Posted on 07/03/2002 4:49:02 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
A 300-pound woman said that she was discrimated against when a Southwest Airlines counter worker required her to buy two tickets to fly to Orlando because of her weight, according to Local 6 News.
New York resident Maria Corea and her 9-year-old son were scheduled to leave Albany, N.Y., Tuesday to reportedly see their dying brother, according to Local 6 News.
However, when Corea approached the counter, she was told that she needed purchased two tickets.
"So they call me to the counter and tell me that I have (to buy) another ticket because my weight," Corea said. Corea said that she did not have the money to purchase another ticket and canceled the trip, according to the report.
She said that she would rather fly on another airline.
Southwest Airlines reportedly began enforcing the little-known policy June 26 that requires two tickets for what the company calls "people of size."
Company officials said its ticket agents always had the option of charging larger passengers for two seats.
Earlier this month, Southwest spokesman Ed Stewart denied any change in Southwest policy. He said larger passengers have always been charged for two seats if they couldn't fit comfortably in one.
Because if he dies, she is ready to sue the airlines for hindering her visit.
I don't think people in wheelchairs fly in them. I think they sit in a seat and have the wheelchair put in storage. The wheelchair might take up luggage space but that is very different from taking up a second seat.
Suppose a 300 pound woman and her two year old child purchase two tickets. If she overflows, it is into her own child's space and the child isn't using all of its space anyway.
Does Southwest have a policy on whether the woman would need to buy an extra seat in this scenario?
Not true. The reason that theaters and other venues do not have this problem is that they sell a different product. The airlines sell a seat on a plane. Because of a the laws of physics, they can only fit a certain amount of seats with a certain amout of people on each plane. Because of the cost of air travel, it is more important to most passengers to pay the lower rates made possible by the smaller seats and thus it is a better policy to make airplanes with small seats.
In the case of a theater, the cost of a seat in a non-moving building in front of a screen is much smaller. Also, due to the nature of a theater, the customer cares more about the comfort of a larger seat than about the small amount of money that could be saved by going to a theater which is able to accomodate the same amount of people in a smaller space(with smaller seats).
However, this is not important here. I think that the airlines' policy is imperfect but reasonable and find it undeserving of criticism. Others disagree with me on this and that is fine with me. However, what does bother me is that these people are complaining about the airlines' policy in what is essentially a political news forum. This implies that the airlines' policy is or should be in some way related to politics or government. I have seen only a few reasonable posts pointing out that the airlines' policy is the business of the airlines, their customers and no one else.
If you don't like the policy complain to the airline, or even better, just don't support it. Do not act as if it is of public concern that the private airline's policy is inconvenient to a few individuals.
No, none of this was seen in your posts. However, by saying "I don't see any "fat hating" going on here...", you send the message loud and clear that you have no problem with the use of these terms to describe the portly crowd. This is simple low-brow, grade school name calling. As a reminder, here are the terms that I extracted from this thread- ""fat pig, lard-asses, fat assed slob, really fat person who sweats on you and makes you uncomfortable and leaves you smelling like fat BO and soap, lard-ass, lard-asses".
Also, rest assured that the obese person sitting next to you on the plane is no more thrilled about the close quarters than you. A major part of the problem here is that the airlines have a statistic that reflects overall operation cost per passenger mile. This leads to their desire to pack more cattle;err...seats on each plane (not to mention the "RUDE RUDE RUDE" tactic of overselling flights) in order to lower this cost factor.
I recently flew on a flight from Chicago to Maui with a 1.5 hour layover in Phoenix. The plane that I was on was designed to have 2 seats on either side of the aisle. They had the thing reconfigured to fit 2 seats on one side, an offset aisle, and 3 seats on the other side. For most of this flight I sat next to a rather slender woman with a less-is-more attitude toward personal hygiene. I would rather have been seated next to NBC's Al Roker than this woman.
Question...Since you mention "RUDE RUDE RUDE" (among your seven ampersands), how about the "RUDE RUDE RUDE" airline and their stockholders for packing us in like sardines?
I am certain of one thing...the free market will settle their hash.
Excuse me, but didn't the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT pass a whole new set of rules relaing to AIRLINE policy since September 11?
Correct me if I am mistaken.
And I disagree with your argument about theaters any other venues. IT IS THE SAME.
Just as in theaters, larger seats on airplanes means fewer seats on airplanes.
The airlines are in trouble because, for the last 15 years at least, they have done an abominable job of providing safe, efficient, and comfortable transportation.
