No, that is not a very meaningful question. That is a very stupid question. We live in a system which allows us control over our property and over the product of our work. You, me, the guy behind the tree, the airline, everybody, is entitled to sell their property and their services at whatever rate they please and you are free to buy or not. You have no right to impose your conditions on others and if you believe you do then you are an idiot. If you want to buy anything, whether it be space on an airplane, food at the restaurant or a house by the beach then you meet the conditions requested by the seller or else the saller is free to reject your offer.
Try going to the airline and saying you want to buy a seat and you want to pay the economy fare but you want 10 inches more of leg space. Maybe they will accept. Or maybe they will laugh openly in your face. They are free to do any of those. They are not obligated to accept your offer any more than you are obligated to accept theirs.
It’s a bit rich chucking around terms like “twaddle” when you’re suggesting that “options” like changing job or moving house (or even, for a lot of people, paying much more for travel) are realistic. You’ve reduced the argument to stupidly simplistic levels: “if you don’t like it, tough.” This could be applied to every complaint in the BBQ Pit, and it’d be useless in just about every case. All anyone is saying is that economy seats are often pretty crappy but, for the time being, a lot of us are stuck with them. And I’m unconvinced that airlines run on such shoestring budgets that a few extra inches per seat would send them tailspinning into bankruptcy, although, as ever, I’m willing to be shown otherwise.
Of course they’re realistic. They’re difficult and most unpleasant - I moved six times during my childhood and attended nine different schools by the time I graduated high school - but they can be done. It’s just a matter of which you view as more unpleasant.
Actually, there’s a key difference between this rant and many of the others in the Pit. Space on an airplane is a zero-sum world: if you get more space for the same price, somebody else either gets less or has to pay more. I have exactly zero sympathy for people who expect others to pay for their own comfort.
**No, Lola, that’s not what you said:
You and TeaElle are both implying that you’re entitled to more, which I think we’ve established that you aren’t.
**Yep, it actually would. That’s why American is already abandoning its “more room” gambit on its most popular routes - it wasn’t attracting enough customers to make up for the loss of bodies on planes.
It’s a basic rule that goes back at least to streetcars and subways: “The profit is in the straps.” In those days, everyone knew that you couldn’t make a buck if all of your passengers were seated - you had to have standing room only. Similar for airlines. The public has demonstrated that it is mostly unwilling to pay extra for more space - it’d rather pay less and grumble.
Lola, how self-centered can you be? Once again: you are not the center of the world. The rest of us were not put in this world to serve your needs. You do not have a right to fly nor do you have any rights to any property or the product of other people’s work except in the terms they want to give it to you. How fucking difficult can it be for you to understand that? I do not care if the airlines are making billions, you still have no right to impose your conditions on them. They run their business as they see fit just like you can run your life and your business as you see fit. Or should the government house a poor family in your extra room which you don’t use that much? If need were a valid reason to entitle you to other people’s property and labor then you would lose pretty much everything you have to third world people. And they cannot afford to fly at all. Should a poor person who has no money be allowed to fly sitting on your lap? After all they really need it.
You want a bigger seat, then you pay for it just like everybody else.
Airlines - like train services - are allowed to run largely on the understanding that they offer a reasonable service (certainly in the UK, anyway, where major train operators have lost their franchise because of the crappiness of their service). That’s not to say that all of them DO offer what people see to be a reasonable service. Airlines don’t, for a large part of their clientele. Why should my discomfort and that of others “subsidise” your artificially cheap ticket? Why should I suffer for your sake? Why do you have this “right”? If we remove wheelchair spaces on buses, we can cram in a few extra seats, or we could charge extra for wheelchairs. Would it still be unjustified to complain about that?
Are we to tell people stuck in London’s crumbling tube system to grin and bear it, or to answer their complaints with wildly inappropriate references to the third world? Probably not, since they’d call us patronising wankers and tell us to fuck right off, and rightly so. Like me, they paid for a certain service, they don’t have much alternative and they’re perfectly within their rights to point out the shortcomings of what’s been delivered.
