Has KellyM been right about anything in this thread?
Several folks have complained about “irrational” or “nonsensical” pricing policies. Hate to tell youse, but the pricing plans actually do make sense, complex as they are (or at least they did until the top end suddenly fell off - more in a moment).
See, the airlines managed a terrific achievement - they managed to price their product (to wit, a seat of a given physical dimension, squished with lots of others on the same plane) by how badly the consumer wanted it. It’s brilliant and highly efficient - the only thing more efficient is an auction, which it in fact resembles in some respects. People who wait 'til the last minute usually want something really really badly right now I don’t care what your charging, so they pay through the sinuses. Almost by definition, people who plan in advance have more options and more flexibility, so you charge them less. Saturday night stay? Business travelers usually want to be home for the weekend - charge 'em for the privilege. Frequently flyer plans? Well, eventually you do have to reward your best customers, and if you’re clever you keep defining “best” upwards - ergo the proliferation of gold, silver, platinum, titanium, promethium, uranium levels.
We’re not used to this sort of pricing because until modern computing, it was pretty hard to pull it off. But think: wouldn’t a record company make more if it knew that, say, KellyM (forgive me ;)) were so desperate for the next Madonna CD she’d pay 50 bucks, whereas I’d pay 15, and Coldie would pay 8? The clerk would see us walk in the door and rush to change the price stickers. As it stands, they’ll probably charge 15 - knowing I’ll pay, they lose 35 off KellyM, and Coldie’s 8 to boot because he won’t pay 15 ever. They’ll make $30, whereas under airline-style pricing they’d make $58 - almost twice as much.
(Oh dear, how terrible of me: I’m stereotyping the Dutchman as cheap.)
Anyway, the only reason the system’s falling apart is because all of a sudden there’s no one at all in the top bracket - and that bracket was floating everyone else. Southwest is making money only partly because their pricing’s simpler - the bigger reason is that they’ve screwed their costs down so they can make money with a much lower “high end.”
And none of this has anything to do with how big the seats are. You pay for a certain amount of space, and you don’t have the right to take up more. In my case, that means that I don’t get to throw my legs over the seat back in front of me, or even dig my knees into the next person’s kidneys. (That’s why I take American, and often pay more.)
That’s fucking ridiculous. No one made you get fat!! Unless you’re in the small percentage of people with a genetic problem, then it’s your own fault you have this “handicap.”
That is the stupidest comparison I have ever seen. Do you really equate blindness with morbid obesity? Last I checked, there isn’t a remedy for blindness.
Also, if you were allergic, I’m sure the airline cannot force you to sit next to a dog.
What if she were blind though some action of her own? Diabetic retinopath cause by a lifetime of overeating? Poked herself deliberatly in the eye with a sharp stick? What a quandry! Should you help her by allowing the dog or just tell her to “suck it up, leave the dog at home and pay for another seat for a person to assist.”
I submit that many “officially handicapped” people are handicapped through some avoidable situation. They, indirectly, are handicapped through choice - although certainly not by intent. Do they deserve the same consideration as the biologically handicapped?
Belrix, well done for fuzzing them boundaries so well. But is it not a natural conclusion of your position that just about every scarce resource is being distributed in a discriminatory fashion?
It’s rude? Paint me rude then, if somone bought a dog on a flight I was going on, and I was not informed of this in advance by the airline, I would pitch a fit that would be heard across the world. You would be reading about it in the news.
K, well you wouldn’t, but I would demand that the animal fly cargo (like my animals have when I have flown with them), or that the airline put me on another flight immediatly, with a different airline if need be to meet my travel time requirements.
It’s the breathing thing, I have gotten quite used to it you see.
Iteki, a service animal is just that. It is a dog that has been specially trained to assist its owner. It can’t do that if it’s in cargo; it’s for this reason that service dogs are allowed into public buildings and on airplanes in the first place. (Well, that and they enjoy legal protection.)
And given the current consciousness about security, if you really did pitch that kind of a fit, I’m sure the airline would love to help you find suitable arrangements, preferably on someone else’s airline.
Robin
Oh gimme a break, KellyM! You’re telling me that a woman who was so squashed she ended up with blood clots and intensified sciatica is “fast bashing?”
:rolleyes:
Is it your goal in life to be offended by everything?
Iteki, you and your lungs. Always askin’ for special treatment. Da noive… 
MsRobyn, I understand, I am amazed and thrilled with service animals and think they are wonderful things. Nothing against them at all. I am thinking there is not a lot they can do on a plane that an attendent can’t however, and if I am on the plane with the dog, I will not be able to breath. Literally. In all other places I get to choose if I want to be in the same place as an animal, on a plane for hours I just can’t. Even if the dog weren’t on the plane, but had been on the previous flight, it could cause me severe problems. Not arguing, just FYIing 
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**Has KellyM been right about anything in this thread? **
[/QUOTE]
No.
