independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > General Discussion > 400 lb woman wants Airlines to accommodate her size
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 05/21/11 12:48am

XNY

avatar

BobGeorge909 said:

XNY said:

You don't have kids I'm guessing. I have 3 little ones. You can't keep a baby quiet no matter what you do. Sorry but that's a part of life. Sometimes you get on a bus, or a plane, or a subway with toddlers and babies.

Kids get unruly. As a parent you try to do everything you can to keep their voices down, to keep them from crying, to stop walking down the aisle, to use inside voices. But you can only do so much.

Try to remember you were a child once. Were you quiet everywhere you went? Of course not. Nor was I. Especially being cramped up on a plane for a few hours. Kids aren't like us. They want to play, and wander, and have fun, and when they get hungry or tired. Watch out.

I've been on both ends by the way. Before I had kids it was hard to understand. I couldn't imagine why my sisters wanted kids. Changing diapers, feeding them bottles, a new bike every two years, and new clothes, hospital bills, cell phones, etc etc. But I wouldn't trade it for the world. Even on a small, cramped airplane.

I wasn't a devil and I wasn't an angle...but when I was on a plane...my ma kep my ass in check for four hour. I wasn't wandering around the plane. I wasn't playing games. I sat in the dam chair. I wnet pee a cpl times, that was it. It was just me my bro and my ma...she didn't play around and she didn't beat us eather. We were quiet to. not silent...but quiet.

All due respect but you have no idea how you were when you were a baby. Yeah maybe some parents can keep their older kids quiet or quieter or even silent(good luck). But when we're babies or even toddlers we have no control over our emotions, including crying. Not to mention the air pressure on a plane hurts babies' ear much more than an adults.

I still get this as an adult as my ears are different than most - but for a toddler that pain is unbearable at best.

"Great dancers are not great because of their technique, they are great because of their passion" -- Martha Graham
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 05/21/11 7:55am

BobGeorge909

avatar

XNY said:

BobGeorge909 said:

I wasn't a devil and I wasn't an angle...but when I was on a plane...my ma kep my ass in check for four hour. I wasn't wandering around the plane. I wasn't playing games. I sat in the dam chair. I wnet pee a cpl times, that was it. It was just me my bro and my ma...she didn't play around and she didn't beat us eather. We were quiet to. not silent...but quiet.

All due respect but you have no idea how you were when you were a baby. Yeah maybe some parents can keep their older kids quiet or quieter or even silent(good luck). But when we're babies or even toddlers we have no control over our emotions, including crying. Not to mention the air pressure on a plane hurts babies' ear much more than an adults.

I still get this as an adult as my ears are different than most - but for a toddler that pain is unbearable at best.

I digress. I was remembering back to when I was like 4-10. sorry. sad Before then u're dead right.

i notie this when I read the post again and got to the word baby and my mind went directly to that age demo I listed. 4-12 are kids, toddlers/infants are a whole different beast. Not that they're beast...just an idiom.

we cool?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 05/21/11 9:06am

dJJ

strmn said:

imago said:

I completely disagree with this. A 400 lb person who knows they'll spill over into somebody else's seat should not be accomodated on their own damned terms.

Airlines *do* need to increase seat size--they're simply terribly uncomfortable (they were uncomfortable when I weighed 160 lbs!). But, the argument that Americans are getting fatter doesn't fly for me. Nor is the idea that a person with a 45+ inch waist entitled to fly on a plane on their own defined terms.

This woman has just given even more reason to get back in to the gym and work my ass off.

lawd

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/05/18/nr.too.fat.to.fly.tiggeman.cnn?hpt=C2

http://www.cnn.com/video/....cnn?hpt=C2

This thread is a testament to why the US is one of the only rich, developed countries that doesn't have universal healthcare. A dearth of fellow-feeling and mutual concern.

[Edited 5/20/11 15:30pm]

Did anybody donate for the medical bills of their mother? The family is probably not financially recovering from her getting sick.

99% of my posts are ironic. Maybe this post sides with the other 1%.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 05/21/11 9:08am

dJJ

Genesia said:

Anything I say will get me in trouble, so I'm just going to waddle away from this thread.

falloff

You just couldn't refrain yourself, could you? Just had to make that wing-woman joke lol lol lol

You got away with it though. wink

99% of my posts are ironic. Maybe this post sides with the other 1%.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 05/21/11 9:53am

SUPRMAN

avatar

strmn said:

SUPRMAN said:

Wrong. Shareholders are not protected from a corporations losses. Corporations have no fiduciary duty to protect shareholders from losses. Shareholders lose money daily. It's called the stock market.