Eventually, unless we find a magical new form of timely transportation, the airlines are going to have to learn the lesson that they won't earn a profit until they provide a product worth paying for.
Eliminating fat people as customers is NOT the answer to their problems.
And I disagree with your argument about theaters any other venues. IT IS THE SAME.
Just as in theaters, larger seats on airplanes means fewer seats on airplanes.
Yes, larger seats in theaters means less seats. However, since the cost of buying enough land to put up larger seats in a theater is relatively small, the price increase is relatively small. People would rather pay for the small price increase than go to a theater with smaller seats.
In airplanes, on the other hand, the cost of creating and operating a larger airplane with larger seats is relatively large. Because of this greater increase, most customers prefer the lower price and the smaller seats.
Disclaimer: It is possible that I am wrong on this one. It may be that 1. most people are willing to pay the greater cost necessary for larger seats or 2. that the amount of people who cannot fit into one standard airline seat and are not willing to buy two is large enough that the policy will result in a loss of profits. This is obviously not what the airlines believe. If you think that is the case, I suggest that you speak to the airlines about it and not complain to me or the rest of the readers on this political news forum as though it were an issue of public concern.
Not a good argument. The nine year old used one seat. Why would she get a discount for his seat?
This whole issue is, if you use two seat, buy two seats.
Rather than finding a way to accommodate everyone, people who have never been fat,and some who have, take the "better than thou" attitude, and the consequences be damned.
But whatever happened to the Golden Rule? Whatever happened to people saying "There but for the grace of God go I?"
No matter how much weight you have lost, or how thin you are, there is no way you can walk in a fat person's shoes, no way to say definitively "It could never happen to me."
You DON"T have to say it's okay to be FAT. Nobody who is fat would choose to be that way in this society. And nobody who is large enough to "spill into another person's seat" enjoys the experience. But at some point or another, almost everybody HAS TO FLY. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?
And you SHOULDN'T have to be squished on a flight, no matter what your size.
But it is wrong for you to BLAME FAT PEOPLE that it happens. Most of them don't fly if they can avoid it. It IS the fault of the airlines,and the airlines only.
I'm not little by a long shot but I only take one seat and the only time I have flown and raised the arm rest was when my husband and I were flying next to each other. Never because I didn't fit in the seat.
If you don't fit between the two arm rests you need to buy another seat.
Maybe first class might suit her better. One first class seat is probably a little less expensive as two coach and the first class seats are bigger. I really don't know. I have never bought a first class seat.
You pay for what you use.
Guess that 20 theater multiplex in your neighborhood only cost, maybe, $25,000 to build, right? Guess that 100 per cent increase in movie ticket prices since 1980 is "relatively" small, especially when you consider that airline ticket prices have actually gone down during that time frame.
"It may be that 1. most people are willing to pay the greater cost necessary for larger seats or 2. that the amount of people who cannot fit into one standard airline seat and are not willing to buy two is large enough that the policy will result in a loss of profits. This is obviously not what the airlines believe."
And this, of course, is why the airlines have been so successful in the last 20 year, and why so FEW airlines have gone out of business.
Also, see this link on air travel preferences.
Especially, see #2 on the list.
To quote:
"The most valued on-board features are seat width, spacing and position. Business passengers will pay $28 more for wider seats and $24 more for additional space between seats. The center seat has a value $40 lower than the window and aisle seats."
"If you think that is the case, I suggest that you speak to the airlines about it and not complain to me or the rest of the readers on this political news forum as though it were an issue of public concern."
Guess nobody holds stock in any airlines, so it COULDN'T be an issue of public concern. Guess nobody flies anymore, so it COULDN'T be an issue of public concern. And, of course, there are SO FEW FAT PEOPLE in this country that it COULDN'T be an issue of public concern.
See this government link based on the 2000 census.
To quote:
A: More than half of U.S. adults are overweight (BMI 25, which includes those who are obese)
All adults (20+ years old): 97.1 million (54.9 percent)
Women (20+ years old): 46.9 million (50.7 percent)
Men (20+ years old): 50.2 million (59.4 percent)
Q: How many adults are obese?
A: Nearly one-quarter of U.S. adults are obese (BMI 30)
All adults (20+ years old): 39.8 million (22.3 percent)
Women (20+ years old): 23 million (25 percent)
Men (20+ years old): 16.8 million (19.5 percent)
No, it COULDN'T possibly be an issue of public concern. Right.
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.