# Should Bigger Passengers Pay More on Air Flights?



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Airfares: Heavier Passengers 'Should Pay More'

*Airlines should make heavier passengers pay more for their plane tickets and lighter ones less, it has been suggested.

The controversial pay-as-you-weigh pricing scheme has been mooted by a Norwegian professor who argues that weight and space should be taken into account by airlines pricing their tickets.

Writing in this month's Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Dr Bharat P Bhatta has put forward three proposals.

The first would see fares directly linked to the weight of a person and their belongings, with a fixed rate for kilograms per passenger.

Under this method, a person weighing 60kg (132lb or 9st 6lb) would pay half the airfare of a 120kg (264lb or 18st 12lb) person.

Dr Bhatta's second proposal involves charging a fixed base rate, with an additional charge for heavier passengers to cover the extra costs.

Every passenger could have a different fare according to this option.

The professor's final suggestion is for passengers to have the same fare if they have an average weight, but this could be discounted for weights below a certain limit or added to for excess weight above it.

This option would result in three types of fares: high, average and low.

Dr Bhatta, of the Sogn og Fjordane University College in Norway, thinks the third option is most suitable for implementation.

"Charging according to weight and space is a universally accepted principle, not only in transportation, but also in other services," he said.

"As weight and space are far more important in aviation than other modes of transport, airlines should take this into account when pricing their tickets."

Dr Ian Yeoman, editor of the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, threw his weight behind the suggestion.

"For airlines, every extra kilogram means more expensive jet fuel must be burned, which leads to CO2 emissions and financial cost," he said.

"As the airline industry is fraught with financial difficulties, marginally profitable and has seen exponential growth in the last decade, maybe they should be looking to introduce scales at the check-in."*

My OH is 6'6" and is solid with it. His height means that, even if he were as skinny as a rake, he'd still exceed the 'average' criteria. We already have to pay an additional charge to sit in the [email protected] seats that give extra leg-room. I would be even more p!ssed off if he was charged extra again for falling into the 'high' category just because he is very tall. 

.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 8, 2010)

Just another scheme to rake in more money from the public. :mad5:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

You gotta admit it would be a great way to help people stick to their diets!


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

No! Why should they. When an airline such as British Airways ask acompany such as Boeing to design a new aircraft to carry 200 passengers, Boeing will design one to carry 300 passengers, It is built in safty margin because they know that people come in different sizes. Even then, an airline will often fit fewer seats the aircraft can carry.


----------



## Tamsin W (Sep 18, 2012)

I don't agree with the above implementation, but I don't have a problem with the premise. If someone takes up two seats, they should pay for two seats. I wouldn't try to cram a holdall twice the carry-on limit into the 'test bucket' and kick off if I was charged excess baggage - the same principle essentially applies.

'Pay as you weigh' is a bit ridiculous though. I don't see the issue with what many airlines are already doing - i.e. if you clearly don't fit in one seat with both armrests lowered, pay for a second. Job done.


----------



## sharon_gurney (Jan 27, 2010)

OMG I would prob have to cut a leg off to get under the weight :crazy:


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it (but then I have quite a small frame so would not cost me extra!)

I think the fairest system *is* for people to pay for the total weight they bring onto a flight; if I wanted to bring extra luggage I would have to pay for it...


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I would guess that you get more obese people meeting these proposed guidelines than you do people who are above average height (like your OH). I see fat people all the time but don't often see people who are very tall and presumably this is aimed at obese people. 

Personally it makes sense to me; the more weight the plane is carrying the more fuel it needs. It is no different to some airlines making large people pay for two seats.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Id go with it IF there was a reduction in prices for wee skinny streaks of pee, after all if im 24 stone and the wifes 6 stone wet through we average only 15 stone each.....maths and stats can be twisted any way to suit


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> You gotta admit it would be a great way to help people stick to their diets!


Bullying and belittling people who have a weight problem and making them feel even more the object of disdain and ridicule would probably have the complete opposite reaction imo:skep:


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

alan g a said:


> No! Why should they. When an airline such as British Airways ask acompany such as Boeing to design a new aircraft to carry 200 passengers, Boeing will design one to carry 300 passengers, It is built in safty margin because they know that people come in different sizes. Even then, an airline will often fit fewer seats the aircraft can carry.


But equally why should a small person pay the same fare as an obese person when the small person costs less to fly?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> Bullying and belittling people who have a weight problem and making them feel even more the object of disdain and ridicule would probably have the complete opposite reaction imo:skep:


We plan on going to America when liams 5 so if it did come in id start dieting now :lol: i probably wouldnt even get on without paying the extra if i did start now


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

Maybe they could have a combined passenger + luggage weigh in so it might not be the person that is heavy rather the 15 pairs of shoes they have packed!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> Bullying and belittling people who have a weight problem and making them feel even more the object of disdain and ridicule would probably have the complete opposite reaction imo:skep:


if everyone with a bit of meat on their bones decided not to fly the airlines would soon decided not to charge extra


----------



## Tamsin W (Sep 18, 2012)

Lel said:


> But equally why should a small person pay the same fare as an obese person when the small person costs less to fly?


I don't think they should pay the same as an obese person (by which I mean a person who can't comfortably fit in a single seat), but I don't see why they shouldn't pay the same as an 'average' person?

I weigh 45kg, which would presumably drop me into the 'low' bracket. But at the end of the day, I'm still taking up a seat. The 'average' person next to me is also taking up one seat. We're both ultimately paying for the same service, so why should I pay less?


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Id probably say if anyone were to bring this in, it would be the budget airlines.

Remember the penny to pee scenario and also the standing seats.

I think if airlines were to bring this in, they would be some trouble, not to mention a certain amount of discrimination

bmi charts are a load of billsh$t at the best.

Insofar at extra leg room, I dont mind paying, but what does p me off big style is when people use it to queue in or just stand in to chops and the worst, when they use.it to cross :mad5:

Im normally the selfish git that puts my bags down on the floor so they cant do it, then again, I have been known to sit on the floor to before now

Hats off to MB for starting a Jan thread


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

Tamsin W said:


> I don't think they should pay the same as an obese person (by which I mean a person who can't comfortably fit in a single seat), but I don't see why they shouldn't pay the same as an 'average' person?
> 
> I weigh 45kg, which would presumably drop me into the 'low' bracket. But at the end of the day, I'm still taking up a seat. The 'average' person next to me is also taking up one seat. We're both ultimately paying for the same service, so why should I pay less?


If the plane was filled with light passengers, then far less fuel would be needed, making the running costs cheaper, and those savings could be passed to the passengers.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Personally I think if someone takes up 2 seats they then should pay for 2 seats. And that's coming from someone who is obese. But fares based purely on how much you weigh just seems to penalise those who are bigger without being fat. What's classed as obese for me probably isn't going to be classed as obese for a 6ft tall bloke.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

labradrk said:


> I would guess that you get more obese people meeting these proposed guidelines than you do people who are above average height (like your OH). *I see fat people all the time but don't often see people who are very tall and presumably this is aimed at obese people. *


It very likely is but it would be classed as discrimination if my OH weighed the same as someone who is very obese but didn't have to pay extra because he is tall. It wouldn't bother us but the obese person would be kicking off about it. The more options there are - very tall so not overweight / avg height so overweight etc - would make it so damn complicated it would never work.

And if they went for the combined body & luggage weight then my OH would STILL be b*ggered!!!!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Lel said:


> If the plane was filled with light passengers, then far less fuel would be needed, making the running costs cheaper, and those savings could be passed to the passengers.


So only skinny people and midgets can go abroad then??????

That would go down well..........


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> We plan on going to America when liams 5 so if it did come in id start dieting now :lol: i probably wouldnt even get on without paying the extra if i did start now


God knows how they get on in America then - there are soooo many obese people there- my mum and dad went to Florida and they could not believe the amount of really overweight people...


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> So only skinny people and midgets can go abroad then??????
> 
> That would go down well..........


In all seriousness I would really like it if I could have my extra body-weight allowance as luggage allowance!


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Lel said:


> If the plane was filled with light passengers, then far less fuel would be needed, making the running costs cheaper, and those savings could be passed to the passengers.


Sorry, but I think this is a load of rubbish, all it would mean that it would be an opening for the airlines to put more sardines in the can. In all honesty can you see airlines passing savings on???????

Also would you fly with less fuel just because your a skinny person....... I wouldnt want too. The plane and bodies would soon be knocked out of the air if they hit a bad head wind and turbulence and they bodies fall at the same speed, skinny or big.......


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

anyone sat next to an obese person on a flight? i have i couldn't move as they hung over half my seat!


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

dexter said:


> anyone sat next to an obese person on a flight? i have i couldn't move as they hung over half my seat!


I tend to put oh in that position, he's better than me with his elbows


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

welshjet said:


> I tend to put oh in that position, he's better than me with his elbows


i always get pushed into the middle seat


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

dexter said:


> anyone sat next to an obese person on a flight? i have i couldn't move as they hung over half my seat!


I have had that experience I`m afraid! The lady next to me was taking up half my seat. I really don`t know what would have happened if I had been large aswell there would certainly not have been room for me. It was such an uncomfortable experience it put me right off flying and haven`t done so since


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

I havent read through the entire thing im afraid... But of course obese peolpe should pay more. If you take up 2 seats, you take up 2 seats. One of them shouldnt be free if by any normal standard that spot would take 2 people.

And its not even about space. It takes fuel to move the mass. Youre essentially taking up twice the fuel capacity as a normal person. Per person, youre costing double.

If I had to check an overly heavy bag, I dont expect to do it for free! It's a purely fiscal thing... If it were done by KG, then I would pay more than most, and my partner wouldnt. Do you think I would start moaning if a dwarf got on for half my ticket price?

Or maybe it would be fairer to have a total weight limit... you have 300kg... How you distribute that is up to you. If you wanna, or have to weigh 290kg, then you better pack light!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> I havent read through the entire thing im afraid... But of course obese peolpe should pay more. If you take up 2 seats, you take up 2 seats. One of them shouldnt be free if by any normal standard that spot would take 2 people.
> 
> And its not even about space. It takes fuel to move the mass. Youre essentially taking up twice the fuel capacity as a normal person. Per person, youre costing double.
> 
> ...


but you dont use fuel to go downhill, so once at 30,000ft your halfway to Spain and its freewheeling/gliding


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

I think it's a horrible idea, and quite nasty and humiliating actually, how would they do it? force everyone onto a set of scales before getting ticket. It's ridiculous. However if someone is extremly large they themselves should be aware of this and buy two seats, both for comfort and so they don't over hang on to someone elses seat. or better still why don't planes have larger seats ready that people can choose to pay a little extra for.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. *That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile.* In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

dexter said:


> i always get pushed into the middle seat


Oh we start that way as well, but needless to say he ends up in the middle  normally after a few persuasive words


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> but you dont use fuel to go downhill, so once at 30,000ft your halfway to Spain and its freewheeling/gliding


You use twice the fuel GETTING TO 30,000ft though. And a person half the mass would expend half the fuel in that time.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 8, 2010)

Why stop there, when trains, buses, taxis, trams etc. etc. will implement this system. There is no way IMO that prices will be reduced on any of these services


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

No. Airlines should provide comfortable seats with enough legroom instead of treating people like sardines.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> No. Airlines should provide comfortable seats with enough legroom instead of treating people like sardines.


Its not possible... Aeroplanes are a disaster for packaging... They have to weight certain amounts, be shaped in certain ways, and to be fiscally possible, carry "x" people. Those numbers dont all fit together in the way we would like. lol


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Yea, if you sit your ass on two seats, pay for em, I cant see an issue there.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Yea, if you sit your ass on two seats, pay for em, I cant see an issue there.


But they are going on weight over size. So my OH can fit his ass ok on one seat but his height could make him the same weight as a short, round person who needs two seats.

THAT is my issue.......


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

I dont agree with it....but then I am basically an obese midget (pre pregnancy weight 9st 8lbs and only 5ft 1 according to my gp obese  )


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they are going on weight over size. So my OH can fit his ass ok on one seat but his height could make him the same weight as a short, round person who needs two seats.
> 
> THAT is my issue.......


Same could happen on a bus though... Or sitting next to any other type of person that would encroach on your personal level of comfort... Its just the cost of doing buisiness... If you have to get on a plane, theres no alternatives. The plane ride isnt normally the reason to fly, the the means of getting somewhere... Such if life really.

If I want a truely personalised, comfortable, hassle free flight... I either need a lottery win, or a pilots licence...


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they are going on weight over size. So my OH can fit his ass ok on one seat but his height could make him the same weight as a short, round person who needs two seats.
> 
> THAT is my issue.......


I dont agree with that either, only seats taken... Its doubtful that they didnt take into consideration weight when building the planes/seat ratio.. It reeks of greed if its ONE seat.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

I think if a larger person pays for two seats then where is the issue ?? 

So now we are to discriminate because of size ? who goes on a plane??


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm sure there will be a way around it after all there are medical conditions that also affect body weight.
I agree with the idea that if your arse hangs over 2 seats than you pay for 2. In my case I'd be paying for 4 :lol:


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> I think if a larger person pays for two seats then where is the issue ??
> 
> So now we are to discriminate because of size ? who goes on a plane??


The population is getting fatter and larger more average, so some bright spark obviously figured its a way into your wallet, cos they know some people cant help it and will have no choice but to pay, if needing to fly.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Never mind worrying about obese people on flights they should ban vegans! 

We were stuck on an 8hr flight sat behind a vegan and after her farting continuously on the flight and being unable to get to fresh air was no fun! 

I had to tell her in the end that she needed to get some meat in her system because she was making everyone feel ill never mind how much she must be destroying the ozone layer


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Never mind worrying about obese people on flights they should ban vegans!
> 
> We were stuck on an 8hr flight sat behind a vegan and after her farting continuously on the flight and being unable to get to fresh air was no fun!
> 
> I had to tell her in the end that she needed to get some meat in her system because she was making everyone feel ill never mind how much she must be destroying the ozone layer


Lmfaooooo


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

harley bear said:


> Never mind worrying about obese people on flights they should ban vegans!
> 
> We were stuck on an 8hr flight sat behind a vegan and after her farting continuously on the flight and being unable to get to fresh air was no fun!
> 
> I had to tell her in the end that she needed to get some meat in her system because she was making everyone feel ill never mind how much she must be destroying the ozone layer


Nice to see your lessons at Tact school paid off :lol:


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> I'm sure there will be a way around it after all there are medical conditions that also affect body weight.
> I agree with the idea that if your arse hangs over 2 seats than you pay for 2. *In my case I'd be paying for 4 *:lol:


Just to clarify here, Lavs means four JUMBO JETS!!!! Not seats..... :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> I think if a larger person pays for two seats then where is the issue ??
> 
> So now we are to discriminate because of size ? who goes on a plane??


Seeing your name just reminded me too....what about pregnant women? Their weight can increase within a normal range by several pounds so how would they make a regulation for that?


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Just to clarify here, Lavs means four JUMBO JETS!!!! Not seats..... :lol: :lol:


If I'm paying, I'm fecking spreading out luv :lol:


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Seeing your name just reminded me too....what about pregnant women? Their weight can increase within a normal range by several pounds so how would they make a regulation for that?


Easy!! Don't get pregnant!!! After all, according to Chris S, you're not allowed to be tall either....


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Never mind worrying about obese people on flights they should ban vegans!
> 
> We were stuck on an 8hr flight sat behind a vegan and after her farting continuously on the flight and being unable to get to fresh air was no fun!
> 
> I had to tell her in the end that she needed to get some meat in her system because she was making everyone feel ill never mind how much she must be destroying the ozone layer


Oh that was you was it????? ..........


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Lavenderb said:


> Nice to see your lessons at Tact school paid off :lol:


Honest to god we couldnt eat and we were sat literally right behind her! 
They should have eject seats for people like that!

Best part of it her family were sat next to her and didnt seem bothered by her stench! But everyone else was covering up their faces to mask the smell, she really was that bad!


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Since last months explosion, Moggys employers have issued her with a prewarning badge. If you see her pinning this on her blouse, run for your livvvveeessss :lol: :lol:


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Since last months explosion, Moggys employers have issued her with a prewarning badge. If you see her pinning this on her blouse, run for your livvvveeessss :lol: :lol:


And yet again juice has just been spat all over the laptop :lol:


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> Never mind worrying about obese people on flights they should ban vegans!
> 
> We were stuck on an 8hr flight sat behind a vegan and after her farting continuously on the flight and being unable to get to fresh air was no fun!
> 
> I had to tell her in the end that she needed to get some meat in her system because she was making everyone feel ill never mind how much she must be destroying the ozone layer


 OMG can just imagine u saying that as well HB!!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> I dont agree with that either, only seats taken... Its doubtful that they didnt take into consideration weight when building the planes/seat ratio.. It reeks of greed if its ONE seat.


Thats the thing... They DO take it into account. It costs more. If you could make the plane for optimum conditions, including standard person height, weight, leg length, ratio's... You could create a much more fuel effecient, cheaper, lighter, smaller plane... But you cant. So varying shapes and sizes already increase costs. To add a premium on ANYONE who falls outside that spec isnt wrong...

