If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:13:14 -0600, "Jeff and Tori" wrote: "Jules Kemper" wrote in message . com... Regardless of the safety issues from a market standpoint I personally think it's a good thing to weigh passengers & luggage. I mailed a package via airmail a few weeks and USPS charged me postage based on weight and dimension class. What's the difference between mailing a package via air and personal flying? Not a whole lot in terms of space and fuel consumption factors. We choose to live in a free market economy and free market economics should determine operating protocols. Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket prices based on weight/height ratios. Under this system a 150 lb 5foot 2 inch individual would pay . lets say $150.00 while a 300lb 5foot 2 inch whale would have to pay twice as much i.e. $300.00. We can always make exemptions for pregnancy, genuine medical conditions, etc. Obviously "chronic obesity" would not qualify as a genuine medical condition since it isn't. In the long run, normal people would be handed lower airfares while the slobs would pay their fare share (like my pun?). Of course it goes without saying that a person who pays for two seats should also receive two meals and be allowed to visit the bathroom twice as often. If we are to accept the fat lobby's opinion a 300lb leviathan who spreads their flab over two whole seats would be entitled to pay as much as a normal person who takes up a single seat. I don't think so! Why not ask USPS if they are willing to ship all packages via air for a flat rate regardless of weight and dimension and see what they say! Economics are economics; If a fat person has no problem spending spend 2 or 3 times as much on food they should be equally willing, and should more importantly should expect, to spend a comparable amount on air travel. Take some responsibility for the consequences of your actions. I can not believe you actually posted that. I have never been so insulted in my entire life! As one of those Leviathan I dont see why I should have to pay for 2 seats unless I take up 2 seats literally. I would normally travel with my 2 year old daughter so if anyone has a problem sitting next to my big butt they can sit next to her little tiny bottom. I am sorry that I gained weight after being molested for 2 years and that my lack of self esteem and my inability to loose the weight so I kick skinny jerks butts for making rude and insensitive comments is offending you but maybe you should think what if this was my child I was posting about before you say anything. Tori Ps I am planning on having gastric bypass surgery after I have child #2 in October. And I dont eat more then anyone else I know infect my husband eats more then I do and he looses weight. Tori, This must be the first time you have seen idiots in print. I see them on a daily basis. I put little idiot on a hook, throw them back to catch bigger idiots. I would like to find the factory that makes them and bomb the hell out of it. You may want to look deep inside yourself and be sure that you are losing weight for yourself and not to placate idiots like the one to which you responded. Putting your life at risk to placate idiots is not a wise decision. You life is a precious thing, to your husband, your daughter and even to me and I don't even know you. Being fat is not always connected to low self esteem. Make sure you lose weight because it is what YOU want to do. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQEfq++koPZAZfLgsEQK2CACdGJCgJAEdrG2vSVDa6b8Gcp OY3VAAn1oi rAwOudRCRWYRPVrw0QaGDa81 =+9pS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:49:32 GMT, Lady Veteran ,
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:13:14 -0600, "Jeff and Tori" wrote: "Jules Kemper" wrote in message .com... Regardless of the safety issues from a market standpoint I personally think it's a good thing to weigh passengers & luggage. I mailed a package via airmail a few weeks and USPS charged me postage based on weight and dimension class. What's the difference between mailing a package via air and personal flying? Not a whole lot in terms of space and fuel consumption factors. We choose to live in a free market economy and free market economics should determine operating protocols. Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket prices based on weight/height ratios. Under this system a 150 lb 5foot 2 inch individual would pay . lets say $150.00 while a 300lb 5foot 2 inch whale would have to pay twice as much i.e. $300.00. We can always make exemptions for pregnancy, genuine medical conditions, etc. Obviously "chronic obesity" would not qualify as a genuine medical condition since it isn't. In the long run, normal people would be handed lower airfares while the slobs would pay their fare share (like my pun?). Of course it goes without saying that a person who pays for two seats should also receive two meals and be allowed to visit the bathroom twice as often. If we are to accept the fat lobby's opinion a 300lb leviathan who spreads their flab over two whole seats would be entitled to pay as much as a normal person who takes up a single seat. I don't think so! Why not ask USPS if they are willing to ship all packages via air for a flat rate regardless of weight and dimension and see what they say! Economics are economics; If a fat person has no problem spending spend 2 or 3 times as much on food they should be equally willing, and should more importantly should expect, to spend a comparable amount on air travel. Take some responsibility for the consequences of your actions. I can not believe you actually posted that. I have never been so insulted in my entire life! As one of those Leviathan I dont see why I should have to pay for 2 seats unless I take up 2 seats literally. I would normally travel with my 2 year old daughter so if anyone has a problem sitting next to my big butt they