Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:29 am
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
> Only among idiots who consider "anorexic" a desireable
> body-type - unles she's FAR "under" 5'10".
Even at 5'10", 279 lbs is dangerously obese.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Only among idiots who consider "anorexic" a desireable
> body-type - unles she's FAR "under" 5'10".
Even at 5'10", 279 lbs is dangerously obese.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:30 am
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
> Interesting! Thirty years ago, 250 lbs. was considered
> "normal" for a man of six feet - much less than that, and he
> was called "skinny".
It was no more normal in 1975 than it is today.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Interesting! Thirty years ago, 250 lbs. was considered
> "normal" for a man of six feet - much less than that, and he
> was called "skinny".
It was no more normal in 1975 than it is today.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:31 am
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lost luggage & Carry-ons
"Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:54:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Service Tech"
<[email protected]>
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... The easist way to loose luggage is to get a tight connection. If you
have
> ... to run for the next plane, you can be sure that your luggage won't
make it.
> ... I never accept any connection that is less than one hour.
> When I went from Paris to Lisbon there wasn't a connection - my luggage
went to Madrid all
> the same.
Sounds like you should be charging the Airline for some replacement items.
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:54:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Service Tech"
<[email protected]>
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... The easist way to loose luggage is to get a tight connection. If you
have
> ... to run for the next plane, you can be sure that your luggage won't
make it.
> ... I never accept any connection that is less than one hour.
> When I went from Paris to Lisbon there wasn't a connection - my luggage
went to Madrid all
> the same.
Sounds like you should be charging the Airline for some replacement items.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:32 am
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
> Clearly you have never had a "weight problem", Mixxy!
Oh, but I have. I've just never made excuses for overeating.
> Those of us who have one know how difficult it is to
> maintain our "ideal" weight.
Eat less and exercise more.
> I'm not "obese" (although I
> could probably stand to lose another pound or two), but
> controlling that weight requires constant vigilance. (One
> trip to Europe, eating what is considered a "normal" diet
> there, means a month of dieting when I return home.)
Then why aren't Europeans obese?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Clearly you have never had a "weight problem", Mixxy!
Oh, but I have. I've just never made excuses for overeating.
> Those of us who have one know how difficult it is to
> maintain our "ideal" weight.
Eat less and exercise more.
> I'm not "obese" (although I
> could probably stand to lose another pound or two), but
> controlling that weight requires constant vigilance. (One
> trip to Europe, eating what is considered a "normal" diet
> there, means a month of dieting when I return home.)
Then why aren't Europeans obese?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:41 am
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
"PaPaPeng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:10:41 -0600, Amber Gibson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >PaPaPeng wrote:
> >
> >> No one wants to be overweight. If they are they should not be
> >> punished for being so.
> >
> >
> >instead, let's punish the person squashed into the seat next to them,
> >dealing with the overflow of fatass into their space?
> >Sux to be the person dealing with it, but if you're taking up two seats,
> >you have to pay for them. You always have the option to lose weight or
> >not fly. Or first class, where the seats are bigger.
> Isn't it an obvious obvious solution that airlines should be mandated
> to have wider seats. Its a lot easier to install wider seats than to
> expect a large section of the population to squeeze down to fit "baby"
> seats. Furthermore a wider seat for you will certainly be more
> comfortable as well as avoid having the co-passenger intrude into your
> space.
The Cost of new seats. Wider seats would mean that of every 2 wide seats
installed, the third is eliminated. 2 seats per row X number of rows. Who
is going to pay for this??
Perhaps one solution will be for the FAA to madate that all
> airplanes should have 20% of their economy class be wide seated for
> heavy passengers and see how that works out.
Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you can
get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:10:41 -0600, Amber Gibson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >PaPaPeng wrote:
> >
> >> No one wants to be overweight. If they are they should not be
> >> punished for being so.
> >
> >
> >instead, let's punish the person squashed into the seat next to them,
> >dealing with the overflow of fatass into their space?