Boeing is not an airline. They are an airplane manufacturer.

The U.S. had the same reason to invade Vietnam as it did Iraq, Nicaragua (here'were going back to the 1800's) as it did Afghanistan?

That makes no sense, regardless of any conspiracy fantasy.

Um, I didn't say that Boeing was an airline. You (incorrectly) inferred that. Presumably, airlines are dependent on the existence of airplane manufacturers. You are correct that the US invaded Iraq for the same reasons it has invaded many, many other countries over the last century: imperialism.

Define imperialism. But I doubt that we will agree.

I don't think imperialism defines U.S. military actions overseas over the past century.

It's vague enough to be interpreted as almost anything.

You brought up Boeing as if they has something to do with an airline's seating policy.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 05/21/11 9:55am

SUPRMAN

avatar

strmn said:

SUPRMAN said:

So taking up two seats isn't costing the airline a seat?

Two people in a marriage are still two separate entities, regardless of the metaphor of "oneness".

That's the disanalogy.

Ok. So if it's one person, one seat, if you take up more than one seat, you should be paying for more than one seat.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 05/21/11 9:56am

SUPRMAN

avatar

strmn said:

imago said:

I completely disagree with this. A 400 lb person who knows they'll spill over into somebody else's seat should not be accomodated on their own damned terms.

Airlines *do* need to increase seat size--they're simply terribly uncomfortable (they were uncomfortable when I weighed 160 lbs!). But, the argument that Americans are getting fatter doesn't fly for me. Nor is the idea that a person with a 45+ inch waist entitled to fly on a plane on their own defined terms.

This woman has just given even more reason to get back in to the gym and work my ass off.

lawd

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/05/18/nr.too.fat.to.fly.tiggeman.cnn?hpt=C2

http://www.cnn.com/video/....cnn?hpt=C2

This thread is a testament to why the US is one of the only rich, developed countries that doesn't have universal healthcare. A dearth of fellow-feeling and mutual concern.

[Edited 5/20/11 15:30pm]

Not.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 05/21/11 9:58am

SUPRMAN

avatar

Genesia said:

Shyra said:

Exactly! Both of them hogged the arm rests while reading their newspapers. Dirty old bastids!

disbelief

The person in the middle gets the armrests.

The person who claims the armrests gets the armrests.

Subtle intimidation works best.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 05/21/11 10:00am

SUPRMAN

avatar

Boriqua1130 said:

paintedlady said:

Let that fat-ass pay for two seats!

We shouldn't take on that expense!

Let that blind person keep that fucking dog at home!

I have allergies dammit!

Let that cripple crawl up the fucking stairs! Chair lifts and elevators?

Not MY problem!

We need peanuts on a plane, fuck that little brat and his peanut allergies!
I'm hungry dammit!

Shit... maybe we should ban those Middle-easterners from flying!

I'm tired of waiting in long lines and taking off my shoes!

We only care about issues if they affect us directly, and we all have our prejudices don't we? When we don't consider one type of person then where will it end?

Enable someone to get fatter? Really? Do you really hear yourselves? Wow.

confused

Well said Paintedlady. Thank you. @)--}-----

I failed in my attempt to be a sarcastic-clown. Laughter has seen me thru a lot of encounters

with rude people.

On Ms. Tiggeman's blog, she mentions that there was a 6'5" 315 lb LSU football player on that flight.

I'd like to know if the steward approached him about the two seat policy. hmmm

I'm sure he didn't insist the airline give him a free extra seat to 'accomodate' him either.

If someone wasn't taking up two seats, why would the steward(ess(es)) bother him/her?

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 05/21/11 10:00am

dJJ

SUPRMAN said:

Genesia said:

disbelief

The person in the middle gets the armrests.

The person who claims the armrests gets the armrests.

Subtle intimidation works best.

You have to call it. First one, has the armrests. Or blink your eyes (works for me)

99% of my posts are ironic. Maybe this post sides with the other 1%.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 05/21/11 10:13am

PurpleJedi

avatar

Didn't we already beat this horse to death after Kevin Smith was booted off his plane?

beatdeadhorse

The fact of the matter is; people want to spend as little money as possible on an airline ticket. THINK ABOUT THIS; 20 or 30 years ago, the cost of buying a seat of a flying vehicle to spare you from driving or taking a train represented somewhat of an investment. People even wore their Sunday Best when flying. NOWADAYS, we want to spend the equivalent of a good pair of shoes when buying a seat on a flight from Miami to NYC (I'm generalizing).

