.....
How wide are the seats in first class? In various discussions on this
topic, people seem to think they're all the same width.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:08:54 -0500, pbj
postittothenewsgroup@nospam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:46:42 -0500, krw wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:55:26 -0500, pbj
postittothenewsgroup@nospam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:33:16 -0500, krw wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:26:33 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, pbj wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:06:47 +0000, Vic wrote:

Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston,
Texas, a city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized
passengers should not have to incur the higher fuel cost caused
by the airline's heavier customers.

Then it follows that smaller-than-average passengers should pay
less than average-sized passengers because they use less fuel. :-)

What about people like me who are rail thin, but weigh over 200
pounds because I'm six-and-a-half feet tall? Fat people can help
being fat, I can't prevent myself from being tall.

Sure you can help it. Humans are taller today because of our modern
diet. If you'd eaten like our ancestors did instead of being a pig,
you'd be shorter and weigh less. Stop trying to make others pay for
your choices.

If the issue is really fuel, then buck it up and pay. If the issue
is control (it is) then make your excuses to the control freaks.

The way I look at this is that yes it's inconvenient to occasionally
get stuck next to a "wide-body" passenger. However, their size is why
seats are still as wide as they are. Take them out of the equation and
seats can be made narrower. Then we can all be just as miserable with
someone of average width sitting next to us as we are now sitting next
to a 350-pounder.

Then what about "tall"?

It's because of all those tall people that airplane cabins have to be so
high. If not for them the cabin could be lower and the plane would weigh
less and use less fuel. Why should those of us of normal height have to
subsidize tall people?

Tall = more leg room => legs in "your space".

I know it's hard for you, but think.

miguel wrote:


These seats already exist in first class.

At what, double the price?

These seats already exist in first class.

It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
much better than charging them double. Install some blocks of 4
seats that replace 5 seats. Charge 25% more for these. Most (I
didn't say all - some of them may really need 2 or 3 seats) of the
fatties can do fine with about 5 extra inches, and they might be
surprised to find that some passengers that fit in a regular-sized
seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers carrying
babies come to mind).

It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
much better than charging them double. Install some blocks of 4
seats that replace 5 seats. Charge 25% more for these. Most (I
didn't say all - some of them may really need 2 or 3 seats) of the
fatties can do fine with about 5 extra inches, and they might be
surprised to find that some passengers that fit in a regular-sized
seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers
carrying
babies come to mind).

"Gordon Burditt" <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> wrote in message
news:9pednTCNtpcJ3NHXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
much better than charging them double. Install some blocks of 4
seats that replace 5 seats. Charge 25% more for these. Most (I
didn't say all - some of them may really need 2 or 3 seats) of the
fatties can do fine with about 5 extra inches, and they might be
surprised to find that some passengers that fit in a regular-sized
seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers
carrying
babies come to mind).

And while they're at it, why not install a line of seats a bit
further apart for long-legged people? No one wants someone else's
long legs taking up some of their own already insufficient leg room.

Robin


They already have that- it is called First Class. I'll never be rich

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch for
new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else.

In message
SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch for
new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else.

The Feds wouldn't have to mandate anything if people would simply
refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like cordwood and pack them
in like sardines.

Scott in SoCal wrote
aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> wrote

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch
for new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else.

The Feds wouldn't have to mandate anything if people would simply refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like
cordwood and pack them in like sardines.

Which leaves them few other choices, unless their destination happens
to be one served by Amtrak or Greyhound, or they are willing to drive.

A decade or so back, several of the airlines tried to make a
sales point of more room, but people buy mainly on price, and the
revised cabins went back to normal at the next refresh cycle. For
80th percentile size people, where the bell curve starts falling off,
the cabins are fine. It is mainly for bell curve outriders like me on
height, shoulder width, and leg length, that it is a problem.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:32:21 -0700, The Real Bev
bashley101+et@gmail.com> wrote:

miguel wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:11:48 -0500, gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:

Does it matter? You're still a heavier customer whether you
can help it or not.

