Posted on 06/19/2002 7:17:02 AM PDT by white trash redneck
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Southwest Airlines will start charging larger passengers for two seats on its 2,800 daily flights starting June 26.
The airline, which operates out of 58 U.S. cities and is the largest carrier at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, will begin charging "persons of size" for two seats if they think they may not fit comfortably in one.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Best part of all: two drinks and two packs of peanuts! Eat up, lardball!
You seem to be under a misapprehension of the facts. You're NOT paying for a seat. The ticket is a contract between you and the airline to take to from point A to point B with an agreed-upon level of service. . .
How can you miss the fact that the agreed upon level of service is one full seat. Please, please, please convince me you just had a momentary lapse in ability to think. When a person doesn't fit in one seat they buy more.
When the plane is full the person sitting along side is subsidizing the obese person's fair for the "privilege" of being overly cramped. Come to think of it, the smaller person would probably be willing to pay the "per inch price" that space is worth to get it back for his own use and comfort rather than be overly uncomfortable for the duration of the flight. He may not think it's fair but his comfort is more valuable to him than the value of fairness. And he or she would probably consider the small dollar cost a small price to pay for comfort gained. From reading some of the comments on this and other similar threads I'd say that is the case -- comfort more important/valuable than money.
Actually, as a public carrier, they ARE under an obligation to accomidate everyone.28
Can you cite your authority on this?33
Let's see. . .ever hear of the Federal Aviation Act of 1932 ? Or the Civil Rights act of 1963 ? Add in the Americans With Disabilities Act, and you've got the authority. The Aviation Act puts passenger aircraft in the realm of public accomidation, the Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in public accomidation, and the ADA requires equal accomidation for those with a "disability". 60
So big government is good when it caters to your likes.
Judging what is legal or not should be based on objective law -- does it protect individual rights and private property rights or does it abuse them. Also, does the law uphold private contracts between consenting parties or abuse them.
The smallest minority is the minority of one -- the individual. Protect individual rights and all larger-than-one minorities are protected including the majority.
As it stands now, much of what is legal is in fact legitimized crime under the color of law. There are people -- politicians and bureaucrats -- responsible for writing and implementing those criminal laws and they must be indicted for dong so.
Politicians and bureaucrats are parasitical elites because they gain unearned paychecks by destruction of individual rights and private property rights. In short, we are the hosts and they are the parasites.
Great reply. [Speaking to post #60] It's too bad that many folks here likely are/will be surprised by your answer. Public schools.....321
As you and most everyone will likely be surprised by my post.
On discrimination laws, EEOC laws and disability laws. Government intervention into peaceful, private activity among consenting adults will make things worse rather than better.
[Response to #310] LOL! I can see that argument with a flight attendant or sky marshall within 30 minutes of takeoff or landing at DCA.313 *
Try it, and let me know how you fare313
*Side note: Read post #323 for wider integrations regarding post #310.
[Response to #313] Welcome to the dis-connect between the Law and Reality. . .314
Welcome indeed. Read on....
"Read the Fourth Amendment. A person can't even trust their "employees" -- government officials -- to let them into their home and or business without a search warrant if the property owner doesn't want to let them in. But somehow a business is forced to trust a total stranger with an open door policy. A person/business owner can refuse to allow a government agent access to his property but not a total stranger! And get this, it is the government that can't be trusted without a search warrant that is telling property owners that they must trust total strangers.
"Discrimination laws are unjust."
Government intervention into peaceful, private activity -- notably, free association wherein either part is free to walk away from the deal being offered -- will make things worse rather than better.
Hardly. But, having worked in aviation, and having seen some of the idiocy that's come of the ADA, I can see what's going to happen. . .
Judging what is legal or not should be based on objective law -- does it protect individual rights and private property rights or does it abuse them. Also, does the law uphold private contracts between consenting parties or abuse them.
What law SHOULD be based on, and what the application of law should be based on, is VERY different from established case law. . . . .
I'm actually on your side on this one. I just see that the established case law, and current legal practices, will pretty much GUARANTEE Southwest will get sued, and lose. . .
