lockstep in line with your opinion?

The airlines have been arguing that they sell trips for years. They aren't arguing that they sell seats. They are arguing that they can carry less passengers and therefore it costs them money.

You agreed that the airlines and the courts agree. You keep changing your story because your argument has gotten desperate.

If all the airlines agreed with you, there wouldn't be this issue to begin with. Or are you pretending that just because one court has made a ruling in favor of your argument, everyone has fallen lockstep in line with your opinion?

What do you think the courts actually rules?

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?

As I said, you admitted that all the relevant parties agree with me. You suggested a hypothetical where they change their mind.

Now to check if your hypothetical was about airlines, let's see if you mentioned them as possibly changing to your postion...
"Airlines, courts, lawmakers. Did you really think that such things are set in stone, never to be changed?"

So, done lying?

What do you think the courts actually rules?

How much cheese is in a wheel. Obviously, that's what they're there for.

On the subject of that training you mention, what do you think of Santiago's 'argument' that they MUST be selling seats because "Passengers are actually a property of the seat table in the airlines databases"?

I thought that was genius...

It's hilarious. Since you and I have both helped companies do similar tables, it's pretty funny. Apparently, companies regularly sell customers.

Or there is the fact that hotels look at number of guests, despite actually offering lodging. They look at the number of guests to determine facilities, but according to some here, that would mean they MUST be charging for each guest rather than each room. The fact they don't do this isn't relevant, obviously. Why should hotels tell you what service they supply? Clearly it's determined by KPIs.

How much cheese is in a wheel. Obviously, that's what they're there for.

And, if it were the EU, I'd agree. Bloody French, arguing about English bananas being too bendy... *mutters*

In the words of the great one. Sir Mix-a-lot I like big buts and I can not lie,you other brothers can't deny! big girls have nice bums

You agreed that the airlines and the courts agree. You keep changing your story because your argument has gotten desperate.

One court agrees, the airlines are split, otherwise they wouldn't be charging people for the amount of seats they use to begin with, there would have been no lawsuit, and there wouldn't have been this thread, or are you going to pretend otherwise now?

What do you think the courts actually rules?

The courts rule in the place where they have jurisdiction. In this case, it's one court in Canada dealing with intra-Canadian flights. Do you have other court cases dealing with anything outside of that limitation?

One court agrees, the airlines are split, otherwise they wouldn't be charging people for the amount of seats they use to begin with, there would have been no lawsuit, and there wouldn't have been this thread, or are you going to pretend otherwise now?



The courts rule in the place where they have jurisdiction. In this case, it's one court in Canada dealing with intra-Canadian flights. Do you have other court cases dealing with anything outside of that limitation?

Nothing like changing your story again.

Again, can you show us one country that supports your claim? Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

As of right now, every case presented supports my position. Instead of asking for my side to present more evidence, how about your side provide ANY evidence?

Nothing like changing your story again.

Because, making up lies about my position is somehow me changing my story?


Again, can you show us one country that supports your claim? Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

You're asking me to prove a negative? You have one court ruling, I've said as much. I also said that was it. No more, no less. And you're asking me to what, show every court in the world that hasn't ruled on such an issue?


As of right now, every case presented supports my position. Instead of asking for my side to present more evidence, how about your side provide ANY evidence?

I know I'm typing in English, but do you even understand a word I'm saying?

Because, making up lies about my position is somehow me changing my story?

Quoting you is lying? In reply to me saying that all relevant actors here agree that they sell trips, your ONLY reply was that they change their mind to your position. Given that to "change their mind" means they don't agree with you now, you've admitted they currently agree with me.

Seriously, this is just the most basic of logic.

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?


You're asking me to prove a negative? You have one court ruling, I've said as much. I also said that was it. No more, no less. And you're asking me to what, show every court in the world that hasn't ruled on such an issue?

No, I'm not. You're claiming a positive. You're claiming that airlines are selling a seat. That's a positive claime for which you've provided no evidence.

I know I'm typing in English, but do you even understand a word I'm saying?

How does this reply to what I said? It doesn't. Everytime you're cornered you simply squirm and drop arguments.

Present supporting evidence. Not arguments. Evidence. In other words, show me an airline that charges you even if the plane doesn't move. Show me an airline that reimburses your money if they cannot offer you the specific seat you reserved. Show me an airline that returns your money if you end up on a different flight at about the same time. Show me an airline that will reimburse your money if you go to a different layover.

Show me an airline whose ONLY obligation isn't to provide transportation from A to B.

Provide evidence. Quit whining. Quit squirming. Present evidence. A court case. A business model. ANYTHING.

Quoting you is lying?

Attempting to hold me to positions I no longer hold, and have publicly stated as much. Presenting no longer held positions as currently held ones? That's either lying or a big pile of dishonesty, and the line between the two isn't all that thick.


In reply to me saying that all relevant actors here agree that they sell trips, your ONLY reply was that they change their mind to your position. Given that to "change their mind" means they don't agree with you now, you've admitted they currently agree with me.


Not all of them, something I've said but which you seem to be incapable of understanding the term.


No, I'm not. You're claiming a positive. You're claiming that airlines are selling a seat. That's a positive claime for which you've provided no evidence.

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html


In other words, show me an airline that charges you even if the plane doesn't move. Show me an airline that reimburses your money if they cannot offer you the specific seat you reserved. Show me an airline that returns your money if you end up on a different flight at about the same time. Show me an airline that will reimburse your money if you go to a different layover.


You do like tacking all sorts of extra things onto the original premise don't you?

Attempting to hold me to positions I no longer hold, and have publicly stated as much. Presenting no longer held positions as currently held ones? That's either lying or a big pile of dishonesty, and the line between the two isn't all that thick.

