Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
Dennis
POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest Airlines,
saying company employees humiliated her in front of other airplane
passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single seat.
Trina Blake, 26, said a gate agent questioned her extensively about her
weight while she was boarding a plane from Orlando, Fla., to Seattle in May
2003, then told flight attendants to make sure Blake did not take up more
than one seat.
"I was told that if I even lifted the armrest, I'd be charged for a second
ticket at the next airport," Blake told The Spokesman-Review newspaper.
A lawyer for Southwest says the airline denies it discriminated against
Blake or harassed her.
Linda Rutherford, a spokeswoman for the Dallas-based airline, said
Southwest's policy requiring second tickets for large people is meant to
ensure passenger safety and comfort -- both for the heavy passengers and
those nearby.
Blake, who lives in the north Spokane suburb of Chattaroy, said she's flown
on Southwest and other airlines numerous times before and never had been
asked to consider buying an extra seat.
"I'm a bigger girl but I'm not that big," she told The Associated Press on
Saturday. At 5-foot-7, she wears size 22 pants and considers herself
overweight but not obese, she said.
She said she would not have considered the suggestion discrimination if
Southwest had been more discreet and polite in asking her to consider a
second seat. In her view, the treatment she received was abusive and
insulting.
Her lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Spokane in June. Her
attorney, Russell Van Camp, said he plans to seek unspecified monetary
damages for reckless infliction of emotional distress and harassment.
Blake said she'd like to receive a formal apology from the airline. She
wrote a letter after the incident and received two $50 Southwest vouchers
she has not yet used. She said a letter the airline sent did not include an
apology.
"Even if they offered me free tickets for the rest of my life, it would do
me no good," she said. "I'm not able to fly any more. The idea of flying
again gives me too much anxiety."
Rutherford said the airline does not track the frequency of its requests
for second seats, but said it happens "very rarely."
"More often it's the case that some passengers pre-order two seats before
coming to the airport," she said.
And in cases where passengers are asked to buy second tickets, the fares
are refunded if the plane leaves with any unfilled seats, she said.
Southwest is working harder to make sure employees are consistent in asking
passengers to consider two seats, so that passengers like Blake don't go
across the country and then encounter a request on a return trip.
"This is a very sensitive issue and we handle it with the utmost
discretion," she added.
In 2000, a California court ruled that Southwest did not violate a
passenger's civil rights by requesting a second fare when deemed necessary.
A brother and sister from New Mexico sued Southwest Airlines in June over
the same policy. Andrea Kysar of White Rock and Martin McLaughlin of
Espanola, who are described in the lawsuit as "morbidly obese," said they
were told in front of other passengers that they had to buy extra tickets
because their weight would cause "comfort and safety" problems for others.
Watch the video:
Newcombe
> Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
>
> POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
>
> SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest Airlines,
> saying company employees humiliated her in front of other airplane
> passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single seat.
>
> Trina Blake, 26, said a gate agent questioned her extensively about her
> weight while she was boarding a plane from Orlando, Fla., to Seattle in May
> 2003, then told flight attendants to make sure Blake did not take up more
> than one seat.
>
> "I was told that if I even lifted the armrest, I'd be charged for a second
> ticket at the next airport," Blake told The Spokesman-Review newspaper.
I commend the airline for sticking up for the other passengers.
I've had to ride next to an obese woman who insisted on lifting the
armrest, and it was very annoying to me.
Am I within my rights on insisting that the armrest between me and the
neighboring passenger be kept down?
N.
Matt
What makes them think I want to have their sweaty nasty fat roll touching me
for two hours.
Southwest needs to come up with a Height to Weight table that lists the
maximum weight a person can weigh at various heights before they are charged
for a second seat. Then post this info at the check in line, on their
website, etc.
Either way, just a matter of time before some liberal judge turns this into
an ADA issue and then all airlines will be forced to upgrade fat people to
first class, or in the case of southwest give them two seats.
Matt
"Dennis" <adejoo...@via.net> wrote in message
news:FKFNMZIW38230.9153472222@anonymous.poster...
SpammersDie
"Newcombe" <newc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:i4bZc.348786$%_6.98635@attbi_s01...
Yea, they should install a barcode reader on every armrest and make it so it
won't lift unless both neighbors scan their boarding passes. An attendant
can unlock it if there's no actual neighbor.
But don't hold your breath for it.
SpammersDie
"Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:0fudnVkzl5l...@giganews.com...
> Do fat people really think they shouldn't be charged for an extra seat?
> What makes them think I want to have their sweaty nasty fat roll touching
> me
> for two hours.
Don't confuse not knowing with not caring.
> Southwest needs to come up with a Height to Weight table that lists the
> maximum weight a person can weigh at various heights before they are
> charged
> for a second seat. Then post this info at the check in line, on their
> website, etc.
Isn't the key factor width rather than weight? If they can list the maximum
dimensions of permitted carryons, they can list the maximum dimensions
allowed before you have to buy a second seat.
They can also install an actual airline seat in the terminal with a sign
saying "If your butt can fit here, you don't need a second ticket."
Rudy
Southwest Airline 'adventures') on A&E yesterday.
She is definitely MORE than "overweight" ..her butt is bigger than my
garbage can !
That said, yes, I'd agree that there should be a "Butt Template" or test
seat. If you fit in, fine..If the Siren and Flashing Red and Blue lights are
set off... its "Two Tickets" one for each size 22 cheek.
Robin King
|
| POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
|
| SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest
Airlines,
| saying company employees humiliated her in front of other airplane
| passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single seat.
|
If the airline is so concerned, maybe it should
make a few seats bigger. Most fat people do not
need an entire extra seat. Does no one realize
that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
counting on ill will against fat people to keep
folks from raising hell about it?
Consider that SWA has charged a fat woman
for two seats even though she was sitting between
her small children, who did not take up a whole
seat each. If that is what they do, then why aren't
thin people up in arms? Why aren't you thin folks
asking SWA to refund the portion of the seat that
you didn't use?
Two fat women who were traveling asked SWA
if they could buy three seats together, sharing the
third seat between them. No, you have to buy two
each, insisted the airline. Why?
I am sure that engineers could find a way to make
airline seats comfortable for most of us, but they
won't do so until there's a demand.
Robin
Matt
"Robin King" <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BjdZc.539635$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> If the airline is so concerned, maybe it should
> make a few seats bigger.
So lets say they make a few seats bigger. Should they not charge extra for
those seats? Let's say they should charge double to sit in the bigger seat.
Then it's the same thing as charging for two seats.
> need an entire extra seat. Does no one realize
> that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
No, they make seats big enough to fit 99.999% of passengers.
>
> Consider that SWA has charged a fat woman
> for two seats even though she was sitting between
> her small children, who did not take up a whole
> seat each. Two fat women who were traveling asked SWA
> if they could buy three seats together, sharing the
> third seat between them. No, you have to buy two
> each, insisted the airline. Why?
>
Why, because they have to have a strict policy and enforce it without
exception. Their policy does refund the price of the second ticket if the
flight is not full, so in the case of the two fat women with and empty seat,
they should have received a refund for the additional tickets.
Matt
Smith
> Saturday. At 5-foot-7, she wears size 22 pants and considers herself
> overweight but not obese, she said.
It's not up to you what the definition of obese is, you fat cow. Instead
of putting all this effort into starting a lawsuit, how about LOSING
SOME WEIGHT? It's not hard, fatty, just get of your fat arse and get on
the treadmill.
Lictor
news:kWbZc.539394$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Yea, they should install a barcode reader on every armrest and make it so
it
> won't lift unless both neighbors scan their boarding passes. An attendant
> can unlock it if there's no actual neighbor.
Riiiight. And then, you will get charged extra bucks on every single plane
ticket so that you cover for the cost of the stupid equipment... I wonder if
people in that country are still able to solve their problems through
talking and using their brains...
Lictor
> > need an entire extra seat. Does no one realize
> > that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
>
> No, they make seats big enough to fit 99.999% of passengers.
How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
I mean, even when I was slim with low body fat, just being muscular (large)
and tall (long legs) made these seats uncomfortable. There also health
issues, since sitting with your knees at sharp angle can lead to phlebitis
(which happens in overweight or thin people).
> Why, because they have to have a strict policy and enforce it without
> exception. Their policy does refund the price of the second ticket if the
> flight is not full, so in the case of the two fat women with and empty
seat,
> they should have received a refund for the additional tickets.
