Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Destinations
USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfrica
Travel Types
Air TravelCruisesRV Travel

Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / July 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CNN:  Airline policies juggle larger passengers

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Vic - 27 Jun 2009 04:06 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/26/obese.passengers.airlines/index.html

Airline policies juggle larger passengers
Story Highlights

* Obesity rates have grown in the last 25 years but plane seat sizes remain
the same

* A growing number of airlines are creating polices to deal with heavier
passengers

* Heavier passengers cost more fuel and space, say some passengers

* National Association of Fat Acceptance says it's unsafe to cram
passengers

By Stephanie Chen
CNN
(CNN) -- You pay for checking your baggage, for snacks and for extra
legroom. Word is one airline has even toyed with charging you to use the
toilet. So it makes perfect sense to some fliers that heavier passengers
should pay for spilling over into the next seat.

Frequent flier Ross Murphy, 54, has been sandwiched between larger fliers
in coach, and he believes they should have to shell out for a second seat.

"They have a right to sit in the seat next to me," said Murphy, who travels
cross-country at least 15 times a year to watch his sons' sporting matches.
"But they don't have a right to sit in my lap."

A growing number of airlines are forcing bigger passengers to pay more as
they cope with the costly and uncomfortable quandary that arises when obese
passengers cannot squeeze into a single coach seat.

With airlines trimming flight schedules -- meaning fuller passenger loads
this summer -- the issue is bound to spur some awkward encounters. Chart:
Compare some of the common airline fees

"It's a growing problem, no pun intended," said George Hobica, president of
AirfareWatchdog.com, a site that is part of Smarter Travel Media LLC, which
provides airfare deals and advice. "Everyone suffers. The obese people
suffer and the people who are skinny and get spilled over on suffer as
well."

U.S. obesity rates have mushroomed during the last 25 years, but the width
of a coach airplane seat has changed little, remaining between 17 and 18
inches in most commercial planes. More than one-third of Americans fall
into the obese category, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. This makes traveling in tight spaces vexing for airlines trying
to bolster profits by selling the maximum number of seats.

The Federal Aviation Administration does not regulate seat width, but it
does require passengers be able to sit belted and with both arm rests down
to comply with safety standards.

In April, UAL Corp.'s United Airlines formalized a policy that says
passengers who are unable to safely fit into one seat must pay full price
for a second seat. They may receive it free if the plane has vacant seats.
Flight attendants on the airlines are responsible for making sure
passengers are fitting in their seats and may ask a heavier passengers
requiring two seats to pay extra.

Robin Urbanski, a spokeswoman for United, said the company received 700
complaints in 2008 from passengers who were upset because a larger
passenger encroached on his or her seat.

"This new policy was created for the comfort and well-being of all our
guests on board," Urbanski said.

A survey conducted this year by Europe's low-fare airline Ryanair found a
third of the 100,000 passengers polled believed a "fat tax" should be
instituted, requiring heavier passengers to pay more.

Most U.S. airlines have a policy or plan for dealing with heavier
passengers, though some are not formalized like United's. Officials worry
heavier passengers squished into one seat may pose a safety hazard when a
plane must be evacuated during an emergency.

Southwest Airlines has had a "customer of size policy" for more than 20
years, requiring passengers to buy a second seat on a full plane if their
body crosses the armrest boundary.

The company will issue refunds if unoccupied seats are available, which
they say is the case 97 percent of the time.

Airlines with open seating policies such as Southwest find it easier to
relocate passengers in need of an extra seat. On all airlines, passengers
can buy first-class or business-class seats, which are wider. But those
tickets cost more than a coach seat.

Experts at Boeing Company, an aircraft manufacturer, say 17-inch seats can
accommodate 95 percent of the traveling public. They say studies have found
most seat space invasions happen because of wider shoulders and not
derrieres.

Still, some larger passengers who need more than one seat believe being
charged extra is discriminatory and the airlines are not accommodating the
growing American waistline.

"The airlines need to be making bigger seats," said Peggy Howell, a
spokeswoman for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, a group
based in San Francisco, California. "It's not safe to be cramming us into
two seats."