But if someone tall gets on, but has a weight or width within spec, that doesnt cost anyone, except that passengers comfort. If they want a special seat to accomodate their "abnormal leg length" then they would have to pay for it... Same if your wide or heavy.

I think the whole thing seems exceptionally reasonable... And this is coming from someone who would have to pay more due to being overweight.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> Seeing your name just reminded me too....what about pregnant women? Their weight can increase within a normal range by several pounds so how would they make a regulation for that?


Exactly! it can increase by stones!!!:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> OMG can just imagine u saying that as well HB!!


I wasnt rude but had to say something! After 7+hours confined to her pungent farts and my nostrils on the verge of decaying i couldnt keep my thoughts to myself any longer!

It was one of them smells where it hits the back of your throat when you breath through your mouth *gag*!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

But if you wanted to lose weight Chris, you could. Tall people can't lose inches in height, so why should they be penalised for something they have no control over?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Thats the thing... They DO take it into account. It costs more. If you could make the plane for optimum conditions, including standard person height, weight, leg length, ratio's... You could create a much more fuel effecient, cheaper, lighter, smaller plane... But you cant. So varying shapes and sizes already increase costs. To add a premium on ANYONE who falls outside that spec isnt wrong...
> 
> But if someone tall gets on, but has a weight or width within spec, that doesnt cost anyone, except that passengers comfort. If they want a special seat to accomodate their "abnormal leg length" then they would have to pay for it... Same if your wide or heavy.
> 
> I think the whole thing seems exceptionally reasonable... And this is coming from someone who would have to pay more due to being overweight.


If a butt fits in the seat it cant be to heavy, its fat not rocks ffs. If it overflows then sure must way.. a ton.. but no planes so far have crashed cos of human weight.... unless you have links?


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> But if you wanted to lose weight Chris, you could. Tall people can't lose inches in height, so why should they be penalised for something they have no control over?


Because it costs more money to accomodate that person. Its a company... Its not there for the good of mankind. You, nor me, nor anyone else is entitled to special treatment by them.

If I go to a shop, and I buy a sandwhich... But that sandwhich doesnt fill me up, I dont go asking for a free one... I need to pay for another. If I use a 30spf suncream, and through no fault of my own, the sun burns me... I need the 50spf. I dont get the company to give it to me for free!!! I have to pay for the premium of using that which I need to use.



> If a butt fits in the seat it cant be to heavy, its fat not rocks ffs. If it overflows then sure must way.. a ton.. but no planes so far have crashed cos of human weight.... unless you have links?


Sorry... I think youre making things up there... Unless im dreadfully mistaken, no-one but you has said anything about safety... Its about cost. And I assure you that someone who can fit in a given seat, they can weigh more or less than "standard" a weightlifter would be just as obese due to body mass... Its not about health, size, relative size... Its about mass.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

never mind.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Sorry... I think youre making things up there... Unless im dreadfully mistaken, no-one but you has said anything about safety... Its about cost. And I assure you that someone who can fit in a given seat, they can weigh more or less than "standard" a weightlifter would be just as obese due to body mass... Its not about health, size, relative size... Its about mass.


Cost lol.. suddenly costs more when it didnt before :skep:


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Its basically just another way to cream more money from us - wake up people!!! :cornut::cornut:

Soon they will charge extra for overweight people to dine in restaurants  

Seriously where does it end??


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)




----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I wasnt rude but had to say something! After 7+hours confined to her pungent farts and my nostrils on the verge of decaying i couldnt keep my thoughts to myself any longer!
> 
> *It was one of them smells where it hits the back of your throat when you breath through your mouth *gag*!*


There was so nearly vomit on the laptop reading that :lol:


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Since last months explosion, Moggys employers have issued her with a prewarning badge. If you see her pinning this on her blouse, run for your livvvveeessss :lol: :lol:


Lentil soup again for lunch today folks!!!! :thumbup:

Put me on a plane in 3 hrs time and we won't need to start the engines!!!! :lol: :lol:


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> Lentil soup again for lunch today folks!!!! :thumbup:
> 
> Put me on a plane in 3 hrs time and we won't need to start the engines!!!! :lol: :lol:


Ive had Lentil and Veg soup !! put us both on and they have concord!!!:biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Lentil soup again for lunch today folks!!!! :thumbup:
> 
> Put me on a plane in 3 hrs time and we won't need to start the engines!!!! :lol: :lol:


Theres ya answer folks. Force feed the mogster lentil soup. She could power nuclear power stations with her farts :lol: :lol:


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> Thats the thing... They DO take it into account. It costs more. If you could make the plane for optimum conditions, including standard person height, weight, leg length, ratio's... You could create a much more fuel effecient, cheaper, lighter, smaller plane... But you cant. So varying shapes and sizes already increase costs. To add a premium on ANYONE who falls outside that spec isnt wrong...
> 
> But if someone tall gets on, but has a weight or width within spec, that doesnt cost anyone, except that passengers comfort. *If they want a special seat to accomodate their "abnormal leg length" then they would have to pay for it... *Same if your wide or heavy.
> 
> I think the whole thing seems exceptionally reasonable... And this is coming from someone who would have to pay more due to being overweight.


Er DOH!!!!!!! Didn't you READ my post where I stated "we already have to pay an additional charge for the [email protected] seats to get extra leg room....."?????

So we'll pay twice shall we???? Once for the extra leg room and then AGAIN because his height makes him weigh more!!!! 

If you have to pay more for your seat because you are overweight, that IS your problem. At least you CAN do something about it.

Short of sawing his legs off, my OH is a bit b*ggered in that dept!!!!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I have no objection to airlines charging extra for taller, or overweight, or whatever, people - *providing* they spend the money on accommodating those people correctly - ie bigger seats, more (and sufficient) leg room etc etc.

I do object to them charging money and expecting tall people or overweight people to squash into the same little space, or sit on two seats - how uncomfortable is that and who in their right mind would pay extra for the privilege of doing so?


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> Ive had Lentil and Veg soup !! put us both on and they have concord!!!:biggrin::biggrin:


Or if we fed every passenger veg and lentil soup they would eventually lose weight through copious amounts of squits and be able to power the plane win win situation!


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Kitty_pig said:


> Or if we fed every passenger veg and lentil soup they would eventually lose weight through copious amounts of squits and be able to power the plane win win situation!


muck spreading at the same time, organic crops here we come :lol:


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> muck spreading at the same time, organic crops here we come :lol:


Together we can save the world! :cornut:


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I have no objection to airlines charging extra for taller, or overweight, or whatever, people - *providing* they spend the money on accommodating those people correctly - ie bigger seats, more (and sufficient) leg room etc etc.
> 
> I do object to them charging money and expecting tall people or overweight people to squash into the same little space, or sit on two seats - how uncomfortable is that and who in their right mind would pay extra for the privilege of doing so?


Something else I agree with you about - this is getting to be a regular occurrence! :lol:


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Chris Swansea said:


> Thats the thing... They DO take it into account. It costs more. If you could make the plane for optimum conditions, including standard person height, weight, leg length, ratio's... You could create a much more fuel effecient, cheaper, lighter, smaller plane... But you cant. So varying shapes and sizes already increase costs. To add a premium on ANYONE who falls outside that spec isnt wrong...
> 
> But if someone tall gets on, but has a weight or width within spec, that doesnt cost anyone, except that passengers comfort. If they want a special seat to accomodate their "abnormal leg length" then they would have to pay for it... Same if your wide or heavy.
> 
> I think the whole thing seems exceptionally reasonable... And this is coming from someone who would have to pay more due to being overweight.


Abnormal??? so what defines "Abnormal"


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I have no objection to airlines charging extra for taller, or overweight, or whatever, people - *providing* they spend the money on accommodating those people correctly - ie bigger seats, more (and sufficient) leg room etc etc.
> 
> I do object to them charging money and expecting tall people or overweight people to squash into the same little space, or sit on two seats - how uncomfortable is that and who in their right mind would pay extra for the privilege of doing so?


Spot on SW!

As with all companies - IF you are going to increase prices - you better sure as hell improve the services you provide!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> Cost lol.. suddenly costs more when it didnt before :skep:


It has ALWAYS cost more to transport people by combusting fuel. It takes energy to move people, that energy is made by burning fuel, the more energy you need, the more fuel you burn...

Fuel costs money... So the extra energy costs money.

This has always been set as a standard tariff, calculated by the company for a given spec... "x" weight, "x" size, "x" height, "x" space, "x" number of passengers per flight, etc...

If you want to transport more or less of those things, then you use more of less fuel. Hence more or less costs.



> Er DOH!!!!!!! Didn't you READ my post where I stated "we already have to pay an additional charge for the [email protected] seats to get extra leg room....."?????
> 
> So we'll pay twice shall we???? Once for the extra leg room and then AGAIN because his height makes him weigh more!!!!
> 
> ...


I didnt see it actually... But there we go. There are already premiums on abnormal or preferential treatment. If you happened to be extra tall and extra large then yeah... you would have to pay more. Although being tall does not equate to extra weight. You can be tall and heavy or tall and light. or even tall and average mass.

If you are 8 feet tall, and 25 stone, then yeah... Thats somewhat exceptionally abnormal, based on averages. You should have to offset the cost of gods/evolutions cruel trick... Its not down to any company on earth to subsidise that... You would probabally have to get specially made shoes as well. But you wouldnt moan about that... Maybe special clothes, maybe a special car? Its not down to a company to give you all of these things out of the goodness of its heart... No-ones entitled to it... You have to pay a premium for it.


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

I am dreading my flight in 5 weeks time, I am always seated next to someone that 'spills' onto my seat 

The airlines should do something about the seating and space but they wont because that means more room for people + less passengers = less takings


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> Abnormal??? so what defines "Abnormal"


From a designers/company point of view... I would imagine "significantly outside of the average, based on the averge being taken from a cross section of expected users, plus a margin of error"

I have no idea what the margin of error would be. maybe 10%? .....No idea really.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I have no objection to airlines charging extra for taller, or overweight, or whatever, people - *providing* they spend the money on accommodating those people correctly - ie bigger seats, more (and sufficient) leg room etc etc.
> 
> I do object to them charging money and expecting tall people or overweight people to squash into the same little space, or sit on two seats - how uncomfortable is that and who in their right mind would pay extra for the privilege of doing so?


Taller people can pay for extra leg room seats; the door seats, beginning of the aisle seats, etc.

I am not sure how viable it would be to add larger seats for obese passengers. Larger seats mean less space on the aircraft and less people travelling would surely result in increased air fare charges.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> I didnt see it actually... But there we go. There are already premiums on abnormal or preferential treatment. If you happened to be extra tall and extra large then yeah... you would have to pay more. Although being tall does not equate to extra weight. You can be tall and heavy or tall and light. or even tall and average mass.
> 
> If you are 8 feet tall, and 25 stone, then yeah... Thats somewhat exceptionally abnormal, based on averages. You should have to offset the cost of gods/evolutions cruel trick... Its not down to any company on earth to subsidise that... You would probabally have to get specially made shoes as well. But you wouldnt moan about that... Maybe special clothes, maybe a special car? Its not down to a company to give you all of these things out of the goodness of its heart... No-ones entitled to it... You have to pay a premium for it.


So you did your usual of being too busy putting your point across and not really reading what other people are saying. There's a surprise..... 

And whilst we may pay for extra leg room, we don't actually get better seats. We get the seats beside the doors so have to make do with pathetic little swivel tv's, horrible little tucked up tables that are smaller than the pull-down back of the seat tables and we also have to be prepared to assist in the event of an emergency!!!!!

Value for money? No, not really!!!!


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Is this just for cattle class? 

What would happen if you weigh one weight on the way out and are heavier on the return flight? I go on holiday to relax and indulge in food .... not watch the scales 

I shall stick to drivable destinations, instead of flying.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> So you did your usual of being too busy putting your point across and not really reading what other people are saying. There's a surprise.....
> 
> And whilst we may pay for extra leg room, we don't actually get better seats. We get the seats beside the doors so have to make do with pathetic little swivel tv's, horrible little tucked up tables that are smaller than the pull-down back of the seat tables and we also have to be prepared to assist in the event of an emergency!!!!!
> 
> Value for money? No, not really!!!!


Or... It was put up while I was typing and I didnt copy my reply, refesh to check for other replies, then paste it back to post... Or scroll back up after I posted by the neccisary amount. Maybe It was back in pages I didnt read on, or maybe it just slipped past me... Maybe its not indicitive of anything, at all? And I didnt do it with malice aforethought....

And there we go again... Your paying for extra leg room... You GOT... Extra leg room. What exactly is the problem... You wanted not only extra leg room, but a better seat? But you only paid for one of those things.

Its a company... It doesnt owe you anything, you dont have to fly with them, if you dont LIKE the service, dont USE the service. I went to a pub, got a crap meal... But thats what you get for £3.50 a meal! I may need to pay more for a good meal. And if I dont like the pubs service, I'm not a victim of heartless companies... I'm just unhappy, and I dont use it again...

But you HAVE to use that service? Then that company has you by the short and curlies... It sucks and welcome to the world of commerce. lol

I too would like to pay a standard rate for above standard goods and services... but sadly, I reside in the real world... And it really does suck to be me


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Chris Swansea said:


> From a designers/company point of view... I would imagine "significantly outside of the average, based on the averge being taken from a cross section of expected users, plus a margin of error"
> 
> I have no idea what the margin of error would be. maybe 10%? .....No idea really.


This is where I think this idea will fall down.....because I dont think they can come up with an average....


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

westie~ma said:


> Is this just for cattle class?
> 
> What would happen if you weigh one weight on the way out and are heavier on the return flight? I go on holiday to relax and indulge in food .... not watch the scales
> 
> I shall stick to drivable destinations, instead of flying.


I think it would take a SERIOUS... Abnormal, you might say, amount of indulgance to get you to the point of being turned away for a flight. But lets face it, a company would reasonably expect you to gain or loose some weight... What with holiday buys...

Also... its entirely possible that on any given flight, 50% are leaving (nice and thin) for a holiday, and 50% are returning back, nice and indulged after a holiday. lol.... Maybe it averages out. I bet you some engineer has calculated the numbers.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

What I find particularly offensive is them looking at putting scales at the check out .......:skep::skep: how awful for those in the que who are overweight and everyone staring at them  ....its cruel - if they do have to add costs on then they need to think of a more sensitive scheme!....IMO!


----------



## Tamsin W (Sep 18, 2012)

SammyJo said:


> The airlines should do something about the seating and space but they wont because that means more room for people + less passengers = less takings


This doesn't really make any sense. They'd still have to recoup the same overall revenue - so introducing larger seats (and subsequently a smaller number of seats within the same area) would mean an increase in cost across the board.

In other words, _everyone_ would be charged for the larger seats of a minority. That doesn't seem particularly well-balanced.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> This is where I think this idea will fall down.....because I dont think they can come up with an average....


They can, and do... Its not so much an opinion, but a fact. lol. the hardest thing to calculate in averages is the variation in how those averages will change over time, but with such a large sample, those rates happen incredibly slowly...

When you go to town next, or a pub, or any crowded area, you will see an average in about a millisecond. Car companies, bus companies, anyone dealing in ergonomics... The seat you're sitting on, the phone you have in your pocket, the knife and fork you use to eat with, the fridge in your kitchen sitting nex to the washing machine and the control you use for the TV... All of these will have been basically designed to know nothing about the specific user, apart from their averages.

Interestingly... To do it the other way... Singularly, is practically impossible. And I mean that to say its unable to be possible. Not hyperbolie...


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> What I find particularly offensive is them looking at putting scales at the check out .......:skep::skep: how awful for those in the que who are overweight and everyone staring at them  ....its cruel - if they do have to add costs on then they need to think of a more sensitive scheme!....IMO!


No costs... Ive just done it.

Metal detectors, which everyone walks though, with scales, no weight display, just the computer spitting out a percentage of ticket price, not shown to anyone. Bands of percentages... Lets say 5%-10% bands...

So the most ANYONE would know is that you are roughly a bit heavier or lighter than joe blogs. And that person would be the ticket vendor who would have to know the standard ticket price and be good at percentages to mentally calculate your weight to within a 10% accuracy... Someone else could have that info by... Having eyes. It really shouldnt be news to the user. They surely know what theiy weigh.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> No costs... Ive just done it.
> 
> Metal detectors, which everyone walks though, with scales, no weight display, just the computer spitting out a percentage of ticket price, not shown to anyone. Bands of percentages... Lets say 5%-10% bands...
> 
> So the most ANYONE would know is that you are roughly a bit heavier or lighter than joe blogs. And that person would be the ticket vendor who would have to know the standard ticket price and be good at percentages to mentally calculate your weight to within a 10% accuracy... Someone else could have that info by... Having eyes. It really shouldnt be news to the user. They surely know what theiy weigh.


