# Fat Frenchman sues Air France over plane seat row



## mango (Dec 20, 2006)

*Found this article browsing the news websites...

*




> *Fat Frenchman sues Air France over plane seat row
> 
> From correspondents in Paris
> December 20, 2006 11:36pm*
> ...


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Dec 20, 2006)

American's would just suck it up. Thank goodness their's some uppity french prats out there to say what needs to be said.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Dec 20, 2006)

Actually, Fuzzy Necromancer, Southwest Airlines here in the US has been sued several times for the same thing (and won, sadly). That's quite a depressing precedent set here.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05072/470035.stm


----------



## Allie Cat (Dec 20, 2006)

Go fat french dude! KILL!!!

=Divals


----------



## Rosie (Dec 20, 2006)

If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 20, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.


That's why fat people shouldn't fly.

You know what, they should make ALL the seats smaller so that anyone that has even a little bit of ass pay for an extra seat. That sounds very..... _capitolistic_.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 20, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.



As usual, I disagree. I won't pay for two seats on a plane, and neither should he.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 20, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.



It is a matter of practicality and a requirement that one pay for the resources one is using.

I have very thick just-past-shoulder length hair. When I have it professionally blown dry, I have to pay more, for the simple reason that it takes longer and thus the stylist has to spend more time on it and can not use that time to work on other customers. The salon, like the airlines are in business to make money. If I consume more a service provider's time, then I have to pay more. Obviously, having thick hair is totally beyond my control; it's not like with obesity where anyone could even make a case that if only I would change my lifestyle or eating habits, my hair would be thinner and thus I would not have to take more of their time.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 20, 2006)

LoveBHMS said:


> Obviously, having thick hair is totally beyond my control; it's not like with obesity where anyone could even make a case that if only I would change my lifestyle or eating habits, my hair would be thinner and thus I would not have to take more of their time.



Except anyone can't make such a case. That's one of the core tenets of the fat acceptance movement. It bothers me more to hear this type of statements here, though, where I assume people will be more educated about fat issues than they are in the general public.


----------



## The Obstreperous Ms. J (Dec 20, 2006)

I flew on AirFrance over the Thanksgiving Day weekend. I'm 6' and 420 lbs. I'm proportionate (if slightly more bottom heavy)

The only size incident was when I boarded my original seat on the initial leg of my trip. The person in the seat next to me refused to be seated next to me.

The flight attendants changed people around and I ended up with a whole row to myself. 

The head airline attendant came in and apologized for the drama and I just said that "Its ok, fat is apparently contagious in her country"

I flew all over Europe during my time there and I always asked what the seating situation was and if they could accomodate me.

I never had a problem, everyone was super and fantastic.

Would I want to pay for an extra seat, no. I don't feel that I have to. 

Why this man, and why did they have to measure him, I don't know and I wouldn't stand for that humiliation.

All in all, I've been very lucky going abroad, and this was my first AirFrance experience, and I doubt it will be my last.


----------



## Sojourner (Dec 20, 2006)

There's a tricky issue here. Airlines _should_ operate a better policy on seat occpuation, but they don't. As it stands, then, it is up to the passenger. If I were seated next to someone taking up more than the allotted space, I would demand THEY sort out the problem. A large passenger could quite easily avoid the very possibility by buying two seats. If I were such a passenger, I would do so and expect others in the same position to do the same.

If you were nearly seven feet tall, you'd call ahead or check online to ensure that your seat wasn't directly below a luggage rack, wouldn't you? Why should fat people be any different?


----------



## altered states (Dec 20, 2006)

Based on strict measurements, who DOES fit in coach airline seats? I'm 5'10" and 200ish with broad shoulders and long legs and when I'm not next to someone I know, I wind up hanging out into the aisle or mushed against the window. And if the flight is more than a few hours, my knees are sore as well from pressing into the seat in front of me. 

As a longtime NYC subway rider, I know for a fact that a big butt or waist is easier to squeeze into a tight space than broad shoulders. This is strictly a way to cash in on the increasing size of the world's passengers without having to change their standards. What other business gets away with this? Why is it that a basic service that everyone needs is run so poorly, where virtually none of the people who use it are happy? And even with all that lousy service, corner cutting, and gouging, they can't even make a profit!


----------



## Adrian (Dec 20, 2006)

If the logic of charging more for large people was valid then, anorexic people should get a huge discount! I don't think Air France wants to get into this.

Adrian


----------



## SocialbFly (Dec 20, 2006)

you know, if seats were not continually made smaller i would agree about increasing the charge, but if you look at seat sizes, they have gotten smaller and smaller over the years. when i was flying originally ten years ago, seats were muchhhh bigger not just cause the size of my ass was a lil smaller, but everytime i fly they have redone the seats...for more leg room, less ass room...for example, the last time i flew to California, the plane that was a 3x2 is now a 3x3 and the leg room is more, but the aisle is more narrow and the seat is def smaller...now the seat that fit just fine the last time was tight this time, now dont get me wrong, i fit in only my seat BUT i fill my entire seat 100% and that seems to be an issue for people who sit next to me...now, where is the fairness of charging me more based on this????

seeing as how america is only getting bigger, i feel the airlines should set a couple of the rows (at least one!) to making the seats bigger...fine make me pay more, but damn, make it worth it!!! I would pay....


----------



## Rosie (Dec 20, 2006)

LoveBHMS said:


> It is a matter of practicality and a requirement that one pay for the resources one is using.
> 
> I have very thick just-past-shoulder length hair. When I have it professionally blown dry, I have to pay more, for the simple reason that it takes longer and thus the stylist has to spend more time on it and can not use that time to work on other customers. The salon, like the airlines are in business to make money. If I consume more a service provider's time, then I have to pay more. Obviously, having thick hair is totally beyond my control; it's not like with obesity where anyone could even make a case that if only I would change my lifestyle or eating habits, my hair would be thinner and thus I would not have to take more of their time.





You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LoveBHMS again.


Well said.


----------



## Eclectic_Girl (Dec 20, 2006)

LoveBHMS said:


> Obviously, having thick hair is totally beyond my control; it's not like with obesity where anyone could even make a case that if only I would change my lifestyle or eating habits, my hair would be thinner and thus I would not have to take more of their time.



Can't make a case? Watch me.