SO...we have to accept the limitations of this new market. No inflight meals, no warm blankets, no complimentary "games" for the kids (when I flew as a young child, I'd often get little bags with toys or games for the flight). All because we want to spend as little $$$ as possible to FLY IN THE AIR ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

And part of this new market involves cramming as many people as possible into a plane. Profits keep the planes in the air after all.

It would be nice if seats could be made bigger and more comfortable...but then who's going to buy those tickets? I myself will choose JetBlue over American just to save $20 on a ticket.

So, sorry to sound heartless, but if I'm paying $200 on a ticket and have to cram myself into one of those tiny seats...then so should anyone else paying $200. If you need 2 seats to accomodate your girth...then buy the extra seat. It's not being discriminatory, it's being realistic.

shrug

Otherwise, let's all demand our reclining extra-wide seats and forget about $200 seats.

[Edited 5/21/11 10:15am]

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 05/21/11 10:28am

Spinlight

avatar

PurpleJedi said:

So, sorry to sound heartless, but if I'm paying $200 on a ticket and have to cram myself into one of those tiny seats...then so should anyone else paying $200. If you need 2 seats to accomodate your girth...then buy the extra seat. It's not being discriminatory, it's being realistic.

shrug

Otherwise, let's all demand our reclining extra-wide seats and forget about $200 seats.

[Edited 5/21/11 10:15am]

Duh, isn't that pretty much the point of everyone criticizing the airliners?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 05/21/11 10:29am

formallypickle
s

avatar

what about if an avergae sized person complained about the seats

would that make a difference..?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 05/21/11 10:38am

formallypickle
s

avatar

strmn said:

imago said:

I completely disagree with this. A 400 lb person who knows they'll spill over into somebody else's seat should not be accomodated on their own damned terms.

Airlines *do* need to increase seat size--they're simply terribly uncomfortable (they were uncomfortable when I weighed 160 lbs!). But, the argument that Americans are getting fatter doesn't fly for me. Nor is the idea that a person with a 45+ inch waist entitled to fly on a plane on their own defined terms.

This woman has just given even more reason to get back in to the gym and work my ass off.

lawd

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/05/18/nr.too.fat.to.fly.tiggeman.cnn?hpt=C2

http://www.cnn.com/video/....cnn?hpt=C2

This thread is a testament to why the US is one of the only rich, developed countries that doesn't have universal healthcare. A dearth of fellow-feeling and mutual concern.

[Edited 5/20/11 15:30pm]

not true if this fat woman had a heart attack or cancer i wouldnt want her to die if she didnt have insurance i would want the best healthcare plan out there for her

but a comfortable airplane seat ...no

plus airlines arent just "american"

so only the american airlines have to change seating?

[Edited 5/21/11 10:39am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 05/21/11 10:55am

Spinlight

avatar

formallypickles said:

strmn said:

This thread is a testament to why the US is one of the only rich, developed countries that doesn't have universal healthcare. A dearth of fellow-feeling and mutual concern.

[Edited 5/20/11 15:30pm]

not true if this fat woman had a heart attack or cancer i wouldnt want her to die if she didnt have insurance i would want the best healthcare plan out there for her

but a comfortable airplane seat ...no

plus airlines arent just "american"

so only the american airlines have to change seating?

[Edited 5/21/11 10:39am]

People stay up in this thread complaining about other people encroaching on them (laughable) so it would make more sense to have bigger, more comfotable seats ***for all people**** so that ***everyone*** benefits from humane conditions. As it stands, those seats are uncomfortable and potentially damaging.

Remember - the core issue here is not the woman's weight so much as the conflict between natural body sizes and airlines' refusal to budge on accomodations.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 05/21/11 11:06am

BobGeorge909

avatar

Spinlight said:

formallypickles said:

not true if this fat woman had a heart attack or cancer i wouldnt want her to die if she didnt have insurance i would want the best healthcare plan out there for her

but a comfortable airplane seat ...no

plus airlines arent just "american"

so only the american airlines have to change seating?