Lawsuits have been filed by heavier passengers and by those who complain
about large passengers encroaching on their space. The courts have ruled
the airline policies are within their rights.In the United States, there
aren't any discrimination laws to protect obese people, attorneys say. (In
some employment discrimination cases, attorneys have been able to win by
proving obesity was a genetic disease beyond the person's control.)

In 2003, the issue of passenger weight surfaced when a commuter plane
crashed on takeoff from Charlotte, North Carolina, because of excess weight
and a maintenance error. The accident prompted the FAA to increase the
estimated weight per passenger by 10 pounds, including 20 pounds of
carry-on luggage. For example, the average weight for a passenger traveling
in the summer (including carry-on luggage) went from 180 pounds in 1995 to
190 pounds in 2003.

"We realized after that accident that the weights we were using probably
didn't reflect the current state of the American traveling public," said
Les Dorr, a spokesman with aviation safety at the FAA.

In 2004, a CDC scientist studied the effects of obesity on the airline
industry. The scientist calculated his findings based on data revealing the
average weight of an American had increased by 10 pounds in the 1990s. He
estimated the extra weight cost airlines $275 million extra for fuel in
2000. The figures are likely higher today, with fuel costs rising.

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

"A small child needs to pay for a flight, so why wouldn't an obese person?"
said Cluthe, who flies several times a year, mostly in coach, for personal
trips. "I'm not a discriminatory person, but we have to look at the reality
of the situation. It's getting a little crowded in here."

Some larger passengers don't mind paying for the second seat. Other heavier
fliers argue while tall passengers pay a fee for legroom, the fees are only
a fraction of the price of a entire seat. Air France offers obese
passengers booking a second seat up to 33 percent off the ticket price,
depending on the type of seat and availability.

Mike Vasey of Cheyenne, Wyoming says even some normal-sized people can't
fly comfortably when they are packed in the cabin like sardines. Vasey, 45,
who considers himself a large guy at 400 pounds and over six feet tall,
usually pays for two seats.

"I'd rather be comfortable first ," he said, "and worry about
discrimination later."
pbj - 29 Jun 2009 03:08 GMT
> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston, Texas, a
> city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized passengers
> should not have to incur the higher fuel cost caused by the airline's
> heavier customers.

Then it follows that smaller-than-average passengers should pay less than
average-sized passengers because they use less fuel. :-)
Jochen Kriegerowski - 29 Jun 2009 05:47 GMT
> Then it follows that smaller-than-average passengers should pay less
> than average-sized passengers because they use less fuel. :-)

Sure. You do it with the checked bagage, so why not with the
people? Put the passangers on a scale, together with their suit-
cases, and make them pay.
It's not fair that I pay more than the obese person next to me
just because I happen to have a heavier suitcase (but still
weigh half of him - baggage included)

Jochen
TheNewsGuy(Mike) - 29 Jun 2009 12:15 GMT
>> Then it follows that smaller-than-average passengers should pay less
>> than average-sized passengers because they use less fuel. :-)
>
> Sure. You do it with the checked bagage,

You do?  I've never been charged by weight for checked bags.  Airlines
charge for "number" of checked bags not their weight. Over 50 lbs is, I
believe, a "safety rule" for the baggage handlers and that incurs added
fees, but still no charge "per pound" for checked baggage.
http://tinyurl.com/5uj7x9

Signature

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Sawyer Nicknames - http://sawyer.xtreemhost.com/
  Seinfeld Lists - http://seinfeld.xtreemhost.com/
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jochen Kriegerowski - 29 Jun 2009 15:41 GMT
> You do?  I've never been charged by weight for checked bags.  Airlines
> charge for "number" of checked bags not their weight.

Quote from the "Lufthansa" web pages:
"The Lufthansa zone system is an especially concise rule to calculate the
excess baggage rate. The amount is not linked to the ticket price, but
based on the destination. So for a flight within Germany, for example,
the fee for one kilo of excess baggage is €5; on a flight from Germany
to Spain it is €10, and to Africa or Asia €30. In all cases where bags
are overweight, a minimum fee of 30 euros will be charged if the kilo
rate payable is below this amount."

