Southwest Declares Kevin Smith Too Fat To Fly

theodp writes "Kevin Smith is not a happy Southwest customer. The director was thrown off a flight from Oakland to Burbank, after being deemed too fat to fly. He later wound up on another Southwest flight, but has declared It's On and taken his rants to Twitter. 'Dear @SouthwestAir — I know I'm fat, but was Captain Leysath really justified in throwing me off a flight for which I was already seated?' he began. He also let the airline know he'd made it to his destination. 'Hey @SouthwestAir! I've landed in Burbank. Don't worry: wall of the plane was opened & I was airlifted out while Richard Simmons supervised.'"

Comments

Before the dust settles

[Vinegar Joe]

I'll bet Southwest will wish he really was Silent Bob.

Re:Before the dust settles

[jra]

Perhaps.

Here's their blog response: http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/not-so-silent-bob

Re:Before the dust settles

[crazycheetah]

Did blogsouthwest just get slashdotted?

Re:Before the dust settles

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter: "For people too fat to fly or type more than 140 characters."

Re:Before the dust settles

[mindwhip]

yup

Re:Before the dust settles

[gavron]

Yes, and they'll probably claim it's a HORRIBLE Denial-of-Service attack by those awful awful people who have no respect for law and order and don't care about the safety of OUR CHILDREN. MY GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Or they'll blame it on Linux-users.

FORTUNATELY the Department of Homeland Security said they'll be monitoring Twitter until the olympics are over.

Maybe if Kevin Smith had less than 3.5oz liquids they can help him.

"We're from the government and we're here to help." -- SNL

E

Re:Before the dust settles

[eagle8635]

From blogsouthwest.com: "Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank – as he’s been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience. You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement." It looks like the incident was cause by the circumstances of his ticket. They're saying that it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't elected to fly standby.

Re:Before the dust settles

[HybridJeff]

Copied from the google cache.

Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.

As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well. Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank - as he's been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience.

You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement.

Re:Before the dust settles

[MrNaz]

As a traveler I hare airlines. They are a bunch of snivelling money grubbing slime balls who would never give anyone an inch more room than they paid for in blood.

That said, SWA's response does sound quite reasonable, much as it pains me to admit.

Re:Before the dust settles

[twiddlingbits]

Yep, I fly a lot too, SWA's response is very nice and very reasonable. It's a LOT more than other airlines, say American, would do. In this case the customer IS wrong and SWA points that out in a nice way.

Re:Before the dust settles

[CohibaVancouver]

As a traveler I hare airlines. They are a bunch of snivelling money grubbing slime balls who would never give anyone an inch more room than they paid for in blood.

The main reason airlines never give 'anyone an inch' is because their profit margins are unbelievably small - They transport thousands a day. An inch here and inch there, and suddenly they're bankrupt.

This happens largely because airline passengers day to day often have little brand loyalty. They simply shop for the cheapest fare.

Re:Before the dust settles

[sh3p]

Cached http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/not-so-silent-bob

Re:Before the dust settles

[negRo_slim]

When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight

LOL

Re:Before the dust settles

[CohibaVancouver]

If a company wants my loyalty, they have to be loyal to me. Pretending to give a shit when my luggage goes missing or waiving the cost of one of those padded sleeping goggle whatchamacallits instead of carrying on like I'm trying to screw them out of the 2c those things cost would go a long way

Right, but you're the exception, not the rule. Airline customers *claim* they'd pay more for a fare that included things like free eyemasks and pretzels, but then when the time comes to book a ticket they pick the airline with the cheapest fare. Airlines have, in the past, tried to be 'loyal to you' and have learned it gets them nowhere, at least in the USA and Canada. Customers aren't interested in good service, they're interested in getting where they're going on the cheap, pure and simple - And with respect to service, passengers have reaped what they've sown. Compared to 20 years ago, airline fares are dramatically cheaper, and service is dramatically worse. Coincidence? I think not...

Re:Before the dust settles

[mysidia]

Explain yourself. What's wrong with CentOS?

The software is essentially identical. They are just different distributions of the same OS.

Re:Before the dust settles

[griffjon]

No, they just ran out of Capital Letters to make Various Departments and Policies sound More Official.

Re:Before the dust settles

[morari]

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Maybe this Kevin Smith guy should try getting outside and exercising now and then instead of sitting around on his fat ass in his mom's basement bitching on the internet.

Re:Before the dust settles

[precariousgray]

I'm not sure exactly Why, but, for Some reason, I felt Rather annoyed after Reading Southwest's response On their Blog.

Re:Before the dust settles

[jimicus]

Yep, I fly a lot too, SWA's response is very nice and very reasonable. It's a LOT more than other airlines, say American, would do. In this case the customer IS wrong and SWA points that out in a nice way.

Regardless of whether or not the customer is wrong, publicly saying that (in even the most roundabout way) is seldom the best way to handle the situation. It's only too easy for it to come across as sounding like "Yeah, well, we don't care, it's not our fault if the customer is too f'ing stupid to accept our own policies which they were made aware of before booking".

Re:Before the dust settles

[RockDoctor]

our own policies which they were made aware of before booking".

I take it that SW have video of the complainant strapped into a Clockwork-Orange-esque eye-opening head restraint, so that he couldn't claim to have not seen the policy. Also, can the complainant actually read? Did he understand the policy well-enough to answer questions on it under torture in a Moroccan prison (MI-6 would probably help SW to get around any constitutional constraints ; that seems to be their job).
That there was a policy present seems perfectly reasonable ; whether the passenger in question had actually read it, let alone understood it, is a much more open question. That he should have read it, well, that's why online contracts have features like an "I agree to the Ts-&-Cs, which I have read" button.
I guess that it won't be long before all airline booking companies start to implement a combination of "enter your approximate weight" box in combination with enforced display of the relevant terms of the contract, as part of the booking process. Which would be fine - the airlines clearly don't want this sort of business.
Just FYI, approximately half of the flights I take require me, and every other passenger (but not the pilots), to be weighed as part of the check-in procedure. Check-in desks have weighing pads next to the baggage scales. There might be something new about this to you, but nothing new for me.

Re:Before the dust settles

[ThePhilips]

Apparently it is a load of bull.

Smith says he was already "seated WITH ARM RESTS DOWN." IOW, he didn't take two places as they attempt to paint it.

For slim people out there who do not understand what the "arm rests down" in context means: the person already fits into the place just fine.

And heck, that Kevin Smith we're are talking here about. That dude is SHORT. His BMI has to be off the charts for him to not to fit a single place - even in the economy class.

Re:Before the dust settles

[jimicus]

I take it that SW have video of the complainant strapped into a Clockwork-Orange-esque eye-opening head restraint, so that he couldn't claim to have not seen the policy.

Do not give the airlines ideas. Please.

Re:Before the dust settles

[pak9rabid]

Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well.

Translation: Since our shithead antics and company policies caught so much attention lately, we'd like to take the opportunity to salvage as much goodwill as we can.

Re:Before the dust settles

[MobyDisk]

but then when the time comes to book a ticket they pick the airline with the cheapest fare.

I wonder if that is because there is no way for the customer to know. When I got to a web site to book a plane flight, it doesn't tell me any details about the amenities on the flight, or the airline. For example: I would pay more for an airline that had normal headphone jacks instead of selling me a proprietary headset for $5. But how would I know what airlines that is? Even if I found one, by the time I took another flight they would probably be bought-out and have their name and policies changed so I could never find them again.

You can't charge more for a feature you don't advertise.

Re:Before the dust settles

[ceoyoyo]

Too bad the people who would have had to sit next to him aren't as loud.

Re:Before the dust settles

[CohibaVancouver]

I wonder if that is because there is no way for the customer to know. When I got to a web site to book a plane flight, it doesn't tell me any details about the amenities on the flight, or the airline

The airlines tell you when you go to *their* sites, i.e. if you go to United's site you'll learn about Economy Plus, JetBlue's site tells you about more legroom, free TV, free checked bags. However, if you go to expedia or travelocity it becomes a race to the bottom for fares, and the only way the airlines can reach out to you is via 'traditional marketing' which may or may not reach you.

Re:Before the dust settles

[infinite9]

Compared to 20 years ago, airline fares are dramatically cheaper, and service is dramatically worse. Coincidence? I think not...

I would argue that this is a consequence of large corporations (this includes airlines) and government squeezing the middle class. My wife's grandparents both worked when he got out of the air force after WW2. He was an accountant, she was a school teacher. They saved money for for 4 or 5 years and bought... a house. Cash. Try pulling that one off today.

If people were paid enough to support their families, save for their future, and still have money left over to enjoy life, then they wouldn't mind paying an extra 10% or 20% to get a fscking pillow on a flight.

Re:Before the dust settles

[Jaqenn]

I'm 5'11", and I would fly folded into a 4'x4'x4' box if it would save me $50.

Re:Before the dust settles

[CohibaVancouver]

If people were paid enough to support their families, save for their future, and still have money left over to enjoy life, then they wouldn't mind paying an extra 10% or 20% to get a fscking pillow on a flight.

Yes, but expectations were also lower back in the good ol' days. People raised a family of five in a 2000 square foot house with one television and maybe one bathroom and vacation was a roadtrip in the family truckster to Disneyland, with the family of five in a motel room in Anaheim, having a great time in the motel pool.

(I'm 43 and I remember those days.)

So I would argue that today many people *are* "paid enough to support their families and save for their future," they just blow all their money on cable packages with 250 High-def channels, plasma TVs in every room of their 4000 SF houses and yearly trips to Maui. If they go to Disneyworld they fly and insist on staying at a hotel where they can swim with the dolphins.

Re:Before the dust settles

[Arkus]

4'x4'x4' sounds like a large enough space that even Kevin Smith would fit.

Re:Before the dust settles

[slashdot_commentator]

Its because SouthWest Airline is PRETENDING that they are apologizing to Kevin Smith, while piously insisting KS was too fat to allow the airplane to operate "safely", and SWA was right to boot him. Even though he wasn't too fat to be flown safely on the next flight, or the ones previous to the flight in question. And using every euphemism in the book to avoid stating KS is fat. The insincerity is galling.

I'm as anti-fatty as the next person, but the SWA thing stinks. If you check out theconsumerist.com, they chronicle a guy even thinner than KS, who flew SWA twice a week, and booted him for being "too fat". Its about the airline being rude, duplicitous, and arbitrary about their policy enforcement.

Re:Before the dust settles

[precariousgray]

Well, I was Kind of Referring to Something Else, but I suppose That would be True Too.

Re:Before the dust settles

[RockDoctor]

I take it that SW have video of the complainant strapped into a Clockwork-Orange-esque eye-opening head restraint, so that he couldn't claim to have not seen the policy.

Do not give the airlines ideas. Please.

Why not? I've always thought of flying to work in terms of "brace! brace! brace for impact!, take a deep breath as your head goes under the water, then punch the window out. Do not inflate your lifejacket until you've exited the wreckage." and about a 50% survival rate from crashes. I don't see any reason for other people to have an easier travel experience.

Full cavity search for all passengers, without exception. After the search, you put on the teflon one-piece suit for your flight. Baggage is not a problem - post it ahead of you, or after you. Hand baggage is similarly not a problem.

Welp, that's it

[gruvmeister]

There goes the last shred of credibility Twitter may have had. Fatties are now using it to vent rage over how cruel the world is for discriminating against them for being fat.

Maybe if he directed some of that rage into jogging or not stuffing twinkies into his maw it wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Welp, that's it

[shentino]

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket.

And they'd better damn well have given him a full refund or a free transfer or it's fraud.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know who this guy is? He isn't THAT big.

Re:Welp, that's it

[east coast]

I find it ironic that you're a subscriber and you're ranting against the same kind of activity on Slashdot that you condemn on Twitter.

Where does that leave you in the grand scheme of things?

Re:Welp, that's it

[phantomfive]

They put him on the next flight and gave him a $100 voucher. Didn't seem to make him feel better, and I can't say I would feel better either, but about your point

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket.

how exactly is the airline supposed to know he is too fat when they sell the ticket? Most airlines sell their tickets online without ever seeing the person.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Hatta]

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket.

I understand the sentiment, but how would you implement that? Are you going to make people weigh in before they can buy a ticket? Going to rely on self reporting?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Servaas]

Last known picture i saw of him was on a piece about Apple at the latest Macworld (I think it was there, wired.com may be your friend). He didn't look that big to me neither but maybe when flying coach...

Re:Welp, that's it

[TooMuchToDo]

Ask you online. Confirmation is easily done via a scale at the checkin kiosk or at boarding to know if you're lying. While it might be embarrassing if you're large person, how much you weigh is directly tied to how much fuel the plane burns and the weight and balance of the aircraft.

Re:Welp, that's it

[iamhassi]

" Fatties are now using it to vent rage over how cruel the world is for discriminating against them for being fat. "

Fat celebrities, not your regular jo' smuck. Besides Kevin's not that fat, at least not compared to my notion of "too fat to fly" (see photo).

I'm glad Kevin's getting the word out because apparently Southwest has a habit of kicking off big guys, and it's ironic Kevin twitted the "too fat to fly" diet because a UK couple, weighing 530 lbs combine, really did lose weight after being "too fat to fly"

Re:Welp, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know who this guy is? He isn't THAT big.

Are you referring to his weight or his career?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Servaas]

http://www.macworld.com/article/146331/2010/02/kevinsmith.html

Re:Welp, that's it

[pipedwho]

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket.

And they'd better damn well have given him a full refund or a free transfer or it's fraud.

Either that, or they should never have sold me a ticket when I failed to mention I have a chronic aversion to sitting next to someone who overhangs their seat so far that I can't see my own lap.

And if they don't give me a full refund or transfer, then it's $RANDOM_LEGAL_TERM.

Re:Welp, that's it

[asdf7890]

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket.

I understand the sentiment, but how would you implement that? Are you going to make people weigh in before they can buy a ticket? Going to rely on self reporting?

I've always thought that people should be counted in the weight allowance instead of just luggage. A bit porky like me? You get to bring less stuff (or pay more for the same stuff). Properly obese? You get even less. That and people who are for too large to fit in a single seat (with people to their sides being comfortable too) should be made to purchase the double seat they need.

Of course there are logistical complications to this. Firstly there is weight distribution between the passenger cabin and luggage hold which may affect the handling of the craft if most of the passengers are porkies with little luggage. And there is the issue of defining what constitutes too big for one seat. And finally there will be the people who cry like babies and moan that "it isn't my fault" - well it might not be (in which case get a medical cert and we'll consider some extra compassion) but it isn't the airline's fault either and it certainly isn't the fault of the other passengers who get less space between them because of your lardy presence. Another complication is what to do at the other end of the scale - it would be important not to encourage the "a stick of celery and half a tomato is more than enough for lunch" mob so there would need to be lower limit on the luggage gains (perhaps the weight distribution issue would be a legitimate reason for imposing this lower limit).

FYI: I'm a chunk overweight myself and not exactly getting any less so as time passes, and I would have no problem with getting a lower luggage allowance than someone of more healthy proportions. It seems quite fair to me: I want you to transport X kilograms of stuff from here to there which will use up Y amount of fuel, it just so happens that Z% of that mass is me and the heavy boots I prefer to wear. What's that? Xkg is over the total allowance and I'll have to pay a fee for the extra? Fair enough.

Re:Welp, that's it

[PolygamousRanchKid]

how exactly is the airline supposed to know he is too fat when they sell the ticket? Most airlines sell their tickets online without ever seeing the person.

Well, I'm no fan of sitting next to fatties either, but maybe they should have decided *before* they let him board the plane?

Like, when I was a kid at amusement parks, they had signs, "you must be this tall to get on this ride."

Why don't they have similar constructions at airports that say, "you must be skinny enough to fit through this to get on this plane" . . . ?

That would save everyone some grief later on.

Re:Welp, that's it

[The Grim Reefer2]

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket.

And they'd better damn well have given him a full refund or a free transfer or it's fraud.

I understand where you are coming from as I have to fly frequently and am tired of everything that the airlines have taken away from their customers over the years. However I also find it annoying when I'm stuck sitting next to someone who clearly should be forced to purchased two seats for their fat ass. Why should I have to deal with their fat ass spilling over into my already cramped space? If they choose to be the size of two people I nor someone else that is stuck sitting next to them should have to suffer for it.

We also don't know the entire story. There may have been weight or weight balance issues. It's common on smaller planes to have to move people to the back of the plane for balance issues. Perhaps he didn't want to give up his first class seat (not that I fly Southwest so I don't know if they even have it) or just refused to move to the back of the plane. Perhaps the captain chose to boot one fat person rather than two normal sized people. That would make sense to me. This probably happens all of the time to regular people. I get tired of celebrities who get treated like everyone else and then use their status to make a big deal about it.

Re:Welp, that's it

[CrackedButter]

If I had mod points I would mod you up.

Re:Welp, that's it

[TheRaven64]

I never understood this either. It's also not just fat people. A weight limit in your luggage encourages you to put all of the heavy things in your coat pockets or hand luggage for the flight. Why do I pay less for something heavy in my hand luggage than something heavy in my stored bag? You should pay the same amount for 1kg, whether it's 1kg in a suitcase, 1kg of hand luggage, or 1kg of you.

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

I do agree with putting pressure one people are too fat to fly and yes you can't tell when most people buy tickets online but when he's getting ready to board the plane, they should make a judgement them. I think his issue is more that they let him get onto the plane, settled in and sat down and then told him to get off. My guess is he wouldn't have kicked up a fuss if it were done when he was in the airport and not on the plane.

BTW, I'm cool with people being whatever size makes them happy (assuming they are honestly happy being overweight) but there are some places I don't like sitting by people full stop because space is limited so I certainly don't want to sit by someone who barely fits in the seat or actually people with long arms to be honest.

At least long arms is one thing, fat people are more likely to snore if they go to sleep and quite frankly I'll have to stab them with my cheap little dinner fork then and no one wants that. If they stay aware then I'll probably be ok with it.

Re:Welp, that's it

[tibman]

My guess is that weight isn't the issue, it's volume size and overflow into adjacent seats. Could a fat man fly if he didn't have any checked bags? Could a high density, heavily muscled, guy get kicked off because he weighs too much but is compact enough to not overflow the seat? If it is weight dependent, couldn't a fat man pay the extra $10 in fuel?.. or reduce his baggage weight? I think it has to do with seat overflow.. which is related to weight but more about volume.

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

it's more about space so a muscular person will weigh more than a fat person with little muscle. So you can't go by weight alone. That said I don't see why someone can't assess people before hand and maybe with a airline seat in the hall. You know, like roller coasters have a "preview" seat so you can see if you should even bother getting in line.

It would help if they gave some clear width policies as you bought your ticket online but I suspect they're afraid of putting people off. I know a few chubby people that should be fine but they're shit scared to fly purely because of the embarrassment of being kicked off the plane.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't forget the skinny, tall people like me (6'2", 135lbs). I can't get into a seat without my knees getting smashed by the seat ahead. And forget it if the person in front tries to put the seat back. I can only fit (semi-comfortably) in exit-row seats, or other rows where there's extra leg space.

It's one of the reasons why I now refuse to fly.

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

If a roller coaster can have a chair outside of the ride to prevent people who are too fat from queuing then surely a plane can as well.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Hognoxious]

It's difficult to tell because the photo only shows his face, but he doesn't look that fat.

At least compared to one lardass bastard I had next to me on a transatlantic flight. He must have benn 350 pounds. In the middle of the flight, while I was asleep, he lifted up the middle armrest. When I woke up I had hips like a hamster.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Hognoxious]

Why don't they have similar constructions at airports that say, "you must be skinny enough to fit through this to get on this plane" . . . ?

They do. They're called doors.

Re:Welp, that's it

[ae1294]

Romanes eunt domus!

Re:Welp, that's it

[Hognoxious]

If it's a condition of carriage (but not a law) that you're anorexic, it's the airline's responsibility to state that.

Then if the customer lies, it's him that's in breach. But you can't be expected to comply with secret terms.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Foobar of Borg]

Why don't they have similar constructions at airports that say, "you must be skinny enough to fit through this to get on this plane" . . . ?

They could size the metal detectors you have to walk through accordingly. If your ass hits both sides of the metal detector, you get to hear children sing:

Fatty, fatty, two-by-four
Can't get through the cockpit door!

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

I've always thought that people should be counted in the weight allowance instead of just luggage. A bit porky like me? You get to bring less stuff (or pay more for the same stuff). Properly obese? You get even less.

I don't think it's just about weight.

Flying is expensive and, unless you're in first class, space is limited. People get cheesed off having even less room being crammed in between the window and someone who is obese but more importantly if you simply don't fit in between the arm rests then you are a real danger if there is some serious turbulence.

Space, imo, is more of an important issue than weight. I reckon the plane probably could more than handle a plane full of fat people weight wise. Hell, planes carry tanks. But you have to be strapped down if things go wrong and the person beside you has the right to their space.

It is unfair either way. They could develop bigger aircraft to accommodate people but then again it would be beneficial to the overweight flyer in all aspects of their life to lose the weight.

Re:Welp, that's it

[gid]

I hate flying for the same exact reason. I can control my weight by diet, but I'd have to cut my legs off if I was to get any shorter. (6'5) On the same note, some amusement park rides are excruciating, especially the ones with the over the shoulder harnesses. They need to have a height max, in addition to a height minimum--I've learned that there's just something things to avoid.

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

Best comment in the whole thread!

Re:Welp, that's it

[robi5]

I don't think it's just about weight.

Right, there is the issue of smell, stickiness and heavy breathing too.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Hognoxious]

Not quite sure what that photo shows. Unless you know (or are) the girl in the photo, you can't deduce anything.

But his belly doesn't stick out that much. He could actually just be a bit stocky.

Re:Welp, that's it

[colin_young]

Actually, you'd probably create a secondary market where us skinny folks could sell our "extra" weight allowance. Assuming of course that the airlines couldn't find some way to have laws passed to outlaw that (kind of like how they didn't complain too hard about the ID requirements since it neatly solved a business problem for them, namely the resale of unused return tickets, although that's become less of an issue now that one can routinely find one-way tickets for close to half the round trip fare).

Re:Welp, that's it

[MillionthMonkey]

I don't agree with putting pressure on people "too fat to fly". If it becomes acceptable to filter your plane's passengers for girth, anyone who wasn't asleep in business school knows that you rip up the seats yet again and cram even more people into each flight.

Re:Welp, that's it

[coolsnowmen]

The planes that carry tanks are not the same planes that carry Kevin Smith. Unless he is on a USO tour.

Re:Welp, that's it

[thewils]

What's all this then?

People called Romanes, they go, the house?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Foolicious]

Every time I've bought a ticket (do people ever buy tickets from anywhere other than online anymore?), they've never asked me how much space I take up or how much I weigh. Wouldn't they only be able to make this determination at the gate?

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

But, when you say "not that fat" are we talking about by average US (or UK tbh) citizen standards or by actual medical health standards?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Foolicious]

In this case, "Romanes eat donuts"

Re:Welp, that's it

[ray-auch]

The terms don't exactly look secret. From: http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html

The armrest is the definitive gauge for a Customer of size. It serves as the boundary between seats and measures 17 inches in width. Customers who are unable to lower both armrests and/or who compromise any portion of adjacent seating should proactively book the number of seats needed prior to travel.

In fact that looks pretty darn simple and straightforward (and fair) - if you fit in the seat (that's the bit between the armrests) then sit in it, otherwise buy more than one seat.

It'll still be a lot cheaper for fat people than tall people who have to pay for business class (ain't no special offers for upgrades if you're too tall to fit your knees behind the cattle class seat, I've tried). Furthermore, fat people can lose weight, tall people are stuck being tall.

Re:Welp, that's it

[infosinger]

It more than total weight. Its weight AND balance in an airplane. As a private pilot I can understand the thought process that might have gone on in the captain's head. He needed to reduce weight(either total or from that part of the airplane). He could unload multiple lighter people or one bigger person. Since we have no idea where the weight of the luggage and the location of his seat it is unclear whether unloading luggage would have worked. In the ideal case the one person (and only his luggage) would cause less business damage than multiple people or just leaving people's luggage behind. Of course, in this case, he was wrong.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Cryacin]

Damn straight it's about seat overflow. I flew from LA to Sydney (15 hr flight) next to a rather stout Polish tire salesman. He couldn't even fit into the damn seat! He lifted the arm rest, took over half of my seat, and I would up crunched against a couple next to me.

When I found out, I complained to the QANTAS stewardess, and she said that I could move seats later. Quite hard on a full plane.

you know how uncomfortable it is having a seat rest firmly wedged in your back for 15 hours?

Sorry people of carriage, but if your caboose cannot fit into the seat to the point where you need to lift your armrest, you simply need to buy another god damned seat.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Macrat]

He is almost as wide as the podium. He is a whale.

Re:Welp, that's it

[infosinger]

Well after reading the Southwest blog posting, it appears to me more of size rather than weight consideration.

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/not-so-silent-bob

Re:Welp, that's it

[SerpentMage]

I am not the thinnest of people, but then again I am also not the fattest of people. HOWEVER, I was in this BA flight, and there was this guy who could barely buckle the belt and I felt so sorry for the people sitting beside him. If you want to be fat, go for it, it's your life! BUT you should be required to buy a second seat! The last thing that I want is to be completely uncomfortable...

Re:Welp, that's it

[MichaelSmith]

"Please sit on your computers pressure sensor to complete the transaction"

Re:Welp, that's it

[couchslug]

Of course it's about overflow, and those of us who take care not to be grossly fat fucks shouldn't have to be victims of the hambeast in the next seat.

No sympathy here. If you don't fit an airline seat, cargo net your fat disgusting ass to a pallet and go air freight.

Re:Welp, that's it

[SerpentMage]

I was flying from Newark to SanFran. And I was in the last row. Ahead of me were three ladies, and these ladies were HUGE! The interesting part was that these three ladies all had to sit in the same row. They complained and said that they would like new seats. The stewardesses in their nicest voice said, "sorry but this flight is full and you will have to sit in your assigned seats."

When the ladies had to sit they moved up all of the armrests and honest to goodness their butts and bodies melted into one another! Needless to say most people around those ladies were relieved that they did not have to endure one those ladies sitting beside them.

I thought it was pretty efficient for Delta to say, "hey you want to be fat, go for it, its a free country. But while we are at it we are going to put you beside each other..."

Re:Welp, that's it

[MichaelSmith]

It could be a bit like the frame they use to assess carry on baggage. If they can't fit through this narrow doorway they can't get on the plane.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Pete (big-pete)]

It's not about space or weight, it's about money.

I flew internationally with a baggage allowance of 2 checked in items of luggage at 23Kg each. I dared to bring just 1 piece of luggage that weighed 27Kg. They refused to check my case, so I had the choice of paying an excess luggage fee, or buying a new (overpriced) case in the airport and transferring some items across.

I bought the extra case, I wasn't giving that airline an extra cent for such a ridiculous policy. They also mentioned to me that if I had been flying in the opposite direction I would have had an allowance of 32Kg per case, so there was no technical reason for the weight limit.

Oh, and then when I was finally allowed to check-in with my two cases, the check-in staff raised an eyebrow at my 2 cases with a combined 30Kg weight. In retrospect it would have been great if I bought lots of bottles of water to take my second case up to the maximum 23Kg too - let them bear the extra cost due to their stupidity.

-- Pete.

Oh, the airline was TAP for anyone wondering.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Brian Gordon]

Not on the next flight, they put him on the flight he bought a ticket for. He was trying to change his flight plans at the last minute, which is why they didn't have a seat for him.

Re:Welp, that's it

[MichaelSmith]

So after takeoff the captain looks at his elevator trim setting and reshuffles the passengers accordingly.

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

Here's the interesting thing larger (tall, obese or both) flyers AND the airlines should be aware of. Numerous airplanes (except the small ones) have varying sized seats (even in coach) - just like many movie theaters. Simply accomodating a larger passenger by placing them in a larger seat seems to be a viable method of ensuring people's comfort.

I've flown on flights with very very tall people, who erroneously booked a seat under the baggage rack next to the window (DUH!), and the stewardess has moved them to a more comfortable seat without having been asked. I've also seen them move wider customers to wider seats.

Yeah, not all planes are configured in that fashion... but both (a) care should be taken by the customer to choose the correct seats (WHEN available) and by the airline in making the availability of such seats known (though I guess that could be a problem when thin customers who simply want a lot of room grab those seats for themselves).

Re:Welp, that's it

[MooUK]

Balance on commercial airliners is not going to be significantly affected by an individual's weight - not when the same plane could be carrying a tonne of cargo or absolutely nothing in the same hold without any issues.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Rich0]

They also mentioned to me that if I had been flying in the opposite direction I would have had an allowance of 32Kg per case, so there was no technical reason for the weight limit.

Yeah, because it isn't like the jet stream would allow a plane to make the reverse trip with tens of thousands of pounds less fuel, right? Or, perhaps somebody contracted to ship a lot of stuff in one direction and not the other, and the space was already reserved for them.

Sure, it could be arbitrary, but my understanding is that international flights usually take off right at the max weight/fuel limits. There is just way too much money in freight and if they end up with three empty seats they probably toss in an extra crate of mail for a quick profit.

I don't have an issue with weight/size/etc limits, or fees for exceeding them, as long as they're well-communicated in advance. This is the shipping/transportation industry, and the more stuff you ship, the more expensive it is to ship it. That's just physics...

Re:Welp, that's it

[MichaelSmith]

I probably weigh as much as Kevin Smith, but my BMI is about normal. I am 193 cm tall and I find economy seats very uncomfortable. Any taller and I wonder if it would even be safe to travel in those seats.

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

I'm not even going to argue that the rules regarding luggage are fair or not. What I do know is there are people that barely fit into these seats and they aren't even close to being the fattest people on this planet but they're an inconvenience to me when I have to sit beside them. Now imagine when someone fatter is sitting there. Now why should the fat person get to take up my space as well as theirs when I paid the same price?

There are two sides to every story and it's all well and good to say that yes technically the fat guy may just squeeze into his seat and only just get his seat belt on but how does it affect the guy beside him who has paid for an equal amount of space to the fat guy?

Re:Welp, that's it

[thetoadwarrior]

True but having man tit on my side is more important than smell. With all freedom comes responsibility and fat people need to realise that just like everyone else.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Antique Geekmeister]

Please actually read the twitter and the letter from Southwest. They sold him _2_ tickets, to accomodate his size, but he switched to an earlier flight at the last minute. That means his new pair of seats were standby, not confirmed seating, so legally they offered him 2 seats _if they had the space_. They didn't have the space, so couldn't accomodate him. They shouldn't have seated him considering his size: at the last photo I saw of Silent Bob, he was pretty big and definitely needs 2 of those teeny little Southwest seats.

Re:Welp, that's it

[clampolo]

If he was really too fat to fly they never should have sold him a ticket. And they'd better damn well have given him a full refund or a free transfer or it's fraud.

They were trying to save the man's life. Instead of flying the lard should have tried jogging or at least walking to his destination.

Re:Welp, that's it

[ae1294]

It says, "Romans go home. "

Re:Welp, that's it

[ChrisMaple]

tall people are stuck being tall.

Let me introduce you to Mr. Procrustes.

Re:Welp, that's it

[joocemann]

Do you even know who this guy is? He isn't THAT big.

Yeah he is. Relative to other americans he may not seem that big but relative to fit and healthy people (aka italians/french/spanish) he definitely is.

Re:Welp, that's it

[nanospook]

Co-pilot, rev up the left engine, hmmm, for some reason we are tilting..

Re:Welp, that's it

[socsoc]

I'm interested in your movie theater statement. I've worked at one and regularly attend different cinemas, but have never noticed different sizes. Do you have additional information?

Re:Welp, that's it

[discordia666]

Or how about selling seats based on waist size. Eventually planes would be outfitted with a number of seats for 28-32 (probably less wide then the current), 32-36, 36-42, etc. In other words this situation is all the airlines fault. They just need to have a variety of different seats to accommodate the different waist sizes of passengers. So, a size 32 would be just as uncomfortable in couch as a 64 inch waist. The airlines need to accomadate for this. It's a reality they have to face. I'm fine with having the fare based on weight or waist size, but then I'm thin.

Re:Welp, that's it

[kaizokuace]

what about people like me who fit fine in a seat yet weigh 300lbs? I work out a lot and have gained a lot of muscle mass. I do pay a penalty for being some form of healthy?

Re:Welp, that's it

[GIL_Dude]

Well the claim is that they have to have two people lift your bag if it is over the weight that their labor agreement calls for - hence the handling costs them more money. However, I have never seen this done in practice and I have seen bags marked with the overweight tags being lifted onto the belt and into the plane by one person (which seems to be standard practice; I've never seen them use two people to do it). Of course YOU carry your carry on so they don't have to worry as much about the weight. Although if you look closely you will see that the overhead compartments do list total weight limits. I've never seen the onboard flight attendants attempt to enforce those limits though.

Re:Welp, that's it

[need4mospd]

Confucius say, man who walk through airport turnstile sideways is going to Bangkok.

Re:Welp, that's it

[ae1294]

... and now for something completely different!

You awake to find yourself on a Southwest flight out of Oakland. It is pitch black.
You are likely to the eaten by Kevin Smith.

Re:Welp, that's it

[CohibaVancouver]

Numerous airplanes (except the small ones) have varying sized seats (even in coach) - just like many movie theaters. Simply accomodating a larger passenger by placing them in a larger seat seems to be a viable method of ensuring people's comfort.

Can you provide some specific examples of carriers and seat configurations? I fly about once a month, mostly on US-based 'domestic' routes, and I'm not familiar with what you're talking about. An airline like United has 2 types of passenger seats on the aircraft - A wider 'business class' seat, and a narrower 'economy class' seat. United also has "Economy Plus" whereby they increase the seat pitch (the distance between the seat and the seat in front of it). Southwest is all one class, with identical seats.

A transatlantic mainline carrier might have four classes of service: First class, business class, "premium economy" and economy. However, this is rarely the case flying economy in the United States.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Ihmhi]

I'm a good bit overweight myself right now, but think of it from the other perspective.

I'm a "person of size". I don't stick out sideways terribly, but I am 6' 5". That means that in most small to mid-size cars my knees are resting uncomfortably on the dashboard.

