Overweight passengers having to purchase 2 seats, fair or not fair
 

Alot of discussion is going on about wether or not is fair that overweight passengers will now be forced to purchase 2 airline tickets.

I say hell yes its fair why should an overweight person make the other people suffer that have to sit next to them.

The company I work for has season tickets for the local semi-pro hockey team. There is a really obese guy that has season tickets right next to our seats. We have seats 1-4 and he has seats 5-6.
We can only seat three cause this guy sits in seat 5 and hangs over into seat 4 and 6. This guy should have to buy three seats cause noone can possibly sit on either side of him.

To my surprise the office where I work is split in half on wether or not its fair to make them purchase two tickets.

What do yall think?

I'm going with yes and no. Everyone has to pay the same price for tickets so everyone should deserve the same comfort. I am not fat but I am 6'8 and it is almost impossible for me to fit my legs between my seat and the row infront of me. I have to sit spread eagle to fit and it bothers the people next to me. People should not have to suffer for my height, but I should be entitled to the same comfort as other people. What it boils down to is... I think that they should give people more room, and less seating. Even normal people feel crowded.

I have to agree with this one. The seats are made for people that are about 5'6" and about 100 pounds. You can't even move without bumping the person next to you. All the stadiums think about it how many people they can squeeze in and how much money they can make off it.

I'm 6', 220lbs., with a 50" chest, and I have been (+/- 20 pounds) for the past 20 years. I fly an average of twice a year, cross country. I can tell you without any doubt at all that the seats, and the legroom, are shrinking. It's a much more snug fit than it used to be. My shoulders are always against the person next to me. Forget about trying to eat a "meal"! There is, for me, no elbow room at all. If they are going to reduce the seating area, then no, I don't think they should charge for 2 seats, but, if they were to restore the seating area to the way it was 15 years ago, then yes, I do. The way it was, a 300 pound person could fit in one seat. Now, it's snug for me.

Take care,
-Chris

BTW, I have been flying Delta for the better part of the past 10 years, except for my last trip to Florida in December. For that trip, I flew on United, and I must say, there was a very noticable difference in the size of the seating area! United was MUCH more comfortable! The seats were probably an inch or more wider, and there was several more inches between the rows. It reminded me of the way it used to be.

Take care,
-Chris

Fat airline passengers pay extra?
 

I think that first, airline seats are too small but since that factor probably won't change anytime soon I would say that forcing extra-heavy plane passengers to pay for two seats is probably a form of discrimination and not legally enforcable. They're singling out passengers with a weight problem and that sure smells of blatant discrimination although it also seems somewhat sensible from a business standpoint.

I've read that most airline customer service complaints are either about baggage handling (duh) and overcrowding due to overweight people slopping over the seats. This may be a reaction to those complaints but expect ACLU lawsuits in a minute or two.

One of the problems is equal treatment. The airlines don't charge tiny people less for a seat nor do they charge extra-tall people more for taking up more leg room so how can the airlines justify charging overweight people for an extra seat?

In any case, as airline seats aren't going to get much bigger and America has a bounty of obese people - who need to fly - I'll make a few suggestions to help cope with the problem for those who do much commercial flying.

1. Fly during off-peak times when flights are less full.

The odds of getting stuck next to an obese person or charged for an extra seat if you're obese are much less on off-peak flights.

2. Travel with someone.

If you're big, being seated next to a friend or family member means you can lift that armrest without being embarrassed or getting into a fight.

3. Move.

Remember, as soon as the cabin door closes, you can claim any available seat - or cluster of seats - within your class of service.

4. Fly first class. The seats are a lot bigger.

5. Ask for help.

In the past, gate agents used to upgrade tall or overweight passengers who needed more space. It still happens, but not as often.

Bottom line: Deal with it as best you can.

I'm also split on this issue...

If the seating area was a reasonable amount, and you're STILL too big, then you should have to pay for 2 seats. Let's face it, there's A LOT of really obese people in this country, and when it comes down to it, the cost of the flight comes down to weight and space. That's how airlines\transport companies price shipping for everything else.... how much weight you carry determines to some extent how much fuel you need and the package sizes may determine what kind of aircraft you can use, etc... etc...
Have you ever seen those boxes in which your carry-on has to fit before you can put it on the plane?
There's a reason for that....