Get your hair thinned. Then you'd only have to pay as much as the "normal" haired people to get it blown out. Better yet, shave your head completely with home trimmers, and then you're not taking up any service provider's time at all. After all, it's all about not inconveniencing anyone, right? 

Your hair is your hair, and my ass is my ass, and I'd be willing to bet that it's easier for you to change the length of yours than it is for me to change the width of mine.

Edited to add: and that's all well and good for you to say when you're talking about an extra $10-$15, and the stakes are not walking out with wet hair. Having to buy 2 seats (adding $200-$400 to the cost of a vacation or business trip) can mean the difference between going and not going anywhere you *have* to fly to get to.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 20, 2006)

You are saying you can't change your size and I am saying I can't change the thickness of my hair. Sure, i could shave my head, and you could swallow a tapeworm or develop hyperthyroidism, but neither of those things are reasonable.

I do not consider taking up a stylists time to be an inconvenience, I consider that I want a service provided to me and due to my particular circumstances, I have to pay more for it. 

I'm a vegetarian. I have noticed that many restaurants, especially chains, charge high prices for Gardenburgers. The simple and obvious reason they do this is because if I go to Burger King or Subway, there is nothing else I can order, so I'm forced to pay a higher price for my food than it is worth. Sure, I could toss out my ethics and quit being a vegetarian, but since I am one, I have to pay whatever amount of money the restaurant charges for the food I need to order.

Suppose a woman gets pregnant and has twins, should Baby Gap sell her twice the clothes for the same price since she didn't intend to have two kids?

Should a blind person get free dog food for his or her guide dog, since being blind is beyond the person's control?


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Dec 20, 2006)

Okay, the main point here is, airlines aren't really charging per passenger, they're charging per seat. Really, that's how it works. The resource that you are purchasing is space, space on an aeroplane going to a certain destination. This space is packaged into discrete pieces, which happen to be seats. The fact that the seats are too small is not really the airline's problem. You can buy two, purchasing more space, or maybe look for a competing airline with bigger seats (which is equivalent to looking for one with lower prices, the merchandise is space). So your particular conditions mean you use up more resources? Well, I know it's terribly inconvenient, but the airline has no reason to be charitable. You could consider body size and shape a kind of disability beyond the control of the individual (good luck making that case, though), and have the government subsidize the price of that extra space. It _still_ isn't the airline's problem, the airline is still a company offering a certain merchandise at a certain price, following the rules of capitalism.

(This has nothing to do with the French guy's case. Maybe they were humiliating him, or maybe it's just a case of Oversensitive Frenchman Syndrome. I wasn't there, I don't know, the courts will decide)


----------



## ChickletsBBW (Dec 20, 2006)

SocialbFly said:


> seeing as how america is only getting bigger, i feel the airlines should set a couple of the rows (at least one!) to making the seats bigger...fine make me pay more, but damn, make it worth it!!! I would pay....



I would totally agree with this comment!!!!

As we all have our opnions, I'll add mine as well...

My boyfriend traveled from Texas to Indiana this past weekend on a United flight. He and I were talking about the seating arrangements and even he, at 5'7, 160 lbs, said the arm rests were touching his hips but he wasn't squished in the seat.. but he said the man sitting next to him (your average sized man), his leg was touching my bf's leg for the entire flight. And only at 5'7 my bf said his knees were up against the seat infront of him the whole time. He said he was not comfortable. He also said that there was only about 2 inches left of the seatbelt. (I've had to ask for an extender before) Saying all of this I think my bf is of an 'average' size. 

We also discussed that if we ever take a plane flight together I *will* purchase 2 seats for myself (or look into a 1st class seat although i have no idea how much bigger the seats are than coach) and then I won't worry about seating arrangements as it just seems to be the smart thing to do. I will also make sure the airline will refund my 2nd seat if the flight is not full as I have a friend that has done that several times.

but I will agree that it was totally wrong to measure that man in public infront of other people. For the embarrassment and frustrations.. I hope he wins his case.

Now.. for those of you that "refuse" to buy a 2nd seat... I do see your reasons too. No, I don't *want* to buy a 2nd seat..but I KNOW i have a huge ass and I WILL take up more space than your 'average sized bottom'.
Which is why I would like to see airlines make bigger seats.. but.. that won't happen. It's all about more money.
So for me (at my size) why make myself go through frustrations that I can *totally* avoid by getting a 2nd seat for myself. Just my 2 cents


----------



## Tina (Dec 20, 2006)

Do we really need some thin person telling us how it is? 



LoveBHMS said:


> I have very thick just-past-shoulder length hair. When I have it professionally blown dry, I have to pay more, for the simple reason that it takes longer and thus the stylist has to spend more time on it and can not use that time to work on other customers.


In all my years I have never heard of this. If your hair is just past your shoulders, thick or not, and you are being charged extra, you are being ripped off. Beauticians do not charge by the hour, they charge by the service.

Furthermore, many businesses drum up money through arbitrary means. Ever hear or read the reports about how having a woman's shirt drycleaned is more expensive than a man's? And they found there was no reason for it at all, except that they wanted more money.

Putting more seats in planes is a device to simply make more money in the face of a nation of people who are getting larger and pure greed in wanting to cash in on that by trying to charge people for two seats. I hear that more and more airlines have had problems with the planes being over weight. It's not because people are fat, it is because they are trying to shove more and more people into each plane and will take their lumps if and when one crashes, because it's cheaper to do that than to go back to larger seats and making less money.

BTW, Chickletts, from my experience and what I have seen, the First Class seats are much nicer, but they have fixed arms and are not that wide.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Dec 20, 2006)

A company is entitled to charge as much as it wants for the service it provides, and may quantify that service more or less as it pleases. You like it, you pay the price, you don't like it, you don't buy it, and let the market sort itself out. It's what they call capitalism, that thing that the US in particular has expended so much effor to protect. Well, it works, but it's tough, sometimes, got to take the good with the bad.

Oh, and airliners really don't make that much money, you know. Costs a lot of money to keep one running, airlines go bankrupt pretty regularly, risky business. They need to cram more people onto planes if they want to lower ticket prices.

If there was an airline that offered bigger seats considerably more expensive, would you fly with them? Maybe you would, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't. In the end they end up preferring lower prices than higher comfort. Blame the majority.