I’ve never seen someone rudely demand a cite and then get his/her ass so thouroughly kicked before.
Nope. I meant that one. If you’d so kindly consult our good friend www.dictionary.com you would notice the following:
The lady on the airplane had A LOT of excessive body fat and it was all over me! Gah! That is NOT okay!
Do whatever you want with your pooches. Just don’t have your flea-laden mutt all over my lap and I’m happy.
I did not yell anything to the broad on that airplane, but had I done so, it would not have been nearly as rude as her lifting up the armrest, allowing her blubber to spill all over the place.
Let’s turn this just a tad then: Let’s say someone with a bladder control disability (perhaps someone also impaired by a mental disability) ends up seated next to you. Do you have a right to blame them for their disability? Do you have a right to blame the airline?
Did you know it is ILLEGAL for the airline to discriminate? They’re even specifically barred from requesting that the disabled person sit on a blanket, despit the potential for damage and unsanitary conditions which could result.
And yet, it’s legal for them to discriminate against large people. Nice.
Oh, and Indygrrl: just how do you tell the difference between those with the genetic or medical condition which causes their obesity and those for whom it is a behavior problem? Do you think it’s okay to discriminate against the disabled just because you can’t tell them apart from the rest? Isn’t that kind of like yelling at someone with Tourrete’s Syndrome to watch their mouth?
Regarding service animals and airlines…
(Well, first, you may want to get Elenfair to chime in here, as she trains service dogs and flies with them regularly)
My father has worked for Scandinavian Airlines for thirty years. When I was speaking to him about this, he explained that his airline’s policy for an allergic traveler and a service animal on the same flight is to place one or the other on a separate aircraft if the service animal cannot fly cargo. He couldn’t think of any situation that was not resolved satisfactorily by this, but then, he’s spent those thirty years working in an office in Minneapolis and not as part of a flight crew or gate attendant.
Iteki - you mention that if a dog were on a previous flight, it could still cause you severe problems. Not arguing, just wondering - is there any way that you can find out if this is so, or do you have to gamble every time you get on a plane?
I didn’t say it was ok to discriminate against anyone. Someone asked why people think it’s ok to criticize overweight people and I told them my opinion. I don’t say shit to overweight people. The only time they bother me is when they cryass and complain that there’s nothing they can do about it.
I could be overweight very easily if I didn’t eat right and exercise. That would be my business, and I wouldn’t expect sympathy for it. I don’t particularly enjoy working out, but I do it to stay healthy and in shape. If I can do it, so can anyone.
I’m sorry, that’s simply not true. A seat in first class can cost considerably less than a seat in coach if it is purchased earlier or purchased via a special deal, as I outlined in my first post. I know this to be true because I’ve done it. In fact, I just attempted to do a test and got frustrated by the fact that it’s extremely difficult to talk to a person in airline reservations now, so I got one fare quote and then moved online, and found that the exact same flight combo (US Airways Flight 5884 from Chicago Midway to Charlotte Douglas International on 4/26, returning on Flight 5807 on 5/3) could be purchased for $58 cheaper online than the fare quote I received by phone which was supposedly “the best fare we can offer.” In addition, the highest quoted coach fare on that flight combo was $112 more expensive than the lowest quoted first class fare for the same flight combo when pushed back three weeks for travel on 5/17-5/24. The 21 day advance purchase discount is enough to make a first class seat cheaper so long as it is purchased earlier.
So, while first class costs more on a equal-time comparison, that cost difference can be completely erased and reversed when the benefit of advance purchase is erased – and that doesn’t speak to any special fares, just the regular time-based breaks that all airlines use. The higher end service (which isn’t just about size of seat or comfort) is a premium but it is still a flexible-cost premium in the grand variable airline fare scheme.
Not only that, but on the whole, they’re reducing service for everyone, treating people more and more like cattle and doing so on all of our collective dimes as they skate along on government handouts to prop up their failing business model – failing largely due to their own gross fiscal mismanagement, not terrorism or SARS or any of the other scapegoat causes that they have liked to trot out.
And how do we know? Because the airlines that reject the crap-shoot pricing model – like Southwest – are still profitable. Same for the airlines which go to lengths to make the flying experience as pleasurable as possible, like JetBlue. It’s the airlines that don’t seem to give a good damn about their customers or good faith business dealings – hello, USAirways! hey American! – which are tripping over themselves down the road to the fate of Eastern/TWA/PanAm.
And how many have a choice? Business travellers are confined to the travel regulations of their companies which typically restrict them to coach class unless they’re upper level management or use personal frequent flyer benefits to arrange for their own upgrades. Family travellers can often ill afford first class accomodations for two parents and two children, even when booking well in advance. Leisure travellers on a budget, when faced with the choice between first class air travel and first class hotel accomodations will obviously choose the one which will result in the most benefit to them, which is clearly not the air portion of their trip. People make the “choice” because there is often not much choice to be made at all.
