Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le
message de ...


Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate wrote:
20April wrote:
As far as I am concerned, if you can not fit into a plane seat, then
you should pay double for an extra seat.

If you are just a fat slob, even if a kid, then why should normal
people have to suffer, either from your surplus blubber occupying
THEIR space, or from your offensive STINK?

If you refuse to look after yourself, then you should pay.

Here in America, we have large guys known as NFL football players, who
sometimes fly with commercial carriers. Since they're hardly out of
shape, be sure to vociferously expound on your gripe, should you find
yourself seated next to one of them.

Particularly since the effort to fit more and more seats into a row has
resulted in airline seats so narrow even anorexic passengers have trouble
fitting into them!

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle,
then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three
and three.

What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration?

How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their
model-numbers.

If you refuse to deal in facts, that's your problem. Not understanding
the significant differences in major airplane models and their interior
layouts is one manifestation of that refusal.

The old days of two seats per side went away with the early jets. The
advent of jet planes gave passengers two seats per side (four across)
in first class, three seats per side (six across) in coach. This was
the case for many of the early single-aisle jets: Boeing's 707 and 727,
Douglas's DC-8, the Convair 880/990, and Boeing's 737. Douglas's
DC-9s were four across in first class, five across (two and three) in
coach, and that continued into the MD-80, MD-90, and Boeing 717 models;
the Boeing 717 was simply a re-branded MD-90 series airplane made after
Boeing merged with McDonell-Douglas back in the late 1990s. Other jets
such as the DeHavilland Comet, SUD Aviation Caravelle, Hawker-Siddeley
Trident, and BAC-111 followed similar conventions, as did Russian-built
single-aisle jets from Tupolev and Ilyushin.

Boeing's 747 marked the advent of twin-aisle transport, and in coach
class, it was typical to have ten across seating, grouped 3-4-3. That
is still a common configuration. The 767 is usually configured 2-3-2
in six across. The 777 may be either 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 depending on the
airline. Douglas's DC-10 was usually 2-5-2, while the MD-11 was
2-5-3. Lockheed's L-1011 was also 2-5-2. Airbus tended to follow
Boeing's lead; A320s are 3-3 six across like Boeing 737s, while the
twin-aisle A300/310/330/340 are configured similarly to Boeing's
twin-aisle planes, depending on size. Russian Ilyusin IL-96 twin
aisle planes often have a 3-2-3 setup, eight across. Even the new
gigantic A380 runs 3-4-3 on the main deck, 2-4-2 in the upper deck,
for coach/economy class.

And again, in the twin-aisles, first and business classes have fewer
seats across. The first class sections on the Emirates A380 jet
planes have to be seen to be believed; the price of a long-distance
flight in one of those precious seats is also hard to believe, but
there are enough high-rollers around to fill them, according to
Emirates' management.

(I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much,
and the rest is still true.)

I can't think of any twin-aisle airplane that has more than five seats
together, usually in the middle section.

As such, your claims of a "half-dozen in the middle, plus three and
three" are a bit far-fetched. Economy class seating has tended to
shrink the amount of legroom by decreasing seat pitch (the amount by
which seat rows are separated), but seat width, no so much. Some minor
changes to width have resulted from redesigned seats with more passenger
entertainment features, but that usually isn't significant, and the
seats at the very front of the section have always had a little less hip
room to accomodate the tables that stow under the armrest, since there
is no seat in front for a folding table.

Instead of blaming airlines for "narrower" seats, it seems increasingly
likely that aging passengers, particularly in the "developed" world,
should consider their increasing girth as well. I've certainly put on
pounds over the years, and yet, I still fit reasonably comfortably in
just about any airline seat, and don't really perceive them as any
narrower, considering my own change in girth of the years.

I'm quite certain I flew on a 707 that was 3-2 with a nice aisle. And I
also remember flying a plane that had 11 total seats across when I
thought there should have been 10.