[Edited 5/21/11 10:39am]

People stay up in this thread complaining about other people encroaching on them (laughable) so it would make more sense to have bigger, more comfotable seats ***for all people**** so that ***everyone*** benefits from humane conditions. As it stands, those seats are uncomfortable and potentially damaging.

Remember - the core issue here is not the woman's weight so much as the conflict between natural body sizes and airlines' refusal to budge on accomodations.

the encroachment issue is not only physical but even moreso, monitary. I think that's the core issue

It's cost prohibitive for the airlines to make the seats big enuff to accomplish this.

it's not the responsibility or obligation of the airline to provide service under any circumstance. there's NOTHING reasonable about that. and it's not discriminitory.

I don't think that Obeisity, on it's own, is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

and 400 lbs in by no means a natural body size.

edit:

http://opencrs.com/docume...007-07-16/

http://opencrs.com/docume...load/1005/

The ADA regulations address whether obesity can be an impairment that qualifies as a disability under the ADA. In general, the regulations suggest that the ADA offers limited protection to obese individuals. The ADA regulations state that temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities. Such impairments may include, but are not limited to, broken limbs, sprained joints [and] concussions.... Similarly, except in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a disabling impairment. 14

The EEOC has expounded on how obesity is to be covered under the ADA. In its ADA compliance manual, the EEOC states that being overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment. On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm is clearly an impairment. In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment. 15

[Edited 5/21/11 11:20am]

[Edited 5/21/11 11:24am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 05/21/11 11:29am

Spinlight

avatar

BobGeorge909 said:

Spinlight said:

People stay up in this thread complaining about other people encroaching on them (laughable) so it would make more sense to have bigger, more comfotable seats ***for all people**** so that ***everyone*** benefits from humane conditions. As it stands, those seats are uncomfortable and potentially damaging.

Remember - the core issue here is not the woman's weight so much as the conflict between natural body sizes and airlines' refusal to budge on accomodations.

the encroachment issue is not only physical but even moreso, monitary. I think that's the core issue

It's cost prohibitive for the airlines to make the seats big enuff to accomplish this.

it's not the responsibility or obligation of the airline to provide service under any circumstance. there's NOTHING reasonable about that. and it's not discriminitory.

I don't think that Obeisity, on it's own, is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

and 400 lbs in by no means a natural body size.

edit:

http://opencrs.com/docume...007-07-16/

http://opencrs.com/docume...load/1005/

The ADA regulations address whether obesity can be an impairment that qualifies as a disability under the ADA. In general, the regulations suggest that the ADA offers limited protection to obese individuals. The ADA regulations state that temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities. Such impairments may include, but are not limited to, broken limbs, sprained joints [and] concussions.... Similarly, except in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a disabling impairment. 14

The EEOC has expounded on how obesity is to be covered under the ADA. In its ADA compliance manual, the EEOC states that being overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment. On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm is clearly an impairment. In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment. 15

[Edited 5/21/11 11:20am]

[Edited 5/21/11 11:24am]

But did you really read the article? She isn't 400 pounds. And it is cost prohibitive in the sense that airliners charge way too much and that would cut into their bottom line. Again, if they docked each airplane of some rows of seats to better improve the space for ***everyone***, it's preferrable. I, again, mention that it is NOT JUST FAT PEOPLE who suffer from the tiny chairs. Getting hung up on your morality in regards to obesity is a distraction. No one cares what anyone's opinion is on people who get fat. We're talking about seats that are uncomfortable and painful and cut off blood circulation for more than just fat people.

I am not a fat crusader here. I'm suggesting airliners make it fair. When I was a kid, I got a full meal and endless drinks and pillows and blankets. Now, I have to fight to get a brand new sodie can when I get a drink and you're talking to ME about cost prohibitive??? Airline prices are up and accomodations are WAY down. If we wanna talk about cost prohibitive, you can clearly see the mismanagement the airline industry has gone through.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 05/21/11 12:44pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Spinlight said:

PurpleJedi said:

So, sorry to sound heartless, but if I'm paying $200 on a ticket and have to cram myself into one of those tiny seats...then so should anyone else paying $200. If you need 2 seats to accomodate your girth...then buy the extra seat. It's not being discriminatory, it's being realistic.

shrug

Otherwise, let's all demand our reclining extra-wide seats and forget about $200 seats.

[Edited 5/21/11 10:15am]

Duh, isn't that pretty much the point of everyone criticizing the airliners?