----------



## Tina (Dec 20, 2006)

Has anything been said about airlines going bankrupt at least partly because the asses at the top pay themselves too much and give themselves too many perks and bonuses? No? Didn't think so.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Dec 20, 2006)

Tina said:


> Has anything been said about airlines going bankrupt at least partly because the asses at the top pay themselves too much and give themselves too many perks and bonuses? No? Didn't think so.



That's ridiculous. Really, it is, apart from a minority of conmen, company directors and administrators are genuinely worried about their company and want it to do well. They will generally donate personal savings to the company before seeing it go bankrupt. It's in their own interests, for a start. They earn a lot of money? Maybe they do, but they don't generally earn it by lazing around doing nothing while funneling compàny savings into their pockets. The ones who do that never last long.

Now I know it's hard to have sympathy for people with money, but in a lot (I'd dare say a considerable majority) of cases they do work, and in fact work their damn asses off, for it. The stereotyping is rather unfair.

Also, the whole "if it's good for me, it's thanks to the system, if it's bad for me, it's the fault of the people running it" argument is both old and slightly annoying, be it in favor of capitalism, communism or any other system.


----------



## Tina (Dec 20, 2006)

So, you haven't been paying attention to all of the corporate indictments, eh? Back when the first airline went bankrupt (I don't remember which one it was), I recall reading numerous reports about the higher-ups cutting flight attendants' salaries while giving themselves bonuses. Business as usual.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 21, 2006)

Tina said:


> Do we really need some thin person telling us how it is?
> 
> 
> In all my years I have never heard of this. If your hair is just past your shoulders, thick or not, and you are being charged extra, you are being ripped off. Beauticians do not charge by the hour, they charge by the service.
> .



Many of them will have different charges for a blowout for short or longer hair. I realize they don't charge strictly by the hour, but if the same service [a blowdry] takes 15 minutes for one customer and 45 for another, then it's reasonable for them to charge more.


----------



## NFA (Dec 21, 2006)

Fat Frenchman?

But... but, I thought there weren't fat french people. A diet book told me so. Am I to believe now that a diet book had incorrect information? How absurd! Makes me wonder just what that "results not typical" notice meant.

Look, this is about accomdiation. No one is charged proportionally what space they take up on an airplane. Only fat people are given an extra charge. That's not fair. We see a similiar dynamic (though with a less punative escalation in cost) in clothing. Some lines have "extended sizing" but with an additional cost. Much of what Target sells, for example has a price for S-M-L-XL and then a penalty if you're buying XXL. Now, you can rationalize that you're using more fabric, but the M is using more fabric than the S. The XL is using far more fabric than the S than the difference between XL and XXL. But the surcharge only occurs for fat people. You cannot argue for proportional cost when no true proportional costs exists.


----------



## bellylover (Dec 21, 2006)

I can see the point of paying the second seat if the plane is full and you are indeed occupying someone else's seat. But I don't think they should make you pay a second seat if the plane is not full. It is humiliating and not customer friendly at all. So far my wife has never had any problems with this, but I fear the day someone would tell her to buy a second seat. I'm sure it would put her in a complete depression and bring her self esteem, which is already very low, completely to the ground.

Make sure to check seatguru.com: some planes have wider seats than others.

Because most flights are only filled 70-80% anyway, airlines should consider to have less seats in the plane but to maken them wider. Some airlines now offer an economy plus cabin, which has broader seats and more legroom, but it comes at an extra price.


----------



## KnottyOne (Dec 21, 2006)

Tina said:


> So, you haven't been paying attention to all of the corporate indictments, eh? Back when the first airline went bankrupt (I don't remember which one it was), I recall reading numerous reports about the higher-ups cutting flight attendants' salaries while giving themselves bonuses. Business as usual.



This is proof that a million good deeds can go unthanked and one crime will be glorified. The reason you hear so much about people embezzling and overpaying themselves is because that is a story, people want to know, people need to hear about these facts. People who are watching the news don't need to hear about a president who is ethically following ll the guidlines, is working hard and helping his business succeed. It is the crime, the corruption, these are what people want to hear. News is just as much entertainment as it is fact, if I see a reporter talking about how a CEO is being ethical in running his company, I'm gonna be like good, and then probly change the channel. So really, we just see the minority of accounts because that is what we want to hear about, the bad, not the good.

And JosephtheWeird, KUDOS!!! That was beyond a rational explination


----------



## Rosie (Dec 21, 2006)

Tina said:


> Do we really need some thin person telling us how it is?



Isn't this just as bad as a thin person saying "do we really need a fat person telling us how it is?" 




> In all my years I have never heard of this.




I have seen it a lot where hairdressers charge more for long hair than short.





> Furthermore, many businesses drum up money through arbitrary means. Ever hear or read the reports about how having a woman's shirt drycleaned is more expensive than a man's? And they found there was no reason for it at all, except that they wanted more money.[/uote]
> 
> 
> I have heard the reasoning that the equipment used for women's blouses costs more and is used less, therefore the company needs to recover their investment by charging more. Makes sense to me. Don't like the higher price? Wash your own blouses, like most of us do.
> ...


----------



## CleverBomb (Dec 21, 2006)

Tina said:


> Has anything been said about airlines going bankrupt at least partly because the asses at the top pay themselves too much and give themselves too many perks and bonuses? No? Didn't think so.



I agree with you on executive compensation, but I'll spare everyone the protracted rant that the topic deserves.

One of the main drivers of airline profitiability (or lack thereof) has been the soaring cost of fuel. Southwest has a temporary advantage in that they bought cheap fuel futures several years ago.

I'll grant the point that larger folks use more of the commodity in question (space) and that this commodity is sold in whole units (that is, you can't buy "half a seat"). That said, if the flight has empty seats, it costs them nothing extra if you raise the armrest. I've been on empty flights where I've raised both armrests and laid down crosswise for a nap, and wasn't charged triple for the luxury of doing so.

A sensible compromise might be a sort of "reverse standby" arrangement, where one buys two seats and is refunded the cost of one of them if the airplane is not completely full on that flight (and allowing two such passengers to get credit for a single open seat if they can both be seated in a 3-across row). Alternatively, the second seat could be sold at a fixed discount based on the likelihood that the passenger could be accommodated (that is, selling a "half-seat"*). If the plane is full,the airline has lost half of what it would have made on the second seat; if there's an open seat, they've gotten half a fare for a seat that didn't sell otherwise. 
Or, there's first class -- and there should be (but isn't) an option to buy the seat without the premium service, at a discount. (I'd be in favor of being able to buy the premium service in Coach class too, since I don't need the space myself but wouldn't mind a bit of airborne pampering  )

That said, there's no reason that seat size and spacing can't be regulated (it is interstate commerce, after all). Fares would have to go up, though, because there'd be fewer passengers per flight.

