This is a dilemma, since no one would want you to be unable to breathe, but … There have been cases – not a lot, but some – of animals being put in the unheated and/or unpressurized parts of cargo. Or of one of these systems failing en route. I wouldn’t put any animal (except some sort of vermin) in the cargo hold. Certainly not a valuable service animal that someone is dependent on. I don’t know if it’s even legal to forbid a service animal to accompany a person anywhere.
If I were traveling and had that severe an allergy, I’d be sure I had some sort of preventive or ameliorative medication with me, since it is impossible to predict what will be in the environment. Suppose you’re in the waiting area, and there was a person with a service dog in there waiting for the previous flight?
I don’t require one (praise be) but from what I’ve seen there are things that service animals do that attendants probably won’t be able to. Like help you get from the plane to the baggage area when you get off the plane? I know, theoretically a flight attendant or other airline person will be there when you disembark, but you really can’t count on that.
THat’s not the point. The point is that, all other things being equal, you can buy a coach-class ticket (small seats) for considerably less than you can buy a business-class ticket (big seats). I’ll be mighty surprised if you can show me proof to the contrary: the size of the seat is one of many factors that determines the price of the ticket.
A): Yes, I agree. No one should have their space infringed upon.
B): Yes, I agree. Many people who benefit from the cost-saving measures of having smaller seats do not benefit from being squeezed into a smaller seat.
C): I’m not sure, but I think I disagree. Business-class seats are larger, and the tickets cost more. Economy-class seats are smaller, and the tickets cost less. Because of the cost savings of small seats, I’m able to fly sometimes. This seems to me like a pretty simple solution to the problem.
D): I agree partly – except that I think there’s already a solution to the problem. Stay within your own seat on a plane, and if you want that seat to be big, prepare to pay extra for the big seat. Don’t expect the cost savings of a small seat if you aren’t going to take the discomfort of a small seat.
E): I’m not sure I understand your solution – that’s one long, multi-claused sentence there! But I think I disagree. Any solution that results in all seats being larger is going to result in all tickets being more expensive (since there will be fewer passengers/flight). That hurts me, will mean that I cannot fly as often. The idea of larger seats that don’t come bundled with better service is certainly a fine idea, but I’d think the best way for it to be implemented is through the market: if there’s really a significant demand for such seating, won’t airlines start to offer it?
My proposed solution is this: make it very clear to people that when they purchase a ticket, they’re purchasing one specific seat. If the passengers adjacent to them complain that they’re taking up the adjacent seats, the flight attendants will take action.
On a side note, Morrigoon, I’m very skeptical when you say:
Can you provide a cite for this? This sounds patently ridiculous to me: I cannot imagine that the “reasonable accommodations” the ADA requires for folks with disabilities would include subjecting fellow passengers to sitting in their disabled neighbor’s urine.
To get to this in reverse order, I take my chances each time. I sometimes have a mild reaction, but that could be from lots of different things, somone with way too much perfume for example. I have once had a fairly serious attack, for unknown reasons. I generally fly for less than 3 hours at a time though, and just had a bit of a panic reaction at the thought of being stuck next to a dog trans-atlantic.
To the first point, funny you should mention SAS, I was just at their website, and they do indeed let service animals on-board (including monkeys!! Hell, if there was a monkey on the plane, I would take the risk, how cool! )
I was going to give a call and ask how they would solve such an issue, but customer service just closed for the evening. Your answer is however, what I would expect from them, which brings a nice close to this hi-jack becaaaauuuse (linking in with the OP discussion), I pay more to be able to have this security, by choosing SAS as my main airline! Since I need to be sure that they will be able to accomodate my needs, by placing me on a different flight (obviously, since its my prob, not the guy witht the dog), I pay for a higher level of service, and plunk down 2000kr per ticket to fly with them instead of 100 to fly with Ryanair (shudder). Excuse the hi-jack, the idea just paniced me as I said. I think we have de-hi-jacked nicely?