Ryanair:
"Passengers traveling with more than 15kg of checked baggage
allowance per passenger will be charged a per kilo fee"

... many others have similar rules. Or they charge for numbers of
bags, as you said. But charging weight ist not uncommon.

Jochen
MTV - 29 Jun 2009 21:37 GMT
>>> Then it follows that smaller-than-average passengers should pay less
>>> than average-sized passengers because they use less fuel. :-)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> fees, but still no charge "per pound" for checked baggage.
> http://tinyurl.com/5uj7x9

It's common practice on international flights.
John Mayson - 01 Jul 2009 23:26 GMT
>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston, Texas, a
>> city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized passengers
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Then it follows that smaller-than-average passengers should pay less than
> average-sized passengers because they use less fuel. :-)

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

John

Signature

John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

krw - 02 Jul 2009 01:33 GMT
>>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston, Texas, a
>>> city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized passengers
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>because I'm six-and-a-half feet tall?  Fat people can help being fat, I
>can't prevent myself from being tall.

If the issue is really fuel, then buck it up and pay.  If the issue is
control (it is) then make your excuses to the control freaks.
pbj - 02 Jul 2009 02:55 GMT
>>>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston, Texas,
>>>> a city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized passengers
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>because I'm six-and-a-half feet tall?  Fat people can help being fat, I
>>can't prevent myself from being tall.

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

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

The way I look at this is that yes it's inconvenient to occasionally get
stuck next to a "wide-body" passenger. However, their size is why seats
are still as wide as they are. Take them out of the equation and seats
can be made narrower. Then we can all be just as miserable with someone
of average width sitting next to us as we are now sitting next to a
350-pounder.
krw - 02 Jul 2009 03:46 GMT
>>>>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston, Texas,
>>>>> a city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized passengers
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>of average width sitting next to us as we are now sitting next to a
>350-pounder.

Then what about "tall"?
pbj - 02 Jul 2009 04:08 GMT
>>>>>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston,
>>>>>> Texas, a city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Then what about "tall"?

It's because of all those tall people that airplane cabins have to be so
high. If not for them the cabin could be lower and the plane would
weigh less and use less fuel. Why should those of us of normal height
have to subsidize tall people?
krw - 02 Jul 2009 04:24 GMT
>>>>>>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston,
>>>>>>> Texas, a city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>weigh less and use less fuel. Why should those of us of normal height
>have to subsidize tall people?

Tall = more leg room => legs in "your space".  I know it's hard for
you, but think.
pbj - 02 Jul 2009 14:30 GMT
>>>>>>>> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston,
>>>>>>>> Texas, a city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Tall = more leg room => legs in "your space".

The space between rows has to be there anyway so people can squeeze
through to the inner seats, and the space under the seat in front is
just what's left over when you fold a human.

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

You're taking this thread way too seriously.
John Mayson - 02 Jul 2009 05:23 GMT
> It's because of all those tall people that airplane cabins have to be so
> high. If not for them the cabin could be lower and the plane would
> weigh less and use less fuel. Why should those of us of normal height
> have to subsidize tall people?

What about public places that put water fountains one foot off the ground
for people in wheelchairs meaning tall people throw their backs out
getting a drink?

Signature

John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

Robin King - 02 Jul 2009 02:35 GMT
> >> Scott Cluthe, 57, who works in the radio industry in Houston, Texas, a
> >> city known for its obesity epidemic, said average-sized passengers
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> John

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

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

Robin
John Mayson - 02 Jul 2009 05:24 GMT
>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
> can help it or not.
>
>        Given all the weight that an airplane carries, what %
> difference in fuel cost does a large passenger incur?

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

John

Signature

John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

Gordon Burditt - 02 Jul 2009 06:11 GMT
>>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
>> can help it or not.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Passenger comfort (no one wants to sit next to a space hogging obese
>person)?  Or is it about control?