Not if the flight was full. They would have seated with an empty seat
between them in an otherwise full plane, but the flight would have
neverthless been full, since they were officially booking two seats.
_News Server_
> "Dennis" <adejoo...@via.net> wrote in message
> news:FKFNMZIW38230.9153472222@anonymous.poster...
>> Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
>>
>> POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
>>
>> SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest
>> Airlines, saying company employees humiliated her in front of other
>> airplane passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single
>> seat.
>>
> <snip>
>
> If the airline is so concerned, maybe it should
> make a few seats bigger.
They already do.
It's called First Class, and if you ass is
too obese for a coach seat, cough up the $$
for First Class, or walk/swim to your destination.
Maybe then you wouldn't be such a pig, eh?
> Most fat people do not
> need an entire extra seat. Does no one realize
> that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
> counting on ill will against fat people to keep
> folks from raising hell about it?
We don't hate the fat people, we just hate the fat.
>
> Consider that SWA has charged a fat woman
> for two seats even though she was sitting between
> her small children, who did not take up a whole
> seat each.
Did the children have full-fare tickets?
> If that is what they do, then why aren't
> thin people up in arms?
Because they aren't grotesquely obese like you?
>Why aren't you thin folks
> asking SWA to refund the portion of the seat that
> you didn't use?
What next? You gonna whine when they charge you for
oversize or overweight baggage?
>
> Two fat women who were traveling asked SWA
> if they could buy three seats together, sharing the
> third seat between them. No, you have to buy two
> each, insisted the airline. Why?
Cause they can. Why do airlines not allow tickets to
be used by others who aren't named on the ticket?
After all, if someone purchases a seat, what difference
does it matter who sits there?
>
> I am sure that engineers could find a way to make
> airline seats comfortable for most of us,
Sure, they could install double-wide BarcaLoungers too,
and charge 3x a much for tickets.
>but they
> won't do so until there's a demand.
It's called First Class, now put down that quart
of Chunky Monkey and drop a few pounds, porky.
>
> Robin
"Imagine! ...Niggers speaking French!"
- William Jennings Bryan,
secretary of state to U.S.
President Woodrow Wilson,
expressed the contempt in which
the Haitians are held by U$ power structure
Lictor
> Do fat people really think they shouldn't be charged for an extra seat?
> What makes them think I want to have their sweaty nasty fat roll touching
me
> for two hours.
Getting an extra seat and being charge one are different matters. By
downsizing the width of their seats while the population as a whole is
upsizing, the companies are making a statistical bet. It's normal that they
lose money on that bet from time to time. Otherwise, this is encouraging
them to make their seats as small as possible. After all, once every people
with a bmi above 22 have to buy two seats, they will earn a lot more
money... Here comes the one feet wide seats...
Besides, you have that kind of problem with other categories of passengers.
Once, I was seated next to an American businessman, who drunk a few whisky
and then fell asleep against my shoulder and proceeded to snore for the
whole flight. Was he billed an extra seat too? Did I get a refund because of
the annoyance?
Likewise, on my last trip, they were carrying a girl in a medical bed. She
looked anorexic, probably cancer or heavy mucoviscidosis or something, but
with all the medical gizmos around her, she was easily taking four seats.
Moreover, she made an awful lot of noises, from the life support system,
coughing her lungs out and so on. How many seats was she billed? Did I, and
the other passengers who could not sleep because of the noise, got a refund?
> Southwest needs to come up with a Height to Weight table that lists the
> maximum weight a person can weigh at various heights before they are
charged
> for a second seat. Then post this info at the check in line, on their
> website, etc.
It doesn't work. This means you will bill two seats to compact body-builders
and one to people who have dieted their way into close to no lean mass but
lots of light fat. It doesn't take body fat into account either. Belly fat
that extends forward (male apron) is less problematic than gynoid shapes.
> Either way, just a matter of time before some liberal judge turns this
into
> an ADA issue and then all airlines will be forced to upgrade fat people to
> first class, or in the case of southwest give them two seats.
Why not? The companies are *saving* money overall from reducing the seat
sizes. They can fit more passengers in a plane than they could before. But
it means an increasing number of passengers won't fit in they downsized
seats. If you don't call out the bluff at some point, this means they're
going to keep downsizing until they get a majority of people on two seats.
It's a win-win situation; they fit more seats on the plane, and a majority
of people buy two of them.
The alternative is to let them downsize the seats, but require that they
provide accomodation for people that do not fit at no cost. This includes
obese, people on wheelchairs, people who have to keep their legs
stretched... I mean, how much do they charge for handling people in
wheelchairs? Or for assisting blind people?
*bicker*
<ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> escribió:
> How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
Because the seats are wide enough for overweight people.
I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html
Icono Clast
> Am I within my rights on insisting that the armrest between me
> and the neighboring passenger be kept down?
Yes. We purchase space in the form of a seat. We're entitled to get
that for which we pay.
Spammers die said:
> Isn't the key factor width rather than weight?
Yes. I know young woman whose lower body is about as wide as most
door openings. She'd probably fit within most height/weight formulae
that might be concocted for the instant purpose.
Rudy said:
> That said, yes, I'd agree that there should be a . . . test seat.
> If you fit in, fine
Such exist at amusement parks.
Robin King suggested:
> make a few seats bigger.
Same dif'rence. The bigger the seats, the fewer. They'd still have to
charge more for those bigger seats although there might be a 50%
premium for a row with a normal three-seat width but only two seats.
Cheaper'n buying two seats and the revenue for the flight would be
the same presuming two occupants.
> Why aren't you thin folks asking SWA to refund the portion of the
> seat that you didn't use?
People are entitled to use an entire seat, no more. If you don't use
all of it, you're still entitled to do so. If you use more than that
to which you are entitled, you either infringe upon that to which
another person is entitled, not fair to either, or pay for the
additional space you need. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
> Two fat women who were traveling asked SWA if they could buy three
> seats together, sharing the third seat between them. No, you have
> to buy two each, insisted the airline. Why?
I give up. It's obviously unfair.
> I am sure that engineers could find a way to make airline seats
> comfortable for most of us,
They have.
> but they won't do so until there's a demand.
They did because there was. Where y'been?
Please see "My Fat Posts"
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=3a26924c.0405220014.30bf8c3a%40posting.google.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_usubject%3Dfat%26as_uauthors%3Diclast%2540%26lr%3D%26num%3D30%26hl%3Den>
_____________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
SpammersDie
"Robin King" <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BjdZc.539635$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> news:FKFNMZIW38230.9153472222@anonymous.poster...
> | Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
> |
> | POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
> |
> | SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest
> Airlines,
> | saying company employees humiliated her in front of other airplane
> | passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single seat.
> |
> <snip>
>
> If the airline is so concerned, maybe it should
> make a few seats bigger. Most fat people do not
> need an entire extra seat. Does no one realize
> that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
> counting on ill will against fat people to keep
> folks from raising hell about it?
>
> Consider that SWA has charged a fat woman
> for two seats even though she was sitting between
> her small children, who did not take up a whole
> seat each. If that is what they do, then why aren't
> thin people up in arms? Why aren't you thin folks
> asking SWA to refund the portion of the seat that
> you didn't use?
For the same reason that hotel rooms don't refund you if you don't use the
room for the full period and cashiers don't give back 5% of their wages if
their lines are empty 5% of the time and video rentals don't give refunds if
you rent a DVD and never watch it.
Whether or not *you* used every part of the resource during your reserved
period, you prevented the owner from renting any part of that resource to
someone else for that period. So you owe for the entire resource. And
expecting an airline to starting selling *fractions* of a seat when there's
such a tiny market for it is not reasonable.
devil
> Getting an extra seat and being charge one are different matters. By
> downsizing the width of their seats while the population as a whole is
> upsizing, the companies are making a statistical bet.
When were seats downsized?
Guess what. They have had the same width for as long as I can remember,
around 1970.
It's just that you must not have noticed that you were getting fatter I
guess?
Ever heard of self-respect? I for one would find it quite humiliating to
go beg for people's compassion the way some of you unashamedly are.
Just shape up. Will do you good and give you ten more years of life.
AJC
>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:31:36 +0200, Lictor wrote:
>
>
>> Getting an extra seat and being charge one are different matters. By
>> downsizing the width of their seats while the population as a whole is
>> upsizing, the companies are making a statistical bet.
>
>When were seats downsized?
>
>Guess what. They have had the same width for as long as I can remember,
>around 1970.