The other side of the coin is this:
I'm a small guy, and sitting in coach is just about the most uncomfortable 2 hours I can think of. If I feel confined, I couldn't imagine how a regular to large (but not obese) person might feel.

If the seats were a bit bigger, I wouldn't have any opposition to the "mandatory purchase" rule...

You can also request a seat in an emergency exit row. They are wider to allow for passengers to walk through, should they have to use the emergency exit. The result is all kinds of leg room.

Take care,
-Chris

my answer is no. why should obese people pay more? like the others said, would a tiny person pay less? no. try to put yourself in their shoes and see how you would feel to be asked to pay for two seats cause you have a weight problem. that would make your day now wouldnt it? its total discrimination. i say let those multi million/billion airline industries that have been bending us over and sticking their high price plane fairs up our asz to redesign the old planes or design new ones for the obese or other impaired people in mind. i know it will cost alot of money to do something like that, but its not like they dont have the money. even after Sept. 11th, tickets went down in price, but they will go back up again anyways. it like saying asking gas companies to be more competitive in their gas prices! HA! just my two cents.....

The airlines do need to make more seating room but for the overly "big" person they should have a special section with less seats per row and charge a little more. Kind of like first class without all the extras... well maybe they could get extra big meals too. :rolleyes:

Absolutely. If they are taking up 2 seats of space, they should have to pay for two tickets. I don't understand the concerns here. Why should the majority have to pay for the minority? If the flight is booked and you have some 400lb beach ball next to you taking up his/her seat, and yours, what are you going to do?

Air freight companies charge by weight, this can simply be a surcharge. Is it discriminatory to charge more for a heavy package? LOL. If airlines flew a whole flight of 400lbers they'd be seriously heavy, and it would cost them more money.

If they're too weak to control their own eating habits, it's not my fault. I don't wanna pay for it, and they should be forced to purchase 1st class tickets where the room is sufficient.

Not only are they an annoyance, they are a danger. A 400lb person who's physically incapable of properly navagating an aircraft appropriately is a life threatening danger in the event of a crash. I'm sorry, I just don't go for all the politically correctness here.

Srv,
The last thing I would want to do is discriminate against someone, but you also have to see it from the company's point of view. If I were a stockholder and someone told me that I should support seats that would make 100% of the people who could possibly fly comfortable, put them all throughout coach, and not raise the ticket prices to astronomical levels, I would tell you to go blow it out your ear.

If I can make 90% of the people who fly "somewhat" comfortable in coach, and make the other 10% buy first class or other "special" accomodations, considering I might lose a certain percentage of customers, I might still make a decent profit and still have a high customer approval level. It's all about money man, and as long as we live in a free market economy, its not going to change.

I agree that coach seats are too small, but catering to what I feel is a small percentage of people (extremely obese) by making all seats much bigger is the wrong solution. Either make a small amount of "deluxe" seats in coach or, as is being looked at now, have them purchase 2 seats.

There's going to have to be a middle ground, and I'm sure they'll find it.... ;)

i agree on the second part. that is what i was trying to say. but again i do not stick up for big corporations nor do i invest in them(stocks). my preference of course. i see where you are coming from, but just think about it if you were obese. i think we(Americans) tend to care more about money (generally speaking!) than the quality of life. just how i see it. damn if you do, damn if you dont:confused:

Phat seats
 

Unit/Hammer:

You guys may be on to something here.

If the airlines charged passengers by their weight (per pound) it would be totally equitable. After all, they treat passengers like cattle anyway so why not use a standard non-discriminatory standard of charging for tickets and this way, they can cover any potential e:xtra expense of providing extra-large seating or any other special accomodation they may be forced to make in the future for overweight passengers.

I like it.

************************

srv1

Your comment: i say let those multi million/billion airline industries that have been bending us over and sticking their high price plane fairs up our asz...

Almost all the major airline passenger carriers have been bleeding money losses since 9/11. We're talking hundreds of millions in losses per quarter. They are looking for billion-dollar federal loan guarantees to survive. Some have already folded or merged.

Airlines are a business. They must make a profit to survive. Stockholders demand profits. The airlines are looking to cut costs wherever possible, naturally, that's the reason for the packed cabins we have to endure.