It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
much better than charging them double.  Install some blocks of 4
seats that replace 5 seats.  Charge 25% more for these.  Most (I
didn't say all - some of them may really need 2 or 3 seats) of the
fatties can do fine with about 5 extra inches, and they might be
surprised to find that some passengers that fit in a regular-sized
seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers carrying
babies come to mind).
miguel - 02 Jul 2009 06:13 GMT
>>>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
>>> can help it or not.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers carrying
>babies come to mind).

These seats already exist in first class.
Gordon Burditt - 02 Jul 2009 06:19 GMT
>>>>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
>>>> can help it or not.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>These seats already exist in first class.

How wide are the seats in first class?  In various discussions on this
topic, people seem to think they're all the same width.
TheNewsGuy(Mike) - 02 Jul 2009 13:07 GMT
>.....
> How wide are the seats in first class?  In various discussions on this
> topic, people seem to think they're all the same width.

Here are two examples from seatguru.com
It varies by airline and airplane model
======================================
"Eighteen of American's 757s are retrofitted with this configuration,
featuring international business class lie-flat seats, updated economy
seats, and LCD video screens."
                     pitch     width     seating details
Business Class:     58.0"     21.0"     16  sdeats
Economy Class:          31-32.0"     17.2"     166 seats

======================================

"Three of Air Canada's 30 Boeing 767-300s have this older-style cabin
interior."
                          pitch     width     seating details
Executive First Class:         58-60.0"     20.5"     25 seats
Economy Class:                 31-32.0"     17.5"     188 seats
=======================================

Signature

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+     Sawyer Nicknames              +
+  http://sawyer.xtreemhost.com     +
+     Seinfeld Lists                +
+  http://seinfeld.xtreemhost.com   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Real Bev - 02 Jul 2009 06:32 GMT
>>>>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
>>>> can help it or not.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> These seats already exist in first class.

At what, double the price?

Signature

Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
 be a sand shortage within ten years."       -- M. Friedman (?)

miguel - 02 Jul 2009 06:40 GMT
>>>>>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
>>>>> can help it or not.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>At what, double the price?

About triple. But the food is free.
krw - 04 Jul 2009 20:40 GMT
>>>>>>        Does it matter?  You're still a heavier customer whether you
>>>>>> can help it or not.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>About triple. But the food is free.

...and the booze.                        

On about 50% of my business trips I would get at least one leg
upgraded free.  They'd screw something up, so I'd ask.  They won't
upgrade if you don't ask, nicely.  ;-)  A couple of times we were
delayed on the ground for hours.  Party time!

Yes, the seats are significantly larger in first class - four across
instead of six on standard cabins, six rather than nine or ten in wide
bodies.
erilar - 02 Jul 2009 17:09 GMT
> > These seats already exist in first class.
>
> At what, double the price?

Double might get you to business class.  First class is much worse.

Signature

Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count.     --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo 

erilar - 02 Jul 2009 17:08 GMT
> These seats already exist in first class.

For a large multiple of the price.

Signature

Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count.     --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

erilar - 02 Jul 2009 17:07 GMT
> It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
> much better than charging them double.  Install some blocks of 4
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers carrying
> babies come to mind).

That is the most reasonable and probably easiest to implement I think
I've seen in this thread.  There are times when the thought of simple
elbow room on a long flight might make me willing to pay extra 8-)

Signature

Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count.     --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo 

Robin King - 03 Jul 2009 07:20 GMT
> It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
> much better than charging them double.  Install some blocks of 4
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> seat may be willing to pay extra for more seat room (mothers carrying
> babies come to mind).

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

Robin
aemeijers - 03 Jul 2009 11:09 GMT
>> It strikes me that the airlines could accomodate larger passengers
>> much better than charging them double.  Install some blocks of 4
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Robin

They already have that- it is called First Class. I'll never be rich
enough to afford to sit there, but it sure looks comfy as I walk through
on my way back to the cheap seats. I'm 6'3" and 260 lbs, so begging for
exit row/aisle seats is SOP for me.  I still usually have to sit at an
angle with my shoulder in the aisle for most of the flight, especially
if there is another larger person next to me. My a.s still fits in the
seat okay, but my shoulders usually do not. When the FA tells me to put
something under the seat because the overheads are full (due to that
idiotic baggage fee causing everyone to bring roller bags on board), I
tell her to look at my legs. Not An Option.

