beergut

Ok, so one day I find I'm getting so fat I can't fit into my lounge chair, I'm also starting to fill my single bed.

Should the store sell me a bigger chair or a double bed for the same price as a smaller one ?

USA_flyer

As I said, some people have genuine medical conditions.

BOH

Yes, I did wonder after about whether my comment was too general on this. I stand corrected and thanks for your advice earlier

BOH

Fantastic and highly appropriate FT handle you have as well for this thread ^ . Were you forced to drink all that beer then - perhaps you can get the brewery to pay for your new chair and bed?

flyrights

Well put. It's not about choice, it's about a herd mentality, finding a weaker enemy, and pouncing on them cause they are an easy target.

And some tall people want the airline to give them more legroom for free... some tall people demand certain seats, and throw fits if they don't get them... I've seen them beg for free upgrades, telling flight attendants things like, "if I don't sit in business class (for free), I could get DVT... my doctor told me this... I even carry a note from my doctor with me at all times.. if i don't get that upgrade, and if I develop DVT, your airline could be held liable, cause I've informed you of this in advance, so give me the free upgrade, cause you don't want me to get dvt, and you could lose your job for not giving me the (free) upgrade"...

The airlines usually don't give in (they did years ago, but not now).

And what's awful is to have a very tall person sitting BEHIND me, kicking the back of my seat, sometimes with their knees physically pushing up against my seat, making it impossible for me to utilize my GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO RECLINE... in short, they have INVADED MY SPACE, much like a fat person INVADES MY SPACE if next to me. So these TALL people need to pay for an extra seat IN FRONT of them so as not to make someone IN FRONT of them uncomfortable or invaded, just like the same argument you all make about large people NEXT to you.

22wingit

On this one I disagree a bit. As long as they can manage what they are carrying unaided, I'm going to say that (unlike the armrest thing) those extra items really DO make the rest of us more comfortable. Most of the time those items are things that will clean, contain, comfort or entertain those small children, thereby raising the odds that the kiddies will not get hungry, cranky, bouncy, smelly, etc. and go on a tear that will disturb those around them. In this particular case, the stuff CAN really work to the benefit of the rest of the passengers. I don't think that they should be allowed to go crazy, but one extra "under the seat sized" bag per young child wouldn't rattle my chain. (By "young" I mean too small to be in school, BTW.)

As to the COS issue: I'm actually all for "fat acceptance," in that it really is just good manners to refrain from insulting or teasing others based on how they look, and it doesn't behoove people here to be slinging those kinds of barbs for jollies. This is normally the most civil board I frequent, and I'm disappointed. The reality is that the issue here isn't about about BEING larger than average, this is about accepting that being that large means that there are certain things that one cannot do, or must do differently than those who are smaller in size. (Height applies here, too, not just girth.)

I'm not large enough to be a textbook COS, but I'm not small. I have to say that persons who are outsized in whatever way *know* who they are, and they further know that they should be ponying up for a second seat. They go to movies, they ride busses, they sit in desk chairs -- THEY KNOW they don't fit in conventional armed straight chairs &/or transit seats. *Not* buying that extra seat isn't about size; it's about money and inconvenience.

Honestly, the airlines don't make it easy to buy a second seat, and are thus largely responsible for instances where passenger size becomes a problem on a plane. If you buy two seats in a single name it will be questioned, and you usually cannot do it online. I've tried once or twice to buy an extra seat for myself, just so that I won't feel claustrophobic on long flights, but the airlines have invariably refused to sell it to me. I honestly do not see what the issue is: if you want to occupy two seats for ANY reason, you should be able to just choose to buy two seats at the advertised price, no advance explanations or questions necessary. The airline still makes the same amount of money, and if you'll pardon the irony, we are all more comfortable. Somehow it doesn't work that way -- if you want more space you get the third degree, and are perhaps told that your only option is to fly FC. So helpful, that. If you embarass and overcharge passengers who just want to purchase a little more space, you are in effect encouraging them NOT to buy that space.

flyrights

No, the materials for a larger chair are more expensive... you should pay for that. Transporting people is a public SERVICE, which is quite different from buying objects by choice... Maybe you should have just lost the weight... it's your own fault you can't fit into that chair and bed. Shame on you. Maybe you just had too many cheeseburgers. Don't blame the rest of us... that was something you could have controlled... unless you have a medical condition. Do you have a medical condition?

Mr. Vker

You started that old, tired thread, Flyrights, didn't you?

Anyway, I think a COS should buy a second seat rather than squish someone esle. I am 6' 5" and 300 lbs. But, I fit in my seat with the armrests completely down.

