For all non-Virgin travel topics, with subforums for popular common themes.
#16800 by G_NEUS
20 Dec 2006, 18:45
I realise this is quite a provocative title, but rather than offend I would like to stimulate a discussion. I read a news story online today about an urate Air France passenger here

Noone likes to be made to feel uncomfortable on a flight they have paid for, but perhaps if the airlines were more upfront about what is to be expected there would be no trouble.

How about everyone being allowed a total allowance of say 120kg. This includes luggage, hand luggage and yourself. Check-in desks could be altered so that you are weighed at the same time as your bags. The airline could introduce a charge per kg over that allowance. Anything over 140kg total would require the purchase of 2 seats. Premium tickets would have a greater allowance. Passengers would then be able to plan properly. The airlines would also know with much greater accuracy the payload they will be carrying and calculate fuel loads more efficiently.

Naturally there would be consequences and practical changes. Weight trading may occur whereby you could trade your spare 20kg with someone else who needs more (just like the carbon trading proposals in the news today). I imagine some passengers would feel the need to empty themselves of as much bodily fluid and other residue before weighing, so the check in desks will need to be near some good toilets. Dehydration may start to become a more regular occurence. New 'specially light' clothing and shoe lines would become available. Laxatives and diuretics will be freely available at the airport. We would have to draw the line though at fat passengers walking around with next to no clothes on!
It might stimulate a health drive for travelling passengers, leading to better food on board. Less luggage would be carried and future reductions in the total allowance might help reduce overall carbon emissions. Our cousins over the pond might have airlines with a slightly higher allowance [}:)]. We could have new adverts that change the "Don't drink and drive" slogan to "Don't eat and fly."

New airlines could be set up to cater for those of increased girth. I suspect BMI would have to change its name to Body Mass Index. Naturally they would need to use the new 'wide-bodied' aircraft.[:p]

I would have thought this would have been discussed before, but searching under 'fat' and 'overweight' yielded no relevant hits.

I also realise that my post has turned into more of a tongue-in cheek view of how the world would change and sadly it is my tongue in my own cheek.
#151844 by Nottingham Nick
20 Dec 2006, 19:08
We did have this discussion not too long ago.

It started with a comment about a crew member, and went downhill from there. Because several people made comment in the thread about it being offensive and pointless, I won't post a link to it.

There are people who are easily offended by comments aimed at overweight people, so I would ask people to bear this in mind when contributing to the debate.

Happy Holidays.

Nick
#151852 by G_NEUS
20 Dec 2006, 20:07
I do see the potential of this becoming offensive, hence the light-hearted tone of my opening post. However I am sure the board members will have the appropriate decorum (and sweetness)

I would however love to have a proper dispassionate discussion about the idea. If Southwest have been doing it, what is their allowance and what happens if you go over it? Is there a max limit before 2 seats are required.
#151854 by Tim
20 Dec 2006, 20:28
This got me thinking about my self so I've checked the Bodymass Index and the good news is that I'm not overweight [y].

The bad news is that I have stunted growth and am 2'6" too short:D
#151856 by Decker
20 Dec 2006, 20:30
Basically if you're going to spill into the seat next to you book two seats. If the flight isn't full they'll refund one of them.
#151858 by Pete
20 Dec 2006, 20:46
The Southwest system is pretty sensible. I believe the acid test is whether you can put the armrest down without intruding on the seat next to you. I have to say, it seems pretty reasonable (especially since they won't charge if the flight's not full). It makes sense that if you're going to take two seats, you should pay for them if you're denying another passenger a (full) seat.
#151863 by Scrooge
20 Dec 2006, 21:13
A friend of mine faces this situation every time he gets on a plane, he is grown up about it and understands that he is a big guy and cannot fit in a single Y seat, honestly he cannot fit in a W or UCS either, so he does buy 2 seats in advance and warns the airlines of the situation.

Every once and a great while they will try and split him up (it happens to us all, two people trying to travel together)but once the person at check in looks at the situation they understand that the computer is trying to do the impossible.

As a side note, if this situation comes up on VS and you buy two seats you WILL earn double miles and TP's.
#151865 by HighFlyer
20 Dec 2006, 21:25
Completely agree that if you can't fit in a standard airline seat, you should either buy two or upgrade yourself. Its not good for the passenger or those seated next to them to cram ones body into a seat too small. I wouldn't like to see 'weigh-in' at the check-in desks though. It would be like a slow moving session at Weightwatchers.