You get what you pay for.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 05/21/11 12:53pm

Spinlight

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

Spinlight said:

Duh, isn't that pretty much the point of everyone criticizing the airliners?

You get what you pay for.

Come on. Gimme a break. Airline tickets costs aren't lower now than they were when you got full meals and accomodations. You pay more now for an airline ticket, comparatively speaking, than you ever have had to.

I don't believe that airlines fail because they don't make enough revenue. They fail due to the same mismanagement that leads banks to fail and banks get tons of fee income, too.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 05/21/11 1:01pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Spinlight said:

formallypickles said:

not true if this fat woman had a heart attack or cancer i wouldnt want her to die if she didnt have insurance i would want the best healthcare plan out there for her

but a comfortable airplane seat ...no

plus airlines arent just "american"

so only the american airlines have to change seating?

[Edited 5/21/11 10:39am]

People stay up in this thread complaining about other people encroaching on them (laughable) so it would make more sense to have bigger, more comfotable seats ***for all people**** so that ***everyone*** benefits from humane conditions. As it stands, those seats are uncomfortable and potentially damaging.

Remember - the core issue here is not the woman's weight so much as the conflict between natural body sizes and airlines' refusal to budge on accomodations.

That's distorted.

She is not a 'natural body size.' and having her pay for an extra seat is an accomodation.

From the article below:

"she travels quite a bit and has, in the past, WHEN SHE WEIGHED 400 POUNDS, purchased two seats. She even says that when she weighed 300 pounds, she bought two seats. "

"Tiggeman made it seem like Southwest making her buy this extra seat was some sort of surprise, when actually she was well aware of their policy. Then, she tried to frame herself as the aforementioned “free market capitalist” who completely understands that the airlines need to make money, but IN THE SAME BREATH, she then gets all socialist on us and starts blabbering about “equal rights to equal access.” Sorry Kenlie, this is NOT a civil rights issue. It’s not a government office building with mandatory ADA wheelchair ramps, and flying on a commercial airline isn’t some civil right that’s being denied you, so you don’t get to have it both ways. "

Fat Woman Gets Feelings Hurt By Southwest Airlines, But Then Says It’s A Civil Rights Issue, But Then Says It’s Really An Economic Issue Because Americans are Now Fat

I was watching the “Today” show this morning, and they ran a segment aboutKenlie Tiggeman and her mother, who were “humiliated” by Southwest Airlinesbecause they are, um, sizeable people, and Southwest told them they had to buy additional seats to accommodate their girth. At least that’s how it was framed in the intro to the piece, as well as her claim that because she’s lost 120+ pounds in the recent past, she now easily fits between Southwest’s armrests.

Bad Southwest, right?

Well, not so fast.

Southwest’s “Customer of Size” policy is pretty well-known. I mean, I’m not a “CoS” and I know about the policy, in the same way that I know about their first-come-first-seated policy. At this point, it’s just general knowledge to the traveling public, since Southwest was for a time the airline featured in a cable-TV series called “Airline,” in which we got to see lots of really awful passenger behavior in every half-hour episode, along with airline employees dealing with this very issue. (Both of these policies are things I consider when looking at Kayak or Expedia, and frankly, both make me avoid Southwest altogether.)

Tiggeman doesn’t claim ignorance of this policy — she makes it clear that she’s not a rube who has never flown before. In her own words, she travels quite a bit and has, in the past, WHEN SHE WEIGHED 400 POUNDS, purchased two seats. She even says that when she weighed 300 pounds, she bought two seats. She’s now lost about 120 pounds. Bully for her. I hope for her health’s sake she keeps it up. But now that she’s a slim-n-trim 280, she fits into the 17-inch airline seats? Really?

“For the record, I can sit in any seat on the plane with the armrests down. I can use the seat tray table to place my laptop or water comfortably in front of me. I can cross my legs, read a book and/or listen to my iPod without encroaching on the seat next to me.”

I’ll give you a moment to go back and look again at the video of her sitting on Ann Curry’s couch. You tell me if this woman fits into a standard airline seat. Sorry, there is NO WAY Miss Kenlie fits into her airline seat without “encroaching” into the seat next to her, thereby making the paying customer next to her hideously uncomfortable for the duration of the flight.

So, if you’re a “Customer of Size,” flying on an airline that has a well-publicized “Customer of Size” policy, how do you get to start an outcry in the national media because said airline tried to enforce that policy? Is it just because you’re a blogger?