Surely there would be at least a minimal cost. Scales would have to be calibrated at a constant level with the amount of passengers passing through and then if the scales break down waiting times will increase.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Chris Swansea said:


> No costs... Ive just done it.
> 
> Metal detectors, which everyone walks though, with scales, no weight display, just the computer spitting out a percentage of ticket price, not shown to anyone. Bands of percentages... Lets say 5%-10% bands...
> 
> So the most ANYONE would know is that you are roughly a bit heavier or lighter than joe blogs. And that person would be the ticket vendor who would have to know the standard ticket price and be good at percentages to mentally calculate your weight to within a 10% accuracy... Someone else could have that info by... Having eyes. It really shouldnt be news to the user. They surely know what theiy weigh.


But you dont know for sure that this is the procedure they would use ....it does state in the link MB provided - "introducing scales at the check in"...

Not everyone knows what they weigh - when I was at my heaviest I had not weighed myself for over 10 yrs .....mostly because I was afraid to because I knew I had put on weight and was in denial ....Im sure there are many many people who dont weigh themselves.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> What I find particularly offensive is them looking at putting scales at the check out .......:skep::skep: how awful for those in the que who are overweight and everyone staring at them  ....its cruel - if they do have to add costs on then they need to think of a more sensitive scheme!....IMO!


I doubt that would ever happen TBH. And if it did, it would be a case of EVERYONE being weighed, not just overweight and obese people. The same way that everyone has to walk through the security scanner, have their bags weighed, etc.

It is a difficult subject. I am not aware of any airlines that insist that large people (people that cannot fit comfortably into one seat) must purchase two seats? I don't know about anyone else, but I have seen plenty of very large individuals crammed into economy seats. I am sure there are plenty of people willing to do this to avoid paying for a second seat. But is this fair on people who are not travelling with the large person to be crammed in next to them? on a flight to Florida last year, across the aisle from me two youngish girls who were travelling together had a very large man travelling alone sat next to them. I felt very sorry for them as he was on the aisle seat and they were both packed in like sardines.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Surely there's a set weight that planes can carry,so I am 8stone if half the plane was in that weight region and the other half a bit over weight and a few rather more overweight,Why the hell should anyone pay more than anyone else,what next buses etc,I maybe not grasping it but to me it would be how can we fleece a bit more out of passengers


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

suewhite said:


> Surely there's a set weight that planes can carry,so I am 8stone if half the plane was in that weight region and the other half a bit over weight and a few rather more overweight,Why the hell should anyone pay more than anyone else,what next buses etc,I maybe not grasping it but to me it would be how can we fleece a bit more out of passengers


well lets hit the disabled and elderly too while we're at it. The chances of a frail old gentleman leaping out of his seat to get out of the escape hatch in an emergency will drastically affect the other passengers safety, so lets hit poor old crippled grandad in the pocket too, the doddery old fool.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Surely there would be at least a minimal cost. Scales would have to be calibrated at a constant level with the amount of passengers passing through and then if the scales break down waiting times will increase.


Nahhhhh... Scales may cost a few grand. Mass production uses scales that weight FAR more than the footfall at ANY airport in the world. Car parks reliably weigh cars for their exist systems and do so rather regularly with little to no refurbishment so a middle ground exists... Calibration is simple... Known mass. Remote adjustment. Yearly service. You could functionally calibrate hourly if you wanted to... 10 seconds a pop

Delays are easy to mitigate... 10 units in use, 30 scales in the building. A unit breaks, the line is halted, the rubber mat is lifted up, the unit repalced with a single cable, mat repalced... Thats 5 minutes per broken unit.

The install costs, running costs, and programming costs would be tiny... I could write the code for the computers right now!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

LOL well if the costs are low to implement its a good job cos they may get sued for discrimination by a fair few !!!! - those who have legitimate health reasons why they are obese/overweight .....just a thought ...


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> But you dont know for sure that this is the procedure they would use ....it does state in the link MB provided - "introducing scales at the check in"...
> 
> Not everyone knows what they weigh - when I was at my heaviest I had not weighed myself for over 10 yrs .....mostly because I was afraid to because I knew I had put on weight and was in denial ....Im sure there are many many people who dont weigh themselves.


Not everyone knows... But for a tenner, you can get yourself a bit of kit from argos, to weigh yourself and your stuff before you go on holiday. Certainly accurate enough for the purposes of this application. If you would like to not weigh yourself before a flight... Then thats your decision (and yours alone).

I dont know what system would be implimented either... But the technicalities of it are exactly the same. You need a scale, a program, an interface and a "calibration and maintenence" routine. Doesnt matter where you place the system... unless its going to operate in extreme conditions (extreme high/low temp, extreme wet/dry) in which case you need different hardware and nothing more.



> Surely there's a set weight that planes can carry,so I am 8stone if half the plane was in that weight region and the other half a bit over weight and a few rather more overweight,Why the hell should anyone pay more than anyone else,what next buses etc,I maybe not grasping it but to me it would be how can we fleece a bit more out of passengers


There is... It may factor out, or maybe not... We dont have the numbers. But the theory is sound... In a perfect world, you would pay for being massively overwight, and save for being massively underweight... Those of average weights and sizes are already accounted for in the flat rate... So you can only look at the extremes.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> LOL well if the costs are low to implement its a good job cos they may get sued for discrimination by a fair few !!!! - those who have legitimate health reasons why they are obese/overweight .....just a thought ...


Yeah, cus Nike get sued by people with larger than average feet, ford got sued by those unable to fit in their cars, all high street shops ever got sued for not making plus sized clothes... There was a case a few years back when microsoft got sued from large people who couldnt use their keyboards. Nokia too, for those that couldnt text with sausage fingers...

I personally plan on suing Honda, because their new fireblade is too small for me! Their descriminating against me!

Hang on, Chris... None of those things ever happened, ever! Silly meeeeee...


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> LOL well if the costs are low to implement its a good job cos they may get sued for discrimination by a fair few !!!! - those who have legitimate health reasons why they are obese/overweight .....just a thought ...


How is it being discriminatory? if a person cannot fit comfortably into a seat without impeding the person next to them, then how is that fair on the person next to them?


----------



## Tamsin W (Sep 18, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> LOL well if the costs are low to implement its a good job cos they may get sued for discrimination by a fair few !!!! - those who have legitimate health reasons why they are obese/overweight .....just a thought ...


Sorry, but I don't see how the 'health reason' for being obese is in any way relevant. If you don't fit into a seat, you don't fit into a seat - I doubt explaining to the passenger next to you that the reason you're spilling over your armrest into their lap is justified on medical grounds would somehow make it any less annoying.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Are the charges reversed for travel by boat? Fat floats in water so that means obese people are more buoyant than someone with a lower body mass. Skinny folk cannot be deployed over the side to act as ballast in an emergency whereas the larger folk can. Therefore obese people should get discounted tickets for sea travel and skinny beans should have to pay for the lack of buoyancy they provide to the vessel.

More skinny people on board means that the boat sits lower in the water so the engine has to push more boat through the water, more resistance means more fuel used. Obese people actually float so they don't affect the seating of the boat in the water at all so the boat is running more efficiently pushing the target proportion of water or even less making the boat more efficient.
Obese people eat loads, tonnes, so that means that the boat will weigh even less when they've eaten all of the food making the boat yet more aquadynamic. Obese people should travel for free by boat.

If 10 skinny people stand on a canoe then the chances are they will probably sink that canoe because there is no body fat to provide buoyancy. If 3 obese people weighing more than the 10 skinny people stood on the same canoe their body fat would float making the boat more buoyant to the point where if enough obese people stood on it they could float that canoe ever so slightly off the surface of the water due to just how buoyant they make it.
Going by this science, if enough obese people stood on the canoe there multiplied buoyancy would make the canoe lift clear of the water and float several feet in the air.
Going by this logic, stay with me here, obese people are what makes aeroplanes fly in the first place. It is their natural buoyancy that gets the plane off the ground in the first place. 
Every flight path out of Britain has to go over the sea, why? Well it is the natural buoyancy of the water acting on the body that works like two positives on a magnet, they repel each other and push each other away meaning that the more obese people you have the plane, the higher it will fly and because of the perpetual effect the less fuel the plane will actually use.

It should be people built like matchsticks with low body fat that should pay extra as they are acting like polar opposites of a magnet to the water and are continually trying to sink which means they are using more fuel.

Please do not think this is an exact science, I am still awaiting the National Institutes reply.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Im not saying they SHOULD  but some people may be upset to a) be weighed and b) charged extra because of a health condition that is not their fault.....


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Tamsin W said:


> Sorry, but I don't see how the 'health reason' for being obese is in any way relevant. If you don't fit into a seat, you don't fit into a seat - I doubt explaining to the passenger next to you that the reason you're spilling over your armrest into their lap is justified on medical grounds would somehow make it any less annoying.


which is why most obese people already buy TWO seats ...i.e., they already pay:shocked:

Oh and it would make it less annoying to me - I would rather have someone large sitting next to me than some stinking person who has BO and smelly clothes etc .....maybe we could start charging them too!!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> which is why most obese people already buy TWO seats ...i.e., they already pay:shocked:


Some may well do but a lot don't, that is the point. I have seen obese people crammed into single economy seats on many occasions.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

hutch6 said:


> Are the charges reversed for travel by boat? Fat floats in water so that means obese people are more buoyant than someone with a lower body mass. Skinny folk cannot be deployed over the side to act as ballast in an emergency whereas the larger folk can. Therefore obese people should get discounted tickets for sea travel and skinny beans should have to pay for the lack of buoyancy they provide to the vessel.
> 
> More skinny people on board means that the boat sits lower in the water so the engine has to push more boat through the water, more resistance means more fuel used. Obese people actually float so they don't affect the seating of the boat in the water at all so the boat is running more efficiently pushing the target proportion of water or even less making the boat more efficient.
> Obese people eat loads, tonnes, so that means that the boat will weigh even less when they've eaten all of the food making the boat yet more aquadynamic. Obese people should travel for free by boat.
> ...


:biggrin:

Marvellous.

You have cheered up a grim, fatigued, rubbish day. 
:biggrin:


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

SammyJo said:


> The airlines should do something about the seating and space but they wont because that means more room for people + less passengers = less takings





Tamsin W said:


> *This doesn't really make any sense.* They'd still have to recoup the same overall revenue - so introducing larger seats (and subsequently a smaller number of seats within the same area) would mean an increase in cost across the board.
> 
> In other words, _everyone_ would be charged for the larger seats of a minority. That doesn't seem particularly well-balanced.


What doesn't really make any sense? 

I simply said: If the airline makes the seats larger (therefore loosing some seating space) then they have less passengers on board which means less takings.......

I didnt mention _everyone_ would be charged for the larger seats of a minority...


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Cant see if someone cant fit in the seat without overlapping charging them more is going to make them fit any better,dont think they are going to fit bigger seats for bigger people so if you get sat next to someone who is bigger the only difference will be they paid more


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> Im not saying they SHOULD  but some people may be upset to a) be weighed and b) charged extra because of a health condition that is not their fault.....


Then those people can have a big tall glass of "stfu" its not our fault either... They can be upset with evolution and god. And i'll join them in their dismay... But I'm not willing to pay for it


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Air stewards, why do we need them?

They do their thing at the start where they show you where to aim for in a mass blind panic if you are the only calm person whilst the fuselage bursts in to flames and you somehow still manage to survive the incrdible impact of running into a planet at 500miles an hour. Think about when you have run into something like a door, a person or a coffee table, now increase that object to planet size and imagine your movement intot eh object justa littel bit quicker. Chances are slim you'll survive. Anyway, they show you the exits (a couple of doors and any gaping hole ripped out of the pressurised caspule of doom) and show you how to put on a seat belt, complicated **** that is and what to do when the masks drop from above - remember to put one on yourself before helping others because human nature has shown throughout the course of human history that when faced with a split second life and death decision you won't do this, you'll sort grandad out first.
Right so the flight takes off and they shout at you for not wearing your sealt belt as they wander about without one on to make sure you have your's on. They are professional non-seat belt wearers, do not try and copy them, oh and you might be filming the take off on your camera phone - "TURN THAT OFF!!! WE COULD CRASH!!!"
When crusing altitude is reached they cruise the aisle askign if you need a drink (Had all of your's confiscated at the check-in so you either sit there parched or have your wallet raped), some food (you can take your own but they advise not to take something that could be harmful - "Death cap mushroom voullovant anyone?") and some crap products that appeal because let's face it, when else do you get to purchase something at 30,000ft?

Basically after the safety brief they are not needed if we were allowed to take a few tinnies and put some forethought into a pillow, a blind fold and some snacks. Absolutely no training in the world could prepare them for a crash situation with a rabid mob bearing down on them as they are screaming "PLEASE!! FORM AN ORDERLY QUEUE!!" Watch the folk at the boarding gates rush to get on and that isn't even an emergency, imagine folk trying to get off with death on their arse.

How much profit do the airlines stand to lose if they got rid of the stewrads? Do your safety thing and then get off. Surely there is more money to be made from knocking the cabin crew partition down, the woeful in-flight meal storage units can go and another couple of rows of seating with reasonable spacing and leg room to accomodate your not-so "average Joes". 

Wouldn't everyone be happy?

*apart from those working as air stewards but let's face it, you only do it for the free holidays. Who in their right mind would fester in a canister of pressurised farts for hours on end if the perks weren't amazing at the end of it?


----------



## Tamsin W (Sep 18, 2012)

SammyJo said:


> What doesn't really make any sense?
> 
> I simply said: If the airline makes the seats larger (therefore loosing some seating space) then they have less passengers on board which means less takings.......
> 
> I didnt mention _everyone_ would be charged for the larger seats of a minority...


Because 'less takings' isn't an option - they'd simply bump everyone's fare up to compensate for the deficit. So everyone would, as a result, be charged for the minority!


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

Completely ot but just started giggling at memory of my dad having to buy an extra seat for a giant tigger teddy on the trip home from florida one year....mum made him sit next to it....and it talked :lol: 

Sorry back to the fatties vs thinnies debate


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

Tamsin W said:


> *Because 'less takings' isn't an option* - they'd simply bump everyone's fare up to compensate for the deficit. So everyone would, as a result, be charged for the minority!


That's why I said they wouldn't do it..................


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Kitty_pig said:


> Completely ot but just started giggling at memory of my dad having to buy an extra seat for a giant tigger teddy on the trip home from florida one year....mum made him sit next to it....and it talked :lol:
> 
> *Sorry back to the fatties vs thinnies debate*


Or tall-ies vs shorties debate...!!!!


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

hahahahahahaha im a shortie for tallies must be awful needing more leg room *smug short ar$e*


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Kitty_pig said:


> hahahahahahaha im a shortie for tallies must be awful needing more leg room *smug short ar$e*


But roller coaster are a right laugh.

Give me a low five.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

If people are getting bigger then maybe seat sizes should be adjusted accordingly so that no-one has to pay to sit in two seats but can fit in one.

If due to cost they cannot do a whole plane like this then maybe a % of seats that fit a wider berth 

If you are fit to travel health wise and your size is not a barrier to you flying then there should be a % of seats available for you to fit into.

Seat sizes cannot stay the same , same as clothes. However a larger seat would need the costs recouped , so the only way would be to charge more for these seats, but people requesting them should never be made to feel second rate.


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

hutch6 said:


> But roller coaster are a right laugh.
> 
> Give me a low five.


*jumps repeatedly trying to reach hutch6's hand*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

labradrk said:


> Taller people can pay for extra leg room seats; the door seats, beginning of the aisle seats, etc.


Not enough though.



labradrk said:


> I am not sure how viable it would be to add larger seats for obese passengers. Larger seats mean less space on the aircraft and less people travelling would surely result in increased air fare charges.


Exactly - the extra they are wanting to charge. Charging extra for the use of existing space is ridiculous. If they are charging extra, they can reduce the space and spend the extra they are charging on providing proper seating for larger people, without it impacting on other air fares at all. That way, everyone pays for what they use - a much fairer idea than charging tall or overweight people extra for being squashed into exactly the same facilities as a smaller, thinner person.

Unless, of course, the object is to merely make money by discriminating against anyone who doesn't fit into the current fashionable perception of "normal" (which appears to be about a size 8 these days )


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I travel a lot to the US for work and I have to say while I'm by no means a skinny minny, I do fit a normal airline seat, I really do hate it when someone "larger" sits in the seat next to me, and then takes over what little room I have already when they over flow in to my seat  while my little tiny bit of space for an 8 hour flight is paid for, I do resent someone then stealing part of that space too. Not very PC I know but the flight is uncomfortable enough without being extra squashed...


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

harley bear said:


> You gotta admit it would be a great way to help people stick to their diets!


It would put a different spin on "ime dieting for my holidays"


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

If you take up two spaces...flying, bus, etc you should pay for two seats. We have residents' parking and some people take up two spaces as they park so thoughtlessly...and technically can get a parking fine for one of the spaces. Same principle I guess.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

*I don't think it should make any difference...*


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Meezey said:


> I travel a lot to the US for work and I have to say while I'm by no means a skinny minny, I do fit a normal airline seat, I really do hate it when someone "larger" sits in the seat next to me, and then takes over what little room I have already when they over flow in to my seat  while my little tiny bit of space for an 8 hour flight is paid for, I do resent someone then stealing part of that space too. Not very PC I know but the flight is uncomfortable enough without being extra squashed...