Heh. So you admit that you're shifting your positions with the wind. It's interesting that your position before was that everyone agreed with me. Now it's that airlines waffle on this issue.

On what evidence did you base your shift in position? (Or is it, as we've witnessed, that your old positions were proving you wrong so they were inconvenient?)


Not all of them, something I've said but which you seem to be incapable of understanding the term.

I said all of them. You said that they could change their mind. Please, please, pay attention. It's not difficult.

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html

We realize that some airlines charge extra, but that doesn't actually support your position, you realize, right? See, SW is one of the few airlines that don't even ASSIGN you a seat. You know why? Because you don't purchase a seat. You purchase a trip.

You do like tacking all sorts of extra things onto the original premise don't you?

Yes, they are called arguments. See, in debate, people make arguments. You either adequately address them to show they aren't relevant or don't stand or they do. You've not shown them to be irrelevant or wrong. Instead you've actually agreed with many of them (before you realized that it was killing your claims).

Now, can you show any evidence of an airline that charges you if you don't actually move? See, that's absolutely relevant. Because you get the space, but you don't get the trip. So, go ahead. Show me customer who are being charged for a trip around the tarmac.

Or show me a government that supports your position that they sell seats? Show me an airline that guarantees me a specific seat (like happens when I purchase a specific seat in a ballpark). Go ahead.

Any evidence? So far, you just provided a link that some airlines disagree with the decision. This, of course, doesn't actually demonstrate they're selling seats, only that they want to fit as many customers as possible on a plane. Those aren't the same thing.

If all the airlines agreed with you, there wouldn't be this issue to begin with. Or are you pretending that just because one court has made a ruling in favor of your argument, everyone has fallen lockstep in line with your opinion?

Where the living FUCK are you getting this from?

The court made absolutely NO ruling on the seat versus service issue. None. Nada. Zip. Do you want to know why?

Because the federal agency in charge of regulating the airlines has never quibbled on the fact that we're not dealing with seats, we're dealing with service. This is a non-issue, not one that has been recently decided.

You are REALLY grasping at straws. And it's fucking annoying when you try to pretend you have a legal leg to stand on.

One court agrees, the airlines are split, otherwise they wouldn't be charging people for the amount of seats they use to begin with, there would have been no lawsuit, and there wouldn't have been this thread, or are you going to pretend otherwise now?

Wow. You so fundamentally misunderstand the issue, it's actually boggling.

The airlines never argued they were selling seats. They argued that they were under no obligation to accommodate disabled persons in the manner being requested.

You should go back to law school.

Oh.

Wait.

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.

Et tu, Ars Nova?

Is it possible that, like the wave-particle duality of photons, that the airline model is seat rental (on that point you are absolutely correct, and I am a class-A boob for not mentioning it myself much earlier) AND service contract?

That seems to be the solution. Plus, like Dieter from Sprockets, this argument has become tiresome.

Et tu, Ars Nova?

Is it possible that, like the wave-particle duality of photons, that the airline model is seat rental (on that point you are absolutely correct, and I am a class-A boob for not mentioning it myself much earlier) AND service contract?

That seems to be the solution. Plus, like Dieter from Sprockets, this argument has become tiresome.

So if this is true, then shouldn't I have to pay part of my bill if I sit on the tarmac and after a bit they ask me to get out? I mean, I got partial service, right?

You realize, by the way, that airlines have given me money to rent a car because they couldn't provide me with the remainder of my trip. They had the seat, but not a way to get me from Chicago to Champaign. So instead they paid for a rent-a-car to complete my trip. So the only part of the service I got for my money was the trip itself. They simply got me from A to B.

Heh. So you admit that you're shifting your positions with the wind.

Heaven forbid I change my mind based on new information? Or do you just enjoy having a target?


It's interesting that your position before was that everyone agreed with me.


Bollocks. That is your position, not mine, as you admit here.


I said all of them.


On what evidence did you base your shift in position? (Or is it, as we've witnessed, that your old positions were proving you wrong so they were inconvenient?)

The only thing I dropped was the question of hardship, which wasn't even my original point to begin with. That's it.


We realize that some airlines charge extra, but that doesn't actually support your position, you realize, right? See, SW is one of the few airlines that don't even ASSIGN you a seat. You know why? Because you don't purchase a seat. You purchase a trip.

And if this was only just a trip they purchased, do you mind explaining why they are charging people on the extra space they use?


Now, can you show any evidence of an airline that charges you if you don't actually move? See, that's absolutely relevant.


Hardly. You paid for space on a transport from point A to B. If the space doesn't move from point A to B, you did not get your service.

If you reserve a ticket, but do not show up for the flight, do you get a refund? You bought a trip right? So you should be able to get a refund or use it again after your booked flight has left right? Not always and certainly not without penalties you don't.


Or show me a government that supports your position that they sell seats?

Unless a court rules otherwise or there is pre-existing legislation, a government neither supports nor disallows how an airline conducts its business.


Any evidence? So far, you just provided a link that some airlines disagree with the decision. This, of course, doesn't actually demonstrate they're selling seats, only that they want to fit as many customers as possible on a plane. Those aren't the same thing.

How does that square with the idea that they charge extra if you use more than one seat?

Where the living FUCK are you getting this from?

From the original contention of people taking more than one seat being made to pay for the amount of seats they use versus them not having to, which was the point from the beginning. It's morphed into something else over the life of the thread, and only because it got to quibbling over whether it was a seat or trip that was sold.

Heaven forbid I change my mind based on new information? Or do you just enjoy having a target?

Again, I ask, what new information?


Bollocks. That is your position, not mine, as you admit here.