*Suitable for stowing Heisenberg's cat-carrier.

-Rusty


----------



## Emma (Dec 21, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.



I 100% agree.

If I was to take up more than one seat then I would pay for two. Why should the airline lose money because I'm bigger than normal. Plus, I weigh over double what the average person does and there is only a certain weight a plane can carry. So if I weigh double and take up more space doesn't it make sense that I should pay for two seats?


----------



## moonvine (Dec 22, 2006)

What really scares me about fat people's placid acceptance (or even endorsement) of this is that since discrimination against fat people is perfectly legal in most areas of the country, this gives potential employers yet another reason to discriminate against us, if we cost twice as much to fly as a thin person.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 22, 2006)

Many companies will take an acturial approach to hiring, i.e. they will weigh a variety of factors and in many cases take into account the costs to the company of hiring one person over another. 

I have heard of companies preferring to hire married women because they are already covered on their husbands' health insurance, and thus the hiring company does not have to pay for benefits. Does this mean they discriminate against single women, or does it mean that they are trying to hire staff in the most cost effective way possible, and might take into account if one potential employee will cost the company less money than another.

Let's say a company interviews two applicants, one is 55 and the other is 30. Say the 55 year old had been out of the workforce raising children, and thus the two applicants are of similar experience and skill level. If they know, statistically that the majority of women will have children, they may take into account that hiring a 30 year old puts them at risk for having to pay increased benefits for maternity care, give the woman paid maternity leave, and possible have the costs of hiring and training a new employee if the younger woman quits to be a stay at home parent. If this scenario tips the balance towards the older woman, are they practicing age discrimination? No, they are just choosing the employee they believe will be a more cost effective hire.

That having been said, it would seem a very very minute number of companies would be in a position of discriminating against a qualified fat job applicant because it might cost them more money for the person to travel for their job.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 22, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.



I wear a 14/16 in CHILDREN'S, not misses', clothing. My hips have maybe four inches of leeway in your average plane seat. I'll entertain the idea that 4 spare inches of space is vaguely comfortable. (It's not, but let's pretend.) Your average woman is about 9 dress sizes larger than I am, and roughly 50 to 60 lbs. heavier. She's miserable in that seat. If the average person is miserable and uncomfortable, maybe that's a sign that maybe it's a trifle too small. It seems ridiculous to ask a fat person to pay extra for something an average weight person can hardly tolerate.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 22, 2006)

LoveBHMS said:


> That having been said, it would seem a very very minute number of companies would be in a position of discriminating against a qualified fat job applicant because it might cost them more money for the person to travel for their job.




Probably not entirely, but it is just another reason for them to discriminate. Of course since it is perfectly legal to do so, they can always just say "You're too fat for us to hire."



> Let's say a company interviews two applicants, one is 55 and the other is 30. Say the 55 year old had been out of the workforce raising children, and thus the two applicants are of similar experience and skill level. If they know, statistically that the majority of women will have children, they may take into account that hiring a 30 year old puts them at risk for having to pay increased benefits for maternity care, give the woman paid maternity leave, and possible have the costs of hiring and training a new employee if the younger woman quits to be a stay at home parent. If this scenario tips the balance towards the older woman, are they practicing age discrimination? No, they are just choosing the employee they believe will be a more cost effective hire.



If you replace the 55 year old woman in your scenario with a 30 year old man, and the company hires the man because they won't have to pay him maternity benefits, it is my understanding that this is a textbook example of discrimination based on gender.


----------



## TallFatSue (Dec 22, 2006)

Sojourner said:


> If you were nearly seven feet tall, you'd call ahead or check online to ensure that your seat wasn't directly below a luggage rack, wouldn't you? Why should fat people be any different?


That reminds me, last summer I had to fly somewhere on business, and in the waiting area I happened to sit next to a man who *was* almost 7 feet tall. He said he tries to book his seat in the exit row so he has more leg room. He couldn't always do it, so he joked that sometimes he has fold himself up and sit with his knees almost up to his chin. I said that at least exit rows do offer more leg room, but I don't usually have the option of extra width.

Even though I'm well over 400lb, at least I'm tall and evenly proportioned. Maybe for that reason I don't look as big as I really am, because I've never had a problem with a ticket agent. Luckily I can usually squeeze my bulk into a seat, which might be a major problem if I were bottom heavy. I don't think anyone has ever refused to sit next to me, but as I walked down the aisles, I have noticed a few people with thos "please don't let that fat woman sit next to me" expressions on their face. I've also noticed a few with "oh pretty please DO let that fat woman sit next to me" expressions. 

Generally I try to fly off-peak times to increase my chanced of getting a empty seat next to me. If that means flying out the day before and spending the night (and having a nice dinner on my expense account, wink), then so be it. Luckily on pleasure trips I travel with my husband, who is more than happy to raise the armrest and let me overflow onto him. 

Or, if I have to go only a couple hundred miles, I might just rent a car and drive so I can avoid the whole airport experience. It won't take that much longer overall, and I'd probably need to rent a car at my destination anyway. My big fat tush thanks for me it.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 22, 2006)

Sojourner said:


> There's a tricky issue here. Airlines _should_ operate a better policy on seat occpuation, but they don't. As it stands, then, it is up to the passenger. If I were seated next to someone taking up more than the allotted space, I would demand THEY sort out the problem. A large passenger could quite easily avoid the very possibility by buying two seats. If I were such a passenger, I would do so and expect others in the same position to do the same.
> 
> If you were nearly seven feet tall, you'd call ahead or check online to ensure that your seat wasn't directly below a luggage rack, wouldn't you? Why should fat people be any different?




I *do* call ahead and tell them I am a fat person, and make sure they can accomodate me, either by blocking out the seat next to me or by rearranging people after the flight is fully boarded. 

I *don't* pay for two seats.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 22, 2006)

Which is why I used it to prove a point. I used a 55 year old woman to remove gender from the equation. In that scenario the company is saying "we want to hire the applicant who we reasonabley believe will cost us less in the long run to have on staff."