Airlines - like train services - are allowed to run largely on the understanding that they offer a reasonable service (certainly in the UK, anyway, where major train operators have lost their franchise because of the crappiness of their service). That’s not to say that all of them DO offer what people see to be a reasonable service. Airlines don’t, for a large part of their clientele. Why should my discomfort and that of others “subsidise” your artificially cheap ticket? Why should I suffer for your sake? Why do you have this “right”? If we remove wheelchair spaces on buses, we can cram in a few extra seats, or we could charge extra for wheelchairs. Would it still be unjustified to complain about that?
Are we to tell people stuck in London’s crumbling tube system to grin and bear it, or to answer their complaints with wildly inappropriate references to the third world? Probably not, since they’d call us patronising wankers and tell us to fuck right off, and rightly so. Like me, they paid for a certain service, they don’t have much alternative and they’re perfectly within their rights to point out the shortcomings of what’s been delivered.
Lola, WTF are you talking about you self-centered jerk? Your discomfort is *subsidising" my “artificially cheap ticket”? Don’t be such an idiot. My ticket is not “artificially cheap”. It is the expression of a free contract between the airline and me. WTF do you keep insisting that your view is the correct one? Why do you want to impose it on people who do not want it? The immense majority of travellers disagree with you but you want to impose your views on the airline and on the other passengers. Once again, the airline has determined that their scheme of seating and pricing is what will satisfy most customers. It is their decision to make but you want to impose on the airline and on other people your minority view of things.
Quit making stupid comparisons. You are comparing legal things with illegal things. If the airline is breaking some laws or regulations then you would have a point and you would have a case in court but it is not the case.
What you want is a system where the government, rather than the free market, decides what people want and where you are the one in the government deciding. That system has been tried in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and countless other countries and it did not manage to give people more of what they want. It was and is quite a failure. I would rather let the free market decide these things.
I never said anything about entitlements. In fact, I said very clearly that fares would have to increase to offset the loss from removing seats. But at least in this case, there’d be something in return for the travellers, unlike the higher fares we’ve been paying lately due to escalating fuel costs and new taxes and fees related to the TSA.
And sailor, you’d do good to learn how to disagree with people without being disagreeable. Is there some particular reason that you think it’s necessary to call people names because you’re on the opposite side of an argument with them, or are you simply unavailed of more constructive ways to attempt to make a point?
Why does the plane sometimes take off with empty seats in First/Business?
The differential cost of having a person in economy move up to First, once the door is shut, is the cost of 1-2 alcoholic drinks at most (and they’ve cut back seriously on that in First :mad: ).
I fly First nearly every single flight on Delta, because I have something like 67 First Class segment upgrades. And nearly every flight, there are 1-2 empty seats. Which are not used by the crew, they just are…empty. Meanwhile, coach is full. Why not, once the door shuts and all are on-board, move some people up? Base it on FF status, base it on random selection, base it on removing a few people from the center seat…I can see very little downside to it. You could even base it on size/height of the person, but then you get into all sorts of situations where people will whine and bitch and moan about who is “entitled” or “least comfortable”, and that might not be a good idea.
One would think that the positive experience of a typical coach passenger being told with a smile “Come on up to First!” would be a great sales incentive for future bookings.
Yet, I’ve even offered to pay hard cash to move people up to First, and use up segments, and been told “absolutely not”, and then the plane took off with the seat next to me empty. Sure, now at some airports you can “walk up” upgrade for $100 or so, but that is still somewhat uncommon. And if they don’t do it at your airport, nothing short of an extra $1000 or 10,000 FF miles is going to get you into First.
Sounds to me like bad economics or bad marketing/image, if the seats are empty.
You feel entitled to impose your preferences on others who prefer something else? You feel your preferences are more important than the preferences of the majority of travelers? Yes or no?
I explained why I do not like it when some people would want to impose their preferences on the rest of us. When those people insist that they somehow feel they are entitled to doing just that I become impatient. I do not like self-centered people who feel they know what they want is what everybody should want. How hard is it to understand that I do not like being told what I should want?