Businesses sell to the averages. The average person is this tall and this wide so that's how we'll design our chairs. It makes me wonder if I'll ever have to pay for the airline seat in front of me or behind me because I'm a "person of height".

Re:Welp, that's it

[CohibaVancouver]

I would have no problem with getting a lower luggage allowance than someone of more healthy proportions

The maximum weight of suitcase most airlines allow on a domestic flight is 50 pounds. Most "Customers of Size" are way more than 50 pounds overweight - So even if you took away their entire luggage allowance they'd be out of luck...

Re:Welp, that's it

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Last known picture i saw of him was on a piece about Apple at the latest Macworld (I think it was there, wired.com may be your friend). He didn't look that big to me neither but maybe when flying coach...

The is Southwest, the great cattle carrier of the sky, its only coach.

Re:Welp, that's it

[CohibaVancouver]

Seen him lately? He is a fat slob

...with a hot wife:

http://datingismiserable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/jen_playboy.jpg NSFW.

Re:Welp, that's it

[LatencyKills]

Been there, done that. Last time I flew I had the aisle seat. The guy by the window was huge, and lifted the arm rest when he arrived. The woman in the middle seat was only marginally smaller and also lifted the armrest. When I got to my seat I had literally 9", perhaps a little less. Naturally a full flight. I don't think the policy to force people who need two seats to buy two seats is wrong. I'd extend it people who only need 20% of the next seat.

Re:Welp, that's it

[mysidia]

Averaging the heights/widths/depths of people doesn't necessarily mean most people are close to the average.

I think height and width are highly variable quantities, and many many people aren't close to the average.

"Assuming the average" is naive.

It seems high weight should be considered no different than any other disability -- and reasonable accomodations should be required just as planes can't kick out people who don't walk, or people who are blind on that basis.

Re:Welp, that's it

[T-Bone-T]

The doors are always wider than the seats, smartass.

Re:Welp, that's it

[mysidia]

Actually, what they should do is publicly disclose the maximum distance around your waist.

E.g. They can print something like "To get on this plane, you must have a waste circumference no larger than 15"

So then people can simply measure themsevles, and avoid any unanticipated embarassment.

Re:Welp, that's it

[AnotherUsername]

I don't think passengers of any size are generally allowed through cockpit doors. Something about airline security.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Briareos]

Failwhale?

Re:Welp, that's it

[koan]

What's your point? It's OK to be morbidly obese as long as your wife is hot? Does it occur to you that health might be something worth considering hot wife or no?

Christ sakes people like you...

Re:Welp, that's it

[kklein]

Numerous airplanes (except the small ones) have varying sized seats (even in coach) - just like many movie theaters.

Huh? What plane and what theater? I've never seen either!

I spent a nice 11 hour flight across the Pacific with a morbidly obese Singaporean guy going home after a comic con (he owned a comic book store). His arm was all the way into the middle of my chest, and his upper fat roll engulfed the arm rest. I couldn't believe that he was allowed on with one seat. I asked a sky waitress if there was anything we could do, but the plane was full and said I'd have to take another flight if I didn't like my seat.

I would have to take another flight because the fatass next to me was taking up half of my seat!

I just pounded Chivas Regal throughout the trip so I wouldn't care so much.

As I did, I started chatting with him. He was a really nice guy, although way too otaku for my tastes. It made it harder for me to wish death upon him, so I've decided to instead wish death upon United Airlines.

This is a serious problem and needs to be addressed as a matter of course. I payed full price for half a seat!

Re:Welp, that's it

[michael_cain]

Sorry people of carriage, but if your caboose cannot fit into the seat to the point where you need to lift your armrest, you simply need to buy another god damned seat.

Yep. I've been known to demand that the person next to me leave the armrest down, and called the flight attendant to enforce it. There is no requirement that passengers be allowed to put armrests up during a flight if the adjacent passenger does not wish to. I find that mentioning "inappropriate physical contact" with a hint of sexual harassment gets the airline's staff's attention.

Re:Welp, that's it

[myrmidon666]

CAUTION: Do Not Challenge Fat Rage!! Have you ever tried to take a burger from a fat man? People have died for less serious offences.

Re:Welp, that's it

[mjwx]

I've always thought that people should be counted in the weight allowance instead of just luggage. A bit porky like me? You get to bring less stuff (or pay more for the same stuff). Properly obese? You get even less.

Muscle weighs more then fat.

So the muscle bound meathead steroid junkie will be caught out by this more then the morbidly obese.

Airport and Airline staff have enough to deal with already without having a dimwitted, arrogant, idiot with a serious inferiority complex hopped up on testosterone laced steroids upset because he's been thrown in with the fatties.

In fact, they shouldn't be sorting passengers at all.

Besides that it's a terrible idea for other reasons, it doesnt take into account height, most tall fit people I know weigh more then short fat people, Male vs Female, old vs young. There are too many factors for this to be effectively sorted out so it isn't just an extra charge which will be abused by the airlines.

Re:Welp, that's it

[BLKMGK]

Apparently the policy is heavier folks buy two tickets and if the plane isn't full they refund the second ticket. In this case he HAD bought two tickets - so he knows he's heavy - but asked to fly on an earlier flight stand-by. Sure enough there was ONE seat left and he sat in it but it was decided after teh fact that he was too big. the safety factor comes into play in that if you're squished up against someone who's big and you need to exit quickly it can be a problem - it wasn't that he was simply too carrying much weight.

Having been forced to "share thighs" with someone who overflowed their seat on another airline I actually find their policy enlightened! However he seems to be making a real fuss out of it despite his having so much as admitted that he's heavy in the first place by virtue of having bought TWO tickets!

Re:Welp, that's it

[CohibaVancouver]

What's your point? It's OK to be morbidly obese as long as your wife is hot? Does it occur to you that health might be something worth considering hot wife or no?

For many men (both heterosexual and homosexual), particularly those who are single and under the age of 40, a key motivator to get fit is not 'health reasons.' Rather, it's the desire to be more sexually attractive to a mate. In Kevin Smith's case, this motivator isn't present. He's already got an attractive mate. Therefore, in his case a key incentive to lose weight, quit smoking and reduce drug use isn't present. Usually the next driver comes after a health scare (i.e. heart attack or diabetes), and that may not happen for another 10-15 years.

Re:Welp, that's it

[koan]

That was the first insightful response I've seen.

Re:Welp, that's it

[daveime]

Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, "Romanus" !
Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !
Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
[He twists Brian's ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion: How many Romans?
Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Brian: Dative !
[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Brian: Er, "Domum" !
Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Kumiorava]

You can always book a business class or economy extra tickets. I know it will cost more, but it's well worth it. I'm not as tall as you are but at 6'3" with relatively long legs I constantly get uncomfortable on standard economy seat. I have a habit of upgrading my seat with mileage points to get that economy extra seat on longer flights and suffer on shorter ones. Also Jet Blue has inch or so more leg room on economy class than other airlines, use them.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Ritchie70]

I think you mean diameter. Circumference is distance around, so it would be roughly like waist size.

My pants have a 33" waist size, and I'm certainly not hugely obese.

(Could I lose 30 pounds? Sure, but I'm an inherently small person.)

Re:Welp, that's it

[Ritchie70]

On big commercial airliners, no.

I have been on commercial flights - the kind with one seat on each side of the aisle, or one on one side, two on the other - where the pilot came back and moved people around before takeoff.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Ritchie70]

...it doesn't take into account height, most tall fit people I know weigh more then short fat people, Male vs Female, old vs young.

Yep. For example, my 19-year-old stepson and I weigh almost exactly the same amount.

He looks absurdly thin - he's 6'4". I look kinda chubby - I'm 5'9".

Re:Welp, that's it

[jeff4747]

Businesses sell to the averages. The average person is this tall and this wide so that's how we'll design our chairs

Clearly, you do not operate an airline.

You don't design the seats to be comfortable for the average passenger. That's what first class is for. You design the seats to be barely tolerable for the average passenger. That way you can cram more of 'em into the airplane and pay yourself a large bonus.

Re:Welp, that's it

[mysidia]

No, I meant circumference..

You haven't seen the new 4.7-inch-wide airplane seats yet? :)

This is about saving airline costs by forcing all passengers to be thin

And exact measurements are meant to be satirical.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Tetsujin]

Do you put more stock in the "actual medical health standards"? If so, why?

The fact that the clinical definition of "obese" was changed and that this is regularly referred to as an increase in obesity in the population is one issue I have with the current definitions. Honestly I'd put more stock in individuals' assessments rather than medical health standards... Those standards are one-size-fits-all and may not really work for every body type. An individual person's assessment of another person may not be totally accurate either, but I'd expect the assessment to be more complete.

Re:Welp, that's it

[natehoy]

They did. In fact, they sold him TWO, because he disclosed his weight when the bought the tickets. The tickets, however, were NOT for the flight he was trying to board.

The part that the summary misses is that he asked to get on an earlier flight (which means he was now flying standby). When you fly standby, you wait until all the other passengers board then someone counts the empty seats, since they have no way of knowing how many seats will be available until everyone boards and they know how many no-shows they have and how many seats are really truly open. Since he was flying standby, he did not have a guaranteed reservation. Since only one seat was available once all the regular ticketholding passengers had boarded, and he couldn't fit into the single available seat, they could not accommodate his request. It's a pity that he couldn't fit into the available seat, but not Southwest's fault - they have a clear policy that if you cannot fit into a single seat you need to buy two. A policy that Mr. Smith was clearly aware of since he had two tickets to start with.

In fact, Southwest's policy is that if someone who needs to seats goes ahead and purchases two tickets and the plane ends up not being full, they REFUND the second ticket, because you "used an empty seat" for the extra space you needed.

Since they didn't have an available seat that Mr. Smith could fit into, they couldn't accommodate him. They moved him back to his original paid-for and committed seats, and even gave him $100 because they couldn't accommodate his request to fly earlier than the time stated on his ticket. Sounds like Southwest handled things well, and even went out of their way to apologize for something that WASN'T THEIR FAULT to start with.

Re:Welp, that's it

[natehoy]

Southwest flies only one model aircraft (Boeing 737), and the seats are all identical except the exit/emergency row where the seats are a teeny bit narrower, but have more legroom (both adjustments to accommodate evacuation in an emergency).

Even ignoring the fact that Mr Smith would probably only fit in First Class (which Southwest does not have) or in a few cases Business Class (which Southwest also does not have) on any aircraft without encroaching into another seat and that no Coach seat on this planet will fit him between the armrests, your argument is not relevant to Southwest. Their fleet is one of completely identical planes (except for age) and identical seating front-to-back.

While it is true that the space surrounding the seat can vary (such as window seats having a wall on one side, for example), the armrest-to-armrest width of Southwest seats is not variable except for the aforementioned exit/emergency row, and of course the legroom at the front where there are face-to-face seats (top tip for tall flyers, on a crowded flight AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS unless you can find a really short person to sit across from).

Mr Smith KNEW he couldn't fit into one seat. That's why he bought two for his original flight. When he asked for an earlier flight, he was a standby passenger. It's a shame Southwest could not accommodate him to fly on the earlier flight, but according to Southwest only one seat was available and he could not fit in it. Southwest's policy is that if you cannot fit into a single seat with the armrests down and without encroaching upon people in adjacent seats, you must buy a second seat (at a discount, and refundable if the flight ends up not being full). Mr. Smith did this, but the earlier flight did not have the two seats he needed, it only had one open.

Would you expect Southwest to "bump" another ticketholding passenger to accommodate a standby, or to violate their own policy and put another passenger through "lapover hell" and effectively give up half their seat for the flight? If Mr Smith were traveling with a child and only one seat was available, he would have been asked to take his normal flight because only one of the two standby seats he asked for was available. This is no different - he needed two seats, asked to fly standby for an earlier flight, and they didn't have two available seats for him.

As a former frequent flyer who is all too familiar with the horrifying moment or realization that the very heavy person coming down the aisle is going to be sitting next to you for a six-hour flight, and the intense discomfort of losing feeling on one side of my body for hours, my back bent at an odd angle, and in more than one case actually unable to get out of my seat for several minutes until I could feel my legs again, I actually flew Southwest a good bit because of this policy.

I sympathize with someone "of size" who is truly unable to get into a single seat, and is honestly unable to lose their excess girth. I truly do. But not to the point where I'm willing to give up half the seat I can barely fit into to start with (6' 3").

Re:Welp, that's it

[natehoy]

Southwest implements this through self-reporting. Mr Smith knew this and bought two tickets for his flight.

If only Southwest had had two open seats for the earlier flight that Mr Smith was flying STANDBY for...

Re:Welp, that's it

[Khyber]

"Numerous airplanes (except the small ones) have varying sized seats (even in coach)"

Bullshit! Those seats are one single size in coach, and slightly larger in first/business. And I've *NEVER* seen a larger seat in a movie theatre, and I've worked Malco, TYVM.

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

Sure... look at the seats.

In the ones near me (as well as ones I've been to in Baltimore), you will find some of the end seats are larger and/or there is a front row or three with larger seating.

In one particular one I've been to, the size difference was almost unnoticeable to the naked eye, but I knew the theater owner and he was talking about some of the issues he had to go through in re-upholstering the seats and pointed them out to me. I'd never noticed before. When I sat in the wide seats and the normal/narrower seats I did notice the difference (when I tried putting my arms and elbows by my side). In the wider seats, I could do so without feeling crammed in them. In the narrower seats, my arms were pressed against the arm rests. In that theater, it seemed the end seats were larger.

In the multiplex up the road from me, the front rows have larger seats (the lowest one in the tiered seating area right behind the rail - as well as the row on the "floor" section in front of the rail. Possibly others, but I did not make a study of it.

Theater seats seem to come in 19" to 26" widths. Presumably many theaters simply choose one size, while others choose multiple sizes depending on layout or willingness to accomodate larger customers.

Interestingly, I worked at a movie theater in the past too (a Lowes), and never noticed it at all until the theater owner in Baltimore pointed it out to me.

For airlines, an example is this link: AA 737-800 shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference).

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

American (and possibly others) seem to cram the seats closer depending on the shape of the plane where the seats are.

An example is this link: AA 737-800 [seatguru.com] shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference).

I've seen other charts for other planes (that I cannot find right now... found them when I was booking a flight a couple years back... I think for American) which showed two different sizes in Economy.

I was also on another flight (Delta I think?) where certain rows in Economy had only two seats instead of three so that they fit without a reduction in seat size.

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

The back seats on the 737-800 series seem to be narrower too due to the curve of the fuselage.

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

AA 737-800 shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference). The Emerg Exit seats also seem more crammed. The front seats seem more spacious (both in leg room and width).

There are others at that site as well... but it takes some digging.

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

Here's a link to Southwest... and no, they do not fly only one model:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Southwest_Airlines/Southwest_Airlines_Boeing_737-300.php

They fly 3 the 737-300, 737-500 and 737-700. Note the 300 link above... rows front and back have narrower seats. SIX of 23 rows have narrower seats... inotherwords, over 25% of the seats are narrower.

And no, a regular economy seat will still not help if you have someone really obese next to you... but if it happens to be one of those six rows, things will definitely be worse.

As for your height, on certain of the 737's that SW flies (I think the 300 series, maybe others), seats 11B and 11C seem to be the best (if you dont mind an emergency exit row). Though I've also seen someone moved to the front row where there is no overhead compartment.

Re:Welp, that's it

[RobertM1968]

19" to 26" seating... at the (nearly brand new) multiplex I go to in Stony Brook, the front row on the floor section before the tiered seating is the wide row. At a (nearly 90 year old) theater in Baltimore that recently closed, it was the end seats on the row and they used 4 different seat sizes in the theater.

And no, not every theater does this, but I have seen quite a few... and the age of the theater does not seem to matter.

And I worked at a Lowes for quite some time and never noticed it either... not until the owner of the theater in Baltimore pointed it out to me. They were doing a big event, I was helping out, and him and the manager pointed out which the larger seats were for the bigger boned customers and discussed the fun he had when they had re-upholstered the seats and had to take into account the different sizes.

Re:Welp, that's it

[haruharaharu]

So the muscle bound meathead steroid junkie will be caught out by this more then the morbidly obese.

Lots more 350 lb porkers flying than 230 lb jocks with 6 pack abs.

Besides that it's a terrible idea for other reasons, it doesnt take into account height, most tall fit people I know weigh more then short fat people, Male vs Female, old vs young. There are too many factors for this to be effectively sorted out so it isn't just an extra charge which will be abused by the airlines.

Really, they just need to be upfront about the policy - over 300 lbs = buy another seat.

Re:Welp, that's it

[tempest69]

hey, is it the airlines fault you're a freak?, or the poor person who has to deal with some guy with huge legs sitting across from them. And your too cheap to pony up cash for two seats, as a grand is such a small sum of cash for most people.
I'm kidding of course. Airlines have the stats for passengers, they can make pretty reasonable methods for preventing problems, having a few seats that are for people of size, height. Prevent specific booking of the seats, and let the airline attendants arrange larger passengers into these spots. And there will always be someone on a flight who doesn't comfortably fit in the seats. The non-specific booking allows the emptied seats to be reclaimed. This doesn't need to be that big of an issue, three more inches here and there may cost a seat, but makes a whole slew of people happier. And it makes the plane safer, as strategically placing the larger people reduces their impact on exit procedure. Now of course there is a limit, but airlines need to take better care of 6'5 customers, and really people of girth are part of reality, shunning them is pretty damn demeaning.

Storm

Re:Welp, that's it

[MartinSchou]

know how you feel. I'm 194, but I'm also a bit overweight (BMI 28). However, it's not my stomach (where most of my extra fat is) that doesn't quite fit in the seat. My shoulder width is 54 cm (21.25 inches). That means it's physically impossible for me to have my arms inside the armrest (17 inch seat).

Add to that a seat in front of me, that is too close for me to fit properly. If I pull my ass as far back as it can come, my knee caps are 64 cm (25 inches) further away, and the seat in front tends to be maybe a cm (half an inch) further away. That makes it pretty much impossible to sit comfortably in a flight seat. I've been on flights where I couldn't possibly sit where I had been assigned, because the overhead rack was lower than the top of my head.

My problem getting into a seat isn't that I'm fat (it was an issue when I wasn't overweight as well) - it's that I don't fit inside the box designed for the 'average' person who's maybe 170 cm (5'7") tall and 60 kg (135 lbs).

I'm yet to fly on a plane with a dedicated 1st or business class. Only place on the planes I've been on that has decent leg room is the front row, and if I can get those, I want that, but that's only 1 out of 20 to 30 rows. I try to get an aisle seat, because that's pretty much the only place I have any chance of getting legroom, and even then I've been scolded by the flight attendant because I didn't fit in the seat:

"Sir, you need to stop nudging the seat in front of you."
"And how do you suggest I do that? This seat isn't built for someone my height."
"You need to stop nudging the seat in front of you."
"I'd love to, but I wasn't allowed to bring my chain saw, so I can't exactly cut off my legs!"

Alright, I didn't say that last line, I just rolled my eyes and made a big show out of showing that I had my ass firmly up against the seat back and that my legs simply wouldn't fit in the allotted space. That made her go away.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Jojie_T]

You knew the policy, you dared, you lost and now you're bitching? Geez. I'm glad the airline didn't succumb to idiots like you who think policies don't apply to them. I hate it when I'm waiting in line behind people like you who hold up the line to argue the policy at the counter as if you had no way of knowing beforehand.

Re:Welp, that's it

[mjwx]

Re-read my post.

Besides that it's a terrible idea for other reasons, it doesnt take into account height, most tall fit people I know weigh more then short fat people, Male vs Female, old vs young. There are too many factors for this to be effectively sorted out so it isn't just an extra charge which will be abused by the airlines.

Tell me why this isn't a bad idea.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Jojie_T]

Yes, because people are honorable and they'll gauge themselves in this chair and not queue up if they fail. That works. I also see this same thing for carry-on. That works too, doesn't it?

Re:Welp, that's it

[aussie_a]

I heard he's suing the airline for medical bills because their policy made him eat an extra 5 twinkies.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Evets]

The policy exists because multiple people actually have to lift the luggage on it's way to and from the airplane. They lift literally hundreds of bags each day, and lifting extraordinarily heavy bags without notice could cause an injury. The fee isn't to generate revenue, it's a deterrent in the best interest of the baggage handlers, and to offset the cost of handling a small number of bags in a different way than most other luggage. Every U.S. airline has a similar policy, usually at 50 pounds.

Re:Welp, that's it

[CarbonShell]

Italians/French/Spanish are healthy people?
You really have not seen a lot of them have you?

Or by healthy do you mean smaller in height?

There are fat people all over the world, not restricted to race or country.

Though the people in the US do seem to have more people with weight problems. Though we should be careful, the US is a nation made out of... guess... yep, Italians, French and Spanish, to name a few.

You are not only ignorant, but racist as well.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Pete (big-pete)]

Yeah, because it isn't like the jet stream would allow a plane to make the reverse trip with tens of thousands of pounds less fuel, right?

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear - if I had been flying the reverse route B->A and then A->B then I would have had a 32Kg allowance in BOTH directions. But flying A->B and B->A I only had a 23Kg allowance in each direction. Hence my comment that there's no technical reason why they should not accept 1 bag of 27Kg.

I was actually asked if my flight was a return portion or an outward portion, and they stated that if it had been a return portion then I would have been allowed to check the bag.

-- Pete.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Jedi Alec]

Actually, you'd probably create a secondary market where us skinny folks could sell our "extra" weight allowance.

Fatass credits?

Re:Welp, that's it

[asdf7890]

Muscle weighs more then fat. So the muscle bound meathead steroid junkie will be caught out by this more then the morbidly obese.

Which is just as much a choice as eating too much is in most cases, so said meathead's muscle weight is his problem just as my fat is my problem.

Airport and Airline staff have enough to deal with already without having a dimwitted, arrogant, idiot with a serious inferiority complex hopped up on testosterone laced steroids upset because he's been thrown in with the fatties.

Fair point, but should we really alter our rules just to cause less problems for people like that? Anyway, let him kick-off. Security have tazers these days and many tests on primates show that electric shocks are a way to encourage desired behaviour in future (for the humour impaired: that last part is more-or-less in jest, I did not intend to insult other primates by linking them to our meatheads). People keep behaving like that if they keep getting away with getting what they want by behaving like that.

In fact, they shouldn't be sorting passengers at all.

Because of the variation in people, the one-size-fits-all situation that currently exists is becoming unpleasant, if not completely impractical, for those next to the larger people that the size fits. Are their any fair ways of dealing with the issue? A limited number of larger seats? (the PC mob would come down on that as segregation) Making larger people buy two seats? (though I hope the arm rest between those two seats can be folded away!)

There are too many factors for this to be effectively sorted out so it isn't just an extra charge which will be abused by the airlines.

Well, they'll abuse us some other way anyway... Would not a straight set or weight benchmarks (for passenger and luggage) be more fair and transparent than more subjective measures? Of course it wouldn't be that simple, for your example of children they take less fuel (due to less mass) but take up a full seat and so forth.

Re:Welp, that's it

[totally bogus dude]

Similar experience on a small plane (50-seater, two seats on each side of the aisle) which was really underbooked - maybe 15 to 20 passengers total, and most people were seated around the middle of the plane next to other passengers, leaving other rows completely empty. Before take-off, someone asked if they could move to one of the empty rows, and were told they could once the plane was airborne but would need to move back before landing, due to the weight distribution.

Re:Welp, that's it

[DrHew]

Did he Twitter "Worst Airline ride .....Ever"?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Hognoxious]

Hey, look up - what's that?

Hint: it isn't a plane with Kevin Smith on it.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Nice try - learn latin first. What you are talking about is caveat venditor

let the seller beware ?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If you don't fit an airline seat, cargo net your fat disgusting ass to a pallet and go air freight. What about if you're able to fit into the seat just fine, but are an anti-social asshole with a superiority complex? What's the victim in the next seat to do then?

What we normally do - don't talk to them. It's not like their private attitudes is taking your space, crushing you physically, or increasing your chance of thrombosis.

Next time you're charged excess baggage 'cause the airline wants to bill you proportionate to the fuel and space the transport costs - think how you'll feel if someone else loads up luggage twice the weight and area of yours, and gets told "no extra charge".

Re:Welp, that's it

[KraftDinner]

Oh yes, quite: http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/1/2008/11/Rogen_Kevin_Fat_Guys.flv.jpg

Re:Welp, that's it

[aclarke]

Yeah, I know what you mean about the tall part, at least. At 6'4 and 200lbs I don't fit particularly well into the average airline seat. What burns me is the 5'4 person in front of me thinking it's OK to just pop their seat the whole way back as soon as the flight starts. I'm sorry (OK actually I'm NOT sorry) but that's MY space. I don't assume I can move my seatback into the space of the person behind me if they're using it.

I'm not normally an asshole, but on a plane I become one. My knees are jammed up against the seat as it is, so if the person in front tries to move their seat back, I make absolutely no concession for them. They quickly find out that having their entire seat banged and jostled every 3 minutes while I change positions is much less comfortable than just moving their seat forward again.

You could try a similar tact.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Lumpy]

I'm not heavy and I buy two tickets. I don't want someone next to me.

If I had the cash that kevin has, I'd buy 2 extras so I have my own seatrow. Keep the damn dirty public away from me.

Re:Welp, that's it

[Lumpy]

Just snap in half and stuff, the whiney toothpick in the seat next to you into the overhead compartment.

Re:Welp, that's it

[kaizokuace]

hah. Or I could eat him, could use the protein.

Re:Welp, that's it

[ceoyoyo]

Because if you put your neutronium in your pocket you have to carry it onto the plane. If you put it in your suitcase, some poor sucker downstairs has to carry it on the plane for you.

Re:Welp, that's it

[slashdot_commentator]

So its "Romani ite domum"?

Re:Welp, that's it

[slashdot_commentator]

Lemme guess, you voted for GW Bush, twice?

Re:Welp, that's it

[haruharaharu]

Who even cares how tall someone is? Make the 300+ set pay for another seat and you've solved the problem of having to burn extra fuel to cart them around. This counts double if you overflow an armrest.

Re:Welp, that's it

[joocemann]

Living in europe (mostly italy) for 2 years gave me a great view. Italians are much healthier than americans.

Re:Welp, that's it

[joocemann]

by the way, i'm not talking about races, i'm talking about cultures... italians in the US are heavy just like the rest of us.

quit the racial sensitivity b.s.

Re:Welp, that's it

[X0563511]

I've had a subscription bought for me... someone took a comment of mine to heart.

Can't exactly have someone sign you up for twitter now can you?

Re:Welp, that's it

[Uzuri]

Actually "Romani domum ite" since the verb should be at the end.

Ah... 4.5 years of Latin...

I have sat next to these guys.

[sycodon]

Even if they can get their butts between the armrests, the rest of them overflows into the next seat.

They should have required him to buy two seats, since he takes up two seats and twice the gas as a normal person.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[jaymz666]

They should kick the people off who are jerks, to smell, too. Those are even more offensive

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[IdleTime]

Why is he angry?

It's all his own fault! Stop shoving worthless crap into your pie hole, start exercising. If you are fat enough for the airline to have an issue with you, it should tell you all you need to know. Haviung problems fitting your ass into a plane seat? You are too fat, start loosing weight.

Bottoom line, fat asses of the world, it is your own fault for allowing yourself to blow up like a balloon. Nobody was forcing you to eat the shit you have. Take some fucking responsibility for your own fat ass first!

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Courageous]

IIRC, airline regulations require that a passenger be in THEIR seat. If you're sitting next to a morbidly obese person, and they annoy you, just ask them to stay in their space. If they cannot, and it bothers you a lot, call a stewardess and explain that you understand your rights, and wish her to enforce them. At this point, the person who cannot remain in their seat will either be assigned a new one or forced to deplane. If you're fat, and upset by this--suck it up. You did not pay for the space the other passenger is in. THEY did.

C//

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Gr8Apes]

How about they first put seats in that fit 90% of the population? Otherwise, perhaps this is a ploy to sell 2 seats to "normal" people.

I do not fit into most coach seats even though the armrests have never been a problem. Either the pitch is too narrow (row to row spacing) with knees hitting the seat in front or the seat itself made for 12 year olds because they're too narrow in the shoulders. It's annoying as hell.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[zippthorne]

They do not. They do however charge a bunch to ship the wheelchair (since it's oversized checked baggage). Also, as you might have noted in the previous sentence: the wheelchair bound do not get to ride their own wheelchairs in the terminal.

But more importantly: it's a disability that requires more resources to accommodate. The very fat simply need an extra seat. Even if they only ooze over 10%, that means that I, the unlucky sod sitting next to the very fat, cannot use the armrest, have to have part of my body in contact with their creepy warm folds (I used to be thin enough to scrunch over, which although uncomfortable is preferable to the unwanted contact), and have to deal with the pit smell and their loud strained breathing.

I don't get 10% of my ticket back for the inconvenience, and am uncompensated for the experience as well. I like Kevin Smith's movies, but I wouldn't want to sit next to him on a plane.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Idiomatick]

Kevin smith is fat but he's not one of those huge guys... He looks to be around 235lbs. That is no where near some of the people that have gotten on the plane I'm sure.

Average weight is over 190 lbs (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm). In places like Mississippi (1/3rd of the population is obese) it is likely near 220.

So throwing him off the plane seems pointed for whatever reason. Were he 350 or 400 then I'd get it.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[John Hasler]

> How about they first put seats in that fit 90% of the population?

The seats have shrunk gradually over the years, with different airlines changing at different times. If 90% (or even 10%) of the population really cared they would have avoided the airlines with the smallest seats and thus forced them to change back. They didn't: they continued to choose the lowest price no matter what.

Fly first class. You'll have lots of room. What's that? It costs more? No shit!

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Idiomatick]

That would be taxing the healthy ... And planes are designed to fit the world's average ... Americans are just particularly fat... Ranging 10~30lbs fatter than other country's averages. It isn't subtle.

BTW! If you need a bigger seat I wouldn't suggest coach, it is meant to be cheap and not comfortable. If you feel your size isn't met then move up a class, I can guarantee you will find a seat that fits you. And YES, this is perfectly fair that you pay more for more space.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[DeadboltX]

This will take quite some time to take off.

Even when there are proper justifications for discrimination, the feel-gooders will still fight for the right for everyone to be treated equally, despite not being equal.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Endo13]

This.

Pay for ALL the seat space you're using, or GTFO.

Simple as that.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as recently as 16 months ago he was highly concerned over his weight. I don't know how recent these pictures are, but airline seats are somewhat narrow and it would not surprise me if his girth extended into an extra seat. If this was some schmuck off the street nobody would be talking about it, but because we feel some kind of connection to him everyone is up in arms. Obviously the airline definitely handled it in the wrong way, but he still is a fat fuck.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Frosty Piss]

Even if they can get their butts between the armrests, the rest of them overflows into the next seat.

And that's exactly what Southwest requires. He could certainly have afforded the second ticket. From the LA Times:

Southwest Airlines measures whether a customers too large to fly based on the passenger's ability to lower both armrests while sitting on the plane. If the passenger cannot lower one or both armrests, the carrier typically requires the passenger to purchase an additional seat or make arrangements on other flights that may accommodate for extra space.

So why didn't he?

There is a segment of the hideously obese population that thinks there is nothing wrong with it, and society should accept it. That's fine for the most part, but clearly if a fat guy takes up two seats, the fat guy should pay for two seats. And THIS fat guy can certainly afford it.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[pipedwho]

Who modded this Funny? This should be modded +5 Insightful.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Idiomatick]

http://imgur.com/UfBNC.jpg has GOT to be pretty close, he is wearing the same sweater on the plane in question as in that talk.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[blackraven14250]

are the result of genetically-inferior parents who chose to have a child or couldn't offer an acceptable prenatal environment

Yes, they chose both of these options with a "yes" or "no" terminal in the womb.

elected to see a quack doctor who committed malpractice on them

This is also completely their fault. Since the doctor knows buzzwords and can fool someone who isn't a surgeon into believing they're qualified, it's their fault.

were on the road at 2am

Holy shit, driving at 2am is a bad decision when you're perfectly sober?

decided to play football

Damn, it's a touch football player's fault that the retard defending him ran into him, eh?

What about the people too lazy to rehab? Or chose to ride without a seatbelt

I actually think those are the only two instances where you're right 100% of the time, assuming that they're actually too lazy to rehab, and don't have some other legit reason to not do it. There's a whole bunch of gray area you don't even consider. I'm not shocked, because you posted AC too, despite thinking you're superior in every way to everyone who has ever made a choice, regardless as to the severity of the consequences.

Oh, and by the way, I hope you realize that making the choice to leave a party 30 seconds early, having not had anything to drink, is a choice that can lead to you getting hit by a car that happens to be careening down the sidewalk. Food for thought.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[leetrout]

He is AT LEAST 325, if not over 350 lbs. Look up some recent pictures of him. At least a size 48 pants.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Courageous]

While I shall assume you are attempting to be humorous, the parlance of the English language allows the use of "their" for the singular gender-neutral possessive.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Drathos]

My problem with the size of the seating is the legroom. When I sit in an airline seat, my knees hit the back of the seat in front of me and, at 6'1", I'm not a particularly tall person. I ask every person who sits in front of me not to recline their seat back, but every once in a while I get some asshole who not only reclines it, but slams it back, right on my knees.

Lots of people say "If you need more room, fly first class" but that's not an option on most flights that I take as most regional jets only have coach seating.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Albert Sandberg]

Tho seated next to Kevin Smith I would never had complained. That guy is a genius. I think we would have a gazillion things to talk about. Not to say that he'd be interested but... whatever.. would be worth a shot.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[cranky_slacker]

This ain't a dig at Smith (I'm a fan), but it's been years since he's been anywhere near 235lbs. Based on comments he's made during Smodcast, I expect he is between 330 and 370lbs. Either you are really bad at judging weight or you were looking at an old pic.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Gorobei]

Damn straight. I don't really know what goes on in the back of the plane (I assume those guys are there for ballast or something) but please STFU and board in an efficient fashion.

There were times when I left the lounge early, took my seat, and then had to deal with hordes of ugly people passing through our cabin to get to their seats.

