I have some sympathy with this view.

OK so you charge people by weight, that is OK by me. But then should they not get extra space for the extra charge.
However the weight charge should include everything that person flies with, body / clothes / hand baggage / hold baggage / duty free and magazines.

OK take your point Fred. I don't often have sympathy with RA but I would like to know how they estimate the weight of fuel required given the variation in weight of passengers. Perhaps that is why they have so many "emergency" landings when diverted, as they estimate every passenger as being of a standard weight. Perhaps, given the weight of the aircraft, the actual weight of passengers and luggage is of relatively little significance. Maybe someone could enlighten me on that one.
Pete

NO...People are getting fatter due to poorer nutrition not better. 75 years ago that had some merit.

The stewardesses were good looking too.

Everything is significant including the weight of the drinks and food.

Many years ago we flew Gib to UK on a BAC 1-11 a few days before Xmas.
Everything was weighed, passengers and hand luggage.
My wife had her handbag stuffed with lots of heavy things so I told her to make sure they weighed her and her handbag together, not separately

When we boarded the captain informed us that as the plane was full they had decided to take this step rather than disappoint anyone as it was Xmas by refusing some of the luggage/ weight. However we were too heavy to be able to put the required amount of fuel onboard and still take off from Gib's rather short runway for the 1-11 therefore we would have to make a fuel stop in France.

I was however amazed to see the Channel Islands below us just before the Captain announced we were going to make it without a stop due to a very favorable tailwind.

Eh, I didn't know they existed back then.
As far as I recall it was all glamour girl Air Hostesses who seemed to be chosen for their very obvious attributes rather than workrate and IQ.

Yes as Fred says they used to weigh everything and everybody back then before totting up the figures to see if the old kite could get airbourne.

First package job for me was in an ancient Bristol Superfreighter, weird looking contraption with 2 piston engines and a non-retractable undercarriage,looked a bit like a miniature Jumbo with a big bull-nose that opened up to let a couple of cars and a motor-bike drive on board to join the two dozen or so passengers. I recall it sounded like every single nut bolt and rivet were shaking themselves apart as they wound the engines up to try and get off the deck.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur...ed=0CEAQ9QEwBw

Flying out of Lydd ?

Just a thought on some of the attitudes I have detected through life.

When I was much younger and we lived in a less civilised time, there was a certain group of people who took pleasure in riculing other people for being different to themselves.

When I was a child there were people who used to refer to less fortunate handicapped people, as spastics, plebs, mongs, flids amongst other things, and being a child I must admit I did it myself.

Fortunately, as I started to grow up, I became a little more civilised in my thinking and realised how wrong these thoughts and comments were.

The more people used these abusive terms, the more it was brought into the spotlight to make people feel ashamed, when they made these derogatory remarks.

My opinion is that the "decent" people took a look at themselves and started to refrain from making these unsavoury comments.

However, I think that some people have a nastiness inside them, taking pleasure in making unsavoury comments about other people, and with it becoming less fashionable and politically correct, felt they had to take their nasty ways and comments, to somewhere where they could carry on with their evil little thoughts.

But where??

Well they moved on, and as gays and lesbians started to become more open, it gave a new target for ridicule ie: the puffs, the queers, the shirtlifters .... you get my meaning.

As time went by, and once again, their nasty ways and comments, this time about homosexuals came out into the open, and as previous we grew even more civilised and more politically correct, making them crawl back under the cover to hide their vile behaviour.

But they didn't disappear, they with their nasty, unsavoury thoughts and ways, they just waited for the next target.

Who were they??

The "FATTIES" and why, because at this moment in time, political correctness hasn't been attributed to this category, and does that matter, well no, not really, and it should not matter.

As we grow older and more civilised, we shouldn't need politicle correctness to protect people from abuse, it should be down to common decency.

And no, I am not accusing all the comments on here of being indecent, but I strongly suspect there are a few of you that fall into that category, who can't go through life without their foul nasty little ways and thoughts, and this subject is one of those that gives them this outlet.

( apologies for any offence to the language used )

A sense of humour is what is at stake here, and most expats have one along with a skin that seems to grow thicker in the sun. Most of the ones I know are able to laugh at themselves.

And we're all different, personally I steer clear of people who don't like animals or find it difficult to smile, whatever the circumstances. I run when I come across over-religious people or Cossacks, the latter have a few vodkas and must have a fight.

And when I have to choose between an extremely thin or very fat person to talk to, I choose the latter, fatties are usually more fun.

Your post is very well written, but, I cannot see where your points about political correctness comes into the argument.

There will always be people who are not considered the "norm".

Some hard of hearing, others not having the best eyesight, exceedingly tall people and very short ones.

The world is built for the average Joe, in almost everything, from the clothes we buy in the shops, to fitted kitchens and door heights.

The world would not be able to funciton any other way.

We all understand that some people may struggle with this, and that is where "extras" are needed.

Extas are needed to put people on a par with others, ie glasses for shortshighted, specially made shoes for big feet, and different size seating for bigger people.

The only thing is that these "aids" cost money, it is that simple, so if a hard of hearing person has to buy a hearing aid, to make their live easier and more comfortable, and tall men have to pay extra to hire a bigger car, they cannot make do with a Ford KA, then why is it such a problem for bigger/fatter people to pay for a larger space on an aircraft.

Is it really such a way out idea and so UN-PC to ask people to stump up for their own needs when travelling.

I dont see it is.

The problem is that the extra is generally proportionally far more expensive than standard and very often not available.

Out of interest there are 3 airlines flying out of Gib today and their standard seats are pitch x width :-

1) Easyjet 29.0 x 18.0

2) Monarch 28-29.0" x 17.0"

3) BA 31.0-34.0 x 17.0

Therefore wider people should fly Easyjet whilst tall people should fly BA and no one should fly Monarch

Political correctness does not come into my argument, I merely mention it as it does come into it for some people, but to me it is about being a decent person. (hopefully)

... and asking people to stump up for their own needs when travelling,

"well maybe" (not fully sure on that one)

but what concerns me, isn't the costs of extras and things, it is the underlying tone, that comes with some of these comments, that I query.

Sorry but you really do miss the point (or deliberately ignore it?)

What you advocate is that it is OK to pick on a small minority of society (bigger people) to associate this with your examples does not equate whatsoever.

The crux of the matter is this- certain airlines always want to add extra pricing, overweight bags, pay for seat etc etc. They looked around and saw larger passengers as a target, quoting seat space and extra fuel required to fly them. People like you jump at agreeing with them because lets face it, the ulterior motive is, if they pay more then the logic is you pay either the same or less. In other words other passengers will pay more to subsidise your flight.

If your ok with that ideaology fine. I for one am not.

Yes my example of bigger people does equate- and as I have said before, people who do not fit the norm, usually have to pay to be on a par with others who do fit the norm.

I have a friend who has very bad eyesight, she has to buy glasses which cost quite a bit, and also have a spare pair in the car.

If her eyesight was good enough to pass the vision test for driving legally, she would not have the extra expense every couple of years or so.

So she had to pay extra whereas others who have good eyesight don´t.

She does not think she is being picked on or discriminated against, does not whinge and whine because it is and extra expense for people like her, and she does not expect anyone to subsidise her.



So stop trying to make out that I am some kind of uncaring monster, because you are getting on my nerves.

I think you are missing the point, airlines are a business, and a lot of business make money out of people who need " to lead a fuller life.
People in wheelchairs have to finance them themselves, at no small cost.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is the way of the world.

I am merely pointing out that everyone who has some "disadvantage" has to pay extra at sometime or other.