Thanks,
Sarah
#151866 by VS045
20 Dec 2006, 21:30
I think it is a fairly sensible idea on the whole. However, I do not think it is fair that someone who is obese due to genetic etc. reasons should be forced to pay the extra - but it's not the airline's fault either so why should it suffer[:?].
TBH, I don't think there is actually a right answer to this debate.

Maybe airlines could offer extra mileage over and above the extra you would recieve from buying an extra seat as an "incentive." Sound attractive mile whores? [}:)] (BTW, last sentence rather tongue in cheek;))

VS.
#151869 by Scrooge
20 Dec 2006, 21:46
Agreed no matter what it is a tricky situation, however in the end the pax has to pay, it is NOT the airlines fault and it is certainly not the other pax fault that the person in question cannot fit in those horrible cramped 17 and a half inch seats.

As I said in the post above VS will give you double miles and TP's.
#151873 by Tim
20 Dec 2006, 21:53
As a side note, if this situation comes up on VS and you buy two seats you WILL earn double miles and TP's.


Interesting....Might make sense to buy 2 cheap econ fares rather than one expensive PE fare...
= save money, get more space, more tier points, more miles and two meals
#151882 by HighFlyer
20 Dec 2006, 22:22
It's not the airlines 'fault', but if someone is obese, even if it is genetic, then i think the responsibility lies within that person to accommodate themselves on board, regardless of what that might mean in terms of cost. Is it my fault that the God of Check-in allocates me a seat next to an obese person who encroaches my personal space? No. And .. it has happened. Is it my fault than I wasn't born a 6ft blonde? No, and i have to live with my lot in life.

I don't mean that to sound harsh, but i think that anybody suffering from obesity or any other similar condition should not try and cram themselves into a 30" seat pitch and claim that their uncomfort is the airlines fault.

Thanks,
Sarah
#151885 by VS045
20 Dec 2006, 22:31
For once, I cannot make up my mind[:I]

I don't think that someone who is obese due to genetics should have to suffer and pay double, but nor do I think that anyone else should have to pay either[:?]

VS.
#151889 by Scrooge
20 Dec 2006, 22:45
Originally posted by VS045
For once, I cannot make up my mind[:I]

I don't think that someone who is obese due to genetics should have to suffer and pay double, but nor do I think that anyone else should have to pay either[:?]

VS.


I know where you are coming from, but look at it this way, if you are over say 5' 8 the typical Y seat pitch is shall we say tight? Now because genetics mean I am 6 '3 should the airline give me a W seat so I fit comfortably? Nope they shouldn't, because in the end taking a flight is a privileged not a right.
#151891 by VS045
20 Dec 2006, 22:49
I know where you are coming from, but look at it this way, if you are over say 5' 8 the typical Y seat pitch is shall we say tight? Now because genetics mean I am 6 '3 should the airline give me a W seat so I fit comfortably? Nope they shouldn't, because in the end taking a flight is a privileged not a right.


Good argument, err...Srooge;), I see now that it is reasonable to ask everyone to pay the extra if they are too big.

VS.
#151904 by G_NEUS
21 Dec 2006, 00:30
Originally posted by VS045
For once, I cannot make up my mind[:I]

I don't think that someone who is obese due to genetics should have to suffer and pay double, but nor do I think that anyone else should have to pay either[:?]

VS.


I think we should be careful about the link between genetics and obesity. This is not by any stretch a proven link. The reasons for obesity are complex and involve a multitude of psychosocial factors as well as physiological ones. There aren't for instance too many obese people in environments where food is scarce.

That said, the purpose of a total weight allowance in advance, could mean a clarification for everyone. It seems from Scrooge's post that there are considerate people who already buy an additional seat. My proposal would serve to highlight the situation for those who had not thought about it before travelling. There would be an added and not inconsiderable benefit of being able to introduce incentives to travel lighter saving fuel and carbon emissions.

If it was only about fitting into seats then what we would need is a measure of volume. Can you imagine us all getting a 3D bodyscan before checking in? Would be amusing if it emitted a sound similar to the 'X' from Family Fortunes.
#151905 by Scrooge
21 Dec 2006, 00:47
Yeah but hang on a sec, I am 6'3 225 lbs, are you saying that I should bring along my niece just so I can have clothes to wear on a two week vacation?
#151908 by Pete
21 Dec 2006, 01:21
I tip my cap to you, G_NEUS, for a well reasoned arguement.

My best friend of 23 years is in the 26 stone plus bracket - many of you would have met him at the occassional V-Flyer social. He knows the reason why he's a big lad - it's because he eats more than his body burns.