I said they all agreed with me. You said they could change their mind. That's a tacit agreement. You really don't understand logic at all, do you?

It's kind of like if I ask you when you stopped beating your wife and you answer yesterday. You never SAID you beat your wife, but you definitely did admit you beat your wife.



The only thing I dropped was the question of hardship, which wasn't even my original point to begin with. That's it.

Dude, seriously. You said in this very post that you changer your mind based on new information. It's the second time you said it. I'm asking you to tell me what caused you to change your mind. I honestly wonder if you realize how disconnected from your posts you appear to be.

Heaven forbid I change my mind based on new information?

On what evidence did you base your shift in position? (Or is it, as we've witnessed, that your old positions were proving you wrong so they were inconvenient?)

And if this was only just a trip they purchased, do you mind explaining why they are charging people on the extra space they use?

Because they can. They also charge for alcohol and various other things. If they think they can make something an "extra" service, they will. See, you're failing because there are other consequences of them selling space rather than a trip. You've failed to address any of them. You've failed to address that airlines have admitted both to customers and to courts that they sell trips. They've been arguing it for years as an excuse for not doing some of the things I listed.

So here are your choices:
1) Show why those things don't matter. Ignoring them won't work. Show WHY it doesn't matter that their only obligation is to provide a trip from A to B.
2) Show that those things are wrong. Again, ignoring them won't work.

You've not actually made any kind of rational argument at all.

Hardly. You paid for space on a transport from point A to B. If the space doesn't move from point A to B, you did not get your service.
So if I sit next to you and my shoulders drape over into your seat (and they will) do you get part of your money back? Hint: It's not a rarely asked question. The fact is that it comes up a lot. They don't give you back your money. You got your trip.
If you reserve a ticket, but do not show up for the flight, do you get a refund? You bought a trip right? So you should be able to get a refund or use it again after your booked flight has left right? Not always and certainly not without penalties you don't.
Oh, my goodness. You realize they also didn't get the "space" that you argue is the service. The thing is that you've agreed to show up as part of the service contract. When you don't show up on time, you don't get a refund. This "argument" doesn't actually address mine, of course. The logical disconnect here is a chasm. (Let me guess, I have to also explain to you what chasm means, right?)
Unless a court rules otherwise or there is pre-existing legislation, a government neither supports nor disallows how an airline conducts its business.
That doesn't actually address the point, does it? But I accept your tacit admission that NO GOVERNMENT has ever supported your position. All the evidence is on my side. Sucks for your argument.
How does that square with the idea that they charge extra if you use more than one seat?
Um, what? How does my claim that airlines want to fit as many customers as possible on a plane square with them charging extra? I have to explain this? Holy crap!

See, they can't deny obese people service. It's illegal. But if they charge more, they either get to sell the obese person another service (extra space, which is the first service they've purchased that involves space. Check the service agreement.) or the obese person doesn't purchase and they can cram on two customers instead of one. It's not complicated.
From the original contention of people taking more than one seat being made to pay for the amount of seats they use versus them not having to, which was the point from the beginning. It's morphed into something else over the life of the thread, and only because it got to quibbling over whether it was a seat or trip that was sold.
It's called an argument. See, when you're trying to support a claim, you make arguments and offer evidence. This requires bring up related points to bolster your claim. You don't get to ignore the additional arguments and evidence because they are inconvenient.

By the way, you've argued that the service I've been sold is space. Can you show me a service agreement from an airline that says you are guaranteed that space?

https://www.aa.com/aa/i18nForward.do?p=/customerService/customerCommitment/conditionsOfCarriage.jsp

Your ticket and the following Conditions of Carriage constitute the contract between you, the passenger, and American Airlines, Inc. American Eagle ("American") and apply to all transportation provided by American (including transportation on codeshare partners) between points in the United States (including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Foreign air transportation is governed by applicable tariffs on file with the Department of Transportation.

American is responsible for transportation on flight segments operated by American and transportation provided by codeshare partners on codeshare itineraries. American will act as an agent to issue tickets, check baggage, and book reservations for transportation via other carriers which have interline agreements with American. Other carriers may have different terms and conditions applicable to their flights. These may be obtained directly from the other carriers.

Find the word "space" in regards to the service provided. They don't mention it at all. (other than in regards to whether or not they can fit your luggage or whether the government confiscated an area of the flight, e.g. brings on a prisoner)

You'll notice the word "transportation" and a promise to provide that transportation (which is a trip). This is a complete list of responsiblities they hold and the rights you as a passenger have. Never a mention of space.

Upon further review, the only time Southwest mentions space is when they are charging "customers of size" for being to big. There is no where on their site where they guarantee you a space.

It's no wonder why, of course, because if they did I could get my money back if someone sat next to me that had broad shoulders. Even Southwest doesn't claim to be selling space.

Im sure. So what exactly are the rules about when you can decide to go completely off topic for no reason again?
Oh I don't know -- how about in answer to a post that says they're not doing enough about obesity research and that's why this is a problem?

Sounds very off topic to me -- surely more than taking shots at me for answering a direct post, ne?

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.
Don't forget the Kosher meals. They're getting something special, too.

Only in Canada.
Thank you, Captain Obvious -- the whole thread is about airlines servicing Canada!

Thank you, Captain Obvious -- the whole thread is about airlines servicing Canada!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFs5l9K--7M

So if this is true, then shouldn't I have to pay part of my bill if I sit on the tarmac and after a bit they ask me to get out? I mean, I got partial service, right?

Care to pull another nonsense example out of nowhere? I just said that it's a combination of trip and seat, and no amount of your silly posturing addresses the idea.

