+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one (/showthread.php?tid=76733)
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - ztirffritz - 04-20-2009
macphanatic wrote:
From the article: "But is it fair to make the fattest Americans spend twice as much to fly? Slate suggests that planes create sections with slightly wider seats that could be purchased for less than buying two seperate seats."
What happens when these seats are bought up by others who are willing to pay extra to be a little more comfortable? How would the airlines prevent this from happening?
Note to self: buy stock in the company(ies) that makes fat-suits.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - AlphaDog - 04-20-2009
"I'm sorry, but all of the seats suitable for those who weigh between 100 and 125 pounds are booked for that flight, although we have 73 available in the 50 to 75 pound range and 27 for those between 200 and 225 pounds. Your husband and your children will be on this flight, and we can squeeze you in a week from Tuesday."
Come on people. Be practical.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - Article Accelerator - 04-20-2009
ztirffritz wrote:
A better solution would be to price air travel by the kg being transported and have a range of seats of different sizes. Tiny ones for kids, huge ones for obese people, and regular seats for regular people. Do the same for luggage. This would make people quit griping about the extra charge for suitcases too. Maybe $3/kg. Say you're 70kg and your suitcase is 20kg your ticket would be $270. What, you're 100kg? $360 please. Sounds reasonable to me. Pay for what you use.
++
Totally agree.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - davester - 04-20-2009
macphanatic wrote:
From the article: "But is it fair to make the fattest Americans spend twice as much to fly? Slate suggests that planes create sections with slightly wider seats that could be purchased for less than buying two seperate seats."
This is the best idea and they already have this. Some airlines sell "premium coach" seats that are in the main cabin, wider and with more legroom but not costing too much more than a coach seat. However, I think you'll always find there are a few unreasonable people who are too big to sit in a coach seat, refuse to pay for "premium coach" and insist on stealing part of their neighbor's seat. Enforcing rules disallowing such poaching against insistent people is likely to be a PR nightmare. I can't wait until they come out with the forcefield that keeps them off of my seat.
The "pay by weight" idea is simply not doable and doesn't address the problem. After all, the weight of a human's excess body mass is nothing compared to the weight of the airplane. The problem is with people who occupy more than one seat, making it impossible for the airlines to sell that seat without torturing its occupant. It's really a "pay by seat" issue.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - Carnos Jax - 04-20-2009
davester wrote:
The "pay by weight" idea is simply not doable and doesn't address the problem. After all, the weight of a human's excess body mass is nothing compared to the weight of the airplane. The problem is with people who occupy more than one seat, making it impossible for the airlines to sell that seat without torturing its occupant. It's really a "pay by seat" issue.
Not trying to be argumentative, but why not? Ultimately, isn't what you're paying for transporting mass? Sure, the plane and fuel weigh much more, but can that not be figured into a 'per pound' cost? I mean, you take the total payload (passengers plus baggage/cargo) and divide it by the costs of the airplane/crew/maintenance etc. (on a per flight basis) and fuel.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - OWC Jamie - 04-21-2009
You're not paying for mass, your paying for square footage.
or acreage as the case may be
similar to overhead and underseat carry on.
Many airlines have a gauge at check-in to make sure your carry on will fit.
A fat ass gauge isn't too hard to make.
I can see girdle sales increasing. :-)
How'd he get stuck in the seat ?
Apparently his girdle has a safety release.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - MysteryGuest - 04-21-2009
davester wrote:
I can't wait until they come out with the forcefield that keeps them off of my seat.
Or just armrest dividers that go all the way to the seat. That would do it.
billb wrote:
A fat ass gauge isn't too hard to make.
But a nightmare to operate.
Come on people, be practical!
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - space-time - 04-21-2009
what if you don't fit in 2 seats, do you have to pay for 3 (or 4?)
Also, what if you and your spouse travel together, and both are overweight (as it often seems to be the case, from my empirical observations). Both of you could fit in 3 seats (together, each in 1.5 seats), but according to this rule, each of you has to buy 2 seats?
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - davester - 04-21-2009
space-time wrote:
what if you don't fit in 2 seats, do you have to pay for 3 (or 4?)
Also, what if you and your spouse travel together, and both are overweight (as it often seems to be the case, from my empirical observations). Both of you could fit in 3 seats (together, each in 1.5 seats), but according to this rule, each of you has to buy 2 seats?
I think they should be as flexible as possible, but bottom line is nobody gets to sit partly on his/her neighbor's seat unless they are consenting travel partners. The concept seems clear to me. I paid for this seat, you can't have part of it.
Re: united airlines, you must buy two seats if you don't fit into one - Carnos Jax - 04-21-2009
billb wrote:
You're not paying for mass, your paying for square footage.
Actually, you're paying for both...similar to 'dimensional weight' in the world of shipping.