Had a guy next to me on the bus the other day, as you say, overlapping (like a muffin) also insisted on sitting with his great giant squidgy thighs wide APART eek: for the whole journey:shocked:so that eventually I was squished up against the bus window. It was _not_ a pleasant trip, take my word for it.


----------



## cazbah (Nov 2, 2009)

As a 'big lass' I say YES.... as long as we get seats that are designed to fit our frame! I am fed up of me and my 6'4" hubby crammed into seats where neither of us can move, furthermore I have to share his table as mine doesn't come down over my belly!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

i dont see why i should have to pay more than my OH just because im unfortunate enough to be disabled and unable to exercise!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i dont see why i should have to pay more than my OH just because im unfortunate enough to be disabled and unable to exercise!


Because the world is a big, unforgiving place? ... And physics doesnt care about your dissability? And no-one else should have to shoulder or pay for your unfortunate situation?

It may not be your fault that your weight is high... Buts its sadly your weight to deal with. Goverment discussions are a bit of a 50/50 chat... When it comes to private companies... I fear its a case of their way, or the highway. Quite litterally in this case. lol


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If people are getting bigger then maybe seat sizes should be adjusted accordingly so that no-one has to pay to sit in two seats but can fit in one.
> 
> If due to cost they cannot do a whole plane like this then maybe a % of seats that fit a wider berth
> 
> ...


The seats have been standard since commercial flyng began. the simple fact is the population getting bigger shouldnt be mollycoddled, its a great big beacon shouting "FOR CHRISTS SAKE GET A GRIP OF YOURSELVES!" It should be encouraged in the slightest.

OH and I are off to Amsterdam in June, God help anyone attempting to spill into my seat as Ill make sure its the most verbally uncomfortable of their lives. Ive paid for ALL of my seat, im entitled to ALL of it.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

what is the weight of a 747?

*Basic operating weight is 182,020kgs plus 57,285 gallons of fuel *

now call me a dullard but is a few extra stones per passenger really gonna make all that much difference?

im told the painting of the underside adds ONE TONNE to the weight....


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> what is the weight of a 747?
> 
> *Basic operating weight is 182,020kgs plus 57,285 gallons of fuel *
> 
> *now call me a dullard* but is a few extra stones per passenger really gonna make all that much difference?


*You're a dullard!!!!!!!*

Well................ it was too good an invitation to refuse....... Singing:

.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i dont see why i should have to pay more than my OH just because im unfortunate enough to be disabled and unable to exercise!


I am afraid some narrow minded people would see disability as an excuse for being overweight....rather than a reason. Sad and selfish world we live in.....unfortunately.

I believe if someone is taking up more than a single seat...they should pay for 2 seats.

As for those that arent AVERAGE....ie slightly rounder ..taller than average. ...etc paying extra....blooming ridiculous!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Chris Swansea said:


> Because the world is a big, unforgiving place? ... And physics doesnt care about your dissability? And no-one else should have to shoulder or pay for your unfortunate situation?
> 
> It may not be your fault that your weight is high... Buts its sadly your weight to deal with. Goverment discussions are a bit of a 50/50 chat... When it comes to private companies... I fear its a case of their way, or the highway. Quite litterally in this case. lol


tbh i will never go travelling if this comes in

my holidays to america will be off


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

chichi said:


> I am afraid some narrow minded people would see disability as an excuse for being overweight....rather than a reason. Sad and selfish world we live in.....unfortunately.
> 
> *I believe if someone is taking up more than a single seat...they should pay for 2 seats.*
> 
> As for those that arent AVERAGE....ie slightly rounder ..taller than average. ...etc paying extra....blooming ridiculous!


totally agree with this


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Just had a thought

One skinny bird and OH arguing with checking staff because they want, no demand one of the bigger seats which they are more than happy to pay for, so, do they give the seat to the bigger couple who oay for it or the skinny couple who are demanding the seat and willing to pay for it.

Who wins,, ,,,


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

welshjet said:


> Just had a thought
> 
> One skinny bird and OH arguing with checking staff because they want, no demand one of the bigger seats which they are more than happy to pay for, so, do they give the seat to the bigger couple who oay for it or the skinny couple who are demanding the seat and willing to pay for it.
> 
> Who wins,, ,,,


well the bigger couple obviously because they need it, the skinny couple dont


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Starlite said:


> The seats have been standard since commercial flyng began. the simple fact is the population getting bigger shouldnt be mollycoddled, its a great big beacon shouting "FOR CHRISTS SAKE GET A GRIP OF YOURSELVES!" It should be encouraged in the slightest.
> 
> OH and I are off to Amsterdam in June, God help anyone attempting to spill into my seat as Ill make sure its the most verbally uncomfortable of their lives. Ive paid for ALL of my seat, im entitled to ALL of it.


I should bring you on my next trip :thumbup1:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

welshjet said:


> Just had a thought
> 
> One skinny bird and OH arguing with checking staff because they want, no demand one of the bigger seats which they are more than happy to pay for, so, do they give the seat to the bigger couple who oay for it or the skinny couple who are demanding the seat and willing to pay for it.
> 
> Who wins,, ,,,


Does it matter? Providing people are willing to pay for what they use, why shouldn't they have bigger seats. more leg room etc? It's only the same as choosing to upgrade to - say- business class.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I wouldnt mind but Boeing (USA) build the best known and commonest airliners in the world and the USA has the biggest percentage of lardy-arses too...


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> what is the weight of a 747?
> 
> *Basic operating weight is 182,020kgs plus 57,285 gallons of fuel *
> 
> ...


In terms of energy per kilo, the number is quite large. Its the energy in terms of fuel, then the energy in terms of carrying the extra fuel. And if you start looking at having to redesign planes for bigger seats, then the prices skyrocket. For every special seat you have to redesign the seats, belts, passageways, layout, air distribution system... I was having this convo with some friends a couple of years ago... Aeronaughtical engineers. lol

Planes dont change... Its too expensive. if they have to change then it costs MUCH more than any other area. For example,, to even change the seat bolts... You need a calibrated, £4k torque wrench and no bolts can be reused. And each bolt is precidion cast and something like £22 per bolt, 6 bolts per seat, and only a trained aeronaughtical technician can do the job... But can you get the seat through the door? Oh you cant.. Lets redesign the fusalage... No wait, scrap the plane...

A small saving, per passenger, per mile adds up to a massive saving overall. Thats why despite everything... You have to pay for extra baggage... Its costs to move it. And avgas costs a LOT more than unleaded. lol


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> well the bigger couple obviously because they need it, the skinny couple dont


But the other couple are prepared to pay for it, so why should only the larger people be entitled to bigger seats if they are a paid extra charge



Spellweaver said:


> Does it matter? Providing people are willing to pay for what they use, why shouldn't they have bigger seats. more leg room etc? It's only the same as choosing to upgrade to - say- business class.


Exactly, ive no problem in paying for extra legroom - in fact I did today :thumbup1: for me I always like that extra room if I can get it even on a short 6hr flight


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

welshjet said:


> But the other couple are prepared to pay for it, so why should only the larger people be entitled to bigger seats if they are a paid extra charge


ok say for instance they have 10 seats with extra room

they have 5 big couples and a skinny couple wanting the seats, all prepared to pay, if you give the skinny couple two of the seats it means that one of the big couples loses out and then what? they have to sit in normal seats and then have jack asses complain about them taking up more than one seat

my point is that unless every seat on a plane is a extra room seat then the extra room seats should go to the bigger people first

after all, they are the ones that have to face prejudice from narrow minded half wits


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

So should parents pay extra to take buggies on flights and disabled people pay for the weights of their wheelchairs....I should [email protected]@dy well hope not but some of the narrow minded views make me wonder at times. There is very much a feeling of 'so long as Im alright' attitude these days...not good!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ok say for instance they have 10 seats with extra room
> 
> they have 5 big couples and a skinny couple wanting the seats, all prepared to pay, if you give the skinny couple two of the seats it means that one of the big couples loses out and then what? they have to sit in normal seats and then have jack asses complain about them taking up more than one seat
> 
> ...


Most long haul flight are broke in to 3 sections business largest seat, economy plus larger seats and economy normal seat so there would be over 20 seats! As I'm being call a jack ass might as well act like one!


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

Well isn't that discrimination.

What would the limit be, I think it could create an increase in eating disorders, especially if it means saving a bit of money that would increase their spending money.

Why don't they just have a maximum weight to fly. Like the rides in the theme parks you have to be a minimum height on some rides.

Its just another money making scam imo.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> So should parents pay extra to take buggies on flights and disabled people pay for the weights of their wheelchairs....I should [email protected]@dy well hope not but some of the narrow minded views make me wonder at times. There is very much a feeling of 'so long as Im alright' attitude these days...not good!


Hang on... Why should they not pay? Why should a private company pay for someone to transport their stuff for free?

I need food to survive... Its not my fault I need it... So if I'm starving in the street, should burger king HAVE to give me a meal? My dogs need to eat... Who do I see about demanding pets at home furnish me with food?

Maybe I need a bespoke titanium knee joint after my terrible car accident... Which company do I go to, to demand they give me one? I know of a woman who has serious MS... She cant move, but theres a company that does some kind of special walking aid for £12k... She needs it to walk. Do we mail the company director about getting it for free? Or should we just take it? We would need to get that piece of kit moved from america to the UK... Do we speak to a courier about billing evolution? Its not her fault, after all!

So why on earth should any company offer free services to anyone? And moving your equiptment from one country to another IS a service. If the NHS gives you a simple wheelchair, but you want to go offroad and need a special one, who gets the bill?


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

welshjet said:


> But the other couple are prepared to pay for it, so why should only the larger people be entitled to bigger seats if they are a paid extra charge
> 
> Exactly, ive no problem in paying for extra legroom - in fact I did today :thumbup1: for me I always like that extra room if I can get it even on a short 6hr flight


.... Me too ... (not today ) .... but when we fly i will pay extra for what i want..... And bizzy class hmmm well ... you gets what you pay for  .... when we do long-haul i will do my best to get what we can afford...... But in MB's case of her hubby being long -legged , it is a nightmare , for both him , and quite possibly the folk in front of him .. and to be honest some airlines are better than others ... in-so-much as legroom is concerned ..... I can honestly say Monarch are the worst i have ever flown with (long haul) did it twice years ago .. swore never again


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Hang on... Why should they not pay? Why should a private company pay for someone to transport their stuff for free?
> 
> I need food to survive... Its not my fault I need it... So if I'm starving in the street, should burger king HAVE to give me a meal? My dogs need to eat... Who do I see about demanding pets at home furnish me with food?
> 
> ...


So you think a disabled person should pay Extra to fly because they NEED to take their wheelchair??

As for the burger...dog food and other BS you have regurgitated.....I wont reply but please use your imagination *smh*


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Meezey said:


> Most long haul flight are broke in to 3 sections business largest seat, economy plus larger seats and economy normal seat so there would be over 20 seats! As I'm being call a jack ass might as well act like one!


i never called you a jack ass


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> So you think a disabled person should pay Extra to fly because they NEED to take their wheelchair??
> 
> As for the burger...dog food and other BS you have regurgitated.....I wont reply but please use your imagination *smh*


I think that a person... ANY person should have to pay to use private services. They arent special. So it costs money to transport that wheelchair... Who pays the bill??

And the "BS" is perfectly reasonable alternate situations... You refuse to answer it because you cant answer it while retaining your view that everything should be subsidised, if your dissabled.

So if the user doesnt pay for the services, who foots the bill?

*EDIT*
In fact, do they NEED to take a wheelchair... Can they not rent one?


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> I think that a person... ANY person should have to pay to use private services. They arent special. So it costs money to transport that wheelchair... Who pays the bill??
> 
> And the "BS" is perfectly reasonable alternate situations... You refuse to answer it because you cant answer it while retaining your view that everything should be subsidised, if your dissabled.
> 
> ...


Sorry but when you start comparing the needs of a wheelchair user and the assistance that should be offered to a disabled person to you wanting a burger and pets at home giving out food, I have an issue with conversing with you.

And yes...its all well and good hiring wheelchairs but if your own wheelchair is adapted/bought for your own specific needs...an off the peg general everyday wheelchair will be of very limited use.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> Sorry but when you start comparing the needs of a wheelchair user and the assistance that should be offered to a disabled person to you wanting a burger and pets at home giving out food, I have an issue with conversing with you.
> 
> And yes...its all well and good hiring wheelchairs but if your own wheelchair is adapted/bought for your own specific needs...an off the peg general everyday wheelchair will be of very limited use.


OK... So you could have gone stright past those and to the MS sufferer who needs very specific machinery, or to the specialised wheelchair for offroad use, but fine... Lets forget that.

Youve very conviently dodged the main question... Who foots the bill for transporting the equiptment? If not the user of the service and not the company?


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

most people buy there flight tickets online now so weighing people isnt really an option.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> OK... So you could have gone stright past those and to the MS sufferer who needs very specific machinery, or to the specialised wheelchair for offroad use, but fine... Lets forget that.
> 
> Youve very conviently dodged the main question... Who foots the bill for transporting the equiptment? If not the user of the service and not the company?


Bit confused about the specific machinery for MS....what machinery is out there for spastic muscles other than crutches or a wheelchair? Enlighten me...


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

myshkin said:


> Bit confused about the specific machinery for MS....what machinery is out there for spastic muscles other than crutches or a wheelchair? Enlighten me...


Its a machine from a company called "tek RMD"

Tek RMD - Robotic Mobilization Device |


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I can only speak for myself here, but I am more than happy to pay an extra couple of quid on my ticket so that wheelchair users dont have to spend an extra couple of _hundred_ quid just to get away on a break because they have to pay excess baggage fees for their wheelchair.

I also think anyone that is too wide to fit in _one_ seat, and _contain_ themselves to that one seat, should pay extra, either for an extra seat, or for an extra wide seat.

I am not happy to pay for a seat for myself, that someone else is taking up half of, but I _am_ happy to pay a little bit extra for someones wheelchair in baggage.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> I can only speak for myself here, but I am more than happy to pay an extra couple of quid on my ticket so that wheelchair users dont have to spend an extra couple of _hundred_ quid just to get away on a break because they have to pay excess baggage fees for their wheelchair.
> 
> I also think anyone that is too wide to fit in _one_ seat, and _contain_ themselves to that one seat, should pay extra, either for an extra seat, or for an extra wide seat.
> 
> I am not happy to pay for a seat for myself, that someone else is taking up half of, but I _am_ happy to pay a little bit extra for someones wheelchair in baggage.


Thats it though, isnt it... To accomodate that cost, you would have to raise the entire ticket price for every other passenger... Its perfectly reasonable to speak for yourself in these things... But expecting everyone else to foot the bill for you, from a private company would be massively selfish. Not that youre suggesting that, just saying...

I would genuinely like to know though (from the people who think it should be free) who foots the bill... Am *I* meant to pay for it? Just so you dont have to? And if so... Why should I?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Its a machine from a company called "tek RMD"
> 
> Tek RMD  Robotic Mobilization Device |


Not really seeing the benefits for MS. MS doesn't cause paralysis, it causes spastic muscles - the key is to get them moving. Wheelchairs etc. are used for when the muscles are too fatigued to function - during those times the muscle spasms tend to prevent self propulsion, machinated or not.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> OK... So you could have gone stright past those and to the MS sufferer who needs very specific machinery, or to the specialised wheelchair for offroad use, but fine... Lets forget that.
> 
> Youve very conviently dodged the main question... Who foots the bill for transporting the equiptment? If not the user of the service and not the company?


OMG the stuff you come out with is so random. You actually display your ignorance towards disability in such an insensitive way. Its quite bizarre tbh. I wasnt considering machinery. My
Mother is completely immobile due to her failing internal organs but because of her other medical needs her wheelchair was bought with specific support/strength and also light enough for family members to lift and manouvre in and out of cars etc.

Thankfully most humans have a little sensitivity and understanding of disability and its effects. I cant think of a single human being (except CS) that would begrudge an extra few pence on their airfare to cover the costs of any wheelchairs that may need to be transported.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> Thats it though, isnt it... To accomodate that cost, you would have to raise the entire ticket price for every other passenger... *Its perfectly reasonable to speak for yourself in these things... *But expecting everyone else to foot the bill for you, from a private company would be massively selfish. Not that youre suggesting that, just saying...
> 
> I would genuinely like to know though (from the people who think it should be free) who foots the bill... Am *I* meant to pay for it? Just so you dont have to? And if so... Why should I?


Which is _exactly_ why I started my post with '_*I can only speak for myself here*_' 

You _shouldn't_ have to. Again, I can only speak for *myself,* but *I* am happy to pay an extra quid or two just from compassion.

There but for the grace of God go I - and all that jazz


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> OMG the stuff you come out with is so random. You actually display your ignorance towards disability in such an insensitive way. Its quite bizarre tbh. I wasnt considering machinery. My
> Mother is completely immobile due to her failing internal organs but because of her other medical needs her wheelchair was bought with specific support/strength and also light enough for family members to lift and manouvre in and out of cars etc.
> 
> Thankfully most humans have a little sensitivity and understanding of disability and its effects. I cant think of a single human being (except CS) that would begrudge an extra few pence on their airfare to cover the costs of any wheelchairs that may need to be transported.