You realize, by the way, that airlines have given me money to rent a car because they couldn't provide me with the remainder of my trip. They had the seat, but not a way to get me from Chicago to Champaign. So instead they paid for a rent-a-car to complete my trip. So the only part of the service I got for my money was the trip itself. They simply got me from A to B.

Why do you keep insisting that what happened to you has any relevance? They rented you a car because they could complete the trip part of the trip/seat combination you contracted them for. I've seen too much actual legal proof of the seat concept to give it up entirely, and I agree with the trip side, too. I've decided they work together. If you wish to keep acting like a belligerent fool, you go right ahead, but I'm done arguing with you because, as I've already said, I've conceded to a hybrid concept here.

What does that say about your level of attention to your argument and the rebuttals?
Geez, take that stick out...

It says I don't have the patience of Job to wade through pages and pages of nonsense, in order to find a useful nugget. It also says that reading these threads isn't my reason for existence. Finally, it says that I don't especially care about the argument or the rebuttals, as long as I've fulfilled my criteria for participating in the thread.

Now you can put the stick back where it belongs.

Geez, take that stick out...

It says I don't have the patience of Job to wade through pages and pages of nonsense, in order to find a useful nugget. It also says that reading these threads isn't my reason for existence. Finally, it says that I don't especially care about the argument or the rebuttals, as long as I've fulfilled my criteria for participating in the thread.

Now you can put the stick back where it belongs.

Is Jocabia a two-seater?

Maybe have the right to two seats for the price of two... They should have to suffer the consequences of their life choices.

Is Jocabia a two-seater?

Are you flirting?

Are you flirting?

No, Jocabia seemed so sensitive it made me thing Jocabia might be a double-wide.

Maybe have the right to two seats for the price of two... They should have to suffer the consequences of their life choices.

Yes, like 'choosing' to be born to the wrong parents, or 'choosing' to be poor... the two most factors most commonly linked to obesity... right?


What about people that 'choose' to be blind? Should they be allowed dogs in stores?

What about people that 'choose' to be deaf? Or 'choose' to be born without limbs?

No, Jocabia seemed so sensitive it made me thing Jocabia might be a double-wide.

Awesome.

From the same school of thought that calls people who defend racial equality as niggerlovers. Nice.

Obese, otherwise known as fat people, know the risks of their health. They should pay the ticket price extras if they want to get from one place to another or resort to an alternative measure that won't cost them as much. Buses or trains are the only other recourse in this measure. The airlines cater to a very different traveler and they travel lightly -- well at least most of them do. Has anyone notice that the airlines have charged for extra bags, so what's the beef about extra pounds. Either way, someone has to carry them.

Awesome.

From the same school of thought that calls people who defend racial equality as niggerlovers. Nice.

Hardly comparative.

You see, fat people can lose weight. They can get gastric band surgery, and it works.

You can't erase your race.

Hardly comparative.

You see, fat people can lose weight. They can get gastric band surgery, and it works.

You can't erase your race.

Man-up and admit it, already. Don't try to wriggle so, it's embarrassing.

You said "...Is Jocabia a two-seater... (he) seemed so sensitive it made me thing Jocabia might be a double-wide..."

Your intent is clear - to suggest that Jocabia's position on the issue was somehow linked to his own alleged obesity. It's the exact same kind of argument that people leveled at emancipation and those seeking equality - that they must only take that position because they were 'niggerlovers'.

Man-up and admit it, already. Don't try to wriggle so, it's embarrassing.

You said "...Is Jocabia a two-seater... (he) seemed so sensitive it made me thing Jocabia might be a double-wide..."

Your intent is clear - to suggest that Jocabia's position on the issue was somehow linked to his own alleged obesity. It's the exact same kind of argument that people leveled at emancipation and those seeking equality - that they must only take that position because they were 'niggerlovers'.

I'm not saying Jocabia's position on the issues is based on the "double-wide".

I'm saying that the extremity of the reaction - i.e., the sensitivity - certainly seems to be - if Jocabia is a double-wide.

Very different.

Personally, since air fuel costs are directly related to weight, they should weigh each passenger and charge them accordingly (including the weight of your baggage). In days when aircraft could barely get off the ground, they used to charge like this - and weighed every passenger. They should also assume that if you're over a certain weight/height ratio, you're going to need the second seat - and get it because you've paid for the weight.

When I fly, I send all baggage ahead of time to the hotel by UPS. It turns out cheaper than the baggage fees today, and it's waiting for me at the hotel. I get on and off the plane quickly. Security is a snap because I'm carrying nothing. I also weight 175 pounds (at 5'8" tall) and fit comfortably in the standard seat.

When I fly, I send all baggage ahead of time to the hotel by UPS. It turns out cheaper than the baggage fees today, and it's waiting for me at the hotel. I get on and off the plane quickly. Security is a snap because I'm carrying nothing. I also weight 175 pounds (at 5'8" tall) and fit comfortably in the standard seat.

That's actually a really great idea, if you trust UPS.

That's actually a really great idea, if you trust UPS.

I've been doing it for over 10 years now, without a hitch.

I hate waiting at baggage claim, and I hate lugging my stuff through security and dragging it through the airport.

I've been doing it for over 10 years now, without a hitch.

I hate waiting at baggage claim, and I hate lugging my stuff through security and dragging it through the airport.

Right, well, I had a $1700 package, with signature confirmation delivery, delivered to my out of town neighbors by UPS, so my trust level with them is a bit lower.

Care to pull another nonsense example out of nowhere? I just said that it's a combination of trip and seat, and no amount of your silly posturing addresses the idea.



