Your fat is spilling into my seat

The BBQ Pit
261

I’ve regularly skimmed through this thread but haven’t read all of it. I didn’t see the following point being made; if it has been, please disregard this then.

AFAIK most posters agree on the unspoken assumption that if obesity is non-voluntary, people who suffer by it should not have to pay an additional charge. Actually this assumption is invalid as a fact of life. Most people who suffer from one or other physical disadvantage have to suffer additional costs as well, even while the government may try to alleviate some of it. Being handicapped is never compensated fully. Furthermore people with handicaps are not always allowed the same freedom as others.

One simple example: sight. I’ve got glasses/contacts and I have to pay for them. Insurance will not completely cover it. I don’t mind (and is not very costly), but it sure as heck is involuntary.

Another example is not being able to use one’s legs: this will make it very difficult to drive a car. You may be able to with a special car, but it will cost extra time and money. And does anyone know how handicapped people are handled on an airplane?

Actually I doubt whether many people would like to classify obesity in general as a handicap. That would put a large social stigma to it. You might say that ‘fat’ people should not have to pay for bigger seats if they can prove it is non-voluntary. Do you think many people would like to go to get a medical statement for that fact?

With respect to the original issue (although this is the Pit), I personally am rather tiny, but still wouldn’t mind particularly if airlines would use bigger seats at a higher price. But I can see that as long as ‘the public’ consistently looks for lower prices, it’s not going to happen. Maybe advertisments should state: flight $ xx for one yy inch seat. Then people could see for themselves whether they like to cough up the extra dough, or risk being crammed into a tiny seat and/or being stuck in with your next neighbour. I don’t fly so much, but using public transport (train) in The Netherlands offers similar experiences, even though train seats are more spacious than airplane seats.

262

Clearly you’ve never experienced an alcoholic drying out.

For some, the withdrawal is so bad the actually die, and not because they’re depressed.

There are, in fact, people who use heroine “once in a while”. Granted, they are not in the majority. However, claiming that a physiological adiction to alcohol doesn’t exist is just plain wrong. Is it as strong as that of heroine? No. Does it exist? Yes. Do alcoholics typically sit on other passengers during a flight? Maybe. Do the other passengers have the right to be cheesed off? You bet.

I said before - I’ve sat next large people on flights. They had no problem, whatsoever, keeping their girth to themselves.

Claiming that those that are incapable of doing this deserve special treatment is absurd.

Secondly, if any passenger with a dog, or a wheelchair, or an oxygen tank, sat it on the lap of their seat mate, I be the seatmate would be annoyed regardless of the handicap. We’re not talking about not giving larger folks a hard time. We’re talking about one, rude woman, who, with complete disregard for the comfort of the OP, chose to raise her arm-rest and stretch out.

She was RUDE. Dog on the lap? Rude. Oxygen tank on the lap? Rude. Wheelchair on the lap? Rude. Belly on someone elses lap? Rude. Rude. Rude.

263

It’s not an absurd argument when placed in the framework that I’ve laid out, which is the perspective from which I’ve been posting from the very beginning. Either you’re choosing to selectively read what I’m writing or you’re simply misunderstanding me. I’m not sure which.

I’m not sure I care at this point.

It matters because that’s what’s being charged, and people are being expected to accept that an additional inch or two of space (at most - an increase of no more than 11%) is worth nearly double the cost per ticket which is simply ridiculous.

All that matters to the airlines is whether they can fill the seats at that rate. What matters to consumers is something wholly different, and I’d put forth that paying what they believe to be a fair price for what they’re getting is at the heart of what every consumer wants.

Let’s face it, Daniel, you’re advocating the status quo for your own supposed benefit, but in reality, that status quo is a system by which people are being ripped off right and left, including yourself.

You keep claiming that an increase in seat sizes would automatically translate to an increase in fares, because airlines would have to recoup the loss from the seats lost. While this is true overall, let’s look at the math.

Imagine that two rows with six seats per row were refitted with only four, larger seats per row and held aside for passengers who were very obese, had mobility equipment (crutches, canes, etc.), parents travelling with infants, people travelling with medical equipment or whatever personal need would make a larger size seat preferential.

Since two seats would be taking the space of three, these new seats would be 150% of the size in normal rows. This is, I should note, a pipe dream. As I’ve mentioned, current first class seats are only around 11% larger than coach seats, typically 19 inches instead of 17.2. A 27 inch seat is the thing of fantasies.

In any case, in those two rows, instead of 12 seats total, there would be 8. On a plane with a current capacity of 142 passengers the potential “fare burden” would then be shifted to 138.

So presume that each passenger on a 142 person flight currently pays an average of $200 each way. That’s $28,400 total fare revenue for the flight. If 138 people had to ante up a total of $28,400 for the flight, their ticket price would be a whopping $205.80.

What makes more sense and seems a more legitimate, equitable solution:

A.) Everyone on the flight pays five dollars more and no one has to deal with a seatmate whose body mass or baby or oxygen tank create an uncomfortable imposition.

or

B.) 130 passengers pay $200 and the 8 in the special seats pay $300, since they have 50% more space.