Its not ignorance... Its simply asking who would pay for the bill... Your suggesting that we all should, just so you dont have to? You think that everyone else should pay for your mother (in this case) to use a service for free, that the rest of us should pay for?

I understand dissability and its effects... What I am failing to see is why everyone else should pick up the tab, from a PRIVATE transaction! And not even be asked... FORCED to, just so you dont have to... That strikes me as INCREDIBLY selfish. What else should we pay for? Anything else you would like, we can have a whip round... I say "have a whip round" .... What i actually mean is force everyone to pay some money into the pot for you... Like benefits, housing, vehicles and whatever else wasnt enough....

Its a PRIVATE transaction... That means its YOUR problem... Not mine, or anyone elses... And if it doesnt fit in line with their own perception... What was it? "its discriminatory, people will sue"....



> Which is exactly why I started my post with 'I can only speak for myself here'
> 
> You shouldn't have to. Again, I can only speak for myself, but I am happy to pay an extra quid or two just from compassion.
> 
> There but for the grace of God go I - and all that jazz


Ah, sorry... I wasnt suggesting you were speaking for us all... Just pointing out that while nice... We agree that other people shouldnt be forced to.

Like chichi here... I can imagine that if she needed a special car, she wouldnt expect for the modifications to be paid for by herself... Ford should add on money to the rest of the cars, so she doesnt have to pay herself. Maybe private landlords should pay for stair lifts to be installed, and pass the thousands of pounds onto the rest of us...

This is why I come across as cold hearted... Its people like this that make my blood boil... Like everyone else should pay for them, and that they are ENTITLED to this help. Like youre a monster if you dont want to give them your money. It honestly sickens me, and it destroys the sympathy at speeds that would baffle physicists.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ok say for instance they have 10 seats with extra room
> 
> they have 5 big couples and a skinny couple wanting the seats, all prepared to pay, if you give the skinny couple two of the seats it means that one of the big couples loses out and then what? they have to sit in normal seats and then have jack asses complain about them taking up more than one seat
> 
> ...


Sorry I meant from this comment , as I was one of the people who complained about sharing my seat so therefore a jack ass. It's certainly nothing to do with prejudice!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Its not ignorance... Its simply asking who would pay for the bill... Your suggesting that we all should, just so you dont have to? You think that everyone else should pay for your mother (in this case) to use a service for free, that the rest of us should pay for?
> 
> I understand dissability and its effects... What I am failing to see is why everyone else should pick up the tab, from a PRIVATE transaction! And not even be asked... FORCED to, just so you dont have to... That strikes me as INCREDIBLY selfish. What else should we pay for? Anything else you would like, we can have a whip round... I say "have a whip round" .... What i actually mean is force everyone to pay some money into the pot for you... Like benefits, housing, vehicles and whatever else wasnt enough....
> 
> ...


Lets get one thing straight...my Mother is too sick to fly and has been for some years....so please wind your neck in!

As for me expecting a free anything from this life...forget that! My OH and I work and save for everything we need but you know what....Im not so far up my own rear to think that there might be a time in the future that I may need help and Im not so selfish as to begrudge a few pounds here and there if it helps towards making lives of others with difficulties a little less problematic.

I am not sure if you are wilfully unpleasant or whether you just dont realise how nasty and insensitive your posts are at times.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

In fact... I shall share a 10 second old conversation/point of view I was sharing with the Mrs...

If I was waiting in line, and someone came up to me saying "sorry to bother you, we were just checking in and my friend has just been told she has to pay extra for her wheelchair. Would you be kind enough to help us out... We just didnt realise, we got carried away booking the trip to disneyland" then I wouldnt hessitate to put my hand in my pocket... I gotta be honest... If it were a kid and I even heard the conversation in passing with the flight staff, I would just bash it on a credit card... Its only money...

If, on the other hand, someone came up to me, and said "£3... Its my friends wheelchair costs, and we dont want to pay... You all have to" ... You would hear a very puzzled "is ittttt?????" and I would punch that person clean in the face on principle.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> Lets get one thing straight...my Mother is too sick to fly and has been for some years....so please wind your neck in!
> 
> As for me expecting a free anything from this life...forget that! My OH and I work and save for everything we need but you know what....Im not so far up my own rear to think that there might be a time in the future that I may need help and Im not so selfish as to begrudge a few pounds here and there if it helps towards making lives of others with difficulties a little less problematic.
> 
> I am not sure if you are wilfully unpleasant or whether you just dont realise how nasty and insensitive your posts are at times.


No, its nothing like that... I just hate being told that if I dont willingly want give my things/money away to people you would deem as "more needy than me" that I become the uncaring, vile, stonehearted devil. The world does not have to work to your own personal designs for people to be reasonable... And anyone dissagreeing that the world owes you a favor is not a demon by default...

I especially hate that people feel a sense of entitlement to things that dont work for! Or more to the point... Things OTHER PEOPLE work for....


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Tamsin W said:


> - i.e. if you clearly don't fit in one seat with both armrests lowered, pay for a second. Job done.


It doesn't work like this. If an obese person bought two tickets for one person, there are no guarantees the seats offered would be together. They may get two seats on opposite sides of the aisle or one seat in one row and a second seat in a row in front. Airlines need to provide some wider seats even if it means charging more for those seats.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Lel said:


> But equally why should a small person pay the same fare as an obese person when the small person costs less to fly?


Perhaps small people who don't fill a seat should be given narrower seats to fit in more people or to make more room for larger people.:biggrin:


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> Or...
> 
> Its a company... It doesnt owe you anything, you dont have to fly with them, if you dont LIKE the service, dont USE the service.... And it really does suck to be me


Exactly! They are a company. If they want to make money, they have to keep their customers happy by providing them with a service the customer wants. If they want to charge heavier/larger people more, they should provide more in the form of more suitable seating.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> which is why most obese people already buy TWO seats ...i.e., they already pay:shocked:
> 
> Oh and it would make it less annoying to me - I would rather have someone large sitting next to me than some stinking person who has BO and smelly clothes etc .....maybe we could start charging them too!!


Playing devil's advocate here. I think people with children should pay more. Just like skinny people who find fat people who overspill their seats annoying, I find the presence of other people's children annoying, so I vote everyone with children should pay double.:biggrin:


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> No, its nothing like that... I just hate being told that if I dont willingly want give my things/money away to people you would deem as "more needy than me" that I become the uncaring, vile, stonehearted devil. The world does not have to work to your own personal designs for people to be reasonable... And anyone dissagreeing that the world owes you a favor is not a demon by default...
> 
> I especially hate that people feel a sense of entitlement to things that dont work for! Or more to the point... Things OTHER PEOPLE work for....


I'm not so sure that people feel entitled to things Chris but rather that as humans we are able to express human nature and part of that is feeling empathy for others less fortunate. You only have to look at the amounts raised for comic relief to realise that humans care about other humans, whether they know them or not. Life can be a struggle for many and thanks to human nature that can be lessened.
Rather than use the statement 'why should I pay to help others?'. Why not say to yourself 'I can help others and it makes me feel good to do that'.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

As a larger person I agree with it to some degree, someone who is too large for their seat that their fat rolls onto another seat should pay for another seat. height wise? no that's just silly. I believe it was done here in the usa till people threw a hissy fit


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

Lel said:


> But equally why should a small person pay the same fare as an obese person when the small person costs less to fly?


Agreed, but it isn't the physical size that maters , it is tnhe physical weight that is taken into account when designing an aircaft. If an aicraft is a few kilos over its weignh limit th CAA (Civil Aircraft Authority ) will ground it. An AOG (aircraft on ground ) cost the airline thousands, 1 overweight person cost the airline just a couple quid but the little drawf sat next to him/her makes up for this.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

personally I am glad we live in a community type society rather than a dog eat dog 'I'm alright jack, sucks to be you' little bubble. we all pay towards the needs of the less fortunate and vunerable with our taxes, and if on a plane everyone has to pay a few quid more (lets face it between all passengers it would only be a few quid) so everyone can be comfortable then so be it - I am happy for my price to include space for buggys and wheelchairs! and if I ever need help in the same way then I would be happy to accept it.

I do find some attitudes astoundingly selfish, and short sighted.

With regards specifically to the overweight charges... read FAT by Rob Grant.. it pretty much predicted this 'fat tax'

I would understand it if it was by seat usage, but if by weight as it affects the fuel usage of the plane it would only make sense to pay per kg or something like with bags! If someone larger than average should pay more, why is it not fair for someone smaller than average to pay less?

_Posted from Petforums.co.uk App for Android_


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Since we seem to have gone off thread a bit, disabled or not, tall or short, skinny or chubby or curvaceous, (like me, ive got that jessica rabbit silhouette, all boobs and bum ) 

If they had the.option of bigger/wider seats id darn well pay for them  exactly like I do for more leg space, yes it may be only a couple of inches, but they all count.

Excel air used to have fab seats they were big and comfy, but sh$te on the leg room - if they charged more, perhaps they wouldn't have gone to the wall


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> I'm not so sure that people feel entitled to things Chris but rather that as humans we are able to express human nature and part of that is feeling empathy for others less fortunate. You only have to look at the amounts raised for comic relief to realise that humans care about other humans, whether they know them or not. Life can be a struggle for many and thanks to human nature that can be lessened.
> Rather than use the statement 'why should I pay to help others?'. Why not say to yourself 'I can help others and it makes me feel good to do that'.


Yes, that choice should not be taken away from me, though. The responce to the question "who should pay?" was that everyone else should because people are nice. It wasnt "I would, but wouldnt it be nice if everyone else did" or "maybe you can opt in or out" it was just "I assume that everyone else is going to pay for it"

And the statement was never about paying to help others, but being FORCED to, in their private transaction. Its the idea that paying tax to furnish people with all that the goverment does, that this somehow isnt enough, and we should be EXPECTED to pay more...

When it comes to comic relief... They dont just raid everyones bank account, they ASK for money. They dont assume the world owes it to them, and just take it. They do not feel entitled to it. And that sense of entitlement is a MASSIVE problem in this country.

So if asked, should fat people pay more... Yes, cus its not my problem. And if it becomes my problem? Well... Its a private transaction, and I have no right to make you all responsible for it. If you choose to be nice, thats another conversation... But I have ZERO right to your hard earner money, "just cus"


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

Sacremist said:


> Perhaps small people who don't fill a seat should be given narrower seats to fit in more people or to make more room for larger people.:biggrin:


I honestly would have no problem with that if it meant I paid less!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I've long thought the fairest way would be for passenger and luggage to be weighed as one. Any passenger plus luggage combo who goes over a set allowance pays as they would now for excess.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

havoc said:


> I've long thought the fairest way would be for passenger and luggage to be weighed as one. Any passenger plus luggage combo who goes over a set allowance pays as they would now for excess.


That would be an admin nightmare, for ones prepaid online, so much for saving money, it will cost them more to hire more finance staff to refund all the ones under the limit, and charge more for the ones over. Bigger seats would be a better idea so then both fat and skinny would be happy. Take some seats out to fit the bigger ones in. 
Wanna charge customers at least give them actual decent service. But less seats means less money/profit for them per flight, so doubt they'd do that, to greedy.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Hang on... Why should they not pay? Why should a private company pay for someone to transport their stuff for free?
> 
> So why on earth should any company offer free services to anyone? And moving your equiptment from one country to another IS a service. If the NHS gives you a simple wheelchair, but you want to go offroad and need a special one, who gets the bill?


But the airline HAS to fly the route and HAS to use the slots allocated, if the plane is empty it still has to be the other end as planned to be used after the flight as does the crew or the whole system collapses, so charging for an item is just an extra, and the hold is unlikely to be 100% full, so why charge anyway? the fact is airlines cut ticket fees to the bone then look at avery possible way to get more revenue


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> That would be an admin nightmare, for ones prepaid online, so much for saving money, it will cost them more to hire more finance staff to refund all the ones under the limit


Never said there would be refunds for those under - there aren't now for those who don't use their luggage allowance. I don't understand why it would be an admin nightmare. Excess baggage charges apply already and are administrated perfectly well.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Meezey said:


> I should bring you on my next trip :thumbup1:


Maye the individual who squeased into their seat would think twice about doing so if the person beside them told them exactly what they thought about them taking up their seat as well



Sacremist said:


> It doesn't work like this. If an obese person bought two tickets for one person, there are no guarantees the seats offered would be together. They may get two seats on opposite sides of the aisle or one seat in one row and a second seat in a row in front. Airlines need to provide some wider seats even if it means charging more for those seats.


Do what everyone else already does, pay extra to garuntee 2 together then.



Sacremist said:


> Playing devil's advocate here. I think people with children should pay more. Just like skinny people who find fat people who overspill their seats annoying, I find the presence of other people's children annoying, so I vote everyone with children should pay double.:biggrin:


People with kids over 2 already pay for a seperate seat. a 14lb baby takes up no room and the parents have to put up with everyone elses squaking/ toilet habits and farting, fairs fair 

Seeing we are playing the disabled card. Im Bipolar, what can I get?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

havoc said:


> Never said there would be refunds for those under - there aren't now for those who don't use their luggage allowance. I don't understand why it would be an admin nightmare. Excess baggage charges apply already and are administrated perfectly well.


ohk, I dunno tbh about all that... But I still stand by the bigger seat comments


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> I'm not so sure that people feel entitled to things Chris but rather that as humans we are able to express human nature and part of that is feeling empathy for others less fortunate. You only have to look at the amounts raised for comic relief to realise that humans care about other humans, whether they know them or not. Life can be a struggle for many and thanks to human nature that can be lessened.
> *Rather than use the statement 'why should I pay to help others?'. Why not say to yourself 'I can help others and it makes me feel good to do that'. *


Unfortunately, some folks are not wired up to think that way. As is evident from certain posts on this thread.

There will always be an element of "I'm alright Jack....." within society but, hey, that's not a problem because the bottom-wipes who have that attitude only serve to make the more genial among us look better. :thumbup:

Pity their pathetic little minds, it is better for your blood pressure!!!  

.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> Unfortunately, some folks are not wired up to think that way. As is evident from certain posts on this thread.
> 
> There will always be an element of "I'm alright Jack....." within society but, hey, that's not a problem because the bottom-wipes who have that attitude only serve to make the more genial among us look better. :thumbup:
> 
> ...


Just cos someone has a diff viewpoint, doesnt make them pathetic or an asswipe.. Loads on this thread have disagreed, or is your comment directed at just one ? lol :skep:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> Just cos someone has a diff viewpoint, doesnt make them pathetic or an asswipe.. Loads on this thread have disagreed, or is your comment directed at just one ? lol :skep:


It does on this forum :skep:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> Just cos someone has a diff viewpoint, doesnt make them pathetic or an asswipe.. Loads on this thread have disagreed, or is your comment directed at just one ? lol :skep:


*but this is PF, not some wishy washy liberal hippy buddist commune....
*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Just cos someone has a diff viewpoint, doesnt make them pathetic or an asswipe.. Loads on this thread have disagreed, or is your comment directed at just one ? lol :skep:


You know perfectly well Lils that I have no problem with other folks having a different view point. :skep:  It's the way in which some of those 'other folks' persist on battering you senseless, trying to get you to come round to THEIR way of thinking, that does my head in. SO adamant they are right, THEY won't accept other peoples opinion. :frown2:

And when 'their' facts are presented in such a way that gets everyone else's back up and detracts from interesting debate, well.......... I have no time for folks like that.

It doesn't need a difference of opinion for a person to be a bottom-wipe - society has plenty of them regardless of their mental mind set.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> Unfortunately, some folks are not wired up to think that way. As is evident from certain posts on this thread.
> 
> There will always be an element of "I'm alright Jack....." within society but, hey, that's not a problem because the bottom-wipes who have that attitude only serve to make the more genial among us look better. :thumbup:
> 
> ...


True....all the talk of whether society should be "burdened"with provision for disabled people is a wee bit superfluous too, given that UK airlines have been required by law to provide adequate provision for disabled people since the passing of the the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995. Charging extra for mobility aids would get them into legal doodoo:

UK Code of Practice for Disabled Access to Air Travel


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

myshkin said:


> True....all the talk of whether society should be "burdened"with provision for disabled people is a wee bit superfluous too, given that UK airlines have been required by law to provide adequate provision for disabled people since the passing of the the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995. Charging extra for mobility aids would get them into legal doodoo


Many councils now insist all hackney plated (taxi) vehicles are "WAV's" costing 5 times the price of a saloon, and many never see a wheelchair passenger who couldnt transfer to a saloon....


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> You know perfectly well Lils that I have no problem with other folks having a different view point. :skep:  It's the way in which some of those 'other folks' persist on battering you senseless, trying to get you to come round to THEIR way of thinking, that does my head in. SO adamant they are right, THEY won't accept other peoples opinion. :frown2:
> 
> And when 'their' facts are presented in such a way that gets everyone else's back up and detracts from interesting debate, well.......... I have no time for folks like that.
> 
> It doesn't need a difference of opinion for a person to be a bottom-wipe - society has plenty of them regardless of their mental mind set.


must be reading them diff then, cos I see both sides reflecting their own views onto each other, not just one.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> *but this is PF, not some wishy washy liberal hippy buddist commune....
> *


No shite .