If you work in an "at will" state, employees can fire you for any reason they choose. If you don't have a contract with your employer, they are legally entitled to fire you simply because they don't like you. How many people do you know who have been fired for "office politics" or because somebody's kid needed a job or because the boss's wife thought the new secretary was too cute? Some places you can be fired for sexual orientation.

But as far as discrimination goes, most companies are interested in hiring the best people at the best prices. They may take "maternity benefits" or "extra airline seat" into account, but at the end of the day, if an applicant goes to the effort to make him or herself so potentially valuable to the company, the company would reasonabley absorb the additional risks/costs. If they are hiring a salesperson, and an applicant says "Look, I have X number of years experience, in my last job I handled X number of accounts and increased sales in my territory by 15% and brought in three new customers. I also weigh 450 pounds, and when I have to fly for this job, you may have to pay for two plane tickets, depending on the airline or the circumstances" then they have a choice to make. Is somebody with this experience and skill who has the potential to make money for the company worth the cost of an airline seat? If you're good at your job, then the answer will be yes.


----------



## 1300 Class (Dec 22, 2006)

This is what it boils down to:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.


Thats the harsh reality of the situation unfortunatly. A good argument to bring back airships IMHO.



> I've also noticed a few with "oh pretty please DO let that fat woman sit next to me" expressions.


+1.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Dec 24, 2006)

While I was flying home after the end of this semester, I had an epiphany - here's my idea.

Airlines institute a policy whereby they do everything in their power to give a free second seat to larger people. In cases where that is not possible, the following procedure is instituted:

Fat people, if they do not want to take the risk of paying for a second seat in the event there is not one available, pay (let's say for argument's sake) $55 extra. Airlines have made it policy, when everyone checks in, to ask if that person would be willing to sit next to a person of size for a $50 discount. If the person says yes, and a person of size is on the flight with no second seat available, they will be seated next to a person who has already said they'd be willing.

Here's why I like this idea: Not only does EVERYONE win in this scenario (even the airline pockets $5 to put towards the cost of implementing this system), but I can even see people HOPING a fat person will sit next to them so they'll get $50 back! 

In the rare instance where there's no one on a flight willing to sit next to a person of size, the $50 the person of size put towards the seating arrangement would go towards paying for a second seat (if required), or be refunded (if not required).

What do you guys think? 

I think it's genius - but then, I'm sometimes not modest enough 

Yes, I don't think it's fair that fat people pay extra for the same flight - but at the same time, even I (a broke college student) would be willing to shuck out $50 more to guarantee I won't get seated next to someone who's going to be pissy about it the entire time. Thoughts?


----------



## The Obstreperous Ms. J (Dec 24, 2006)

Big Beautiful Me. I think you are GENIUS!!!

I like the idea. I really do.


----------



## Rosie (Dec 25, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I wear a 14/16 in CHILDREN'S, not misses', clothing. My hips have maybe four inches of leeway in your average plane seat. I'll entertain the idea that 4 spare inches of space is vaguely comfortable. (It's not, but let's pretend.) Your average woman is about 9 dress sizes larger than I am, and roughly 50 to 60 lbs. heavier. She's miserable in that seat. If the average person is miserable and uncomfortable, maybe that's a sign that maybe it's a trifle too small. It seems ridiculous to ask a fat person to pay extra for something an average weight person can hardly tolerate.




If the person finds the seat too small, s/he has two choices - pay for a second seat or don't fly with that airline. The airline is there to make money, not as a social service organization.


----------



## fatgirl33 (Dec 25, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If he cannot fit into one seat, it is only fair that he be required to pay for a second seat.



Watch it - using that rationale, the airlines aught to make the seats so small EVERYONE needs two (or three, or four) seat!

Brenda


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 25, 2006)

Rosie said:


> If the person finds the seat too small, s/he has two choices - pay for a second seat or don't fly with that airline. The airline is there to make money, not as a social service organization.



My point is, perhaps that's why airlines are going bankrupt? If I can't fit comfortably in a seat being the size of your average 12 y/o, perhaps some regulation is in order. It's not about social service, but providing safety to the consumer. You certainly can't convince me it's SAFE to pack people in like that.


----------



## Actor4hire (Dec 25, 2006)

The reason why the airlines are going belly up (pardon the pun) is the rise in cost of fuel & the fact that air travel is still down in the post 9/11 era. 

I am a big guy 6" 275 built like a line backer. Now while I walk down the street, I don't think people say "Hey, he is fat" but I have a 42 inch waist, wear an xxxl t-shirt & wear a size 14 shoe. Again a big guy. Now I will get to the point...

I HATE flying on a fucking air plane. I have no problem sitting in one seat, but there is no friggin room, period. No where to stretch out, no where to put my elbow, no where to even take a deep breath. The airlines have slammed so many seats into the plane, there is no room. Luckily for me, when I fly I go with my wife & 6 year old daughter. This allows me to stretch out a bit more since my daughter is small. Otherwise, I would never fly. 

The worst part about this guy having to buy 2 seats, is the way the fucking airlines handled it. To make the guy meassure his waist several times is just fucking wrong. Maybe the airlines need to take the back three rows & make them more "size accomidating" It would make everybody on the flight happy. The larger people would have enough room & the smaller people wouldn't feel squished. 

I know it would be like dare I say the 60's & the way African Americans were treated (back of plane, back of bus) but I would rather be able to sit in a seat I fit in & not be embarassed by the airlines. 

Just a thought... Truthfully, it should be lobbied for...


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Dec 26, 2006)

fatgirl33 said:


> Watch it - using that rationale, the airlines aught to make the seats so small EVERYONE needs two (or three, or four) seat!
> 
> Brenda



But then they'd have to make seats half (or a third or a quarter) of the price, because otherwise people wouldn't fly with them. So we'd end up with the same thing. If an airline does bigger seats, it's going to have to have less seats, ergo it will have to charge more per seat, and I can assure you half of its customers will fly with a cheaper airline. Airlines _can't_ increase the seating space, they'd go bankrupt. To all those who suggest that the government impose a minimum seating space, that may be a solution, but keep in mind that it would make ticket prices go up, and surely be a big blow to an already weak industry.


----------



## Mini (Dec 26, 2006)

I have less control over my height than does someone over his weight, and I'm not too sure how comfortable I'd be paying for two seats when they're arguably not designed for even "average" folks.