The whole debate over making obese people pay for a second seat is mostly based on selling more seats as well as the normal-sized passengers comfort, which rates a distant second with airline executives concerns.

I think paying by the pound is a splendid way to resolve the problem. Fat people pay their way without forcing normal sized folks to pay extra and with special 'phat seats' the problem is solved.

Mustang Works solves another national problem!

Next?

I am also split. On one hand, I wouldn't want to be crowded by a morbidly obese person sitting next to me. On the other hand, they have rights just like the rest of us. I see it this way, my son, who is multi-handicapable requires special accomodations when traveling. Why should I have to pay extra for those accomodations? If he needs extra room for his medical equipment, then we sit in the bulk head seats. If he needs oxygen while on the airliner, then they should provide that, since they will not (cannot) allow us to bring his tanks.

I think ADA will be all over this one with the airlines. Obesity is concidered a disability, and they will demand that airlines incorporate accessible seating.

Charging by weight may be fair because it would apply to everyone equally, but it really doesn't address the problem. The seats are a fixed size and fat people will still be spilling over. Replacing all of the individual seats with bench seats would make divvying up the space easier and could make the weight thing work. They'd have to make sure there are enough 02 masks and seatbelts for everyone in the bench, though. Another problem with going by weight, though, is that some people are more solid than others. A bodybuilder could fit easily in a seat but weigh quite a bit more than someone who is fat and spilling over.

This reminds me of a story that was overshadowed by Sept. 11. Do you guys remember how a woman died during a flight because the seating caused blood clots in her legs? Everyone was outraged and then, boom, Sept. 11.

Every seat should be designed to be comfortable for a 6 foot, male that weighs about 220 lbs.

Hmmm, This could become a whole different thread...

Before I start this, let me assure all of you that I'm not some heartless, ultra right wing crazy who worships the smell of money over the misfortunes of others, but in general I believe many Americans tend to mix up "rights" with "wants". I hear every day on the news that people should have the "right" to this and "right" to that when some of this stuff is just as moronic as a 16 year old telling his parents that he has a "right" to have a car and cell phone. (I've actually heard that before...)

There is a BIG difference between stanggirl's son who has a true disability (something not of his own making and cannot be corrected), and true, overt obesity. While there is truth in hereditary heavyness, the worst cases are almost ALWAYS self made. In these cases, the issue was self-made and CAN be corrected. These cases should not be considered a disability. What's the difference between me paying for someone's larger "phat" seat and paying for the extra food they need to satisfy their increased appetite? While this is a bit of a stretch, the principle is the same....

While I do feel sorry for many of these folks, paying for them in respects of tax-paid reserve parking spots, motor scooters, counseling, health bills, and what some might want... higher plane fares to accomodate the excessively obese is just plain wrong. As I said before, there is a difference between a true disability and something that can be corrected (or at least reduced) with some effort.

As far as the "rights" issues I stated above, last time I checked, there was no "right" to a comfortable airline seat, or even the "right" to fly at all.... There is no "right" to own or ride in a privately owned vehicle (whether owned by a person or company). Public transportation, since it is government funded and essentially "owned" by all Americans is an exception and should have provisions for most (if not all) citizens.

We do not live in a true free market economy. Although it is close, a true free market economy would not be forced to provide handicapped parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, speed bumps... etc... etc. (Please realize that I'm not advocating this...)
The businesses would live and die by their clientel.... You can bet some businesses would build wheelchair access without being made to do it to get the business of the handicapped.
You can also go the other extreme of funding EVERYTHING for EVERYONE..... ask the Canadians how much they love their taxes and health care system.

A middle ground is what is called for, and I think we've done quite well...

Let me remind all of you that there used to be a "option" to deny service.... businesses can still exercise that option, but you can bet your butt they'll get slapped with a lawsuit if a bum walks into a restaurant with no shoes, no shirt, torn, rancid pants and gets thrown out, they'll be accused of "discrimination" against the "economically challenged".

My point is simply this:
If you're overtly obese and you want a bigger door on your house you pay for it...
You want a bigger car so can comfortably drive?
You pay for it...
You have a larger appetite?
You pay for it...

You need a bigger seat on an airplane?
YOU PAY FOR IT

I absolutely 100% agree with Hammer on this. I think that if you are big enough to take 2 seats then, you pay for 2 seats. I also agree that those seats are too damn small but at the low fares they charge, I can sit uncomfortablely for a few hours. The airlines were in trouble way before 9/11, 9/11 just brought it to a head.