Now I say option A makes more sense. $5 to help ensure that I’m not being pancaked is well worth it. $5 to help a fellow human being to not deal with the embarassment of pancaking me is well worth it.

YMMV

Of course, as I was getting to in my very, very, very first post in this thread, the only way to come to such an equitable distribution of fares after a seat refit is to be able to determine that there is, in fact, a base fare that every passenger is paying. Southwest, ironically, is one airline which could determine such a figure, because of their fare structure. It seems fairly likely, though that other airlines would just tack an arbitrary amount onto their tickets and continue to screw their passengers, economically speaking, as they do now.

264

I’m curious…why does “life’s not fair” mean “other people should spend hundreds of dollars extra so that I won’t be touched” instead of “I have to tolerate a minor inconvenience for an hour or so”?

265

Are you saying this is not true? Type II diabetes is often a result of obesity, is it not? IIRC some 75% of people at onset of type II diabetes are obese, and have apparently simply overwhelmed their bodies’ ability to produce and utilize insulin properly. They can control their diabetes through diet and excercise, and are not dependent on insulin injections to control the disease.

However, Type I diabetics (aka juvenile diabetes) have suffered the loss of pancreatic beta cells, where insulin is produced. The causes are not known, but are apparently not related to obesity. They must balance their food intake, excercise, and injections of insulin to maintain appropriate levels of blood glucose and avoid hyperketoacidosis, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia.

So yes, frequently, obese people have brought about diabetes as a result of poor nutrition and poor health.

266

Um, my last sentence should end “result of poor nutrition and poor excercise habits.” [headsmack smilie]

267

No. I’m saying it is true. You’re misreading. I was responding to those who are of the the “Tough shit that that person’s fat, s/he brought it on him/herself” type by giving other examples where people ALSO caused their own problems to see if they’d say the same thing to their general attitude applied to other situations.

268

Yeah, sure. Not only would I like to do this, but I’d like to pay more for clothing to help defray the higher cost at ‘big and tall’ shops. I feel those that use more resources, no matter what the resource, no matter what the cause, should be partially subsidized everyone else. It’s the American ‘won’t someone else take care of my responsibilities?’ Way.

And while I still feel sympathy for the embarrassment that must be felt by someone who must abscond with a portion of my seat, it’s tempered by the belief that it is premeditated. It’s not like “surprise!’ I don’t fit in one seat, I have no choice but to take yours.” It’s not a surprise, and this person knew they were going to inconvenience some poor soul so that they could make use of a cheaper ticket. Pretty selfish.

I’m waiting for the day serendipity places three such people side by side, so they can attempt to borrow space from someone who was counting on borrowing theirs.

269

While I am highly sympathetic to those who are suffering from diabetes, it does not change the fact that, for those people with Type II diabetes resulting from obesity, they did in fact bring it upon themselves. By so doing, they are increasing the load upon our medical resources, increasing costs and consuming resources potentially available to others. Obese people are at greater risk for a number of comorbid conditions, and all of these further tax our health care system. While I remain sympathetic, I believe strongly that we cannot deliver a message that, hey, your fat and that’s just dandy. It is not dandy - not only is your own health at risk, but our societal resources are being more rapidly consumed, be they airline seats or physician time or pharmacotherapies. We must convey the message that it really is not okay to be morbidly obese.

270

So, at the restaurant you let the hungry guy at the next table take part of your food? Or would you ask him to buy some more himself if he’s still hungry? Why is it different with airline seats?

271

Blank stare I think I get what you’re saying now. For example, it’s unfair that some people are born blind. Let’s throw acid in people’s eyes who were not born blind so that they can suffer too. Right?

272

Yeah, that’s it exactly. I advocate blinding people. :rolleyes:

I’d like to ask, seriously, why you feel that the inconvenience should fall on others rather than on you, since, as you said, “life’s not fair.” But, is there any reasoning with someone who can equate brushing against a stranger for a while with being blinded for life?

You’ll let us know right away when you feel a pea under your mattress, won’t ya?

273

Blinks Well if you don’t want to blind people so that we can all suffer at the account of someone else’s affliction, why are you for allowing people who can actually fit in one seat to suffer at the expense of someone else’s affliction/lifestyle/whatever reason’s people have for being obese? Naturally being blinded is just a little bit worse than being smashed by someone on an airplane, but so what? Bottom line is why should people without the problem have to suffer because of those who do?

274

I say, being 5’2", that we should all pay by the pound. Just step on the scale WITH your luggage at check-in and adjust charges as needed. Small people rule!

275

Well, no.

Some small people are swell, as are some large people.

And some small people are just annoying gnats.

276

Oh, there will be some mighty complaining on THAT day, I assure you. I feel certain that they would be just as annoyed as anyone at the prospect.

277

Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:

Max, I don’t think anyone is talking so much about “brushing against a stranger” but instead voicing their discomfort of having a strangers body pressed up against theirs (sometimes painfully) for an extended period of time.

278

Because “life’s not fair”?

:wink:

279

True, and how lovely it would be if there was a cost free solution for everyone’s needs - but till that happens, one of the principle rules of “life’s not fair” is “the majority wins”.

280

And the way America is going, the large will soon be the majority.