>
Actually I thought economy seats on some aircraft were getting wider,
for example some 320s and some 777s.
--==++AJC++==--
Lictor
news:pan.2004.09.01....@attglobal.net...
> > Getting an extra seat and being charge one are different matters. By
> > downsizing the width of their seats while the population as a whole is
> > upsizing, the companies are making a statistical bet.
>
> When were seats downsized?
They sure are not getting comfortable. I'm mainly a train user, and the
second class seats there beat the first class seats in plane, as far as
comfort is concerned. Unfortunately, I sometimes have to take the plane.
> Guess what. They have had the same width for as long as I can remember,
> around 1970.
I wasn't borned back then. Maybe I get because my first flights were on
European companies (Air France), while the last ones where on cheap American
companies (United and Delta). The comfort level in the laters was absolutely
terrifying. And I'm not only talking about the seats, everything down to the
junk food they tried to get me to eat was cheap.
> It's just that you must not have noticed that you were getting fatter I
> guess?
I did notice that, though I was still a lot less fat than most Americans
(one reason to love visiting the USA). My main complain is actually with the
*length*, not the width. I don't like travelling with my knee on my face.
But I can feel for people who have a width problem.
Bah, eventually someone will die from a thrombosis (which is a real risk
when packing people tightly), the familly will sue, and we will have more
roomy seats as a result.
> Ever heard of self-respect? I for one would find it quite humiliating to
> go beg for people's compassion the way some of you unashamedly are.
I'm not begging for people compassion. I fit in most seats I can find, thank
you. Contrary to you, I'm able to feel compassion and consider the
interrests of other people beyond myself.
> Just shape up.
Didn't wait for your advice.
> Will do you good and give you ten more years of life.
Several persons in my familly lived to their hundred. I saw them in their
last few years of life. I'm not really interested in ten more years in that
age range.
Lictor
news:4136a3ae....@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> > How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
>
> Because the seats are wide enough for overweight people.
>
> I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
That depends on what you include in "comfortable" I guess... Compared to a
train seat, comfort just plain sucks. No room to stretch your feet, no room
to use a laptop... All the things you can do in a second class train seat.
And at least, you have the option to take a walk in a train. No wonder that
short distance plane travels is mostly dead in Europe, at least the railroad
companies understood that passengers are *also* interested in being
comfortable.
Anyway, you think that *only* 2% of the americans are really obese rather
than overweight (bmi<30)? That seems really low... Why all the talk about
the war on obesity if only 2% of the population is really facing any
*serious* health problems?
Lictor
> Whether or not *you* used every part of the resource during your reserved
> period, you prevented the owner from renting any part of that resource to
> someone else for that period.
Except in that case, renting the resource was *forced* on the woman, even
though she did not want it and didn't use it.
It's like hotel management making you pay for pay-per-view, even if you
didn't want to watch it.
> So you owe for the entire resource. And
> expecting an airline to starting selling *fractions* of a seat when
there's
> such a tiny market for it is not reasonable.
In that case, it's not a fraction of a seat. You had [kid....][fat
woman][....kid], which was plenty enough to seat her, since she could fit
her extra herself in the [...]. But she was *forced* to pay for an
additionnal seat for something like [kid...][fat women][...kid][empty seat].
That's the kind of idiocy you get when you have bureaucraty instead of
common sense at work.
Richard
news:41357ace$0$1577$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net...
> Once, I was seated next to an American businessman,
> who drunk a few whisky and then fell asleep against my
> shoulder and proceeded to snore for the whole flight.
> Was he billed an extra seat too? Did I get a refund because
> of the annoyance?
Why didn't you wake him up or at least push him off of your shoulder?
> Moreover, she made an awful lot of noises,
> Did I, and the other passengers who could not sleep because
> of the noise, got a refund?
Perhaps you haven't read the fine print, but guaranteed near-silence from
surrounding passengers when you want to sleep isn't bundled into the price
of airfare. If want to be able to sleep on any flight you take, you're going
to need to learn to fall asleep and stay asleep in noisy situations.
Richard
AJC
<ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote:
>"*bicker*" <1NV...@1NVAL1D.1NVAL1D> wrote in message
>news:4136a3ae....@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>> > How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
>>
>> Because the seats are wide enough for overweight people.
>>
>> I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
>
>That depends on what you include in "comfortable" I guess... Compared to a
>train seat, comfort just plain sucks. No room to stretch your feet, no room
>to use a laptop... All the things you can do in a second class train seat.
>And at least, you have the option to take a walk in a train. No wonder that
>short distance plane travels is mostly dead in Europe,
You are joking? Short distance plane travel in Europe is booming like
never before.
--==++AJC++==--
Ken Smith
I'd much rather take the Chunnel to Paris from London; it takes a lot
longer to catch a train to Stansted or Gatwick and stand around for at
least an hour in the airport before you hop your 30-minute flight -- and
Orly is further out than Gare du Nord.
Sit back with a bottle of wine, some French bread and a little
cheese, and you're in downtown London in three hours. Can it get any
better?
> --==++AJC++==--
S Viemeister
Matt
"*bicker*" <1NV...@1NVAL1D.1NVAL1D> wrote in message
news:4136a3ae....@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> <ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> escribió:
> > "Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:KZudnYZz38u...@giganews.com...
> > > No, they make seats big enough to fit 99.999% of passengers.
> > How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
>
> Because the seats are wide enough for overweight people.
>
> I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
>
>
> --
I"m just going by my personal experience traveling on Southwest once or
twice a week for the past several years. I always look out for fat people
when boarding because I don't want to get stuck sitting next to them. It's
very rare to seen someone that is so fat they were required to use two
seats.
If it was truly 98% then that would mean almost every Southwest flight would
have, on average, two people that were too fat to fit in their seat. That
is definitely not the case. Let's say 1 in 10 flights had a fat person on
it that couldn't fit in one seat. That would be about 1 passenger in 1,000,
which I think is very conservative. In reality it is probably more like 1
passenger in 10,000.
So, why should the other 999 passengers be put out by having their space
infringed upon, or charged more for tickets because someone can't stop
shoveling food down their mouth. Yes, there are people with medical
problems, but if you only look at them as a percentage of travelers, you're
probably looking at 1 in a 1,000,000.
If you want bigger seats, then fly and airline that has first class and YOU
pay for it. But what you really want is for EVERYONE to pay more by forcing
the airlines to install bigger seats.
Matt
Matt
>> I wasn't borned back then. Maybe I get because my first flights were on
> European companies (Air France), while the last ones where on cheap
American
> companies (United and Delta). The comfort level in the laters was
absolutely
> terrifying. And I'm not only talking about the seats, everything down to
the
> junk food they tried to get me to eat was cheap.
Gee, I didn't know they made special versions of aircraft for European
carriers that are wider than those made for US carriers.
Matt
Lictor
> I'd much rather take the Chunnel to Paris from London; it takes a lot
> longer to catch a train to Stansted or Gatwick and stand around for at
> least an hour in the airport before you hop your 30-minute flight -- and
> Orly is further out than Gare du Nord.
Same here, in my experience, short distance travels are faster in train,
because you go from inner city to inner city. While travelling inside of
France, you have to be crazy to take the plane. It will cost you double the
cost (shuttle or taxi + plane ticket) and you have to spend hours in traffic
jams hoping you won't miss the plane. Then, you have to arrive 30 minutes
before departure with many companies.
On the other hand, I can have a 20 minutes trip in subway and hop in the TGV
a couple of minutes before departure and arrive in the middle of my target
city.
> Sit back with a bottle of wine, some French bread and a little
> cheese, and you're in downtown London in three hours. Can it get any
> better?
Yup. TGV from Lausanne to Paris, with cannabis being almost legal in
Switzerland. Get friendly with some youth in there, and making a trip can
get a whole new meaning. :p Did that quite a few time when I was making that
trip weekly. Sure a hell more fun than using the plane...
Chas
> If you want bigger seats, then fly and airline that has first class and
> YOU
> pay for it. But what you really want is for EVERYONE to pay more by
> forcing
> the airlines to install bigger seats.
They used to have bigger seats- then they found they could pack you like
cattle in a chute and downsized until teeny people and children are
comfortable, or the wealthy, but no one else.
It isn't Procrustes bed, it's a public conveyance. They have to accommodate
wheel-chairs, oxygen tanks, the elderly and the very young- often to the
inconvenience or non-parity with other passengers.
Maybe just make them move to the back of the airbus, neh?