> >Sux to be the person dealing with it, but if you're taking up two seats,
> >you have to pay for them. You always have the option to lose weight or
> >not fly. Or first class, where the seats are bigger.
> Isn't it an obvious obvious solution that airlines should be mandated
> to have wider seats. Its a lot easier to install wider seats than to
> expect a large section of the population to squeeze down to fit "baby"
> seats. Furthermore a wider seat for you will certainly be more
> comfortable as well as avoid having the co-passenger intrude into your
> space.
The Cost of new seats. Wider seats would mean that of every 2 wide seats
installed, the third is eliminated. 2 seats per row X number of rows. Who
is going to pay for this??
Perhaps one solution will be for the FAA to madate that all
> airplanes should have 20% of their economy class be wide seated for
> heavy passengers and see how that works out.
Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you can
get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:50 am
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
PaPaPeng <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amber Gibson <[email protected]> wrote
>> PaPaPeng wrote
>>> No one wants to be overweight. If they
>>> are they should not be punished for being so.
Pathetic, really.
>> instead, let's punish the person squashed into the seat next
>> to them, dealing with the overflow of fatass into their space?
>> Sux to be the person dealing with it, but if you're taking up two
>> seats, you have to pay for them. You always have the option
>> to lose weight or not fly. Or first class, where the seats are bigger.
> Isn't it an obvious obvious solution that airlines
> should be mandated to have wider seats.
Nope, have a look at the number of airlines going bust, stupid.
Makes a lot more sense to charge the hippos for two seats.
> Its a lot easier to install wider seats than to expect a large
> section of the population to squeeze down to fit "baby" seats.
Wota terminal ****wit. There are no 'baby' seats.
> Furthermore a wider seat for you will certainly be more comfortable
> as well as avoid having the co-passenger intrude into your space.
If you want one, you're welcome to pay for one in first class, stupid.
> You are carrying this idea of airlines should be able to impose operational
> economies regardless of their customers' comfort and health.
Wota terminal ****wit. They charge the
hippos for the use of the two seats, ****wit.
> If flying for heavier people were less of a hassle more of them
> would fly and therefore improve passenger load economies.
Wota terminal ****wit.
Isnt going make up for the reduced number
of paying passengers with wider seats, fool.
> As for extra fuel burnt because of the extra weight the airlines don't seem
> too concerned that many passgeners max out their check-in luggage.
Wota terminal ****wit.
> Perhaps one solution will be for the FAA to madate that all
> airplanes should have 20% of their economy class be wide
> seated for heavy passengers and see how that works out.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to continue with the
current approach, charge the hippos for two seats.
> Airlines must by law accommodate disabled persons and
> overweight people are certainly treated as if they have a disability.
Wota terminal ****wit.
news:[email protected]...
> Amber Gibson <[email protected]> wrote
>> PaPaPeng wrote
>>> No one wants to be overweight. If they
>>> are they should not be punished for being so.
Pathetic, really.
>> instead, let's punish the person squashed into the seat next
>> to them, dealing with the overflow of fatass into their space?
>> Sux to be the person dealing with it, but if you're taking up two
>> seats, you have to pay for them. You always have the option
>> to lose weight or not fly. Or first class, where the seats are bigger.
> Isn't it an obvious obvious solution that airlines
> should be mandated to have wider seats.
Nope, have a look at the number of airlines going bust, stupid.
Makes a lot more sense to charge the hippos for two seats.
> Its a lot easier to install wider seats than to expect a large
> section of the population to squeeze down to fit "baby" seats.
Wota terminal ****wit. There are no 'baby' seats.
> Furthermore a wider seat for you will certainly be more comfortable
> as well as avoid having the co-passenger intrude into your space.
If you want one, you're welcome to pay for one in first class, stupid.
> You are carrying this idea of airlines should be able to impose operational
> economies regardless of their customers' comfort and health.
