Your fat arse will get you a free airline seat...

[Againsheila]

Doesn't matter. They STILL aren't entitled to an extra seat for free. I am sick up to my earlobes with people whining about "Poor me, poor me, my life sucks so badly because of [fill in the blank], you should dip into your pocket and spend money to make it up to me".

Shit happens to everyone. Just because it happened to you, does that mean you have to spread it around?

Well, personally, I like the way southwest does it. If you are fat, you can buy two seats, but if the plane isn't full, they refund you the price of that extra seat. I think this should apply to people who just want an empty seat next to them too. I'm thinking of flying to Vegas and I can get seats on southwest for $99 each way. I would be almost willing to pay the extra $200 just to make sure no one is skwishing me into my seat, especially if they refund the money if the flight isn't full.

I still think we need regulations on legroom though.

 

[WillowTree]

Well, personally, I like the way southwest does it. If you are fat, you can buy two seats, but if the plane isn't full, they refund you the price of that extra seat. I think this should apply to people who just want an empty seat next to them too. I'm thinking of flying to Vegas and I can get seats on southwest for $99 each way. I would be almost willing to pay the extra $200 just to make sure no one is skwishing me into my seat, especially if they refund the money if the flight isn't full.

I still think we need regulations on legroom though.

don't count on that,, I think the flights nowadays are always full.

 

[Steerpike]

Nah...I just flew a couple months ago. Flight out was deserted. Flight back was more full but not entirely so.

 

[Gunny]

what the hell is a spiderman tuba anyway???

Somebody you shouldn't underestimate nor toss into the stereotypical file. He's been around awhile, just not recently.

 

[glockmail]

what the hell is a spiderman tuba anyway???

I envision a guy that sat on his couch so long playing video games and eating kids cereal so his ass end is now as big as a tuba.

 

[DiveCon]

Well, IMO, we need regulations to require bigger seats with more leg room. I was on a plane once where I couldn't put my legs together because of the seat in front of me. When he put his seat back without telling me, it about broke my kneecaps. No wonder there is so much rage when people are flying.

My brother's right, I should have screamed bloody murder and insisted on being carried off the plane. Maybe then they would provide more legroom for tall people.

All people not being the same, perhaps it's time to either provide bigger seats with more legroom or various sizes of seats and legroom at various prices. I wouldn't mind paying a little more for more legroom.

thats just it, they stuff people in like sardines and then wonder why people complain

 

[SpidermanTuba]

tough little titties whiny little libwal... crybaby,, we can talk about Canada and her aeroplane policies anytime we want to,,,,, and who's gonna stop us? not a pansy assed little libwal like you!

You are certainly free to participate in idiocy, yes.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

\
Wait..does Canada have a foreign policy? Why no, I don't believe they do. They don't need to, they have the US to protect them. Just like they have the US to supplement their crappy health system and bolster their crappy economy.

Don't they keep you occupied enough in 6th grade special ed that you don't have time to post on message boards?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

oh, Yeah. Canadians Never Get On Their High, Supercilious Horses And Condemn The Us For Not Having A Domestic Policy As "enlightened" And "compassionate" As Theirs. Of Course Not.

??? Link ???

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, IMO, we need regulations to require bigger seats with more leg room. I was on a plane once where I couldn't put my legs together because of the seat in front of me. When he put his seat back without telling me, it about broke my kneecaps. No wonder there is so much rage when people are flying.

My brother's right, I should have screamed bloody murder and insisted on being carried off the plane. Maybe then they would provide more legroom for tall people.

All people not being the same, perhaps it's time to either provide bigger seats with more legroom or various sizes of seats and legroom at various prices. I wouldn't mind paying a little more for more legroom.

There's a big difference between "I would like the airlines to . . ." and "We need regulations for . . ." If you want a business to do something better to entice you to use their services more, then you present it to the business. The need for getting the government to come in and hand down pronouncements concerning how a business should be run is relatively rare, and that particular problem is REALLY none of the government's business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, personally, I like the way southwest does it. If you are fat, you can buy two seats, but if the plane isn't full, they refund you the price of that extra seat. I think this should apply to people who just want an empty seat next to them too. I'm thinking of flying to Vegas and I can get seats on southwest for $99 each way. I would be almost willing to pay the extra $200 just to make sure no one is skwishing me into my seat, especially if they refund the money if the flight isn't full.

I still think we need regulations on legroom though.

If that works for Southwest, then I think it's an excellent business practice. "This is a good idea" still doesn't equate to "the government really needs to pass a law", though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

don't count on that,, I think the flights nowadays are always full.

Depends on when and where you're flying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

thats just it, they stuff people in like sardines and then wonder why people complain

No, they don't wonder. They just don't have much reason to care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

??? Link ???

No, I am not going to waste time with someone who thinks it makes him sound clever to dispute "water is wet" and "sky is blue" phrases in order to grind the discussion to a dead halt. You prove to me that you're even worth the time of keeping in the conversation, and THEN perhaps I'll consider it. So far, you have been nothing but an ill-mannered, contentious nuisance with nothing of any substance to add.

