slag
Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 10,473
- 81
- 101
Originally posted by: rivan
While I can see some financial sense in this, I'm against it because I'm on the "going to get charged" end of the scale. I'm 6'5" and built like a refrigerator. When I was super-skinny in high school, I was still at 240. 260/265 is a good weight for me, and I'm at 280 now.
You guys are pretending it's only the 'fatties' that will be impacted by this - well if I was 280 but only 5'6" I'd be a 'fatty' - as it stands I just have a belly.
My shoulders are so wide that I don't fit into airline seats, stadium seats and most other 'normal-people' sized seats. My arms hang over both armrests but it's got nothing to do with my weight. If I'm going to be charged based on my size, I don't see how it would be unreasonable to demand seating that's "my size".
Thats because airline seats aren't made for the masses. They are made to pack as many people into a small area as possible, and then they want people to consider that "normal"
I had a flight on the way back from Denver where I sat next to a 6'2" or so guy who was athletic. Both he and I have broad shoulders and weigh at least 220ish, although he had more muscle on him. It was uncomfortable for both of us and I had to sit basically hanging out into the aisle the entire flight because the seats just weren't big enough. Its not that we are overly large people, but two guys, over 6 ft tall with broad shoulders is pretty common and the seats aren't made for it, yet the airlines want you to believe its "normal"