Why do you keep insisting that what happened to you has any relevance? They rented you a car because they could complete the trip part of the trip/seat combination you contracted them for. I've seen too much actual legal proof of the seat concept to give it up entirely, and I agree with the trip side, too. I've decided they work together. If you wish to keep acting like a belligerent fool, you go right ahead, but I'm done arguing with you because, as I've already said, I've conceded to a hybrid concept here.

But where you're failing is that you claim you are contracting for a seat and a trip, yet they have to privide the trip or give your money back. Yet, if they do not provide the seat and instead you get to your destination another way that they have provided, you still owe.

But, hey, it's not like the fact that absent the seat you contracted you pay and absent the trip you don't is relevant to which of those you contracted, right?

By the way, how you doing with the evidence of your position? You got any? I provide the actual service agreement from AA and they don't mention space or seats at all other than in regards to safety.

They do however tell you that your are receiving transportation several times. Now, would you like to actually support your argument or whine because you cannot defeat mine? I promise to be entertained equally no matter which you do.

Geez, take that stick out...

It says I don't have the patience of Job to wade through pages and pages of nonsense, in order to find a useful nugget. It also says that reading these threads isn't my reason for existence. Finally, it says that I don't especially care about the argument or the rebuttals, as long as I've fulfilled my criteria for participating in the thread.

Now you can put the stick back where it belongs.

You don't have the patience of Job or the technical expertise of my dead grandfather. I assure you were he able to move he could figure out the search feature.

I am happy that you admit that you're just talking to hear yourself talk, though. It's pretty obvious to most of us, but this pretty much clinches it.

Apparently, "particpating" in a discussion means you speak and then don't read the replies.

No, Jocabia seemed so sensitive it made me thing Jocabia might be a double-wide.

Jocabia actually does not fit in one seat as I've said in this thread. Jocabia is man-sized.

Today I have a 32-inch waist. I weigh about 210 or 215. I'm 6' tall. My body fat is about 11%. My shoulders easily extend into the seat next to me.

I am a "fatty-lover" though. I'm also a "wheelie-lover", a "******-lover", a "spic-lover", a "fag-lover", etc. I'm crazy enough to speak intelligently and passionately about the subject of equality. I'm know how offensive that can be to some, seeing as they've spent so much time boosting themselves up onto the shoulders of others to make themselves not feel so inadequately small.

I'm overweight AND I think if you take up two seats, you pay for two seats.

Fair is fair.

I'm overweight AND I think if you take up two seats, you pay for two seats.

Fair is fair.

It's not about people who merely are overweight, or people who are merely obese, it's about people who are functionally disabled by it.

The key word here being disability.

I know there has been some confusion here.

I'm overweight AND I think if you take up two seats, you pay for two seats.

Fair is fair.

How precisely is this fair?

I am happy that you admit that you're just talking to hear yourself talk, though. It's pretty obvious to most of us, but this pretty much clinches it.


What other reason is there for doing anything, but to satisfy one's self?

What other reason is there for doing anything, but to satisfy one's self?

I'm going to assume you're kidding.

fat people have no rights, you made your decision to become an animal when you got fat.

fat people have no rights, you made your decision to become an animal when you got fat.

And you just made a decision to become a troll with this post.

fat people have no rights, you made your decision to become an animal when you got fat.

No sir. You made your decision to become an animal by posting that tripe.

It's not about people who merely are overweight, or people who are merely obese, it's about people who are functionally disabled by it.

The key word here being disability.

I know there has been some confusion here.

Let me ask you this: Why does the airline owe it to such a person to lose the revenue generated by that lost seat?

How precisely is this fair?

Because if you're going to talk fairness you have to include ALL parties involved. I know how tempting it is to dismiss the costs to the airline itself because they're a big corporation etc etc etc but the fact is when you buy a plane ticket you're paying based on the use of a seat. It doesn't matter of you're a 5 year old child or a full grown adult. Your weight isn't the determining factor, it's the fact that you are occupying one seat. That's the unit they're selling you. If you require additional seats to accommodate your size, then you are going to occupy two such units and so it is only fair that you pay for them.

Near the beginning of the thread someone commented that the airlines already make the seats very small so that they can cram more of them into the plane. That may be so, but the fact is we as the buying public are basically consenting to that amount of space by purchasing the ticket.

Look at it this way: In my case, I'm overweight but I can still fit into a single seat. If I decide I want extra room to move around, sit sideways or whatever by having an empty seat next to me, then I'm expected to pay for the extra seat just like anybody else.

Let me ask you this: Why does the airline owe it to such a person to lose the revenue generated by that lost seat?

Because it is against the law to discriminate against people because of their disability. If the airlines want to do business in a nation, then they have to obey that nation's laws, and in this particular nation, the law acknowledges morbid obesity as a disability AND says that a person cannot be negatively discriminated against because of that disability.

Let me ask you this: Why does the airline owe it to such a person to lose the revenue generated by that lost seat?



Because if you're going to talk fairness you have to include ALL parties involved. I know how tempting it is to dismiss the costs to the airline itself because they're a big corporation etc etc etc but the fact is when you buy a plane ticket you're paying based on the use of a seat. It doesn't matter of you're a 5 year old child or a full grown adult. Your weight isn't the determining factor, it's the fact that you are occupying one seat. That's the unit they're selling you. If you require additional seats to accommodate your size, then you are going to occupy two such units and so it is only fair that you pay for them.

Near the beginning of the thread someone commented that the airlines already make the seats very small so that they can cram more of them into the plane. That may be so, but the fact is we as the buying public are basically consenting to that amount of space by purchasing the ticket.

Look at it this way: In my case, I'm overweight but I can still fit into a single seat. If I decide I want extra room to move around, sit sideways or whatever by having an empty seat next to me, then I'm expected to pay for the extra seat just like anybody else.