In article ,
yeadeagisss
wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle,
then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three
and three.

What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration?

How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their
model-numbers.

If you refuse to deal in facts, that's your problem. Not understanding
the significant differences in major airplane models and their interior
layouts is one manifestation of that refusal.

The old days of two seats per side went away with the early jets. The
advent of jet planes gave passengers two seats per side (four across)
in first class, three seats per side (six across) in coach. This was
the case for many of the early single-aisle jets: Boeing's 707 and 727,
Douglas's DC-8, the Convair 880/990, and Boeing's 737. Douglas's
DC-9s were four across in first class, five across (two and three) in
coach, and that continued into the MD-80, MD-90, and Boeing 717 models;
the Boeing 717 was simply a re-branded MD-90 series airplane made after
Boeing merged with McDonell-Douglas back in the late 1990s. Other jets
such as the DeHavilland Comet, SUD Aviation Caravelle, Hawker-Siddeley
Trident, and BAC-111 followed similar conventions, as did Russian-built
single-aisle jets from Tupolev and Ilyushin.

Boeing's 747 marked the advent of twin-aisle transport, and in coach
class, it was typical to have ten across seating, grouped 3-4-3. That
is still a common configuration. The 767 is usually configured 2-3-2
in six across. The 777 may be either 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 depending on the
airline. Douglas's DC-10 was usually 2-5-2, while the MD-11 was
2-5-3. Lockheed's L-1011 was also 2-5-2. Airbus tended to follow
Boeing's lead; A320s are 3-3 six across like Boeing 737s, while the
twin-aisle A300/310/330/340 are configured similarly to Boeing's
twin-aisle planes, depending on size. Russian Ilyusin IL-96 twin
aisle planes often have a 3-2-3 setup, eight across. Even the new
gigantic A380 runs 3-4-3 on the main deck, 2-4-2 in the upper deck,
for coach/economy class.

And again, in the twin-aisles, first and business classes have fewer
seats across. The first class sections on the Emirates A380 jet
planes have to be seen to be believed; the price of a long-distance
flight in one of those precious seats is also hard to believe, but
there are enough high-rollers around to fill them, according to
Emirates' management.

(I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much,
and the rest is still true.)

I can't think of any twin-aisle airplane that has more than five seats
together, usually in the middle section.

As such, your claims of a "half-dozen in the middle, plus three and
three" are a bit far-fetched. Economy class seating has tended to
shrink the amount of legroom by decreasing seat pitch (the amount by
which seat rows are separated), but seat width, no so much. Some minor
changes to width have resulted from redesigned seats with more passenger
entertainment features, but that usually isn't significant, and the
seats at the very front of the section have always had a little less hip
room to accomodate the tables that stow under the armrest, since there
is no seat in front for a folding table.

Instead of blaming airlines for "narrower" seats, it seems increasingly
likely that aging passengers, particularly in the "developed" world,
should consider their increasing girth as well. I've certainly put on
pounds over the years, and yet, I still fit reasonably comfortably in
just about any airline seat, and don't really perceive them as any
narrower, considering my own change in girth of the years.

yeadeagisss wrote:


Instead of blaming airlines for "narrower" seats, it seems increasingly
likely that aging passengers, particularly in the "developed" world,
should consider their increasing girth as well. I've certainly put on
pounds over the years, and yet, I still fit reasonably comfortably in
just about any airline seat, and don't really perceive them as any
narrower, considering my own change in girth of the years.