----------



## Iheartcats (Aug 25, 2011)

When I went on holiday to Zante there was a morbidly obese woman sitting on the opposite aisle to me and she was so big she had to practically perch on top of the seat squashing her huge frame as much as she could into the seat. It looked soooo uncomfortable bless her. 

I think instead of paying double airlines need to make the seats wider especially for the bigger customer. Afterall they cater for the taller person, not the wider person.

Just my thoughts!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Iheartcats said:


> When I went on holiday to Zante there was a morbidly obese woman sitting on the opposite aisle to me and she was so big she had to practically perch on top of the seat squashing her huge frame as much as she could into the seat. It looked soooo uncomfortable bless her.
> 
> I think instead of paying double airlines need to make the seats wider especially for the bigger customer. *Afterall they cater for the taller person*, not the wider person.
> 
> Just my thoughts!


But they don't 'cater' for the taller person, there just happens to be some seats located on the planes that don't have other seats in front. Aisle seats are [email protected] if you are really tall because you have to keep moving your legs when folks walk past, or the trolleys are coming along, so if you want to snooze, you can't. If you get the seats next to the doors, you are clattered & battered by folks & their luggage as they get on the plane and, if the weather is bad, you freeze your bits off whilst waiting for everyone to get on and the doors to close. If on a longer flight, the tv screens are little fold away things and often smaller than the one on the back of the seats and the same with the tray/table to put your meals on. They ask for more money to sit in these seats but you get less quality of location than the other passengers.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Iheartcats said:


> When I went on holiday to Zante there was a morbidly obese woman sitting on the opposite aisle to me and she was so big she had to practically perch on top of the seat squashing her huge frame as much as she could into the seat. It looked soooo uncomfortable bless her.
> 
> I think instead of paying double airlines need to make the seats wider especially for the bigger customer. Afterall they cater for the taller person, not the wider person.
> 
> Just my thoughts!


Zante...YAYYYYYYY, we had a shared villa and pool, 49 degrees.....hot as hell, huge grapes hanging off vines, cheap melons.....

tell a lie, it was Kalamki and a hotel, the villa was kefalonia the next year

Cava d'ora and opposite was gary's bar (sheffield lad ran it)


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> They ask for more money to sit in these seats but you get less quality of location than the other passengers.


If you travel on budget airlines then you'll get budget space and service. You are obviously prepared to pay a premium to have a little extra room and the amount you pay will inevitably be linked to the level of comfort and service you receive. You want more, try business class.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Starlite said:


> Do what everyone else already does, pay extra to ?


Sorry but it doesn't work like this. Contact a travel agent and see what they say. An airlines definition of seats being together is different to what most people view as seats being together. For them seats together means being in close proximity to each other as opposed to opposite ends of the plane. My husband is a bodybuilder and he has very broad shoulders. Airline seats are just too narrow for him so we tried to book an extra seat for him and they refused to let him have one. Even with the system in place where you can go online and choose your seats, there are no guarantees you will get two seats together as in next to each other. As soon as the window to claim seats opens everyone is online trying to grab the best seats. Sometimes, even though we have paid extra to choose our seats, we've ended up with lousy choices. So before you make sarcastic comments try doing it and see what happens.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> Yes, that choice should not be taken away from me, though. The responce to the question "who should pay?" was that everyone else should because people are nice. It wasnt "I would, but wouldnt it be nice if everyone else did" or "maybe you can opt in or out" it was just "I assume that everyone else is going to pay for it"
> 
> And the statement was never about paying to help others, but being FORCED to, in their private transaction. Its the idea that paying tax to furnish people with all that the goverment does, that this somehow isnt enough, and we should be EXPECTED to pay more...
> 
> ...


So you don't pay taxes then?? cos they get taken from your money whether you like it or not and distributed out into the government departments. Hell your tax could be paying for my prozac so thankyou, even though you weren't given the choice :thumbup1:


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Iheartcats said:


> When I went on holiday to Zante there was a morbidly obese woman sitting on the opposite aisle to me and she was so big she had to practically perch on top of the seat squashing her huge frame as much as she could into the seat. It looked soooo uncomfortable bless her.
> 
> I think instead of paying double airlines need to make the seats wider especially for the bigger customer. Afterall they cater for the taller person, not the wider person.
> 
> Just my thoughts!


But the vast majority of people DO fit comfortably into the economy seats. Well, not comfortably as the seats are not exactly comfortable but I mean physically. So I don't see why the airlines should start catering specifically to those who are morbidly obese? they have the option of wider first class seats and/or purchasing two seats.....it isn't really anyone else's problem if they are too large to fit into a normal seat.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> So you don't pay taxes then?? cos they get taken from your money whether you like it or not and distributed out into the government departments. Hell your tax could be paying for my prozac so thankyou, even though you weren't given the choice :thumbup1:


I dont think all companies expect you to pay extra if you have a disability anyway! - I dont know where Chris gets that idea from tbo ....most companies bend over backwards to ensure they cater for anyone with a disability so they are STILL able to use their services - the way chris goes about it if companies acted so half cocked they would loose many customers.....yes business has to come first and profit is the object of the day BUT without your customer base you dont have any profit.....simples!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> Sorry but it doesn't work like this. Contact a travel agent and see what they say. An airlines definition of seats being together is different to what most people view as seats being together. For them seats together means being in close proximity to each other as opposed to opposite ends of the plane. My husband is a bodybuilder and he has very broad shoulders. Airline seats are just too narrow for him so we tried to book an extra seat for him and they refused to let him have one. Even with the system in place where you can go online and choose your seats, there are no guarantees you will get two seats together as in next to each other. As soon as the window to claim seats opens everyone is online trying to grab the best seats. Sometimes, even though we have paid extra to choose our seats, we've ended up with lousy choices. So before you make sarcastic comments try doing it and see what happens.


Have never had a problem with it, I fly to the US sometimes two or three times a month, and over to England a lot too, have always got the seat we have pre booked and paid extra to pre book, and I'd be kicking up merry shite if I'd paid for a certain seat and didn't get it.. One of the reason I pre book seat is because a lot of the airlines over sell their flights so at least if you have a pre booked seats they can't tell you there is no room for you on a flight.


----------



## Iheartcats (Aug 25, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Zante...YAYYYYYYY, we had a shared villa and pool, 49 degrees.....hot as hell, huge grapes hanging off vines, cheap melons.....
> 
> tell a lie, it was Kalamki and a hotel, the villa was kefalonia the next year
> 
> Cava d'ora and opposite was gary's bar (sheffield lad ran it)


Oh my gosh! We stayed at Kalamaki too! Hotel Exotica. It was soooooo friggin' hot! The pool was a refreshing respite from the heat. Lovely island! I'd definately go back again sometime.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> So you don't pay taxes then?? cos they get taken from your money whether you like it or not and distributed out into the government departments. Hell your tax could be paying for my prozac so thankyou, even though you weren't given the choice :thumbup1:


Thats the thing... Enough gets taken from me, without asking for more. Although nothing would give me greater pelasure than to remove myself from the system and choose exactly where my money goes.


----------



## Iheartcats (Aug 25, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they don't 'cater' for the taller person, there just happens to be some seats located on the planes that don't have other seats in front. Aisle seats are [email protected] if you are really tall because you have to keep moving your legs when folks walk past, or the trolleys are coming along, so if you want to snooze, you can't. If you get the seats next to the doors, you are clattered & battered by folks & their luggage as they get on the plane and, if the weather is bad, you freeze your bits off whilst waiting for everyone to get on and the doors to close. If on a longer flight, the tv screens are little fold away things and often smaller than the one on the back of the seats and the same with the tray/table to put your meals on. They ask for more money to sit in these seats but you get less quality of location than the other passengers.


Gosh! I assumed because you are tall you'd get extra leg room and a more comfortable flight! That's awful. You're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are tall!

Another thing that does my head in if you are travelling with toddlers/babies is that they let you on the aeroplane first and I always bagsied an aisle seat as I figured its more practical for nappy changing to be able to just unhook my seatbelt and nip into the toilet to do a quick change but then I'd always get some fidget pants next to me wanting to keep getting up out of their seat and wander round the airplane treading on my toes each time they get up! And I'm not talking about the toddler sitting on my lap. I'm talking about the elderly couple hogging the window seats!


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Sacremist said:


> Sorry but it doesn't work like this. Contact a travel agent and see what they say. An airlines definition of seats being together is different to what most people view as seats being together. For them seats together means being in close proximity to each other as opposed to opposite ends of the plane. My husband is a bodybuilder and he has very broad shoulders. Airline seats are just too narrow for him so we tried to book an extra seat for him and they refused to let him have one. Even with the system in place where you can go online and choose your seats, there are no guarantees you will get two seats together as in next to each other. As soon as the window to claim seats opens everyone is online trying to grab the best seats. Sometimes, even though we have paid extra to choose our seats, we've ended up with lousy choices. So before you make sarcastic comments try doing it and see what happens.


Really I must inform Easyjet as Ive just paid extra for legroom seats and 2 together, the website allows you to! And no, Im not being sarcastic in the slightest


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Have never had a problem with it, I fly to the US sometimes two or three times a month, and over to England a lot too, have always got the seat we have pre booked and paid extra to pre book, and I'd be kicking up merry shite if I'd paid for a certain seat and didn't get it.. One of the reason I pre book seat is because a lot of the airlines over sell their flights so at least if you have a pre booked seats they can't tell you there is no room for you on a flight.


Most people do not fly so often and by the sound of it you are not booking seats on a regular package holiday. Trying to book two seats together with a guarantee they will actually be together is rather different on package holiday flights than it is on scheduled flights. We fly at most two holidays so four flights a year on a package holiday. Sometimes we are lucky and get the seats we want but often we are not. Like I said, the travel agent booking flights for your average package holiday will not let you book an extra seat. I suspect the real reason is because that seat is reserved for someone booking a package deal so there are no extra seats available. Whatever the real reason, you cannot book an extra seat for a package holiday.

I suppose it might be feasible to book a scheduled flight instead but the overall cost if the holiday would probably cost a hell of a lot more than simply buying an extra seat and likely to be beyond the pocket of most people earning an average income.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Starlite said:


> Really I must inform Easyjet as Ive just paid extra for legroom seats and 2 together, the website allows you to! And no, Im not being sarcastic in the slightest


Easy jet are scheduled flights and yes you are sarcastic.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Sacremist said:


> Easy jet are scheduled flights and yes you are sarcastic.


And all other flights are what, on a whim, unscheduled?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Starlite said:


> And all other flights are what, on a whim, unscheduled?


Yes, unscheduled flights because they form part if a package. It's simple aviation semantics: you have scheduled flights and unscheduled flights. Look it up.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Sacremist said:


> Yes, unscheduled flights because they form part if a package. It's simple aviation semantics: you have scheduled flights and unscheduled flights. Look it up.


If they arent scheduled how do you know when you are departing and arriving?


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> Thats the thing... Enough gets taken from me, without asking for more. Although nothing would give me greater pelasure than to remove myself from the system and choose exactly where my money goes.


So why don't you then?


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> So why don't you then?


To my knowledge, its not that simple... I cannot simply snap my fingers.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Starlite said:


> If they arent scheduled how do you know when you are departing and arriving?


I think you need to do a bit of research on aviation semantics rather than coming on here and exposing your ignorance.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Sacremist said:


> Yes, unscheduled flights because they form part if a package. It's simple aviation semantics: you have scheduled flights and unscheduled flights. Look it up.


I thought they were charter flights and scheduled flights


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Sacremist said:


> I think you need to do a bit of research on aviation semantics rather than coming on here and exposing your ignorance.


I'm not afraid of being ignorant, you aren't going to learn anything pretending to know everything! Must be lonely up there on your high horse tho.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Starlite said:


> I'm not afraid of being ignorant, you aren't going to learn anything pretending to know everything! Must be lonely up there on your high horse tho.


No, not lonely, all the other intelligent human beings are up here with me. However, since its not my job to educate you, I'll leave you to you senseless ramblings.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

God... Pet forum... You should have to be over the age of 12 to post here...


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Sacremist said:


> No, not lonely, all the other intelligent human beings are up here with me. However, since its not my job to educate you, I'll leave you to you senseless ramblings.


I wasnt the only one who asked you a question but I see you have ignored that poster as well, us lowly folk who are interested to learn arent good enough to answer eh? Off to continue more ramblings. . .


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> God... Pet forum... You should have to be over the age of 12 to post here...


Pot kettle


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Taken from an online site defining the word charter:

A charter flight is a private flight scheduled to meet the needs of specific passengers or organizations. While public commercial flights leave at regular intervals with tickets being purchased up to the day of departure by the general public, charter flights are arranged by request.

In other words, flights which are not scheduled. They do not leave on the same day at the same time week in week out, year in year out. The times and flights can change according to the needs if the rental company. Scheduled flights are regular flights owned and run by the airline itself.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

The bald facts are that the budget airlines need to cram as many people in as possible to make money. You CAN have bigger seats and more leg room but not if you expect to go halfway round the world for fifty quid. Suggesting I should pay a surcharge so someone else who is morbidly obese can swan off on a cheap holiday offends me. Why should I?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> A charter flight is a private flight *scheduled* to meet the needs of specific passengers or organizations. While public commercial flights leave at regular intervals with tickets being purchased up to the day of departure by the general public, charter flights are arranged by request.
> 
> In other words, flights which are not scheduled


Sorry can't resist. The very word is given in the definition


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> Pot kettle


Point. Proven.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Point. Proven.


You just go around the forum winding people up and as Ive said before.....so many of your posts lacking maturity and understanding. Hence me having to point out the pot kettle scenario of your post accusing other members of immaturity

But...whatever you do...please keep posting...:thumbup1:


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> You just go around the forum winding people up and as Ive said before.....so many of your posts lacking maturity and understanding. Hence me having to point out the pot kettle scenario of your post accusing other posters of immaturity
> 
> But...whatever you do...please keep posting...:thumbup1:


Not exclusively. But people will often (especialy on this forum) repalce the actual reality for their own fabricated one. And then try and use that reality to justify their pig headed, ignorant, oxygen thievery.

The ACTual reality is that I post about various things. I laugh, I contribute, I discuss, I reason and... Well... Converese. Sometimes for fun, sometimes for serious debate and I spose, yes... Even sometimes because its fun to watch people bark at the moon. Although I dont fabricate my points of view to that end... I just happen to know that some people have a VERY hard time thinking in a straight line...

But... Some people are so stupid that they get angry at me, because they cant argue their point and make sense. Or they are forced to give the answers they dont want to give, or perhaps they have just ran out of pills that day... Some just violently disagree with me, which is fine. But the stupid ones...

I dont believe I AM immature... I believe though that YOU think I am, because I dissagree with you. And I dont think that makes you as mature as you think.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> Not exclusively. But people will often (especialy on this forum) repalce the actual reality for their own fabricated one. And then try and use that reality to justify their pig headed, ignorant, oxygen thievery.
> 
> The ACTual reality is that I post about various things. I laugh, I contribute, I discuss, I reason and... Well... Converese. Sometimes for fun, sometimes for serious debate and I spose, yes... Even sometimes because its fun to watch people bark at the moon. Although I dont fabricate my points of view to that end... I just happen to know that some people have a VERY hard time thinking in a straight line...
> 
> ...


Ran out of pills? You despicable creature. Never have I witnessed such narrow mindness. You state your opinions like fact.
So you openly admit you post to wind people up , how pathetic.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Not exclusively. But people will often (especialy on this forum) repalce the actual reality for their own fabricated one. And then try and use that reality to justify their pig headed, ignorant, oxygen thievery.
> 
> The ACTual reality is that I post about various things. I laugh, I contribute, I discuss, I reason and... Well... Converese. Sometimes for fun, sometimes for serious debate and I spose, yes... Even sometimes because its fun to watch people bark at the moon. Although I dont fabricate my points of view to that end... I just happen to know that some people have a VERY hard time thinking in a straight line...
> 
> ...


Another CS classic:thumbup1::biggrin:

I dont get angry with you CS.....in a way I pity you..... because you seem to go to any lengths to get a reaction and I honestly feel sad about that.

The trouble is that what you accuse others of....more often than not....you are guilty of yourself. You seem to think that anybody disagreeing with you is "stupid" and quite clearly the majority of members are not stupid.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Ran out of pills? You despicable creature. Never have I witnessed such narrow mindness. You state your opinions like fact.
> So you openly admit you post to wind people up , how pathetic.


He reminds me of a naughty little boy......


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Ran out of pills? You despicable creature. Never have I witnessed such narrow mindness. You state your opinions like fact.
> So you openly admit you post to wind people up , how pathetic.


Not TO wind people up... But in the knowledge that my opinion will, to some very odd people, wind them up. Because they are indeed very odd, I choose not to let them dictate how and when I post. As I said... I dont fabricate my point of view. I just dont modify it for fear of the nutty's going loco!