Chas
Bob Myers
"Newcombe" <newc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:i4bZc.348786$%_6.98635@attbi_s01...
> > "I was told that if I even lifted the armrest, I'd be charged for a
second
> > ticket at the next airport," Blake told The Spokesman-Review newspaper.
>
> I commend the airline for sticking up for the other passengers.
I think it's already been well established that the airline has the
right to charge for a second seat in those cases where that's
appropriate. But that's not the issue here. The question is whether
or not the gate agent behaved properly, or acted in such as way
as to publicly humiliate a customer. I'm not going to vote one way
or the other with respect to this incident - I'm quite certain we
do NOT have the whole story, unless somehow the mythical
Purely Objective Eyewitness happens to show up here - but
the point remains that an employee of an airline DOES have some
responsibilities re his or her interactions with the public. This
ISN'T at all a repeat of the "should passenger X have to pay
for a second seat?" issue.
Bob M.
Bob Myers
"Icono Clast" <ICl...@JPS.Net> wrote in message
news:3a26924c.04090...@posting.google.com...
> Newcombe asked:
> > Am I within my rights on insisting that the armrest between me
> > and the neighboring passenger be kept down?
>
> Yes. We purchase space in the form of a seat. We're entitled to get
> that for which we pay.
Not arguing one way or the other, but I think that technically what
you pay for in buying an airline ticket is transportation, not a specific
number of cubic feet within an aircraft that happens to be going
in a convenient direction. In other words, what you have really
paid for, and agreed that the airline will provide, is the service of
getting you from Point A to Point B. You may have some reasonable
expectations relating to comfort, safety, etc., with respect to that
service, but I hardly think that it's as simple as being able to draw
a line around "your" seat and yelling "MINE!"
Bob M.
PTravel
The OP got it right in the subject line -- this is not a discrimination law
suit, but one premised on intentional infliction of emotional distress, i.e.
"humiliation." The woman is not contending that SWA acted improperly in
requiring her to purchase two seats but, rather, the WAY in which it was
handled was humiliating and abusive. The legal test for intentional
infliction is whether the statements made to her were so outrageous as to
cause a reasonable person to suffer the _injury_ of emotional distress. If
the program Airline is an example of how SWA handles this issue, my bet is
that SWA will win this easily.
Bob Myers
>
I'd be curious to know where you came up with
that figure, and what you mean by "fit." My
problem is generally with the pitch - I am
definitely NOT comfortable if I can't get a seat
in the "Economy Plus" section (one reason I
still maintain my frequent flyer status on United
- and God knows there are few enough reasons
these days, but that's another thread). Would
you suggest that I pay for two seats, and have
them remove the one in front of me, or would
it be best just to have my legs shortened by
a few inches before my next trip?
Bob M.
Mike O'sullivan
> cheese, and you're in downtown London in three hours. Can it get any
> better?
You'll need to take it with you, the food on board Eurostar is crap.
nobody
> The OP got it right in the subject line -- this is not a discrimination law
> suit, but one premised on intentional infliction of emotional distress, i.e.
> "humiliation."
An overweight person who wants to take public transit (of which airline travel
is a part of), has to expect his/her size to be an issue.
I have seen one airline episode where the "person of size" took it in good
stride and didn't kick a big fuss about it. Then you have other episodes
where they show passengers who make a big fuss about being discriminated
against etc etc.
Those who do not make a big fuss are treated well by the crew and not
"humiliated" because neither the pax nor the employee create a big scene
seen/heard by all the people in and around the area.
But when a passenger starts to make a big fuss about a situation, then it is
the passengers who attracts the attention and thus any humiliation is the
passenger's fault.
And guess what ? Southwest and other airlines shoudl be commended for this
policy, because for each passengers who is told they are so fat they need to
buy two seats, chances are that a certain percentage will be forced to accept
their status and perhaps get off their big butts and do some exercise and
control their eating.
Perhaps some people get mad at the airport because they always refused to
accept the fact that they are overweight, and now at the airport, they are
confronted with the hard fact that they are so overwesight that they need to
buy 2 seats, so this isn't so easy for them to accept. But that is not the
fault of the airline.
The Voice of Reason
>
> How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
> I mean, even when I was slim with low body fat, just being muscular (large)
> and tall (long legs) made these seats uncomfortable. There also health
> issues, since sitting with your knees at sharp angle can lead to phlebitis
> (which happens in overweight or thin people).
Yes seats are generally too small, but most people, even most
overweight people, can fit into a single seat. It crosses the line
when someone's body infringes on someone else's personal space due to
their obesity.
PeterL
"PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:2pmivvF...@uni-berlin.de...
I would agree that unless something is amiss, SWA handles these kinds of
situation appropriately. But that is no guarantee that they'll win the case
easily.
>
PTravel
"nobody" <nob...@nobody.org> wrote in message
news:4136219B...@nobody.org...
I agree with everything you've written here (did you see Monday's Airline
episode? -- it was one of those "throw a scene" passengers of size). The
only thing I'll add is even if the plaintiff in this latest lawsuit was
treated rudely, "rudeness" is not actionable. It takes quite a lot to rise
to the level of intentional infliction, not the least of which is an intent
to do harm to person to whom the statements are made.
PTravel
"PeterL" <pet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2pmm07F...@uni-berlin.de...
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a particularly difficult
tort to prove. As I said in another post, mere rudeness isn't remotely
close to what's required to establish liability. The conduct has to be so
outrageous as to cause any _reasonable_ person to suffer significant
distress. Generally, "distress" means actual, physical symptoms.
I, literally, cannot imagine anything that a gate agent might say or do
which would rise to the level of actionable intentional infliction.
>
> >
>
>
MC
"Robin King" <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BjdZc.539635$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Dennis" <adejoo...@via.net> wrote in message
> news:FKFNMZIW38230.9153472222@anonymous.poster...
> | Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
> |
> | POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
> |
> | SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest
> Airlines,
> | saying company employees humiliated her in front of other airplane
> | passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single seat.
> |
> <snip>
>
> If the airline is so concerned, maybe it should
> need an entire extra seat.
They do. They are in Business Class and First Class.
MC
PeterL
I can, however, easily imagine a jury ruling for the plaintiff.
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Matt
"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CMKdnU39c_H...@comcast.com...
> "Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote
> > If you want bigger seats, then fly and airline that has first class and
> > YOU
> > pay for it. But what you really want is for EVERYONE to pay more by
> > forcing
> > the airlines to install bigger seats.
>
> They used to have bigger seats- then they found they could pack you like
> cattle in a chute and downsized until teeny people and children are
> comfortable, or the wealthy, but no one else.
737's have been around for what....25-30 years. They've always been six
seats across, so not sure what gives you the idea that they used to have
bigger seats. I'm not a teeny person or wealthy, but have no complaints
about the size of airline seats. It shouldn't be hard to understand that
airline seats are as large as they need to be to meet the demands of
passengers. If there was a huge market of passengers that were willing to
pay more for larger seats, then there would be an airline that has larger
seats. But, what do passengers look for when booking a flight? Three
things....what airline flys the route, what time does it depart/arrive and
how much is the ticket. No one care about the size of seats.
> It isn't Procrustes bed, it's a public conveyance. They have to
accommodate
> wheel-chairs, oxygen tanks, the elderly and the very young- often to the
> inconvenience or non-parity with other passengers.
> Maybe just make them move to the back of the airbus, neh?
>
> Chas
>
Wrong, it's not a public conveyance. It's a private company that provides a
service that must compete with other private companies. It should not be
subjected to the same requirements as a public bus.
Matt
Bud A Bing
> Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a particularly difficult
> tort to prove. As I said in another post, mere rudeness isn't remotely
> close to what's required to establish liability. The conduct has to be so
> outrageous as to cause any _reasonable_ person to suffer significant
> distress. Generally, "distress" means actual, physical symptoms.
>
> I, literally, cannot imagine anything that a gate agent might say or do
> which would rise to the level of actionable intentional infliction.
>
In my years of travel, I can honestly say that I've contacted only a *few*
Rude Airline Employees. For the most part, they're OK. I'm also
considering the possibility of "Self Humiliation". Many times, I've
witnessed Airline Employees quitely talking, when the passenger totally
explodes, and starts yelling, and making statements, (Sometimes stupid).
Now EVERYONE in the gate area knows what's going on.
Matt
"Bob Myers" <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:CDoZc.9324$J74....@news.cpqcorp.net...