It's an interesting debate and I can see the rationale behind both sides.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Dec 27, 2006)

I still haven't seen you naysayers argue against MY proposal. Go on, let's hear it...


----------



## Friday (Dec 27, 2006)

> This is strictly a way to cash in on the increasing size of the world's passengers without having to change their standards. What other business gets away with this?



Clothing stores do it all the time. If you want a large shirt it's $19.99 but if you want an extra large it's $21.99.


----------



## Caligula (Dec 27, 2006)

measured him!!! Man poor guy, thats rough. I know a heavy women who had her knee buckle(she has very weak knees..it happens alot) when she was in the restroom and since the damn things are already so small she literaly had to pull her self out of there. Measuring someone is unacceptable and he should win his lawsuit. Now in terms of having to buy 2 seats I have to say that it is ultimatly fair. You pay for a seat..not the right to fly on a plane. So if you cant fit(like my aunt) than you would have to buy a second seat..no? I like that one posters 50$ solution, but for the current time this is what larger men and women have to deal with..although it is rather rude and while fair from a pricing standpoint it is very unfair to the heavy person.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 27, 2006)

Mini said:


> I have less control over my height than does someone over his weight, and I'm not too sure how comfortable I'd be paying for two seats when they're arguably not designed for even "average" folks.
> 
> It's an interesting debate and I can see the rationale behind both sides.



Basically, the airlines are fucking us over. I bought a carrier to the exact specifications for my cat when I flew to Sacramento. It did not fit under the seat as the regulations claimed it would. Luckily, all the attendants were not pricks and let me be. (One guy said my bag needed to be "more under the seat," and I had the brief pleasure of going absolutely apeshit. He went away.) Want fat people buying to tickets on your airlines? Tell us just what your seats will hold. I guarantee most people will be horrified at how small. If a company fails to reveal just how small the seats are, it's false advertising, which is AGAINST THE LAW.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 27, 2006)

Friday said:


> Clothing stores do it all the time. If you want a large shirt it's $19.99 but if you want an extra large it's $21.99.




Hrmm, what I have seen is no difference between XS-XL, then usually a surcharge for 2X, 3X, and 4X sizing. But you don't have to buy two shirts.


----------



## Tina (Dec 27, 2006)

Mini said:


> I have less control over my height than does someone over his weight.



Not necessarily, Mini.


----------



## Mini (Dec 27, 2006)

Tina said:


> Not necessarily, Mini.



Generally speaking, of course.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Dec 27, 2006)

Mini said:


> I have less control over my height than does someone over his weight, and I'm not too sure how comfortable I'd be paying for two seats when they're arguably not designed for even "average" folks.
> 
> It's an interesting debate and I can see the rationale behind both sides.



Same here. I'd have less of an issue paying for an extra seat if the seats were made for an average size person. If the average woman is 5'6" and a size 14, and the average guy is 5'10" and 180 pounds (or whatever, I don't know what the numbers are) then they should make seats that will fit THAT size, both in terms of leg room, and butt room. Just like office chairs are made for average sized people, just as car seats are made for average sized people, and the like. If, at that point, someone couldn't fit in the seat, then I would feel less pissed at the airlines charging extra if the person had to have a second seat (not sharing with another passenger, for example). But when they basically set it up that almost ANY average sized person could have "spillage", then it's not only unfair but unrealistic. 

What galls me is a) how unevenly it's being enforced, even within the same airline, and b) there is no way for the airline personnel to make the call about who needs an extra seat without possible abject humiliation. THAT bugs me.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2006)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> I still haven't seen you naysayers argue against MY proposal. Go on, let's hear it...



Seriously, you have a real future in any type of work that involves negotiating. You took a good look at what both sides of the equation [travelers who want to get someplace in comfort and airlines that need to make a profit] would want and came up with an idea aimed at having both of them come away thinking that their needs had been met. Are you considering law school when you graduate?

The only wrinkles I can see that need ironing are the following: 

The union leaders for the customer service reps. or ticket agents would demand an uptick in salary for the agents who now have to do more work. If the airline make five dollars on your idea, the union will want one or two of it.

It would necessitate asking passengers for their sizes when they book reservations, otherwise how could the airline staff organize the seating chart appropriately? While lots of folks were upset at this man being measured in public, you would pretty much have to let them know how much space you were taking up. I'm bigger then TSL, but smaller then some people. Therefore if she and I were each going to take advantage of this, she could absorb the "space hit" of being seated next to a 400 pound person, whereas I might be limited to somebody 300 pounds.

Also [tongue planted somewhat in cheek on this one] I would love it if there were some way we could choose the fat person we sit next to. For instance, given the choice I want to be seated next to a retired defensive lineman from the Green Bay Packers who spends the whole trip talking about his days in the NFL and how glad he is that he made such wise investments with his money, whereas "Uncanny Bruceman" [I know you have a GF Bruce, I'm just using this as an example] would prefer a 20 something blond SSBBW with an interest in kilts and techno-rave-pop music.


----------



## SocialbFly (Dec 27, 2006)

Hello! and i didnt say welcome before, but i will say welcome now....

ok, here is what i think about your proposal...i see the value of what you have said, but let me present it a different way...

you are paying people to have the free choice to sit next to a fat person...i dont see that as a positive at all..it is more like saying we have a leper, wanna sit next to them??

i see the point of willingness, it has its merit, but to me, the bigger problem is having to pay someone to sit next to me, doesnt seem fair to either of us...

but it was a nice idea for the first 5 seconds, lol. (to me!)


----------



## Friday (Dec 27, 2006)

> Hrmm, what I have seen is no difference between XS-XL, then usually a surcharge for 2X, 3X, and 4X sizing. But you don't have to buy two shirts.



Oh I agree Moonvine, and I'm not trying to excuse either of them. The more for a larger size thing just really annoys me. Maybe I should have saved it for pet peeves.

Does anyone know if they charge more for larger sizes in mens clothing? Like suits or something...


----------



## redisthenewpink (Dec 31, 2006)

Friday said:


> Oh I agree Moonvine, and I'm not trying to excuse either of them. The more for a larger size thing just really annoys me. Maybe I should have saved it for pet peeves.
> 
> Does anyone know if they charge more for larger sizes in mens clothing? Like suits or something...