But you're not considering all people involved. You're putting the societal needs, the needs of the disabled, and the needs of the individual behind the needs of the company.

It's been shown the cost per flight is 41 cents (in the greater estimation. The other one was much lower). That 41 cents is the lesser burdern.

The rest of your argument ignores the claims of the actual airlines. Frankly, it's really sad that you guys keep showing up with the same argument about space and a seat, keep refusing to show ANY support for it, and then disappear when evidence for how wrong you are is offered.

Check your service agreement. I've posted about several of them and linked to one. They do NOT mention space or a seat as the service. The service is trasportation from one place to another. There is a reason they don't mention the seat or the space. It's because if someone were to get on a flight where say, I was sitting next to them, and the flight attendant did not do anything about it, then they'd get a free flight. They would not have gotten full use of the service they were offered. Airlines have very carefull designed their service agreements to ONLY guarantee one thing: you will be transferred from A to B.

If you have a service agreement that promises the use of the seat, I'd like to see it. Until then, your argument fails.

What other reason is there for doing anything, but to satisfy one's self?

You're not a religious man, then, I take it?

And, I assume, you don't consider yourself a philanthropist?

Nor a communist, nor 'community-minded'?

Not a family man?

I know how tempting it is to dismiss the costs to the airline itself because they're a big corporation

No, it's "tempting it is to dismiss the costs to the airline" because:

1) The costs are negligible, and
2) it is not unreasonable to expect a company to make small concessions to accomodate those of different needs. That's why McDonald's puts braille on menus.

You're not a religious man, then, I take it?

And, I assume, you don't consider yourself a philanthropist?

Nor a communist, nor 'community-minded'?

Not a family man?
One always acts out of selfish motives. Philanthropy, community service, raising kids, how we do our work -- all of it motivated by something selfish. I tithe. It satisfies me to know that some money I earn will go to do God's work. The same case can be made for just about anything that matters. A lot of good work is done because the doer is selfish.

Or do liberals act out of guilt?

I'm going to assume you're kidding.
I type thousands of words and you take them all literally. In this case, you assume...

But am I kidding? Hardly. Why are you posting here? Why do you do anything? Is there some other force acting on you?

One always acts out of selfish motives. Philanthropy, community service, raising kids, how we do our work -- all of it motivated by something selfish. I tithe. It satisfies me to know that some money I earn will go to do God's work. The same case can be made for just about anything that matters. A lot of good work is done because the doer is selfish.

Or do liberals act out of guilt?

Guilt can be selfish, too.

However, only if you automatically decide that because a thing CAN be selfish it MUST be do you arrive at your first point.

I do lots of selfish things, some of them are downright kind. I also do some things that are entirely selfless. You cannot support the claim that all things are selfish. It's just a bullshit statement by a person who wants to make himself feel better about being a selfish individual.

Guilt can be selfish, too.

However, only if you automatically decide that because a thing CAN be selfish it MUST be do you arrive at your first point.

I do lots of selfish things, some of them are downright kind. I also do some things that are entirely selfless. You cannot support the claim that all things are selfish. It's just a bullshit statement by a person who wants to make himself feel better about being a selfish individual.
Suit yourself. That's what's important. I'm satisfied with what I've said and done in this thread. Apparently, you're still a little unsettled that I don't agree with you, but that won't bother you for much longer, I'm sure.

Suit yourself. That's what's important. I'm satisfied with what I've said and done in this thread. Apparently, you're still a little unsettled that I don't agree with you, but that won't bother you for much longer, I'm sure.

I'd be unsettled if we agreed. Fortunately, that never happens. I am bracing myself for the event. I mean, you can't be wrong always, despite current evidence, can you?

While I'd be unsettled, I'd prefer for the greater good that you do eventually become correct. I'm unselfish like that.

One always acts out of selfish motives. Philanthropy, community service, raising kids, how we do our work -- all of it motivated by something selfish. I tithe. It satisfies me to know that some money I earn will go to do God's work. The same case can be made for just about anything that matters. A lot of good work is done because the doer is selfish.

Or do liberals act out of guilt?

Yeesh. The reason I suggested things like religion, community-concern, philanthropy, etc - was because I find it hard to believe someone acts solely out of selfish concerns - especially when most of the dominant religions teach us to act selflessly, most people actually involved in their community act in it's interests (don't they?), and raising a family - I would have thought - is something that can ONLY be done FOR someone else.

'Do liberals act out of guilt'?

I don't know. I don't consider myself capable of answering for any large group of people, and - by American reckoning - I'm certainly not typical of left-wing politics.

But, for myself, I can answer. No - I have never acted out of guilt.

On the other hand - I have often acted selflessly. Whether it be refusing to do certain kinds of jobs because of their negative effects, or volunteering my services in my small local community. In truth - I find it hard to believe there are people that act entirely selfishly... and even harder to believe that such people would imagine OTHER people are similarly self-centred.

Again, I ask, what new information?

Loss estimates, which still represents a costs on the company might I add.


I said they all agreed with me.


And they don't, I've shown as much, but you still keep insisting that they do.


You said they could change their mind. That's a tacit agreement. You really don't understand logic at all, do you?

Agreement with your statement? Only in your mind maybe. If I use your example with different outcomes to illustrate the silliness of your position, it is not agreement with it unless you are deluded somehow.


Because they can.

So you agree that they can, and do, charge based on extra space taken then.


See, you're failing because there are other consequences of them selling space rather than a trip. You've failed to address any of them.

Only because after stepping back and looking at them for a bit, I realized your "consequences" were tacked on assumptions that have no bearing at the core of the matter which I can either attribute to an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt at goalpost minimization.