Ah, but Tiggeman isn’t just some random blogger – she’s also some kind of “political strategist,” (in my hasty internet search, I couldn’t dig up what kind or for whom, anywhere, though when she refers to herself in the interview as a “free market capitalist” I did manage to draw my conclusion). I assume this means she probably has more access to the media than most of us, so she can get her grievance about this supposed “discrimination” disseminated more easily than we could. Hence Tiggeman’s aggrieved appearances on network television.

Watching this interview, I was a little confused. At first, Tiggeman made it seem like Southwest making her buy this extra seat was some sort of surprise, when actually she was well aware of their policy. Then, she tried to frame herself as the aforementioned “free market capitalist” who completely understands that the airlines need to make money, but IN THE SAME BREATH, she then gets all socialist on us and starts blabbering about “equal rights to equal access.” Sorry Kenlie, this is NOT a civil rights issue. It’s not a government office building with mandatory ADA wheelchair ramps, and flying on a commercial airline isn’t some civil right that’s being denied you, so you don’t get to have it both ways. Also, from what I could gather from the interview, the only thing the gate agent did wrong (against the Southwest policy) was to not move the conversation away from the gate area and the rest of the passengers, and so the 100 or so passengers waiting for the flight witnessed what happened.

(Ummm, Kenlie? Honey, how do I put this gently? You weigh close to 300 pounds. I doubt anyone in that gate area was unaware of your presence in the first place.)

Then (here’s where I finally succumbed to my urge to roll my eyes and start saying “sheesh”) she actually has the stones to say what this really is, is an economic issue for the airlines, because now that 30% of Americans are officially obese (and something about that figure just turns my stomach), they need to get with the program and create designated seats for fat people!

Now, I don’t know what the statistics are on how many Americans have never flown/don’t fly at all/fly very infrequently, but I can’t imagine enough people are flying for the airlines to justify the cost of retrofitting their fleets to install special seats to accommodate a few customers.

So basically, what Tiggeman got was a network pulpit to go on television and bitch because she got her widdle feelings hurt by the mean Southwest agent who was doing pretty much what the Southwest policy says he’s supposed to do when confronted with a “Customer of Size.”

So, I have to ask, people, since I know I’m probably going to be crucified for posting this anyway:

1) How much are you willing to have tacked onto your ticket price so the airlines can retrofit their jets with Special Big-Girl Seats? I’ll tell you how much I’m willing to pay — absolutely nothing. The airlines are jacking us with so many extra charges (checked-bag charges, upcharges for bulkhead or aisle seats) that why should I have to pay one more penny?

2) Maybe the airlines ought to put a plane seat at the check-in area and gates, the way they have those bag sizers thingamajigs? This way, they can make everyone plop their ass into it and see if they really do fit.

3) How about when people buy their tickets online, they have a little button for them to click: Are you a person of size? yes/no? And the system finds them two seats together, charges them for both, and if they get to the airport and it turns out that a) the flight is not overbooked and has plenty of room, or b) they fit into the ass-sizer gate seat after all, they get one of those seats refunded, and some nice standby passenger can get on the plane.

Someone else’s rights end where mine begin. And thus it follows, the seat that CoS purchased ends where the seat that I purchased begins. And I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but if I see you coming down the plane aisle and you are assigned to sit next to me, you’re damn sure straight I’m flagging down a flight attendant and asking to be moved. I’m supposed to sit hunched to one side and end my flight with back pain and a stiff neck because I might hurt your feelings?

And Kenlie, I meant what I said when I said “Good for You,” about losing weight.

http://wantingwhatiget.wo...are-obese/

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 05/21/11 1:12pm

Spinlight

avatar

So people over 5'11" are supposed to be crunched up for 6 hours with their legs going numb and their necks bent because small statured people can't fathom airplanes with less than 80 people aboard?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 05/21/11 2:13pm

LightOfArt

"two third of americans are over-weight"

i find that hard to believe.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 05/21/11 2:19pm

strmn

SUPRMAN said:

strmn said:

Um, I didn't say that Boeing was an airline. You (incorrectly) inferred that. Presumably, airlines are dependent on the existence of airplane manufacturers. You are correct that the US invaded Iraq for the same reasons it has invaded many, many other countries over the last century: imperialism.

Define imperialism. But I doubt that we will agree.