My thoughts, if you need anything 'special' to ride you need to get first class. You get benefits from having a disability, this is what those benefits are for.. Believe me, I know that at anytime I may be disabled and I will get benefits that the working people pay for and I don't think I should inconvinence those people with my disability. I think the weight/space issue is a great idea and I'm sure the airlines will catch on if they haven't already.

Folks, keep bleeding the airlines and you will no longer have the option to fly.

I'd also like to add this thought... Flying is a luxury.

Perfect!

Take care,
-Chris

I have the exact same opion as WADS on the fact that it's fair, but then again it's not. Less seating, more room is the only solution that I think will solve the issue, but of course that probably won't happen due to money issues.

This isn't entirely true. I have to pay full fare for 30 and 60 pound children. You aren't paying by weight, you are paying for the seat. I'm a small person (little bigger after kids LOL) and at one time I was traveling to Chicago quite a bit. I am 5'2" and at the time weighed around 100-104 pounds. The seats were uncomfortable for me, so I can only imagine how a large person must feel when trying to squeeze into the tiny space.

It's time for airlines to change their seating. People in America have progressively gotten larger over the past few decades in both height and weight. Some airlines have already done this, some have not.

Perhaps because of the battles I've fought for accessibility in other areas for my son, I can empathize with these individuals that are being told they are too fat, and must purchase more than one ticket. Hammer stated that "While there is truth in hereditary heavyness, the worst cases are almost ALWAYS self made. In these cases, the issue was self-made and CAN be corrected." This is half true. Morbid obesity is most often caused by medical conditions. You simply cannot look at an overwieght person and judge if this person is fat because of laziness, or fat because of uncontrollable medical issues. The airlines are not talking about generally overweight passengers. They are refering to the morbidly obese (BMI over 40) and this is considered a disability weither you want it to be or not.

The only people that would call obesity a disability/handicap are liberals. You can choose wether or not to be fat, Christopher Reeves cant choose wether or not to be shackled to a wheelchair.

I knew that Mr 5.0 and UNIT would agree with me, that was a given.

I had the pleasure of sitting by a really fat stank @ss women when I flew from Phoenix to Burbank. It was Gross no matter how close to the window I got she was all over me, I made the mistake of reclining my seat, even more of her poored into my chair.

Obese people dont fit in carnival rides, So they dont go to carnivals and try to ride the rides. "See my point"

Later,

Is it wrong to charge overweight people more? Maybe so but I don't really care; it is defiantly not right to charge me the same price for half a seat as someone taking up 1 1/2. Why should the people that don't have a weight problem have to give up half their seat and end up being the one to suffer? I say charge them more or charge us less.

Exactly! The question I pose is that just because its hard to tell the difference, we should pay everyone's way?
I'm sorry, but without good evidence, your not going to convince me that a huge percentage of the morbidly obese are that way because of legitimate medical issues.

If I cut my arm off because my cult believed that an evil spirit lived in it, should you pay for my hospital bill, special car, or counseling?
Doesn't matter, I'm disabled right?

Its funny that we're speaking of this, as I just watched one of those news reports of fraudulant disability claims. It's sad because the money that could be helping folks with REALLY bad problems is going to some of these frauds...

Also, generally speaking, you can make anything a disability if you expand the definition enough. Some say diabetes is a disability. (I have a good friend stricken with this illness) Should we be forced to pay for his insulin if he can pay for it himself or make airlines provide blood monitors? I don't want to seem like I'm going too far with this, but although my points may be a bit extreme, they are generally the same issue.

We all have to put up and pay for things that we are born with or things that have happened to us, and I have no problems helping those who REALLY need help in this world. But there is a line we all must draw in our own minds. When does the "needs" of one infringe on the "rights" of another? How do you define what a "right" is? Things that may be morally correct don't necessarily become the "rights" of a disenfranchised individual.

Its a blurry line that we all must determine for ourselves.

Six Pages.

I predict this thread is going to go six pages.

Take care,
-Chris

Phat and fairness
 

O.K., I was kidding about airlines charging by the pound. I assumed that was apparent but, maybe not. It would be insulting and unacceptable to most folks, guaranteed. That's why I didn't mean for the suggestion to be taken at face value.

