Shit. I’ve gained easily 120 pounds (55 kg.) since 1995.
Lizard, I’m assuming that’s because you were just a wee babe 8 years ago?
Heh. I actually weigh about 25 pounds less than I did in '95. So we’re helping cancel each other out!
Heh.
best. idea. ever.
If someone would just hurry up and invent one of those individual George Jetson jet back packs thingies so we can just fly ourselves around and all the problems would be solved. No screaming kids. No squishy seats. Your gas mileage would depend on how much weight you are packing.
While you’re at it, I could use one of those robot maids like Rosey.
Nope. I was 19 eight years ago, and I am not exaggerating my weight gain one bit.
It has not been a happy last 8 years. 
Actually, Frank #2, that would be “…let slip the dogs of war”.
Shakespeare, you know.
mischievous
What a looser!
d&r
How about a seat fee and a weight fee? The seat fee would be constant – a rental fee for parking your ass in their seat. The weight fee would depend on what you weigh and what you pack.
I say go.
Yes! Where the hell are those flying cars they’ve been promising us for the past 50 years? I’m really looking forward to being able to park by just hovering and tying a string to my vehicle. I was so upset when I learned you can’t do this with a helicopter.
Oh yeah, flying cars are a swell idea. Your average Joe Motorist has enough trouble wrapping his feeble mind around two dimensions, adding the third one would be asking too much of him. Especially if he’s talking on his cellphone, eating a pizza and trying to find a decent radio station.
Earlier today I was salivating over a robot vacuum cleaner. It’s impractical for us right now, though, as my husband tends to throw things on the floor, which would confuse the poor machine terribly. I, on the other hand, know how to respond. I throw things at HIM.
I propose placing them on a hamster-wheel connected to the engines, thus keeping the tykes occupied while helping to reduce fuel costs. Builds character!
Character=muscles. 
And what’s going to be the difference, may I ask, between someone who is taking a long trip and NEEDS a good deal of luggage, and someone who is just jaunting off for a weekend and has everything they need in their carryon? One of 'em is lighter, so that guy gets to go while the other guy gets to cool his heels in the terminal?
Who is going to tell me the ticket I bought isn’t good because I’m carrying a bag of golf clubs? Who is going to tell me I can’t take that shuttle flight to Dallas because I weigh too much? (Incidentally, I WOULD have gotten a first-class ticket for that flight, but shuttles have only cattle class. And anyone who thinks I ought to get a second ticket can blow me. I keep in my own damn seat, thank you, and I’ve never spilled over into someone else’s in my life). They’d damn well best put it on their company website, on their terminal desk, in their phone messaging, etc. that, say, you and your luggage cannot weigh more than 300 pounds. (WILD ASS GUESS NUMBER)
I’m a-waiting for the first domestic airliner to try that. Best not be Delta, that’s where all my frequent flier miles are…but I’d drop them like a bad habit if they ever hassled me about MY weight.
I’m taking a flight to LA from TX today. Shuttle to Dallas, then flight to LAX. I have one suitcase and one carryon, enough for three days of wacky fun. My suitcase is packed tight, but it’s not that heavy. My carryon is heavy, but that’s because it’s a leather bag; it’s packed with books and small electronics.
First person who comes up to me and tells me I have to leave my luggage behind gets a sock in the teeth, I reckon…
An obese person spilling over into someone else’s seat on a large commercial airliner and smaller aircraft adjusting for heavier people have little to do with each other.
This is a safely issue, NOT a “don’t spill onto my seat, or take up more than your fair share of room, or whatever” issue.
Heavier by scale weight doesn’t necessarily mean bigger. Granted, many Americans are fatter than when the stated standard of “160 pounds average” was determined. But 21 pounds more doesn’t mean that these people should be charged for being “fatter”. But it’s for the safety standards that apply to smaller aircraft.
I totally agree that smaller aircraft airlines should adjust for weight to insure the appropriate amount of fuel etc. But to equate this with the same problem as obese people spilling into some else’s seat is incorrect.
I weigh 20 pounds more than the average women in my same size of jeans. No one EVER guesses how much I weigh. Based on the size of my jeans, they usually guess about 20 pounds less than I actually weigh. Muscle-y dancer’s thighs make up for a lot of that weight.
I’m not in any danger of spilling onto someone’s seat, (despite my unfashionable curves). But, let me tell you, living in Alaska and frequently flying in small planes, me AND my fellow small aircraft commuters tell our weights, and most of us ADD pounds just to be on the safe side.
Most of us Alaskans who commute in tiny little planes are used to “fuel” taxes for safety purposes. I wouldn’t balk at that. But to equate it to “Americans are fatter than they used to be” and should be charged accordingly (which the article didn’t say) is kind of misleading.
Other than using MeanOldLady’s thread as an example of how the “fattening of America” can effect people, where do I say this is a fair share issue? Where do I say anything in the OP about charging more?