This cannot be true, for as we know from an earlier KellyM post:
Surely Southwest must be traveling down that same path you mentioned, not experiencing profitability as they so blatantly claim.
Belrix, you did note that the common source you’re quoting labeled your example as “offensive” and “disparaging,” while no such adjectives were used to describe MeanOldLady’s definition?
I don’t think anyone should be labeled by a derogatory term, but in some cases what constitutes “derogatory” isn’t clearly defined.
<further hijack (ooh, in a thread about planes, no less!)>
You really should carry an inhaler. These sudden attacks are always the ones that get you. I haven’t used my inhaler since I got better athsma meds (yay Singulair!), but I always kep one with me . . . just in case. Plus, think of the guilt the poor pup would have knowing that’s it’s his furry fault you’re on the ground, clawing at your throat for air.
<end hijack, return to your upright seat positions>
Gah, here I was all happy that some people had read and appreciated my comments, and then I read this.
You seem to be going from “almost no one” can’t control their weight, to “absolutely no one,” in this post. I don’t want sympathy, I just don’t want people telling me how it’s my own fault because I’m clearly a lazy pig. Some things wrong with my body are my fault. Some aren’t. And you may not make rude comments to people’s faces, but a lot of people do make those comments. Because there’s a belief that all of us fatties are just big because we don’t care enough, or we’re big because we don’t know enough, or something. If you have the magic weight loss solution for my situation, without making my Crohn’s flare up again, I’d be happy to hear it. Since anyone can do it.
Declaring proudly “It’s your own fault!” is not going to help anybody lose weight. Not those of us who are sick, and not those of us who just don’t have healthy lifestyles.
The problem is that all other things are not equal, and never will be equal so long as there is a range of different fares depending on who you are and when and how you buy your ticket. It’s easy to say “all other things being equal” but that’s not reality.
This is why it’s a two-pronged solution, and why fare parity mut be established before the seating situation is changed. Right now, we have no objective way to determine the cost per passenger for a flight because there is no bottom line fare. Even on the same route on the same airline (NYC to LA, for instance) the sum total of fare revenue from the passengers on board will vary from flight to flight. How can we know that tickets will be more expensive when we don’t have a reasonable basis upon which to determine how tickets are priced to begin with?
Why should they? How long have people been complaining about the size of seats? (It has become universal enough that it is a staple of stand up comedy, for pete’s sake.) How many people have developed deep vein thrombosis from being cramped and sedentary for too long in the air? People are still flying; many of them are miserable, but that won’t matter to the airlines until that misery translates into a significant loss of revenues which isn’t likely to happen because the people who suffer the most are the ones who travel the most and those are the people, generally speaking, who must travel for their jobs. They’re going to have to go, so the airlines still get the cash and the problem isn’t addressed.
You think that anyone thinks that they’re in any way entitled to more than their own assigned seat? Do you think that people are overflowing onto someone else’s seat because they want to, or that they can help it in some way other than simply not being there? And what is the flight attendant going to do, open the door and hand the obese person a parachute? If the flight is full, the solutions are extremely limited.
Obviously, they’re not. A large part of this is the fact that they’re using a different business model (I call it the Greyhound Bus model) than the vast majority of American airlines. Also, I would hazard that there are two reasons why Southwest doesn’t receive as many customer complaints based upon crowding due to overweight passengers. First, people who choose SWA are aware that they are paying less and do not expect the same level of comfort and accomodation because they know it’s a no-frills, seat yourself airline.
Second, thanks to a great deal of publicity about the “buy two seats” policy and previous policy decisions of the airline (they were widely criticized in NAAFA-type circles because of a conflict with SWA and female employees who were denied large-size uniforms) many extremely overweight people have chosen to take their business elsewhere, to airlines that have business/first class accomodations or those which have shown more sensitivity to dealing with the needs of the larger passenger with discretion and courtesy.