Speaking of men's clothing, they've done studies and women pay much more for the same item of clothing as me do. For example, a woman will pay more for a white button up work appropriate blouse for work than a man would, though men's shirts generally do require more fabric. They passed a bill in Canada forbidding this earlier this year, but I don't think it's made much difference. So really, it's not about how much fabric, but how much people are willing to pay. Because there are fewer options for fat women, retailers can charge us more.

And I'm sure fat men pay a lot more for clothes too. My friend's fiance is quite large and essentially shops in one Big and Tall store and he's done stuff like dropped out of wedding parties because he couldn't rent a tux in his size and buying one would have been too expensive. Men have even fewer options then women.


----------



## Tad (Jan 2, 2007)

Of course mens clothes are cheaper. There are less mens stores, and each generally carries less styles than most womens stores, and they change the styles less quickly and there is less seasonal variation. Therefore they sell more of each style and have less chance of having to discount it deeply or sell it off to a discounter. Therefore mens clothes are cheaper. Note that this is despite there being less competition in mens stores.

Without doubt the margins are generally pretty good in the plus-sizes game, but the potential volumes are a lot lower. You might be too young to realize, but as the population has (on average) gotten bigger, sizes have inflated and more stores carry larger sizes. That is to say, a size 16 now is bigger than a size 16 fifteen years ago, and now most stores carry a size 16 (or XL), while fifteen years ago few stores did. In fact now a lot of stores seem to run their regular size lines up to an 18 even. A modern size 18 is a pretty big piece of clothing, so the number of women who have to shop in specialty plus-sizes stores probably has not changed much over this time. Note at the same time the plus sizes stores have also inflated their sizes, and more are carrying a size 28 or even 30, when nobody you used to go beyond 26this is them following the same trend.

The effect is that when stitches can Cotton-Ginny can target ten million women with a t-shirt, Cotton-Ginny plus can target one million women (I just made up those relative figures, but I suspect the ratio is something like that). They have a lot less competition in the plus sizes, but still they wont move as many of the t-shirt. Sometime when you are in a mall with separate Cotton-Ginny and Cotton-Ginny Plus stores, watch how many people are in each of them, and youll see what I mean. The result is that the plus sizes version of their store needs higher margins to cover their over head.

I dont know if you remember when Cotton-Ginny had their Plus Intimates stores, carrying only plus sized lingerie. The stores were great, and I remember seeing a guest book in their first location, in Yorkdale Mall, full of page after page of women saying that this was the greatest place ever. But they shut the chain in not much over a year. They were making a bit of money off of it, but not enough. The stuff was fairly expensive. Women would still buy the bulk of their basics at Eatons/Zellers/Walmart/wherever, and only the fancy stuff there. Even with good margins, they just did not have enough sales volume to make it a viable business given the high costs of running stores in malls.

And yes, big and tall stores are more expensive than regular mens stores. Im kind of on the cusp of sizing, I could shop in either, and Ive found the exact same pants to be more expensive in the one than the other. So it is not just for women that this happens.

Regards;

-Ed


----------



## liz (di-va) (Jan 3, 2007)

I feel like my place in the airline world is getting smaller and smaller (no pun intended), as airlines get more frantic about money and do more and more things about it like this. Whatever/what/where/why it is...it sucks. The presentation that Southwest made at NAAFA in 2002 was enough to guarantee that I'd never fly that airline again.

Everything about this situation is so negative...I was trying to think about it differently: If there were an airline who tried to handle large passengers well--passengers in general--and had real room for handicapped access and older folk and tall folk and fat folk, then I would be the most devoted freakin customer ever. Passionately devoted. Would pay for it (yes). Tell everyone I knew. I doubt the profit margins in the airline biz would allow such a thing, but it's nice to think about. I ain't talking palatial, just...non thrombosis-inducing.


----------



## Mercedes (Jan 4, 2007)

Why should fat people pay more?

The local airline here charges the _full adult fare for a 3 year old_ - and you can fit _three_ 3 year olds in each seat!

So it makes no sense that people who need extra room have to pay for it!

It's a blatant case of two weights, two measures! Grrr!


----------



## BrownEyedGirl (Jan 4, 2007)

Ok so I am very torn on this issue. I know that I have been on a plane before and been super claustrophic bc the person next to me was crowding my space and on say a 9 hour flight, this is pretty annoying. I think the way they handled the situation was poor. It should have been more discreet and the names that the man was called were very wrong. I don't like the thought of having to pay for two seats but at the same time those seats are TINY so I kind of understand. I would do it just for comfort reasons... I always get stuck next to a stinky person who snores anyway lol.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 5, 2007)

Mercedes said:


> Why should fat people pay more?
> 
> The local airline here charges the _full adult fare for a 3 year old_ - and you can fit _three_ 3 year olds in each seat!
> 
> ...



You hit it on the button. They are just in the business to selling seats. They are always looking for way to pack more and more people on their fight. 

Sometimes I think that if they were allowed, some airlines would pack people in like a Tokyo subway!


----------



## Lovelyone (Jan 6, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> It is a matter of practicality and a requirement that one pay for the resources one is using.
> 
> I have very thick just-past-shoulder length hair. When I have it professionally blown dry, I have to pay more, for the simple reason that it takes longer and thus the stylist has to spend more time on it and can not use that time to work on other customers. The salon, like the airlines are in business to make money. If I consume more a service provider's time, then I have to pay more. Obviously, having thick hair is totally beyond my control; it's not like with obesity where anyone could even make a case that if only I would change my lifestyle or eating habits, my hair would be thinner and thus I would not have to take more of their time.


 
Are you kidding? Come on--by your standards I would think that thin people should be returned airfare cos their asses didnt fit in the seats, and they should pay a different price at a buffet cos they eat less? That is a load of BS, and VERY discriminatory.


----------



## Lovelyone (Jan 6, 2007)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> .
> 
> Airlines institute a policy whereby they do everything in their power to give a free second seat to larger people. In cases where that is not possible, the following procedure is instituted:
> 
> ...


 
Another option (since there is a federal law that says children cannot sit in a window seat) is to have a plus-sized person sit in the same row as a child. Children do not take up much room and this would resolve the problem of the child sitting near the window.


----------



## Stealth (Jan 7, 2007)

This sort of thing really pisses me off. I have had a similar expeirence (by height rather than weight though!) Whilst on my way home from a holiday.

I absolutely REFUSED to pay extra due to the fact I have long legs (I'm 6'4 or 6'5..) and went aboard the plane, after being refused the EMPTY escape exits which have more leg room. (I should mention an argument I had with a bystander who told me to "just pay for it...")