A lot of people... You included, do the same... They attempt to wind people, including me, up... You do it by trying to be personal, insulting, asking leading questions to try and be clever, asking dumb questions just to be irritating, etc, etc... And as I have said before, if someone else acts in kind... You cry bloody murder.

And yes, I know you will do that eventually, and its fun to watch. So I let it happen. I dont try to get it to happen... Its a forgone conclusion. If it wasnt me, it would be anyone else you disliked or didnt agree with. It is the die hard PFPC brigade.

No shame in it... Gives me a right giggle.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

no! i think they should just make all of the seats bigger! and not cram everyone in like sardines, i have long legs so does that mean ill get charged for extra leg room?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Come on guys take a chill pill and grab a glass of wine ...and remember...its only a forum.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

So let me get this straight ....those that disagree with Chris are pill poppers needing a fix or just plain stupid :skep:....wow lol and then u wonder why people have issues with u ....for a supposedly intelligent man u really do lack social skills

Do u know what u do ??


U kill debate  ....im sick of this and other threads being the chris show...

Lets rise above peeps )xx


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

chichi said:


> Another CS classic
> 
> I dont get angry with you CS.....in a way I pity you..... because you seem to go to any lengths to get a reaction and I honestly feel sad about that.
> 
> The trouble is that what you accuse others of....more often than not....you are guilty of yourself. You seem to think that anybody disagreeing with you is "stupid" and quite clearly the majority of members are not stupid.


I think if you look back over most of your posts... You would find that to be untrue...



> So let me get this straight ....those that disagree with Chris are pill poppers needing a fix or just plain stupid ....wow lol and then u wonder why people have issues with u ....for a supposedly intelligent man u really do lack social skills.


I didnt say that, did I... You made it up in your own head. Some that disagree with me I do consider below par... But their disagreement is not that reason for that. Their exicution of it, is... Some people just disagree with me, and thats fine. I believe I said as much when I said...



> Some just violently disagree with me, which is fine. But the stupid ones...


I know why SOME people dislike me... And I dont care because they are not valid reasons. I dont wonder... And in most cases, I simply dont care. You are also mixing inteligence and social skills. It should be noted that some of the most inteligent people this planet has known have been noted as having little social skills... Not that this has ANYTHING to do with me, of course... just sayin... Their not intrinsically linked.

*EDIT*
Sorry... I also dont think I kill debate. For example... I started commeting about 10? pages ago?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Not exclusively. But people will often (especialy on this forum) repalce the actual reality for their own fabricated one. And then try and use that reality to justify their pig headed, ignorant, oxygen thievery.
> 
> Even sometimes because its fun to watch people bark at the moon. Although I dont fabricate my points of view to that end... I just happen to know that some people have a VERY hard time thinking in a straight line...


Well, they say recognising your problems is half the battle, I wish you well in your road to recovery.



Chris Swansea said:


> I know why SOME people dislike me... And I dont care because they are not valid reasons. I dont wonder... And in most cases, I simply dont care. You are also mixing inteligence and social skills. It should be noted that some of the most inteligent people this planet has known have been noted as having little social skills... Not that this has ANYTHING to do with me, of course... just sayin... Their not intrinsically linked.


Do you know why I dislike you? Apart from the rampant bigotry and charging round shouting at people that they are angry, and failing to see you are the angriest person here? It's because you think you are much, much, cleverer than you are, and you try to talk down to people as a result. You haven't got the brains to warrant such arrogance, to be honest.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

myshkin said:


> Well, they say recognising your problems is half the battle, I wish you well in your road to recovery.


Who said it was a problem? 

And before you say "me" or "people on this forum."... I reply.

"Not qualified"



> Do you know why I dislike you? Apart from the rampant bigotry and charging round shouting at people that they are angry, and failing to see you are the angriest person here? It's because you think you are much, much, cleverer than you are, and you try to talk down to people as a result. You haven't got the brains to warrant such arrogance, to be honest.


Based on? Nothing is it... Its based on forum posts on personal points of opinion. You are making the same mistake the other one was... Linking something to inteligence that isnt actually linked. I dont happen to think I'm much much more clever than I actually am... I think I'm maybe average. It genuinely surprises me when people cant follow simple idea's... If it helps to give you a scale, I think I'm averagely smarter than Jeremy Kyles gathering of... Well... I dont know what you call them.

I'm good at what I do, what I do requires skill, creativity and latteral thinking. I can improvise, adapt, reason... That doesnt strike me as stupid by any means.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Who said it was a problem?
> 
> And before you say "me" or "people on this forum."... I reply.
> 
> ...


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ah, that was a good one.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

myshkin said:


> :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
> 
> Ah, that was a good one.


I aim to please. x


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

labradrk said:


> But the vast majority of people DO fit comfortably into the economy seats. Well, not comfortably as the seats are not exactly comfortable but I mean physically. So I don't see why the airlines should start catering specifically to those who are morbidly obese? they have the option of wider first class seats and/or purchasing two seats.....it isn't really anyone else's problem if they are too large to fit into a normal seat.


But remember, the debate started about whether or not larger people should pay extra - and if larger people are having to pay extra, then that money should be spent on larger seats for them. Otherwise, charging them extra solves no problems - either for the larger person who can't fit into the seat properly, or the person sitting next to them whose personal space is invaded. And if charging extra is solving no problems, then it is merely a discriminatory charge on being overweight.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

The whole issue is ridiculous but it will happen because companies are trying to survive ie have a large profit margin and this is a way of increasing prices.

Larger seating and adequate leg room should be standard imo and that includes on the buses and trains too. the difference between economy class, business class etc should be onboard services.

What they need to do is redesign all passenger transport, then none of us would mind paying a bit more for our tickets.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> But remember, the debate started about whether or not larger people should pay extra - and if larger people are having to pay extra, then that money should be spent on larger seats for them. Otherwise, charging them extra solves no problems - either for the larger person who can't fit into the seat properly, or the person sitting next to them whose personal space is invaded. And if charging extra is solving no problems, then it is merely a discriminatory charge on being overweight.


If you wanted large people to pay extra, so that thay can have bigger seats installed... Well... That would make large peoples flights cost thousands more than any other person. Very possibly tens of thousands per person...


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Come on guys take a chill pill and grab a glass of wine ...and remember...its only a forum.


Remember, it's not just Janice's threads I'm running a book on as to when it will be closed

Any takers?????????


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

havoc said:


> Sorry can't resist. The very word is given in the definition


If you talk to any travel agent, you will hear them refer to flights which are run regularly by companies like BA, for example, they refer to flights which are not used for package holidays as scheduled flights. I'm simply using their terminology. I once knew a woman who worked as a flight attendant only on scheduled flights for BA. I can't believe how people can get their knickers in a twist over semantics.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

welshjet said:


> Remember, it's not just Janice's threads I'm running a book on as to when it will be closed
> 
> Any takers?????????


I can't compete against Janice for Queen of the Hot Debates if my thread doesn't get closed!!!!! :w00t:

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> I can't compete against Janice for Queen of the Hot Debates if my thread doesn't get closed!!!!! :w00t:


At the same time though, it is a shame the thread is sinking down to that level but I put that down to it almost becoming a one-member show!!! :skep:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> If you wanted large people to pay extra, so that thay can have bigger seats installed... Well... That would make large peoples flights cost thousands more than any other person. Very possibly tens of thousands per person...


Don't be silly.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Don't be silly.


In this instance SW, you'd be better off asking the tide not to come in...........


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> I can't compete against Janice for Queen of the Hot Debates if my thread doesn't get closed!!!!! :w00t:
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


I'll say two more pages.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Don't be silly.


I am, under no circumstances being silly....

What additional weight can you carry? 
How do we redesign these seats to cover all legal situations and health and safety mandates? 
How do we make these seats as light as humanly possible, to cut down fuel costs? 
Who do we get to manufacture these seats? 
What is the cost of re-tooling? 
How will these seats fit into the cabins? 
Do we need to move the entire cabins around? 
Does this affect the number of passengers we can take? 
Can we even get these seats indide the new cabins? 
How many seats are even needed? 
What are the certification costs of this new seat? 
Who will install them? 
If wider, will we need to make the fusalage wider... Cus we cant! 
What are the implications of this new design in a crash situation? 
Do we need to redesign the emergency air system to accodate the new floorplan? 
How much does it cost to manufacture a new one, strip out the old one tear down a aeroplane and instal the new one? 
Does the new system need to be certified? 
At what cost?
Do ANY of these changes affect other systems? 
Can we palce them anywhere, or do we need to engineer their position?
Does that even matter... Yes, we need to proove its safe?

ive rattled those off in about 2 minutes... What do you think the costs of those things adds up to. Because it could add up to a new plane! Im not sure how much it takes to manufacture a plane... Maybe a few million? but how much to DESIGN it!?..... Multiplied by the whole fleet.

Not silly...

*EDIT*


MoggyBaby said:


> In this instance SW, you'd be better off asking the tide not to come in...........


Epic fail!

*EDIT 2*
I should add... I rattled this off quickly, so excuse the proof reading and typo's... I know there are many, but I feel time was a factor to make the point.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> What they need to do is redesign all passenger transport, then none of us would mind paying a bit more for our tickets.


But the vast majority DO mind and are completely price driven. If you want more space there is already that very choice, travel first class on trains or hire a limo with a driver. Go business class on decent airlines.

I have a friend who is 6' 7" tall. For his own comfort he had a bespoke kitchen with taller counter tops. He didn't expect the rest of us to pay a premium in Ikea to subsidise his need - and a kitchen is more of a necessity than a cheap holiday flight.


----------



## Lel (Mar 21, 2012)

havoc said:


> But the vast majority DO mind and are completely price driven. If you want more space there is already that very choice, travel first class on trains or hire a limo with a driver. Go business class on decent airlines.
> 
> I have a friend who is 6' 7" tall. For his own comfort he had a bespoke kitchen with taller counter tops. He didn't expect the rest of us to pay a premium in Ikea to subsidise his need - and a kitchen is more of a necessity than a cheap holiday flight.


I agree. I'd rather have an economy flight and more money for other things. I've never flown first or business class but I suspect you would not have an issue fitting in your seat or stretching your legs out there!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

havoc said:


> But the vast majority DO mind and are completely price driven. If you want more space there is already that very choice, travel first class on trains or hire a limo with a driver. * Go business class on decent airlines. *
> 
> I have a friend who is 6' 7" tall. For his own comfort he had a bespoke kitchen with taller counter tops. He didn't expect the rest of us to pay a premium in Ikea to subsidise his need - and a kitchen is more of a necessity than a cheap holiday flight.


But not everyone can afford the rather large mark-up to go into business or first class. For a lot of folks, they have to scrimp & save to afford their two weeks abroad. And for even more, that is not even a yearly treat.

Travelling with a 6'6" OH is no fun let me tell you. Practically folded up in half into the teeny wee spaces given on charter flights does not make for a happy travelling companion. Who is then in a bad mood when he finally gets to disembark and when it takes the best part of a day to get the cramps out of his back & knees it does not make a good start to a holiday. :frown2:


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> But not everyone can afford the rather large mark-up to go into business or first class. For a lot of folks, they have to scrimp & save to afford their two weeks abroad. And for even more, that is not even a yearly treat.
> 
> Travelling with a 6'6" OH is no fun let me tell you. Practically folded up in half into the teeny wee spaces given on charter flights does not make for a happy travelling companion. Who is then in a bad mood when he finally gets to disembark and when it takes the best part of a day to get the cramps out of his back & knees it does not make a good start to a holiday. :frown2:


So like Havocs mate... You would have to scrimp and save for more time, so you could afford your preference. Or you could pay a percentage of redesigning an aircraft... But buisness class is the cheaper option. Nothing decent is ever free.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> I am, under no circumstances being silly....
> 
> What additional weight can you carry?
> How do we redesign these seats to cover all legal situations and health and safety mandates?
> ...


Now you are really being silly. Talk about overkill. :lol:

All they have to do is use all the technology available for making the present seats to make some slightly larger seats, take out some of the smaller seats, replace them with slightly less of the larger seats, and the cost will be be nowhere near the stupid figure you quoted - in fact it will be paid for by the increase in fare for the larger seats.

No need at all for all your nonsense above - we are talking about replacing a few seats, not redesigning the concorde.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> But not everyone can afford the rather large mark-up to go into business or first class. For a lot of folks, they have to scrimp & save to afford their two weeks abroad. And for even more, that is not even a yearly treat.
> 
> Travelling with a 6'6" OH is no fun let me tell you. Practically folded up in half into the teeny wee spaces given on charter flights does not make for a happy travelling companion. Who is then in a bad mood when he finally gets to disembark and when it takes the best part of a day to get the cramps out of his back & knees it does not make a good start to a holiday. :frown2:


MB don't forget the countdown to the return journey :scared::scared::scared::nonod:


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Now you are really being silly. Talk about overkill. :lol:
> 
> All they have to do is use all the technology available for making the present seats to make some slightly larger seats, take out some of the smaller seats, replace them with slightly less of the larger seats, and the cost will be be nowhere near the stupid figure you quoted - in fact it will be paid for by the increase in fare for the larger seats.
> 
> No need at all for all your nonsense above - we are talking about replacing a few seats, not redesigning the concorde.


You have absolutely, litterally and unequivocally ZERO idea what you are talking about. To take a single point... Say the manufacture (or feel free to pick another!)... Is it cast? you need to make new casts. You need to redesign those casts from the originals. Does surface quality matter? Because you either have to have finite control over your casting process, or clean the castings via CNC machines due to stress concentrations in the material, and well... This is built for large people right! But now you have to write the code. Does the new design of seat (and lets not even open that can of worms) mean thicker parts of the frame? Because that will affect the heat treating.

You have a seat maybe? OK... Is it safe? You need non destructive testing, destructive testing and validations of all your FEA. And GOD the results bettetr be right, because its cost you hundreds of thousands so far!

So cover it in foam... Oh sh*t!

So fat people prone to DVT?... THEY ARE!? Does your seat foam cause problems? how do you know, who needs to calculate it? Do you need outside engineers to help? Can you prove everything you think in court, because if your seat contributes to a health concern!!!

Litterally, absolutely, completely no idea... Its not that im smarter than you, see... Lets not confuse this with soem of the earlier crap... Its that despite being told, you refuse the facts and logic.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

This is even worth a second post, SW... I cannot possibly convey to you how wrong your statements are and how little you know on the subject, yet you make statements as if they were fact... In the spirit of debate its things like THIS that kill debates... A complete lack of understanding...

You cant debate about stuff when people dont even understand! And you certainly cant do it when you make things up!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Yes!
I think they should, on a long haul flight to sri lanka a few years back I was subjected to a heavyweight sitting next to me, when he sat down Ill swear my seat lifted upwards, his body spread onto my space (I was in the middle)!
Why should I have to endure this??? Seriously, in view of his size I think he should have been made to purchase two seats!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> You have absolutely, litterally and unequivocally ZERO idea what you are talking about. To take a single point... Say the manufacture (or feel free to pick another!)... Is it cast? you need to make new casts. You need to redesign those casts from the originals. Does surface quality matter? Because you either have to have finite control over your casting process, or clean the castings via CNC machines due to stress concentrations in the material, and well... This is built for large people right! But now you have to write the code. Does the new design of seat (and lets not even open that can of worms) mean thicker parts of the frame? Because that will affect the heat treating.
> 
> You have a seat maybe? OK... Is it safe? You need non destructive testing, destructive testing and validations of all your FEA. And GOD the results bettetr be right, because its cost you hundreds of thousands so far!
> 
> ...


:lol: "Despite being told" :lol: Oh lord, you do set yourself up for ridicule, don't you? And the irony of it is you probably don't even understand what I mean by that! :lol:

No dear, it is you who have absolutely, literally and unequivocally no idea. When you grow up a little and gain some experience in the world, you will realise that you do not have to reinvent the wheel. All the things you list above will have been researched already - perhaps not for airline seats, but larger seats are already in existance in other spheres - as is the medical knowledge about the likelihood of developing DVT (much lower with larger seats and better leg room btw). In the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world you seem to inhabit, no company spends money on researching things that have already been researched.

The only sensible part of your post is the bit I highlighted in bold.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Now you are really being silly. Talk about overkill. :lol:
> 
> All they have to do is use all the technology available for making the present seats to make some slightly larger seats, take out some of the smaller seats, replace them with slightly less of the larger seats, and the cost will be be nowhere near the stupid figure you quoted - in fact it will be paid for by the increase in fare for the larger seats.
> 
> No need at all for all your nonsense above - we are talking about replacing a few seats, not redesigning the concorde.


concordes gone aint it


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

if they made bigger seats the capacity of each plane would be lessened, which means each pasenger would have to pay more towards the fuel/upkeep cost than they currently do. I dont see how thats fair. Why should everyone pay extra even the people who can fit into normal seats?

If you take up 2 seats, you should pay twice.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> This is even worth a second post, SW... I cannot possibly convey to you how wrong your statements are and how little you know on the subject, yet you make statements as if they were fact... In the spirit of debate its things like THIS that kill debates... A complete lack of understanding...
> 
> You cant debate about stuff when people dont even understand! And you certainly cant do it when you make things up!