I think the Feds should mandate slightly wider seats and row pitch for
new planes coming on line, for safety reasons if nothing else. If they
ever have to clear the plane in a hurry, the current congested cabin
with all the larger pax having numb legs, is going to lead to dead
people. Yeah, it'll raise ticket prices, but some things are more important.

--
aem sends...
Scott in SoCal - 03 Jul 2009 19:08 GMT
In message
<SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers

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

The Feds wouldn't have to mandate anything if people would simply
refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like cordwood and pack them
in like sardines.
aemeijers - 04 Jul 2009 01:01 GMT
> In message
> <SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> refuse to fly on airlines that stack them like cordwood and pack them
> in like sardines.

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

--
aem sends...

--
aem sends...
Rod Speed - 04 Jul 2009 02:42 GMT
> Scott in SoCal wrote

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

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

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

Or pay for first or business class.

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

Try surgery. I'll do it for free with a chainsaw.
krw - 04 Jul 2009 20:42 GMT
>> In message
>> <SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>is mainly for bell curve outriders like me on height, shoulder width,
>and leg length, that it is a problem.

Umm, have you traveled by Greyhound?  You think the pitch of the seats
is bad on the airlines...
Scott in SoCal - 05 Jul 2009 06:36 GMT
>> In message
>> <SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Which leaves them few other choices, unless their destination happens to
>be one served by Amtrak or Greyhound, or they are willing to drive.

Teleconferencing immediately springs to mind. WebEx, Telepresence, et.
al. are making a killing thanks to the combined brutality of airlines
and the TSA.

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

I'm one of those people. If I have to sit cramped in those no-legroom
seats for more than a couple of hours, my legs really start to hurt.
aemeijers - 05 Jul 2009 11:12 GMT
>>> In message
>>> <SNk3m.416367$4m1.14352@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> al. are making a killing thanks to the combined brutality of airlines
> and the TSA.
You are preaching to the choir for all of the above for business use.
Not too useful with relatives, though. Hard to hug a 2 year old through
a computer screen, etc. Not all my relatives have broadband and/or the
skill set to set up and maintain a decent webcam link, either. If
somebody would come up with a sub-$100 video phone for POTS lines, with
decent sound and picture (not a slow-scan 2x2), I think they would clean
up bigtime, with the distant grandparent set alone. Or for those where
all the relatives do have broadband, a cheap video appliance for
dummies, that could talk to their routers, and not cost a fortune per
minute hitting a vendor bridge somewhere. IP point-to-point. Tandberg
has such devices for business, but they cost more than a large
flatscreen TV.

>> A decade or so back, several of the airlines tried to make a sales point
>> of more room, but people buy mainly on price, and the revised cabins
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I'm one of those people. If I have to sit cramped in those no-legroom
> seats for more than a couple of hours, my legs really start to hurt.

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

--
aem sends...
Scott in SoCal - 05 Jul 2009 23:31 GMT
In message
<f0%3m.420656$4m1.198702@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

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

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

I actually wouldn't mind a long train trip once in a while, but the
price of a private closet with its own shower costs more than a first
class plane ticket.
aemeijers - 06 Jul 2009 01:12 GMT
> In message
> <f0%3m.420656$4m1.198702@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> price of a private closet with its own shower costs more than a first
> class plane ticket.
Alas, you can't get there from here (via rail), to the places I want to
go....

I did take Amtrak to central MA once, many years ago. Woulda been okay
in a sleeper, but was hell in a non-recliner regular seat. I traded in
the return ticket for an airplane ride.

--
aem sends...
erilar - 07 Jul 2009 16:08 GMT
> Amtrak is the perfect cure for that. You can burn off 3 days just
> getting there. :)
>
> I actually wouldn't mind a long train trip once in a while, but the
> price of a private closet with its own shower costs more than a first
> class plane ticket.

Hey, if I could take Amtrak to Europe, I would, particular if it was as
good as the Empire Builder.  I'm retired and my time is my own 8-)

Signature

Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count.     --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.