Wota terminal ****wit. They charge the
hippos for the use of the two seats, ****wit.
> If flying for heavier people were less of a hassle more of them
> would fly and therefore improve passenger load economies.
Wota terminal ****wit.
Isnt going make up for the reduced number
of paying passengers with wider seats, fool.
> As for extra fuel burnt because of the extra weight the airlines don't seem
> too concerned that many passgeners max out their check-in luggage.
Wota terminal ****wit.
> Perhaps one solution will be for the FAA to madate that all
> airplanes should have 20% of their economy class be wide
> seated for heavy passengers and see how that works out.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to continue with the
current approach, charge the hippos for two seats.
> Airlines must by law accommodate disabled persons and
> overweight people are certainly treated as if they have a disability.
Wota terminal ****wit.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:50 am
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
PaPaPeng writes:
> Isn't it an obvious obvious solution that airlines should be mandated
> to have wider seats.
No. Wider seats means fewer seats, and less revenue.
> Its a lot easier to install wider seats than to
> expect a large section of the population to squeeze down to fit "baby"
> seats.
Most people fit into normal seats without trouble, even the plump among
them. Only the whales have a problem.
> You are carrying this idea of airlines should be able to
> impose operational economies regardless of their customers' comfort
> and health.
Customers who don't like it aren't obligated to fly on those airlines.
Experience has shown, though, that all customers really care about is
the cost of the ticket, the punctuality of the flights, and the safety
of the flights. They complain about other things, but the other things
don't influence their purchasing.
> If flying for heavier people were less of a hassle more
> of them would fly and therefore improve passenger load economies.
If more of them flew, it would throw off the load factors used to
calculate fuel requirements. At one time, passengers were individually
weighed as they boarded, but now averages are used--but a preponderance
of fat passengers would make the averages inaccurate, and dangerous.
> As for extra fuel burnt because of the extra weight the airlines don't
> seem too concerned that many passgeners max out their check-in
> luggage.
The luggage is weighed, and fuel adjusted accordingly.
It's not so much a matter of burning more fuel as of calculating how
much fuel should be loaded.
> Perhaps one solution will be for the FAA to madate that all
> airplanes should have 20% of their economy class be wide seated for
> heavy passengers and see how that works out.
The trend should be towards improvements in public health, not
deterioration of public health. It took long enough to get rid of
cigarettes ... now you want to encourage new risks?
Fat people are difficult to evacuate, and they get in the way of thin
people.
> Airlines must by law accommodate disabled persons and overweight
> people are certainly treated as if they have a disability.
They have a disability by choice. They can eliminate the disability if
they wish.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Isn't it an obvious obvious solution that airlines should be mandated
> to have wider seats.
No. Wider seats means fewer seats, and less revenue.
> Its a lot easier to install wider seats than to
> expect a large section of the population to squeeze down to fit "baby"
> seats.
Most people fit into normal seats without trouble, even the plump among
them. Only the whales have a problem.
> You are carrying this idea of airlines should be able to
> impose operational economies regardless of their customers' comfort
> and health.
Customers who don't like it aren't obligated to fly on those airlines.
Experience has shown, though, that all customers really care about is
the cost of the ticket, the punctuality of the flights, and the safety
of the flights. They complain about other things, but the other things
don't influence their purchasing.
> If flying for heavier people were less of a hassle more
> of them would fly and therefore improve passenger load economies.
If more of them flew, it would throw off the load factors used to
calculate fuel requirements. At one time, passengers were individually
weighed as they boarded, but now averages are used--but a preponderance
of fat passengers would make the averages inaccurate, and dangerous.
> As for extra fuel burnt because of the extra weight the airlines don't
> seem too concerned that many passgeners max out their check-in
> luggage.
The luggage is weighed, and fuel adjusted accordingly.
It's not so much a matter of burning more fuel as of calculating how
much fuel should be loaded.