There are many products and services I would like to have and which do not exist because there is no profit or market for them. There are products I used to like but which were withdrawn from the market because there was not enough profit in them. I do not feel entitled to tell people they should buy what I would want to buy. I do not feel entitled to tell the manufacturers and retailers they should offer the products I want. They make money by pleasing the most people, not by pleasing me. And, if they do not please anough people, they go out of business. That’s the beauty of the free market.
You feel entitled to impose your preferences on others who prefer something else? You feel your preferences are more important than the preferences of the majority of travelers? Yes or no?
I explained why I do not like it when some people would want to impose their preferences on the rest of us. When those people insist that they somehow feel they are entitled to doing just that I become impatient. I do not like self-centered people who feel they know what they want is what everybody should want. How hard is it to understand that I do not like being told what I should want?
What you are proposing is taking away the freedom of others to suit your own needs. I prefer that, unless there is a compelling interest recognised as such by the majority, we each keep the freedom as customers to decide what we want to buy and the freedom as businesses to decide what we want to produce and offer.
There are many products and services I would like to have and which do not exist because there is no profit or market for them. There are products I used to like but which were withdrawn from the market because there was not enough profit in them. I do not feel entitled to tell people they should buy what I would want to buy. I do not feel entitled to tell the manufacturers and retailers they should offer the products I want. They make money by pleasing the most people, not by pleasing me. And, if they do not please anough people, they go out of business. That’s the beauty of the free market.
In this sentence, you demonstrate that you think that what you pay entitles you to more than what the airlines are willing to give you: more space. But not one of us is entitled to one molecule more than what we have paid for, exhorbitant as that may be. We pay for what the airlines are willing to give, and these days that isn’t much. Of course, most of the time, we’re not paying very much, either.
What is so difficult to understand about this concept? Airlines aren’t deceiving you about what they’re selling. Most airlines carefully avoid any photographs of what a coach cabin actually looks like - instead, they focus on their glamorous destinations, or their wonderful business class cabins. The ones that do show a coach cabin are usually the ones offering more space. And they usually charge for it, one way or another - JetBlue doesn’t offer many flights, so what it’s charging is, in essence, time, which we all know generally translates to money for most people.
Sailor, how is comparing the state of the London tube to the situation with the airlines somehow "comparing legal things with illegal things’? Is that a “stupid comparison”, whereas comparing a complaint about the seating on airlines to a desire to live in a Communist Republic, or to give all possessions to a third world family, somehow rational and sensible?
I’lll explain again. Airline travel is cheap; at least in part, this is because too many (in my opinion) people are squeezed into too little space. You don’t mind this. I do, because it’s horribly uncomfortable. But I should tolerate the discomfort or pay much more so that the cost of your seat doesn’t go up. So, I’m uncomfortable (damn near crippled at times) to subsidise your seat. Now this may be a hard point to swallow, but no more so than your argument that my desire for more space is unfair because it inconveniences you. Two sides of the same coin.
Next, the reason I think my point of view is right is… well, that’s why it’s my point of view. Because I think it’s right. Fucking complex, that one, eh? Isn’t that why you keep insisting YOURS is right?
Finally, you seem to get very upset when people disagree with you. Try not to, since it can’t be healthy and it’s making you sound like a bit of a tit. Which I’m sure you aren’t.
Actually he was referring to denying someone wheelchair accessibility, which is illegal.
**
In your opinion being the key qualifier. Most of the flying public does not share this view I might add.
**
If flying for you is horribly uncomfortable, then you should find alternate methods of transportation, as you part of a very small minority.
**
No it doesn’t add up, and I’ll tell you why. You are the minority. You have a special set of problems that need to be accommodated that I would say 90% of the flying public (being in horribly discomfort while flying) doesn’t experience. The very fact that there isn’t an airline called Comfort Air or such that flies planes set up like you suggested leads us to believe the demand is not as much as you would like.
I was referring to your pathetic example about “wheelchair spaces on buses”. Please try to remember what you posted.
I have no clue what you mean by bringing up the London tube which is, AFAIK:
1- More uncomfortable than any airplane I have ever been on,
2- Not owned and operated by a private corporation with a profit motive, and
3- Not in competition with other underground trains in London and
If that does not make my point I do not know what does.