The obvious fair solution is to simply charge the obese person for two seats but as I stated in my first post on the subject, that can open the airlines up to the usual discrimination lawsuits, something they can ill afford right now.

What to do?

Realistically, make the seats bigger (as they once were). Barring that sensible approach (which would cut down on the amount of passengers that would fit into the plane) I don't see any other recourse other than to add the extra charge for another seat when an obese person cannot fit into the regular seat.

The whole ADA disability thing is a nightmare. Drug addicts are considered disabled! People who willingly ingest addiction-causing illegal drugs can get SSI, special treatment and even housing paid for by taxes. Outrageous, isn't it?

No one wants to deny help to the truly disabled and I know a few folks who get such help and need it. No problem. I'm glad to see a few of my tax dollars go to those who can't do for themselves because of something they were born with or otherwise had no hand in causing.

It's the people who become obese, drug-addicted or otherwise handicapped by their own actions that get most of us angry at a system that rewards foolish and destructive behavior, like overeating. The airline charging for two seats for the obese simply brings the issue out in the open.

I predict the airlines will win this one because it's not unreasonable and they have had the policy in place for some time but didn't advertise it. Yes, I know some overweight folks will be embarrassed and inconvenienced but as has been mentioned, flying on a commercial airline is not a constitutional right, it's a luxury. You can always drive, take a bus, train or a ship if necessary.

The problem we face today in our society is that no one wants to be held accountable for their actions in life. No matter how stupid or destructive the behavior, the taxpayers (also known as 'The Government') are expected to help pay for it in some form and the rest of us are supposed to excuse it, accomodate it and deal with it and never, never point out that it isn't our problem, they caused it themselves. No, that, you see, would be insensitive and judgemental.

This kind of liberal-directed-and-nutured nonsense is just a small part of the reason I'm a political conservative. I can think and use common sense and I know I'm not alone here by a long shot.

If their excess meat hangs over into another seat, then heck yes they should have to buy two or ride in the cargo section.........:confused:

Personally, I think the simplist and most cost effective solution would be to provide accessible seating for the morbidly obese. Perhaps a few rows of seats that instead of having three across, there are two larger seats. The airlines could certainly charge slightly more for these accomodations as they do for other accomodations for people with disablities (they charge out the @$$ for in flight oxygen) to counter their initial costs of replacing the seating. They wouldn't have to replace all seating, and they could have a restriction on the number of obese patrons to match the seating available.

I agree that it is not a "right" to fly, and that "wants" are often confused for "rights" but I also think that unless you have personally lived with a disabliity, you have no idea how difficult daily life is for these people. I certainly had no idea until I had my son, and expirenced first hand the struggle of living with a disablity. I see the world thru my sons eyes now, and have more compassion for those that struggle with daily life activities. Let me pose this situation to you. Is it a right or want for a child to play? What if it's a city playground? Does every child have the right to play? Or just able-bodied children? Does anyone have the right to demand that the city bring the park in compliance with ADA regulations and create an accessible park for ALL children? Or should everyone just look away because the majority of children are not disabled, so it's just a waste of money?

5.0 and Hammer, you guys are right, anything can be made to fit into the disablity catagory, and that is not right. The fact that drug addicts can collect SSI and other governments benefits absolutely enrages me, despite the fact that it is a mental illness. I've fought to just get basic medical help when no insurance company would give my son medical insurance. I certainly could not afford the $45,000 a month it was costing to keep him alive at one time. Was it fair to get government assistance (tax payers money) to keep him alive? Probably not, but he is my son, and I couldn't just watch him die because I didn't want him to be a burden on society. Fortunantely, his medical bills are far less now, and he has private medical insurance. Now I have to fight the school system for his right to education under IDEA (individuals with disabilities act)

Back to the airlines.....there is no way to make everyone happy. Tall people will still be cramped, orthopedically impaired people will still have difficulty navigating thru the narrow isles, and intolerant people will still have to deal with crying children. Let's face it, if your not flying 1st class, your flight may be miserable.

2000stanggirl-

Damn.

I'm sorry, I haven't introduced myself, my name is Chris.

You are a hell of a woman.

Hang in there!

Damn.