Okay, we’re having a major disconnect here. Maybe an example will help.
I just went to Yahoo! Travel and asked for a price on a round-trip ticket from RDU to Copenhagen, Denmark leaving 5/18 and returning 5/20, coach-class with restrictions. Lowest price? $3091.
Then I hit the Back button on my browser and looked for the EXACT SAME FLIGHT, THE EXACT SAME Day, only this time I looked for Business class with restrictions. Lowest price? $5,295
In this case, all things were equal with regards to when and where I found the ticket (there was about a thirty second time difference – but after I found the business ticket, I went back and looked again for the coach ticket, and it was still the same price).
It is bizarre to claim that business tickets are not, all things being equal, more expensive than coach tickets, and shows a basic misunderstanding of how airlines price tickets.
So what? Either you’re blatantly wrong, or it’s a meaningless point.
Blatantly wrong? There’s a fine objective way to determine the cost per passenger. Go up to each passenger and say, “Hey! How much did you pay for your ticket?” Write down what they tell you.
Meaningless? Maybe you’re talking about how each passenger pays something different. This seems akin to complaining about how there’s no objective way to tell what the price is per diner for a meal at a restaurant, because every meal is different.
Sure, everyone buys a ticket in a different manner. Tickets purchased earlier cost less than tickets purchased later. Tickets purchased with a special discount cost less than tickets purchased without a discount. Tickets purchased for weekday travel cost less than tickets purchased for weekend travel. And tickets purchased for smaller seats cost less than tickets purchased for larger seats.
The fact that many factors go into determining the price of a ticket in no way means that one specific factor doesn’t determine the cost of a ticket.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is simply how it works. You can debate whether it SHOULD work that way (although that seems to me akin to debating whether people who order beer at restaurants SHOULD pay more than people who order iced tea), but debating WHETHER it works that way is a little bit weird.
tlw, I think you missed the sarcasm that was inherent in my earlier post. I know Southwest is making money, and that their complaints are among the lowest in the industry. KellyM asserted that Southwest had more complaints than American due to their poor service. I was attempting a funny – one which obviously didn’t work. My apologies.
:dubious: You’re serious? Oh boy. Listen, it’s not nice to call a woman a slut when she is not one. To do so is exactly like me calling someone an elephant. Sure elephant is not a bad word, but when I refer to a person as one, it becomes an insult. Same thing goes for slut or whore. Do not call someone who isn’t a slut or a whore either of those names unless you wish to offend her. And if you would read the definition of fuckhead, you will see that it’s been labeled vulgar.
Look, I really don’t know what the hell your problem is, but you’re getting annoying. You need a nice, warm mug of calm-the-fuck-down. You’re sitting here calling me a fat basher because I referred to her blubber as, well, blubber? I’m a fat basher because I used the word broad which is slang for “woman” and not “fat woman.” I’m a fat basher because I don’t want some broad’s blubber all over me? Get the fuck out of dodge.
Here’s an amusing thought: fliers who are very averse to being touched by strangers should include in their carry on gear a sheet of plexiglass as wide as the depth of a seat and as tall as their ‘torso height,’ that is, the measurement from the bottom of their rump to the top of their shoulder when seated. (Roughly 1 foot by 2 feet should do for most of us.)
You board the plane, sit down, and slide this shield down into the gap between your seat and the next. Bingo! It no longer matters how big or small your neighbor is, you will be safe within your Fortress of Solitude.
Oh – don’t forget to bring two if you book the center seat.
I’m retiring from this thread. It’s been amusing and all but I’ve had my say, more than once, and I’m weary of it. If you want to visit the sister thread to this - I’ve said more of the same. If you really care.
MeanOldLady, I apologize if I offended - I was trying to make a point that “blubber”, while not labeled in the dictionary as offensive or vulgar is, in fact, both offensive & vulgar when directed at a person. I hope you understand that.
)