Well how tall are you? If you have a problem with the seat pitch, you must
be at least 6' 7" or 6' 8" tall. That means less than one person in 5,000
or 10,000 is as tall as you. So, like the fat person, why should the rest
of us pay for your abnormal body dimensions?
source: http://www.tallpages.com/uk/index.php?pag=ukstatist.php
Matt
Matt
> > I, literally, cannot imagine anything that a gate agent might say or do
> > which would rise to the level of actionable intentional infliction.
> >
>
> I can, however, easily imagine a jury ruling for the plaintiff.
>
>
Or a judge finding that ADA regulations require airlines to add special
oversized seats for overweight or wheelchair-bound people.
Matt
Robin King
news:10940683...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
|
| "Robin King" <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| news:BjdZc.539635$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > make a few seats bigger. Most fat people do not
| > need an entire extra seat.
|
| They do. They are in Business Class and First Class.
|
| MC
In that case, you are still paying a great deal extra for
amenities you could do without. There's a lot of variation
in people. Some seats could be made wider, others could
be made with more legroom. Yes, there would be some
extra charge, but surely less than that for two full seats, and
way less than for business/first class.
Robin
LARRY THE CABLE GUY
>
>Yes. I know young woman whose lower body is about as wide as most
>door openings. She'd probably fit within most height/weight formulae
>that might be concocted for the instant purpose.
>
>
That would be a ghetto booty, therefore most guys wouldn't mind!
>> seats together, sharing the third seat between them. No, you have
>> to buy two each, insisted the airline. Why?
>
>I give up. It's obviously unfair.
>
>> I am sure that engineers could find a way to make airline seats
>> comfortable for most of us,
>
>They have.
>
>> but they won't do so until there's a demand.
>
>They did because there was. Where y'been?
>
>Please see "My Fat Posts"
><http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=3a26924c.0405220014.30bf8c3a%40posting.google.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_usubject%3Dfat%26as_uauthors%3Diclast%2540%26lr%3D%26num%3D30%26hl%3Den>
>_____________________________________________________________
> A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
>http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
>ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Robin King
| "devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| news:pan.2004.09.01....@attglobal.net...
|
| I did notice that, though I was still a lot less fat than most
Americans
| (one reason to love visiting the USA). My main complain is actually
with the
| *length*, not the width. I don't like travelling with my knee on my
face.
| But I can feel for people who have a width problem.
| Bah, eventually someone will die from a thrombosis (which is a real
risk
| when packing people tightly), the familly will sue, and we will have
more
| roomy seats as a result.
Interesting that you should mention that. Here is an article
on just that subject:
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/medical/dvt.htm
Robin
Dave C.
> Isn't the key factor width rather than weight?
I've known a few women who wear size 20ish pants who I would LOVE to sit
next to in coach class. :) If you are a woman, you don't even need to be
obese to need large pants . . . you just need big hips, which is a common
problem in women. Depending on your body build, you could easily need size
20ish pants and only weigh about 200 pounds or so. (overweight but not
obese, depending on other factors such as height in particular) To me
though, the girl in this story looks obese in the video. I mean, to try
(and fail) to put it nicely, it's not just her hips that appear large. I'd
guess she tops 300 pounds easily, but then the camera does add
eight. -Dave
john
Reason) wrote:
I think it is TOTALLY unfair for SWA to stop a passenger on the RETURN
trip and tell the passenger they must buy two seats to return home.
If SWA did not demand that the passenger buy two seats before he
boarded the first leg of his trip then they should not be able to make
that demand on the return trip.
Bob Myers
> Well how tall are you? If you have a problem with the seat pitch, you
must
> be at least 6' 7" or 6' 8" tall.
Geeze - how tall are YOU, that you think that only those
6' 7" or taller would be uncomfortable with the "standard"
coach seat pitch? FYI, I'm a bit over 6', but a good deal
of my height happens to be in my legs - not an uncommon
condition. Standard coach is tolerable for short flights,
but definitely not what I would call "comfortable." Add in
the need (usually) to stow a carry-on under the seat in
front, and it's pretty cramped.
> That means less than one person in 5,000
> or 10,000 is as tall as you. So, like the fat person, why should the rest
> of us pay for your abnormal body dimensions?
That "one in 5,000" nonsense is only valid if you assume
that you DO in fact have to be 6' 7" before you want
more legroom. If we assume the same criteria as you have
for the "how wide can you be before needing a
second seat?" question (i.e., the passenger needs to
pay for a second seat if they're touching the adjacent
passenger otherwise), that assumption is wrong. If I'm
in coach, and especially if the passenger in front of me
wants to recline, the chances are very good the my
knees will be in their back.
I have a better idea; suppose we divide the plane up
into various seating sections, and we assign people
to them based on overall size. Since you, apparently,
are "average size" or below, surely you won't mind
sitting in the section that's 8 across and has a seat
pitch of 25"? After all, you won't be any more
uncomfortable in YOUR seat than I will be in mine,
then...:-) :-) :-) In other words, why should we both
pay the same amount for a ticket, and yet get unequally
degrees of comfort, due solely to factors over which
neither of us can control?
Bob M.
Bob Ward
wrote:
Gee - each carrier is free to configure their equipment as they see
fit.
Matt
"john" <z23456789...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u9hcj05363oujohkk...@4ax.com...
I agree, and I think the only result of this lawsuit is going to be SWA
pushing their employees to be much more strict in enforcing their policy
uniformly without exceptions or judgment allowed on the part of the agent.
Matt
_News Server_
> Robin King wrote:
>> "Dennis" <adejoo...@via.net> wrote in message
>> news:FKFNMZIW38230.9153472222@anonymous.poster...
>>> Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
>>>
>>> POSTED: 3:10 pm PDT August 30, 2004
>>>
>>> SPOKANE, Wash. -- An Eastern Washington woman has sued Southwest
>>> Airlines, saying company employees humiliated her in front of other
>>> airplane passengers by suggesting she was too fat to fit in a single
>>> seat.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> make a few seats bigger.
>
> It's called First Class, and if you ass is
> too obese for a coach seat, cough up the $$
> for First Class, or walk/swim to your destination.
>
> Maybe then you wouldn't be such a pig, eh?
>
>> Most fat people do not
>> that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
>> counting on ill will against fat people to keep
>> folks from raising hell about it?
>
> We don't hate the fat people, we just hate the fat.
>
>>
>> Consider that SWA has charged a fat woman
>> for two seats even though she was sitting between
>> her small children, who did not take up a whole
>> seat each.
>
> Did the children have full-fare tickets?
>
>> If that is what they do, then why aren't
>> thin people up in arms?
>
> Because they aren't grotesquely obese like you?
>
>> Why aren't you thin folks
>> asking SWA to refund the portion of the seat that
>> you didn't use?
>
> What next? You gonna whine when they charge you for
> oversize or overweight baggage?
>
>>
>> Two fat women who were traveling asked SWA
>> if they could buy three seats together, sharing the
>> third seat between them. No, you have to buy two
>> each, insisted the airline. Why?
>
> be used by others who aren't named on the ticket?
> After all, if someone purchases a seat, what difference
> does it matter who sits there?
>
>>
>> I am sure that engineers could find a way to make
>> airline seats comfortable for most of us,
>
> and charge 3x a much for tickets.
>
>> but they
>> won't do so until there's a demand.
>
> of Chunky Monkey and drop a few pounds, porky.
>
>>
>> Robin
>
PeterL
It's always going to be a judgement call. How is it going to be objective
unless they're going to measure everyone's tush?
> Matt
>
>
Chas
> Wrong, it's not a public conveyance. It's a private company that provides
> a
> service that must compete with other private companies. It should not be
> subjected to the same requirements as a public bus.
Then we shouldn't subsidize them with public money either, neh?
Chas
*bicker*
<ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> escribió:
> "*bicker*" <1NV...@1NVAL1D.1NVAL1D> wrote in message
> news:4136a3ae....@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> > > How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
> > I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
> That depends on what you include in "comfortable" I guess...
No one here is talking about comfort. Read the thread.
Southwest doesn't measure comfort -- it measures the ability
to sit without overlapping into the next seat.
> Anyway, you think that *only* 2% of the americans are really obese rather
> than overweight (bmi<30)?
Again, you haven't been following the thread, so it isn't
surprising that you don't understand what we're talking
about.