  Protip: do not get in the way of the stewardess bringing me my drink. Also, don't jiggle your tits in my face - just drop off your business card and we will hook up at the destination: that mile high club crap was old in the 80s.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Tycho]

What about those of us who are tall simply due to genetics? The seats in airplanes don't fit very well when one is 6'7" (2m). Of course, one could say this shouldn't matter, excessive height is not a choice and obesity is often not a choice or a failure of will, and thus both should be considered disabilities. In the US and under the Americans with Disabilities Act, accommodations MUST be offered at no additional charge for those with disabilities at public facilities. Allowing an airline to charge someone extra because the airline has arranged their seats so that 15% of the population cannot not fit into a seat is something that is the airline's problem, not the passengers. This may explain why individuals who cannot fit in one seat on Delta flights are now able to receive an additional seat at no cost.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Dahamma]

I think he's closer to 350. He even says about himself in an interview:

"I'm really, really fat right now. Fattest I've ever been. I broke a toilet. That's how heavy I am. I can't take all the credit — that was an old toilet and a very waterlogged wall — but my size took that toilet down."

Apparently (does anyone RTFA!?) he usually buys two seats when flying SWA, anyway - so he admits it's a problem. In this case he tried to take an earlier flight standby, and they didn't have two seats available. So SWA put him on the next flight that did. I don't see the problem...

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[electrosoccertux]

This will take quite some time to take off.

*snicker*

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Macrat]

He is really wide... He easily takes up 2 plane seats.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Cederic]

My arse will fit in the seat fine, but my knees are always touching the seat in front and the people either side get to share my shoulders.

I'm not American, and I'm not unhealthy. Seats on aircraft are designed for children and women and frankly it costs the airlines money because I just don't want to fly.

So I don't.

It's perfectly fair that I pay for more space than a woman? Only when I get the same level of comfort per pound spent.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Cederic]

but every once in a while I get some asshole who not only reclines it, but slams it back, right on my knees.

I find pushing it back upright, perhaps with the occasional irritated punch, always works.

Maybe it's the look on my face whenever anybody actually turns around to complain..

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[mjensen]

I had a boss in the "big game animal" category. He bought two seats for each flight. He still was never comfortable, being over 6 feet tall like me.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[VShael]

There is no way that Kevin Smith is only 235lbs.
The guy would kill to be 235lbs.

I saw him live at a Q&A in October last year, and he was MASSIVE. He's over 300lbs, easily.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[VShael]

So why didn't he?

Well, if you'd read the article (I know, slashdot, why would you read the article?) you'd know that he did buy an additional seat. But when he asked to be flown out on an earlier flight, you go onto standby. And *that* flight only had one spare seat available, so he tried to take it.

So it's not that he thinks he's hideously obese and society should accept it.
Look at his tweets. He's pissed that they waited until he was in the seat, to tell him "sorry, you need the second seat after all"

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thetoadwarrior]

Not everyone in a wheelchair is fat and requires two chairs. If a person needed to fly and had to lie down then they would probably charge extra for that (if they could facilitate that) just as if you consider being obese a disability, then they get charged for the inconvenience to others. Just because you handicap doesn't mean you get a free ride through life.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thetoadwarrior]

This shouldn't be modded troll because he's spot on. Obesity is one of the few diseases that is self inflicted and especially for a rich celebrity who will have access to the finest health care, there really isn't much excuse. If he's happy with it then fine but like all freedoms there are responsibilities. It really hacks me off when people cry for their freedoms but once the responsibilities come up they want nothing to do with those.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Joce640k]

He was a double-seater, yes.

He normally bought double seats. This time he was on standby and there wasn't a double seat available for him. What did he do? He went and sat in a single seat without any concern for the guy next to him then got all whiny when they kicked him off, even though they gave him $100 for his trouble.

He's an asshole and I hope the world realizes it (though I'm sure the popular press won't spin it that way).

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[WCguru42]

I find pushing it back upright, perhaps with the occasional irritated punch, always works.

Maybe it's the look on my face whenever anybody actually turns around to complain..

I support this 100%. Mastering a proper scowl is a must for minimizing verbal garbage.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

Contrary to what simple minded people think, eating more doesn't not directly link to being fatter, and eating less does not directly link to being thinner. In fact, it is quite often the case that eating less will make you gain weight.

Genetics is the biggest factor in peoples weight. Their genes will make them hover to some genetically determined weight. People who's genes push them to a reletively small weight, are not doing anybody any good, and just being an ass when they complain that the person who's genes push them to a 300lb weight eat too much. Having genes that will put you 10 pounds over weight if you don't exercise, and eat total crap, is in no way the same thing as having genes that will put you 100 or more pounds over weight.

Of course, when the answer is "Yes" to the genetic/environment question (which is generally the case), that does mean that environment is a factor. One of the big problems people have is that our health/medical/food industry has decided that everyone should eat a low calorie and primarily sugar diet. This is fine for some people, as that is what their genetics has determined their body needs. This is not what MOST people need. They take a few people who's body work under the low calorie and sugar diet, and hold them up as proof that that is a good diet. Many MANY people will be thinner and healthier with a higher calorie, high fat/protein, low sugar diet.

Now, I don't know if you've ever tried to actually cut most of the sugar out of your diet (I assume you have not based on your post), but unless you live in your mother's basement and are never actually away from home during meal times, it is very difficult to keep away from the sugar. Very few restaurants have low or no sugar menu items. It is also rare to have low or no suger food served during lunch breaks at meetings, at parties, or at other people's homes.

Exercise is the another myth. Many people will not burn any significant amount of fat from exercise. For the many peole who's bodies decide to release fat as energy based on diet, and not on activity, exercising, while likely to make them healthier, will not make them smaller. It will make them larger and more tired. When you exercise, you muscles grow. This means you get bigger. Now, for the lucky, their bodies do not aggressively hold on to energy by storing it as fat. These people will lose fat by exercising. For others, their bodies react to the extra exercise as an indication that their bodies energy needs are going up, and thus become even more aggressive at storing any spare energy consumed as fat.

So, the answer isn't "Hey fatty, eat less, exercise more.", as that is just as likely to make him FATTER.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Frosty Piss]

Well, if you'd read the article (I know, slashdot, why would you read the article?) you'd know that he did buy an additional seat. But when he asked to be flown out on an earlier flight, you go onto standby. And *that* flight only had one spare seat available, so he tried to take it.

So in fact he *DIDN'T* have a second ticket for the flight he *actually* took. SO WHAT IS HE BITCHING ABOUT?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Frosty Piss]

So, IN FACT, he didn't have two tickets for two seats. WHY IS HE WHINING?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[adisakp]

They should kick the people off who are jerks, to smell, too. Those are even more offensive

I agree with you on the smelly people. I was on a flight from Chicago to London and I sat next to a smelly Indian guy who hadn't bathed in months and had curry sweating out of his pores. It was a completely full flight and they couldn't move me. I could barely breathe the whole 9 hours and each breath made me want to puke from the smell. To make things worse, the flight ventilation system wasn't working properly so I couldn't get fresh air. I was leaning over to the other side so much (to get a couple inches further away from his stinkiness) that I actually bruised my side and ribs against the arm rest on the opposite side.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[MikeBabcock]

And the women who wear way too much perfume or hairspray and make my eyes water the entire trip.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thetoadwarrior]

They were made for normal people at one point but the planes are old now and don't fit new average people. People's size grew pretty quickly in the last couple of decades.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Vellmont]

Look at his tweets. He's pissed that they waited until he was in the seat, to tell him "sorry, you need the second seat after all"

Hmmm... so he knew enough ahead of time that he really should be buying two seats because of his weight and did so. Then boarded the plane without a second seat available on it. When he got on the flight he obviously knew he didn't have his second seat available. Considering the recent photo at:
http://i.imgur.com/UfBNC.jpg

I'd say SW was justified in kicking him off the flight. He's quite large, and it seems like anyone seated next to him would have a pretty miserable flight. I'm sure it's embarrassing to have to be kicked off a flight after you're already boarded (especially for being to big), but such is life.

Reaching out to all his fans as if he was being victimized seems childish. Unfortunately many of the people supporting the airlines decision all seem to have their own form of childishness in demonizing the overweight.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

You would've been somewhat right (food industry has a large role), but the rest of what you say just ignores reality. The reality is - A country where people exercise less has much higher obesity rate than other countries. A country that had chosen fast food and high fructose corn syrup is more obese than others, and it is more obese since those choices were made. I have moved to the US 6 years ago. The first thing me and my family noticed is how uber-sweet everything is - everything from bread to meat was sweetened. But - that doesn't mean you can't find less sugar saturated food, it just takes a bit more effort. If genetics are to blame, why is obesity growing so fast in recent decades? Where are genetics when it comes to children diabetes - did new genes appeared in the last 20 years?
Show me an obese North Korean (not from the top echelons of the ruling party), and then go claim that calorie restriction and exercise won't help control weight. Yes, for a modern middle class American it is practically impossible to exercise enough (considering how many calories and carbs he consumes), but this is hardly genetic. You are right, some people react differently to exercise and their metabolism is different. But it is all a matter of degree.

Run 10 miles every day and eat 1500 well balanced calories a day (proteins/fats/carbs) and you will not be obese - guaranteed.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Fnkmaster]

And the farters. There's nothing worse than somebody who *keeps* farting on a plane, when they are stinky ones. Take some Gas-X you fucking slobs.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[apoc.famine]

235? Seriously? Unless you swapped the first two digits, you'd better not get a job at the carnival guessing people's weight. I'm around 5' 10", and by no means (other than BMI, which is a load of garbage) obese. I'm a bit chubby, with a bit of a beer gut, with a big chest and arms, and a fair bit of muscle on my legs. I clock in at 220. While I'm a somewhat big guy, I'm not a fatass by any stretch of the imagination.

When Jay said, "Fly Fatass, Fly!", he wasn't exaggerating. Kevin Smith is one fat motherfucker. I'd bet that 325 would be on the low end of what he weighs.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[fluffy99]

I have the same issue. The solution for me is to try to get the emergency exit row, which has more leg room. Some planes even have a missing seat in front of the exit where I can really stretch my legs out.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[onepoint]

I find that when I find coach, it's much more easier to say to the guy behind me, "hey, I'm going to lean back" usually this just get's a nod and I can get more comfortable. never had a problem yet.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Registered Coward v2]

They should kick the people off who are jerks, to smell, too. Those are even more offensive

They do, in some cases.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[vadim_t]

Two things.

First, it can't be all genetic. People living in the US aren't native americans for the most part, they came for a large part from Europe, not so long ago. They shouldn't have wildly different genetics, yet you're going to find a lot more fat people in the US than in Europe.

What the US has that is considerably different is the food and the layout of the cities. When I came to the US I was quite amazed at the rather insane serving sizes. An US "normal" sized ice cream is something I simply couldn't finish eating. The idea of a restaurant serving enough food that you'd ask for a box to take it home was completely alien to me before visiting the US. Getting the drinks refilled constantly was another new thing.

Also, in Europe you can, and usually do walk to places. Even if you have a car, there is a small grocery store somewhere nearby you can walk to when you find you don't have enough milk, and not far enough to actually bother getting into the car. In the parts of the US I've been to, however, it seems impossible to do that as the streets aren't made for it.

Second, no matter what kind of metabolism you have, you can't violate the conservation of energy. If you use enough energy, or eat less than you consume, you will HAVE to get slimmer, eventually. Your body can't create additional mass out of nowhere, or produce energy to keep you going out of nothing.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Trogre]

I nearly agree with you, but people with pituitary gland disorders tend to be obese and can't do jack about it.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[joocemann]

And the women who wear way too much perfume or hairspray and make my eyes water the entire trip.

And the dialect of some of the southerners is just appalling.

And the way the chinese people talk to each other just sounds annoying and I can't even think when they are talking!

And the old people constantly talking about what they ate just kills me.

And the smell of baby powder on the baby next to me is really gonna ruin my meal.

And the mothers breast feeding babies just grosses me out.

And the midgets being seated with the rest of us is just ridiculous.

And the dreadlocks on that rasta guy is disgusting.

And that kid with a cold is ridiculous and he should not be flying with me!

------------ (that was all sarcasm)

Ever stop to think that someone doesn't like you, either? Maybe they don't always feel the need to tell you why you're bugging them, but I'm sure there are plenty of 'reasons' to be overly sensitive over.

I'm not saying you complained about the kid with a cold, but I would bet people that have been upset about it have taken flights with contagious diseases of their own as well.

Life isn't so shitty if you learn to like it.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[joocemann]

And the farters. There's nothing worse than somebody who *keeps* farting on a plane, when they are stinky ones. Take some Gas-X you fucking slobs.

The average person farts 13 times a day (this includes those released in sleep).

Take some gas-x you slob!

Let me guess... you're perfect...

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[AthanasiusKircher]

While I shall assume you are attempting to be humorous, the parlance of the English language allows the use of "their" for the singular gender-neutral possessive.

While this may be your opinion, what are your sources for "the parlance of the English language"? You speak with such authority about what the English language "allows," but I wonder what other experts have to say on this question.

Basically, all the common style guides I have at hand at the moment say to avoid such usage in formal English. The latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style encourages writers to recast a sentence when such usage would be required. The latest edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage provides useful historical commentary from the OED that demonstrates the long history of such a practice, but continues to lament (albeit somewhat half-heartedly) that it is becoming more commonplace. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English says that the practice seems to be acceptable in informal contexts, but in "Oratorical and Edited English" it should be avoided by rephrasing the sentence. Garner's Modern American Usage admits that it's a great solution to a problem of sexist language, but warns that using it may cause readers to "doubt your literacy" and refers to the practice as "sloppiness." Again, it recommends avoiding the problem by rephrasing when possible. I could go on.

In sum, while almost all usage guides agree that the practice is common in colloquial English, all seem to recommend avoiding the use of "they, their, theirs" for a singular pronoun (some only in formal contexts or writing). So what are your credentials for dictating what is proper "parlance of the English language"?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Courageous]

In sum, while almost all usage guides agree that the practice is common in colloquial English...

Which is to say, all of your guides acknowledge that this is the way that English speakers actually speak. The half hearted admission that it is "becoming" more common place is, in my opinion, pretty disconnected with the reality of it being entirely common place.

The irony of these style guides is that they historically came into existence primarily as a tool to train middle class workers how to sound like upper class. They have largely outgrown their utility.

These days, if you want to know what words to use, you might be better served asking a linguist instead of pointing a grammar nanny finger through a book written by a stodgy academe out of touch with the actually speakers of the language that he is pretending to be an authority of.

Did it hurt your head that I ended my sentence with a preposition? *chortle chortle*

C//

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[emt377]

This also goes for the annoying people who insist on getting out of their seats by pulling back on the seat in front of them - instead of pushing up off their own seat. If any of you read this: 1. lean forward while still seated. 2. turn your torso toward the aisle you want to get to. 3. put your hand on the back of your own seat. 4. while leaning against your own seat, stand up, turning your pelvis toward the aisle a little as you do so. No need whatsoever to monkey climb on the seat in front.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thetoadwarrior]

That crossed my mind but I do believe that is a smaller percentage of the population than people would like to believe.

We didn't go from being a thin nation to one of the fattest by passing on defective genes overnight and having been born in the US and living abroad, it's very apparent that portions are bigger in the US and, along with a nearly allergic reaction to public transportation/walking would lead me to believe in most instances it isn't some sort of disorder.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

First, if you read my post, it does not say that it is all genetic. It simply points out that the skinny people in the use are not generally skinny because they are superior. It isn't because they eat 'right' and exercise more. It is because their genetics match the way that Americans eat. Second, The "you can't violate the conservation of energy" argument is stupid. It is only used by the people to simple minded to understand that humans have an anus. That's right. If a person has a butt hole, huge amounts of the energy the person takes in gets passed right through. Yes, even by skinny people. In fact, generally MORE is just passed through by skinny people, and that is why they are skinny. There are exactly 0 people on the planet whose body is balanced via calories eaten vs. calories burned. The argument is simply absurd.

I have challenged many people to put their money where their mouth is concerning the brain dead "eat less, exercise more" argument. I can gain weight at 1500 calories a day, and it will all be fat. I can lose weight at 4000 calories a day and it will all be fat.

As for your 1500 calories, 10 miles a day challenge... What you miss is that many peoples bodies will not only not burn fat at 1500 calories a day, their bodies will think that food is in short supply and hang on to that fat even more. What WILL happen though is that since their bodies are not releasing energy to their muscles, it becomes more and more difficult to function physically.

Can you run forever without stopping? Can you do an infinite number of pull ups? Not likely. When you have tried to do as many pull ups as possible, was it reaching 0% body fat that caused you to stop? not likely. Why? Because calories consumed vs. calories burned isn't even a 1/4 of the story.

No, you cannot violate conservation of energy, but you can starve to death while still being obese. Both obese by the absurd BMI standard, or by the 'Holy Crap man, your wider than you are tall' standard.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[ekhben]

I nearly agree with you, but pituitary and hypothalamic disorders are not common and have not trebled in the past thirty years like obesity has, and they make weight loss more difficult, not impossible.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[AthanasiusKircher]

I should point out that nowhere in my post was I claiming that I objected to the usage. (For the record, I don't. Except in cases where the gender is actually clear, e.g., where a specific person is being referred to, or the pool of persons that the sentence is referring to have only one gender.) I was asking on what authority you claim to tell other people how to write.

The irony of these style guides is that they historically came into existence primarily as a tool to train middle class workers how to sound like upper class. They have largely outgrown their utility.

Hmm... so I guess all those editors and guidelines for submissions to journals and such that refer writers to such guidebooks are in error. Note I included things like the Chicago Manual; I could also add things like the APA style guide to this list. You can believe what you want, but if you want your writing to be respected by people who use such guides and editors who point you to such guides, you'd better follow their rules.

These days, if you want to know what words to use, you might be better served asking a linguist instead of pointing a grammar nanny finger through a book written by a stodgy academe out of touch with the actually speakers of the language that he is pretending to be an authority of.

I have to disagree. If you want to know what words are in use, ask a linguist. If you want to know what words to use, you should consult whatever persons set the standards for what you're trying to do. I think even the most descriptive linguist would agree that there are rulemakers in communities that do serve to police certain aspects of usage. For writers, style guides such as the ones I've referred to are still respected by many editors and publishers. They don't care what your linguist friend says; they only care about what their standards are, and they get to determine them.

And for the record, a lot of these style guides have introductions addressing the very issue of prescriptive/descriptive linguistics you bring up. In general, the goal of most modern books like this is not to police usage, but to provide a writer with advice about what the accepted stylistic norms are. And from my experience with editors and educated people in general, I have to say they avoid the usage you promote, at least in edited prose. Even if you argue such usage is colloquial, again any descriptive linguist will admit that there are different registers and different usages appropriate for different contexts. Your claim, on the other hand, was not nuanced in this way.

Did it hurt your head that I ended my sentence with a preposition? *chortle chortle*

Yeah, have fun laughing at me. I'm perfectly aware that most grammatical rules, including the preposition nonsense, were made up, mostly by grammarians in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, I'm happy to split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition or even use "they" as a singular pronoun when necessary. However, I also am aware of the expected standards of many editors (and the readership communities they represent), and they are often not as nuanced in their perspective on such issues. Yes, they are ignorant. But if you're writing for them, you have to choose when to respect their norms and when to break them. But if you simply ignore them and pretend that descriptive linguistics is the only way to go... well, be ready to be branded as ignorant yourself.

In sum, it's all a construction. There are no "rules." So what? But you live in a society, and you need to be aware of those standards.

By the way, you were pontificating yourself in your original post -- implicitly claiming to set up a rule that you believed to be acceptable in all circumstances (which it clearly is not). So, in doing so, what makes you different from those "stodgy academes" except for the fact that less people care what you think?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

What part of what I say endorses sugar? I explicitly state that the wholesale pushing of a primarily sugar diet by the medical and health industry is a major part of the problem most people have with losing weight. A simple reading of my post would make that extremely clear.

In case you are confused, bread is sweet EVERYWHERE. It is a big ball of sugar. The only reason you didn't notice that it was sweet where you came from was because you had already gotten used to that level of sweetness. I don't know where you are getting meat, but there are very few places I have been that sweeten their meat. Sure if you get pasta with meat sauce it, the pasta is all sugar, and there is generally sugar in the sauce.

If you had read my post instead of guessing as to what it said, you would have realized that it said the genetics of most of the population doesn't match the eating that is done by most of the population. I point out that our health and medical industries (really, the government too) have pushed a primarily sugar diet. Just look at the 'food pyramid' it is almost entirely sugar. So, while a small portion of the population stays thin by eating this way because they happen to win the genetic lottery on that point, the vast majority of the population is going to get fatter and fatter. Why have these problems gotten worse over the last few decades? Because the all sugar diet became what the government, health, medical, and food industry has been pushing for...wait for it...the last few decades. Go back to the 50's and you will find a very different view on what was considered healthy eating than what is considered today.

A great food experiment has been conducted on the American population. Unfortunately, no one wants to look at the results. Everyone want to just claim that we must not be eat enough sugar. Heck, 'experts' have gotten to the point that they are even trying to redefine what the word sugar means. I have literally heard doctors claim that 'it's not sugar, it's carbohydrates'.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Ryanrule]

I agree, the south sucks.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Courageous]

By the way, you were pontificating yourself in your original post...

NOT. Follow the thread back a couple of posts. You'll see I was responding to someone else's "correction" (maybe, perhaps they were being deliberately funny) of a previous post of mine. I'll give you a get out of jail free card and pretend I believe you didn't know this. They were wrong to correct me, and my observation that this English parlance allows for this was a dead-center-of-the-bullseye correct one.

Slashdot is not the National Review; an attempt to "correct" perfectly legitimate idiom of the language is just prissy.

C//

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[dbcad7]

I disagree.. Most overweight people are that way, because food is a priority to them. They diet, but it seldom works because food is still always at the back of their mind. When eating becomes less of a priority, and a skipped meal doesn't even register as a major event, then they will have reprogrammed their brain. I am all over the place with eating.. generally it's 2 meals a day, sometimes 3, sometimes 1.. the difference is, that for me everyone of those days is the same.. there is no suffering or agonizing that I missed something. I don't eat with the thought, oh my god this is going to be great.. eating is just something that I have to do now and then. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy some foods better than others or not enjoy others, but I don't sit around and plan my next meal.. I am a fit weight, and I don't work at it.. It's a brain, and habits thing.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[emt377]

I can't fit my leg in domestic coach either, and it sucks to fly when there's no business class seating available. But I don't think something that affects 15% of the population is a normal variance that can be addressed by market forces. 15% of the market is substantial money, assuming the figure is correct. Disabilities are by definition so rare that the market incentive to address them is generally negative. This is the same reason obesity shouldn't be considered a disability - as this story shows the market can handle it just fine. I do agree SW screwed up in that when they got him an alternate flight on standby they didn't make sure they got him the two seats they had agreed to provide him when he paid. This probably just reflects it being a special case in their booking system; but they did apologize and offer him a voucher for a comparable flight so I fail to see the big deal. Except of course in this case the person was wealthy so doesn't care about money, and is famous, so is used to people pandering to their every wish. Whatever.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[emt377]

Oops! I obviously meant "But I do think..."

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[FiloEleven]

Wikipedia disagrees. Singular third-person neutral possessive is "its."

The proper English choices for referring to a hypothetical individual are "his" or "her" or "his or her." "Their" is entirely different as pointed out humorously above and there is no need to co-opt it for something that is already well-handled.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[FiloEleven]

Garner's Modern American Usage admits that it's a great solution to a problem of sexist language...

The problem of sexist language is a problem of public misunderstanding and not of an actual institutional bias. I am linking this blog post because it contains a lengthy quotation from a noteworthy historian's defense for the continued use of masculine language in the generic case. The opening follows.

The reasons in favor of prolonging that usage are four: etymology, convenience, the unsuspected incompleteness of "man and woman," and literary tradition.

To begin with the last, it is unwise to give up a long established practice, familiar to all, without reviewing the purpose it has served. In Genesis we read: "And God created man, male and female." Plainly, in 1611 and long before, man meant human being. For centuries zoologists have spoken of the species Man; "Man inhabits all the climatic zones." Logicians have said "Man is mortal," and philosophers have boasted of "Man's unconquerable mind." The poet Webster writes: "And man does flourish but his time." In all these uses man cannot possibly mean male only. The coupling of woman to those statements would add nothing and sound absurd. The word man has, like many others, two related meanings, which the context makes clear.

Interested parties should follow the link for a few more paragraphs of strong, sensible defense; particularly interested readers should pick up the book that contains it as it is a wonderful tour of Western civilization from 1500 to the present.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[RealGrouchy]

This will take quite some time to take off.

More fuel, too.

- RG>

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[omfgnosis]

Singular they, which better accommodates a broader conception of gender.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[omfgnosis]

Or don't fly. Amtrak seating is at least as spacious as business class.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

You are wrong. Most overweight people are not obsessed with eating. The ones that are tend to be that way not because they want food that much, but because everybody around them is constantly telling them, or implying that they are bad people because they eat too much. It doesn't matter if they eat half as much as the skinny guy sitting next to them.

Of every single fat person I have ever met that has become fit (including myself), not one of them has become fit by ignoring food. Obsessing about food produces MUCH better results. 30 years of "eat less, exercise more" not only failing to make people thinner, but in fact increasing the average weights seems to have also caused the population to lose the ability to make logical connections.

Honestly, of all the people I have ever personally met that were the type that would agonize over missing a meal, maybe one or two were fat. I have known many dozens that were skinny. I suspect if you really thought about it, you would find the same applies to you.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[FiloEleven]

Of course "it" can't be used, which is why the next sentence starts with "The proper English choices."

The "singular they" article clearly states that it indicates indeterminacy "either in regard to number, or, controversially, regarding gender."

The co-opting of "they" for singular use does little except to appease the overly gender-sensitive (see the link I provide a little later in the thread), and I see nothing wrong with it in casual conversation. That is what this is, but it irks me to see a misinformed comment such as the one I replied to rated "Informative."

It's Valentine's Day. I have nothing better to do with my time =)

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[MrCrassic]

Run 10 miles every day and eat 1500 well balanced calories a day (proteins/fats/carbs) and you will not be obese - guaranteed.

Please. All it takes to stay healthy is eating a balanced diet (pizza right before bedtime doesn't count; neither does the soda in the morning with twinkies thrown in for snack) and using one's body for a little bit every day. This might be a stretch, but most folks who are really fat get like that because they watch tons of TV and eat like crap. To make matters worse, the problem is a vicious circle because the fatter one gets, the less able he or she will be to do any sort of exercise.

The folks who are "blessed" with naturally fast-acting metabolisms aren't completely off the hook; they might stay skinny, but they fail at any physical effort and get sick more easily.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[grimdawg]

Spoken like a true fatty. If you put as much effort into losing weight as you do making up excuses for your giant arse, you might be better off.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Endo13]

So how come the one choice is contemptible and subhuman, and all the other choices are fine?

1. You don't get obese overnight. Usually not even in one year. It's generally possible to realize it's happening and put a stop to it before it gets out of control.

2. Becoming crippled is not a natural, expected result of playing football or driving in a race. Sure, everyone knows it's possible. It's also possible to become crippled while crossing the street or driving to work. It's what's known as an "accident". Perhaps you've heard the term? On the other hand, continued gross overeating when you're already overweight IS expected to result in obesity.

And I say this as someone who has a chronic problem keeping weight in check. I've never let it get so severe as to require two seats, but I know it could if I let it. Yes, some people have a harder time keeping a reasonable weight than others. (Yes, it's possibly even genetic.) But it's still possible to do it.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[natehoy]

Exactly. All this moral outrage is over Southwest being unable to accommodate him on an EARLIER FLIGHT.

He knew he needed two seats. He bought two seats. Then he asked to fly standby and only one seat was available on the earlier flight he had asked for (but had no reservation for, hence the term "standby").

I fly with my others occasionally, and we've asked to fly standby on earlier flights. If only one seat is available on the earlier flight and we want to stay together, I expect to fly my original flight. In Kevin's case, they couldn't fit half of him on one flight and the other half on another (well, they could, but that might get messy).

This is exactly what Southwest did - they moved him back to his original ticketed flight, except they also gave him $100 because they couldn't accommodate a special request they were under no obligation to accommodate.

It's a shame a second seat wasn't open, but that's not Southwest's fault.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[dbcad7]

Actually no.. sometimes if I am involved in something, I will forget to eat.. not a conscious decision, just an oversight. It's really about as important to me, as putting gas in the car.. I do not think of overweight people as bad people.. I can make an observation though.. In poor countries where food is scarce, there are not overweight people whose metabolism supports the metabolism theory.. One thing about the US that is different, and can cause people to be overweight even when eating little, is sugar.. It's in everything, and causing diabetes like nobodies business.. I also knew someone who was taking Lithium for depression, and it didn't matter how little she ate, although a lot of the weight gain in that situation is water.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Courageous]

The "singular they" article clearly states that it indicates indeterminacy "either in regard to number, or, controversially, regarding gender."

Controversially over in the ivory towers where the old beards and ninnies haven't caught up with the speaking public? Perhaps. Meanwhile, the sea of humanity moves on. Not to worry, the next generation of beards and ninnies will catch up. :-P

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[macshit]

the parlance of the English language allows the use of "their" for the singular gender-neutral possessive.

Many people cannot seem to come to terms with this, however...

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

It applies to you was referring to the number of people you now that obsess over food, not that you obsess over food.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[grimdawg]

I read it plenty, and I read it hard. Each of your points is valid and interesting. Each is also an excuse, trotted out by the fatties of this world trying to tell us that they can't help the way that they are.

Unfortunately your attitude does the bloaters a disservice, too: the more you tell fat people that they can't change the way they are, the more fat they get, the less confident they get, and the less happy they'll get in general. You're part of the problem - by trying to stick up for them you're actually marginalising them more than I am.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[MadCat]

The thing is the could actually put both armrests down.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[quenda]

So what are your credentials for dictating what is proper "parlance of the English language"?

While the parent was looking up all those style guides, they should have checked a dictionary, and found that "parlance" means idiom, ie informal English.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Endo13]

I'd have to say you have no clue what 235 looks like. From the pictures, he's much closer to 335. I know all too well what 235 looks like. I've weighed that and more. I'm 5'6" btw. And I've *never* had a problem fitting in one seat.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[vadim_t]

First, if you read my post, it does not say that it is all genetic. It simply points out that the skinny people in the use are not generally skinny because they are superior.

I don't deny that there may be a genetic component. But that doesn't explain the disparity between the US and Europe, especially when most people living in the US are descendants of Europeans and shouldn't be that different genetically speaking.

For it to be a genetical difference over so little time there would have to be something that consistently selected for the propensity to obesity over so little time. But that seems rather illogical, because with the harsh conditions early Americans had to endure, the propensity to have such an inefficient energy usage as to die of hunger while remaining fat should have been selected against, not for.

Second, The "you can't violate the conservation of energy" argument is stupid. It is only used by the people to simple minded to understand that humans have an anus.

Lack of comprehension here. When speaking of calories in nutrition, it refers to the amount of energy a human body extracts from food. What comes out of your other end isn't included in that measure. For humans, celery has negative calories, because the body expends more energy trying to extract something from it than it ends up receiving. A rabbit probably gains from it, though.

There are exactly 0 people on the planet whose body is balanced via calories eaten vs. calories burned. The argument is simply absurd.

Sure there are. Not every single day of course, but on average. People with a disposition to staying skinny are those whose bodies demand just enough or a bit too little food, and eat that much instead of gorging on it every day. That's what hunger is for.

Can you run forever without stopping? Can you do an infinite number of pull ups? Not likely. When you have tried to do as many pull ups as possible, was it reaching 0% body fat that caused you to stop? not likely. Why? Because calories consumed vs. calories burned isn't even a 1/4 of the story.

No, at a point you "hit the wall", due to exhaustion of glycogen, and buildup of lactic acid.

No, you cannot violate conservation of energy, but you can starve to death while still being obese. Both obese by the absurd BMI standard, or by the 'Holy Crap man, your wider than you are tall' standard.

Please provide examples. Humans can last a long time without food. You could probably go weeks without it. A human couldn't possibly exist that long on stored glucose/glycogen. Glucose is very short term, and glycogen can be exhausted with intensive exercise in a few hours. After that energy has to come from somewhere.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

Bzzt...You may have read "it hard", but you didn't understand it. I never said that they had to be fat. I just pointed out that the solution is different than what people too stupid to get past the moronic "eat less, exercise" more mantra think it is. Calling people names, and telling them that to solve their problems they should do something that has proven over the last 30 years to be exactly the opposite of what they need, isn't helpful.

Thinking that telling people to work WITH their bodies instead of against it is certainly not a disservice, and is in no way marginalizing them. But then, you don't seem to be able to read well, so you might not know what 'disservice' and 'marginalize' mean.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[arose]

So how do you suggest I lose this fat that makes my knees stick into the seat in front of me and my shoulders bump into people next to me? Or is 6'3" freakishly tall these days?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[mooingyak]

It really hacks me off when ...

Is that a typo or some phrase I've never heard before?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

First - your bread point - Bread is carbs everywhere, but most places it's not sweet, don't confuse carbs with sugars, they are similar, but not the same. Meat is not served with jam like it is in the US in most other places

Now for the rest- I read and understood your post perfectly well. You are shifting the blame from the individual to the food industry and genetics. You are saying that exercise and diet do not always work. To which i say - you are wrong. It takes a lot of effort, but eat less (and balanced) and exercise more - and it'll work. The great food experiment that was conducted here could only succeed because the people are eating fast food and eating out more than they cook at home. Go get some veggies from the grocery store, good lean meat, even add a bit of olive oil - and you get a pretty well balanced dinner (just make sure your steak is under 1 ton).

Small proportion of population stays thin not because they won a genetic lottery, they either exercise, or eat less, or both. If obese people would really count everything that gets into their mouth (consciously or otherwise) most would discover the simple fact - they overeat. Most are simply not aware of the amount of food that makes it's way to their stomach.

Think about it - what is the modern's medicine's most radical cure for morbidly obese? That's right, various techniques of stomach reduction. And they all work with dramatic results. What does this have to do with genetics? Or with the food industry? Make your stomach accept less food, and suddenly you are losing weight...

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Tacvek]

The problem was that he bought tow tickets for his flight, and attempted to get on the standby flight. The standby flight did not fill up with either confirmed passengers or standby passengers. So there were enough empty seats on the plane that he could have two. However, they were unwilling to attempt to find somebody who was willing to move so as to create two empty seats next to each other, so he could sit there.