> Perhaps one solution will be for the FAA to madate that all
> airplanes should have 20% of their economy class be wide seated for
> heavy passengers and see how that works out.
The trend should be towards improvements in public health, not
deterioration of public health. It took long enough to get rid of
cigarettes ... now you want to encourage new risks?
Fat people are difficult to evacuate, and they get in the way of thin
people.
> Airlines must by law accommodate disabled persons and overweight
> people are certainly treated as if they have a disability.
They have a disability by choice. They can eliminate the disability if
they wish.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 13th 2005 | 9:51 am
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
Service Tech writes:
> Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you can
> get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
Why not fly fat people as cargo? Very large objects can be accommodated
that way.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you can
> get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
Why not fly fat people as cargo? Very large objects can be accommodated
that way.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:04 am
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
Rod Speed wrote:
> Joan McGalliard <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1gtdjxs.1b52uvq1cqpow8N%jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au...
> > Catharine <[email protected]> wrote
> >> Southwest's policy is to charge for an extra
> >> seat only if the plane is full, Stewart said.
> > This doesn't make sense.
> Corse it does. If the plane is full, they could have sold the
> extra seat the lard arse occupys as well as the one it bought.
> > If the plane was full, what magical seat was she supposed to pay for?
> You blonde ?
She would appear to be too smart to be blond, but maybe you qualify. I have
to agree that it makes no sense to charge extra for the extra space taken
only if the plane is full because that means that the person paying extra
is not getting any extra space. I can see charging someone for two seats
if they need two seats and if they get two seats. Of course, I would
prefer to see North American airline's having seats large enough and spaced
far enough apart to accommodate the average person comfortably. The
problem is that even average sized people find the seating cramped.
> Joan McGalliard <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1gtdjxs.1b52uvq1cqpow8N%jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au...
> > Catharine <[email protected]> wrote
> >> Southwest's policy is to charge for an extra
> >> seat only if the plane is full, Stewart said.
> > This doesn't make sense.
> Corse it does. If the plane is full, they could have sold the
> extra seat the lard arse occupys as well as the one it bought.
> > If the plane was full, what magical seat was she supposed to pay for?
> You blonde ?
She would appear to be too smart to be blond, but maybe you qualify. I have
to agree that it makes no sense to charge extra for the extra space taken
only if the plane is full because that means that the person paying extra
is not getting any extra space. I can see charging someone for two seats
if they need two seats and if they get two seats. Of course, I would
prefer to see North American airline's having seats large enough and spaced
far enough apart to accommodate the average person comfortably. The
problem is that even average sized people find the seating cramped.
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:05 am
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lost luggage & Carry-ons
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:31:35 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Service Tech" <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... > When I went from Paris to Lisbon there wasn't a connection - my luggage
... went to Madrid all
... > the same.
... >
... Sounds like you should be charging the Airline for some replacement items.
Yeah, fat chance of their reimbursing me the toiletries I had to buy...
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... > When I went from Paris to Lisbon there wasn't a connection - my luggage
... went to Madrid all
... > the same.
... >
... Sounds like you should be charging the Airline for some replacement items.
Yeah, fat chance of their reimbursing me the toiletries I had to buy...
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:05 am
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Service Tech writes:
> > Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you
can
> > get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
> Why not fly fat people as cargo? Very large objects can be accommodated
> that way.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
That's not his idea. He wants the seats to be expanded proportional to the
expansion of the asses. (Area of seat + the angle of the dangle = the mass
of the ass.) But must *not* affect price.
news:[email protected]...
> Service Tech writes:
> > Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you
can
> > get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
> Why not fly fat people as cargo? Very large objects can be accommodated
> that way.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
That's not his idea. He wants the seats to be expanded proportional to the
expansion of the asses. (Area of seat + the angle of the dangle = the mass
of the ass.) But must *not* affect price.