--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html
*bicker*
<some...@somewhere.com> escribió:
> > I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
> have, on average, two people that were too fat to fit in their seat. That
> is definitely not the case. Let's say 1 in 10 flights had a fat person on
> it that couldn't fit in one seat. That would be about 1 passenger in 1,000,
> which I think is very conservative. In reality it is probably more like 1
> passenger in 10,000.
Hmm.... okay... so 98% is perhaps an underestimation.
However, I think you're numbers are still off. I doubt that
it is one-in-ten flights. I could believe that it is
one-in-ten flights where there is both an overwide person
AND no empty seats in the flight.
So I'm going to float 99.5%.
--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html
*bicker*
<z23456789...@sbcglobal.net> escribió:
> I think it is TOTALLY unfair for SWA to stop a passenger on the RETURN
> trip and tell the passenger they must buy two seats to return home.
I think you're wrong. The airline asks overwide passengers
to purchase the number of seats he/she occupies. If the
passenger chooses not to do so, then that is their problem.
--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html
anonymous
ADA specifically exempts air carriers.
Matt
"Bob Ward" <bob...@email.com> wrote in message
news:l6jcj0huqu52pfi3p...@4ax.com...
So aircraft that are configured 6 seats across on US carriers are only 5
seats across on European carriers? Don't think so.
Matt
Matt
You are correct. We should not subsidize them with public money. And for
the most part, we do not, at least in the same way that public
transportation is funded.
Matt
Matt
"*bicker*" <1NV...@1NVAL1D.1NVAL1D> wrote in message
Well, we could argue all day about what the exact figure is. No one really
knows. All I do know is that I've flown southwest once or twice a week for
the past several years and have been on a lot of flights that are 100% full.
I've never seen a case where a fat person had to take two seats on a full
flight. Although it does sound like Southwest might be enforcing the rule
more stringently as of late, so maybe I will see it happen soon.
Matt
Matt
"Bob Myers" <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:AKadndmN_O1...@giganews.com...
> > Well how tall are you? If you have a problem with the seat pitch, you
> must
> > be at least 6' 7" or 6' 8" tall.
>
> Geeze - how tall are YOU, that you think that only those
> 6' 7" or taller would be uncomfortable with the "standard"
> coach seat pitch? FYI, I'm a bit over 6', but a good deal
> of my height happens to be in my legs - not an uncommon
> condition. Standard coach is tolerable for short flights,
> but definitely not what I would call "comfortable." Add in
> the need (usually) to stow a carry-on under the seat in
> front, and it's pretty cramped.
I'm 6'1" and don't have a problem with a standard seat pitch. Yes of course
it's always nice to have extra room, I don't have a problem with that as
long as the person that wants/needs the extra room is the person that pays
for it.
> I have a better idea; suppose we divide the plane up
> into various seating sections, and we assign people
> to them based on overall size. Since you, apparently,
> are "average size" or below, surely you won't mind
> sitting in the section that's 8 across and has a seat
> pitch of 25"? After all, you won't be any more
> uncomfortable in YOUR seat than I will be in mine,
> then...:-) :-) :-) In other words, why should we both
> pay the same amount for a ticket, and yet get unequally
> degrees of comfort, due solely to factors over which
> neither of us can control?
>
> Bob M.
>
I think that's a great idea, but YOU SHOULD PAY MORE THAN ME if you
need/want more room. You're not paying for comfort, you're paying for cubic
feet of space on the aircraft. Why should a smaller person or someone who
is willing to sit in a smaller seat subsidize YOUR comfort???
Matt
Matt
"anonymous" <anon...@anon.anon> wrote in message
news:EzuZc.7972$Gi1....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
For now maybe. Meeting ADA requirements has always been a moving target.
It wouldn't surprise me if in 10 or 15 years, ADA was amended to include
airlines.
Matt
Paul Robinson
> Gee, I didn't know they made special versions of aircraft for European
> carriers that are wider than those made for US carriers.
I believe most European carriers are using French-Made Airbus while U.S.
Carriers tend to buy U.S. Made Boeing aircraft. I know there was some
talk when Airbus got a big sale to a U.S. carrier.
PTRAVEL
>> > > One thing needs to be made very clear:
>> > >
>> > > The OP got it right in the subject line -- this is not a
> discrimination
>> > law
>> > > suit, but one premised on intentional infliction of emotional
> distress,
>> > i.e.
>> > > "humiliation." The woman is not contending that SWA acted improperly
> in
>> > > requiring her to purchase two seats but, rather, the WAY in which it
> was
>> > > handled was humiliating and abusive. The legal test for intentional
>> > > infliction is whether the statements made to her were so outrageous
>> > > as
>> to
>> > > cause a reasonable person to suffer the _injury_ of emotional
> distress.
>> > If
>> > > the program Airline is an example of how SWA handles this issue, my
> bet
>> is
>> > > that SWA will win this easily.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I would agree that unless something is amiss, SWA handles these kinds
>> > of
>> > situation appropriately. But that is no guarantee that they'll win the
>> case
>> > easily.
>>
>> Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a particularly difficult
>> tort to prove. As I said in another post, mere rudeness isn't remotely
>> close to what's required to establish liability. The conduct has to be
>> so
>> outrageous as to cause any _reasonable_ person to suffer significant
>> distress. Generally, "distress" means actual, physical symptoms.
>>
>> which would rise to the level of actionable intentional infliction.
>>
>
> I can, however, easily imagine a jury ruling for the plaintiff.
I can't. Juries have to follow the judge's instructions, which are quite
explicit. I've yet to do a trial in which I thought the jury was wrong.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
PTRAVEL
"Bud A Bing" <b...@bing.net> wrote in message
news:W8qZc.12287$ZR....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>> tort to prove. As I said in another post, mere rudeness isn't remotely
>> close to what's required to establish liability. The conduct has to be
>> so
>> outrageous as to cause any _reasonable_ person to suffer significant
>> distress. Generally, "distress" means actual, physical symptoms.
>>
>> I, literally, cannot imagine anything that a gate agent might say or do
>> which would rise to the level of actionable intentional infliction.
>>
> Rude Airline Employees. For the most part, they're OK. I'm also
> considering the possibility of "Self Humiliation". Many times, I've
> witnessed Airline Employees quitely talking, when the passenger totally
> explodes, and starts yelling, and making statements, (Sometimes stupid).
> Now EVERYONE in the gate area knows what's going on.
>
I agree completely. "Airline"is a good example of passengers who
self-humiliate.
>
Bob Ward
wrote:
If they see fit to configure them that way, that's the way they will
be configured. I don't think I can put it in any simpler terms.
To see for yourself how various airlines confgure their aircraft, see
http://www.seatguru.com/home.shtml.
Lady Veteran
Hash: SHA1
On 1 Sep 2004 02:58:06 -0000, adejoo...@via.net (Dennis) wrote:
>Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
You have nothing better to do than repost alarmist bullshit, right?
No other airline disrespect people as much as southwest. If a person
can use one seat they should have to pay for only one seat.
That is what happens when idiots get into positions of authority.
Soon SWA will be a very POOR airline.
Fat people have fat wallets too... you will see.
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.
- ---------------------------------------------
For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
- -Unknown
- -------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBQTaMcMjazA1WMM1JEQLpowCfVpZ6/z0cc+od/oJPk0z5cQxFO6EAoMVl
c+gL2kbDfAsaQ754vZ0VWDqB
=4FYu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
anonymous
Of course, airlines generally have the same number of seats per row, in
most rows, for the same type of aircraft. It doesn't differ between US
and non US carriers. Seat width hasn't noticeably changed in many years
and it is primarily determined by the width of the aircraft.
Newcombe
> This 'confrontation' was the subject of the TV Program "Airline" (All
> Southwest Airline 'adventures') on A&E yesterday.
> She is definitely MORE than "overweight" ..her butt is bigger than my
> garbage can !
>
> That said, yes, I'd agree that there should be a "Butt Template" or test
> seat. If you fit in, fine..If the Siren and Flashing Red and Blue lights are
> set off... its "Two Tickets" one for each size 22 cheek.
That sounds right to me. Just have a sample airline seat right there.
You can't fit in it, you pay extra. They have the same thing for
carry-on luggage.
The next time some fat woman wants to leave the armrest up, I'm going to
complain to the cabin crew and have either her or me re-seated. These
people all think that WE have to accomodate ourselves to them.
N.
Matt
"Paul Robinson" <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
news:9evZc.3121$A63.2391@trnddc09...
There are plenty of European carriers that use Boeing jets and plenty of US
carriers that use Airbus. Show me a European airline and a US airline that
both use the same type of aircraft where the Europen aircraft has fewer
seats per row for comparable class of ticket.