Pete
#151913 by G_NEUS
21 Dec 2006, 03:32
Originally posted by Scrooge
Yeah but hang on a sec, I am 6'3 225 lbs, are you saying that I should bring along my niece just so I can have clothes to wear on a two week vacation?


No, but I'm suggesting that if you go over the limit and cost the airline more money in fuel and carbon emissions you should be prepared to pay more or make alternative travel arrangements.

I know it's a tough one and I have no idea what the limit should be. But, if you know the rules well in advance, you would at least be able to make an informed choice. I wonder if someone could say exactly how Southwest manage their system.

Some of the aspects to this argument are similar to whether or not smokers or heavy drinkers should have the same access to NHS healthcare. In these situations, those with said vices argue that they are paying so much extra in taxes that they more than cover the cost of their likely healthcare burden. Whether or not you agree with this, at least they are contributing something. This line of argument departs from the current discussion however when one considers that you can not predict accurately an individual's health outcome, but you can determine the exact outcome of their travel plans.
#151916 by PVGSLF
21 Dec 2006, 05:02
Granted there is no proven link between genetics and obesity, and there is always the old arguement that you didn't see many obese people 60 years ago.

Size (weight) is a very emotive subject, so lets change the angle slighty:

I'm 6'5 and (as discussed on another thread) 48" jacket size, my shoulders are somewhat bigger than this BUT I am all bone at the edges! ;)
It's Genetic. Absolutely nothing I can do about it, that is the size I was destined to be.

Now, when i sit in a Y sit, it is a snug fit but still between the lowered armrests, I may be rubbing shoulders with the person next to me, and i WILL be preventing the person in front from reclining (can't wait to see the new fixed back Y seats!!!).

Would i be willing to pay for the two, possibly three seats I am preventing from being used. ABSOLUTELY NOT! And I do blame the airlines.
They continuously squeeze us in to tighter and tighter spaces to make more and more money. Take out a couple of rows of Y, increase the pitch and increase the Y cost proportionatly, but don't charge me double for what is still a very uncomfortable seat.
True I could pay more for PE or UC, but in they are still a squeeze.
#151930 by VS045
21 Dec 2006, 10:43
Would i be willing to pay for the two, possibly three seats I am preventing from being used. ABSOLUTELY NOT! And I do blame the airlines.
They continuously squeeze us in to tighter and tighter spaces to make more and more money. Take out a couple of rows of Y, increase the pitch and increase the Y cost proportionatly, but don't charge me double for what is still a very uncomfortable seat.
True I could pay more for PE or UC, but in they are still a squeeze.


Looks like you needed to travel on Maersk (when they were still around). They simply had "small," "medium," and "large" seats.;)

VS.
#151935 by HighFlyer
21 Dec 2006, 11:07
To be fair, AA increased their seat pitch in Y ... and changed it back a few years later. Why? Supply and demand. It has been demonstrated many times that a high percentage of the public would rather save money than their veins.

Thanks,
Sarrah
#151940 by karnsculpture
21 Dec 2006, 11:28
What's the big deal? I'd rather sit next to someone warm and cuddly than someone with bony edges any day. My favourite fellow passenger is some cuddly lady who will chat about anything and everything for 10 hours and who gets some enjoyment from the flying experience.

Seriously, I don't have any hang ups about touching someone else on a flight. What's so bad about it?

You pay to get from A to B and you have the option to pay extra if you want more personal space. If you fly in Y it is inevitable that you will get to know your fellow manor woman better. So make the most of it, relax and enjoy. People bring you food and drink and there's telly to watch. Work can't call you. Then you get off in an exotic foreign place. What could be better?

The passengers who should pay for extra seats are the ones who smell IMHO.

Merry Christmas to everyone

Paul
#151944 by HighFlyer
21 Dec 2006, 11:53
Originally posted by karnsculpture

Seriously, I don't have any hang ups about touching someone else on a flight. What's so bad about it?


I have a real issue with people encroaching my personal space. I can't bear strange people touching me or talking to me, and i cannot bear travelling on the tube for fear of those things. I'm just not one of those people who wants to get friendly with complete strangers when i have no escape from them for many hours. Call me unsociable if you like, anyone who has met me at a social should be able to attest that i am not at all unsociable, i just value my personal space and would be happier if i could erect a small forcefield one foot around me :).

Thanks,
Sarah
Virgin Atlantic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

Itinerary Calendar