Had he instead purchased just 1 regular ticket for this earlier flight he he could have gotten a pair of seats by boarding early enough that it was still possible to do so. Since the plane still had empty seats at the very end, he would not have been asked to leave.

Notice that the only difference besides outcome of those two scenarios is that in the real one he had 1 standby ticket, and in the hypothetical one he had 1 regular ticket.

Something seems screwy about that.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[boxwood]

This is ridiculous. I weigh about 150 pounds, but if I say I have a phobia about people sitting in the seat next to me, the airlines should give me the seat for free?

There ain't no such thing as a free seat you know. Yeah its free for the fat guy, but the cost of that seat is being subsidised by the rest of the passengers on the flight that can fit into one seat. Why should I be required to pay a precentage of someone else's seat.

Southwest has a good policy. If you can't fit into one seat, you have to buy another seat. if the flight isn't sold out then they give you back the money for the extra seat.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[boxwood]

You don't even have to go to North Korea to see the difference. South Koreans and Japanese are generally not as fat as North Americans and Australians. But talk to a Korean or Japanese person living in North America or Australia and they'll tell you that they started gaining weight as soon as the left their home country.

But apparently your DNA magically changes as soon as you move to a new continent.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you made any argument besides name-calling, you might be taken seriously.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Your.Master]

The amount they eat and exercise didn't magically change either (not unless they eat at restaurants with large portions every day and their only exercise was a foreshortened commute). It was the available food that changed.

However, within the US, there's the same available food throughout (for the most part). Yet the variation in weight is enormous by comparison. Which is because of the interplay of genetics and the food available here. You can't reductively separate the issues.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Jedi Alec]

Please provide examples. Humans can last a long time without food. You could probably go weeks without it.

Only if you don't mind having no muscle tissue left after the fact. At least for those of us with no notable fat reserves to speak of.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[ArsenneLupin]

...and twice the gas as a normal person.

Why doesn't the galley serve bean-free dishes for these cases?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[ArsenneLupin]

At this point, the person who cannot remain in their seat will either be assigned a new one or forced to deplane.

Do planes usually carry XL-sized parachutes?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[vadim_t]

Well, of course such a thing would be unhealthy.

But, the grandparent's claim was that some people would die of hunger while still being fat. There might be somebody somewhere with freak genetics that would result in such a thing, but if it was a common ocurrence I think I'd have heard of it, so I'd like some proof of that it is a more or less frequent ocurrence in cases of starvation.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[dave1791]

Dieting is silly for the reason you pointed out. Your body will go into starvation mode and you’ll somehow manage to put on pounds while eating 1500 calories a day.

I’m trying to lose 25 pounds to get back into lean shape and end the slow trend towards porkerism that I was on. My tactic run 25-30 miles a week, do strength training and go cold turkey on the sweets. Cutting the sweets is not really about dieting, so much as not snacking to make up the shortfall. By running and doing the strength training, I’m kicking my burn rates up over 3000 calories a day and my body is not exactly in starvation mode. I’ve only lost 5 pounds so far in the past 2-3 weeks, but my waist size is melting like butter in a frying pan.

It’s all very simple and requires no special willpower. It only requires that you plan your life around 5-6 hours of sports per week.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[grimdawg]

When a sweeping generalisation has exceptions, it's not "simple-minded" to make assumptions with the generalisation at their core - especially when dealing with a topic as emotionally charged as weight.

If a fat person told you they'd tried diet and exercise, which of the following is your response?

a) You feel sympathetic to their cause: it's not their fault! Clearly they're one of those people whose genetics mean they can eat and exercise and remain in an unhealthy state!

OR

b) You feel sympathetic to their cause, but wonder whether they really tried hard. It's tough to stick to a diet and exercise regimen.

If you answered a, you're incredibly naive. I hope you're stuck between 175 kilos of hypothyroidism and 200 kilos of big bones.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[drsquare]

Genetics is the biggest factor in peoples weight.

I thought genetics took thousands of years to change, yet obesity has exploded over a few decades. Are people in Somalia that genetically different to Americans?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[BarryJacobsen]

Allowing an airline to charge someone extra because the airline has arranged their seats so that 15% of the population cannot not fit into a seat is something that is the airline's problem, not the passengers.

How is this different from clothing manufacturers making it so 15% of the population can't fit into a medium or a large (thus forcing the larger customer to buy an X(XX)L for an increased price)? Is it okay to charge more for more fabric required but not okay to charge more for more seat space required?

Is it a restaurants fault if their meal does not entirely fill 15% of the population and they are "forced" to buy dessert?

Your argument seems very strange to me - companies should offer something that pleases every single person, regardless of what is profitable or economical. Unless you're intending for the 85% of the population who is satisfied to be subsidizing the other 15%.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Tim C]

The GP may be a Brit; "hacks me off" (and similar, e.g. "I'm really hacked off about...") is a reasonably common expression over here.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[david@ecsd.com]

You've not heard it before. I've seen it are heard it in use since I was a kid in teh 80s.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Reservoir Penguin]

So what happens when people with these disorders start eating less? Do they loose weight or have we just discovered anew infinite energy source?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[ceoyoyo]

"Exercise is the another myth."

This is ridiculous. You're quite correct that genetic factors and some acquired diseases can predispose you to be fatter or thinner by changing the way your body processes food but it is certainly not a myth that exercising more will cause you to be thinner and exercising less will cause you to be fatter. It is also not a myth that your diet affects your weight. You do not directly burn fat while exercising but you certainly divert calories from fat production when exercising and you do burn fat between exercise sessions to support increased muscle mass, muscle building, repair, etc.

It is not very common for a person who gets a reasonable amount of exercise and eats a reasonable diet to be two-seater obese. That usually requires both genetics AND poor diet and exercise habits. In the majority of cases obesity is a preventable disease.

None of which changes the fact that, if you need two seats and only one is available you should not be allowed to fly, regardless of whether it's your fault you need two seats or not.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[mooingyak]

Odd. I've managed to at least encounter most of the more common Britisms over time (such as 'spot on' from the same post). Wonder how I never stumbled into that before. Thanks for the info.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[infinite9]

This shouldn't be modded troll because he's spot on. Obesity is one of the few diseases that is self inflicted and especially for a rich celebrity who will have access to the finest health care, there really isn't much excuse. If he's happy with it then fine but like all freedoms there are responsibilities. It really hacks me off when people cry for their freedoms but once the responsibilities come up they want nothing to do with those.

Obesity is also the last physical characteristic where discrimination is socially acceptable. I agree that many people are overweight because they choose to eat and not exercise. And everyone brings up the fact that some people have physical problems that make it impossible to lose weight. But I frequently see this minimized so that people can continue to not feel bad about making fun of fat people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pcos

As an example, 5% to 10% of all women of child-bearing years (not just obese women) have PCOS. And I know from the experience of my family members that the weight problems don't go away after menopause. Imagine being a 5'6" woman, 100lbs overweight, and eating only 800 calories a day with a brutal exercise campaign (2-3 hours every day at the gym), but still unable to lose weight. Then you go out in public and get made fun of... I mean, people laugh and point. People make fat jokes loud enough for you to hear. Imagine a mom going to the grocery store (alone) to shop for the entire family and having someone look at the full grocery cart and say that if you wouldn't eat all that, maybe you wouldn't be fat.

Sitting next to a huge person on an airplane sucks. But I assure you being fat sucks more. And every one of them, if they could overcome whatever problems they're dealing with, would choose to be thin. The next time you want to make fun of a fat person, why not tell a nigger joke instead?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[infinite9]

Please provide examples. Humans can last a long time without food. You could probably go weeks without it. A human couldn't possibly exist that long on stored glucose/glycogen. Glucose is very short term, and glycogen can be exhausted with intensive exercise in a few hours. After that energy has to come from somewhere.

It comes from ketones that are liberated from burning fat. That is, of course, if the metabolic process that liberates ketones from fat isn't broken. It's possible to starve to death while you're obese.

I believe the obesity problem in the US is a function of lifestyle and food quality. We allow things in our food that are banned in europe. Europe also has a lot of walking cities with a lot of public transportation. Most places in america have dysfunctional or non-existant public transportation. Some places in america are practically impossible to visit without a car. You drive literally everywhere. The work culture and the general amount of stress and sleep deprivation that people live with here also plays a part.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

Nice false dichotomy. My response would be: C) Feel sympathetic for them because they have been conned by the health industry, medical industry, and government into thinking that an all sugar diet and starvation are the keys to being fit.

"I hope you're stuck between 175 kilos of hypothyroidism and 200 kilos of big bones."

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say by that. Are you just wishing bad health on me because I don't believe that the human body is a perfect heat engine? Or would you want me that big because you think fat people are evil, you believe I am evil, and you want an easy way to identify me as evil? Or is there some reason you would want me to be that big that doesn't point make you a scum bag?

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[ebuck]

Yeah, the only mistake made was that they boarded him and then asked him to disembark. Probably it was quite embarrassing, and I'd be a bit miffed if I was asked to board and then asked to disembark because I was too fat. The front desk personnel should have noted that he was flying two seats, not one, and not have boarded him unless there were two seats available. Other than that, there's not too much of a story here.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Belial6]

That must be why your name is "Your Master". You are the first person in this chunk of thread to have mastered the English language well enough to understand what was clearly written.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thetoadwarrior]

I've been known to tell nigger jokes. I don't believe that some words are ok for only some people. Simply saying nigger isn't bad. it's all about the context so using it in a joke isn't necessarily bad. Saying it in a joke at a KKK rally means there is a pretty good chance you are a racist shit.

I don't have anything against most fat people. But if you're a fat person that wants to travel and choose a form of transportation that may well involve a vehicle created in the 1970s when people were smaller and whose purpose is to make travel accessible to all by cramming as many people into a tight space as possible then you do have to deal with the fact you may have issues. It may not be fair but life is often not fair. It's not like you can't fly but quite reasonably if you are big enough to justify two seats then you should pay for two.

My problem isn't really even with fat people flying in general, it's with some rich fat guy having a complete fit because he, the famous person who must be better than the rest of us, has been picked on for his weight.

If this was such an issue for him before why wait until he's inconvenienced himself if it happens to so many people?

He doesn't care that fat people get kicked off planes. He cares only that he's been embarrassed and inconvenienced. I doubt he'd have made a sound over it if it happened to someone else on the plane rather than him.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thetoadwarrior]

My issue is that there is a rich fat guy who had a huge fit because he was singled out. I doubt he'd have said anything if it happened to someone else on the plane.

As I said he has full access to the best healthcare in the world (unlike most people), the ability to fly first class (and avoid the issue) and pay for persona trainers. In his particular case he doesn't really have any excuse. If he wants to stay that size then fine, in all honest chubby look better than underweight but then he should live with the fact this situation comes up he may have to pay for two seats or fly first class to avoid it.

There have always been fat people and there always will be. I don't think they should be limited in what they do but if you're big enough to take up more than you seat then you should have to pay for it. It's the fair thing to do on in a vehicle that is crowded at the best of times and, if I take up more space through other means (ie more luggage) I have to pay for it so it only makes sense. Though admittedly airlines could do much better at handling the situation when it arises.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Trogre]

The same thing that happens to us slightly underweight folks when we don't take in enough food to sustain our frames - we just grow weak and die.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[slashdot_commentator]

Of course the food industry is to blame. The US has exploded in obesity in the past twenty years. It isn't because their genetic makeup changed. It isn't because everyone rejected exercise in the past twenty years.

What changed was the introduction of high fructose corn syrup into all process foods for the past 30 years. HFCS is (relatively) so freaking cheap, manufacturers can put it into everything consumed. People like the taste of sweet and calories. This keeps them going for more food (because fructose does not trigger the hormone/enzymes that turns off hunger), and the food, by ounce, has increased in calories because of the use of HFCS.

Sure, you have to eat less and exercise more. But the USDA nor the food manufacturers tell you that you have to watch to products you eat like a hawk. They scream to high heaven when people suggest to introduce a soda or HFCS tax. Yes, the food manufacturers are happy to kill you with obesity as long as they can keep making their profits.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Overzeetop]

I skimmed the wiki article, and didn't see any direct causation between PCOS and morbid obesity. There is correlation, and those with PCOS may be predisposed to weight gain, but one of the treatments is weight loss through diet and exercise.

I'm technically overweight - 6' tall and 190-195lbs. I have some sympathy for obese people because it really is hard to fight your body's tendency to shift from your "settling point" (mine is about 205lbs - I won't gain more, but it takes effort to drop below 195).

If you're spending 2-3 hours in the gym doing high level aerobic activity, eating 800 calories a day, and still gaining weight, you are a miracle case. Even if you could survive with a Basal metabolic rate half of normal, you'd burn almost 1000 calories a day without exercise. Any good exercise should burn at least 175-200 cal/hour. Just running a 12 minute mile (almost a fast walk) should be good for 500 calories an hour.

I have no doubt that being fat sucks, and it takes a shitload of willpower to drop the weight. I would venture, though, that most people (and by most, I mean greater than 95%) who have weight problems simply lack the willpower to fix it.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

If you've payed attention to the story, he buys 2 seats because he's antisocial, not because he needs the extra space. And I don't blame him for that, if I were a celebrity and had a lot of money, I'd buy 2 seats too. Also, he fit in his seat, didn't need a seatbelt extension and passed the armrest test. This whole thing is a big black eye for SWA, as their employees didn't even enforce the proper policies and SWA's PR is still maintaining that they're right in the matter, no matter how many false apologies they're issuing.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[MikeBabcock]

First off, I only made one addition, not a dozen. Secondly, its an issue that has actually been discussed and resulted in legislation (there are scent-free schools, malls, etc.) and note that none of your replies are actually in the form I used for mine.

But sure, go wax eloquent about random stupidity.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[Dahamma]

Does Kevin Smith really want sympathy from the "leave the fat people alone" crowd? Well, he loves to talk about himself... so here's yet another quote:

Seriously - it's deplorable how lazy I am. I'm a big, sweaty, fat fucking lard ass mess, not because I've got "big bones" or some kinda "glandular problem"... I'm just too lazy to exercise and eat right.

Yeah, he's the poster boy for "obese rights". I would LOVE to sit on a plane next to a "sweaty, fat fucking lard ass mess". This is a black eye only if you are morbidly obese and delusional. For the rest of us, I have to admit Southwest may have become MORE comfortable. Obese rights in general are absurd, IMO. If you have a diagnosed thyroid or other medical issue - sure, that sucks and should be accommodated as a disability. If you are just lazy, deal with it. We don't coddle smokers or alcoholics on airplanes, why should it be different for those addicted to food?

I don't have any problem with obese people per se... I just can't respect someone who tries to claim those health issues are not in any way their fault. In fact, Kevin Smith was almost respectable (he admitted in another interview he could get in shape, he just didn't want to, and preferred pizza to exercise, so if he dies young, that's his problem). But now he's seeing consequences to his decision that he doesn't like, and is just plain whining.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Kevin Smith has made a career out of self-deprecation and dick and fart jokes. To take one of his quotes and put it in some real-world context is pretty ridiculous as you could see him for yourself in pretty much all of his movies, some that aren't his, and in countless photos easily accessible on the internet. His self description is a gross exaggeration - that's what he does. He's overweight, yes, but he also followed along with SWA policies, fit in the seat, passed the armrest test and could buckle his seatbelt. Your opinion on this matter is not informed by the facts of the case but just with your prejudice against overweight people and probably a good bit toward your prejudice against celebrities as well.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[X0563511]

He did. If you read the response from Southwest, you'll see that he normally buys two tickets. He changed his flight time and thus had to rely on standby seating. When the time came, they only had one seat available. The airline made the call that he would require two seats (as he knows and expects, having established a history of buying two seats) and thus there was insufficient seating on the flight to attend him.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[joocemann]

I'm waxing eloquent about your bitchiness, get a clue.

Re:I have sat next to these guys.

[thickdiick]

That is not true. To be correct and comprehendible, you must use "his/her."

Re:That's what you get

[PizzaAnalogyGuy]

Hello Mr. Dear Anonymous Coward,

Your words disgust me. Not only because they are not true, but some people just have big bones.

All the best,
Me

News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters

[TinBromide]

I still think its awesome, but let's keep this next celebrity rivalry off of slashdot. Slashdot didn't cover trump vs o'donnel, and it doesn't cover paris hilton, so while Kevin Smith is a nerd celeb, let's not report on every twitter update in this matter? Mmmkay?

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think its awesome, but let's keep this next celebrity rivalry off of slashdot. Slashdot didn't cover trump vs o'donnel, and it doesn't cover paris hilton, so while Kevin Smith is a nerd celeb, let's not report on every twitter update in this matter? Mmmkay?

It's an excuse for a massive flamewar between the obese nerds munching on pizza and the excessively skinny nerds sucking down sugar-free caffeine drinks. Anything to take our minds off the fact that it is February 14th again and Natalie Portman still hasn't turned up at our door covered in hot grits and bearing a court order reversing the previous decision and allowing us to communicate with her again.... sigh.....

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters

[Tsunamio]

...the last time Kevin Smith made a headline it was "Kevin Smith Previews Revenge of the Sith", and I don't think he did that on twitter.

As part of the nerd media /. is in fact part of Kevin Smith's personal army, so we muster our outrage to avenge him. Boo Southwest! Mean ol' corporation!

I think this is probably wrong and demented......

[phantomfive]

........but somehow the only thing I can feel about this is "Yay Southwest!" Hello schadenfreude. I am an asshole.

Really?

[XPeter]

Isn't this supposed to be a tech site? Not "popeater?"

C'mon /.

Re:Does this mean....

[xcut]

I hope the parent of this post gets modded up. Why should we give a **** about this story?

SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[horatio]

Southwest Airlines was aware of the situation last night, and is working to remedy it. Nothing to see here, move along rubber neckers. From @SouthwestAir:

I've read the tweets all night from @thatkevinsmith - He'll be getting a call at home from our Customer Relations VP tonight.

So why is this posted as a story on /.?

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[TooMuchToDo]

The only reason they're working to resolve it is because of Kevin Smith. If it was a nobody with no platform to mention this from, Southwest would've cared much less.

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Because Kevin Smith is awesome

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[GabriellaKat]

Southwest Airlines was aware of the situation last night, and is working to remedy it. Nothing to see here, move along rubber neckers. From @SouthwestAir:

I've read the tweets all night from @thatkevinsmith - He'll be getting a call at home from our Customer Relations VP tonight.

So why is this posted as a story on /.?

Because a lot of /.'er are Kevin Smith fans, and fat? (ducks and prepares to lose her Karma)

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[JustNilt]

The only reason they're working to resolve it is because of Kevin Smith. If it was a nobody with no platform to mention this from, Southwest would've cared much less.

Actually, I suspect it's mostly because it's on Twitter that they reacted at all. Random average Joes have had similar responses from other corporations as well. They tend to be scared to death of bad publicity and Twitter especially seems to make them nervous.

Of course, the fact that it's a celebrity, however minor (sorry Kevin; I love your films but ...) on Twitter doesn't exactly hurt.

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[sesshomaru]

United Breaks Guitars

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[mister_playboy]

(ducks and prepares to lose her Karma)

Fishing for a /. Valentine, are we? :)

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[Macrat]

Awesomely fat.

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[GabriellaKat]

(ducks and prepares to lose her Karma)

Fishing for a /. Valentine, are we? :)

Maybe. On the internet every guy is skinny, beautiful, witty and can write code as beautiful as the best poets known to time. And they can all type exceptionally well with one hand.

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[sponga]

fixed
"The only reason they're working to resolve it is because of Kevin Smith. If it was a nobody with no platform to mention this from, Slashdot would've cared much less."

Seriously did everyone not see the infamous photo of the guy hanging half way into the aisle, that is what started a lot of this.

http://animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/fat_guy-300x300-295x295.jpg

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[Al Dimond]

At least they didn't sue him. Some Chicago mega-landlord (forget which) sued a tenant for complaining on Twitter.

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[ekhben]

Nerd Rage is always funny.

Re:SWA is aware, dealing w/ it

[MrCrassic]

...and rightfully so! As others mentioned already, he bought tickets for two seats, but wanted to get on an earlier flight with one. They might be at fault for not telling him that the standby flight had one seat remaining, but they gave him $100 for the trouble and still let him board the later flight he was originally scheduled to board.

I can understand his anger, but it doesn't make it justified. Southwest was completely in the right here, and probably would've dealt with another customer similarly (sans the Relations VP call, which is only done because of the potential big-time media issue he could make of this, as he already has). This situation is similar to a passenger trying to board an earlier flight than scheduled, but discovers while trying to board that the seat he or she took was prioritized for someone who actually had a ticket.

Silent Bob

[conureman]

Known to be eloquent and verbose on occasion. Not unlike his creator.

Re:Does this mean....

[selven]

I'm a geek and I didn't (and still don't) know who Kevin Smith is.

Re:I think this is probably wrong and demented....

[Keruo]

This is a case where Mr. Smith should excercise his body (and reconsider his diet) rather than his right to free speech. Being obese will shorten his lifespan.
And while speaking of airliners, captain in a plane is as much a captain as one on a boat. If he says you're not welcome on board, you're out.

Know what *really* bugs me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm about 135 pounds. Why the fuck do I get charged extra if my bag is 55 pounds, when the fat bastard behind me has 150 pounds on me, and his bag is slightly less? Like somebody mentioned above, yes, I DO think they should weigh people before they get on. The nominal reason for this is fuel charges, right? Can I get a discount because I'm not toting my giant bloated belly around?
</rant>

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[mstahl]

That's actually a really good point, but I don't think most people think of it that way. The airlines have now trained customers to think that they're paying for the privilege of not having to schlep their luggage onto the plane, not for the extra weight it will add to the airplane.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[mxh83]

I second this motion. Weigh the people with the bags and set limits.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[91degrees]

Ultimately it comes down to practicality. The average weight of passenger will be pretty consistent unless the plane has been chartered by supermodels or a group of hyper-obese. People aren't going to change their weight purely for a single flight. And it's potentially going to offend people to weigh them.

If you have no limit on the weight of luggage people will just lug as much as they can carry. This will not average out. There's no automatic cap on it, and people will take less luggage if they end up getting charged for it.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm about 135 pounds.

Did you get a lot of sand kicked in your face at the beach? Is that why you're so angry?

Bruce Lee weighed 135 lbs. Would you kick sand in his face while he was still alive?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Bruce_Lee%27s_weight

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[nanospook]

What? You buy a ticket and waste all that space???? You should get charged a penalty for that! Eat more food will ya and try to keep up ;)

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[PCM2]

The nominal reason for this is fuel charges, right?

Wrong. As mentioned many times in this thread, the nominal reason is safety and the comfort of other passengers. He's too big to fit in one seat.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[mjwx]

I'm about 135 pounds. Why the fuck do I get charged extra if my bag is 55 pounds, when the fat bastard behind me has 150 pounds on me, and his bag is slightly less? Like somebody mentioned above, yes, I DO think they should weigh people before they get on. The nominal reason for this is fuel charges, right? Can I get a discount because I'm not toting my giant bloated belly around?

Because the muscle bound steroid junkie behind him weighs 100 KG and will beat the crap out of your scrawny arse for suggesting this (yes, gym/steroid junkies really do weigh this much, the weedy guy at the gym weighs 80 KG).

Muscle does weigh more then fat, men weigh more then women, Caucasians weigh more then Asians and all this is averages (every person is different, Chinese women win weightlifting medals). Your simple solution is not so simple when put into practice.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[ibwolf]

I'm about 135 pounds. Why the fuck do I get charged extra if my bag is 55 pounds, when the fat bastard behind me has 150 pounds on me, and his bag is slightly less?

Because the "fat bastard" can haul his own carcass on the flight unassisted, while some poor baggage handler has to lug your overweight bag into the plane's cargo hold.

Also, any space in the cargo hold not used for passenger baggage can be sold for freight. Unused space in the cabin is just unused.

It is not just about the total weight.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[ptbarnett]

Why the fuck do I get charged extra if my bag is 55 pounds, when the fat bastard behind me has 150 pounds on me, and his bag is slightly less?

Because your bag has to be tagged for special handling by the people that are loading and unloading your bag on it's trip to and from your plane.

It's about workplace safety regulations, not the amount of fuel that is burned.

Re:Know what *really* bugs me?

[ceoyoyo]

Because the guy who weighs 275 lbs has to heft himself onto the plane. Your overweight bag needs someone (not you) to put it on and off the plane.

As far as individual bags (or customers) are concerned, any realistic amount of extra weight doesn't cost extra in gas. Handling and volume is a problem. If you try to take a very large or awkward object on a plane you're going to get charged extra because it takes up extra space or needs special handling (one airline won't take my hang glider, the other charges about $250). The same goes for passengers (or should).

Re:LOL

[0xdeadbeef]

Yeah, you'd think he could afford two seats.

Streisand effect

[oldhack]

But profitable.

If anything, this will boost SWA sale.

Re:Streisand effect

[oldhack]

Well, maybe not exactly Streisand effect, but you know what I'm saying...

Southwest has a reputation for this.

[Vellmont]

A&E had a reality show called Airline that featured Southwest from 2004-2005 that had several episodes where people were forced to buy a second seat if someone judged them "too fat". So this is a policy that Southwest has had for a long time, and isn't just some crazy pilot or booking agent just came up with but is rather something that comes from the top down.

It always seemed a bit embarrassing for everyone involved to me. I don't recall much detail from 5 years ago, but I do remember thinking some of the people judged "too fat" looked large, but not so large to affect the passenger next to them. It wasn't a very flattering series for Southwest, as a lot of the stories concentrated on bad aspects of flying. (Some of which were airline employees acting like control freaks)

Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[codeonezero]

According to http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html

It sounds like the determination is made if you can not fit within the confines of a standard seat with the arm rests down on both sides. I wonder if they don't have a test airplane seat you can sit in before hand at the terminal before trying to board or set of measurements you can take at home before buying your ticket/boarding to reduce the potential for embarrassment of being forced off the plane once you try to seat onboard.

From the link above:
"I am a large person and use a seatbelt extension, but I fit in one aircraft seat. Do I have to purchase two seats? Our policy does not focus on weight, and the seatbelt extension is not the determining factor. We use the ability to lower the armrests as the gauge, as the armrests are truly the definitive boundary between each seat."

Another interesting tidibt from the link:
Are all overweight people subject to the policy?
Many Americans are "overweight" or "clinically obese." A number of overweight or obese people occupy only one seat. In fact, many Customers may use a seatbelt extension but occupy only one seat, and these Customers would not be asked to reserve a second seat. If a Customer cannot lower the armrest (and is unable to comfortably travel with it in the down position), he/she is required to pay for the additional seat occupied. Again, we will offer a refund if the flight does not oversell.

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[duguk]

Our policy does not focus on weight, and the seatbelt extension is not the determining factor. We use the ability to lower the armrests as the gauge, as the armrests are truly the definitive boundary between each seat.

From: TFA Link
"why wait til my bag is up, and I'm seated WITH ARM RESTS DOWN. In front of a packed plane with a bunch of folks who'd already I.d.ed me as 'Silent Bob,"

Irrelevant of all the other slashdot members complaining that "being fat is disgusting", the fact remains that Southwest Airlines went against their OWN policies, and they didn't go about this in the right way at all. If he was already seated comfortably, wasn't blocking the aisle and no other customers complained, then what the hell is their problem?!

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[eliz_beth]

By their own definition and what Kevin stated- he fit in the seat with the arm rests down. Regardless if he purchases two seats regularly, he meets their definition of fitting in the seat. Telling him to leave is ridiculous. If I had money to burn, heck I'd buy two seats just to have some breathing room because it is still cheaper than first class. I understand having a rule in place for situations where a person just does not fit in the seat period. And there are planes that I fit in fine and others that are a tight squeeze for everyone but the 5'1" size 00. I'd much rather sit next to someone who's leg may touch mine under the armrest than someone who hasn't taken a bath, who is just barely sober enough to be allowed to fly, who brings out their entire office in their lap and over into your "space" without asking or even apologizing, who doesn't think rules apply to them (Yes you have to turn off your phone!), or people who think it is up to everyone else to parent their child. Or the flight I took where small talk of the "where are you going" bit on a 6 hour flight went from nice to 5 hours of hearing how the other girl and I in the row were going to hell because we were flying out to see significant others. So where really should the lines be drawn? Part of it is driven by the marketplace of course but I think the marketplace needs to recognizes the changes in the market.

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[shutdown -p now]

By their own definition and what Kevin stated- he fit in the seat with the arm rests down

"... is unable to comfortably travel with it in the down position"

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[Kjella]

But they also said "within the confines of the seat". So you have a guy who normally takes two seats, he's managed to somehow squish himself into one but I imagine he was overflowing into the next (it's amazing how flabby these people get) and the stewardess had to call him on it. Tough for him but I bet the passenger next to him was very, very happy.

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[eliz_beth]

"comfortably" is too subjective. Especially in coach seats!

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[boxwood]

Maybe the customer next to him did in fact complain. But his twitter isn't followed by as many people as Smith's so nobody wrote an article about it.

The people at the gate made a judgement call, the captain made a different call. The captain has final say, so he had to get off the plane.

Re:Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Q&A

[Anonymous Coward]

But they also said "within the confines of the seat". So you have a guy who normally takes two seats, he's managed to somehow squish himself into one but I imagine he was overflowing into the next (it's amazing how flabby these people get) and the stewardess had to call him on it. Tough for him but I bet the passenger next to him was very, very happy.

That's pure speculation. You don't know the details and neither do I. Maybe he was comfortably seated and the pilot just broke up with his fat wife?

Just measure before boarding.

[formfeed]

New rule: "If your butt doesn't fit in this box, you will have to go first class or buy two tickets."

Re:Just measure before boarding.

[erenzin]

New rule: "If your butt doesn't fit in this box, you will have to go first class or buy two tickets."

That's _already_ the rule. The issue here is that he normally buys two seats (for his own convenience, not because he can't fit into a single seat), but he ended up getting on an earlier flight (on standby) that was full and didn't have an extra seat available. The pilot assumed that Smith would be an inconvenience for other (adjacent) passengers just because he had initially purchased two tickets -- despite the fact the he was able to fit within the confines of the seat and lower the armrest.

RTFA; it's not that fucking hard, people:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/not-so-silent-bob

Re:I think this is probably wrong and demented....

[mazevedo]

"Being obese will shorten his lifespan."

And you are? His mother? Father? Wife? Even those people have no right to say that he must change his diet!
Anyway, as far as I know, and he describes it, his plane was not even full.
If things are as he said (there's always the version, of course - and I've read nothing about it) than I think it's discrimination. Period!

Re:Does this mean....

[zippthorne]

It's not science geeks that love Smith, its comics geeks

Here's what really happened ...

[tomhudson]

Here's what really happened.

The pilot, a registered Republican, woke up from his nap (pilots cat-nap as much as they can because of the new budget-saving schedules), saw the guy, and mistook him for Michael Moore.

Re:Here's what really happened ...

[Macrat]

...and mistook him for Michael Moore.

Or a whale.

Yuh Huh

[Greyfox]

As someone who's flown several times with some fat fuck overlapping into the seat I paid for, I really wish they'd do that more often.

If you take up two seats, pay for two seats. And not one here and one 4 aisles back.

Re:Yuh Huh

[StormyWeather]

I wish I could mod you up. I was squished against a window by some fat guy on my way into Dallas on southwest, and of course it had all kinds of storm delays. The guy was sweaty, smelly, and not at all concerned about suffocating me. I could have only wished the guy was as fat as Smith. This guy barely fit in his seat belt with an extra seat belt to extend it.

 

Re:Yuh Huh

[bazorg]

don't you have elbows?

Re:Yuh Huh

[electrosoccertux]

I wish I could mod you up. I was squished against a window by some fat guy on my way into Dallas on southwest, and of course it had all kinds of storm delays. The guy was sweaty, smelly, and not at all concerned about suffocating me. I could have only wished the guy was as fat as Smith. This guy barely fit in his seat belt with an extra seat belt to extend it.

but who of us has the balls to say something about it with the person sitting right next to us? I sure don't.

Re:Yuh Huh

[Cederic]

This is what elbows are for. You'd be amazed how much smaller some people become after the eighth 'Sorry, was that you?'

Re:Yuh Huh

[digitalhermit]

Tell me about it. On a flight back from DC a month ago, I sat next to this enormous woman who fell asleep and put her enormous head on my shoulder. She apologized the first time when I got up and woke her but then promptly did it again.

Re:Yuh Huh

[Pretzalzz]

Well, this is Southwest. There is no assigned seating. Since standbys would presumably board last, all that would likely be left would be middle seats which for obvious reasons are not next to each other unless they can get people to move. Usually you see people bribing people with liquor to get seats next to each other when they board late. As a corollary to this, boarding early isn't that much of an advantage as you'd have less control over who sits next to you unless you are travelling in a big enough group.

Re:Yuh Huh

[dissy]

This is what elbows are for. You'd be amazed how much smaller some people become after the eighth 'Sorry, was that you?'

As someone who is 6'0 and only 105 pounds, I too am offended by people who do such things.
Being equipped with quite sharp elbows however usually gets the same reaction only after 3 or 4 times :D

Re:Yuh Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I once boarded a multi-hour flight only to find that I was ticketed as the middle seat amid several rows of men travelling together to a weight lifting competition. These guys could put the armrests down, but physically couldn't put their arms down at their sides. I had elbows in my face the whole way. I tried starting a fight but they wouldn't take me seriously.

Re:LOL

[koan]

Or a fitness coach and a dietician.

And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[melted]

Yet airlines want me to pay a full fare. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to charge the fat folks extra, you gotta give the rest of us the price break on kids' tickets. Otherwise, just reduce the passenger density and charge everyone the same.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[pipedwho]

Or just charge by weight.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[Mr2001]

If you're going to charge the fat folks extra, you gotta give the rest of us the price break on kids' tickets.

Well, what it comes down to is they can only sell whole seats. Your 6 year old might only need half a seat, but that still means he's taking up the whole seat - they can't sell the other half seat to someone else. A fat guy might prefer to buy 1.5 seats, but that isn't an option: he has to buy 2 seats, and that second seat is being taken away from another paying customer.