Simply, the OP says:
- People are larger
- People pack heavier bags
- Result of 1 and 2 result in left cargo, luggage, or people.
- I assume that when 3 happens, ticket prices will increase.
So, where do I say large people should be charged more? Please, find a quote.
First of all, I wasn’t pointing it out to be mean to you. I just wanted to point out that it (the smaller aircraft/weight issue) wasn’t an “obesity problem” or related to MOL’s thread.
Second, I didn’t say the OP said that it was a fair share issue, those were my words based on what I saw as the tone of, not just your post, but a few others.
And third I was talking about the overall tone of both the OP and other posters (not all abou the OP), regarding it being a size issue rather than one of weight on small aircraft (which IS what the article is about by the way, NOT the “Fattening of America” as you put it).
As to the statement in the OP that was the impetus for my reply?
It was this:
“It effected MeanOldLady and she talked about it in Your fat is spilling into my seat. Well now the “Fattening of America” is going to effect us all”.
And in another post of yours, this:
“Huh, no. Just venting at the growing size of Americans. Now maybe you found some non-existent connection in my complaint (about paying more, not getting a seat, or having my bag left behind) with an obese person next to me. Note: The link to MeanOldLady’s thread was just showing how the growing of America causes issues with people.”
(bolding mine)
Again, the article you quoted was mainly focusing on the way weight affects the safety standards of smaller aircraft. And yet both your posts, and to a smaller degree others’ posts, seem to equate that with an obesity or fatness problem.
Yes, people are fatter in this day and age, but we also are healthier and have denser bones, a bit more muscle etc.
The 21 pounds the article refers to is not necessarily fat. An average size body builder will be a lot heavier than an average person without being noticeably (read: extends into other people’s seat areas) bigger.
But yet in at least three areas in this thread you refer to this as an obesity problem.
Lastly I support the idea of a safety “watch” (so to speak) on the amount of weight going on a small plane (whether it be passengers or their baggage). As I said, this is nothing new to Alaskans many of whom travel all over the state in tiny little planes.
And I have had the experience of having to mail something out from a site because it was too heavy for the weight that was already on the plane.
CanvasShoes, over react much? Prior to this posting, the word obese occurred 6 times:
-
- By me - “Now maybe you found some non-existent connection in my complaint (about paying more, not getting a seat, or having my bag left behind) with an obese person next to me.” If you can read, I am commenting about tlw’s assumption that I am talking about obese people.
-
- By me (same post) - “I’m pissed - even if they aren’t obese. Follow? Clear now? Good” I’m specifically saying I’m not pissed at obese people.
3 & 4) - Your first post.
- By me (same post) - “I’m pissed - even if they aren’t obese. Follow? Clear now? Good” I’m specifically saying I’m not pissed at obese people.
-
- By me, quoting you
-
- You quoting my first use. See 1) above.
The word obesity is used 5 times:
- tlw’s post
- By me - quoting tlw
3, 4, & 5) - By you in your last post.
So you are making this an obesity issue, not me. People getting fatter (but not obese) will result in airline changes that could (and probably will) inconvenience me. And that is the point of the thread. If others try and make it an obesity issue, that’s their issue.
Question: In 1995, Adult Person X weighed 160 pounds. In 2003, Adult Person X weighs 181 pounds. Is Adult Person X fatter?
I would fly that airline in a second. Mandatory deodorant checks too-- if your stinky, you don’t get on-board. 
LOL, I wasn’t mad OR overreacting. If you’d read my post you’d see that.
I specifically stated that I not only wasn’t trying to be mean, nor was I just targeting your post, but was merely pointing out the seeming trend of part of your OP and others’ posts.
My second post was merely answering yours.
It’s funny that you are also pointing out how many times the word obesity has been used, that was my whole point. I was merely pointing out that obesity was irrelevent to the safety regs regarding weight limits and small aircraft.
Ooops, sorry forgot to answer your question.
Adult X might have gained fat. OR Adult X could have gained muscle from working out. Or person X could be pregnant.
I think, and again, I’m not mad or anything, just trying to clarify people (not just you) who seem to think “scale weight” = fatness.
That’s why I used myself as an example. What I was trying to get at was that the number on the scale doesn’t necessarily denote the person’s size.
Many people hear just the number and automatically think “oh, that’s too ‘heavy’ for my taste” without even knowing what kind of shape that person is in.
The 21 pounds mentioned in the article isn’t exactly a porcine increment of weight even if it were all fat.
And as I said in the previous posts I’m in FAVOR of weight restrictions etc on small planes, regardless of whether the person is truly obese, or is a scale heavy body builder.
And again, I wasn’t mad or anything, I just felt that the distinction needed to be pointed out. It seemed as if the thread was confusing fat with weight.