response 28 of 62:

Jun 22 23:16 UTC 2002

What about people who are just big?  I happen to be somewhat overweight, but
I could lose a hundred pounds and still not "fit" in an airline seat; my
shoulders are just too broad.  

response 32 of 62:

Jun 23 23:52 UTC 2002

The policy is going to be enforced on subjective grounds.
If you can't get your seatbelt fastened using but one
seatbelt extender then the rule applies to you.

I think this sounds fair, to all involved.

response 34 of 62:

Jun 24 03:38 UTC 2002

(a person can only "suck it in" so far, too...  and then there's the
armrest test.)  ;)

response 36 of 62:

Jun 24 10:35 UTC 2002

I meant objective but misspoke.

response 38 of 62:

Jun 24 21:31 UTC 2002

Sure, it is fair. It is also fair for people to boycott the airline 
because of this policy. I mean come on, how much money were they really 
losing because of this? How many people per year do you suppose this 
policy will apply to? Hardly anyone. I am more fat than most people. I 
am probably in the 90% percentile for fatness and this policy doesnt 
even come close to effecting me. They suck for enforcing it and they 
deserve any bad press they get for this. 

Up until I heard about this, Southwest had a good reputation in my 
mind. I have flown Southwest and would have flown them again because 
their fares are so low. I think I'll skip them from now on though. And 
you know what, when I brought this subject up at a party the other 
night, a lot of other folks said the same thing. Plus it sparked a 
discussion about what people really want on a plane which is more room. 
If they made the seats bigger or didnt charge 4x as much for first 
class seats, people would be happier. I know I would be happy to pay 
1.5 times as much for a seat that was a little bit larger. My fingers 
are totally crossed that Midwest Express will do better and will start 
flying from Detroit Metro Airport. 

response 40 of 62:

Jun 25 00:11 UTC 2002

For every person who will boycott Southwest for taking a stand
here, I'll bet there are a least an equal number who are (maybe
quietly) supportive of a policy which could save them a very
cramped and uncomfortable cross-country flight next to someone
who needs a space-and-a-half.

I wish the policy had evolved differently, with Southwest simply
asking for people who'd need two spaces to say so up front so they
could be warned if the flight was full and the extra needed space
wasn't available.  If there was room then block the adjoining seat
on the seat plan and don't charge for the accommodation.  But
what would happen if the plane was indeed full?  Refuse them
boarding?

Nope, no can do.  Instead they've decided to make Southwest 
the airline really big people will avoid.  I don't think they
think of that as a loss.  And they may be right.

response 42 of 62:

Jun 25 12:04 UTC 2002

Re #40:  And it certainly fits with W's new fitness initiative. ;-)
If Americans just started getting thinner instead of fatter, the
problem would go away.

I think we'd be better off taxing fatty prepared foods, though.  The
problem is only partly related to activity; diet is a big factor.
The number of deep-fried menu items at the typical drive-through
is enough to give you atherosclerosis just reading it, and the most
nutritious ingredient of many items is shredded iceberg lettuce.
Wendy's is a bit of an exception to this, but most stores will still
not let you substitute a baked potato for fries in a combo.

A recent taste-test showed that most Americans will eat leaf spinach
on sandwiches normally made with iceberg lettuce and hardly know the
difference.  Spinach has a lot more vitamins than lettuce.  Maybe if
fiscal policy made this profitable we could get somewhere.

Damn, how's that?  Addressing airline seating issues with fast-food
tax policy.  If it was a machine, it would be a Rube Goldberg. ;-)

response 46 of 62:

Jun 25 15:38 UTC 2002

Re #44 Re #44:  What?

Re #45:  Maybe, but they do it.

response 48 of 62:

Jun 25 16:06 UTC 2002

I fully agree with David on the monetary cost of "fast food". And it's
not really all that fast if you have to leave the house/office to go get
it. Especially during lunch-time.  In fact, the American lunch-hour has
always creeped me out.  It is so inefficient.  I realize that many work
places don't have a kitchen, but one could pack a sandwhich in a lot
less time than running out to get "fast food" (or nuke a ready-made meal).
And then they could either work (and thus maybe leave work earlier) or
read a book instead of driving and waiting in line.

Joe, yes, "they do it", but perhaps a tax would be a disincentive that
would be doing those who can't really afford "fast food" a favor, both
financial and healthwise.

Actually, in a sense, Michigan already has a 6% (sales) tax on "fast food"
and other restaurant purchases (unlike buying food at a grocery store).