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:07 am
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Kenny wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, George Max <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Mar 2005 04:12:21 -0000, Catharine <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
>>>>By Ken Dermota
>>>>Thompson is one of four overweight persons who sued Southwest Airlines over
>>>>its policy of asking passengers who cannot fit into a seat to pay for a
>>>>second one.
>>>>"I am overweight, but I'm not obese," said Thompson, 127kg.
>>>>She runs a cosmetics business in Exeter, New Hampshire.
>>>A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She's in denial.
>>>I'm sure she's a nice person otherwise - but still enormous.
>>
>>
>> If she is 5' 10" or under, she is MORBIDLY obese.
>Only among idiots who consider "anorexic" a desireable body-type - unles
>she's FAR "under" 5'10".
At 5' 10", her BMI is 40. That is the clinical defintion of morbid
obesity, you stupid twat. You must be extremely fat and shunned by men.
wrote:
>Kenny wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, George Max <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Mar 2005 04:12:21 -0000, Catharine <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
>>>>By Ken Dermota
>>>>Thompson is one of four overweight persons who sued Southwest Airlines over
>>>>its policy of asking passengers who cannot fit into a seat to pay for a
>>>>second one.
>>>>"I am overweight, but I'm not obese," said Thompson, 127kg.
>>>>She runs a cosmetics business in Exeter, New Hampshire.
>>>A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She's in denial.
>>>I'm sure she's a nice person otherwise - but still enormous.
>>
>>
>> If she is 5' 10" or under, she is MORBIDLY obese.
>Only among idiots who consider "anorexic" a desireable body-type - unles
>she's FAR "under" 5'10".
At 5' 10", her BMI is 40. That is the clinical defintion of morbid
obesity, you stupid twat. You must be extremely fat and shunned by men.
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:09 am
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
[email protected] wrote:
> Fat people are a terrible drain on the earth's resources. They require more jet
> fuel too.
Skinny people making unnecessary trips are also draining resources. Rich people
consume more and waste more than poor people.
> Fat people are a terrible drain on the earth's resources. They require more jet
> fuel too.
Skinny people making unnecessary trips are also draining resources. Rich people
consume more and waste more than poor people.
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:17 am
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:17:04 +0100, Magda <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 13 Mar 2005 15:29:57 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "larry" <[email protected]>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ...
> ... ">
> ... > Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they
> ... > pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound.
> ... >
> ... >> No one wants to be overweight.
> ...
> ... I think your ticket price should be a multiple of your weight plus any
> ... baggage you may have brought...When I ship a 5 pound item through the mail
> ... it costs less than a 50 pound item...
>I like the idea. If anything, it will be an incentive to lose weight.
If we are going to target fatties, fine, but shouldn't there be an
exemption for people who are heavy due to muscles and height? After
all, you don't want to penalise people for being fit, do you?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
wrote:
>On 13 Mar 2005 15:29:57 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "larry" <[email protected]>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ...
> ... ">
> ... > Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they
> ... > pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound.
> ... >
> ... >> No one wants to be overweight.
> ...
> ... I think your ticket price should be a multiple of your weight plus any
> ... baggage you may have brought...When I ship a 5 pound item through the mail
> ... it costs less than a 50 pound item...
>I like the idea. If anything, it will be an incentive to lose weight.
If we are going to target fatties, fine, but shouldn't there be an
exemption for people who are heavy due to muscles and height? After
all, you don't want to penalise people for being fit, do you?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:17 am
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fliers up in arms over wide passengers
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Service Tech writes:
>> Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you can
>> get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
> Why not fly fat people as cargo?
Bullet in the back of the neck is much better value.
Just dont stand too close, could get squashed.
> Very large objects can be accommodated that way.
news:[email protected]...
> Service Tech writes:
>> Why not a 777 with two rows of "sofa" sized seats all the way back? you can
>> get the cost of your ticket financed at your local bank.
> Why not fly fat people as cargo?
Bullet in the back of the neck is much better value.
Just dont stand too close, could get squashed.
> Very large objects can be accommodated that way.