After boarding the plane, my legs could simply not fit in the gap in front of me, so they HAD to go into the aisle, meaning I couldn't bring the arm rest down properly. (Truthfully, I was being difficult here, which I know I shouldn't have been but on a long flight it would have caused me more pain in the long run...)

after about 20 minutes of two airstaff arguing (One on my side, "He's causing a safety risk", one not, claiming "He should have paid for the extra room" they declared me a safety risk and I got moved to an empty exit seat. The decision was made after trolley staff kept tripping over my foot which I honestly couldn't move any further out of the way!....

I'm not going to be paying 50 euro's because im a few inches taller than your average flyer. I can't be the only one with this view, right?


----------



## Lovelyone (Jan 7, 2007)

Stealth said:


> I absolutely REFUSED to pay extra due to the fact I have long legs (I'm 6'4 or 6'5..) and went aboard the plane, after being refused the EMPTY escape exits which have more leg room. (I should mention an argument I had with a bystander who told me to "just pay for it...")
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be paying 50 euro's because im a few inches taller than your average flyer. I can't be the only one with this view, right?


 
I agree with you 100%. The problem is, coming up with a solution that will please EVERYONE, and this simply cannot be done.


----------



## Friday (Jan 10, 2007)

> they declared me a safety risk and I got moved to an empty exit seat.



Why the hell was it an issue if there was an empty seat available? Please name the airline so that I can never, ever fly them.


----------



## lemmink (Jan 10, 2007)

I think they should just refit the damn airplanes.


----------



## Mercedes (Jan 10, 2007)

Friday said:


> Why the hell was it an issue if there was an empty seat available? Please name the airline so that I can never, ever fly them.


 
Correct! Airlines offering such filthy service should be named and boycotted!


----------



## fat hiker (Jan 10, 2007)

This is a ridiculous argument to make, that you cannot help having thick hair, but the obese person can help being obese - if you asked your to thin your hair while cutting it (something any stylist or barber can do) than it would blow dry in the 'average' time. You choose to leave your hair thick; many of the obese do not have a choice to be obese or not.



LoveBHMS said:


> It is a matter of practicality and a requirement that one pay for the resources one is using.
> 
> I have very thick just-past-shoulder length hair. When I have it professionally blown dry, I have to pay more, for the simple reason that it takes longer and thus the stylist has to spend more time on it and can not use that time to work on other customers. The salon, like the airlines are in business to make money. If I consume more a service provider's time, then I have to pay more. Obviously, having thick hair is totally beyond my control; it's not like with obesity where anyone could even make a case that if only I would change my lifestyle or eating habits, my hair would be thinner and thus I would not have to take more of their time.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 10, 2007)

My hair is thick, it's just how it happens to be growing out of the top of my head.

Saying that I could just take some drastic measures to change it [and 'thinning' it is typically done just on parts of your hair in certain styles, not all over] is as wrong as somebody saying that an obese person can just have weight loss surgery or swallow a tapeworm.

Are you saying it matters whether or not somebody can change, or easily change the thing about themselves? If so, what about people who intentionally gain weight? Should they be treated differently from those with thyroid conditions or metabolic disorders?

For that matter, if I were to complain to the salon about being charged more, should I accept it if they tell me "Well, you can just change the _way you are naturally_ if you don't want to pay more for a blow dry."


----------



## kerrypop (Jan 10, 2007)

Hmm... It seems to me that the issue with kids/people with anorexia having to pay less is somewhat moot, because of the fact that seatbelts are required, and having more than one person in a seatbelt isn't all that safe. 

That being said, Having a fat person pay more for two seats is completely a comfort issue. They need seatbelts as well. If a seatbelt can fit around a fat person, then they should be charged for one seat. If a seatbelt cannot fit over a fat person, the airline is being completely discriminatory, because they are not providing for the safety of all of their passengers. 

Also, this is the kind of crap that really makes me nervous. How horrifying to be that man, and me measured in front of everyone and then required to pay for two seats! The airliner could have handled it much more discreetly and humanely. If they require two seats for a fat person, that's one thing. If they are going to humiliate and demean them, that is completely another issue.


----------



## TallFatSue (Jan 30, 2007)

liz (di-va) said:


> I feel like my place in the airline world is getting smaller and smaller (no pun intended), as airlines get more frantic about money and do more and more things about it like this. Whatever/what/where/why it is...it sucks. The presentation that Southwest made at NAAFA in 2002 was enough to guarantee that I'd never fly that airline again.


Last week I had an interesting experience on Southwest Airlines. Despite their anti-fat policy (which so far has never affected me), I love their general seating policy. At my size, I prefer to drive on business travels, but this trip was too far for that. Well, at the gate I saw another supersize woman waiting for the same flight, so I sat near her and struck up a conversation. We decided to sit in the same row and try to keep the seat empty between us, which worked great. The same happened on my return flight, and it sure helps to fly at non-peak times. In the past I've hoped that some kind FAs won't object to sharing space with big fat me, but it's not exactly obvious where they are. On the other hand, collaborating with another fat woman in the airport just might be a viable option. Has anyone else tried this?


----------



## Famouslastwords (Jan 30, 2007)

It's because of this that I usually just pay for a first class ticket (about the cost of two seats anyway). Lord knows it's consistantly way more expensive...but employees don't dare treat their first class passengers like crap...and that alone is worth the money to me.


----------



## TallFatSue (Jan 31, 2007)

Famouslastwords said:


> It's because of this that I usually just pay for a first class ticket (about the cost of two seats anyway). Lord knows it's consistantly way more expensive...but employees don't dare treat their first class passengers like crap...and that alone is worth the money to me.


Agreed -- except that this was a business trip and my company won't spring for a domestic first class ticket. Not sure how I'd justify it on my expense account anyway ("Item: First class ticket. Explanation: Does this airplane seat make my butt look big?") Besides, if word got out that my company grants me special privileges simply because I have a big fat ass, then everyone would want to have an enormous rear too. 

Pleasure travel is a whole 'nother matter. If we can drive somewhere in 8 hours or less, Art & I usually go by car. If it's too far to drive, but we can fly somewhere in a few hours or less, we buy 2 economy tickets, raise the armrest and my fat overflows onto part of his seat. If we fly overseas, then business class or first class are the only ways I can handle the long flight.


----------