I don't think imperialism defines U.S. military actions overseas over the past century.

It's vague enough to be interpreted as almost anything.

You brought up Boeing as if they has something to do with an airline's seating policy.

Yeah, they build the planes, so they determine how many seats are on the planes.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 05/21/11 2:22pm

strmn

SUPRMAN said:

strmn said:

Two people in a marriage are still two separate entities, regardless of the metaphor of "oneness".

That's the disanalogy.

Ok. So if it's one person, one seat, if you take up more than one seat, you should be paying for more than one seat.

In the case where an airline wanted someone (i.e., one person) to pay two seats, the US Supreme Court ruled: one person, one ticket, one seat. Anything different is discriminatory and violates the ADA.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 05/21/11 2:24pm

strmn

SUPRMAN said:

strmn said:

This thread is a testament to why the US is one of the only rich, developed countries that doesn't have universal healthcare. A dearth of fellow-feeling and mutual concern.

[Edited 5/20/11 15:30pm]

Not.

I think you're correct in suggesting that I was wrong because I think in fact the US is the ONLY rich developed country without universal health care.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 05/21/11 2:57pm

XNY

avatar

BobGeorge909 said:

XNY said:

All due respect but you have no idea how you were when you were a baby. Yeah maybe some parents can keep their older kids quiet or quieter or even silent(good luck). But when we're babies or even toddlers we have no control over our emotions, including crying. Not to mention the air pressure on a plane hurts babies' ear much more than an adults.

I still get this as an adult as my ears are different than most - but for a toddler that pain is unbearable at best.

I digress. I was remembering back to when I was like 4-10. sorry. sad Before then u're dead right.

i notie this when I read the post again and got to the word baby and my mind went directly to that age demo I listed. 4-12 are kids, toddlers/infants are a whole different beast. Not that they're beast...just an idiom.

we cool?

Very cool. Thanks. kotc comfort .... 69 lol

"Great dancers are not great because of their technique, they are great because of their passion" -- Martha Graham
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 05/21/11 5:41pm

Boriqua1130

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

Boriqua1130 said:

Well said Paintedlady. Thank you. @)--}-----

I failed in my attempt to be a sarcastic-clown. Laughter has seen me thru a lot of encounters

with rude people.

On Ms. Tiggeman's blog, she mentions that there was a 6'5" 315 lb LSU football player on that flight.

I'd like to know if the steward approached him about the two seat policy. hmmm

I'm sure he didn't insist the airline give him a free extra seat to 'accomodate' him either.

If someone wasn't taking up two seats, why would the steward(ess(es)) bother him/her?

My query alludes to a possible double standard scenario. No-one was seated yet.

I'll ♥️ "LemonDrop" 2DN 💋 your "Sugar"
Prince: TY! 🌹 🎶🎸🎶 💜 Rex @3/27/18 2D Media Let Prince R.I.P.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 05/21/11 6:11pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

strmn said:

SUPRMAN said:

Define imperialism. But I doubt that we will agree.

I don't think imperialism defines U.S. military actions overseas over the past century.

It's vague enough to be interpreted as almost anything.

You brought up Boeing as if they has something to do with an airline's seating policy.

Yeah, they build the planes, so they determine how many seats are on the planes.

They do not. They build to customer order. Always have. They try to sell others on the largest orders because it makes it easier to make a profit building the plane. But Boeing and Airbus, built planes with the number of seats their customer requests, not something they dream up.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #148 posted 05/21/11 6:14pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Boriqua1130 said:

SUPRMAN said:

I'm sure he didn't insist the airline give him a free extra seat to 'accomodate' him either.

If someone wasn't taking up two seats, why would the steward(ess(es)) bother him/her?

My query alludes to a possible double standard scenario. No-one was seated yet.

So you think it's a subjective, not objective observation that led to the staff at the gate to suggest she was too big for a single seat?

Really?!!!

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #149 posted 05/21/11 6:20pm

JustErin

avatar

I think the 2 seat policy for larger people is fair and appropriate.

I also think the only thing the airline did wrong was not speak to her in a more private manner...but even then, her claim that she was embarrassed to be told she needed two seats is really silly...everyone around her already knew she was obese, they didn't need to be told by some airline worker to come to that conclusion.

Since all she really is doing is complaining, it just comes off as she was just looking for media attention....probably to try and get more readers for her blog.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > General Discussion > 400 lb woman wants Airlines to accommodate her size