You've failed to address that airlines have admitted both to customers and to courts that they sell trips. They've been arguing it for years as an excuse for not doing some of the things I listed.

What, like guarantee extra seating for those who can't fit on one at no extra charge?


1) Show why those things don't matter. Ignoring them won't work. Show WHY it doesn't matter that their only obligation is to provide a trip from A to B.


This is one of those tacked on assumptions. Let's play along for a bit, say you buy a trip. Only a trip. If that was the only case, you'd have no cause for complaint if they stuffed you in a crate and shipped you in an unpressurized cargo aircraft and tossed you out at 40,000 feet without a parachute once you reached your destination. You still have your trip.

Or a less extreme example would be buying a trip on an airline, and finding that rather than sitting in an aircraft, you end up on a donkey cart to wherever you wanted to go. It's still a trip.

If you want to argue that the specific details trip, we get to the question of how then, which falls into the most common format, seats.

And in case you're thinking of demanding that I show a government or airline that guarantees a specific seat, forget it. You don't buy a specific seat, you buy a seat, and ask for a specific one, which can be changed at company discretion, but you'll still get A seat on an aircraft in the same class category as you paid for.


So if I sit next to you and my shoulders drape over into your seat (and they will) do you get part of your money back? Hint: It's not a rarely asked question. The fact is that it comes up a lot. They don't give you back your money. You got your trip.

The fact is also that when you exceed the airline standards of seat space, the affected passenger is moved elsewhere, while the XL passenger pays for the extra seat.


When you don't show up on time, you don't get a refund.


Patently untrue.

http://www.asiatravelmart.com/atm/flightFAQ.htm?handler=flightFAQ


That doesn't actually address the point, does it? But I accept your tacit admission that NO GOVERNMENT has ever supported your position.

Looking back, I find that it's not even my position at all. I never made an argument of specific seating. I made arguments of seats and space, but never specifically a unique seat to the one making the purchase. That was your attempt at tacking additional conditions.


Um, what? How does my claim that airlines want to fit as many customers as possible on a plane square with them charging extra?

Because it's charging extra for more than one seat taken up by a single person. Trying to claim that it is "wanting to fit as many customers as possible on a plane", is dishonest at the very least. But dishonesty has been what you've been displaying when you twist my arguments, so I'm not surprised.


See, they can't deny obese people service. It's illegal. But if they charge more, they either get to sell the obese person another service (extra space, which is the first service they've purchased that involves space. Check the service agreement.) or the obese person doesn't purchase and they can cram on two customers instead of one. It's not complicated.


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."


It's called an argument.


An argument, at least an honest one, doesn't tack on extra conditions and presumptions of the other's argument when they are not even held by the other side.


By the way, you've argued that the service I've been sold is space. Can you show me a service agreement from an airline that says you are guaranteed that space?

How about legislation instead? And it's even regarding the non-discrimination of disabilities on airlines. Notice it doesn't even mention a trip and only refers to seats?

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14/14-4.0.1.4.61.3.24.5.html

Whatever the case, I'm done with this argument and thread. It's gotten tedious.

And they don't, I've shown as much, but you still keep insisting that they do.


No, you haven't.

You keep SAYING you have, but that's not the same thing.


What, like guarantee extra seating for those who can't fit on one at no extra charge?


That would be one of those 'tacked on assumptions' you were just complaining about, wouldn't it?


This is one of those tacked on assumptions. Let's play along for a bit, say you buy a trip. Only a trip. If that was the only case, you'd have no cause for complaint if they stuffed you in a crate and shipped you in an unpressurized cargo aircraft and tossed you out at 40,000 feet without a parachute once you reached your destination. You still have your trip.


That was horseshit and you know it.

All of that - the crate, the unpressurised cargo space, the 'tossing out' would be incapable of making it past the health and safety guidelines.

Indeed, in order to get BY those guidelines, you are basically going to have to come up with a model like... well, seats.


Whatever the case, I'm done with this argument and thread. It's gotten tedious.

No, you were done with this argument shortly after you started. All that's changed is you've realised it.

Time for some fun.


Nothing like changing your story again.
Because, making up lies about my position is somehow me changing my story?
Quoting you is lying?
Attempting to hold me to positions I no longer hold, and have publicly stated as much. Presenting no longer held positions as currently held ones? That's either lying or a big pile of dishonesty, and the line between the two isn't all that thick.

Nothing better than when peopl forget what they're arguing. First he says he hasn't changed his position and that I'm making up lies. Then he says that the lies I'm making up are by saying he has NOT changed his position. I almost wish I was making this up.

Oh, but that's not all, folks. Let's have some more fun. See, what we were discussing at the time? This:

The service is the trip according to everyone who matters.

Why did he change his mind?

Heaven forbid I change my mind based on new information?
Again, I ask, what new information?
Loss estimates, which still represents a costs on the company might I add.

Uh, puh? Loss esimates somehow determins whether or not courts and airlines both consider them to be selling trips?

Now, losing the train of the conversation isn't that strange, but you must admit it's funny.

And they don't, I've shown as much, but you still keep insisting that they do.

No, you haven't. You've claimed you have. However, the point I was making was that you originally agreed that they all agree with me. Now, you've shifted your position, apparently because of loss estimates. Of course, that doesn't make any sense, but why should it? It's not like you'd like your argument to make any sense.

Agreement with your statement? Only in your mind maybe. If I use your example with different outcomes to illustrate the silliness of your position, it is not agreement with it unless you are deluded somehow.

