Politically Incorrect: The "fat" pax policy
Nov 21, 2004, 9:54 am
#211
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Near Chicago and Under the MDW and ORD Flight Paths, IL, USA
Programs: UA recovering Premier
Posts: 946
Actually, Ted has Economy+ seats, so if the pax had an alleged knee problem, there is a bit more room in E+.
Also, with the shift to thermal paper BPs at some locations, the gold / blue BP status indicator is no longer valid.
I'm a COS and I sympathize with many of the folks here. I'm never going to shrink from 6'4", so please keep your seat back off my knees, but I'm working on the other dimensions. I always sit in a window seat, except on RJs. I don't get up. I keep the armrest down when someone is next to me. I don't need an extender (except on RJs -- those are clearly 4-6 inches shorter than mainline). I will wait for the next flight rather than sit in a middle seat.
I also have one carry-on, which I generally put under the seat in front of me. Don't get me started on that gripe!
But can I raise another issue? The basic cabin dimensions have been unchanged since the 1950's design of the B-707. And as has been noted, people are getting bigger, not only in waistline, but also taller (as I well know from banging my head on 757 video monitors). So it seems to me that over 40-45 years of "growth", we're still sitting in seats that were dimensioned for people of "average" size in, say, 1955. Economically, I suppose that is fine for the airlines, but leads us to some of the issues expressed in this thread.
Also, with the shift to thermal paper BPs at some locations, the gold / blue BP status indicator is no longer valid.
I'm a COS and I sympathize with many of the folks here. I'm never going to shrink from 6'4", so please keep your seat back off my knees, but I'm working on the other dimensions. I always sit in a window seat, except on RJs. I don't get up. I keep the armrest down when someone is next to me. I don't need an extender (except on RJs -- those are clearly 4-6 inches shorter than mainline). I will wait for the next flight rather than sit in a middle seat.
I also have one carry-on, which I generally put under the seat in front of me. Don't get me started on that gripe!
But can I raise another issue? The basic cabin dimensions have been unchanged since the 1950's design of the B-707. And as has been noted, people are getting bigger, not only in waistline, but also taller (as I well know from banging my head on 757 video monitors). So it seems to me that over 40-45 years of "growth", we're still sitting in seats that were dimensioned for people of "average" size in, say, 1955. Economically, I suppose that is fine for the airlines, but leads us to some of the issues expressed in this thread.
Nov 21, 2004, 11:33 am
#212
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: Alaska Airlines, CO Emeritus, United kettle, Ural Airlines Wings, Hilton, National
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
The poster likely knew that the fattie
Last edited by Derrico; Nov 21, 2004 at 11:45 am
Nov 21, 2004, 11:41 am
#213
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York, NY, US
Programs: CO Plat, Amex Centurion, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Plat
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by p1cunnin
But can I raise another issue? The basic cabin dimensions have been unchanged since the 1950's design of the B-707. And as has been noted, people are getting bigger, not only in waistline, but also taller (as I well know from banging my head on 757 video monitors). So it seems to me that over 40-45 years of "growth", we're still sitting in seats that were dimensioned for people of "average" size in, say, 1955. Economically, I suppose that is fine for the airlines, but leads us to some of the issues expressed in this thread.
Compare NYC's modern MTA trains (4,5,6,L) to their older trains (N,R,A,C,E)
The older ones have seats that could only comfortably fit a fairly skinny person. Look at average modern vs older american buildings, wider stairs, wider doorways, taller ceilings.
Why is it that the airline industry has made no improvements whatsoever when most other industries have, and no one has complained about it?
I'm 6'1" and well built, My shoulders are wide enough that the seat width is uncomfortable for me in coach, but bearable. The pitch at 31", however is almost unbearable. There is no reason why someone of my body type shouldn't be properly accomidated, I'm not super-tall, I'm not a bodybuilder, I'm not super-fat.
Nov 21, 2004, 2:51 pm
#214
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
Originally Posted by p1cunnin
Actually, Ted has Economy+ seats, so if the pax had an alleged knee problem, there is a bit more room in E+.
Also, with the shift to thermal paper BPs at some locations, the gold / blue BP status indicator is no longer valid.
I'm a COS and I sympathize with many of the folks here. I'm never going to shrink from 6'4", so please keep your seat back off my knees, but I'm working on the other dimensions. I always sit in a window seat, except on RJs. I don't get up. I keep the armrest down when someone is next to me. I don't need an extender (except on RJs -- those are clearly 4-6 inches shorter than mainline). I will wait for the next flight rather than sit in a middle seat.
I also have one carry-on, which I generally put under the seat in front of me. Don't get me started on that gripe!
But can I raise another issue? The basic cabin dimensions have been unchanged since the 1950's design of the B-707. And as has been noted, people are getting bigger, not only in waistline, but also taller (as I well know from banging my head on 757 video monitors). So it seems to me that over 40-45 years of "growth", we're still sitting in seats that were dimensioned for people of "average" size in, say, 1955. Economically, I suppose that is fine for the airlines, but leads us to some of the issues expressed in this thread.
Also, with the shift to thermal paper BPs at some locations, the gold / blue BP status indicator is no longer valid.
I'm a COS and I sympathize with many of the folks here. I'm never going to shrink from 6'4", so please keep your seat back off my knees, but I'm working on the other dimensions. I always sit in a window seat, except on RJs. I don't get up. I keep the armrest down when someone is next to me. I don't need an extender (except on RJs -- those are clearly 4-6 inches shorter than mainline). I will wait for the next flight rather than sit in a middle seat.
I also have one carry-on, which I generally put under the seat in front of me. Don't get me started on that gripe!
But can I raise another issue? The basic cabin dimensions have been unchanged since the 1950's design of the B-707. And as has been noted, people are getting bigger, not only in waistline, but also taller (as I well know from banging my head on 757 video monitors). So it seems to me that over 40-45 years of "growth", we're still sitting in seats that were dimensioned for people of "average" size in, say, 1955. Economically, I suppose that is fine for the airlines, but leads us to some of the issues expressed in this thread.
My complaint was not with him being a "fattie" - it was putting someone with a "knee problem" in an Emergency Exit row. Thought frankly I think both issues should be reasons for not being allowed to sit in an exit row.
Nov 21, 2004, 5:17 pm
#215
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 2,596
Ok so since this thread is just really gone down hill and is no longer constructive and have basically turned into a cat fight. I'm going to close it.