Um no. You continue to overlook the main point. This is not a choice between you and me. It is a choice between a very small percentage of people who think like you versus the immense majority who disagree with you. If more people agree with you then the airlines would be offering that service. You are not subsidising anything. We are each paying for what we get.
[/quote]
Next, the reason I think my point of view is right is… well, that’s why it’s my point of view. Because I think it’s right. Fucking complex, that one, eh? Isn’t that why you keep insisting YOURS is right?
[/quote]
You are such an idiot. It is not my choice, it is the choice of the immense majority of the flying public. Why don’t you just fucking understand that? The airlines are giving the public what the majority wants. You want the airlines to give the public what YOU want. Big fucking difference.
Don’t be concerned about my health. In fact, I find it quite therapeutic to expose the idiotic arguments by those who want to impose their ideas on the rest of us.
The people arguing against Lola have clearly never flown RyanAir.
But seriously, I do agree with y’all: it’s a market thing. Sometimes this sucks (my wife has very long legs and has terrible problems in economy seats), but no airline owes us anything in terms of service. It’s a shame that we can’t afford to fly first class, but whaddyagonnado? If we don’t like it, we’ll have to vote with our feet and find an airline offering with more leg-room.
The sole exception to this is when overcrowding leads to safety issues, or if the airline in question has a monopoly - then they should be subject to legislation.
Una, as long as we agree that the airlines are free to set their own policies and set their marketing strategies, then, of course, we are entitled to opine what would be the best for the airline and the passenger. No doubt every corporation makes mistakes but outsiders should not be entitled to force their views on a corporation. I think you will agree with me. There is no corporation which does not make mistakes and the way to let them know is to write them, which I regularly do. More often than not I write to commend them and not to complain. I take down the names of people who have done a good job and I write the company to let them know. As I said in a letter to British Airways about an incident in Heathrow: “Your employees did a wonderful job of treating passengers politely when they were behaving like cattle”.
I write them and let them know what I would like and I assume that if enough people write we might get what we want. I have written several letters over the years complaining about the abuse of the carry-on luggage allowance. Finally the airlines are getting serious about this. I have also written to complain about the policy of serving free drinks on board because it makes asshole passengers be even greater assholes. The last thing you need on an airplane is drunk passengers getting into air rage fits. I hope one day alcohol will be either banned entirely or priced as to subsidize half the cost of the flight.
Maybe you think a policy is wrong but airlines have their policies which look at the big picture which you may not see. Some years ago I finished in a convention in Las Vegas a couple of days earlier than expected but my ticket did not allow changes without penalty. I called the airline and there were free seats on the flight that day but the airline would not waive the hefty fee. I explained to them that the seat would go empty and they would lose that money but if they would let me take it they would have a chance of selling mine a couple of days later but they still refused. A couple of days later was just before Thanksgiving and traveling was hell as everything was oversold and some bad weather came that way. Now, if you look just at that individual incident you can say it wa a bad policy for the airline but you would have to show it is a bad policy overall, not just in a few cases.
If airlines upgraded people to first class as you say they might cause more problems. They might alienate some first class passengers who paid big bucks to be in first class. They might alienate some economy passengers who felt they had more right to be upgraded. They might lose revenue from people who might hope to be upgraded. I don’t know all this but there are many variables. In any case, if you think it is a good idea, the thing to do is write the airline and let them know.
I travel mostly in economy but I have flown in first class a few times, either because it was a business expense or because I was upgraded by the airline. Of course it is much better than travelling in the economy section but I would still rather travel cheaply and use my (limited) money for something else.
A couple years ago Alitalia lost my luggage in China an the whole trip was ruined. As compensation, on the return trip from HKG they offered to upgrade me to first class but I declined because I was seated next to a pretty Chinese girl and that was more interesting to me. I made the right decision too. In the long hours of that flight to London, in the tight quarters of economy seats, in the darkness and under the cover of blankets, we “fell asleep” and some fooling around ensued where I got a hand job and she also got some satisfaction. We both later “woke up” later like nothing had happened. (We went on to become close friends later.)
Traveling in economy does have its good things. If my traveling companion was always like that I vote for smaller seats.
BTW, Alitalia sucks and i am never flying with them again in my life.