Amusing. If you present a hypothetical that says, well, what if they change thier mind to my position, then you're admitting they don't currently hold it. It's not particularly complicated.
So you agree that they can, and do, charge based on extra space taken then.
Of course, but this isn't relevant to what they're selling. They're selling trips. That they found a way to tack on an extra charge, doesn't change the fundamental service they provide. Not even according to them.
Only because after stepping back and looking at them for a bit, I realized your "consequences" were tacked on assumptions that have no bearing at the core of the matter which I can either attribute to an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt at goalpost minimization.
It's wonderful that you keep just going "nuh-uh" so you don't have to actually address arguments. It doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
What, like guarantee extra seating for those who can't fit on one at no extra charge?
You realize this is totally non-sequitter, right?
This is one of those tacked on assumptions. Let's play along for a bit, say you buy a trip. Only a trip. If that was the only case, you'd have no cause for complaint if they stuffed you in a crate and shipped you in an unpressurized cargo aircraft and tossed you out at 40,000 feet without a parachute once you reached your destination. You still have your trip.
If there were no safety standards related to that trip, sure. One could make similar arguments that they're selling seat belts when you rent a car. They aren't, of course, but since safety standards require their cars to have them...
Or a less extreme example would be buying a trip on an airline, and finding that rather than sitting in an aircraft, you end up on a donkey cart to wherever you wanted to go. It's still a trip.
Actually, you'd have no complaint in certain circumstances. I've already pointed out that when I took a car rather than a plane from Chicago to Champaign, they only had to reimburse the cost of the car, not the whole flight.
If you want to argue that the specific details trip, we get to the question of how then, which falls into the most common format, seats.
How they provide the service is not relevant to what service they are selling.
And in case you're thinking of demanding that I show a government or airline that guarantees a specific seat, forget it. You don't buy a specific seat, you buy a seat, and ask for a specific one, which can be changed at company discretion, but you'll still get A seat on an aircraft in the same class category as you paid for.
Not according to the airlines. Not one airline guarantees a seat. It's not mentioned in the terms of service at all. Nothing about space.
The fact is also that when you exceed the airline standards of seat space, the affected passenger is moved elsewhere, while the XL passenger pays for the extra seat.
Again, you act like this changes anything. It doesn't. If they hadn't tried this there wouldn't be a thread. We know they tried this. It doesn't change the product they legally claim to provide.
Looking back, I find that it's not even my position at all. I never made an argument of specific seating. I made arguments of seats and space, but never specifically a unique seat to the one making the purchase. That was your attempt at tacking additional conditions.
I know you'd really like to make it so we can't discuss anything apart from what you present. That would be convenient for you. However, when looking at all the information, not just the information and arguments you want us to focus on, you fail.
Because it's charging extra for more than one seat taken up by a single person. Trying to claim that it is "wanting to fit as many customers as possible on a plane", is dishonest at the very least. But dishonesty has been what you've been displaying when you twist my arguments, so I'm not surprised.
Uh, what? I claimed that was the position of the airline. Are you claiming that airlines don't want to have as many customers as possible?
An argument, at least an honest one, doesn't tack on extra conditions and presumptions of the other's argument when they are not even held by the other side.
I love this. "Extra conditions and presumptions" is called debate. I know you're having trouble even tracking what YOU say, as I showed in the above post, but in debate people provide counterarguments and counterexamples. I'm sorry you find them confusing, but that's not relevant to whether or not your argument stands. In fact, it pretty well demonstrates that not only haven't you debunked the argument, you're not likely capable of doing so.
How about legislation instead? And it's even regarding the non-discrimination of disabilities on airlines. Notice it doesn't even mention a trip and only refers to seats?

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14/14-4.0.1.4.61.3.24.5.html
So, when making legislation about airline seating, they talk about airline seating. There is also legislation relating to car manufacturers and tires. That doesn't mean they manufacture tires or even sell them. They sell cars. Cars happen to have tires on them. They are not selling tires.
Whatever the case, I'm done with this argument and thread. It's gotten tedious.
It got tedious because you kept confusing your own argument. Flipping around to completely opposite positions without even realizing you'd done so.

Honestly, it was getting pretty sad. Your confusion became pretty obvious. I'm quite certain no one has popped into this thread and not seen it. Hell, in the post I'm currently replying to, you fully admitted that you were confused about your position and had to go back to remember what you were trying to say.

It's interesting how the last few posts barely resemble the subject of the OP.

It's interesting how the last few posts barely resemble the subject of the OP.

It's core to the subject. See, the decision rests on airlines selling a trip, not a seat. The decision simply requires that the airline accomodate disabled people for the purpose of them having equal access to the trip that others can take.

Frankly, it doesn't unravel if it's a seat, but since they argue that it's a trip, we're arguing whether or not it is.

I believe that an airline should give you a comfortable seat for you to fly on. However if you are obese, they shouldn't have to pay extra money if the plane is fully booked. If, however the plane was half-full the obese person could take up 50 seats and no-one should be able to argue.

I believe that an airline should give you a comfortable seat for you to fly on.

Guess you won't be flying economy then. :p

Is this discrimination against thin people? I would like to occupy the extra seat with luggage. or as a thin person dont i have that right?

Is this discrimination against thin people? I would like to occupy the extra seat with luggage. or as a thin person dont i have that right?

75 pages and you jump in like this?





























:rolleyes:

It's interesting how the last few posts barely resemble the subject of the OP.

Jocabia sunk his hooks into the thread. What do you expect?

What if I am wardrobe disabled and I need a lot of clothing. Does this mean they can't charge me the bag overweight fee? I mean the fat guy gets an extra seat, what is 20 more pounds of shirts and shoes compared to his 180lbs.

This hasn't been done to death yet?