There is no doubt that North Americans tend to be larger than people from some
other cultures, and that some of us have gained a few pounds. The fact remains
that some airlines cram more seats into their planes to fit more passengers into
each flight. I made a couple of transatlantic flights where I felt like a
sardine crammed into my seat. The first time it was a charter flight. The second
time I paid extra to go KLM and it was just as bad. The next time I flew Air
Canada and I had no problem at all. Last month I did another transatlantic trip
and some short hops over there (KLM and Scandinavian Airlines) . I found the
seating quite comfortable.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:54:51 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:32:06 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
said:

That, too, but they have CERTAINLY narrowed them considerably since I
first traveled by air! There used to be two seats on either side of a
fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS
three and three. (And it used to be possible to walk past the flight
attendants' service cart to access a lavatory, without them having to
move the cart to an alcove to allow passage.) True, planes have
gotten bigger and wider, but not enough larger to allow for the number
of passengers they try to squeeze into "coach". (Even First Class is
not nearly so spacious as it once was.)

Agreed. I can remember when you could exit from a coach window seat
without everyone else needing to get completely out of their seats for
you to get by.

And the seats and arm rests were wider as well.

Remember what fares you paid in today's dollars too?

Cars are also much more expensive. So are homes.

Yeah, and if you can't afford the seat you want, don't complain about
it as if it's the airline's fault. Not you, in particular. Just a
general comment.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:32:06 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
said:

That, too, but they have CERTAINLY narrowed them considerably since I
first traveled by air! There used to be two seats on either side of a
fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three
and three. (And it used to be possible to walk past the flight
attendants' service cart to access a lavatory, without them having to
move the cart to an alcove to allow passage.) True, planes have gotten
bigger and wider, but not enough larger to allow for the number of
passengers they try to squeeze into "coach". (Even First Class is not
nearly so spacious as it once was.)

Agreed. I can remember when you could exit from a coach window seat
without
everyone else needing to get completely out of their seats for you to get
by.

And the seats and arm rests were wider as well.

Remember what fares you paid in today's dollars too?

Yup, was $13.50 OAK to LAX. Every hour on the 1/2 hour. Get on the plane
and buy your ticket then. Every hour on the hour LAX to OAK. $21 first
class.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:



Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate wrote:

20April wrote:

As far as I am concerned, if you can not fit into a plane seat, then
you should pay double for an extra seat.

If you are just a fat slob, even if a kid, then why should normal
people have to suffer, either from your surplus blubber occupying
THEIR space, or from your offensive STINK?

If you refuse to look after yourself, then you should pay.

Here in America, we have large guys known as NFL football players, who
sometimes fly with commercial carriers. Since they're hardly out of
shape, be sure to vociferously expound on your gripe, should you find
yourself seated next to one of them.


Particularly since the effort to fit more and more seats into a row has
resulted in airline seats so narrow even anorexic passengers have
trouble fitting into them!

Really, when did this happen?

I haven't noticed any recent changes in the number of seat in a row on
the same aircraft type. I haven't seen any MD80s with 6 seats in a row,
for example.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:



David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle,
then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three
and three.


What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration?


How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their
model-numbers. (I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much,
and the rest is still true.)

I would bet you have NEVER flown a plane with a 3-6-3 configuration.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:



David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle,
then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three
and three.


What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration?


How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their
model-numbers. (I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much,
and the rest is still true.)

Let's go with the 2-3 and the 3-3.
The MD80 has 2-3 and the 737 has 3-3.
Are you really more comfortable in an MD80?
Hell, most of the planes I fly on are 1-2, and that isn't spacious.

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:


On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:32:06 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


Waiving the right to remain silent, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
said:


That, too, but they have CERTAINLY narrowed them considerably since I
first traveled by air! There used to be two seats on either side of a
fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other,
then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS
three and three. (And it used to be possible to walk past the flight
attendants' service cart to access a lavatory, without them having to
move the cart to an alcove to allow passage.) True, planes have
gotten bigger and wider, but not enough larger to allow for the number
of passengers they try to squeeze into "coach". (Even First Class is
not nearly so spacious as it once was.)

Agreed. I can remember when you could exit from a coach window seat
without everyone else needing to get completely out of their seats for
you to get by.

And the seats and arm rests were wider as well.

Remember what fares you paid in today's dollars too?


Cars are also much more expensive. So are homes.


The average home is bigger.