As others have already explained to you on here Chris, people disagreeing with you does not stifle debate. People disagreeing with your opinion (because that's all it is, no matter how much you postulate) is what debating is all about.

What stifles debate is the person who is so frightened of not seeming all knowledgeable that he throws his toys out of the pram when people disagree with him. What stifles debate is the person who cannot accept that there is any opinion other than his own. In other words, what stifles debate .... is YOU, Chris.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: "Despite being told" :lol: Oh lord, you do set yourself up for ridicule, don't you? And the irony of it is you probably don't even understand what I mean by that! :lol:
> 
> No dear, it is you who have absolutely, literally and unequivocally no idea. When you grow up a little and gain some experience in the world, you will realise that you do not have to reinvent the wheel. All the things you list above will have been researched already - perhaps not for airline seats, but larger seats are already in existance in other spheres - as is the medical knowledge about the likelihood of developing DVT (much lower with larger seats and better leg room btw). In the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world you seem to inhabit, no company spends money on researching things that have already been researched.
> 
> The only sensible part of your post is the bit I highlighted in bold.


Again... You have NO idea... Its not your fault, not many people actually understand what engineering really is. You dont understand the design process, the validations, the testing the orbiting problems or the management neccisary to make even the smallest change... I was talking not a week ago to a designer from "a well known car company"... Minor problem that was due to a design error... The design itself costed MANY tens of thousands to do... It was a bracket... And yes, brackets had been researched before, but the specific application? And then it needed to be validated! But even so, slightly off so then they need to change it... 4 years... To change a bracket. Couldnt do it until the next engine got manufactured. 4 years!

Your level of understanding is staggeringly low. If I were to actually go through the full issues involved, your cute little head would spin. And I dont really know. lol... If I were to ask the aero guys to explain it, it would explode.

But no... Im the one who's laughable. Crackin! :thumbup1:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

porps said:


> if they made bigger seats the capacity of each plane would be lessened, which means each pasenger would have to pay more towards the fuel/upkeep cost than they currently do. I dont see how thats fair. Why should everyone pay extra even the people who can fit into normal seats?
> 
> If you take up 2 seats, you should pay twice.


Or the people who want bigger seats could pay more for the bigger seats, and the people who want standard seats could pay only for the standard seats. I'd rather pay more for a bigger seats than pay for two seats - even if the cost is the same, the comfort would be greater.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

welshjet said:


> Remember, it's not just Janice's threads I'm running a book on as to when it will be closed
> 
> Any takers?????????


dont worry im here now so there cant be long to go :mad5:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

They should make a reasonable ;width' seat and give a reasonalbe leg room, anyone who exceeds the *width* should be made to pay extra, but those *taller *people with longer legs should not! AS we have no controll over our height! BUT* most *of those who are *overweight* do


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> As others have already explained to you on here Chris, people disagreeing with you does not stifle debate. People disagreeing with your opinion (because that's all it is, no matter how much you postulate) is what debating is all about.
> 
> What stifles debate is the person who is so frightened of not seeming all knowledgeable that he throws his toys out of the pram when people disagree with him. What stifles debate is the person who cannot accept that there is any opinion other than his own. In other words, what stifles debate .... is YOU, Chris.


Its not an opinion... Not this time. You can strut if you likes. But this.... This is what I do. Its not an OPINION that these things are true, they just ARE true... You could have the opinion that I'm wrong... And you could also have the opinion that ducks are made from platinum coated chocolate, but you would be equally wrong.

You cant debate it because you dont understand it... I could prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, but you wont partake in such things. Which I dont blame you for... You'd look like a tool... But you should at least accept it and stop the protesting.

If you dont, it aint my loss...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Or the people who want bigger seats could pay more for the bigger seats, and the people who want standard seats could pay only for the standard seats. I'd rather pay more for a bigger seats than pay for two seats - even if the cost is the same, the comfort would be greater.


but what would happen on flights where there werent enough larger people to fill the larger seats and none of the average sized people wanted to pay double for larger than necessary seats? The airline would lose money which would be passed on, no doubt, to its customers en masse, which of course includeds the thin or average customers who may never have wanted the double size seats in the first place.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> ,your cute little head would spin.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Chris Swansea said:


> , But no... Im the one who's laughable.


Yep - you got that bit right! 

Not much point in responding to the rest of your post Chris - all you've done is reiterated what you've already posted, so I refer you to my earlier reply.

And now I'm taking my cute little head lol: :lol: - love it! - :lol: :lol off to bed - I'm up at 6am for 13 hr shift tomorrow ......... but I'll be chuckling at your silliness al the way upstairs


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> ......... but I'll be chuckling at your silliness al the way upstairs


Of course you will... Ignorance IS bliss, after all.

http://www.3hatscommunications.com/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ImpliedFacepalm.jpeg


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

DT said:


> Yes!
> I think they should, on a long haul flight to sri lanka a few years back I was subjected to a heavyweight sitting next to me, when he sat down Ill swear my seat lifted upwards, his body spread onto my space (I was in the middle)!
> Why should I have to endure this??? Seriously, in view of his size I think he should have been made to purchase two seats!





porps said:


> if they made bigger seats the capacity of each plane would be lessened, which means each pasenger would have to pay more towards the fuel/upkeep cost than they currently do. I dont see how thats fair. Why should everyone pay extra even the people who can fit into normal seats?
> 
> If you take up 2 seats, you should pay twice.


From what I can remember, no-one on this thread has disputed that. Everyone (including those who say they are overweight) has said that if you take up two seats, you pay for two seats.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

porps said:


> but what would happen on flights where there werent enough larger people to fill the larger seats and none of the average sized people wanted to pay double for larger than necessary seats? The airline would lose money which would be passed on, no doubt, to its customers en masse, which of course includeds the thin or average customers who may never have wanted the double size seats in the first place.


Not necessarily. You pay more for extra legroom seats but not unless you request them. If extra legroom seats aren't filled they just put bums on seats and people who pay the standard fare can be put in them. This would happen with larger seats. All businesses have to allow for some loss in turnover: that's business. Some businesses are seasonal, they still spend money on advertising during their quiet periods with a loss in return but that is something a business has to factor into their expenditure. There's no easy solution. The reality here is that people seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against larger people and I find this attitude disgusting. Without knowing any of you individually I cannot know if there is anything about you that is a drain on my resources and I'm sure no-one will admit to it. We could all complain about people who smoke, drink excessively and 101 other faults people have which become a drain on resources. No-one is perfect. At the end of the day, there are lots of reasons why a person may not fit into the minuscule standard seats but if allowances are made for one petson, to be fair, allowances should be made for all.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

myshkin said:


> From what I can remember, no-one on this thread has disputed that. Everyone (including those who say they are overweight) has said that if you take up two seats, you pay for two seats.


I dont understand the point you are trying to make with this post. Is it something like "once somebody has said something once noone else should ever repeat a similar view" ? otherwise, nope, i'm not getting it, feel free to enlighten me.



Sacremist said:


> The reality here is that people seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against larger people and I find this attitude disgusting.


is it discrimination or common sense though? Transportation of objects requires more energy (and thus resources / money) the heavier the object is. Why should that extra cost be shared? If you send a small parcel in the post you dont expect to pay a portion of the costs of someone elses large, heavy parcel too. do you? you pay for the weight that will be transported. Why should this be different?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

porps said:


> I dont understand the point you are trying to make with this post. Is it something like "once somebody has said something once noone else should ever repeat a similar view" ? otherwise, nope, i'm not getting it, feel free to enlighten me.
> 
> is it discrimination or common sense though? Transportation of objects requires more energy (and thus resources / money) the heavier the object is. Why should that extra cost be shared? If you send a small parcel in the post you dont expect to pay a portion of the costs of someone elses large, heavy parcel too. do you? you pay for the weight that will be transported. Why should this be different?


No....just that it's been said many times, and no-one has disputed it. Whatever you are choosing to read into it doesn't seem to have much to do with me.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

I understand your point and I personally would not object to paying more for a larger seat. However, if we start going down the road of who should pay more where does it end? Should smokers, alcoholics or overweight people pay more national insurance because they drain NHS resources? Should people with none working children pay more taxes? If families with elderly relatives who live beyond 75 have to pay more tax to cover their pension? Everything I have listed is laughable and totally impractical, I agree, but we could all find something to complain about. I don't smoke, don't drink, have no young children or elderly relatives and yet I'm having to pay for other people's problems and relatives. I'm not complaining about it, I just accept it. Yet, it seems people who are overweight or tall or broad are fair game. It smacks if discrimination to me and very unfair. I wonder how many people on here can say they do not fall into any category mentioned or not mentioned which has not at some time been called into question as a drain on resources.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sacremist said:


> I understand your point and I personally would not object to paying more for a larger seat. However, if we start going down the road of who should pay more where does it end? Should smokers, alcoholics or overweight people pay more national insurance because they drain NHS resources? Should people with none working children pay more taxes? If families with elderly relatives who live beyond 75 have to pay more tax to cover their pension? Everything I have listed is laughable and totally impractical, I agree, but we could all find something to complain about. I don't smoke, don't drink, have no young children or elderly relatives and yet I'm having to pay for other people's problems and relatives. I'm not complaining about it, I just accept it. Yet, it seems people who are overweight or tall or broad are fair game. It smacks if discrimination to me and very unfair. I wonder how many people on here can say they do not fall into any category mentioned or not mentioned which has not at some time been called into question as a drain on resources.


well im not gonna go into each thing individually i dont think that was why you asked, but arent smokers and drinkers in particular already taxed extremely heavily on the products themselves?

Besides which, i dont think tax and airline costs are the same thing.. The airlines are buisnesses. I mean i know the goverment is just a business too really, but they at least _pretend_ to be "for the people".

so why are they being compared here?

If i went into a cafe and ordered a slice of toast i wouldnt really expect to get charged 4 quid cos someone else had tucked into 4 full english breakfasts earlier and the cafe owner thought it would be unfair to charge them for all that they used so were instead spreading the costs between all their customers...

... not that i ever go on a plane anyway ;p


----------



## Tamsin W (Sep 18, 2012)

Sacremist said:


> Not necessarily. You pay more for extra legroom seats but not unless you request them. If extra legroom seats aren't filled they just put bums on seats and people who pay the standard fare can be put in them. This would happen with larger seats. All businesses have to allow for some loss in turnover: that's business. Some businesses are seasonal, they still spend money on advertising during their quiet periods with a loss in return but that is something a business has to factor into their expenditure. There's no easy solution. The reality here is that people seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against larger people and I find this attitude disgusting. Without knowing any of you individually I cannot know if there is anything about you that is a drain on my resources and I'm sure no-one will admit to it. We could all complain about people who smoke, drink excessively and 101 other faults people have which become a drain on resources. No-one is perfect. At the end of the day, there are lots of reasons why a person may not fit into the *minuscule standard seats* but if allowances are made for one petson, to be fair, allowances should be made for all.


Herein lies part of the issue though - they're not miniscule. Leg room might leave something to be desired, but as far as actual seat width goes, they're perfectly adequate for most - it's the definition of 'average' that's changed.

I'm sure people will jump in now with "medical reasons for obesity", etc. etc., and I'm not disputing that this can apply. But in most cases, it's solely down to lifestyle choices.

As far as 'drains on resources' go, you can't really compare taxes and social expenditure to a privately owned and operated company (i.e. an airline). Even if they _were_ comparable, the point would be moot - as obese individuals are also a drain on resources in this respect (just as much as a smoker or drinker, arguably more so given current trend, plus vast amounts of duty on alcohol and tobacco), and no one's complaining.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

I firmly believe if you want to charge people more then you give them more in return in the form if adequate seating. That is acceptable and the equivalent of someone paying more for a larger breakfast but charging more because someone weighs heavier is discrimination. Some people weigh more because they have a larger build. A 6 foot 5 man might weigh 17 stone and still be at his correct BMI. 5 foot 5 woman might weigh 10 stone and be within her BMI. That man's weight will still burn more fuel than the woman. He didn't ask to be born with genes that made him so tall and heavy, so why should he be penalised for his weight even though he is not overweight? If you get a woman who is overweight, weighing in at 17 stone, she will not burn anymore fuel than the 17 stone man so why should she pay more than him purely for the fuel burned. She may or may not be that size through her own fault but other than charging her more for a larger seat, it's not fair to charge for fuel. Charging for a larger seat I agree with but for fuel, no, that is just wrong.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sacremist said:


> A 6 foot 5 man might weigh 17 stone and still be at his correct BMI. 5 foot 5 woman might weigh 10 stone and be within her BMI. That man's weight will still burn more fuel than the woman. He didn't ask to be born with genes that made him so tall and heavy, so why should he be penalised for his weight even though he is not overweight? If you get a woman who is overweight, weighing in at 17 stone, she will not burn anymore fuel than the 17 stone man so why should she pay more than him purely for the fuel burned. She may or may not be that size through her own fault but other than charging her more for a larger seat, it's not fair to charge for fuel. Charging for a larger seat I agree with but for fuel, no, that is just wrong.


good points.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> But not everyone can afford the rather large mark-up to go into business or first class. For a lot of folks, they have to scrimp & save to afford their two weeks abroad. And for even more, that is not even a yearly treat.


That's the point, it's a treat, a luxury, completely non-essential. You don't have to go at all and if you choose to go on such holidays then you get what you pay for.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

porps said:


> but what would happen on flights where there werent enough larger people to fill the larger seats and none of the average sized people wanted to pay double for larger than necessary seats? The airline would lose money which would be passed on, no doubt, to its customers en masse, which of course includeds the thin or average customers who may never have wanted the double size seats in the first place.


Empty seats on planes and empty rooms in hotels both mean the same thing - loss of revenue. So they both over-book on their capacities for certain requests and some lucky people will find themselves upgraded.

So more bookings for a single room than single rooms available then someone gets a double room at no extra charge. More bookings for a double than doubles available, someone gets a suite at no extra charge. It would be exactly the same with airline seats. Less money for a 'posher' seat or bedroom is better than no money at all.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I get upgraded quite often. Dress decently, travel alone and ask nicely.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Ive never heard of a taxi charging by the kilo....

if the increase in weight was due to a medical condition the airline would be contravening the disability act


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

havoc said:


> I get upgraded quite often. Dress decently, *travel alone* and ask nicely.


I think my OH would have something to say if I went off on holiday without him!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I think my OH would have something to say if I went off on holiday without him!


I know. Those are the three golden rules for being upgraded though and it's obvious why.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Thread still going then, i left my phone in the house so havent been keeping.upto speed 



havoc said:


> I get upgraded quite often. Dress decently, travel alone and ask nicely.





MoggyBaby said:


> I think my OH would have something to say if I went off on holiday without him!


Snap MB - he pays so I can hardly travel without him either, although we always dress nice.

Lol, when I was repping and we did 'smiley doors' oh I used to cringe at some clothes :nonod:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I heard a very interesting item on the news this morning that was directly related to parts of this thread.

First, a quick recap of the bits I am talking about:



Chris Swansea said:


> If you wanted large people to pay extra, so that thay can have bigger seats installed... Well... That would make large peoples flights cost thousands more than any other person. Very possibly tens of thousands per person...





Spellweaver said:


> Don't be silly.





Chris Swansea said:


> I am, under no circumstances being silly....
> 
> What additional weight can you carry?
> How do we redesign these seats to cover all legal situations and health and safety mandates?
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> Now you are really being silly. Talk about overkill. :lol:
> 
> All they have to do is use all the technology available for making the present seats to make some slightly larger seats, take out some of the smaller seats, replace them with slightly less of the larger seats, and the cost will be be nowhere near the stupid figure you quoted - in fact it will be paid for by the increase in fare for the larger seats.
> 
> No need at all for all your nonsense above - we are talking about replacing a few seats, not redesigning the concorde.





Chris Swansea said:


> You have absolutely, litterally and unequivocally ZERO idea what you are talking about. To take a single point... Say the manufacture (or feel free to pick another!)... Is it cast? you need to make new casts. You need to redesign those casts from the originals. Does surface quality matter? Because you either have to have finite control over your casting process, or clean the castings via CNC machines due to stress concentrations in the material, and well... This is built for large people right! But now you have to write the code. Does the new design of seat (and lets not even open that can of worms) mean thicker parts of the frame? Because that will affect the heat treating.
> 
> You have a seat maybe? OK... Is it safe? You need non destructive testing, destructive testing and validations of all your FEA. And GOD the results bettetr be right, because its cost you hundreds of thousands so far!
> 
> ...


And now the news I heard:

First Class, Business Class, Fat Class Airbus introduces wider seats for obese passengers - ...

Doing exactly what I suggested they should do and without none of the nonsense and expense you outlined Chris.

I rest my case.


----------



## nutty (Feb 17, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> Id go with it IF there was a reduction in prices for wee skinny streaks of pee, after all if im 24 stone and the wifes 6 stone wet through we average only 15 stone each.....maths and stats can be twisted any way to suit


Especially, when a child officially becomes an "adult" at the ripe old age of 12 years, for the purposes of paying for an air tiicket!

The airlines cannot have it both ways!


----------

