ajzepp Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 I have to disagree with you on that. Have you ever seen a fat persons face? There is so much face fat on them there eyes get squishy. It's kind of like having cankles, except it's on your face. face cankles....too funny
Just Jack Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Since the airlines charge more for overweight and number of bags, why not start charging tickets based on weight?
Tcali Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ture-taken.html Ive seen some very large people in my life.................................................. but holy mother of cinnabun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!---that fella has gotta be about 550-600 LBs. My gosh those shoulders...I know he is fat but not really round just friggin ginormous.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Since the airlines charge more for overweight and number of bags, why not start charging tickets based on weight? I agree. Then I suppose they have to give one EXTRA room if they are heavy. On that note... Kinda like at my work... All boats use the lock for free, commercial cargo pays a surcharge which goes into a fund inland waterway fund though. That being said, pleasure craft are lowest priority. If they ever started charging a user fee, what would happen to the priority order... One can't possibly make them last. I guess it is the same way with the airlines... Start charging more... Then the airlines has to give up more room... That is what they would be charging for right. They can't possibly charge more and give one the same amount of room or less, right?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Isn't that up to the airlines to decide? Yes it is. Yet, most of the customers are getting bigger and bigger. I say stick it to them and alienate the fatties so they take a train. Then the smaller people can fly in relative comfort and room and pay a lot more to fly. Yep, I see it as the best business model for the airlines... They can do what the credit companies did early this decade and push for tighter bankruptcy laws while the past administration sits and lets the free market decide what gas prices should be (high)... Then wait for the perfect sh*tstorm (housing crash)... Fast-forward to now... Now all debtors, are paying high interest rates and fees. /sarcasm off. But, as usual I digress... Sorry for confusing you. Society is getting bigger... The airlines are gonna have to cater to bigger passengers more and more because bigger passengers a representing a bigger (no pun intended) % of their buisness.
Fezmid Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Necessity?? Please. People fly for pleasure or convenience. You don't have to fly for business?
Assquatch Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 I agree. Then I suppose they have to give one EXTRA room if they are heavy. On that note... Kinda like at my work... All boats use the lock for free, commercial cargo pays a surcharge which goes into a fund inland waterway fund though. That being said, pleasure craft are lowest priority. If they ever started charging a user fee, what would happen to the priority order... One can't possibly make them last. I guess it is the same way with the airlines... Start charging more... Then the airlines has to give up more room... That is what they would be charging for right. They can't possibly charge more and give one the same amount of room or less, right? Give the extra $$$ to the poor sap next to him who has to sit with the guy's rolls on his leg.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 You don't have to fly for business? Business travel goes on an expense report.
Tcali Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 You don't have to fly for business? I think fat people should do more videoconferences. Thats the solution. But of course they'd have to have bigger computer monitors.
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 You don't have to fly for business? Nope. Cars, trains, boats, busses...
KD in CA Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Society is getting bigger... The airlines are gonna have to cater to bigger passengers more and more because bigger passengers a representing a bigger (no pun intended) % of their buisness. I don't disagree, but the way airlines are choosing to deal with it now is to have people who take up more than one seat pay for more than one seat. I don't see how anyone could have an issue with that. Airlines aren't going to start making special accomodations at a huge cost when the issue still only impacts a small % of the population. The problem is that our pussified society goes into all sort of hysterics over the odd exception, rather than telling that odd exception "either buy a first class ticket where you can fit in the seat or find some other mode of transportation". You don't have to fly for business? No. And even if I did travel for business, it's still not a necessity. There are cars, trains and the option of taking a job that doesn't require long distance travel.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Eating Ho Hos and fettuccine alfredo never made anyone black. Almost every fat person got fat due to their own choices, despite certain genetic proclivities. Same could be said for queers.
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Same could be said for queers. And left-handed people, for that matter.
Fezmid Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 No. And even if I did travel for business, it's still not a necessity. There are cars, trains and the option of taking a job that doesn't require long distance travel. How do you take a car or train to India....? My job doesn't require much travel at all -- but two weeks after I started, I actually had to make an emergency next day trip to New Jersey. No other way to get there but plane.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 And left-handed people, for that matter. ha ha ha I could see it now over the water fountain. "Southpaw only"
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 How do you take a car or train to India....? My job doesn't require much travel at all -- but two weeks after I started, I actually had to make an emergency next day trip to New Jersey. No other way to get there but plane. Because Hoboken was a very remote and mysterious land before the invention of frickin' air travel.
KD in CA Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 How do you take a car or train to India....? My job doesn't require much travel at all -- but two weeks after I started, I actually had to make an emergency next day trip to New Jersey. No other way to get there but plane. So....you live in India?
Fezmid Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 So....you live in India? No - but there's a good chance I might have to fly there in the next year or two. And my point on the NJ trip was that when I hired on, I was told there wouldn't really be any travel - and two weeks later, I had to fly to NJ to be there for some meetings the next day. Driving/train wouldn't have been an option. So you can't say, "Flying is only for fun," because it's not always true.
KD in CA Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 No - but there's a good chance I might have to fly there in the next year or two. And my point on the NJ trip was that when I hired on, I was told there wouldn't really be any travel - and two weeks later, I had to fly to NJ to be there for some meetings the next day. Driving/train wouldn't have been an option. So you can't say, "Flying is only for fun," because it's not always true. I didn't say flying was only for fun. I said it was for pleasure or convenience. Flying from Buffalo to NJ is a convenience. In fact you could easily drive to NJ for a meeting the next day. Hell, during the '06 ECF I met tons of guys who did the drive to NC for a next day game (p.s. I flew there ). But aside from all that, are you arguing that flying is a 'necessity' as a rationale for why private businesses (airlines) should be forced to accommodate certain people who create safety and comfort issues for other passengers? Do you have an issue with airlines requiring people who fill 2 seats to pay for 2 seats? That's really the only point I was making here.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 No - but there's a good chance I might have to fly there in the next year or two. And my point on the NJ trip was that when I hired on, I was told there wouldn't really be any travel - and two weeks later, I had to fly to NJ to be there for some meetings the next day. Driving/train wouldn't have been an option. So you can't say, "Flying is only for fun," because it's not always true. If you fly to India do you put it on your expense report?
Recommended Posts