On the other hand, there's a possible solution: seat the kid who isn't using half of his seat next to the fat guy who needs an extra half seat. But in order to accurately bill everyone for the fractional seats they use, the airline would have to know everyone's measurements ahead of time (not just weight, because bulk is what really matters).

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[pchan-]

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to charge the fat folks extra, you gotta give the rest of us the price break on kids' tickets.

It's simple: Airlines don't sell distance per gas consumed. They sell seats. People are not packages. You can't fly more of them in a plane if they weight less in a linear manner. One seat is the minimum allocation unit you can buy. Whether you use the whole seat just put your purse on it is not their business. You're paying for it if you're going to use it. If you're so fat that you cannot fit into the single smallest allocation unit they provide, you will have to purchase two of them (or upgrade to a higher class with bigger seats).

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the fat bastard tries to eat your kid?

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[melted]

I didn't say they should sell the ticket for 1/5th the cost. I'd be happy with a 30% discount to account for 130 pounds less weight than an average adult.

Vacations get EXPENSIVE when one's kids are over 2 years old.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[BitterOak]

What if the fat bastard tries to eat your kid?

Then he would have to pay extra on the food portion of his ticket. And your kid would get a corresponding discount.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[pchan-]

In practice 30% is still optimistic. A 767 weight approximately 180,000 kg, and seats less than 250 people. If those people each weighed 100 kg (220 lbs), the weight of the people is around 12% of the flying mass. What you're mostly paying for is the big metal bird the people are in.

If you want a proportional discount based on weight, your child should only get a discount on 12% of their ticket price. But we also have to pay for aircraft maintenance, the pilot and crew, aircraft lease of purchase service payments, and the airline's other expenses. In reality, the fixed costs of flying an aircraft far outweigh the added fuel per passenger kilogram component of your ticket. Your discount would end up being a low single digit percentage value of your ticket price.

The point of getting fat people to pay more is not due to their fuel consumption. It's due to their space consumption. They're either taking up a valid seat which could be occupied by another human who is splitting the aircraft costs with the rest of the flyers, or crowding people out of the space they paid for.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[markdavis]

With that logic, airlines should charge MORE for children- especially the ones that scream, cry, or talk the whole way, or kick the seats in front of them!!! (Thank God for earplugs)

On a more serious note- I am a small person, 5'7"150lb and even *I* am uncomfortable in plane seats.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[mjwx]

It's simple: Airlines don't sell distance per gas consumed. They sell seats.

Actually they sell freight space and the meat they transport is the least profitable as it requires to be heated and fed in a pressurised cabin (it also complains) where as most other freight can happily sit in an unpressurised hold.

The reason airlines in the US started charging for baggage is to dissuade you from bringing more of it (you should have figured this part out already). Now most people assume that this is to cut down on weight, wrong. Airlines can sell the space they freed up to logistics companies who want to move small sized parcels to other parts of the country or world rapidly. This appears cheaper but has a much higher rate of return per KG and is more steady and less problematic then the meat transportation business.

Budget Airlines like Tiger, Air Asia and Ryan Air make all of their money on freight, the passenger service is only expected to break even.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[Master Moose]

Is that weight at the time of purchase or weight at the time of boarding..

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[Clovert Agent]

I kinda agree (and as a skinny person who travels with little luggage, I'd LOVE to be charged by weight), but realistically, that's just not how it works. The airlines sell tickets per seat, or part thereof. Your 6-year old can't share half a seat with another child. If you need half a seat, you buy a whole seat. If you need 1.5 seats, you buy two seats. If, heaven forbid, you need 2.5 seats, you buy the whole row.

Obviously charging for a fixed-size seat means that everyone who isn't exactly that size (ie: nearly everyone) can grumble about paying for slightly too much seat, or being too tight. But the reality is they're sold as whole units. That's the deal. We have to work with that, and if that means fat people buy two seats when you'd rather they bought 1.5 and shared the other .5 with your kid, too bad. Unless the airlines find a way to introduce much more flexible seating and per-weight charging, that's the only practical way it can work.

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[ArsenneLupin]

Well, what it comes down to is they can only sell whole seats. Your 6 year old might only need half a seat, but that still means he's taking up the whole seat - they can't sell the other half seat to someone else. A fat guy might prefer to buy 1.5 seats, but that isn't an option: he has to buy 2 seats, and that second seat is being taken away from another paying customer.

Why can't they seat kids next to the fat passenger, and have kid pay half price, and fatty one and a half?

Or have Fat passenger + empty seat + another fat passenger. Each of them would only pay one and a half seat (effectively sharing the price of the empty seat between them).

So you can sell half seats if you're creative (... and if passengers are not too picky about placement. Obviously if everybody wants a window seat, it won't work)

Re:And my 6 years old son takes 1/5th of the gas

[Kynde]

Your 6 year old might only need half a seat, but that still means he's taking up the whole seat - they can't sell the other half seat to someone else. A fat guy might prefer to buy 1.5 seats, but that isn't an option: he has to buy 2 seats, and that second seat is being taken away from another paying customer.

Then why not seat the kids next to those fat bastards and get a one-to-one ratio for seat usage.

About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

What is it with the animosity towards large people?
Sure, most of the time they themselves are to blame for the state they're in. So what? It's their choice, and they shouldn't have to endure getting frowned upon, let alone being openly insulted.
I mean, c'mon, when the seats in an airliner are too small for the person, it's the person's fault? How so? Because he's larger than most others? A quick google search says that the average person in the US weighs 7 kg more than "ideal", so the airlines should of course have to adjust their seats accordingly. They're way too small anyway.
IMO, the airline is to blame when a large person inconveniences someone else due to the size of the seats. Don't ignore their failing just because big people are such easy targets =)

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[mxh83]

Sure, most of the time they themselves are to blame for the state they're in. So what? It's their choice, and they shouldn't have to endure getting frowned upon, let alone being openly insulted.

Talk about contradicting yourself. If you weren't that fat, you could probably think better. So what's next? Congratulating fat people? Fat models? The day when "fat" becomes a racist word? Give me a break.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[dadelbunts]

And this is what is wrong with society these days. Instead of telling little timmy to not eat that fifth cheeseburger we just let him and then tell everyone to accept him for what he is and make special accomodations for him. If the seats on an airliner are too small for a person yes it is his fault. Same for the seats on a bus or in a car. Why should the airlines or anyone else have to give you special accomodatins for being a lazy overeating slob. Would you make the same argument if someone smelled like old feces and stale urine? Should we just accept them as well?

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

I didn't make excuses for them, I said there is no reason for any excuses. It's their choice, and that's that.
"Visual pollution", wow. Did some fat kid bully you on the schoolyard or something, scarring you for life?
I don't know if emergency exits are large enough for those people, I expect them to be though. And those seats are too small for me to be comfortable, and I'm way underweight. They're probably the bare minimum of what airlines can get away with and still be allowed to carry people. As opposed to livestock.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

Hm. I fail to see the contradiction. Aside from the horrible grammar, but it's late where I live.
Also, not that it matters, but it does refute your preconception, I'm far from fat.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[illuminae]

You say they themselves are to blame for the state they are in.

So yes, if that is the case then they should certainly pay for their choice!

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

That's a different point you're making. Little Jimmy should of course not be allowed to eat whatever he wants, he's a kid. His supervisors, parents preferably, should be responsible for his diet.
When that doesn't work there's something wrong, yes, but it's not his fault.

I was talking about adults, self conscious, responsible people.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

While I'm sure there are medical conditions that could lead to people being more inclined to become addicted (to drugs or food or whatever), sexually abnormal or excessively violent, I would not, under any circumstances, compare people that intentionally harm others with fat people.
That's just wrong. Also, it kills your credibility and therefore your argument. Kind of like Godwin's Law.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[koan]

I am saying you can't make excuses for any type of abhorrent behavior violent or not.
If it interest you, I was at one time 300 pounds, I was disgusted with myself, and the eating/drinking wasn't the only addiction I had, I kicked all of them without "meds" by simply dong it, by making my mind up, don't eat at Mc Donalds, don't drink alcohol or keep it around the house, don't sit on your arse all day long.
The only reason Kevin Smith is obese is because he shovels food into his mouth and gets no exercise other than his morning deuce, and I have 0 sympathy if you can't help your self.
Take some personal responsibility FFS.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

Your argument is valid only when the person is unhappy with his state.
I'm not sure that necessarily has to be the case. I can imagine people that don't mind being fat, except for the fact that society gives them a hard time for it.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[koan]

You're there as well, it's valid because their obesity effects the rest of us thru the long term health implications.

See a problem here?
http://www.equityblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/global_obesity_map.gif

I don't care if they are "happy" they are fat.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

"Instead of telling little timmy to not eat that fifth cheeseburger we just let him and then tell everyone to accept him for what he is and make special accomodations for him."

What I can't figure out is how timmy can eat five cheeseburgers when he's made of straw.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

"Fat models"

Only if you are interested in profiting from selling clothes to fat people.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

I'm glad that you lucked out but if you keep patting yourself on the back any further you'll be trading a food addiction for self-flagellation.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

Smoking, drinking, and taking illegal drugs are far more harmful to society than people's weight. Let he who doesn't indulge in those harmful activities throw the first scale.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[neumayr]

You're basing your resentment towards fatties on their health care costs?
Okay, that's hard to refute. Maybe even impossible. But see how many things people do, that are just accepted as their right in their "pursuit of happiness", that costs society dearly.

Driving your car to get to the other side of the road (okay, that was reduced by economics I guess)?
Drinking, smoking?
Playing Golf (extreme ecological impact)?
Watching sporting events, like football, Nascar, etc. (very expensive, ecologically)?

I'm sure I could come up with many more, those are from the top of my head. Why would you single out "being fat"?

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[koan]

I don't believe in luck, you get it done or you don't.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[shutdown -p now]

Sure, most of the time they themselves are to blame for the state they're in. So what? It's their choice, and they shouldn't have to endure getting frowned upon, let alone being openly insulted.

It's their choice to do something that's gross enough to be frowned upon and insulted. The important thing about choices is that they have consequences, and freedom to make choices comes with the obligation to accept and deal with those consequences.

I mean, c'mon, when the seats in an airliner are too small for the person, it's the person's fault?

It depends. If he's overweight, and it's not for genetic reasons, then yes, of course (duh).

How so?

Because he's a fat asshole.

IMO, the airline is to blame when a large person inconveniences someone else due to the size of the seats.

Airlines could make larger seats, but that would mean less seats on the plane, and consequently higher ticket prices. So we'd still get to blame the fat guys for that.

P.S. I'm overweight myself, though not significantly so. Regardless, I'm trying to fix that, and not whine about how the society's norms don't align with how I look because of my past poor dietary choices.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[koan]

I'm not, you should hear me go on about smoking (I used to smoke) and drug addiction/alky's (had my share there too) but this article was about Kevin Smith getting booted off a flight for being a fatty, and he has no excuse for being fat other than self indulgence, rather than deal with his obesity he will twitter and use his fame until SW does something to assuage his ego, cough up some form of compensation and nationwide fat little hands will clap in glee.

It's bullshit.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

Of course you don't. How could you give yourself so much credit otherwise?

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[koan]

Due to the sheer amount of responses, I have lost track of my thread with you, I assume it has something to do with my pulling myself out of my own hole.
I do give myself credit, a lot of credit, but it came with a price and that is a very low tolerance for people like Kevin Smith, a man that will use his fame and money to justify what he is rather than deal with it.
To be perfectly frank I care about me and mine, the rest of you can fuck off, and that is another price, but it's what I had to do to escape the endless stream of bullshit that comes out of people's mouth. (mine included to be fair)

It is and always will be up to you and you alone to change, and that's all you can change, yourself.
Instead of Kevin saying to himself "I am obese, I should change that" he rants and whines online and uses his clout as a celeb to get SW to go back on what they did.
So when /. post that Kevin Smith died of a heart attack due to obesity guess who will be here to chortle about it.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[couchslug]

"It's their choice" so I blame them for their CHOICE.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

"It is and always will be up to you and you alone to change, and that's all you can change, yourself."

Given that Kevin isn't likely to be reading Slashdot, what was your reason to post if all you care about yourself and yours?

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[koan]

schadenfreude.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[ClosedSource]

Now that's a real social ill. Good luck with curing that as well.

Re:About all those "serves him right" posts...

[Tetsujin]

What is it with the animosity towards large people?

Seriously. It's like every post here is just ripping on fat people. The attitudes people are throwing around here make me sick. Are ordinary people really so shitty to one another on a regular basis? What a horrible thought.

I really do not have all the facts at hand, of what went down. But what I'm seeing here is that SW boarded Smith and then made him get off again. That's pretty lame. If you've boarded somebody they should stay on. If you boarded him and there wasn't enough room for someone to sit comfortably in the next seat, you shouldn't have seated anyone there.

Re:LOL

[jaymz666]

Then you have no idea what you are talking about. Move along.

Re:Does this mean....

[Idiomatick]

Airport stupidity is a common theme on /. but yeah, this should be put in the broken idle section rather than entertainment.

Muscle means BMI is worthless.

[WiiVault]

For those of us who spend lots of time lifting weights BMI is pretty useless. Muscle is denser than fat, many of my friends in great shape have a BMI over 30. These guys may be large, but they certainly aren't obese.

Good for southwest

[Degro]

As much as I am a fan of Kevin Smith and take pride in the fact that he's from my home state of NJ, I have to side with Southwest on this one. I've had the horrible experience of being seated next to and between very fat people several times and it just isn't fair. They should have paid for part of my ticket each time. Flights are cramped uncomfortable experiences as it is, but to have some bloated wheezing corpse pouring over the arm rest into my seat really crosses the line socially.

Re:Good for southwest

[couchslug]

"the fault of someone for being larger than average. "

Dear Hambeasts:
Cry me a river. The vast majority of fat fucks got there voluntarily. One reason there are probably so many of them is that it doesn't carry much social stigma, though it should.

If you don't respect yourself enough to manage your weight, I don't respect you or your deliberate infliction of your disgusting bloated carcass on others who use public transportation. May your diet kill you ASAP. If this hurts your feelings, have a consolation donut.

Re:Good for southwest

[ClosedSource]

"it doesn't carry much social stigma, though it should."

I'm trying to recall what great philosopher or holy book first pointed out the necessity of stigmatizing the fat.

Re:Good for southwest

[bitserf]

Yes, of course. It's not the fault of the airline for cramming you in like sardines, but the fault of someone for being larger than average. Divide and conquer... you damned idiots.

Last I checked stuffing face with burgers and KFC was a personal choice.

So yes, it's the fault of the pachyderm when they spill over into adjacent seats.

Healthy, skinny persons are well within their rights to ridicule those who choose to lower their snouts into the trough whenever food is in the vicinity.

Re:Good for southwest

[ceoyoyo]

There wasn't much need until recently. In the past if you were fat you were also rich and could do whatever you wanted. Only recently has everyone had the opportunity to get fat, which means we need some negative feedback in the system to replace not being able to afford enough food.

National Weight Database . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

So why is this posted as a story on /.?

Because it will lead to this. It's needed for security. If all citizens are weighed regularly and entered into the database, anyone overweight can be put on the no fly list.

That's definitely ./ stuff to squabble about.

It's on?

[Joe Tie.]

If he's planning on using his nerd cred to an advantage, I think he's in for a surprise. Every time I've seen the topic of fat people on planes come up on the internet, the rage is overwhelming. Geeks have a reputation for being fat, but I think it's a somewhat undeserved one. Geeks like problem solving, and once we decide being fat is a problem we usually do something about it. Unlike most people. Which makes us really, really, unsympathetic to people who choose to not only remain inactive about it but also complain.

Re:It's on?

[Belial6]

Yes, I saw my weight as too much. So, I solved the problem. I did it by ignoring all the advice that is considered 'common sense' like 'Eat less, exercise more'. I tend to be a lot more sympathetic to people about it because being a geek, I understand that the vast majority of people believe what 'experts' tell them. Even when it flys in the face of all empirical evidence.

I rarely use twitter but...

[thetoadwarrior]

I felt this was an opportune time to ask him to do the truffle shuffle and post it on Youtube. Seriously, if he's officially now a famous fatty, I felt it was the least I could do.

The Better Question??

[markass530]

Why is he not flying first class on a different airline?

Re:The Better Question??

[PolygamousRanchKid]

a) Publicity. His next movie will be titled, "Too Fat to Fly."

b) It is cool and hip to fly with Southwest, in his mind.

c) He spent all his money on blow and whores.

d) All of the above.

Please check only one.

Re:The Better Question??

[travisb828]

Flying Southwest is never cool or hip. They are the Greyhound of the sky, but it was an Oakland to Burbank flight. Southwest makes that trip almost every hour, and it was probably one way trip. He should have just taken the train if he had the time.

Re:Does this mean....

[91degrees]

Well, fat people are quite nice to embrace. All soft and squishy.

Re:awesome!

[nomadic]

I think the key word here is obese, usually defined as a BMI over 30 kg/m^2, i.e. weight divided by height squared. You might not enjoy sitting next to a person with a BMI around say 28 kg/m^2, but they'll basically remain inside their seat. Anyone whose BMI exceeds 30 will spill over into your seat, so removing them will make the crowded flight much more pleasant.

BMI isn't just useless, it's worse than useless. Not only does more muscle mass than usual completely skew the results, but being taller than average does as well.

Re:I have translated it to KG

[Anonymous Coward]

Though from your contemptuous tone I'm guessing you're one of those few people who DOESN'T try to accomodate people in armchairs or blind people.

Ahem....

FFS!

[migla]

Just work this out. Let everyone fly if they want to. Stop picking on fat people. Yes there are practical hurdles or considerations. Just work them out. Sheesh.

Re:FFS!

[dadelbunts]

Just work out. Then you will fit into the seats.

Re:FFS!

[Nimey]

Leave Britney alone!

No extra profit

[ConanG]

Regarding Southwest, they do not make a profit by selling the extra seat. If the flight is not full (98% of the time, according to their FAQ), they refund the extra seat. if the flight IS full, then some other customer lost their seat and was issued a voucher in addition to a seat on another flight.

Re:No extra profit

[Tetsujin]

Interesting. Do you go on many flights that aren't full?

Re:No extra profit

[arose]

It's not like it's the person who bought two seats that overbooked the plane...

have you seen him lately?

[YesIAmAScript]

That pic is from 2007.

Have you seen him lately?

http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/1/2008/11/Rogen_Kevin_Fat_Guys.flv.jpg

Internet

[Kenshin]

Maybe he bought it on the internet. As far as I know, your computer can't tell how fat you are. Yet.

Maybe now they'll require you to have a webcam, so you can stand-up and have some person on the other end check you over...

Armrests, not weight

[ConanG]

Not that I necessarily agree with Southwest's policy (and I'm a fairly small person: 5'2", 120 lbs), but it's not a weight issue. It's an armrest issue. If you're grossly overweight, but can get the armrests down and not spill over into the other seats, you're fine. If you need a seatbelt extension, you're fine. The only issue is spilling over into the other seats with the armrests down. It can happen to a very wide, but not very fat person. It doesn't matter if he weighs 235 or 555; get the armrests down and don't spill over. Apparently, they didn't follow their own policy in this instance. The armrests were up when he sat down and didn't bother to put them down. They decided he couldn't get them down without ever checking them. It's happened several times, but this is the first "celebrity" to whom it's happened. Check out The Consumerist on this issue.

Slashdotted - here's the text

[Mr2001]

Here's the text:

Not So Silent Bob
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 14:57 — Christi Day

Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.

As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well.

Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank – as he’s been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience.

You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[Brian Gordon]

Well that pretty much deflates the whole issue. Plus Southwest's policy is pretty generous, and giving him $100 because he couldn't get a seat on standby was totally unnecessary.

I was skeptical about the headline anyway. If you can't be accommodated safely due to your size, then you cannot fly. There's no outrage fuel here.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[glodime]

Kevin Smith wrote:

Dear Fucktarded PR-Challenged Fatty-Haters at @SouthwestAir: Your "apology" blog is insulting, redacted bullshit. FULL details in two hours.

According to TFA Kevin Smith claimed to be sitting in the seat with the armrests down before he was asked to leave the plane. He also claimed to have purchased only one ticket when flying the first leg of his trip. He was kicked off on his return leg.

The Southwest PR people seem to be stretching the truth in their side of the story. I think that the Southwest policy to require the purchase of two tickets when some one cannot fit between the armrests of one seat is generally a good one. However, I think the pilot was overzealous in enforcing the policy. Southwest has not apologized for the mistake they actually made. They merely said, "we're sorry that you don't like our policy." They need to say "we're sorry that we misapplied our policy," in this instance.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with all the capitalized common nouns? Is this some German-English language hybrid I'm unaware of?

Yes, Legalese.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[twiddlingbits]

Mr Smith is acting like an asshole. That sort of language isn't going to win him any sympathy from SWA even if they WERE wrong.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[CohibaVancouver]

Given the negative PR that Southwest has just earned themselves, the cost of giving him a second available seat seems like a much cheaper option in hindsight.

Not really. How many people are going to boycott Southwest now? Virtually none - And those who might consider it will quickly change their mind and fly southwest anyway when they discover a ticket on United or AA is $30 more than Southwest.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[bitserf]

What negative PR?

Positive as far as I'm concerned.

Make fatties walk!

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[Zemran]

Boycott? I am more likely to fly with them now I realise that I am less likely to have someone like him squeezed into the seat next to me.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[Jahf]

I've seen this policy applied before by Continental. A kid of about 17 years old was forced to buy a 2nd ticket. Or rather was forced to call the mother of his friend who had purchased his tickets for him to make her buy another ticket. He told me this as the 2 of us were sitting in the 3-seat row of the plane as his way of letting me know I wouldn't have to worry about someone taking the middle seat because he paid for it. He was quite embarrassed.

I personally am a bigger dude, but not that big, so I was relieved we were going to have some extra space.

Then Continental seated a deadheading pilot from another airline in that empty seat. For free. And the kid next to him was able, barely, to lower the arm rest.

The kid was too embarrassed to speak up for himself. So I mentioned it to both the pilot as well as the Continental flight attendant for our section. The pilot's reaction? "I dunno, not my call". The stewardess? Pretty much no response at all.

I've seen a similar case as well where the person bought 2 seats and someone on standby was given their seat. In that case the airline refunded their money and let the person on standby take the seat. Which means the airline wasn't caring at all about the safety of anyone, they just wanted their cash.

The airline policies are invoked willy-nilly at THEIR convenience without a care for the injury caused. The policies would be understandable if they were enforced justly and equally, but they do not. If you buy 2 seats then the flight attendants should not be able to reassign you. I could name plenty of other policies that get applied unfairly too, like luggage sizes, after 13 years of business travel ... but they would get so mind-numbing that it's just not worth it.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[FictionPimp]

I've always though the cost of your ticket should be based on the pound (or kilo) not just you, but the total weight of you and your luggage.

Why is my ticket the same cost as a lady 100 pounds heavier with 200 pounds more luggage?

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[Lumpy]

The cost of moving him to one of the empty 1st class seats would have been even less.

Honestly, why do they treat 1st class seating as if it's only for those with a special membership card? They will eject a passenger before putting them in a seat that costs nothing to have a butt in it.

In fact it may have created a PR bonus for them...

"Kevinsmith: Southwest just upgraded me to a 1st class seat! These guys rock"

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[CohibaVancouver]

The cost of moving him to one of the empty 1st class seats would have been even less.

Southwest is the "people's airline" flown by Ma and Pa Kettle vistin' the young 'uns. In other words, they have no first class.

will eject a passenger before putting them in a seat that costs nothing to have a butt in it.

Do you fly much? If you do, you'll notice that on the mainline carriers with first class they rarely, if ever, have empty seats at the front of the plane. This is because airlines upgrade their frequent fliers (see "Up in the Air" w/George Clooney) into those seats. The next time you're waiting to board listen to the announcements - You'll almost always hear "For those passengers waiting for upgrade, our first class section has checked in full. Please board your assigned seat when we call your zone" - In other words, they've filled up their FC section.

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[binary paladin]

Ha! I was thinking the same thing. (And double points for it being not just some random fat dude, but Kevin Smith. The more time he's stuck waiting for a flight the less time he has to make movies.)

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[JTsyo]

Seems reasonable to me. They didn't have enough seats to let him fly standby. Much fuss about nothing.
Thanks for the text Mr2001

Re:Slashdotted - here's the text

[X0563511]

... sounds like a perfectly civil and proper response to an incident that has been blown completely out of control.

If this is indeed the truth, Kevin Smith has some 'splaining to do.

Re:That's what you get

[trapnest]

some people just have big bones.

And then some people are just fat.

Porkers should pay.

[XB-70]

I'm clinically obese. I'm 5'10" and I weigh 220 lbs. I should weigh about 175. Lugging an extra 45 lbs. up to 30,000 feet is a helluva waste of fuel. Anyone who has ever flown in a small plane knows that you have to balance the plane out and be very concerned about weight allowance before takeoff. Kevin Smith should just suck it up and take his lumps on his rolls. It's time we charged porkers like him and me for not pushing away from the table. Until then, pass me the Cheetos and kindly fuck off with all your politically correct whining and moaning.

Re:Porkers should pay.

[ClosedSource]

I think we need a term for an "Uncle Tom" for fat folks.

Re:Porkers should pay.

[Dunbal]

Anyone who has ever flown in a small plane knows that you have to balance the plane out

Apples and oranges. Considering your typical 737 can weigh up to 150,000 lbs at take-off, it's not the 300 lb passenger (under 0.1% of the weight if you allowed for a 150 lb passenger originally anyway) that's going to alter the plane's center of gravity so much as to cause a dangerous condition... we're not talking about a Cessna here.

Re:Porkers should pay.

[Tenek]

How about "Uncle Tom"?

And now we know the REASON...

[d474]

And now we know the REAL reason the airlines want full body scanners.

"Sorry sir, but according to the 3-D scanner, the computer has determined you will not be able to board the plane with 1 boarding pass."

Re:awesome!

[RML]

A 5'3", 170 lb (BMI=30) person like this is not going to spill into your seat. For airline seat purposes straight weight is probably a better indicator than BMI.

Too fat for first?

[muzicman]

Since none of you have actually mentioned this. I don't believe that Mr Smith would be travelling in coach or business class. I am sure that he has enough money to travel first class. Now not being rich myself I can't say for sure that they get a seat that doesn't touch anybody else. Maybe the adverts on TV are lying and that first class is much the same a coach. Somehow I doubt it though. Hell maybe Mr Smith is tight and careful with his money and does travel coach. What do I know.

Re:Does this mean....

[Anonymous Coward]

Aparently he's some fat guy.

Re:LOL

[Cederic]

there is no good reason for being other than you shovel in more than you burn up.

You're describing the mechanics there, not the reason.

The reasons can be manyfold, complicated and often medical in nature.

Be glad you don't have them.

Re:I have translated it to KG

[Hognoxious]

That is 106kg, that is FAT ... Once you weight has reached triple digits (in KG), STOP EATING.

Doesn't that rather depend on how tall he is?

You can taunt this guy at you own risk (I warn you, he's probably fast enough to catch you). Or either of these jolly chaps.

I love Kevin Smith, but after breaking a toilet...

[VShael]

and now being kicked off a plane, what will take to convince that tubby bastard that it's time to slim down? A heart attack? People of his weight don't get a "warning" coronary event. The first one is the last one, and that's it.

Re:That's what you get

[JavaBear]

for being a fat ugly bastard

There's being fat, and there's being stupid. One of which IS curable, sadly for you it ain't stupidity.

If Kevin Smith was thrown off the plane, then Southwest would have to bar most Americans.

Re:That's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

...and some people are just assholes incapable of empathizing with anyone other than themselves.

ok

[dcam]

So maybe he should lose some weight rather than complaining about it.

Re:I think this is probably wrong and demented....

[Hognoxious]

captain in a plane is as much a captain as one on a boat. If he says you're not welcome on board, you're out.

We'll give some seats to the chinks and the niggers, but we don't want the Irish.

In simple terms: you're full of shit.

Re:If he were fat

[ModernGeek]

You have to be let on the plane to get kicked off.

Dimensional Weight

[Cliff Stoll]

Most air freight shippers use dimensional weight to charge extra on high volume/low mass items. Charging by weight alone won't recover the costs of shipping lightweight items. For example, a pound of popped popcorn will cost more to ship than a pound of popcorn kernels.

Typically, a shipper assumes that typical freight has a nominal density of about 0.2 gm/cm^3 ... packages with a lower density than this will be charged more.

Of course, humans have a density of about 1gm/cm^3, so we wouldn't be charged extra, should we decide to be shipped airfreight.

Re:Dimensional Weight

[MichaelSmith]

Of course, humans have a density of about 1gm/cm^3, so we wouldn't be charged extra, should we decide to be shipped airfreight.

Hey don't give the airlines ideas!

(Loved your book BTW)

Re:Dimensional Weight

[lordmatrix]

What is a "gm"? Do you mean "g", as in gram?

Re:Next flight? They're all the same!

[VShael]

Why the next flight?
The answer was in the article.

He had bought two seats places. He tried to reschedule to an earlier flight. He was put on standby.
The earlier flight only had one seat free. He tried to take it. Too fat.

Next flight? He had his two seat places. Voila.

Because they're spilling over into my seat

[Rix]

The seat I, not they, paid for.

Yes, it's not right to sneer at people for being fat, whether it's their fault or not. It's perfectly all right to sneer at someone for stealing someone else's seat.

If you need two (or three...) seats buy them. Don't steal from your neighbours.

Re:Because they're spilling over into my seat

[MadCat]

Not much choice sometimes, I'm 6'1", weigh around 190lbs - this makes me a chunky mother. Unfortunately, whereas my gut and my legs fit just fine in one seat, due to being a bit on the tall end, I often can't fit my legs in the available space, unless I want to poke my knees in the back of the person in front of me. The same goes for arms and elbows. I usually get an isle seat so I can stick my legs out in the isle, and stick an elbow out in there too just so I can sit comfortably.

It's not just about "fatties", it is the fact that most airlines have reduced seat space and crammed more seats in compared to before. And for me, upgrading from coach to business or first class isn't an option, I'm not made of money.

Re:Because they're spilling over into my seat

[RileyBryan]

I'm a bigger guy, broad shouldered, 5'9" 225 lbs. Yes, I'm a bit over fighting weight but I'd hardly consider my weight out of control. I barely fit into a southwest seat. It is miserable, I spend the whole thing with my shoulders shrugged, trying not to steal the armrest from my neighbor. Yes, they have the cheapest fare but its the most uncomfortable trip you'll ever take. My wife, a 5'7 120 lb'er says the same thing- she complains we're slapped in there like sardines. Perhaps they just got cheap and crammed an extra seat into each row, completely sacrificing comfort for all aboard. Would anybody really bitch if they just had bigger seats? This is a design problem that the airline figures they can shed the blame onto heavy people. This is probably the fault of some penny pinching executive, but you all want to blame the hamburgers.

Re:Because they're spilling over into my seat

[alexo]

If you need two (or three...) seats buy them. Don't steal from your neighbours.

Infringing seatingrights is not "stealing".

Yes, it is

[Rix]

It is their fault for not paying for the amount of space they need.

Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[jeko]

Airlines have overcrammed more seats into each plane than the original designers would have believed possible. When people complain, they respond with "You're freakishly tall," or "You're mbidly obese," when the real answer is "The airlines are so greedy they're cramming so many people into their cargo hold it would make a slave trader of old boggle."

My 5'2", 100lb mother-in-law complains that they've made the seats too small to be comfortable, and she's been flying for 50 years. Do we really think the problem is Kevin Smith is too husky?

How about this for an answer? Let's make airline seats the same size and legroom as movie theater seats and see if the problem goes away.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[mxh83]

How about this for an answer? Cause you're not in a theater, you're in an aircraft. "Airlines have overcrammed more seats into each plane than the original designers would have believed possible." This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[sp3d2orbit]

Exactly, I've been flying for 25 years and definitely noticed as the seats in front of me got closer and closer. For me it isn't a width issue. The rows of seats are too close to one another. I'm only 6'1", but suffer horrible crushing pain in my knees whenever the person in front of me reclines.

Airlines aren't providing adequate space for average Americans.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

It is possible to get movie theater space on an airplane today. It's called first class and/or business class. What the hell is Kevin Smith doing in coach anyway?

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[Reality Master 101]

How about this for an answer? Let's make airline seats the same size and legroom as movie theater seats and see if the problem goes away.

You already have this option. It's called first class.

People have chosen this world of crammed airlines, because people will choose the airline that's $1 cheaper than the other guy. Very few people use any other factor as a consideration. They want cheap flights, and that's exactly what they have.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[gatkinso]

I am 6'1" and weigh 195 pounds, and I call bullshit on that claim.

I have almost 2 million miles on United, 300K on American, and a bunch on several others.

Because of my status I rarely fly coach anymore, but I still get stuck in the goat locker when there is no other choice, and while it is by far from spacious it is not that bad.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[barzok]

Southwest only has Coach class.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[XantheKnight]

Hear fricking hear. Thank you for posting this. I am horrified that this thread has turned into a fat-hating fest instead of a reasoned discussion of all the issues here. Leaving aside the really controversial issue of whether most people's weight is genetically determined and thus "their fault", and even whether your size should incur a negative moral judgment from those around you, for some illogical reason (maybe if you guys had universal medicare I would understand, but, you really don't!) , there has been a surprising dearth of critical thought in this threat regarding just how much airlines "policies" are motivated by profit riding on the acceptability of fat phobia than this nebulous "safety" concern. Have people seen the width of an airplane aisle lately?? I'm a 5'8" female of 140 pounds and I can barely pass through those things, let alone when one of the drink/food carts is completely blocking one. I'd just love to see the fricking pandemonium if the shit hit the fan while those carts were blocking both aisles (as they are 50% of the time) and people were trying to get out. Bullshit this policy is motivated by safety concerns! Bullshit! It's motivated by money!! It's just that fat phobia is one of the last remaining "acceptable" discriminations allowed in North America and they want their piece of it.

