Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

(Jules Kemper) writes:
Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket
prices based on weight/height ratios.

On your airplanes they use an optimized packing algorithm.

On the ones I like to ride on, they let us all sit in chairs.

-Mike g

-----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-----

(Jules Kemper) writes:
Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket
prices based on weight/height ratios.

On your airplanes they use an optimized packing algorithm.

On the ones I like to ride on, they let us all sit in chairs.

-Mike g

Yeah - seems to be faulty logic to me also. However, we booked on a
small charter plane in Rio last summer and hte operator charged our
group based on combined weight of us plus luggage. We figured that we
paid almost twice as much as another couple in the same hotel. I have
a really bad feeling that this idea is going to being used by the
small charter companies more and more. What's worse is that this idea
is goingot be picked up by big airlines as an excuse to squeze more
money from the traveling public.

(Mike Marshall) wrote in message ...
(Jules Kemper) writes:
Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket
prices based on weight/height ratios.

On your airplanes they use an optimized packing algorithm.

On the ones I like to ride on, they let us all sit in chairs.

-Mike g

Wrong again Steve (I mean Mike). The airlines are not selling you
transport from point A to B they are selling you SPACE on a transport
that is ALREADY travelling from point A to B. This is an important
distinction and one you should try and understand. By choosing to fly
you are renting space on an airplane. This is the reason that first
class seats are more expensive. The reason people have to purchase
flight cancellation insurance is that you are not contracting for
unconditional transport from A to B. The airline is renting you space
– if you miss your flight and didn't have cancellation insurance
that's just too bad. The airplane is going to go ahead without you and
you don't get your money back.

By flying we're paying for space and weight. If I have to pay extra
for an additional carryon because it takes up space or if I have to
pay extra because my luggage is too heavy then a fat person should
have to pay extra for their extra space and weight also. It's only
fair to the rest of us and it's simple market economics. I will accept
your argument the day the major airlines ship cargo at a flat rate
regardless of weight, size and bulk.

At any rate the major airlines are already debating this issue and
thank god we have an administration that actually sides with the
airline industry and knows the value of corporate economics in
maintaining the economy (for once). Gripe about it all you want but
this is inevitable and your lobby isn't rich enough and more
importantly does not possess sufficient moral highground to influence
this decision. You might think you have a class action case but you
don't. All this PC pandering nonsense is going to die down the day
after the Nov elections. You're fat by choice not born handicapped -
unlike some unfortunate people. Boycott the airlines and they will be
able to put 2 people in your space and still maintain market share.
You have no choice but to fly and you'll have to either learn to play
by the rules of the new economy or stay put. You want premium health
care you pay for the best hospital. You want an extra seat you pay for
an extra seat. Flying is a pay-for-service entity not an entitlement.

So rack up the frequent flier miles until then.

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-----

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

"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

-----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-----

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

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/