Take care,
-Chris

LOL, Hi Chris. My name is Jayna....don't think I've ever mentioned that to anyone here......no one has asked :D

I'm only strong because I have to be for my son. I am his voice for now, and if I don't fight for him, no one else will. Perhaps I am a little too passionate about disability rights....but someone has to fight for these people that cannot help themselves.

Someday, if anyone is interested, I will tell my son's entire story. It's a long and hard one, so I don't tend to go into great detail until asked. He may only be 4 1/2 years old, but he is the strongest human being I've ever known, and he is my hero, and I love to talk about him.....if you couldn't tell. :D

Attached is a picture of my hero when he was a month old.

i couldnt say it any beter.....;)

ADA use and misuse
 

2000stanggirl:

Jayna, I can certainly sympathize with your son's plight and your battles to make his life bearable and as comfortable as possible. You guys are fighting the good fight together and are to be commended.

When one is confronted with a child's disability of course you will fight for him, as I or any other parent would. Understood.

In my opinion the ADA law is fine until it's misused, as it has been. That doesn't make it a bad law, just a misused law. That should be changed.

As for making playgrounds and such conform, if it's physically possible to do this it should be done. It usually is and not many object. I certainly do not. Sometimes extreme measures are demanded to accomodate certain individuals with handicaps and those have to sometimes be compromised and dealt with one-on-one.

ADA has good intentions but like all well-meaning but sweeping new laws, it can have unintended consequences such as supporting and protecting drug addicts and such, eating up precious resources that could be used elsewhere for people who are truly disabled and need immediate help.

The mis-application of the ADA law is regrettable and I predict that if abuses continue it will be changed when we once again have a Republican House and Senate following the November elections.

:)

you should have rolled down your window!

Jayna-
I would love to hear the story about your son, and what you/he's been through. I really am very impressed. I worked in nursing for two years and x-ray for two years when I was working at St. Johns Regional Med. Center, from 1990 - 1994. I have a lot of respect for people like you. If you don't want to get into it here, feel free to email me.

pkrwuds@pacbell.net

Take care,
-Chris

Well Said Jayna!!!!
As you know my son is disabled too. The road is hard but it has to be travelled and we're stronger for it.
C-ya, Melisa

I come from a family where my father and mother are both overweight. This is something they have fought both of their lives. Neither one has ever been "average" size, and it didn't come from being lazy or eating wrong. They don't "pour" into other seats.

Neither one of them fly, but if they did, it would probably be pretty embarrassing for them to have to pay for two seats. But how does the airlines draw the line where a person has to buy two seats? I think that they wouldn't agree with this rule, and I don't either.

As expensive as it is to fly, I think the airlines should just provide extra seating which is more comfortable. Hell, should the guy that is too tall have to pay for the seat in front of him because his knee is poking the other guy in the back? Hell no.

If the airline companys wern't so greedy, they would accomodate people with an obesity problem, as well as any other disability.

Obesity a disability? Maybe..in fact...yes.

Drug addiction a disabilty? HELL NO.

Most people are out for the "What's best for me is the only way." Those people need to get their head out of their *** and realize there are different types and kinds of people in this world, and there is no excuse for prejudicity(if thats a word.)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with almost everything said here.

I wasn't talking about charging via poundage. That doesn't exactly make a lot of sense, since anybody from say 0-250lbs will be able to squeeze into a single seat. I'm talking about an additional surcharge. It would allow the airlines to place a certain number of enlarged seats in coach, and force anybody who doesn't fit into a normal seat to pay a surcharge. If that were to fill up, they could have the option of a first class ticket, or two seats, or the next flight.

Being fat is not a disability in my opinion. Not in any way shape or form. Battling with being overweight, lol. Uh-huh. What a battle. Don't eat the ding dong. Drug abuse a disability? Nope. These examples are lifestyle choices. You choose to eat too much or not to exercise. You choose to take drugs, other than medical prescription abuse, which should be paid for by the appropriate party.

I don't know where I ever said to deny access to the public airlines? I just said it needs to have fair access.