I vaguely recall a thread on Slashdot the other day where we discussed the pricing of eBooks. A lot of grief was being aired regarding the "unfair" $15 price point for eBooks. A lot of people thought it was B.S. that despite lower production costs for an eBook version, the print version and the eBook version were similarly priced. A few industry insiders had to remind us of the cardinal rule of capitalism: Everything is worth what its buyer will pay. So, if we force fat people to pay double for an airline seat, and give them no other choice, they're going to pay it, aren't they? The airlines may couch this policy in "safety" or what-not, but that is crap. Must we be reminded yet again that this is really about money?

If it's really about fuel costs, then every passenger would pay for their tickets BY WEIGHT. Including baggage. Airlines could easily provide a fixed # of smaller seats per plane for children, and larger seats for fat people. Airlines are very, very good at knowing the average demographics of their passengers. They could easily, easily do this, and in fact provide *added* safety for children and fat people by doing so. But they don't. Why would they, after all, when parents will pay full price for their half-sized children, and fat people will pay double? If you owned the airlines, would you change such a profitable policy? No way.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[arose]

You're height is not in your legs, good for you. I'm 6'3" and half of the time it's not that the guy in front of my would crush into my knees, it's that he would never get anywhere in the first place.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[Endo13]

And how exactly do you propose airlines make up the money they'd lose by making seats larger, and thereby reducing the number of passengers they can book and carry per flight? Many airlines are already barely making a profit, and some are taking significant losses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aQSs9CGd9Auc&pid=20601087
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/2009-u-s-airline-profitloss-results-%E2%80%94-airtran-earns-and-aa-loses-the-most/

We as consumers (myself included) have spoken with our wallets, and what we have told them is that we will nearly always take the cheapest ticket we can find, based on price alone. Sometimes even if we have to drive an hour or two further to get to a different airport to save only a hundred bucks.

So genius, let's see your brilliant idea for how to make everyone happy and comfortable without going bankrupt in today's market.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[boxwood]

you know there is a thing called "business class" which has the larger seats yo desire? Of but you want a cheap fare too? How do you think the fares got to be cheap?

I fly on discount arilines all the time, and the space is adequate for me. Good enough that I wouldn't pay extra for more space. Don't like it? Then do some research and find an airline that gives you more space.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[jimicus]

How about this for an answer? Let's make airline seats the same size and legroom as movie theater seats and see if the problem goes away.

It's a nice idea, however it's far too late. The simple fact of the matter is that the aviation industry is run on razor-thin profit margins, and it doesn't cost much less to run a plane with 200 seats which take up X amount of space versus a plane with 240 seats which take up (X * 0.8) amount of space.

It follows that reducing the number and increasing the size of the seats would whack up ticket prices for each flight on such an aircraft considerably. And frankly, economy class seats from A to B are essentially a commodity item - nobody's buying them on the basis of quality because the perception is that there's little difference among the major airlines.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[Dhalka226]

With all due respect, how much do you think the airlines would lose by decreasing their seating to improve the spacing like the OP suggested?

I was going to offer what I consider a fairly conservative estimate of about a 20% loss in seats (and thus potential revenue) -- but then I realized, if they really were to do this they basically eliminate the main allure of First Class seating, and thus they're going to see a huge dropoff in revenue from that as well even if the number of fliers stayed the same.

So, what, say 40% loss in revenue? Are you willing to pay nearly double for all of your tickets? And is everybody else willing to do the same? Because if not, the suggestion is quite a bad one from the airline's perspective, particularly if they're operating on small profits to begin with. I don't know of anybody who doesn't fly because of the cramped seating, particularly when flying and comfort would matter the most (long/overseas flights that aren't practical or are outright impossible to drive instead) so I'm not convinced there would be much of an uptick in passengers. And even if there were, more passengers in fewer seats means more planes, more crews, more fuel, more maintenance -- more expenses.

Four times the price is probably on the high end of where it needs to be, but I wouldn't have any trouble believing the answer would be substantially more than two times.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[Shivantrill]

Southwest doesn't have a first class section. From Oakland to Burbank, the route he was taking, is an hour flight. It's like a commuter flight, like taking a bus. He was just in town for the day.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[drsquare]

Airlines have overcrammed more seats into each plane than the original designers would have believed possible. When people complain, they respond with "You're freakishly tall," or "You're mbidly obese," when the real answer is "The airlines are so greedy they're cramming so many people into their cargo hold it would make a slave trader of old boggle."

It's not that the airlines are greedy, they're just giving the customers what they want: tickets that are as cheap as possible, which can only be achieved by packing them in like sardines.

How about this for an answer? Let's make airline seats the same size and legroom as movie theater seats and see if the problem goes away.

The problem will go away as airlines go out of business when passengers won't pay the newly increased prices.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[Mr_Silver]

Airlines have overcrammed more seats into each plane than the original designers would have believed possible. When people complain, they respond with "You're freakishly tall," or "You're mbidly obese," when the real answer is "The airlines are so greedy they're cramming so many people into their cargo hold it would make a slave trader of old boggle."

IMDB says that Kevin Smith is 5'9" and according to this site his target weight should be 157lb.

One of the comments indicated that he was 350lb which means that he is 2.2x the target weight for that height. Or to put it another way, two healthy 6'1" men together weigh less than one 5'9" Kevin Smith!

Whilst airlines are guilty of cramming in (partly in an effort to satisfy our demand for cheap air fares), in this case the "real answer" you want to hear is simply that he's morbidly obese.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[Reality Master 101]

You missed the point. People choose AIRLINES based on one dollar savings of COACH seats. That's why airlines do everything possible to cut costs, and one of the major ways to do that is to pack as many people as possible.

Blame other people for being too cheap to pay more money for more room, but don't blame the airlines. If they gave you more legroom, they would literally go bankrupt.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[HungWeiLo]

And I'm sure you already know, but United has the "Economy Plus" seats which have 5"-6" more legroom for $50 more. Doesn't sound like much on paper, but it's pretty nice to have.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[bhiestand]

I'm only 6'1", but suffer horrible crushing pain in my knees whenever the person in front of me reclines.

I am 6'1" and weigh 195 pounds, and I call bullshit on that claim...while it is by far from spacious it is not that bad.

Same height doesn't mean same leg length or proportions. A man with a 34" or 36" inseam is going to be absolutely miserable in most coach seats.

A man with a freakishly large torso and short legs could be 6'5" and perfectly comfortable in coach.

A person like me, with a large torso and very broad shoulders, can be absolutely miserable in coach even when he is not overweight. My waist fits just fine in between the armrests, and so does my gut, but my shoulders do not. What can I do? I'd pay a little extra for a slightly larger seat, but I simply can't afford double the price or the cost of business/first class.

I once sat in the middle seat between a morbidly obese woman and a safety for the NY Jets--on a full flight. Southwest's policy would have helped there.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[DaveV1.0]

Then don't fly Southwest. Problem solved.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[XantheKnight]

Hehe, no need to be snarky.

I'm certainly not a transport economist. But what about this as a starting idea: if airlines know roughly the demographics of their customers, particularly on specific routes, then they ought to know the rough proportion of their passengers that are (a) significantly obese and thus requiring a 1.5x sized seat, and (b) children requiring about 0.5x of a seat.

Knowing that information, it would be fairly simple to install the mathematically logical number of seats of the appropriate size to accommodate the usual demographics in comfort. If the airlines could match 1:1 fat persons and children, they could sell the exact same number of seats and tickets and make exactly the same profit.

Or, perhaps someone could design seating that is adjustable, so that what might normally be a three-seat row could be converted to a two seater, and vice versa.

I think these suggestions have the added benefit of making normal-sized persons extra happy when they find they've been given a 1.5x seat.

Anyhow, there are heaps of ways you could criticize the above suggestions as presenting too much of a logistical problem. But there are lots of clever engineers in the world, who are fully capable of solving such a simple problem. If they can put a man on the moon, they can figure out how to equitably allow a fat dude to fly comfortably without impinging on the adjacent seat occupant.

If I were a fat person, I would instantly choose the airline that gave a damn about my situation, comfort and safety over one that made me buy two seats. And I would be staunchly loyal to it. There's extra profit to be had by providing excellent service to customers, not just by gouging them whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Re:Kevin Smith is not the problem.

[gatkinso]

I am talking Economy, not Economy Plus (which is pretty damn good in my opinion).

They have been worked out

[Rix]

If you need two seats, buy two seats. He needs two seats (which he admits, because he usually does), but only bought one.

We're not picking on fat people. We're picking on people who steal from the people next to them.

Customer of Size?

[Comboman]

"Customer of Size"? Is that like "People of Color"? Has political correctness come so far that you can't even call someone a fatass any more? I'm with Southwest on this one. Brilliant director or not, if I had to spend an "Evening with Kevin Smith" squished up against him in a coach-class seat, I would not be happy and would be demanding my ticket price back. They tried to accommodate his special request to fly early and couldn't. He should graciously accept their apology (it's more than he would have gotten from me).

Re:Customer of Size?

[Rich0]

At work they had a big article about "differently abled persons" recently. I just don't get it? How is it derogatory to call somebody disabled? Am I "differently abled" if I can juggle?

There is no need to use slurs like "fatass" or whatever. You can just call them overweight, or oversized - kind of like luggage. It is hardly unusual to charge a different rate when shipping a piano when compared to shipping a book. Will amazon.com start a "products of size" shipping policy soon?

Re:Customer of Size?

[laughingcoyote]

I've got to agree here, even though I'm not at all a fan of Southwest after my own recent experiences with them. First off, there's no guarantees when you're flying standby that you'll get any seats. No room really to complain if you don't. In this guy's case, however, he needs two seats. I'm entirely with that, and it applies in this case-he takes up both the space and the weight of at least two passengers.

If you are severely obese, there will be certain physical limitations as to what you can do. If you would prefer not to have those limitations, your option is to lose the weight. Even those with legitimate medical conditions can do so under a doctor's supervision, and generally the "medical condition" is "Eats too much, exercises too little".

It is of course one's decision whether to continue to overeat and not exercise, but it is then one's responsibility to live with the consequences of that decision. If you don't want the limitations that come with being fat, get to work on losing the weight. If you'd rather not, then yes, you need to buy two seats if that's what it takes to accommodate you. I wish more places would work up the nerve to plainly state that you need to buy as many seats as you overflow into.

Re:Customer of Size?

[palinurus]

insightful, really?

you certainly can call someone a "fatass". there is no law against it. you can call someone anything you want, but in return someone might call you an "asshole", and they might be right.

is there a line between political correctness and politeness? or do you think we need to get rid of that too?

and fwiw, I agree, smith wasn't exactly forthcoming with the details of the case (he was switching flights, only single seat available, etc) and SW has acquitted themselves pretty well from a PR perspective. i think the man just got a little stung by a humiliating experience and wanted to rant a little.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Penguinisto]

Agreed. If your ass spills over into the seat next to you, then for frig's sake buy that seat too.

Re:Customer of Size?

[TubeSteak]

I'm with Southwest on this one. Brilliant director or not, if I had to spend an "Evening with Kevin Smith" squished up against him in a coach-class seat, I would not be happy and would be demanding my ticket price back.

Since you seem to know who Kevin Smith is, you should also know that there are plenty of people who would kill to "spend an "Evening with Kevin Smith" squished up against him in a coach-class seat".

Hell, I'd probably pay extra for the privilege.

Re:Customer of Size?

[gandhi_2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphamism#Euphemism_treadmill

Re:Customer of Size?

[bitserf]

Over here, we just call them "fat fucks".

Person of size is useless. What size? Fat fuck describes it in a succinct, accurate manner.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Rufty]

If their ass is fat, they are a fatass. What's the problem with that???

Re:Customer of Size?

[TangoMargarine]

"Person of size" and "person of color" *do* seem to imply that the rest of us have no size or color of our own. Apparently white is not a color.

Re:Customer of Size?

[DriedClexler]

coach-class

Not so fast! The proper term is "Customer of Cheapness".

Re:Customer of Size?

[shadwstalkr]

First it's just plain politeness and good business to avoid calling your customers fat, even if they are.

Second, it's not just fat people. A large linebacker would probably also have trouble fitting in one seat.

Re:Customer of Size?

[daveime]

Overweight fatass ?
Oversized fatass ?
Circumferentially challenged fatass ?

Not sure which sounds better ... anyway, to add my 2 cents ...

You fat bastard, you fat bastard, you ate all the pie !

When I first read TFS, I thought somehow the airline had jipped him ... now it seems he's complaining because he wanted an earlier flight than the one he had booked, and they couldn't find 2 standby seats next to each other for his rotund frame. He of all people should be aware of this, and did in fact books 2 seats expressly for this purpose on his original flight. So what exactly is he complaining about ? That the airline couldn't magically find an extra seat ? Or perhaps they should have thrown another passenger off the flight so he could have his 2 seats-worth of ass room.

All oversized articles should be in cargo, not hand-carry. Couldn't they just have put him in there with the suitcases and animals ?

Airline win, Silent Bob fail

Re:Customer of Size?

[Anonymous Coward]

The politically correct term is 'calorically challenged.'

Re:Customer of Size?

[a whoabot]

I saw a job offer that said, in the small print, something along the lines of: "We are committed in our hiring and operating practises not to discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, race, ethnicity, or ability."

We can see what they wanted to say: They wanted to say "disability" (which itself would read strangely except that by now it has taken on a particular meaning in these situations which is broadly recognised), but because that word is not politically correct they were brought into saying something which reads as if it were patently absurd: That they actually don't take the abilities of the applicants into consideration when they hire. So...what, they cut open a bird and look at the entrails for divine signs?

Much like how every university is now fully committed to diversity, which reads strange every time I see some such statement on the matter.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Concerned Onlooker]

"and does this mean fat people have a larger carbon footprint???"

No. Just deeper.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Mike Buddha]

"Person of size" and "person of color" *do* seem to imply that the rest of us have no size or color of our own.

Yeah, it should say "Person of UNBELIEVABLY ENORMOUS size" or "Person of TRULY GARGANTUAN size".

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Yes, it is politically incorrect, because calling someone a purely mean name because of their physical appearance is, like racism, discriminatory.

Just because someone is fat isn't a license to make them feel like a pile of shit.

This would be a great opportunity for you to track out the "correlation is not causation" Slashdot meme. Even if just being fat were automatically unhealthy (which has not been proven, nor even suggested in isolation from all other factors, such as diet and exercise), it would not entitle those around to automatically be a fucking asshole to fat people. Such discriminatory behaviour is illogical, irrational, and unacceptable.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Ugh. The glib "just lose the weight" pseudo-argument. Yeah sure, all fat people are fat by choice, and, with a little elbow grease, could lose weight and be normal like everyone else. Goodness, and you probably call yourself a scientist. What's next in your view: black people can just scrub a little harder and get white? Oh wait, but being fat is a choice, right? Like being gay? Well a few rounds of jogging make some people lose some weight, so it must be the same for everyone. I know because I saw it on The Biggest Loser. Uh oh, look where this road is leading! Unscientific land!

Here's a little thought experiment: what if the average weight of an American citizen was, say, 250 pounds, but Southwest airlines decided to make its seats suitable (safety-wise) and comfortable for passengers with an average weight of 140 pounds. That way, they can shove 50% more seats into the same sized plane and thus make more profit. When a 250 pound passenger boards the plane, after having paid their money for their ticket, like everyone else, they are confronted publicly by an air hostess, who tells them that because of safety concerns, as per the airline's policy, they have two choices: (1) get off the plane and cancel their trip (probably thus losing money for hotels, rentals, perhaps losing their job or ruining their family's holiday), or (2) pay double for another seat. What choice would you make? What choice really IS there, assuming you can afford the second seat??

It is reasonably foreseeable that many North American passengers will be of a size that is too large for the average plane seat. Does this mean those people must pay for two seats? Or, does it mean that airlines should make a few extra-large sized seats? Or has the US become a nation where it's OK to assume everyone looks the same, and one where those who deviate from the norm (in many cases through no fault of their own) should pay an extra price to access the same services?

This crap would never go down in Canada. Thank God we have Human Rights legislation to prevent others from profiting from discriminatory practices.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Why on earth is this modded troll? Troll does not equal "I do not agree."

Re:Customer of Size?

[ShieldW0lf]

"Customer of Size"? Is that like "People of Color"? Has political correctness come so far that you can't even call someone a fatass any more?

You can call them a fatass if you want. However, it's not a good way to get them to give you their money.

Re:Customer of Size?

[GlassHeart]

there's no guarantees when you're flying standby that you'll get any seats.

Sorry, isn't that exactly what "stand-by" means?

Re:Customer of Size?

[Qu4Z]

Actually, I was visiting Romania recently, and I saw a store which (translated) was called "Clothes for fat people".

It made my day.

Re:Customer of Size?

[aussie_a]

Fat and overweight both have similar derogatory connotations

Overweight is a medical term. As is obese. Overweight people have a BMI between 26 - 30 while obese people have a BMI 31 and higher.

I use to be obese, I am now overweight.

If people find these terms offensive, stiff-shit. How about instead of changing how we talk to better suit them, they change their appearance to better suit their own sensibilities. It would be like calling people who need glasses (such as myself) "sight-challenged" instead of "long-sighted" or "near-sighted"

Although I'm sure the suits in legal and public relations will take issue with actually telling the truth.

Re:Customer of Size?

[aussie_a]

Handicapped isn't allowed in America? It covers both the physical and mental faculties in which you may be deficient in. If someone can do their job, why not hire them regardless of what handicap they may have?

Re:Customer of Size?

[darth dickinson]

Or like Gabriel Iglesias says:

There are 5 stages of Fat:

There's big
There's healthy
There's husky
There's fluffy
And there's DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!


He recently added another... Oh, HELL no!

Re:Customer of Size?

[aussie_a]

Of course its alright for airlines to make unusually small seats and charge what they feel like. Guess what, that's capitalism! This hypothetical isn't even capitalism run amok, its just standard, acceptable capitalism, with a small few assumptions.

First of all, if the average weight is 250 pounds (which is 113 kg by the way!) your nation is in a lot more trouble then having to pay double for their airlines tickets.

Second of all, if the seats are unusually small for the airline industry, then I can see a claim for false advertising if the airline isn't upfront about this. If they try to hide the size of their seats and rely on consumer ignorance to allow them to be bait and switched, then clearly there's an issue. Bait and switch tactics aren't legal and is considered fraud.

However Southwest Airlines is up front about their policy. This customer was aware of their policy. This customer had shown a willingness to accept their policy by buying 2 tickets beforehand. It was only when the airline attempted to accommodate him when he decided to make a last minute change that an issue came up.

Also, having read their policy, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Being medically obese isn't a right in which everyone should be forced to treat you as if you were a person within a healthy weight range.

Re:Customer of Size?

[aussie_a]

Also I meant to also add, if Hypothetical Airline does make have small seats and charges people the industry standard price per seat (rather then per inch), then they'll lose their customers if its an issue for their customers. If its only an issue for a few obese or overweight people, then clearly the market has spoken. After all, obesity isn't a right in which everyone should be forced to treat you as if you were a person within a healthy weight range.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Nyder]

"Customer of Size"? Is that like "People of Color"? Has political correctness come so far that you can't even call someone a fatass any more? I'm with Southwest on this one. Brilliant director or not, if I had to spend an "Evening with Kevin Smith" squished up against him in a coach-class seat, I would not be happy and would be demanding my ticket price back. They tried to accommodate his special request to fly early and couldn't. He should graciously accept their apology (it's more than he would have gotten from me).

I wouldn't mind spending an evening squished next to Kevin Smith. Would be great to be able to talk with him.

Re:Customer of Size?

[TheLink]

> At work they had a big article about "differently abled persons" recently. I just don't get it? How is it derogatory to call somebody disabled?

Since I'm in the "IT line" the term disabled seems far more negative than handicapped.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Ihlosi]

Has political correctness come so far that you can't even call someone a fatass any more?

If you're a professional bodybuilder, you might be a customer of size, but not a fatass.

Re:Customer of Size?

[hasdikarlsam]

By european standards, "a large linebacker" is fat.

So yeah.

Re:Customer of Size?

[drsquare]

Yeah sure, all fat people are fat by choice, and, with a little elbow grease, could lose weight and be normal like everyone else. Goodness, and you probably call yourself a scientist. What's next in your view: black people can just scrub a little harder and get white? Oh wait, but being fat is a choice, right? Like being gay?

You're saying that a hundred pounds of excess blubber deposited through years of over-eating is equivalent to being born with a different skin colour? Now I've heard everything...

Seriously, stop making excuses for people's poor lifestyle choices. I'm with Southwest on this one.

It is reasonably foreseeable that many North American passengers will be of a size that is too large for the average plane seat. Does this mean those people must pay for two seats? Or, does it mean that airlines should make a few extra-large sized seats? Or has the US become a nation where it's OK to assume everyone looks the same, and one where those who deviate from the norm (in many cases through no fault of their own) should pay an extra price to access the same services?

A fat person is not accessing the same services, they're taking up two seats and therefore twice the services. Why should healthy people be crushed or financially penalised because some fat bastard won't put down the cake? Maybe it's foreseeable that Americans will just have to pay more to fly than the rest of the world.

This crap would never go down in Canada. Thank God we have Human Rights legislation to prevent others from profiting from discriminatory practices.

Thank God I don't live in Canada, so don't have to pay extra so some salad-dodger can get an extra seat for free. For the record, I'm overweight but fit in plane seats just fine. This Kevin Smith fellow must be a real land whale.

Re:Customer of Size?

[MozeeToby]

Ugh. The glib "just lose the weight" pseudo-argument. Yeah sure, all fat people are fat by choice, and, with a little elbow grease, could lose weight and be normal like everyone else.

Ah, the glib "all fat people are fat because of hormonal imbalance" pseudo-argument. Despite that fact that 2/3rds of adults in the US are overweight and the kind of hormone imbalances that cause massive weight gain occur in less than 2% of the population.

Honestly, it isn't that hard for 98% of people to lose weight, eat less and, optionally, excersise more. And yes, that means writing down what you eat so you can actually track it. Yes, that means weighing or measuring your food before you cook it so you know how much there is. Yes, that means sticking with it over the course of atleast several months. In my opinion, diligently keeping a food diary is the only way to consistently lose weight. If you're honest about filling it out and you have the will power to keep the calorie count at or below your target, it's almost impossible not to lose weight.

Re:Customer of Size?

[g1zmo]

I know right? Serious buckets of lard.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Man Eating Duck]

Ugh. The glib "just lose the weight" pseudo-argument. Yeah sure, all fat people are fat by choice, and, with a little elbow grease, could lose weight and be normal like everyone else.

From Wikipedia:"At an individual level, a combination of excessive caloric intake and a lack of physical activity is thought to explain most cases of obesity.[62]"

So, to reply in your categorical manner, most are. I know that it isn't black and white, though, I'll try to explain my take on it:

I know that it can be extremely difficult for an obese person to lose weight by eating less and moving more. Still it is pretty much his only choice in order to stay living and healthy. Even if you accept that the overweight person can't help overeating while hardly moving in his everyday life the problem won't go away by itself, in the end only the person himself can control his own eating and activity level. In that respect it is no ones fault but his own. I'm very glad I don't have the problem, I seriously don't know if I'd have the strength of will to do as I preach.

Where I live obesity is not very common, still there are groups and courses anyone with excess weight can join. Going through these challenges alone will be very difficult, so seek help. Some overweight people choose not to change their lifestyle and instead cope with the problems it entails, others try to seek every avenue to get help taking measures in order to solve their problem. Even walking briskly (for various values of briskly) twenty minutes a day will help. If you complain about the consequences of your weight problem while not having taken steps to remedy it my sympathy will be limited.

Obesity can certainly be a handicap in everyday life, but it's one which most people can actually do something to assuage. Saying that it isn't so is not very constructive and will certainly do nothing to help people. My anecdotal experience shows that EVERY ONE I know that've gone through with the measures recommended by experts have lost various amounts of weight and found that the results were well worth the effort, which in at least one case was considerable and impressive. I'm not begging the question here; the ones that didn't succeed on a particular try admitted that they didn't keep up with their diet or training as prescribed by their advisors, thus failing my premise.

Sorry if I come across as harsh, but I believe that sometimes a little dose of realism instead of pampering can be very sound.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Satanboy]

It would be like calling people who need glasses (such as myself) "sight-challenged" instead of "long-sighted" or "near-sighted"

I prefer the term "Person In Need of Optical Enhancement". I'd prefer everyone begin using this rather than the hate speech that is near-sighted, far-sighted or the insensitive sight-challenged.

thanks for your support!

Re:Customer of Size?

[rnj]

They're just taking their cue from Tom Lehrer. From the intro to "It makes a fellow proud to be a soldier" I have only comparatively recently emerged from the United States army so that I am now of course in the radio-active reserve and, the usual jokes about the army aside, one of the many fine things one has to admit is the way that the army has carried the American democratic ideal to its logical conclusion in the sense that not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, and color, but also on the grounds of ability.

Re:Customer of Size?

[brainboyz]

Some people pay extra to have an ugly fat woman stomp on their balls with stilettos too, but that's not the point.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Well with respect, a Wikipedia quote which merely apes the societal assumptions about obesity doesn't help the discussion. At least quote the actual study from whence the quote came. Let us judge that study on its scientific merits.

And don't get me started on the statistical problems of these studies, so many of which don't control for (or even investigate the role of!) other factors that might be related to weight gain or of having a frame conducive to being larger than average.

For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories? What about athletes? What about persons with a higher than average metabolism? Even the language is we use in these debates is unscientific. It's founded on assumptions, morally based, made about fat people. Fat is assumed to be bad and wrong because it is allegedly unhealthy. And yet, do we really know if it - being fat - is unhealthy? No, we don't. We know that many fat people tend to have heart problems, or diabetes. But are those conditions related to their weight, or are they related to the underlying behaviours or traits which caused their larger-than-average weight? No, we don't.

These issues began to occur to me when I was 17 years old and playing at a World Cup athletic event. I was 5'8", fit as a horse, with a six pack, and about 180 pounds. I had my BMI done and, if I recall correctly, I was rated "scientifically" as morbidly obese. What a joke. It reminded me that the BMI, the 2,000 calorie diet and all the assumptions these things and their kin are based on are all bunk. They are tautological in the sense that they can only be used on the very populations for which they were defined to be used: "normal" people. And when you think about it, what use at all is that?

We hate to think that we're not quite as clever and scientific as we think we are. It seems every day our latest golden theory is found to be false, or misleading, to be taken over by a new golden theory. Got a sprained ankle? Put ice on it. Raise it up. No, wait: put heat on it. No, wait: put ice on it, then put heat on it, alternating every 15 minutes. No, wait, don't elevate it at all-- it's better to let it swell up at first. Jeez, why do we put so much stock by these things?

It's inevitable that as our knowledge advances, our theories and understanding will change accordingly. But you'd think that we, knowing the vicissitudes of science and the difficulty in really isolating the factors we want to investigate, would know better than to make moral judgments based on our "scientific" understanding of the issues in the meantime. You'd think we'd be more open minded, and more willing to believe that perhaps our "science" is not the reliable crutch we think it is when it comes to justifying what would otherwise amount to completely unacceptable social behaviour, namely, discrimination.

The fact is that some parts inside us secretly like treating other people like shit. We especially enjoy having a "scientific" basis by which to justify judging others negatively and treating them poorly. Even when we have the sneaking suspicion that perhaps our scientific basis isn't as scientific as we think it is.

Even your post speaks of "fault" in relation to obesity. You speak of choice about changing their weight. What I'm asking you to re-think is not that there's no choice for fat people about their weight, rather, to re-think your underlying assumption that there's only one choice that should be made: to lose weight. That that's the right choice. The moral choice. That people who remain fat are morally wrong; are lazy; have no self-control; over-eat.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

No, I did not argue that all people are fat because of a hormone imbalance. That would be a silly thing to argue. Rather, what I said was it is glib to suggest it is easy-- a simple choice-- for people to just lose weight. As if you could wake up one morning and decide, today I'm going to start being healthy and lose weight. And then go and do it, and become, after a time, normal looking. Then life continues as if you'd never been fat. That there's *nothing* else involved but getting off your fat ass and just doing it.

If it were that easy, wouldn't there be less fat people around?

Ideas like this are perpetuated by shows like the Biggest Loser. Don't you ever wonder what happens to the people on that show months, years afterward? How many of them do you think manage to keep the weight off? Or is it reasonable to think that they should work that hard every single day of the rest of their lives to stay as slim as they became? What happens when they have to go back to work for 8 hours a day?

These are the questions I suggest we ask instead of meekly accepting the fat mythos the media and the weight-loss industry presents for us.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

I agree that lifestyle choices may in fact be the cause of most instances of obesity. I don't seek to make excuses for poor lifestyle choices. What I do challenge is (a) that the choice to be fat is poor; and (b) that an excuse must be made for someone's lifestyle choice.

I do find it interesting that the majority of responses on Slashdot have blamed the individual (usually on the basis of experience of having someone fat intrude into their plane seat, which is indeed irritating) instead of on the airline. That's what I'm challenging: why the individual is blamed, and why being fat is assumed to be bad. Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?

I think that your line of thought merely leads to the place where you are left with no option but to blame anyone that has any lifestyle choice that departs from the norm whenever that choice intrudes in any way on the life of another.

There'll always be someone who thinks that, as just one example, Joe Blow being gay intrudes into his life enjoyment because he is physically revolted when he sees Joe kiss his boyfriend in public. There's nothing wrong with being physically revolted by something-- you're entitled to feel that way. But I ask you: what's the solution? Beat the shit out of Joe Blow? Ban him from gay behaviour? Or make him buy property twice the size of anyone else's just so that his gay-ness is less visible to those who find it intrusive?

It would be a sad world where anyone who deviated from the norm had to pay extra for being themselves. I seem to recall the exodus to North America in the first place was because we thought it was an important value to be able to follow your own convictions and conscience, to be yourself freely. I'm glad that in Canada we have legislation that protects people's right to do (within reason) in true equality. Why not put the onus to accommodate reasonable differences on the party that is best able to do so-- the airline? Easier to build a couple bigger seats than to dictate that every fat person should "just lose weight."

Re:Customer of Size?

[Mr2001]

I agree that lifestyle choices may in fact be the cause of most instances of obesity. I don't seek to make excuses for poor lifestyle choices. What I do challenge is (a) that the choice to be fat is poor; and (b) that an excuse must be made for someone's lifestyle choice.

Judgments aside, the choice to be fat is a choice to consume more resources (in this case, seating space). Doesn't it make sense that they should pay extra for that? If you choose to drive a Hummer, you pay more to drive the same distance than someone who drives a Civic -- insisting that a passenger who needs two seats should fly for the same price as a passenger who only needs one is like insisting that Hummer owners should get 20 gallons of gas for the same price Civic owners pay for 10.

Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?

There's a thought, but of course those seats would cost more (because they're more desirable, limited in number, and less profitable for the airline). Right now, fat passengers can get double the space for double the price. Maybe it'd make sense for the airline to install 150%-width seats for 150% the price. It's still basically the same situation, though: charging people more for consuming more space.

There'll always be someone who thinks that, as just one example, Joe Blow being gay intrudes into his life enjoyment because he is physically revolted when he sees Joe kiss his boyfriend in public.

Surely you aren't trying to equate the subjective, mental, easily overcome discomfort a homophobe feels upon seeing a gay couple kiss with the objective, physical, persistent discomfort a passenger feels from being denied half his seat and squished into the other half for the duration of his flight.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Actually, it wouldn't be fraud unless there is an explicit deception or lie. It might be misrepresentation or breach of contract. There's a gulf of legal difference between these.

Is it really alright for an airline to make an unusually small seat and then charge what they want for it? What about if you yourself bought a ticket and boarded the plane, saw a literally tiny seat and was given the same choice-- to buy two seats or get off? Would you still think it was fair and acceptable capitalism if you were negatively affected by it? What level does it have to get to before it's no longer acceptable?

There's also a difference between being willing to accept a discriminatory policy and having no other choice. This is a form of duress and is inequitable.

It's a ridiculous argument that any person can do anything they want in a capitalistic marketplace. Is it okay to sell children, so long as there is supply and demand? (Or only when you're stuck next to one on the plane that won't stop crying or running around being a turd?) Of course here we stray from the world of economics to the world of politics and policy choices. We have to make certain decisions about what we're going to allow in the marketplace and what we're not going to allow because we feel it violates one of our core principles, like equality or reasonable freedom. Of course we have to have a marketplace that is regulated by some form of order.

So what happened was that he accepted the policy and bought two tickets. He then asked to fly standby, which is a service available to all passengers. The airline accepted and put him on an earlier flight, but seemed to have forgotten he had purchased two tickets already. They then put him on the earlier flight, but only gave him *one* seat, not the two he had purchased. That was their mistake. And then they humiliated him by kicking him off the plane. How did this become his fault? Didn't the airline know he needed two seats?

Your last paragraph is troubling. You say, essentially, that people who are "medically obese" don't deserve to be treated as if you were a person within a healthy weight range. Let's leave aside the assumption you made that being medically obese is unhealthy, which I would challenge as unsupported by scientific study that has been properly controlled and normalized for other factors other than pure weight. You've just said straight out that fat people shouldn't be treated the same as persons with normal weight. Why not? Are they de facto assholes? Are they child rapers?

Your argument places the onus for ensuring airline safety and comfort onto the party that is least able to control it: the individual. Which is easier and therefore more efficient: for hundreds of thousands of individuals to lose a lot of weight to become "normal" sized, or, for airlines to make a proportion of their seats large enough to accommodate above-average persons?

Given that airlines admit they do not charge passengers by weight, you don't get a cheaper ticket if you bring lighter baggage than the 200 pound guy next to you, and that the issue here is safety, not profit (or so they say), how can they justify not making a few of their seats bigger? Why not make a few bigger seats, and a few smaller seats, so that children or tiny people can sit in a seat that fits them, and so can an obese person?

My problem with this whole scenario is that it's really about money, but airlines are pretending it's about safety. It's clearly not, or else we'd have seen multiple seat sizes decades ago.

And if it's really such a social drag to have obese people amongst the population, then perhaps the nation should start banning foods like McDonald's that are notoriously fattening and unhealthy instead of profiting by taxation and economic prosperity through allowing their consumption and then villifying those who legally consume them. Or perhaps we should force people to exercise for at least 30 minutes per day. Oh but wait-- you see where th

Re:Customer of Size?

[Mr2001]

For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories? What about athletes? What about persons with a higher than average metabolism?