Matt
Matt
"Lady Veteran" <arm...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:qs2dj0hasq0ssqe7h...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 1 Sep 2004 02:58:06 -0000, adejoo...@via.net (Dennis) wrote:
>
> >Woman Sues Airline For Humiliation Over Her Weight
>
> You have nothing better to do than repost alarmist bullshit, right?
>
> No other airline disrespect people as much as southwest. If a person
> can use one seat they should have to pay for only one seat.
Exactly, and if a person needs two seats they should pay for two seats.
Glad we agree.
>
> That is what happens when idiots get into positions of authority.
> Soon SWA will be a very POOR airline.
SWA is pretty much the only airline making any money, while at the same time
driving other airlines out of business.
Plus, don't they have some of the highest customer satisfaction ratings?
Matt
The Voice of Reason
> trip and tell the passenger they must buy two seats to return home.
>
> boarded the first leg of his trip then they should not be able to make
> that demand on the return trip.
So airlines are not allowed to change their policies? They have to be
set in stone for eternity? I din't think so. Also, the problem may
just have been missed the first time. You may as well argue that if
you manage to sneak a knife on the first leg of the trip then it's
unfair if you're not allowed it on when you go back.
The Voice of Reason
> > I agree, and I think the only result of this lawsuit is going to be SWA
> > pushing their employees to be much more strict in enforcing their policy
> > uniformly without exceptions or judgment allowed on the part of the agent.
>
> It's always going to be a judgement call. How is it going to be objective
> unless they're going to measure everyone's tush?
It's quite simple:
If a person is wide enough so they infrige on the seats on either side
of them, or the aisle, or they restrict the movement of the armrest
for people sitting next to them, then they are classified as too large
and must buy each seat they infrige upon. If the seats are taken, or
the person does not wish to buy them, then the person must leave the
plane. If the plane is full then the ticket should not be refunded as
it has stopped someone else getting on the plane.
The Voice of Reason
>
> that you DO in fact have to be 6' 7" before you want
> more legroom. If we assume the same criteria as you have
> for the "how wide can you be before needing a
> second seat?" question (i.e., the passenger needs to
> pay for a second seat if they're touching the adjacent
> passenger otherwise), that assumption is wrong. If I'm
> in coach, and especially if the passenger in front of me
> wants to recline, the chances are very good the my
> knees will be in their back.
I think if someone is so tall that they infringe upon the person in
front of them then they should have to pay for the seat in front.
Perhaps there should be a law mandating minimum seat size so as not to
crush anyone but the most tall. I have sympathy for tall people
because you don't choose your height.
> I have a better idea; suppose we divide the plane up
> into various seating sections, and we assign people
> to them based on overall size. Since you, apparently,
> are "average size" or below, surely you won't mind
> sitting in the section that's 8 across and has a seat
> pitch of 25"? After all, you won't be any more
> uncomfortable in YOUR seat than I will be in mine,
> then...:-) :-) :-) In other words, why should we both
> pay the same amount for a ticket, and yet get unequally
> degrees of comfort, due solely to factors over which
> neither of us can control?
Well, we were talking about fat people, weight isn't a factor you
can't control, but height is, therefore I have much sympathy for tall
people.
The Voice of Reason
> "SpammersDie" <y...@y.yyy> wrote in message
> news:tsiZc.540462$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Whether or not *you* used every part of the resource during your reserved
> > period, you prevented the owner from renting any part of that resource to
> > someone else for that period.
>
> Except in that case, renting the resource was *forced* on the woman, even
> though she did not want it and didn't use it.
> It's like hotel management making you pay for pay-per-view, even if you
> didn't want to watch it.
Forced? No-one forced her to take up the seat. Your analogy is flawed,
it would be like the hotel including the average electricity cost in
your bill even if you keep the lights off and use a torch, or like
going to a bed and breakfast and expecting a discount because you're
not eating breakfast. Your analogy is flawed further as if the person
in the hotel doesn't watch pay-per-view, it doesn't cost them. If a
small person takes up half an aeroplane seat, no-one else can use the
rest of the seat.
> In that case, it's not a fraction of a seat. You had [kid....][fat
> woman][....kid], which was plenty enough to seat her, since she could fit
> her extra herself in the [...]. But she was *forced* to pay for an
> additionnal seat for something like [kid...][fat women][...kid][empty seat].
> That's the kind of idiocy you get when you have bureaucraty instead of
> common sense at work.
Common sense would have the fat person's extra weight taken from their
baggage allowance, or extra surcharges based on weight (i.e. extra
fuel consumption).
The Voice of Reason
>
> In that case, you are still paying a great deal extra for
> amenities you could do without. There's a lot of variation
> in people. Some seats could be made wider, others could
> be made with more legroom. Yes, there would be some
> extra charge, but surely less than that for two full seats, and
> way less than for business/first class.
Well, if four normal seats in the middle of the plane are replaced
with two over-sized seats, then you'd think it would be double the
cost. Also don't forget that with seats for fat people, you'd have to
have an aisle right next to everyone of them, reducing the number of
seats you could have. This is because fat people would not be allowed
to be between someone else and the aisle else they would block their
passage. A fat person would be less inclined or able to move out of
the way every time someone wanted to get out.
Matt
<Tenisha Brown> wrote in message
news:ehbdj051ngnaqpked...@4ax.com...
>
> Why do these huge people need to fly anyhow?
> A train would be more appropriate for them.
> In case of an emergency they represent a hazard for the other air
> passengers.
> They can also travel via a Hummer or some other kind of truck.
>
> By the way, it not only airplanes. Did you ever have one of them try
> to crowd you out of your movie house seat? They don't need to go to a
> movie house. Let them stay home and watch the TV and then they can
> feed their face during the entire movie and they can lay on the couch
> rather than sit up. I see one of them doing it my house all the time.
> But her lazy butt has not yet grown into the couch fabric.
>
> Tenisha
>
>
Ya, they shouldn't be allowed in public.
Matt
Rudy
> If the airline is so concerned, maybe it should
> make a few seats bigger.
They do, its called first class
> Does no one realize
> that it's going to make seats as small as possible,
> counting on ill will against fat people to keep
> folks from raising hell about it?
Seats on discount airlines are squeezed in to maximize carrying capacity.
Larger seats=fewer PAX=higher tkt prices.
Want a bigger seat, go first class and pay the difference. 99% of people
fit into these discount seats and are happy to pay the $ 99.00 fare that
goes with them.
> I am sure that engineers could find a way to make
> airline seats comfortable for most of us, but they
> won't do so until there's a demand.
Show them the money, get a bigger seat.
AJC
>AJC wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:14:26 +0200, "Lictor"
>> <ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote:
>>>"*bicker*" <1NV...@1NVAL1D.1NVAL1D> wrote in message
>>>news:4136a3ae....@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>>How is that possible when 60% of America is overweight?
>>>>
>>>>Because the seats are wide enough for overweight people.
>>>>
>>>>I think 99.999% is an overestimation... more like 98%.
>>>
>>>That depends on what you include in "comfortable" I guess... Compared to a
>>>train seat, comfort just plain sucks. No room to stretch your feet, no room
>>>to use a laptop... All the things you can do in a second class train seat.
>>>And at least, you have the option to take a walk in a train. No wonder that
>>>short distance plane travels is mostly dead in Europe,
>>
>> You are joking? Short distance plane travel in Europe is booming like
>> never before.
>
> I'd much rather take the Chunnel to Paris from London; it takes a lot
>longer to catch a train to Stansted or Gatwick and stand around for at
>least an hour in the airport before you hop your 30-minute flight -- and
>Orly is further out than Gare du Nord.
>
> Sit back with a bottle of wine, some French bread and a little
>cheese, and you're in downtown London in three hours. Can it get any
>better?
>
Your preferences may or may not be very interesting, but that doesn't
deter from the fact that the other poster's assertion that: 'short
distance plane travels is mostly dead in Europe' is pure nonsense.
--==++AJC++==--
Rudy
> If you want bigger seats, then fly and airline that has first class and
YOU
> pay for it. But what you really want is for EVERYONE to pay more by
forcing
> the airlines to install bigger seats.
Hey! I want THEM to pay the extra $2.00 I have to pay to get a 2XL shirt
and $ 2.00 more for "TALL" over the price of the XL !
