Airline casts man out for being �too fat�
in [UK Air Travel]
|
From: Joe Curry on 21 Jun 2010 04:48 Source: http://news.oneindia.in He was denied the permission to travel as his 52-inch belly was overflowing into the next seat. Full Story http://news.oneindia.in/2010/06/21/airline-casts-man-for-being-too-fat.html
From: Joe Curry on 21 Jun 2010 09:27 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:40:51 +0100, William Black <william.black(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >52 inches isn't that big, and certainly not commensurate with the >weight given of 181 Kg (400 lbs) unless he's over seven feet tall. One wonders what the seat width of Air Transat's economy class is? >Plus no mention in the UK press at all. Perhaps more commonplace than thought?
From: Roland Perry on 21 Jun 2010 10:14 In message <hvnfjj$34r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 11:40:51 on Mon, 21 Jun 2010, William Black <william.black(a)hotmail.co.uk> remarked: >52 inches isn't that big, and certainly not commensurate with the >weight given of 181 Kg (400 lbs) unless he's over seven feet tall. Could be width rather than circumference! -- Roland Perry
From: Joe Curry on 21 Jun 2010 17:21 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Cats <ramwater(a)uk2.net> wrote: >52" is massive - the only way chaps who measure that big can get >trousers is to either wear something with a stretchy waistband, and/or >sling it under their tummy trusting to their hips to hold it up, Would anyone actually care or see the failure to hold-it-up might reveal? If anything it would be a deterrent to anyone aspiring to acquire a 52" waist.
From: Joe Curry on 21 Jun 2010 17:23
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:14:04 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >>52 inches isn't that big, and certainly not commensurate with the >>weight given of 181 Kg (400 lbs) unless he's over seven feet tall. >Could be width rather than circumference! 4 feet 4 inches? :-) |