2000 calories is a rough guideline that we all know must be adjusted for your specific situation. A simple Google search turns up several calorie intake calculators that produce a better estimate, but even those aren't completely accurate.

There is no precise number of calories that everyone must take in, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as excessive calorie intake. "Excessive" simply means more calories than you need to maintain your current weight, and you can determine what's excessive for you (given your current size and activity level) by keeping track of what you eat and charting your weight: if you're eating too much, your weight will trend upward.

Fat is assumed to be bad and wrong because it is allegedly unhealthy. And yet, do we really know if it - being fat - is unhealthy? No, we don't. We know that many fat people tend to have heart problems, or diabetes. But are those conditions related to their weight, or are they related to the underlying behaviours or traits which caused their larger-than-average weight? No, we don't.

Actually, we have a pretty good idea. Here's one study which found independent associations between obesity and diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol: independent as in it's predicted by obesity itself, not by the other factors that predict obesity (age, economic status, etc.).

These issues began to occur to me when I was 17 years old and playing at a World Cup athletic event. I was 5'8", fit as a horse, with a six pack, and about 180 pounds. I had my BMI done and, if I recall correctly, I was rated "scientifically" as morbidly obese. What a joke. It reminded me that the BMI, the 2,000 calorie diet and all the assumptions these things and their kin are based on are all bunk. They are tautological in the sense that they can only be used on the very populations for which they were defined to be used: "normal" people. And when you think about it, what use at all is that?

Yes, BMI is well-known to be inaccurate for bodybuilders and athletes, because muscle is denser than fat, and if whoever tested your BMI didn't tell you that, they weren't doing their job.

But BMI is still quite useful, because most people aren't bodybuilders or athletes. Most people whose BMI is rated as "overweight" really are overweight.

Re:Customer of Size?

[aussie_a]

What about if you yourself bought a ticket and boarded the plane, saw a literally tiny seat and was given the same choice-- to buy two seats or get off?

It truly matters on how up front they are about their seat sizes. In this case, Kevin Smith was not only aware of their seat size and their policy on overweight and obese people, but he had quite willingly accepted it before he got to the airport.

Would you still think it was fair and acceptable capitalism if you were negatively affected by it?

Yes.

It's a ridiculous argument that any person can do anything they want in a capitalistic marketplace.

Good thing I didn't make that argument.

They then put him on the earlier flight, but only gave him *one* seat, not the two he had purchased. That was their mistake.

Yes, it was their mistake to attempt to accommodate him. Next time they should say "fatties aren't allowed in standby" except that of course would bring your ire even more. How about we find the largest size possible that someone can be without dying, and make the seats that size.

You've just said straight out that fat people shouldn't be treated the same as persons with normal weight. Why not? Are they de facto assholes? Are they child rapers?

Because they are physically incapable of doing stuff that people within a healthy weight range can do. Treating them as if they CAN physically do these tasks is political correctness run amok.

If I'm simply incapable of lifting 100kg on a regular basis, should I be given a job that requires me to lift 100kg on a regular basis? Of course not.

Are you really arguing that obese persons would voluntarily choose to buy two seats on a plane if they could buy only one?

But they can't buy one and stay within the confines of that one seat.

or, for airlines to make a proportion of their seats large enough to accommodate above-average persons?

How far above average are we going to go here? What about people who can't fit within the ailes? What about people who can't walk on their own two legs because they are so overweight? At one point we're going to have to draw a line and say "people over this weight cannot be treated as healthy people." But you're arguing that to draw such a line is wrong.

And if it's really such a social drag to have obese people amongst the population, then perhaps the nation should start banning foods like McDonald's that are notoriously fattening and unhealthy instead of profiting by taxation and economic prosperity through allowing their consumption and then villifying those who legally consume them.

Because arguing the choice of the individual (companies are also comprised of individuals) is definitely the same thing as arguing for the government to tell you what you can eat.

Re:Customer of Size?

[laughingcoyote]

I doubt most people are fat by choice, if you mean that they woke up one day and said "You know what? I'd really like to be a couple hundred pounds overweight." However, though they did not plan to fail, they did fail to plan, and generally speaking are overweight due to a series of their own decisions and a failure to stop making those decisions.

As to scientific data, there has of course been a tremendous amount of scientific research done on obesity, and all of it that I've seen indicates that the overwhelming majority of the problem is from lifestyle choices, not medical conditions. We have indeed taken a trip to Unscientific Land here, but you took that road when you equated obesity to sexual orientation or skin color. Race is, obviously, a hereditary characteristic, and research suggests that sexual orientation is largely not a choice of the individual either.

My own experience bears this out. I did not choose to be white, obviously-I was born that way. I also did not wake up one day and say "You know what, I think I'd like to be straight." I was attracted to women since the age I began being attracted to anyone, I didn't make that as a conscious choice.

On the other hand, when I noticed I was starting to put on a few pounds, I changed my diet a bit and started riding a bike instead of driving a lot of the time. Result? The bit of a belly I was developing fell right off. I am by no means a health food guru or exercise junkie, I still enjoy following pizza and a beer with a good book, but I also know that this must be done with some degree of moderation and can't be every meal of every day.

There's also the very real difference that neither the race nor the sexual orientation of the person next to you affect your flight. On the other hand, if you're crunching me into a quarter of my seat because you're taking up most of it, you're depriving me of what I paid for. To equate an issue caused by lifestyle with a very real impact on neighboring passengers, to issues largely if not entirely caused by birth and having no such impact, is disingenuous at best. Unless you've got some good research to show me that obesity is not largely a result of poor dietary and exercise practices, I think you're calling the wrong person out of touch with the research in this scenario.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

I would absolutely agree with your argument if the issue had been framed by airlines in terms of the consumption of resources rather than safety. The reason they have done it this way is because they know their consumption-of-resources position is weaker than their safety position.

But they don't go that route because they like charging children for a full-sized seat. They like charging huge fees for overweight baggage while giving you no refund for light bags. It's quite simply more profitable for them to frame the debate in this way because it shifts the focus onto a more acceptable issue-- safety-- instead of the less acceptable motive of profit.

If it were about charging for resources, then it may indeed be more fair on a pure economic view, but then they'd be hassled on the human rights front, which is an even worse can of worms. Men would perhaps rightly feel screwed because they are forced to pay significantly more for the same seat than a woman because they are heavier, and because that is something physical beyond their control. You see where that would go pretty fast: a PR nightmare.

But if we keep the issue framed the way the airline did, about safety, then things are different. Outside of profit, there's no reason not to build some larger seats in the name of safety. Even in the name of comfort.

With the Hummer example, the crux is that the person driving the Hummer indisputably made a consumption choice to purchase a Hummer. (If it were the case that the Hummer were needed, such as for business, then that person would be able to deduct the extra expense from business profits and thus incur no extra cost.) The Hummer analogy doesn't quite work when it comes to obese persons, because the underlying assumption is not established, namely, that people choose to be fat, or choose to consume more, which makes them fat.

The larger seats might be worth more if they are in fact in high demand. But then that begs the question of whether the current standard airline seat might in fact be too small. If a significant number of passengers don't fit the standard seat, should the airlines not logically increase the standard size? Otherwise, what's to prevent the airlines from making child-size seats the standard size and ask "normal" sized passengers to purchase two? Yikes. I don't think the issue is so cut and dry as most on here have portrayed it, which is as "fat people cause the problem and should thus pay for it."

I do think we should adopt the system you suggest: passengers are charged based on a combination of how much space you take up, and how much weight you bring, including your baggage. That seems fair on at least a mathematical basis, if not a human rights basis. But I don't think the airlines would want it that way because it would hurt their very slim profit margins.

I'm glad you called me on the gay analogy. But I think it's interesting you said that a homophobe's discomfort is mental and easily overcome; so many Slashdotters made the exact same point about obese persons, namely that it is so easy to just change a physical aspect of yourself-- just lose weight. When you have a physical reaction to something (whether it's mental, like seeing a homosexual that revolts you, or physical, like food you ate), it's all too easy for other people to say "oh get over it", or "just lose weight." As much as I truly don't understand why some homophobes have such intense reactions to homosexuals, some to the point of being physically sickened by it, I can't doubt that the reaction exists. I seriously doubt that it is very easy for homophobes like that to just easily overcome their revulsion. I wish to god it were that easy, but the fact that they show up to protest gay funerals seems to suggest a very deep level of mental entrenchment. Similarly, it's definitely not easy for an obese person to just lose weight.

I guess that yes, I am trying to equate the two scenarios, but not on a moral level (I do not condone homophobia, which I pers

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Ah, but that's exactly what I'm suggesting: that perhaps issues such as average weight, obesity, metabolism and tendency to weight gain *are* issues entirely caused by birth, just as most now accept homosexuality as similarly a fixed-at-birth issue. Not so very long ago I remember the common wisdom of society was that homosexuality was a choice, and that with some elbow grease, it could be overcome. Thankfully, we've graduated from this wrong view. But it seems we haven't graduated from it completely, rather, we've now just shifted the very same argument to fat people. I argue that fat phobia has become the new whipping boy now that homophobia is no longer socially acceptable. Can you see that the exact same argument about obesity (just lose weight!) is being made today that used to be made about homosexuality (just get over it!), and being made with approval? I just don't see why the argument is persisting in another form, loaded with the exact same assumptions we already displaced with the homosexuality issue? It's like we never learn.

And I am always frustrated by people that find any comparison of one situation to racism or homophobia de facto disingenuous, without actually analysing the mechanics of the comparison. You commented that "neither the race nor the sexual orientation of the person next to you affect your flight." But did you stop to consider whether or not that statement is actually true? The very existence of racists and homophobes (and the physical violence that these attitudes seem to engender) disproves your statement. The colour of someone's skin *can* affect the person in the next plane seat. A flamboyant homosexual can indeed affect the person in the next seat. Even your gender can and does affect the person in the next seat. Can you really argue with that? I'm not saying that it's a rational effect, but it *is* an effect.

What I suggest is that we should analyse the mechanics of these kinds of effects and try and learn something from comparative and analogic thinking rather than sweep everything into established categories. We should examine why we think it's OK to implicitly criticize a fat person for intruding into the seat next to him and force him to buy another seat, when he may or may not have any choice about how much space he takes up, and never had the option to sit in a bigger seat. Analyse why we don't instead ask airlines to make a few extra, bigger seats for obese people? On what basis do we think it is more unfair to ask an airline to do this than to ask an obese man to lose a hundred pounds or pay double? Contrast that to why we think it's not OK to force a gay man to buy two seats so that a homophobe asshole doesn't have to feel physically uncomfortable sitting next to a gay man.

What I see happening in this thread is that the majority of commenters think that because a fat man can lose weight, he is responsible for his condition and ought to bear the onus on not making those around him uncomfortable. But how logical is that? And is that the only option? And would those same people tell a flamboyantly gay man to just not have sex with men, or dress more like a manly man?

Basically, I think the underlying question is really: what kinds of behaviours, choices, personal characteristics (genetic/inherent or not) are we going to say, as a society, should incur additional cost on their bearer to ensure that they do not impinge on others? And what are the core principles which underlie our answer to this question? It's not an easy question to answer. But to just lump penalties on fat people because they are fat requires a justification. And when there are at least two solutions, (1) make the fat man buy two seats, and (2) make the airline make a few bigger seats, then to pick one over the other requires justification because it impinges on someone's rights either way. Why do we just accept blindly that the fat guy should pay double? There hasn't been much critical thought in this thread, just a lot of fat-bashing.

Re:Customer of Size?

[XantheKnight]

Yes, it was their mistake to attempt to accommodate him. Next time they should say "fatties aren't allowed in standby" except that of course would bring your ire even more. How about we find the largest size possible that someone can be without dying, and make the seats that size.

Your comments seem motivated in revulsion and hatred at fat people rather than in any logical basis. In that regard, you affirm my point, which is that there is a lot of prejudice going on in this issue that is couched ostensibly in logic and/or fairness.

How far above average are we going to go here? What about people who can't fit within the ailes? What about people who can't walk on their own two legs because they are so overweight? At one point we're going to have to draw a line and say "people over this weight cannot be treated as healthy people." But you're arguing that to draw such a line is wrong.

Whether someone is healthy or unhealthy because of how fat they are is immaterial to the issue because it isn't their healthiness that dictates how much space they take up in a plane seat.

There is no line that can be drawn at which we say "people over this weight cannot be treated as people." To draw such a line is wrong.

Re:Customer of Size?

[MozeeToby]

Let me put it this way. December 26 of last year, I was 25 lbs overweight. I woke up that morning and said to myself "Today, I'm going to start eating healthy and lose weight". And then I went and did it, exactly as I explained in my comment above; writing down every single thing I eat and drink, and not going a single calorie over my daily target (1500 Kcals compared to 2800 before). Since then I've lost 30lbs, with another 10-15 to go before my goal weight. And most importantly, I cannot imagine eating the amount of food that I did 2 months ago. I do a once a week cheat day and I guarantee I don't eat more than 2300 Kcals on those days.

Yes, it was hard. The first couple weeks I wasn't sure I was going to be able to do it. I was hungry all the time, and literally dreamed about food on a regular basis. Eventually I learned what I could and could not eat to control my hunger without going over my limit, namely more veggies, less carbs and absolutely no diet soda (I know that the research is questionable at this point but diet soda made me massively hungry). Obviously I'm still hungry at some times, my wife hasn't latched on to the healthier lifestyle as much as I have which is incredibly frustrating when she's eating junk food and I'm hungry.

Am I going to keep it off? Honestly, I think I will. Keeping it off is going to be a matter of maintaining a daily Calorie intake of about 2300, which will be a piece of cake compared to what I'm doing now. As for the Biggest Loser... Well, for every person on it that keeps the weight off there's at least one that puts some or most of it back on. But you also need to remember why those people are losing the weight, a lot of them are there for the money first and to lose weight second. Is it more complex than calories in calories out? Yes and no. What you eat and when affects your metabolism, as does your genes and your activity level. But if you significantly cut Calories you will lose weight.

Re:Customer of Size?

[aussie_a]

There is no line that can be drawn at which we say "people over this weight cannot be treated as people." To draw such a line is wrong.

Because acknowledging someone's limits is treating them as subhuman.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Mr2001]

I would absolutely agree with your argument if the issue had been framed by airlines in terms of the consumption of resources rather than safety.

If you read the statement again, you'll see that they mention "safety and comfort". It's uncomfortable for the fat guy who has to squeeze into a seat that doesn't fit him, and perhaps more importantly, it's uncomfortable for the poor bastard who has to sit next to him. It's unsafe because a fat guy squeezed into a seat that doesn't fit him is going to have a hard time getting out quickly.

Furthermore, Southwest's policy is to refund the price of the second seat if the flight isn't full. In other words, you can consume more seats than you pay for as long as you're not denying a seat to anyone else.

If it were about charging for resources, then it may indeed be more fair on a pure economic view, but then they'd be hassled on the human rights front, which is an even worse can of worms. Men would perhaps rightly feel screwed because they are forced to pay significantly more for the same seat than a woman because they are heavier, and because that is something physical beyond their control. You see where that would go pretty fast: a PR nightmare.

That wouldn't happen, because weight isn't nearly as much of an issue as space. Notice that airlines don't weigh your carry-on luggage (they only measure its size), and policies like this one are phrased in terms of size rather than weight.

The Hummer analogy doesn't quite work when it comes to obese persons, because the underlying assumption is not established, namely, that people choose to be fat, or choose to consume more, which makes them fat.

Oh, give it up. What do you think is happening: mind control? You choose how much to eat, and how much to exercise.

There are, of course, circumstances that might push your choices in a certain direction. For instance, you might eat a poor diet because it's cheaper than a healthy one. But then you're still in the same situation as someone who drives an old, inefficient car because it's cheaper than a new, efficient car: should he get a discount on gas because of that? Should we make him prove his financial hardship, or should we give everyone with an inefficient car the discount because "the underlying assumption is not established" and he might have bought the car out of hardship? Or should we maybe just ask him to pay for the resources he consumes, regardless of why he's consuming them?

If a significant number of passengers don't fit the standard seat, should the airlines not logically increase the standard size? Otherwise, what's to prevent the airlines from making child-size seats the standard size and ask "normal" sized passengers to purchase two?

You just answered your own question: the number of passengers who don't fit the standard seat is pretty insignificant. I fly a few times a year, and I think I've only seen it once.

The thing preventing airlines from making child-sized seats the standard is customer demand. If one airline suddenly doubled the price for the vast majority of their customers, those customers would leave. The current policy works because the current standard size is fine -- not super-comfortable, but adequate -- for almost everyone who flies.

The trade-off with those merely adequate seats is that the airline can fit more passengers on the plane, which drives down the price of travel. If you make the seats bigger, fares will go up: the fuel savings from having one less passenger aren't enough to make up the lost revenue from selling one less ticket.

But I think it's interesting you said that a homophobe's discomfort is mental and easily overcome; so many Slashdotters made the exact same point about obese persons, namely that it is so easy to just change a physical aspect of yourself-- just lose weight.

Losing weight isn't easy, but it's possible wi

Re:Customer of Size?

[drsquare]

That's what I'm challenging: why the individual is blamed, and why being fat is assumed to be bad. Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?

The individual is blamed for making himself fat through poor lifestyle choices. He chose to make his body too big to fit in a seat. It's his fault.

No it doesn't make more sense to make the seats bigger as then they'd be more expensive and all the non-obese would switch to another airline.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Man Eating Duck]

Even your post speaks of "fault" in relation to obesity. You speak of choice about changing their weight. What I'm asking you to re-think is not that there's no choice for fat people about their weight, rather, to re-think your underlying assumption that there's only one choice that should be made: to lose weight. That that's the right choice. The moral choice. That people who remain fat are morally wrong; are lazy; have no self-control; over-eat.

That's not what I meant, or what I believe... I don't see how my post could be interpreted thus. It was a response to the first paragraph of your post, where you said that "lose the weight" is a pseudo-argument and you make crazy assumptions about the PP (black? gay? Ehh, what?!). That, in turn, was a response to your PP saying what to do "If you would prefer not to have those limitations". I disagreed with your statement and tried to explain why. I don't think I put down all overweight people as... anything, really, or demanded that all "horisontally challenged people" lose weight.

A friend jokes all the time about himself being fat (he is somewhat overweight), but he's perfectly happy and don't see the need to lose weight. That's very good. If a girl is very overweight I probably won't find her physically attractive, but then again I'm not partial to very thin girls either. I certainly don't find it "immoral" or "wrong" in any way. If a person is comfortable with his or her body, all is good.

I'm talking about those who complains that they want to lose weight but "can't". From my anecdotal experience it IS possible by taking measures in your everyday life, even if it can be very hard. It irks me when people claim that they want to lose weight, but give up without really trying "the obvious", and/or blame all kinds of circumstances they can't control. I believe that in the vast majority of cases they're factually wrong, and I try to say so in a gentle and constructive manner (I tried to be quite civil in my previous post).

..BMI...

BMI is certainly bullshit in many cases, that's why I never mention it. I, as well, was an accomplished athlete (cross-country skiing and soccer) with a BMI of 19, which is clinically underweight. I could bench 1.5 times my own body weight and I ran marathons, so I was not particularly worried :)

At least quote the actual study from whence the quote came. Let us judge that study on its scientific merits.

Thanks for introducing me to "whence", neat word! On topic: If Wikipedia is wrong, correct it. I'm in no way qualified to argue on scientific terms, neither do I find it particularly interesting or relevant to what you or I were saying. I didn't even read the whole article in the last case. Still, in my view as a layperson it's difficult to assume that correlation is not at least partially causation in these cases.

The source of my quote is here. The first hit on google for "obesity and caloric intake paper" yields this in the abstract: "The results show that obese or overweight individuals do absorb more calories at all ages but with differences that vary across gender and ages and across food nutrients such as carbohydrates, lipids or proteins."

For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories?

I have no idea, I never counted calories nor did I write the article, I guess it varies. When I was a cross-country skier practicing endurance and strenght six times a week I consumed enormous amounts of food while gaining only the muscle tissue I needed. What I take it to mean is "more than your body needs in order to function". If your body absorbs more energy than it needs it'll probably tend to store the excess as f

Re:Customer of Size?

[ckaminski]

How FAT is he, really? I'm pushing 400 pounds and I can fit in a Southwest seat without impinging on my neighbors. It's uncomfortable for my prodigous love handles, I suppose, but I manage.

Re:Customer of Size?

[Man Eating Duck]

[...] whence [...] whither [...]

This is what my .sig is for, thanks a lot! :)

Re:Customer of Size?

[frank_adrian314159]

It would be like calling people who need glasses (such as myself) "sight-challenged" instead of "long-sighted" or "near-sighted"

When in reality, the obviously correct term is "four eyes".

Re:Customer of Size?

[MBGMorden]

Indeed. A friend of mine's company that we works for was recently bought out by a group from Mexico. They were literally instructed not to refer to the new owners as "Mexicans" because it was derogatory. How the hell can the actual name used for a group be derogatory?

Re:He's a "double seater"...

[Joce640k]

He normally buys double seats due to his width.

This time he was on standby and there was no double seat for him. To prevent the person next to him from suffering the overflow they made him take the next flight and gave him $100 for his trouble.

He knew the rules, this just makes a whining, self-entitled asshole.

I'm guessing much higher...

[PhoenixOne]

Unless he's a lot shorter than I remember, or full of air, he's much heavier than 235.

From his 2007 blog: "Lemme tell ya’ something: if I weight 230, I wouldn’t be blogging about losing weight; I’d be stuffing my fat maw with starches and sugars in a veritable orgy of food, glorious food. I dream of being 230. 230 is a months-away, pie-in-the-sky quasi-pipe-dream."

Re:I have translated it to KG

[nomadic]

Wheelchairs I mean.

Too Small

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course its ok if the airlines have cut back both the width of the seats and the space between the rows in order to pack in more cattle. Thats ok, despite the fact that over and beyond the obesity problem people in general are getting taller and heavier. Sure, sell by the seat or sell passage by the pound, but dont cut back on the space and then punish the people who were dumb enough to fly them in the first place.

BMI is worthless even without muscle

[Joce640k]

People are three dimensional but there's only a power of two in the equation. It only works if you're average height (and even then it's dubious, as you've already observed).

BMI is *junk*. Spread the word...

Re:Does this mean....

[doug]

I'm a geek and I didn't (and still don't) know who Kevin Smith is.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=who+is+kevin+smith

Selfish reasoning

[PPH]

I hope people like Kevin manage to shame (or regulate) airlines into minimum seat dimensions. I'm not fat and I'm pretty short. So I have no problems fitting my butt or my legs into coach. But what gets me is the shoulder room. I need both armrests and then I'm still hanging one arm out into the aisle. If they spread the seats out enough for Smith's ass, I might be able to stop sitting sideways.

Airbus isn't as bad as Boeing. Boeing must have a bunch of anorexic girls as ergonomics models.

Re:Selfish reasoning

[mjwx]

Airbus isn't as bad as Boeing. Boeing must have a bunch of anorexic girls as ergonomics models.

As much as I hate giving the the Boeing fanboys ammunition (I keed, I keed, I am indifferent to Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer but seriously, Boeing fanboys are almost as bad as Apple fanboys, all planes pass safety tests and design flaws cause a tiny percentage of accidents compared to pilot error or poor maintenance). Manufacturers fit out planes according to the specification of the airline, not the manufacturer. Many airlines will have other companies refit their seating, Air Asia has not fitted their standard 3x3x3 config into their new A340's because the planes are owned by Air Canada (IIRC).

Re:Selfish reasoning

[Beezlebub33]

Don't blame Boeing. Boeing doesn't determine where the seats go. Take a look at the bottom of the chairs. There's a railing that the seats are attached to, and so the seats can be swapped out and moved forward and back. The decision of what seats to use, and where to put them is determined by the airline, not the manufacturer of the aircraft.

Re:Selfish reasoning

[PPH]

Seat width is a function of an integer number of seats per row divided into the fuselage diameter (with aisle allowances). One manufacturer might brag about a couple of inches more fuselage width. But the result could be that their customer airlines can cram one more seat in if they shave a few inches off each of them.

Boeing caters to lots of high density, short hop Asian airlines. Where the philosophy seems to be "cram them in". Whether its a Tokyo subway or a 747.

Re:Selfish reasoning

[mjwx]

Boeing caters to lots of high density, short hop Asian airlines

So does Airbus, Air Aisa's entire fleet are A320's, A330's and 2 A340's, Tiger Airways is exclusively A320's. My point was that Airbus will fit out Singapore Airlines A330's to Singapore Airlines specifications whilst Airbus will fit out Air Asia's A330's to Air Asia's specifications. The manufactures have little to no say in how the cabin of a plane is kitted out (seat width, leg room and so forth).

Standby?

[phorm]

What I wonder is why the heck KS would be flying standby. Was he late in booking or something? It's not like he should lack funds to pay for a flight and had to go with the cheaper option...

Re:Standby?

[veganboyjosh]

I just checked their website, and a flight from Burbank to Oakland and back is 59 dollars one way on a regularly scheduled, non-standby flight.

Re:Standby?

[BronsCon]

He had a ticket for a later flight and was on standby for an earlier one.

Re:Standby?

[CohibaVancouver]

What I wonder is why the heck KS would be flying standby

'Standby' used to mean a cheap ticket bought last minute by a college kid with a backpack.

It doesn't mean that anymore. Let's imagine you're a millionaire like presumably KS is. You're booked on a 1pm flight, then get to the airport early and find out there's an 11am flight, so you try to get on that one instead. You're booked on the 1pm and on 'standby' for the 11am flight.

Don't neglect your real-world Karma!

[ClosedSource]

Many of the Slashdotters mocking fat people are young men with bad eating habits. Give them a few years and they'll be laughing out of the other side of their jowls.

Moral of the story:

[ClosedSource]

If you're fat never try to be nice and buy two tickets because the one time you don't you'll get screwed.

!news

[spyder-implee]

Another fat cunt American bitches about not being able to fly. Yawn.

We have a solution!

[ClosedSource]

"I would be HAPPY to pay extra for the comfort knowing that I would NOT end up having to sit next to one ever again"

If you're happy to pay then just by a second ticket next to you. Problem solved. Unless of course you just wanted to pay to insult "fatties". In that case, see them after the plane lands - they might be willing to let you insult them for a few benjamins.

Re:We have a solution!

[Hailth]

Passenger: Excuse me, stewardess?

Stewardess: Yes, sir?

Passenger: It appears this fatass is preparing to seat herself beside me. Surely not everyone paid the $20 anti-fatass surcharge?

Stewardess: Oh, you're right sir, my apologies. Pardon me ma'am, would you please remove your bag from the overhead storage and come with me?

Proceeding towards the back of the plane...

Passenger 2: No.. NO! WAIT! I HAVE 20 DOLLARS IN MY WALLET! THIS SEAT'S TAKEN! THE LEFT PHALANGES IS MISSING! I'M ON THE WRONG FLIGHT! NOOOOOO!!!!

Passenger 2 becomes locked into place(hell) by the conquering fatass, all hope is lost.

If only to provide comedy, I think the system would work. I would gladly pay $20 to reserve comfort, insult fatties, and watch Passenger 2 and his futile struggle.

Obesity is not always a choice.

[GuruBuckaroo]

I realize I'm posting late to a popular thread, but there's an issue I'd like to address here. I see a lot of comments saying essentially "fatties are that way because they choose to be". Aside from the fact that "fatties" is a perfect example of the fact that obese people are the only remaining demographic of which it's perfectly acceptable to abuse, obesity is not always a choice.

Let me state that another way for the thinking-impaired: I don't choose to be fat, but I am. And there ain't jack I can do about it, short of expensive cosmetic surgery.

OK, you're asking "How, fatass, can you be fat? Surely exercise and diet can overcome these things?"

There is a condition known as "hypothyroidism". There are many causes; in my case it was an auto-immune disease known as "Grave's Disease". It caused my body to attack my own thyroid gland - a gland in the neck that secretes thyroid hormone, which controls most of a person's metabolism. The reaction from the thyroid is to over-produce thyroid hormone, sending your metabolism into overdrive. When I was first diagnosed, I was recently out of the Army, and had been very fit, about 185lbs of muscle (on a 5'8" frame). I went to my doctor because I lost 30 lbs - down to 155lbs - and my resting heart rate had skyrocketed to 120beats per minute. They tested me, and told me that if it wasn't corrected, I would have an extremely elevated risk for heart failure. The treatment is to take a simple, $12,000 pill made of radioactive iodine. The thyroid converts iodine into thyroid hormone, so the vast majority of iodine in your diet is drawn to the thyroid. The radiation then kills off a portion of your thyroid. There is also a surgery, but since the thyroid is wrapped around the nerves controlling your vocal cords, and the slightest nick can paralyze them - so it's not done much anymore.

The problem with this treatment is that they cannot get the "dosage" of the radioactive iodine exactly correct. In most cases, they over-compensate, and kill off too much thyroid. This happened to me. My metabolism slowed to a crawl. They replace the missing thyroid hormone with a synthetic version, which is supposed to do the same thing. Problem is, medical studies have shown that it doesn't. They test your required dose of synthetic hormone by testing for a different hormone, TSH - "Thyroid Sensing Hormone". Basically, another gland in your brain checks your body for thyroid level, and if it's too low, it sends out TSH to trigger your thyroid to create more thyroid hormone. Turns out, though, that synthetic thyroid hormone is detected as real thyroid hormone by that gland - causing it to normalize the level of TSH - but it doesn't actually do the job that the real thyroid hormone does - raising your metabolism.

End result - I take $400 (after insurance) of medicine per year that doesn't do jack, to keep my TSH level "normal", and my metabolism is still crawling. I weigh about 260lbs now. I eat sensibly, get exercise, but none of it does any good at reducing my fat. Only way I could really lose it would be through liposuction. And I'm not alone. Anyone who has this condition will tell you the same thing.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[shutdown -p now]

It is understood that obesity can be a geniune health issue not related to one's life choices. That kind of thing should, obviously, be treated as any other kind of disability.

However, it is not so in the particular case described in TFA.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[Rakshasa Taisab]

There is a condition known as "hypothyroidism". There are many causes; in my case it was an auto-immune disease known as "Grave's Disease". It caused my body to attack my own thyroid gland - a gland in the neck that secretes thyroid hormone, which controls most of a person's metabolism.

Yes, it seems the US has had a pandemic of 'hypothyroidism' the last few decades. I wonder if it is contagious.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[aXis100]

Metabolic condition or not, the fat does not apppear out of thin air. You still have to have bring your hand to your mouth and consume those calories. It's like an asthmatic complaining of shortness of breath after smoking.

I realise however that in order to control your weight you may end up being hungry all of the time though, and that just plain sucks.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[nanospook]

While I sympathize with your situation, I think the rule of thumb is that people, in general, are fat for more generic reasons. Really stupid reasons too.. Lots of choices are involved. On the surface, do you eat reasonable portions and exercise? However, under the surface, there are other choices being made. What kind of foods do you eat, and how do impact your ability to eat properly? For example, eating lots of processed fast foods can not only be a bad diet, but will result in cravings to eat more and quickly. The result is you eat a lot of sugar and high calories food and also eat foods that burn badly (very quickly). On top of that, people drink high sugar drinks such as sodas. Even though we kinda know the problem, we keep eating those same foods.. These same foods burn badly and result in bad exercise habits. You are heavy, you have no consistent energy, tired, maybe running border line or downright high blood sugar as your metabolism struggles to deal with the crap we eat. So, there are lots of choices to make but the hardest choice is to actually do something about it, especially when you might have been doing things wrong for decades.. Being a diabetic myself for about 15-20 years, I realized that food is like a drug habit, the back of your subbrain demainds it and wants it now, and the more sugar, carbs, and taste you can get, the better. NOW! Any luck on the stem cell horizon for replacing your thyroid?

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[quenda]

I weigh about 260lbs now. I eat sensibly, get exercise, but none of it does any good at reducing my fat.

Obviously you are not eating sensibly for your condition. Slow metabolism by itself will not make you fat. You have to be eating as if you still had a faster metabolism.
Adjusting eating habits is difficult, which is why so many of us get larger in middle age. Each snack or meal is a choice.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[Endo13]

Cool anecdote. Guess what - I've got one too.

My mom had Graves as well. They completely killed her thyroid. And you know what? She's in better physical shape than I am. Since that's happened to her, she's been at most 30 pounds overweight, before she decides she wants to get it back where it needs to be. Right now, she's maybe 5 over her minimum healthy weight.

End result - your weight is ALWAYS a choice. You can blame it on medical problems, genetics, or anything else you want. But in the end, it still boils down to a personal lack of discipline.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[Shrike82]

The problem is not about whether people choose to be fat or not, despite all the trolls in this story being modded Insightful for spouting abuse. The issue here is that some people, for whatever reason, are simply too large to fit in a single seat. No mention of blame, no moral judgements. They're simply too big. Some have the choice of slimming down, others don't. Either way, if they're too big to fit in a single seat then they need to buy another. It might not be their fault that they're overwieght, but it sure as hell isn't the fault of the poor bastard sat next to them either.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[Mr_Silver]

There is a condition known as "hypothyroidism". There are many causes; in my case it was an auto-immune disease known as "Grave's Disease". It caused my body to attack my own thyroid gland - a gland in the neck that secretes thyroid hormone, which controls most of a person's metabolism. The reaction from the thyroid is to over-produce thyroid hormone, sending your metabolism into overdrive.

You raise an extremely valid point and whilst I sympathise greatly with your medically diagnosed problem, you need to look at the figures to understand why people are saying what they do

According to wikipedia about 3% of the population suffer "hypothyroidism".

Yet, according to the CDC:

In 2008, only one state (Colorado) had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-two states had a prevalence equal to or greater than 25%; six of these states (Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity equal to or greater than 30%.

Once you take the 3% out of those numbers, the sad fact is that too many people just eat too much and exercise too little.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[gatkinso]

I agree that around 0.1% of the time obesity is not reversible by choice.

Re:Obesity is not always a choice.

[ceoyoyo]

There is a rare condition called "Tourette's" that, in a small number of sufferers, causes them to loudly blurt out offensive words and phrases. There is another, not so rare, condition that causes people to loudly blurt out offensive words and phrases. Call it "assholeism." The former condition is caused by genetic factors while the latter is entirely a matter of personal choices.