My problem with WN is that they enforce the rule subjectively. One person's COS is one person's Adonis.

In addition, enforcement usually happens on the return trip or at a connection city. If you are a COS in LAS than you were one at BWI 5 hours earlier! (I have seen this personally and on "Airline".)

I feel that if you are allowed to commence travel from your home airport without being required to purchase an extra ticket, you should be allowed to complete your travel without being forced to buy one. Imagine being 2500 miles from home with no funds or options and WN wants you to buy another ticket.

USA_flyer

Try telling that to the shareholders!

flyrights

The rest of what you said was, finally, a reasonable and rational argument... but the above is way out of line... I know that I am less cranky if I have things to entertain me, (laptop, portable dvd player, cd player, mp3 player, lots of books, lots of magazines, my own food, my own pillow etc.)... But I can't take that much carry on cause I follow the (normally reasonable) rules. so like a child, I get cranky too... sometimes I huff and puff, and I know this annoys my neighbors in economy where I usually sit.

I would say, if anything, families that want to take children on flights should be DISCOURAGED from taking them... since they take up more space, more carryons, slow down the boarding/deboarding process, require all sorts of other special treatment, are more likely to disturb and make UNCOMFORTABLE other passengers, (just like a COS might make someone uncomfortable).

Those families made a CHOICE: they didn't have to have kids... there should be no free ride for "children under two" on a parent's lap, disturbing the adjacent passengers... I'd say if someone wants to take a child, using an airline's bassenet, they should have to pay a "bassenet rental fee", of like $200 for the flight. Why should other people have to subsidize the cost of transporting all these annoying kids?

Mary2e

Folks, if you look at history, you will find this is going to be beaten to death.

flyrights

You said that several times, yet people are still interested, and I believe new relevant points are being made all the time, from all viewpoints, including ones I don't agree with.. but still find interesting. Is that a crime? Please give us a chance to discuss what we like. And didn't you write on the other thread that you weren't going to respond to this topic? Right? If this topic isn't of interest to you, please don't assume that other people aren't interested either. I think this topic keeps getting better. Let us make our own choice. Now go complain to the moderator... again.

Tsukiji

Then he was probably eating in secret. Trust me on that one - I have the "small portions in public" thing down to a science.

I am overweight, obese even and I am baffled by this thread. I do not expect the airline to provide an additional space for me for free should I ever need it. I doubt I'll ever get there as I am finally learning how to eat and take care of my body. (BTW - I do fit into a regular seat as well as the RJ seats and do not need a seatbelt expander. I do not need the armrests upright and do not spell over into my seatmates seat. I'm a small person (5'1) who has a lot of padding.)

My weight battles are fought daily in my head and while I choose to eat, I do not choose to be fat, it's just a by-product of my compulsion. To compare my weight issues with my husbands experiences in a wheelchair is warped. While I could change my lot in life, he was stuck in a wheelchair for 4 months for reasons beyond his control. Trust me on this one, I much prefer the weight battle. Looking from a purely practical viewpoint, very few people are in wheelchairs compared to how many fat people there are. If the US government classifies obeisity as a disablity and requires accomadation then look out - we will all be losing space.

Being fat is unhealthy - as is smoking and drinking too much alcohol. My vice is visible while the other two can be done more covertly. But look how smoking is viewed today - mostly as dirty, disgusting and smokers lacking in self control. Obesity has similar charecteristics associated with it.

If another person small or big asked me to keep the armrest up I would decline. If the persisted, so would I. Space on a tin tube is at a premium so don't ask me to let you poach my real estate that I paid for. My neighbor where I live can't build on my property because he's outgrown his...he has to buy more land. As should a person on a plane who can't fit into the seat they purchased.

flyrights

This tired old thread seems to still have some interest. Does that disturb you?

On a happier note, your comment about the "adonis" really made me laugh. So I thank you for that.

And I do agree with you that once a journey is started, the airline should have no right to start imposing fees mid-journey. I saw that on AIRLINE too. Can you believe they sell that dvd set in Bangkok?

Mary2e

Nope.. wasn't me. However, you're the only one making TOS violations and people can & do compalin about that.

As for the interest, some people just like to argue their point & beat it to death.

My posts serve as warninig to those who may have not realized that you are on a crusade and will argue a point to death or until the thread gets locked.

I also never said that I wasn't going to respond to you. Why don't you look back.

BTW - do you hold the record for having all your threads locked because you start breaking the TOS as soon as someone disagrees with your point?