Good one, Usul.
Posted on 06/17/2002 5:13:16 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
As a professional services executive for a software company, Steve McAllister travels a lot. The resident of the California foothills figures he's accumulated a couple million frequent flier miles and flown on Southwest Airlines at least 100 times.
But he never before experienced what happened a week ago. And he was hopping mad.
While buying a ticket for a Southwest flight from Sacramento to Burbank, Calif., he was told he'd need to buy an extra ticket.
The reason? He's what the airline calls "a person of size" - the PC term, evidently, for someone so large he may need more than one seat.
McAllister is, in fact, a big man - 6 feet 2 inches, 350 pounds. But the former college football player says he's never been accused of taking up more than a single seat on a flight.
"To be honest, I was really outraged," McAllister says of the request for double payment. Eventually, after some heated words, he was allowed to get a single ticket but only because the Southwest people were a little premature in enforcing a new policy.
As of June 26, large customers will have to pay the extra fare - but can seek reimbursement if it turns out the flight has unoccupied seats. In the past, ticket agents had the option of charging big people for an extra seat when a flight was fully booked. But they apparently didn't do it very often.
So how do the agents determine if a customer is likely to exceed his allotted space? It's a judgment call, says airlines spokeswoman Whitney Eichinger.
It is, she acknowledges, "a very delicate situation."
I hope you don't interpret my comments as offending. Like I mentioned, I was heavy once. 228 pounds, at 5'10" tall. Not morbidly obese, but not all that far away.
The things that can change are (1) Cost per seat, and (2) Seats per plane. My arguments are based on the assumption that (2) is non-negotiable, i.e. there is a given amount of 'passenger volume' per seat, that being demarcated by an imaginary plane which runs through the center of the armrests, to the seat in front, and extending to the ceiling and floor. When you buy a ticket, you are buying use of that space (it can be argued, anyway). If you can not fit within that space, you are either (a) costing the airline money because they are forced to give you the adjacent seat for free, or (b) infringing on the rightfully paid-for space of someone sitting in the seat next to you because the airline wants to fill that seat, or (c) paying for the extra seat outright, which is the issue at hand.
One could argue that it discriminates against people who DO fit in that space, to charge them the same fare as those who 'spill over'.
I realize this is a sensitive topic, but because I was once pretty overweight I thought I at least had a bit of moral authority, so to speak.
Essentially, there are two camps. One camp says people are people, and all get charged the same. The other says people are cargo, and should pay by some weight or volume occupied criteria. If the airline sets the second policy as their choice, is there a legal precedent for a passenger suing? I can't say, I'm not a lawyer. But that's what it really boils down to. I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I was speaking about heavy/thin people in the abstract, from a profit perspective. There may be no one-size-fits-all (pardon the expression) solution based purely on avoiding offending anyone. So I think maybe the abstract approach may be the path of least resistance, and the most defensible. But again, the airline ought to balance profit with not driving away customers (and the two are interrelated concepts, hence there is a tradeoff)
By the way, I was born with one leg shorter than the other. I hate it. I wear a heel lift. I can't jump off my right foot because my Achilles tendon is too tight. I was also born prone to depression. And my right eye is practically blind. So I know all about being dealt a genetic wild card. I try to focus on my many genetic and learned talents (patting self on back), such as inciting controversy on FR, albeit unintentionally.
Y'oughta do something about that lisp.
That's one hell of a speech impartedament...er uh, impediment.
I have a house in Thailand and live there a lot of the time.
In the LAND of Thais!
Sigh ............
After all it is taxpayer funded.
It is the easiest solution, after all.
Good one, Usul.
In a way though, the dieting is the easy part. Learning to eat 'normally' will be more of a challenge. I've either eaten like a pig or eaten while on a diet. Normal will feel like a bit of a binge after a 1400-1600 calorie intake per day. I'm working my way up to 2200-2300, slowly.
Yeah, it was hard. But it got much easier once I decided that failure was not an option. When I went shopping, I walked right on by the snack section. That alone was a big help.
But I must confess, what kept me on the diet for CERTAIN was falling in love with an Australian girl in mid-February, and knowing I'd be taking my vacation down there in mid-April. I wanted to be at my goal weight by then. And I made it to 162, three pounds under my goal of 165. Whatever it takes to motivate you, do it (within the law, of course). Sorry I'm so verbose tonight, I'm on edge because said Australian girlfriend is coming up for a three-month stay, departing Australia June 21. And her visa hasn't arrived yet (long story). I'm just antsy, so forgive me if I take it out in my long replies. Not knowing if the love of your life will make it into the country is kind of nerve-wracking, to say the least.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.