It can be difficult to distinguish these disorders but since expletive-blurting Tourette's is so rare we generally assume people who have the above symptoms are assholes. Since we want to have some negative feedback to control the spread of assholeism (for the good of everyone), we generally use social pressure to discourage these people. In the very rare event that we meet an expletive-blurting Tourette's sufferer this can lead to poor treatment of the sufferer but generally, with a simple explanation from the sufferer or from another person, we are happy to accept their condition as not their fault and fully accept them as valued members of our social group.

Based on your theory the only explanation is

[ClosedSource]

that most fat geeks haven't decided that being fat is a problem, so they aren't doing anything about it.

Re:Based on your theory the only explanation is

[Rakshasa Taisab]

No... Most of the fat ones aren't geeks. They're nerds.

Re:That's what you get

[Pinky's Brain]

Maybe you are remembering him from his clerks 1/2 days? A quick search turned up this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvlLyHV4s0

That's quite obese ...

Re:awesome!

[apoc.famine]

Indeed. I don't spill over seats, yet I clock in at a 31.5 BMI. That's 5' 10", and 220 lbs. Yep, I've got a bit of a gut and a very small spare tire. I also have a very big chest and arms, a fair bit of muscle on my back and shoulders, and similarly proportioned legs. I'm clinically obese, using BMI. Using any other measure, I need to lose 10-20 pounds, but other than that I'm in pretty damn good shape.

I fit just fine between the armrests in coach, even on little puddle jumpers. Where I don't fit is in the part of the seat above the armrests. My shoulders aren't narrow enough to avoid my seatmate's. (Although over Christmas, that resulted in pleasant conversations with a couple of cute girls, holding one's hand during take-off and landing, and an exchange of phone numbers with the other one. Best bit of flying I've ever done, for sure!)

As a poster above alluded to, BMI only works for the middle 40% of the population. Get outside that range in height or muscle mass, and BMI is truly garbage. And with that condition, even inside that range it's pretty much garbage.

Re:That's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

...and some people are just assholes ...

Fat assholes!

Re:That's what you get

[Prowler50mil]

Knowledge doesn't cure stupidity? Who knew?

Re:Next flight? They're all the same!

[shutdown -p now]

The first flight only had one seat available, and he's too fat to fit. The flight he actually ended up on had two adjacent seats.

Let us cut though all this BS, what was Kevin's...

[yoshi_mon]

What was Kevin's weight/height? I mean I've seen a lot of subjective options here as to what it's like to fly next to someone who is spilling over into your seat. How it's unfair that a 5 year old has to pay a full fair because they are taking up a full seat but weigh next to nothing compared to an adult. Blah blah blah.

Look, during my real hardcore WoW days was at least 250 lbs. and I stand 6' tall. I've leaned up to 190 lbs. but you know I still fill those airline seats up pretty damn much the same way. (For those who don't understand how the male body stores it's fat, it is not just right to our guts. Look at any obese persons face and think about it.) And I'm quite sure I could have easily packed on another 50 lbs. and not made that much a difference in my presence to the people next to me from 250 -> to 300 at 6'.

My point is that I've yet to see the real reason that Kevin, given that he freaking eventually flew the same airliner to his destination, was booted from the flight in question. I suspect that it had nothing to do with his weight but lets clear that up so that we can get down to what really happened.

Fed Gov employees and "reasonable accommodations"

[BenEnglishAtHome]

If you're a U.S. federal government employee, if you're willing to go through the embarrassment of the process, if you have the medical certs from doctors, you can get your condition of being morbidly obese declared a "disability" subject to "reasonable accommodation." Under normal circumstances, that means you get a uprated, wider office chair. (Actually, you can usually get that by just asking. Reasonable accommodations are generally intended for people with more obvious problems. To wit: If your vision is bad, you can get a big monitor. If you're blind, you can get a braille monitor. If you use a wheelchair, you can get an automatic door opener installed on the door you use the most. Etc., etc., etc.)

While I've never seen this done with any normal line-level grunt, I have seen a morbidly obese executive who traveled a great deal get the "reasonable accommodation" of a first class seat for every flight.

I guess there's always a solution if you're willing to pay for it.

If the airlines had thier way...

[jd2112]

Coach seating would use Kate Moss as a benchmark of the average airline passenger and anyone larger would have to buy two (or more) seats.

Keep something in mind...

[DesScorp]

While I'm sympathetic to Southwest's customers on this, and I understand Smith's embarrassment, we're going to see a lot more of this because both airlines and passengers are at fault. People are getting fatter... not just in the US either... and at the same time, airlines are trying to squeeze every last penny of profit out of a flight. That means cramming as many paying customers into one plane as possible. People complain "why do airlines treat us like cattle in a truck"? Because they make more money that way. People aren't willing to fly at premium prices unless they're rich. That means that if airlines want the general public as customers, they have to offer lower fares, but they have to make it up on passenger volume.

When the new Airbus superjumbo was being designed, the company bragged about how much room it would have for passengers to stretch out. But as soon as the airlines got a look at it, they immediately started planning on how they could cram more seats in. The Asian airlines in particular talked about how they were going to shoehorn in 800 seats.

With fatter people and smaller seats, it's going to get to the point where non-fats are going to want to buy two seats, just for self comfort.

It's "through" you illiterate bastard

[Rix]

Is that really so hard?

Re:It's "through" you illiterate bastard

[neumayr]

I'm sure I know your language way better than you know mine. So much for the "illiterate bastard".
Now, if you'd care to enlighten me, whatever do you mean, oh great defender of the English language, last line of defense before its inevitable succumbing to the dark forces of illiteracy?

Re:It's "through" you illiterate bastard

[koan]

It's another 3 letters...

Seat packing

[AlpineR]

Charge a fixed price for the amount of volume occupied by the passenger

I'm having terrible visions of ticket agents playing Tetris to figure out whether or not a plane is overbooked. One of them calls out over the airport public address system: "Is there a tall skinny person who wants to fly to Dallas? I need a tall skinny person!"

He's not lucky

[Rix]

He just did it. I've done much the same. (minus the alcoholism)

But it's a lot of work, so there's no cause to pick on people who haven't managed to get it done.

Nor is there any excuse for stealing your neighbour's seat, which is what this is really about.

No they aren't

[Rix]

Unless you're so addicted to them that you can't set them aside during a flight.

Re:I have translated it to KG

[Josh04]

people in armchairs

Quite right, too! Lazy bastards.

Re:awesome!

[Belial6]

Here is my favorite example of an 'Obese' lardass per the BMI.

Very well

[Rix]

I'll agree not to butcher yours, if only you'll do me the same courtesy.

Re:Very well

[neumayr]

Ah, I see now the insult wasn't directed at me. Red wine doesn't agree with slashdots commenting system it seems. Sorry for the uncalled for belittling of your language skills then.
Still, the main purpose of informal language, the kind that's appropriate for this setting, is the communication of ideas.
Abbreviating "through" does not hinder communication at all.

Safety

[Anonymous Coward]

I was squished against a window by some fat guy on my way into Dallas on southwest

Immediately request an aisle seat, this is a safety issue.

The last thing you need is to be crawling over some fat guy should you be required to deplane quickly.

Re:That's what you get

[Zemran]

Inside every fat person there is a thin person and a lot of chocolate...

Big boned is just another way of saying 'it isn't my fault I eat too much'. There is no such thing in reality. If you start overeating at an early enough age you will develope a larger frame to suit your fat body.

Most of us have watched the fatty squeezing down the aisle and dreaded the idea of them sitting next to us. Why should I have to put up with someone like him taking up my space on an already cramped airline seat?

Bowling Shoes

[Tablizer]

Bowling shoes come in different sizes, so why don't seats? People are different sizes, deal with it! Fuck "one size fits all". At least have a few larger seats reserved for larger passengers.

Re:Bowling Shoes

[bill_mcgonigle]

At least have a few larger seats reserved for larger passengers.

They do, they're called "first class". If you can fit in a cheaper seat, great, but don't ask me to pay for your big seat because you don't chose to eat healthily.

You've obviously not lost a large amount of weight

[Rix]

I have. I used to be a fatty. I did something about it. It was a lot of work, and even more time.

It's not something that can be changed at the drop of a hat, like smoking. Further, even if you do change what put on all the weight, you'll just stop gaining it, not lose it. It's not like smokers have to unsmoke all the cigarettes they've had.

Welcome to Hermit Airlines

[Tablizer]

Perhaps somebody should form Hermit Airlines for slashdot readers. Nothing but sealed booths with web access.

So you ate more and excercized less?

[Rix]

I'm not buying it.

Re:So you ate more and excercized less?

[Belial6]

Of course not. That wouldn't fit into your "fat people are fat because they are bad people" world view. Let me guess, you probably think that being 6'2" and 260lbs make you obese too....

Re:That's what you get

[Cassius Corodes]

You can be taught to think - this is what good theory of knowledge classes should teach.

Re:He's a "double seater"...

[WasII]

He buys two seats because he hates people and doesn't want to have anyone sit next to him and if you actually read his twitter, you would find out that he can fasten the belt with no extension and sit with the arm rest done.. Ass..

I just came up with a genius plan,

[okmijnuhb]

1. Charge passengers by weight.
2. Provide meals on every flight that fatties like
3.???
4. Profit!!!

Re:He's a "double seater"...

[TrekkieGod]

He normally buys double seats due to his width.

This time he was on standby and there was no double seat for him. To prevent the person next to him from suffering the overflow they made him take the next flight and gave him $100 for his trouble.

He knew the rules, this just makes a whining, self-entitled asshole.

He's not complaining about the fact that the rules exist. Obviously he didn't mind, since he consistently buys double seats. He's complaining that they let him board the plane and THEN kicked him out. They could have just not seated him and it would be fine.

What about the airlines responsibility?

[Silver Surfer 1]

Cramming as many people into an airplane as they can and everyone blames people larger than a supermodel for cramped seating?
I remember the good old days when I had leg room in coach and my shoulders were not wider than the seat.

From your mouth to God's ears...

[ElboRuum]

...only God must be a little deaf.

They're starting to make theater seats the same dimensions as coach seats.

I still get stuck in the goat locker

[jeko]

"it is not that bad."

And yet you're calling it the Goat Locker?

"It was Hell. It was a little warm."

Pick one. Either it's a goat locker, or it's not that bad. Which is it?

Re:I still get stuck in the goat locker

[gatkinso]

The goats being the people who fly once every five years, buy heavily discounted tickets, cram a ton of stuff in the overhead bin, and complain loudly about every slight real or imagined in the service they are getting.

It indeed sucks back there.... but not because of cramped conditions, but rather the company one if forced to keep.

An objective measure of seat size

[jeko]

How about this? Can we agree that the airlines have made seat sizes too small when the cramped spaces begin injuring their passengers? Can we agree that the airlines have made seat sizes too small when they begin killing 300 passengers a year?

Now google DVT for me.

Re:Too Fat to Fly?

[jzarling]

I understand completely. I am 6'8", and @ 300lbs am considered morbidly obese, I try to buy 2 seats when I fly just for the some extra legroom, or to sit a bit sideways for my knees.

Biggest Loser

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever a big fatty complains about genetics, I always think of the Biggest Loser.

They all manage to lose weight. They lose weight in proportion to the exercise they do.

Sure they find it challenging, that's why it's a workout. But they all lose weight, regardless of their genes.

Re:Biggest Loser

[Your.Master]

The "biggest loser" weight loss is incredibly unhealthy. Water loss is a huge component.

Furthermore, the "biggest loser" lifestyle is not realistic. They have no day job and have personal trainers -- their entire job is to lose weight.

ANYTHING that causes you to lose that much weight, that fast, is not healthy for you. Something that will let you lose weight is a permanent and sustainable lifestyle change.

Well...

[pennyloafer]

I did like his indie type movies in the past. Anyway, he has a new Bruce Willis movie due in theaters in a couple weeks. It's odd that his Twitter page has it as a background. He did take a big hit in pay to keep it R-rated! Yeah! [rollseyes] Good luck Kevin, you are getting pretty unhealthy. I hope you will be able to lose 200lb. in the near future.

Aversion to public transportation?

[Tetsujin]

What's public transportation got to do with it?

Re:Aversion to public transportation?

[Jedi Alec]

Busses and trains tend not to stop in front of one's driveway/place of work, requiring one to at least self-propel to *some* extent to make use of them.

I walk/cycle about 2 clicks to take the train, with quite some luggage at times. Makes for excellent exercise ;-)

That Would Be

[PingPongBoy]

The more common wording is "Too big to fail", which can be used to mean "Too big to whatever". Too big for anything is not a good thing these days.

We're gonna need a bigger seat

[kmoser]

Why don't the airlines make a few "XL" sized seats, which they could even sell at a premium (like business class, only they'd be in coach)? If nobody paid extra, the airline would have to sell them at regular prices. That way people like Mr. Smith could reserve them (if they were still available).

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Tetsujin]

Kevin has gotten ridiculously fat in recent years. Funny that the guy really has turned into a "Lunchbox" or "Fat F*ck".

Suck it up Kevin and get on a diet.

Don't try it: he'll jack yo' ass like a looter in a riot.

Re:That's what you get

[toadlife]

There is no such thing in reality. If you start overeating at an early enough age you will develope a larger frame to suit your fat body.

Not true. Genes have much to do with frame size, though being "big boned" doesn't translate into big differences in weight, so you are right that it is not an excuse for being overweight.

Re:He's a "double seater"...

[RodgerDodger]

The actual problem is more that they seated him, on the plane, despite knowing that he had paid for 2 seats and that there was only one seat available.

SW shouldn't have put him on the plane - that's even what Kevin Smith says. However, having put him on, having the pilot come and throw him off is ridiculous.

Re:That's what you get

[MartinSchou]

Most of us have watched the fatty squeezing down the aisle and dreaded the idea of them sitting next to us. Why should I have to put up with someone like him taking up my space on an already cramped airline seat?

Most of us have also smelled the skinny person walking down the aisle, dreading that we'd be spending time within 5 rows of him/her let alone next to us.

Why should we have to put up with the person making us want to vomit or have an allergic reaction to their shower of perfume?

Re:awesome!

[Endo13]

The other problem with BMI is that it assumes everyone has the exact same bone density and skeletal proportions.

At what I know to be my ideal weight, my BMI still comes up as 29 - all but "obese". I'm not sure I could get to a "healthy" weight without killing myself first.

Re:awesome!

[quenda]

a 31.5 BMI.... Yep, I've got a bit of a gut and a very small spare tire.

That is all consistent with moderate obesity. That gut and "spare tire" is intra-abdominal (adipose) fat, which indicates increased risk of heart disease.
BMI is used for statistics because it is easy to measure consistently.
To better judge your own health, measure waist size - but it has to be done correctly. It is not belt size, or trouser size.
Less than 94cm(37") is generally healthy for men. More than 102cm (40") is high risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist

Re:That's what you get

[Barsteward]

Inside every fat person there is a thin person ...

Only one??

Re:Too Fat to Fly?

[Endo13]

Exercise has a lot to do with keeping fit, but not so much with maintaining weight. How much you eat has a LOT more to do with that.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/exercise-still-doesnt-work
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

And there's plenty more you can find with a quick google search, as I just did.

Re:That's what you get

[JWSmythe]

    We invented multiple personalities for a reason.

    For us, it's not about empathy, it's just to have a few sane people to talk to. We have very interesting conversations.

Couchslug?

[WiiVault]

Coming from a guy named couchslug...

Re:Couchslug?

[Hal_Porter]

So long as he stays on his couch and doesn't seep over the armrest into my airline seat like something out of a 50's horror movie I'd say he was OK.

Swedish Body Builders Suck!

[LostMyBeaver]

Flying on KLM (the Dutch national airline) which has the narrowest seats I've ever seen on any plane from Amsterdam to Singapore, I was placed in between two Swedish body builders. This was a 20 hour flight! At the time, I wasn't very thin, at 5'10", 170lbs, but I wasn't overly large either.

I asked the two gentlemen if they'd be kind enough to sit beside one another so I could either have the aisle or the window, using the excuse that "I don't like flying much and would appreciate sleeping as much of the flight as possible, and their conversation would hinder that." They told me, "Well, you see, we don't fit too well sitting side by side in coach."

So they intentionally sat with a seat in-between them knowing perfectly well that they were almost guaranteed to have someone smaller in-between them who's seat they can overflow into. And yet, this didn't appear to matter.

Well, I survived barely... however on the way back, there was an old Dutch married couple who apparently had the same idea... and they were fat. Their excuse was "Well dear, we've been married so long and it's nice to meet new people to talk to". I nearly died, not only did they want to have their fat asses overflowing into my seat, but they wanted to keep me awake too!

This has become such a problem that now, when I'm traveling on a family trip and my sister is going too, I actually wait to find out which plane she's flying on so I can book another flight. She's 5' tall and weighs in a little over 300lbs (by a little, I mean she's not 400lbs yet). I feel sorry for her kids who are also becoming "shapely" as they are growing up because noone should be forced to sit still in one place with their seats overflowed on by another person.

I think airlines should start advertising comfort features in their coach class like "We have arm rests on EVERY seat so noone else's ass can be in yours!", or "We have seats which are REALLY REALLY uncomfortable for large people", or "We only serve vegetables and water on our flights". I would actually fly more often then.

Re:Swedish Body Builders Suck!

[onepoint]

let me bring you in on a little flying trick.

I love when I get the talkative person next too me, the best part is when they ask me what I do. I always say, "have you ever met a tax auditor, my job is to find errors and make sure that it's paid up to the government, finding that extra money that people owe" add a slight smile to the end of it. that stops them from speaking to me anymore, but for the smart ass that sometimes sits next to me and keeps talking, I pull out my pocket notepad and say "hey what's your name again ?" people typically turn slightly grey at that point.

I fear the day when the chatty person next to me says ... what branch at you at? LOL

I had a continental airlines pilot that sat next to me said that I pulled it perfectly ( seems that my trick is rather common )

perfect procedures, imperfect systems

[mangodhamma]

Kevin is not the victim of sizism, he - and you and I - are victims of a common feature of modern life: perfect procedures, imperfect systems. Issues of how many seats can an airline cram into a cabin and America's eating habits aside, the Southwest policy sounds pretty reasonable. Oversize passengers buy a second seat and get a refund if the plane isn't full. So how does it happen that Kevin get's so far along the chain of events that it causes everyone involved a lot of unnecessary pain and embarrassment? The captain who threw Kevin off the plane was enforcing a procedure. Nobody was taking any responsibility for the system. What happened when Kev bought his ticket? Did a screen come up - before the plug in your credit card number screen - warning Kev that if you're over a certain weight you have to buy two seats? What happened when Kev arrived at the check in counter? Are the check in staff blind? How hard is it to notice that man or woman is 'of size' and won't fit into a seat my eleven year old daughter can barely squeeze into (she's big for her age)? Isn't there a role here for the security staff? It IS a safety issue. Plane skids off the runway a large passenger will have difficulty getting down that rabbit trail called an aisle. Kevin's embarrassment, and the discomfort of his seatmates, could have been avoided at any of several steps along the way. But it wasn't, because everyone is responsible for a procedure, but no one is responsible for the system.

So..

[crossmr]

United breaks guitars
Southwest kicks off fat guys
American Airlines is going to charge $8 for a blanket..

who is a husky, but chilly rock star supposed to fly with?

Re:So..

[Locke2005]

who is a husky, but chilly rock star supposed to fly with? Get a band bus. It's a lot easier to smuggle your drugs onto.

the aviation industry is run on razor-thin profit

[jeko]

Thank you for a reasoned, cogent post that disagrees with my own. It's a pleasure to be in a civil discussion.

I see your point. However, I simply don't believe the airlines when they constantly cry poverty. I think they're cooking their books to hide obscene amounts of money, in the same way the movie studios claim "Forrest Gump" and "Terminator 2" still haven't broken even, in the same way that Wall Street was crying "the End of the World As We know It" if we didn't give them 700 Billion dollars gift-wrapped, but this year posted record profits.

The airlines made plenty of profit the first half of my life when service was excellent and seat sizes were reasonable. They've been given untold bailouts and subsidies in the past few years, yet their service has plummeted while their rates have increased. Worse still, they're not spending money on maintenance since the average plane in service was manufactured back when cell phones were still the size and weight of bricks. They've exceeded banking and telecommunications to become the most customer-hostile industry on the planet.

However, I am willing to take them at their word. If they really are running "on a razor thin margin," then let's admit the market has failed at this service, and hand this function over to government, like we do roads, fire, police and defense. I would be more than willing to fly on an airline run by either the Navy or the Air Force, and we'd all have the added benefit that for the first time in out history, airline security would be handled by the competent.

Re:That's what you get

[gabba_gabba_hey]

Sooo...

Your statement is that all skinny people wear a shit ton of perfume? Where does that even come from? Hmm...

You sound fat.

Re: the aviation industry is run on razor-thin pro

[jimicus]

I simply don't believe the airlines when they constantly cry poverty. I think they're cooking their books to hide obscene amounts of money, in the same way the movie studios claim "Forrest Gump" and "Terminator 2" still haven't broken even, in the same way that Wall Street was crying "the End of the World As We know It" if we didn't give them 700 Billion dollars gift-wrapped, but this year posted record profits.

There's a hell of a difference between a profit of $100million on a margin of 2% compared with a profit of $100million on a margin of 25%.

With the former you don't need very many cockups before you are seriously in the brown stuff. The airlines' argument is that they are firmly in the former category and so therefore at any point in time they have to be fantastically careful with how they operate.

Worse still, they're not spending money on maintenance since the average plane in service was manufactured back when cell phones were still the size and weight of bricks.

I would respectfully disagree with that. They may not be buying new planes, but existing ones will almost certainly be properly maintained. I shared a house for a year with a couple of people on an aircraft maintenance course - by all accounts most of the people on the course were ex-air force and one of the things that most certainly was NOT screwed around with was maintenance.

I am given to understand (though I wasn't on the air maintenance course myself) that the reason flying is pretty safe today is because the industry has spent decades improving their processes to the point whereby poor maintenance is vanishingly unlikely to cause an issue in any first-world airline. Obviously, as I have no first-hand experience, ICBW, but the fact that when planes fall out of the sky it's big news and the cause is almost always something that nobody could reasonably have predicted would suggest that my understanding may be correct.

They've exceeded banking and telecommunications to become the most customer-hostile industry on the planet.

I won't disagree with you there. I don't know where you are in the world (or if any such shows have reached you) but the odd reality show where a camera crew camps out by the customer service desk of an airline in an airport shows very neatly that the general attitude is "The customer is always wrong and there's no way on God's sweet Earth I'll make any effort to help them unless I'm in an unusually good mood, the customer is remarkably polite, particularly considering they've just been pushed off the flight that was going to take them to their own Dad's funeral and I think they're good-looking".

However, I am willing to take them at their word. If they really are running "on a razor thin margin," then let's admit the market has failed at this service, and hand this function over to government, like we do roads, fire, police and defense. I would be more than willing to fly on an airline run by either the Navy or the Air Force, and we'd all have the added benefit that for the first time in out history, airline security would be handled by the competent.

Not sure I follow you there fore a couple of reasons:

1. The theory behind the free market suggests that for commodity goods the price will sooner or later become very close to the cost of production. In other words, margins will get thinner unless you can somehow or other demonstrate you're that much better than the competition. Business and first class seats are classic examples of where airlines are still competing on factors other than cost, because such passengers are generally more concerned about comfort than cost. This hasn't done economy class any favours, however - the difference in cost between business and economy class on any flight which is long enough for the extra legroom to be really worth paying for is absurd.

2. Airline security, AIUI, is mostly handled by the airpo

Re:That's what you get

[Hal_Porter]

And some people have big, flabby asses.

Re:That's what you get

[david in brasil]

No - you're wrong (and how the heck did you get modded as "insightful"?).. I don't get uncomfortable because there are more fat people in the US. I do hate to sit next to some cow - even if he/she is what would be called "normal" in the midwest these days - on an airline. I'm not asking for first class armroom; I'm just asking that the person next to me doesn't spill over into my seat. I'm an older, big guy myself, but I'm fit, and I'd appreciate it if more people in the US made the effort, too.

And whaa, whaaa, whaaa, about being "bombarded" with unrealistic body images - if they had any real effect on the psyche of overweight people, then perhaps we overweight wouldn't be the new normal.

I live in South America and return frequently to the US. The first thing that I notice when I land in the US is how overweight people are. It's not that there aren't fat people in Brasil, Argentina and Chile; it's just that it's not the norm.

Re:That's what you get

[XCondE]

You seem to want First Class elbow room at steerage prices.

No, fatso. I want to fly without your flab invading my seat - thank you very much.

Re:That's what you get

[Shrike82]

You seem to want First Class elbow room at steerage prices. For that you can't blame fat folks, you can blame your cheapness or poorness.

No, we can blame the really fat guy encroaching onto our seat. The seat that we paid for. The seat that would be fine if it weren't for the guy next to us being really overweight. Airline seats are a certain size. In economy they're pretty small because fares are so damn cheap. Why the hell should I have to pay for a first class seat just to get the elbow room I deserve in economy? This isn't about being poor or being cheap, it's about someone being too fucking big to fit in an economy seat. Let the fat guy spend the cash on a bigger seat in first class. How dare you say it's my responsibility to pay extra cash to accomodate the obesity of someone else. If anyone is being too cheap/poor in this situation it's the fat guy who won't spring for the extra seat that he needs, or one larger seat in a higher class.

Re:He buys two tickets to not sit next to people

[Shivantrill]

He always buys two tickets so he doesn't have to sit next to someone, not because of his size. He was able to put both armrests down and buckle his seatbelt without an extender. If you listen to his podcast (named Smodcast), you will get the entire story. He was seated and buckling in when they removed him. He had been recognized by several people around him. There was a guy fatter than him a few rows back that they did not remove. Then when he got on the next flight, an overweight woman sat in the aisle seat of his row. He had bought two tickets so he was near the window. They took this woman aside and told her that next time she should consider buying two tickets. That was just rude and unnecessary. Unless they have a clear guideline, "you must be able to fit between these two bars while seated", and they implement it consistently, he has every right to complain. He isn't that big. Yeah he says he is fat. That's his self-image, and he is willing to own that and be responsible for it. The way the situation was handled was more of the issue. Some people really are not in control of their weight. Many diseases can cause you to gain body mass. Also many medications will do that as well. My mother was on steroids for her lung disease and that made her balloon out. Once she went off the steroids she went back to her normal size. I try not to judge people or label them. This world would be a much better place if people were less judgmental and more compassionate.

It does, though

[Rix]

Because people will tend to focus on the error, rather than the content.

No one would complain about bigger seats

[Rix]

But they would complain about the higher ticket prices.

If you're ok with that, there's a class of seats that are bigger, but more expensive.

Yep

[Rix]

In fact I am 6'2", and I was obese at 260 lbs.

Re:Yep

[Belial6]

You were, but is everybody?

Re:That's what you get

[delt0r]

You got a citation for that.....

Re:That's what you get

[Lumpy]

Inside every fat person there is a thin person... slowly being digested....

Mmmmmm, thin person......

Re:Finally, proper natural selection!

[Hurricane78]

@Moderators:
Uuum, that was no troll. But a serious comment.
Maybe you should read the whole comment, and fix your social conditioning. :)

Re:That's what you get

[conureman]

Okay for you guys, maybe. We always end up in some loud intractable debate, and then the ad-hominem attacks start, and Bob knows JUST how to get my goat... (It often leads to fisticuffs.) So, speak for yourselves.

Re:I think this is probably wrong and demented....

[Magnus Pym]

Southwest: the airline whose fanboys make those of Apple seem like intelligent, rational adults.

Is it size, really?

[argStyopa]

I'm curious if they'd apply the 'person of size' rule to (for example) an NFL player who is in NO SENSE obese, but with his massive physique and shoulders would obviously overflow the seat width parameters.

I'm 6'4", and a medium-build 290lbs, so when I see another guy my size sitting in the adjacent seat, I think we both cry a little. I always take aisle seat, not for more legroom (hahah, as if anyone's knees bend sideways) but so if some poor bastard IS stuck in the seat next to me, I can lean 20 degrees out into the aisle so they're not crushed by my shoulders.

Obviously never flown SWA

[flieghund]

SWA is all single-class 737 aircraft. The closest thing to an upgraded class of service you can get is their "business" fare (which they call a "class" but is not in the sense that any other airline uses) that means you get to be one of the first 10 people on board the plane to grab your unreserved seat before the rest of the cattle.

And now it has been said...

[Belial6]

And now it has been said.

don't confuse carbs with sugars, they are similar, but not the same.

This is the number one reason that obese people are obese. They believe this statement. Carbohydrate and sugar are synonyms. They are the same word with the exact same definition. The medical, health, and government into thinking exactly what this poor sap believes.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=define:Carbohydrates

American's not United

[BitterAndDrunk]

American's coach is actually not TOO awful yet. I had to switch from United to American when United went to the Coach Premium pricing strategy, which I view as Tall Person Tax. (they shaved room off of seats in Coach to create a Coach with 4" more than their regular coach, which probably washes out to 2" more than American's Coach)

United non-Premium is awful at 6'1".

Southwest isn't too hot; as long as the person in front doesn't go hog-wild with their seat recline you're ok.

Re:That's what you get

[toadlife]

I don't have a study to link you to, but just thought it was fairly common knowledge. Being a follower of college football and particularly, Fresno State I've read interviews with Fresno State coach Pat Hill where he explained that when evaluating recruits he would look at the mother's frame size to evaluate the recruits potential for putting on weight. Being a lower teir school, Fresno State is forced to settle for the recruits that bigger schools like USC, UCLA and Berkeley don't pursue, so Fresno is forced to recruit "potential" and develop it.

Maybe Pat Hill is just practicing voodoo and I am mistaken?

Re:That's what you get

[JavaBear]

Agreed, Kevin Smith is not the smallest of people. However I was merely reacting to the Anonymous Coward's comment.
As for the second line in my comment, that is also true. As big as Kevin Smith is, he seems to be on the slim side of the statistics if I recall, which is why Southwest will now have to kick off a fair percentage of their American passengers for being fat, if this is indeed an example of their policy.

Id's say, if you can sit in the seat, you should be able to fly, or pay for two.

You and I could solve this/The Titanic Litmus Test

[jeko]

Back in the 70s and 80s, it used to be possible for the Left and the Right to talk about things. It used to be possible to agree on referees to make the calls and which guys will hold escrow on the bets. Progress used to get made. Everyone used to pass what I call "The Titanic Litmus test."

For example, you and I disagree on how much money the airline industry is taking in. You and I could agree on an independent forensic auditor to get to the truth of the matter. You think I'm in for an education. I think you're in for a shock. But at the end of the day, you and I would find a way to agree on how much money was coming in and going out of their doors.

You and I disagree on what the seat sizes need to be, but we could agree that the seats need to be big enough not to cause medical issues with the passengers. We could agree to defer to the orthopedists on this issue, since the question of "How much room does a human body need to travel safely?" should be answered by experts on the human body, not accountants.

Once the orthopedists had given their answer, you and I could agree to run that answer by crash engineers at the FAA and ask them, "How much room does a plane need to safely evacuate passengers in the event of a disaster?"

You and I could agree that the question of seat size should be answered by people who know what they're talking about, not guys looking to maximize shareholder value.

Finally, once we had the real numbers and knew what a reasonable seat size would be, you and I could come up with a fair ticket price. If it turns out that a fair ticket price would not allow a private business to run, then you and I could agree this was a need not served by the private market, and as such it belonged next to mail delivery, road construction, meat inspection, fire, police and defense as a service best provided by the government.

You see, Jimicus, both the Left and the Right used to agree that what we wanted was "to Promote the General Welfare," and not to simply maximize shareholder wealth, i.e. make the rich richer. Back in the 70s, I could ask my counterpart on the Right, "Should the First Class passengers on the Titanic been placed on the lifeboats before women and children?" and they'd answer in a heartbeat, "Of course not, that's disgusting." I call people who answer this way "John Wayne Conservatives," people with integrity and hearts who simply happen to be "the Loyal Opposition."

Unfortunately, "John Wayne Conservatives" are scarce these days, and what terrifies me is that more and more, especially among the young, Conservatives are answering, "Well, those women and children should have bought a first class ticket if they wanted rescuing. You can't expect the shipping company not to take care of its best customers first."

I can find no common ground with monsters who answer this way.

But the monsters seem to be swallowing the John Waynes these days, and I'm at a loss to explain why.

For reasonable values of "everybody," yes

[Rix]

And those that aren't are almost certainly steroid abusers.

Re:For reasonable values of "everybody," yes

[Belial6]

If you honestly believe that, then there is no common ground to have a discussion. You will simply blame people's weight on steroids.

Not if you present a reasonable alternative

[Rix]

But it seems to me that someone 6'2" and 260 lbs would have to look something like Schwarzenegger in the 80's.

I could be wrong, as I said I was those dimensions and obese, not musclebound.

Re:Not if you present a reasonable alternative

[Belial6]

I get it, you believe that if someone has 15 pounds more fat that 80's Schwarzenegger, and 15 pounds less muscle, they are either on steroids or obese. May both.

No

[Rix]

Someone who looks even remotely like Schwarzenegger is not within a reasonable definition of "everyone". He was way off in the fringe.

Partially because he did abuse steroids.

Re:That's what you get

[trapnest]

FYI, I am overweight. I am not going to make up bullshit excuses for it, or act like the world owes me a favor. People like that disgust me.

Re:That's what you get

[delt0r]

As I now work with developmental biologists, i can assure you that "your genes" play far less of a role for many things that standard dogma leads us to believe (yes there are plenty of things it does effect). Yes some people will be taller, but this generation is the taller because of better nutrition.

Environmental effects that can have an equally real impact on things. And we are a long way from understanding the transcriptome at the level suggested by these kind of "correlations"

Re:That's what you get

[X0563511]

... and further, some people are just assholes. Notably, the AC *parents of this post.

Re:Is this really /. worthy?

[X0563511]

He did. For * sakes, READ before you post, dammit!

Re:LOL

[X0563511]

He did. He has an established history with Southwest of buying two seats for the very reason you would expect. He was in standby seating because of (his choice) changed flight times. They didn't have enough seats.

To Fat to Fly...

[DarthVain]

sounds like the title to Micheal Moore's new mockumentry...