Mary2e

I think we're seeing a crusade

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=547609

I wonder how long before this thread gets locked?

Globaliser

Stepping up to the plate, as it were:-People who are so big that they can't comfortably fit into one seat should never have let themselves get into that state.

In contrast, people who are in wheelchairs usually did not do it to themselves.Families should not bring on board more items per seat than anyone else.

USA_flyer

Me? Crusade? Not at all, I just like people to keep things in context.

I reckon this will get to 5 pages before closing

flyrights

OK, U.S.A. flyer, so for handicapped people, it's about their "safety"... but for overweight people, they are just gross slobs that deserve to pay double, since they should have simply lost all the excess weight... I get it.

And what about the families that bring six carryon items per adult? Is that also about "safety"? Those families didin't have to have those kids... they could have found ways not to have, or end a pregnancy... they CHOOSE, voluntarily to have those kids.. and now they get to take on all those extra carryon items, and not pay a cent for it.

Puh-leese. Grow up.

flyrights

Maybe someone was a reckless skier, and ended up in a wheelchair... they could have NOT skied, they could have not skied recklessly... they could have stayed home... Should we interview each wheelchair person at concert/sporting events, and if the usher/ticket seller determines it was their OWN DARN FAULT that they are in that wheelchair, they must pay SIX TIMES... and if they determine it was an act of god/genetics that caused them to be in that wheelchair, should there be no penalty?

The hypocrisy and double standards exhibited here are quite unbelievable. It really makes me sympathize with those fat acceptance people. Those of us who are not overly overweight surely have no clue what they must go through on an hourly basis.

I have always been impressed at the lengths airlines usually go to when assisting handicapped passengers, at great expense. Why oh why are large people such a target?

USA_flyer

No need to get testy. I maintain that COS are not discriminated against becasue their condition is due to personal choice. I agree that for some, and by that I mean very few, have genuine medical conditions but for the vast majority it's simply a matter of too many calories and not enough exercise. Why should anyone else subsidise their costs or become uncomfortable in the seat they paid for because of it?

As to your second point, I have yet to see an instance of that. Most of the time strollers are gate checked and the parents I've seen have a bag for themselves, a bag for baby and a personal item each. This is well within airline rules.

party_boy

If that happened to me I'd automatically say, well since you assume that i'll be more comfortable, I'll make an assumption of my own. You'll be more comfortable HOLDING my stuff so that I can convieniently access them without having to make you get up.

BOH

1. Handicapped people normally have not chosen to be this. Overweight people have a choice.
2. If overweight people cannot fit into one seat without inconveniencing fellow pax then yes, they should have to buy a tix for the adjacent seat
3. When I buy a tix for my seat I expect the space envelope within that to be for me, not to be forced to share it with someone else who is unable to fit into their identically sized space envelope.
4. There are already very detailed rules on size / weight / # per pax about carry-on luggage. It's simply about the airlines consistently enforcing this.

Sorry to be blunt but it had to be said.

flyrights

"Personal choice"? Do you really think people wake up and think to themselves, "gee, I'd really like to be really fat, so I can get laughed at, humiliated, forced to pay for two seats"?

Now you say this is for "some"... So I guess you have interviewed every large person on the planet, and you've come to this conclusion... And thank you for acknowledging that at a minimum "very few" have these "genuine medical conditions"... So it's no problem for you, to punish ALL OVERWEIGHT people, even knowing that at least ONE OF THEM definately has a weight medical issue, not of their own fault...

This is where we differ most... I am of the belief that if even ONE PERSON in the history of aviation travel KNOWINGLY gets treated unfairly, it is wrong... you seem not to have a problem with that.

BOH

Now you are being silly (have you caught something because your immune system is so weakened living in your sterile bubble )

USA_flyer

Not at all. I'm sure the paying for two seats or asking a slimmer row-mate to put the arm rest up is humiliating and because they are people I feel for them. But I maintain that for the vast majority they have chosen to eat more than they need for the lifestyle they lead.

flyrights

How about the second half of that "blunt" rule amended to say, "then the airline will be required to provide sufficient space for that passenger, so as not to interfere and inconvenience other passengers". Rather than punish even ONE PERSON who just might have a weight medical condition, how about making the airline take some responsiblity for providing adequate space...

We may get to the point one day where airline seats get smaller and smaller, and they force HUGE numbers of people to buy two seats... and as the American populace continues to get heavier and heavier, no doubt more people will be forced to buy these extra seats... and one day, the airlines may require COS to purchase the entire ROW of seats... or one day, they may want them to charter the ENTIRE PLANE. That is how much anger and hatred there seems to be out there against COS.

notsoFT

this is just ridiculous. if you can't fit in an economy seat, go first! stop moaning and complaining about the airlines not doing this or that. a fat person can still walk, still carry their own stuff and still lead a fulfilling life without the intervention of others

disabled persons are not so lucky. so trying to compare the two. why don't you just be thankful that you have the full use of all your bodily functions. i think you should go spend some time in a weelchair so you can realize the difference between being fat and being disabled.

LapLap

I used to go out with someone who was very large (he had problems fitting into airline seats). I can say with all confidence that I ate way more than he did - and he was a vegan! Some people really don't have a choice.

kuroneko

[QUOTE=flyrights]Still no reply from anyone who wants COS to pay double to airlines, if they also feel wheelchair-bound concert/sporting event-goers should pay SIX TIMES what others pay for similar location seats...

Could it be... Hypocrisy? [QUOTE]

Hypocrisy? No. The law? Yes. The wheelchair-bound are considered disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, the law dictates certain accomodations that must be made.

US Airlines, for some reason are not bound by ADA, but instead have to follow the rules set by the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), which specifies the accomodations that must be made available to the disabled. The fat are NOT considered diabled by either ADA or ACAA rules. Still, ACAA dictates that an airline is only obligated to provide ONE seat per purchased ticket.