can sit next to her little tiny bottom. I am sorry that I gained weight after being molested for 2 years and that my lack of self esteem and my inability to loose the weight so I kick skinny jerks butts for making rude and insensitive comments is offending you but maybe you should think what if this was my child I was posting about before you say anything. Tori Ps I am planning on having gastric bypass surgery after I have child #2 in October. And I dont eat more then anyone else I know infect my husband eats more then I do and he looses weight. Tori, This must be the first time you have seen idiots in print. I see them on a daily basis. I put little idiot on a hook, throw them back to catch bigger idiots. I would like to find the factory that makes them and bomb the hell out of it. You may want to look deep inside yourself and be sure that you are losing weight for yourself and not to placate idiots like the one to which you responded. Putting your life at risk to placate idiots is not a wise decision. See that, Singh? Bobbi sees losing weight as the health risk, not being excessively obese. Can you see how disturbing these fat acceptors are now? Jade You life is a precious thing, to your husband, your daughter and even to me and I don't even know you. Being fat is not always connected to low self esteem. Make sure you lose weight because it is what YOU want to do. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQEfq++koPZAZfLgsEQK2CACdGJCgJAEdrG2vSVDa6b8Gcp OY3VAAn1oi rAwOudRCRWYRPVrw0QaGDa81 =+9pS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
Daedalus wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:49:32 GMT, Lady Veteran , wrote: snip You may want to look deep inside yourself and be sure that you are losing weight for yourself and not to placate idiots like the one to which you responded. Putting your life at risk to placate idiots is not a wise decision. See that, Singh? Bobbi sees losing weight as the health risk, not being excessively obese. Can you see how disturbing these fat acceptors are now? Jade You also are quite disturbing. You should consider your competence in providing medical advice. For one consideration whatever the weight going up and down constantly is more dangerous in many instances than maintaining a high weight. Your attitude is ****. FFM You life is a precious thing, to your husband, your daughter and even to me and I don't even know you. Being fat is not always connected to low self esteem. Make sure you lose weight because it is what YOU want to do. LV snip |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message ...
Daedalus wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:49:32 GMT, Lady Veteran , wrote: snip You may want to look deep inside yourself and be sure that you are losing weight for yourself and not to placate idiots like the one to which you responded. Putting your life at risk to placate idiots is not a wise decision. See that, Singh? Bobbi sees losing weight as the health risk, not being excessively obese. Can you see how disturbing these fat acceptors are now? Jade You also are quite disturbing. You should consider your competence in providing medical advice. For one consideration whatever the weight going up and down constantly is more dangerous in many instances than maintaining a high weight. Both outcomes are disasterously bad for health and well being. Fat is the problem. Get in shape or else face an early, lonely death. And after that, the LORDS OF KARMA will demand an answer to a very tough question: "Hey, We gave you a life full of opportunity and glorious possibilities. You could have been a beautiful creature running wild and free in a world made for your pleasure and fulfillment. But you sat around eating handfulls of sugar and fried fat until your body became a bloated horror. It could not run and play. No one wanted to **** it. You wasted what you were given. SO WHY SHOULD YOU GET ANOTHER CHANCE? And so will they chant together in righteous wrath: "Go now into the ****-hole of perpetual stench and misery. Breath deep the rotten air of your own self-made grave!" Your attitude is ****. FFM You life is a precious thing, to your husband, your daughter and even to me and I don't even know you. Being fat is not always connected to low self esteem. Make sure you lose weight because it is what YOU want to do. LV snip |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On 5 Mar 2004 18:03:09 -0800, (Ralph DuBose) wrote: "Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message ... Daedalus wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:49:32 GMT, Lady Veteran , wrote: snip You may want to look deep inside yourself and be sure that you are losing weight for yourself and not to placate idiots like the one to which you responded. Putting your life at risk to placate idiots is not a wise decision. See that, Singh? Bobbi sees losing weight as the health risk, not being excessively obese. Can you see how disturbing these fat acceptors are now? Jade You also are quite disturbing. You should consider your competence in providing medical advice. For one consideration whatever the weight going up and down constantly is more dangerous in many instances than maintaining a high weight. Both outcomes are disasterously bad for health and well being. Fat is the problem. Get in shape or else face an early, lonely death. And after that, the LORDS OF KARMA will demand an answer to a very tough question: "Hey, We gave you a life full of opportunity and glorious possibilities. You could have been a beautiful creature running wild and free in a world made for your pleasure and fulfillment. But you sat around eating handfulls of sugar and fried fat until your body became a bloated horror. It could not run and play. No one wanted to **** it. You wasted what you were given. SO WHY SHOULD YOU GET ANOTHER CHANCE? And so will they chant together in righteous wrath: "Go now into the ****-hole of perpetual stench and misery. Breath deep the rotten air of your own self-made grave!" Watch it Ralfie, you could be held accountable to that same Karmic debt. YOu could have used your gifts to help people and yet you are here spouting verbal diarrhea. You are off charter and full of it. People fat or thin deserve respect until they show why they don't deserve it. You are a case in point and as the poster said: Your attitude is ****. FFM LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQEk5WOkoPZAZfLgsEQKuNACg2vV5HOyYcg4+nDG9ykNTev 0uZTQAoKGF +vjRyE0R5pJk/O0uV6yvEu4M =khgk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