People in this thread seem to think the airlines make money???? Wake up and smell the coffee, it's been brewing all morning. The airlines have never been very profitable. I know how all big business is evil (most of them pay for your jobs, and your standard of living). Why should big businesses, which generally make MUCH less than a smaller business per unit sold, have to foot the bill? It certainly would be great if the airlines increased seat size wouldn't it? Maybe the folks in here would like to pay 20% more for airfare? There is a profitability model to follow. The airlines must follow it or they'll fold. Many already have, and I'm dumbfounded when they attempt to secure money and start back up in an industry that has proven to be unprofitable.

The bleeding heart syndrome in this country is destroying OUR standard of living. The increase in the cost of living and taxes can be directly traced back to uncontrolled government spending and the US citizen's undying desire to right any wrong, and help everybody. I'm not saying it's bad to be generous. I think people in the US are good people, for the most part. What I am saying is we need to budget ourselves and control our spending. Not give till it hurts, and then criticize when businesses don't do the same, and instead seek reasonable profits. That's what our system is founded on. Profit. Supply and demand. This unceasing desire to make everything bad in the world somehow personal needs to end. It's not personal, and you don't need to feel as though you owe another person for them making a mistake or consciously making life difficult on themselves.

Jayna, please don't take my sentiments in the above post to somehow include your son. He didn't choose his condition. It just happened. :( I don't have the wisdom to properly analyze right and wrong in your situation. All I can do is hope somehow the technology, and the skills of people can learn how to heal the wrongs that are inflicted upon innocent people by life.

This is obviously going to be one of those topics where we will have to agree to disagree....

I'm pretty short, and its kind of embarassing to have someone else help a grown man get an item from a high shelf.
I guess the taxpayers should buy me some stilts...

I agree that coach seating is too small, but as far as prices go, I can't remember them being as reasonable as they are right now...

Oh yes... the EVIL, GREEDY companies...
The same companies that have created the largest economy and wealthiest nation in the world. The same companies that provide jobs to Americans throughout the 50 states. The same companies that provide the best standard of living in the world....
Its just terrifying...:rolleyes:

Should obesity be a disability under certain conditions? Yes
Should it be a disability under ALL conditions? No


I want to help those in need as much as the next guy. In fact, I make it a point to give what I can to several Veteran's assistance programs every year... But in this case, for every person you know that has a legitimate weight problem not of their control, I can name one that has never seen a gym.
Like I asked before, where do you draw the line?
and how much do you want to pay?

Also, I just noticed something.... I'm agreeing with Unit again!!
I must be in some alternate universe or something... ;)

Another voice in the wilderness is heard
 

Unit:

When I saw the opening line to your last post:

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with almost everything said here.

you really had me worried there for a moment; I thought you were about to come out against capitalism and common sense. Fortunately, you did the opposite and of course, I agree with your analysis. We can't 'fix' every human problem nor should be trying too. Compassion in this country is too often measured in how much 'the government' spends on any one problem - which simply translates to how much tax money are we going to use to attempt to 'fix' this specific situation for some group?

Republican and capitalist that I am I concede that a moral and affluent society has some obligation to help it's less fortunate members but not to attempt to 'fix' every problem - real or imagined - 100% and not to aid those who make their own problem.

Over half the adults in the U.S. are overweight. Who's fault is that? If that unhappy statistic applies to you, look in the mirror for the answer.

I believe that if you took most grossly overweight people, were able to confine them and feed them a sustenance diet for three months, they would lose noticable amounts of weight. It's happened. Sure there are exceptions and 'medical' reasons for obesity but those are rare. Mostly, it's mental. I've known one or two people who were 100 + pounds overweight and lost it all and never gained it back. One is a top marathon runner and in fantastic shape. It can be done - if you want to.

I'm willing to help people like Jayna's son (when his family is financially unable to do so) but not the wino who expects a SSI payment each month or the obese person who has chosen to eat themselves into a state where their great weight makes them unable to function normally anymore and they expect taxpayers to pay for their 'special needs'. Sorry. That's not compassion, that's license, enabling and even rewarding unhealthy, medically dangerous behavior and a rip-off of hardworking taxpayers already wasted dollars.

I hope the airlines win this 'seat' fight. They should.

Obviously they are not going to redo the seats in the planes. They havent even reinforced the cockpit doors on alot of planes yet (South west airlines)........

2000Stang Girl I agree with Chris you are one hell of a women. I read your other post and you son is one hell of a fighter. If I had to sit by your son on a plane, I would be in good company:) .

Later,