It's not much of a problem on Southwest - friends fly free, right? So the fatties just get an extra ticket for their gut.
There is no friend. It's not a two for one sale. There must be a friend.
Frankly, the two-seat buyer should get two meals (they don't need the extra meal if they are obese) and twice the luggage allotment and carry on stuff allowed because they are paying for it.
Interesting note. They extra luggage is opposite of the extra meal. The extra luggage may be needed because the larger clothes take up more space in a suit case and thus require more suitcases.
But by far, the main point is this: Government intervention into peaceful, private activity -- notably, free association wherein either part is free to walk away from the deal being offered -- will make things worse rather than better.
Best part of all: two drinks and two packs of peanuts! Eat up, lardball!
Come on now, be nice please. No need to insult people.
No, the agree-upon level of service is **A** seat in the agreed-upon level-of-service cabin. Nothing in the contract guarantees that it will be comfortable, or partially filled with the overflow from your seatmate. . .
Not by any stretch...
You are paying for a SEAT — this is why your boarding pass for most airlines has a seat assignment — you are not allowed to take up as many seats as you choose.
I refer you to Continental's Contract of Carriage which states the following regarding passengers taking up two seats (Rule 6-I):
Passengers Occupying Two Seats Upon request and advance arrangement, a Passenger will be permitted to the exclusive use of two seats subject to the payment of two applicable fares for the points between which the two seats will be used. A Ticket will be issued for each seat and the normal free baggage allowance will apply in connection with each such Ticket presented to the CO.
Note — a ticket will be used for each seat.
It is those trying to say that a ticket does not represent a seat that are using convoluted logic.
What law SHOULD be based on, and what the application of law should be based on, is VERY different from established case law. . . . .
How does a person expect to change things for the better if they don't do what should be done. Like indict those that write and implement laws that are crimes of fraud. Darn near all of congress, the alphabet agencies' upper management personnel and justice system personnel that facilitate congress and the alphabet agencies should be indicted.
I'm actually on your side on this one.
Thank you for pointing that out for it wasn't clear to me.
I just see that the established case law, and current legal practices, will pretty much GUARANTEE Southwest will get sued, and lose. . .
I disagree that they'll lose. We'll see.
Sure it does!
If fatty's right butt cheek takes up my seat, am I still supposed to pay, even though I can't sit there?!?
How can you state that fat people should be allowed to "overflow" into other's people seats and at the same time say that I am not even entitled to my entire seat that I paid for?!?!?
So, if I understand what your are saying, in your world the fair thing would be for the person who's seat is encroached upon by overflow from a huge passenger should pay to "reclaim" the encroached upon space? That makes no sense.
You in fact did misunderstand me. I never said it was fair of the airlines for the skinny person to pay to reclaim the space. I said in so many words, which I will now rephrase so that it makes sense specifically to you: the skinny cramped person would, given that he faces a five hour flight of unwarranted discomfort would like to turn to his neighbor and say, "listen, I'll give you ten bucks for you to remove that part of yourself that is encroaching into my seating space. Because frankly, I think the ten bucks is minimal cost compared to the amount of added comfort I'll gain." Under his breath the skinny person is saying, heck I'd pay double that to reclaim the comfort.
The point is, once the person is in that situation of being cramped, that is one alternative that pleases them more than suffering through five hours of flight from hell. Next time they fly they'll take the issue to management before getting on the plane.
The person who's taking up more than one seat should be the one to pay for the 2nd seat, not the displaced passenger.
You're right. Hindsight is twenty-twenty. But it does the skinny person no good when they find themselves squished. Think of it this way. If an obese person sitting next to you offered to pay you for the space that he wanted to encroach upon, would you take the ten bucks or say, "no way". I think most people would say no.
What part of "It will be fun watching blubberphobes plastered to their seats by the over flow of their fellow passengers excess flab" is only directed at one person?
I stand by my original statement that anyone who enjoys witnessing an assault is a pervert.
Oh, and last time I checked, the name was usconservative.
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.