Given all the weight that an airplane carries, what %
difference in fuel cost does a large passenger incur?

A previous poster hit the nail on the head. Is it about weight?
Passenger comfort (no one wants to sit next to a space hogging obese
person)? Or is it about control?

It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
much better than charging them double. Install some blocks of 4
seats that replace 5 seats. Charge 25% more for these. Most (I
didn't say all - some of them may really need 2 or 3 seats) of the
fatties can do fine with about 5 extra inches, and they might be
surprised to find that some passengers that fit in a regular-sized
seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers carrying
babies come to mind).

These seats already exist in first class.

At what, double the price?

About triple. But the food is free.

Scott in SoCal wrote:
In message
SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch for
new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else.

The Feds wouldn't have to mandate anything if people would simply
refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like cordwood and pack them
in like sardines.

Which leaves them few other choices, unless their destination happens to
be one served by Amtrak or Greyhound, or they are willing to drive. A
decade or so back, several of the airlines tried to make a sales point
of more room, but people buy mainly on price, and the revised cabins
went back to normal at the next refresh cycle. For 80th percentile size
people, where the bell curve starts falling off, the cabins are fine. It
is mainly for bell curve outriders like me on height, shoulder width,
and leg length, that it is a problem.

Scott in SoCal wrote:
In message
SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch for
new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else.

The Feds wouldn't have to mandate anything if people would simply
refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like cordwood and pack them
in like sardines.

Which leaves them few other choices, unless their destination happens to
be one served by Amtrak or Greyhound, or they are willing to drive.

A decade or so back, several of the airlines tried to make a sales point
of more room, but people buy mainly on price, and the revised cabins
went back to normal at the next refresh cycle. For 80th percentile size
people, where the bell curve starts falling off, the cabins are fine. It
is mainly for bell curve outriders like me on height, shoulder width,
and leg length, that it is a problem.

In message <2Zw3m.99681$d36.5126@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

Scott in SoCal wrote:
In message
SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch for
new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else.
The Feds wouldn't have to mandate anything if people would simply
refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like cordwood and pack them
in like sardines.
Which leaves them few other choices, unless their destination happens to
be one served by Amtrak or Greyhound, or they are willing to drive.

Teleconferencing immediately springs to mind. WebEx, Telepresence, et.
al. are making a killing thanks to the combined brutality of airlines
and the TSA.
You are preaching to the choir for all of the above for business use.

A decade or so back, several of the airlines tried to make a sales point
of more room, but people buy mainly on price, and the revised cabins
went back to normal at the next refresh cycle. For 80th percentile size
people, where the bell curve starts falling off, the cabins are fine. It
is mainly for bell curve outriders like me on height, shoulder width,
and leg length, that it is a problem.

I'm one of those people. If I have to sit cramped in those no-legroom
seats for more than a couple of hours, my legs really start to hurt.

I only fly reluctantly these days, and only because I am getting too old
for iron-man car voyages. 20 years ago, a 20 hour car trip was nothing.
Now, after about 8 hours, I start looking for hotels. And my visit is
degraded by dreading the drive back at the end. I've had trouble using
up my vacation days the last few years.

In message
f0%3m.420656$4m1.198702@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

I only fly reluctantly these days, and only because I am getting too old
for iron-man car voyages. 20 years ago, a 20 hour car trip was nothing.
Now, after about 8 hours, I start looking for hotels. And my visit is
degraded by dreading the drive back at the end. I've had trouble using
up my vacation days the last few years.

Amtrak is the perfect cure for that. You can burn off 3 days just
getting there. :)

I actually wouldn't mind a long train trip once in a while, but the
price of a private closet with its own shower costs more than a first
class plane ticket.
Alas, you can't get there from here (via rail), to the places I want to

Amtrak is the perfect cure for that. You can burn off 3 days just
getting there. :)

I actually wouldn't mind a long train trip once in a while, but the
price of a private closet with its own shower costs more than a first
class plane ticket.