U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-12-2015, 09:13 AM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,601,121 times
Reputation: 13019

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver View Post
Just for clarity, this is not the case on regional jets. Not every plane has "economy plus" or business seating. On these connecting flights all seats (with the exception of the non-reclining last row, and at times the rear facing front row) are the same.
Almost every regional now has a first class section other than the turboprops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2015, 09:14 AM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,601,121 times
Reputation: 13019
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
IMHO, they should take all the large people and put them in one section. That way, they don't inconvenience other normal sized people, and then the fatties can all fight over the space with each other.

Or the airlines could sell person and 1/2 seats, (exLarge) and charge a 50% higher fare. Allocate those for the extra large folks. A row or two of these would make a lot of people on the flight happy.
Then they will complain they can't sit next to their kids and that their kids shouldn't be charged extra because they don't need the larger seat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 09:22 AM
 
5,574 posts, read 5,835,304 times
Reputation: 16489
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk View Post
They no longer do the refund.
That's not true, travel expert.

https://www.southwest.com/html/custo...R-CUSTOMER-COS

Quote:
Guidelines for Customers of Size

Customers who encroach upon any part of the neighboring seat(s) may proactively purchase the needed number of seats prior to travel in order to ensure the additional seat(s) is available. The armrest is considered to be the definitive boundary between seats; width between the armrests measures 17 inches. The purchase of additional seats serves as a notification to Southwest of a special seating need, and allows us to adequately plan for the number of seats that will be occupied on the aircraft. In turn, this helps to ensure we can accommodate all Customers on the flight/aircraft for which they purchased a ticket and avoid asking Customers to relinquish their seats for an unplanned accommodation. Most importantly, it ensures that all Customers onboard have access to safe and comfortable seating. You may contact us for a refund of the cost of additional seating after travel. Customers of size who prefer not to purchase an additional seat in advance have the option of purchasing just one seat and then discussing their seating needs with the Customer Service Agent at their departure gate. If it is determined that a second (or third) seat is needed, they will be accommodated with a complimentary additional seat(s).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 09:30 AM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,601,121 times
Reputation: 13019
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexgds View Post
Sorry, I recently read that they had changed the policy. I stand corrected.

That said, I can't wait for the lawsuit when WN IDB two passengers because someone needs three seats on a sold out flight and didn't book them in advance.

The fat person is the one who needs to be sent packing. IQ test prior to booking a plane ticket anyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 11:22 AM
 
Location: On the road
5,942 posts, read 2,893,129 times
Reputation: 11381
Quote:
Originally Posted by RipCityBassWorks View Post
Though as much as I hate being stuck next to an obese person on a plane, I think requiring obese people to purchase 2 seats amounts to discrimination.
It is practical safe use for their equipment. It isn't discrimination anymore than prohibiting people under a certain height from riding roller coasters is.

If I own a stable and prohibit people above a certain weight from riding the horses (which is quite common) I'm not discriminating against heavy people, and I shouldn't be forced to go out and buy Belgian draft horses to accommodate them.

What about the makers of real small subcompact cars, are they discriminating against tall people by forcing them to buy a bigger more expensive car?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,490,417 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by RipCityBassWorks View Post
Though as much as I hate being stuck next to an obese person on a plane, I think requiring obese people to purchase 2 seats amounts to discrimination. I think the airlines should step up and start putting more space between the seats.......
Kinda like a person who eats two hamburgers? Should two hamburgers cost the same as one? Should restaurants be required to give obese people all the food they want for the same price?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,490,417 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
Trying to maximize profit is no excuse for .....
Companies exist to maximize profits. Why would anybody buy stock in a company that didn't?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 12:34 PM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,150,163 times
Reputation: 10009
Passenger jets should be redesigned with comfortable padded bench seating that doesn't recline. Arm rests should slide along the bench so the amount of personal space can be adjusted from passenger to passenger. Then, they should charge airfare by the pound. Three year olds would get a discount and three hundred pounders would pay a premium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 12:44 PM
 
7,925 posts, read 5,039,870 times
Reputation: 13577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Companies exist to maximize profits. Why would anybody buy stock in a company that didn't?
This is eminently true. Neither is it the purpose of companies to be especially solicitous or accommodating. They may choose to do so, as part of a business-strategy for pleasing customers and thus for growing their business. But they are not required to do so, nor do they have any such moral obligation.

This is precisely why we have government regulations. Regulations force companies to conduct business in a certain way, by enforcing standards on products. A healthy economy is one where regulations are not capricious or excessively burdensome, but which are sufficiently stringent to correct imbalances that would have gone unchecked had purely market-forces been in play. When taken to excess, regulations become stupid and paternalistic, stifling innovation and abridging freedoms. When too lackadaisical, regulations countenance abuses where the stronger party (typically the purveyors of goods or services) take advantage of the weaker (typically the retail customer).

Airline deregulation has been, to say the least, controversial. Many benefits have stemmed from it. But it has not been an unalloyed boon. And while many regulations both hurt the airlines' profit margins and do nothing for the flying-public's experience (or even make it worse!), it seems to me that it's time to reexamine the issue of airliner cabin seat-width.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,490,417 times
Reputation: 8087
Your assumption is that some government bureaucrats know better than the market what the appropriate products are. If the market wanted more comfortable seats, airlines would offer them. In fact, there is more than one example of an airline offering more comfortable seats throughout their planes and they went broke because the public did not want to pay for that extra comfort. The flying public (the market) has clearly said that price is more important than comfort.

So no, we don't need the government to define comfort. The market is quite capable of determining what comfort is needed and what price people will pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top