Here's a fact for Mr. Smith to ponder:
During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States. During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving. Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET! Please explain to us how the death statistic of an idiot drunk driver in Arkansas who runs into a tree and kills himself is relevant to me driving my car from New York to L.A. Also- Check out the statistics on this: It is SAFER to take the train than to fly on a jumbo jet! Let's hear from all the airplane pilots and so-called safety statistician experts frequenting this board -on this one! (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (misterfact) wrote in message . com... AIRLINES' BIG LIE: Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!) It isn't passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and plane safety. It's the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles are subject to a crash). Putting it in caps doesn't make it right. Transportation is not entertainment. it is not the number of minutes you get to enjoy it, it's the distance you travel to get from point A to point B. Is that a difficult concept for you? Just to show it isn't passengers X miles: Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A. (3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash. AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000 passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of couse not! Ah, no. The relative risk per passenger mile is the same - one death every 3300 passenger miles flown. WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE'S TALE OF PASSENGER/MILES AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. No, you may feel it is a wive's tail and may think you've proved something - but you haven't. Sorry. IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT. We aren't talking about the safety of the mode of transport - we are talking about the human safety of traveling IN that mode of transport FROM point A to point B. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter how safe the transport is, just how safe I am in it and my chance of making it to point B safely. The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO CRASH (hours of operation) The safety of individual travel depends on the MILES traveled. Time is irrelevant since the objective is to get from point A to point B, not to spend 10 hours in a car or on a plane. Risk per mile traveled or risk per hour traveled - Which one helps a person decide if they should fly or drive - if they are interested in surviving the 200 mile trip to Vegas? HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS COMMERCIAL JETS; FOR ONE YEAR: (for a mode of transportation)It's number of deaths per year DIVIDED BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours per year each vehicle is in service: AUTO; 54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY 80,000,000 cars in service TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES 365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours. 54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000 CAR Hours Average speed is 30 miles per hour - 1 death per 44 million miles traveled. AIRLINES: 200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000 commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES 365= 2920) or 3000 times 8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours 200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only 43,800 airplane hours! Average speed is 500 miles per hour - 1 death for every 21.9 million miles traveled. Though your example still puts car safety ahead of airline safety, it's a function of the numeric assumptions. The ratio is 2 to one using the miles as a denominator, not 34 to one as in your example. If you want to spin the statistic even more, use the risk per trip example. The typical airline trip is 1000 miles, the typical car trip is 10 miles. One death per 4.4 million trips in the car, one death per 22 thousand trips on a plane. Makes cars 200 times as safe. Yes, you too can lie with statistics. At the end of the day, all that matters to a traveler is whether or not they arrived at their destination safely, and that is only measured in miles. So, when you have a choice between driving from LA to New York or flying, which one is safer? The only relevant metric is miles. Figure it out and you'll see the car is much safer! MISTERFACT @ YAHOO.COM Hardly. js |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed
misterfact wrote:
During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States. During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving. Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET! This would be true if - and only if - you had carried as many passengers as many miles as all the airplanes to fly in the past 40 years. Otherwise, it means nothing. miguel -- Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | February 16th, 2004 10:03 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | January 16th, 2004 09:20 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | December 15th, 2003 09:48 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | November 9th, 2003 09:09 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM |