Too Fat to Fly

[Coito ergo sum]

Another Too-Fat-To-Fly Controversy Hits Southwest Airlines
NYC Political Strategist: Me, Mom Told We Must Buy 4 Seats
May 18, 2011 11:33 PM

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/18/ ... -airlines/

If this doesn't motivate her to lay off the bon bons, well...nothing will...

[nellikin]

At least she's already lost a lot of weight. Maybe in a few months they won't even have to ask her anymore.

[Hermit]

Another Too-Fat-To-Fly Controversy Hits Southwest Airlines
NYC Political Strategist: Me, Mom Told We Must Buy 4 Seats
May 18, 2011 11:33 PM

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/18/ ... -airlines/

If this doesn't motivate her to lay off the bon bons, well...nothing will...

What'sthat wisecrack supposed to achieve? She's already reduced her weight by 125 pounds before this kerfuffle, FFS.

Snap, nellikin.

[Coito ergo sum]

What'sthat wisecrack supposed to achieve? .

Sardonic humor.

[Warren Dew]

Hey, I should fly Southwest.

Southwest, which allowed the woman and her mother on a later flight, apologized, refunded their tickets and gave them free vouchers.

Passengers at LaGuardia said Tiggeman got a raw deal.

Ah, never mind. Wimps.

[Seth]

I think all airlines should charge by the pound, just like UPS does. That's the best metric for the cost anyway, since pounds of cargo equates quite directly to pounds of fuel used in flight.

[Azathoth]

She is 20 stone, I don't care how much she has lost she is still huge. She may be able to shoehorn herself into a seat but what about the poor cunt who has to sit next to her when she spills over into the next one. Should they pay full price for half a seat?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think all airlines should charge by the pound, just like UPS does. That's the best metric for the cost anyway, since pounds of cargo equates quite directly to pounds of fuel used in flight.

That would be discriminatory. Applying the "disparate impact" theory of discrimination, since women tend to weigh less than men, then men would pay more for their seats than women, and men would bear a share of the total flying cost that is disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

UPS also charges more depending on the size of the box, irrespective of weight. Ergo, height and width should be taken into account. Then they can just stack us in like cord wood.

[Santa_Claus]

Well, at least she is unlikely to get raped on the flight.

[Hermit]

I think all airlines should charge by the pound, just like UPS does. That's the best metric for the cost anyway, since pounds of cargo equates quite directly to pounds of fuel used in flight.

That would be discriminatory. Applying the "disparate impact" theory of discrimination, since women tend to weigh less than men, then men would pay more for their seats than women, and men would bear a share of the total flying cost that is disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

UPS also charges more depending on the size of the box, irrespective of weight. Ergo, height and width should be taken into account. Then they can just stack us in like cord wood.

Charging by weight is not discriminatory. Charging by volume is not discriminatory either. Transport companies have been doing both for decades, irrespective of the nature (or gender) of the freight they are moving.

[Santa_Claus]

Well, at least she is unlikely to get raped on the flight.

Unless she sits next to Seth

[Seth]

I think all airlines should charge by the pound, just like UPS does. That's the best metric for the cost anyway, since pounds of cargo equates quite directly to pounds of fuel used in flight.

That would be discriminatory. Applying the "disparate impact" theory of discrimination, since women tend to weigh less than men, then men would pay more for their seats than women, and men would bear a share of the total flying cost that is disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

The disparate impact theory of discrimination is a particularly weak and egregiously irrational theory. Charging someone based on physical characteristics such as size or weight is not discriminatory for reasons of protected class. People are not charged differently because they are black Pygmies or black Congolese or white dwarfs or Samoans or because they are women or men, they are classified according to weight and/or size. Black people come in all weights, as do white people, women, children and men.

So long as the reason for the classification is not based in a protected class status, it's not illegally discriminatory, any more than charging more for adult clothes than children's clothes or charging more for 2XL clothes than for Medium clothes causes a "disparate impact." Fat people eat more, but it's not discriminatory to charge them more for the amount of food they consume, nor is it discriminatory to charge children less because they eat less.

UPS also charges more depending on the size of the box, irrespective of weight. Ergo, height and width should be taken into account. Then they can just stack us in like cord wood.

The issue of seat width and row pitch is something the free market can and does handle quite nicely. You pay more for more leg room and seat width. If you want a cheap seat, you pay less for less room. Free market transaction. But basing the cost of the ticket on weight is perfectly appropriate and non-discriminatory because it's basing the cost of the ticket very directly on the cost of transporting the individual by air. Pounds of cargo versus pounds of fuel. The math is not all that difficult, as I recall.

[Feck]

I would be fucking pissed off If I had paid a massive surcharge for a few extra KGs of luggage to find I was sat next to that blimp !

[charlou]

Well, at least she is unlikely to get raped on the flight.

Unless she sits next to Seth

tehehehe

[Seth]

She is 20 stone, I don't care how much she has lost she is still huge. She may be able to shoehorn herself into a seat but what about the poor cunt who has to sit next to her when she spills over into the next one. Should they pay full price for half a seat?

They should refuse to sit next to her if the airline is not going to give them the space they are purchasing.

I'm 6'4" and weigh 250 pounds, and I face the airline seat dilemma all the time, which is why I hate to fly and I never, ever fly coach anymore.

On one particular trip I had to make a business trip back east with several connections on short notice. I know that for legroom purposes, I must have either an over-wing exit row seat, which both has slightly more leg room but more importantly the seats in the next row forward do not recline, or I must have a bulkhead seat or my knees simply won't fit on most aircraft. I told the booking agent the issue and specifically booked a bulkhead seat in coach on a 757 for the longest leg of the flight. When I got on the aircraft, I found that the bulkhead seats on the 757 have the tray table built into the armrest, rather than having a tray attached to the bulkhead as is the case in the 737 and many other aircraft. As a result, the seat itself is nearly three inches NARROWER than the standard 18 inch coach seat, and I quite literally could not get my ass into the seat. It was so narrow that my hip-bones prevented me from sitting down, so they had to put me in a regular seat in coach, where I ended up with my knees jammed against the seat in front so tightly that I had to put pillows between my kneecaps and the seat just to endure the pain. The guy in front couldn't recline his seat at all, and I couldn't lean back, and spent the entire flight with my head against the back of the seat in front.

It was the most miserable travel experience I've ever had, bar none, and I swore that I would never, ever fly coach again. If I can't afford to go first class, or at least business class, I'm not going. If it's domestic, I'll drive for four days before I'll book a flight, and if it's international, I'll take a cruise ship if I can't go first class.

And that's a perfectly reasonable free-market solution to the problem. If I want more comfort, I pay for it.