(But I do fit in a regular coach seat)
AJC
<ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote:
>"Ken Smith" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:4135FCC3...@it.com...
>> I'd much rather take the Chunnel to Paris from London; it takes a lot
>> longer to catch a train to Stansted or Gatwick and stand around for at
>> least an hour in the airport before you hop your 30-minute flight -- and
>> Orly is further out than Gare du Nord.
>
>Same here, in my experience, short distance travels are faster in train,
>because you go from inner city to inner city. While travelling inside of
>France, you have to be crazy to take the plane. It will cost you double the
>cost (shuttle or taxi + plane ticket) and you have to spend hours in traffic
>jams hoping you won't miss the plane. Then, you have to arrive 30 minutes
>before departure with many companies.
>On the other hand, I can have a 20 minutes trip in subway and hop in the TGV
>a couple of minutes before departure and arrive in the middle of my target
>city.
>
>> Sit back with a bottle of wine, some French bread and a little
>> cheese, and you're in downtown London in three hours. Can it get any
>> better?
>
>Yup. TGV from Lausanne to Paris, with cannabis being almost legal in
>Switzerland. Get friendly with some youth in there, and making a trip can
>get a whole new meaning. :p Did that quite a few time when I was making that
>trip weekly. Sure a hell more fun than using the plane...
>
Again, very interesting, but your previous comment that: 'short
AJC
<chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote
>> If you want bigger seats, then fly and airline that has first class and
>> YOU
>> pay for it. But what you really want is for EVERYONE to pay more by
>> forcing
>> the airlines to install bigger seats.
>
>They used to have bigger seats-
No, 'they' didn't actually. Your'e making that up.
--==++AJC++==--
AJC
wrote:
>
>"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:CMKdnU39c_H...@comcast.com...
>> "Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote
>> > If you want bigger seats, then fly and airline that has first class and
>> > YOU
>> > pay for it. But what you really want is for EVERYONE to pay more by
>> > forcing
>> > the airlines to install bigger seats.
>>
>> They used to have bigger seats- then they found they could pack you like
>> cattle in a chute and downsized until teeny people and children are
>> comfortable, or the wealthy, but no one else.
>
>737's have been around for what....25-30 years.
For even longer than that, actually, always with the same cross
section, and the same width seats.
>They've always been six
>seats across, so not sure what gives you the idea that they used to have
>bigger seats. I'm not a teeny person or wealthy, but have no complaints
>about the size of airline seats. It shouldn't be hard to understand that
>airline seats are as large as they need to be to meet the demands of
>passengers. If there was a huge market of passengers that were willing to
>pay more for larger seats, then there would be an airline that has larger
>seats. But, what do passengers look for when booking a flight? Three
>things....what airline flys the route, what time does it depart/arrive and
>how much is the ticket. No one care about the size of seats.
>
--==++AJC++==--
AJC
<chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Matt" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote
>> Wrong, it's not a public conveyance. It's a private company that provides
>> a
>> service that must compete with other private companies. It should not be
>> subjected to the same requirements as a public bus.
>
>Then we shouldn't subsidize them with public money either, neh?
>
>Chas
>
No, you shouldn't be. Well run airlines don't need subsidies. What is
a 'neh' by the way?
--==++AJC++==--
Rudy
> It's always going to be a judgement call. How is it going to be objective
> unless they're going to measure everyone's tush?
Send me your credit card info and we'll UPS you our new
"ACME BUTT TEMPLATE"..$ 19.95 plus S&H
"don't be surprised at the airport, before you leave home, slide into your
ACME"
[( )( )]
AJC
wrote:
>
>"Lictor" <ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote in message
>news:4135f448$0$30895$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
>>> I wasn't borned back then. Maybe I get because my first flights were on
>> European companies (Air France), while the last ones where on cheap
>American
>> companies (United and Delta). The comfort level in the laters was
>absolutely
>> terrifying. And I'm not only talking about the seats, everything down to
>the
>> junk food they tried to get me to eat was cheap.
>
>Gee, I didn't know they made special versions of aircraft for European
>carriers that are wider than those made for US carriers.
>
>Matt
>
Well, the single aisle Airbus models with 3-3 seating are wider than
the single aisle Boeing models with 3-3 seating, but of course many US
carriers now have the former in their fleets:-)
--==++AJC++==--
AJC
wrote:
>
>"Bob Ward" <bob...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:l6jcj0huqu52pfi3p...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:03:30 -0700, "Matt" <some...@somewhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Lictor" <ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote in message
>> >news:4135f448$0$30895$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
>> >>> I wasn't borned back then. Maybe I get because my first flights were
>on
>> >> European companies (Air France), while the last ones where on cheap
>> >American
>> >> companies (United and Delta). The comfort level in the laters was
>> >absolutely
>> >> terrifying. And I'm not only talking about the seats, everything down
>to
>> >the
>> >> junk food they tried to get me to eat was cheap.
>> >
>> >Gee, I didn't know they made special versions of aircraft for European
>> >carriers that are wider than those made for US carriers.
>> >
>> >Matt
>> >
>>
>> Gee - each carrier is free to configure their equipment as they see
>> fit.
>>
>
>So aircraft that are configured 6 seats across on US carriers are only 5
>seats across on European carriers? Don't think so.
>
>Matt
>
Indeed quite the opposite. The BAe 146/ARJ models are frequently
operated in a very tight 3-3 layout in Europe, but only ever in 2-3 in
the US. Also of course 777s are operated 10 across by several airlines
around the wolrd, but only ever in 9 across by US airlines.
--==++AJC++==--
Rudy
> Getting an extra seat and being charge one are different matters. By
> downsizing the width of their seats while the population as a whole is
> upsizing, the companies are making a statistical bet. It's normal that
they
> lose money on that bet from time to time. Otherwise, this is encouraging
> them to make their seats as small as possible. After all, once every
people
> with a bmi above 22 have to buy two seats, they will earn a lot more
> money... Here comes the one feet wide seats...
Some Japan Airlines domestic 747 flights have over 500 seats..US Carriers
747's are somewhere around 100 less IIRC.
Try fitting into one of THOSE seats
Rudy
> So aircraft that are configured 6 seats across on US carriers are only 5
> seats across on European carriers? Don't think so.
Hawaiian Airlines DC-10 s from the West Coast to HI had an extra seat in the
center row VS United's.
Rudy
> | Bah, eventually someone will die from a thrombosis (which is a real
> risk | when packing people tightly), the familly will sue, and we will
have
> more | roomy seats as a result.
Hey, take your lawyer on the new DIRECT 15+ hr flights from Toronto to Hong
Kong.
15 Hours in an airline seat, Ouch!
Fortunately, I have enough FF Miles for a "Business class" seat for our trip
to NewZealand.
Rudy
> The question is whether
> or not the gate agent behaved properly, or acted in such as way
> as to publicly humiliate a customer.
It was on TV. The incident was filmed for an episode of "Airline". The agent
spoke quietly and respectfully to the customer and explained the policy.
The large customer was shouting and carrying on and her performance is what
attracted the attention of the nearby passengers
These episodes are repeated often on A&E, hava look.
Rudy
> I can, however, easily imagine a jury ruling for the plaintiff.
Especially if they get the Jury Pool from the "Super Size It" line at
McDonalds
AJC
<postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote:
>Matt wrote:
>
>> Gee, I didn't know they made special versions of aircraft for European
>> carriers that are wider than those made for US carriers.
>
>I believe most European carriers are using French-Made Airbus while U.S.
> Carriers tend to buy U.S. Made Boeing aircraft. I know there was some
>talk when Airbus got a big sale to a U.S. carrier.
Oh dear. You are disastrously ill-informed. Are you an American?
For a start, the component parts of Airbus aircraft are made in
numerous countries, including the United States, and depending on the
model, final assembly takes place in Germany or France.
European carriers including British Airways, Virgin, KLM, Ryanair,
Easyjet, Air France, Lufthansa, Alitalia, SAS, and numerous others
operate Boeing aircraft.
US carriers including United, US Airways, Northwest Airlines, American
Airlines, JetBlue, Frontier Airlines, and others, operate Airbus
aircraft.
--==++AJC++==--
AJC
wrote:
Go on then tell us all you know about THOSE seats.
Did it not occur to you that Japan domestic flights have little or no
premium class seating, and need relatively little galley space, but
flights operated by US airlines' 747s have large premium class cabins
and need larger galley space? 500 seats in a 747 does not in itself
indicate cramped seating.
--==++AJC++==--