Emphases mine, because THIS is exactly the kind of generalization that bothers. You don’t know what percentage of overweight people have conditions that make it difficult enough for them to lose weight that it is personally impossible. Bariatric and endocrinology experts don’t know what percentage of overweight people have what conditions – nor do they know in those who have been diagnosed with problems which way causation lies. (Did the problems cause the obesity or did the obesity cause the problems?) But you’ve thrown out the “small percentage” claim multiple times in this thread. If you can’t provide some kind of empirical data to back that up, then perhaps you need to back down.
Especially since the means by which any person or group of people attained their overweight status is completely and wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The only reason to bring it up is to engage in unnecessary moralizing on the issue which is not appropos at any time unless you’re availed of meaningful knowledge on the matter and, more importantly, you’ve been asked.
That said, what is the argument here? Fat people shouldn’t infringe upon skinny people’s space in airplanes. Okay, that’s a given. Skinny people shouldn’t infringe upon fat people’s space in airplanes either. No one should do anything (actively or passively) which causes any other passenger to be uncomfortable on an airplane, period. Or anywhere else, for that matter. We all need to keep our hands, shoulders, spike heels, bellies, thighs, body odor, breath, mouthes and drool to ourselves in all aspects of life unless we’ve been expressly invited to put our body parts on someone else.
So that aside, the only argument seems to be whether or not the American airline industry needs to catch a clue and make the seating more accessible to more people given the fact that American adults are growing larger, something that would benefit not only larger people but the smaller people who must travel in adjacent seating.
If you accept the first premise, that no one should be made uncomfortable, but reject the second premise that plane seats are not large enough, can you not see how such a view might be considered both punitive toward those who are (for whatever reason) on the larger side of the spectrum and illogical given the need for greater comfort for all passengers?
And if your basis for saying that you don’t want seats to be made larger is the economics of it, how do you square that perspective with the fact that airline fares vary from seat to seat for myriad reasons which have nothing to do with seat size anyway? If you don’t want to pay more for fares because seats are made larger, why are you currently willing to pay more for fares because of the advance-purchase pricing scheme and the fact that some seats are sold for variety of discounts which are not always accessible to the general public? Do you not see a contradictory viewpoint there?
Where are the points at which we cannot all agree without all the fuss?
Can we all agree that:
A.) No one should have their basic space needs infringed upon by another passenger on a commercial air flight.
B.) There is a large (and growing) percentage of the population who could benefit from larger seats on airplanes, for both their own comfort and those who sit around them.
C.) There is a wildly variable fare scheme currently in play for the majority of airlines which would make it difficult for airlines or their passengers to fairly and appropriately absorb the cost of putting larger seats in planes.
D.) Since there will always be larger people – be they tall, muscular, obese or some combination of all of the above – some solution must be found for the problem.
E.) That solution should be two-pronged: one, making the fare structure of all airlines more like Southwest Airlines and free of the complications which create the current disparities while installing larger seating, either overall or as an in-between class (as some airlines already have) where the size of seats is the only difference, not the level of service, so that a fair pricing structure can be installed wherein each passenger is paying according to what they are receiving, period, not what they are receiving with penalties for late purchase or benefits of access to special discount schemes.
What do you all think?
I shall consult with you before making my next trip to Boston then. 
Also from that same dictionary:
…just because it’s in the dictionary doesn’t mean that it’s not imflammatory & offensive.
When you take an animal on board, you have to make reservations for it (I’ve done it before). If it’s a big problem for you, you could ask if any animals are booked for your flight before you buy tickets or get on the plane. Rather than forcing the person who booked passage for the dog (as allowed by the airline) to stow their pet in the belly of the craft, you can have the airline provide you with other arrangements.
There’s no way to make everyone happy on an airplane (or a bus, or a restaurant, or anywhere for that matter), but I think people need to be willing to bend and flow. If something is a mild annoyance, chances are you can live with it for a few hours. But if you’re being squooshed by the person next to you, by all means, I think you have cause to complain! You can ask about pets on board, but you can’t very well ask about large people (or stinky people, or loud people . . .). I think if you’re causing the inconvenience and there’s no recourse for the inconvenienced (they can’t be moved to another seat), then you should bear the burden of fault and plan accordingly next time. I know an obese woman who books flights waaaay in advance so she can get the exit row and an extra seat. She does this because she doesn’t want to cause anyone discomfort and knows it’s the only way to avoid it. It’s just common sense and courtesy. It’s not about airlines trying to opress the big people, it’s about dealing with airlines when you are a big person.