 

[Againsheila]

There's a big difference between "I would like the airlines to . . ." and "We need regulations for . . ." If you want a business to do something better to entice you to use their services more, then you present it to the business. The need for getting the government to come in and hand down pronouncements concerning how a business should be run is relatively rare, and that particular problem is REALLY none of the government's business.

The truth is that capitalism doesn't work. That's why we're spending so much money bailing out the greedy capitalists. They are only capitalists when it works for them. The airlines were better when they were regulated. As long as it's a race to the bottom for the airlines, legroom will not increase, people will get angry and there will continue to be rage when people travel.

Once upon a time, we bought a new car. I wanted it to have an airbag and a latch in case someone got stuck in the trunk. Now it would have cost them $2.00 to put that latch in the trunk. Nope, airbags didn't come on our model and they wouldn't put in the latch so we had to do without. Now airbags are standard and those cheap latches are required. If they weren't required by law, they wouldn't be there.

The truth is that sometimes the government has to step in for the welfare of our people. That's their job. They have failed miserably in the last few years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The truth is that capitalism doesn't work. That's why we're spending so much money bailing out the greedy capitalists. They are only capitalists when it works for them. The airlines were better when they were regulated. As long as it's a race to the bottom for the airlines, legroom will not increase, people will get angry and there will continue to be rage when people travel.

The fact that people refuse to get out of the way and LET capitalism work does not mean that capitalism doesn't work. Ditto the fact that people will take government money if you insist on throwing it at them.

Once upon a time, we bought a new car. I wanted it to have an airbag and a latch in case someone got stuck in the trunk. Now it would have cost them $2.00 to put that latch in the trunk. Nope, airbags didn't come on our model and they wouldn't put in the latch so we had to do without. Now airbags are standard and those cheap latches are required. If they weren't required by law, they wouldn't be there.

And your point would be what? You wanted something, so you and others like you got the government to force the issue, and now all is right with the world because you were able to impose your will on others?

Thanks to this sort of behavior, I was forced to pay more than that to have the standardized passenger airbag DETACHED in my car, because they were a danger to some of the people in my carpool. But hey, you got what YOU wanted, didn't you?

The truth is that sometimes the government has to step in for the welfare of our people. That's their job. They have failed miserably in the last few years.

The truth is, those times exist a lot less than people think. Neither of the occasions in your post qualify.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, I am not going to waste time with someone who thinks it makes him sound clever to dispute "water is wet" and "sky is blue" phrases in order to grind the discussion to a dead halt.

I didn't make any of those statements. I asked you to provide evidence for your argument. You don't have any, because you're a liar.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't make any of those statements. I asked you to provide evidence for your argument. You don't have any, because you're a liar.

I do have it. You just don't have the gravitas to demand it. Nor do you really believe it's not true. All you want is to be an unbearable burden on this conversation so that it becomes a hopeless morass. I have yet to see one post from you that was anything other than a blatant attempt to sabotage any real, meaningful conversation. You add nothing, because you have nothing to say, and allowing you to divert me down the tangent of "Provide links for every single word you say, even the ones that are indisputable" would simply lend you a dignity that you cannot acquire on your own.

This conversation, as unproductive as any conversation with you clearly is, is over. You are dismissed.

 

[Lycurgus]

Once upon a time, we bought a new car. I wanted it to have an airbag and a latch in case someone got stuck in the trunk. Now it would have cost them $2.00 to put that latch in the trunk. Nope, airbags didn't come on our model and they wouldn't put in the latch so we had to do without. Now airbags are standard and those cheap latches are required. If they weren't required by law, they wouldn't be there.

The truth is that sometimes the government has to step in for the welfare of our people. That's their job. They have failed miserably in the last few years.

I understand your point and message here. But you are comparing apples to oranges. There is a large difference between being comfortable on a plane or even being able to use one or ones safety.

Further, you state that capitalism doesn't work? Well I can tell you that socialism doesn't either. In fact study Europe right now, the changes being made. However, I can meet you halfway, as I don't believe that any one way is 100% correct. The benefits of capitalism out weight the ones from socialism, but, capitalism in it's pure form also cannot be the best policy for each issue. As with most things, the best solution is closer to the middle and rational fact based decision making.

 

[Againsheila]

I understand your point and message here. But you are comparing apples to oranges. There is a large difference between being comfortable on a plane or even being able to use one or ones safety.

Further, you state that capitalism doesn't work? Well I can tell you that socialism doesn't either. In fact study Europe right now, the changes being made. However, I can meet you halfway, as I don't believe that any one way is 100% correct. The benefits of capitalism out weight the ones from socialism, but, capitalism in it's pure form also cannot be the best policy for each issue. As with most things, the best solution is closer to the middle and rational fact based decision making.

Well there's something we agree on. I've been saying for years that neither capitalism nor socialism work, that we need to find the best combination of the two.