BA overbooking - a bad experience
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Next: United Mileage Plus mystery terms
From: hummingbird on 5 Mar 2007 18:38 On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:26:09 -0600 'TMOliver' posted this onto rec.travel.air: >"hummingbird" wrote.....> >> >> But there are plenty of uncouth slobs with loads-a-money who fly >> BC or FC and drag their screaming shitty kids along with them or even >> cause a big rumpus themselves. As I previously said, some celebrities >> come to mind. >> I know of an individual who always flies FC because he's a member of >> the most important family in Dubai. On one occasion he was drunk on >> board and caused a rumpus in FC and the FAs threatened to divert the >> plane to dump him off. >> Imagine the aggravation to other FC passengers while all that went on. >"The most imporant family in Dubai" That's correct. The al-Maktoum ruling family in fact. If you post anything worth reading, let me know. [rest of your incoherent drivel binned untranslated]
From: js on 5 Mar 2007 18:41 On Mar 5, 3:26 pm, DevilsPGD <spam_narf_s...(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > In message <ch8pu2lkgcqge3bm927o0firer3qb4t...(a)4ax.com> n...(a)here.com > > (nada) wrote: > >On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:47:49 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird > ><RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote: > > >> I believe that airline seats are simply not > >> wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width; > > >so lose some weight, you lardbutt! > > The widest part on my body is my shouldered, followed by my hips. Weight > gain or loss will change neither of those significantly on my body type. > -- > Insert something clever here. I'm far from clever and the antifat biddy isn't my friend. However, given a 17 inch seat width, you would need a hip circumfrence of over 50 inches not to fit between the armrests. 2'PI'R and R=17/2 js
From: Bob Myers on 5 Mar 2007 19:40 "js" <jonathansmith99(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173138110.910942.248900(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I'm far from clever and the antifat biddy isn't my friend. However, > given a 17 inch seat width, you would need a hip circumfrence of over > 50 inches not to fit between the armrests. 2'PI'R and R=17/2 If people were of circular cross-section at the hips, you'd have a point. Since they're not, I fail to see how this contributes anything meaningful to the discussion. Bob M.
From: js on 5 Mar 2007 19:26 On Mar 5, 4:40 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > "js" <jonathansmit...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1173138110.910942.248900(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > I'm far from clever and the antifat biddy isn't my friend. However, > > given a 17 inch seat width, you would need a hip circumfrence of over > > 50 inches not to fit between the armrests. 2'PI'R and R=17/2 > > If people were of circular cross-section at the hips, > you'd have a point. Since they're not, I fail to see how > this contributes anything meaningful to the discussion. > > Bob M. Well, Bob - though the pelvic girdle is not exactly circular, the estimate is valid when BMI exceeds 30 and w/h is less than 0.8 or so. Since we are talking about lard butts, that pretty much describes them. And, that said, weight loss would improve that. I suppose had you been familiar with the basic etiology of obesity you wouldn't have looked so foolish. Now, what exactly was your contribution? That's what I thought. js
From: Tchiowa on 5 Mar 2007 19:51
On Mar 5, 7:54 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote: > On 4 Mar 2007 16:26:57 -0800 'Tchiowa' > posted this onto rec.travel.air: > > >On Mar 2, 7:36 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:13:58 GMT 'Jim Ley' > >> posted this onto rec.travel.air: > > >> >Yep, it's called business class. > > >> Rubbish. > > >You repeat this refrain. Are you not aware that Business Class has > >wider seats and better overall conditions that Economy? > > I'm not sure what you mean by "better overall conditions" but paying > large sums of money for a business seat (or even first class) does not > guarantee that your flight will be either comfortable or peaceful, > although I have always accepted that both classes of seat usually > provide a wider seat. You complained about specific things including size of the seat. I said that you had deliberately paid for a small seat. Others also pointed out that Business Class resolves this. Rather than admit that simple fact you now want to take about kids and slobs. Do you want a government policy forcing the airlines to gag and handcuff all kids? I think you tipped your hand, though, in the way you phrased the statement. Business Class is more expensive than Economy, of course, but it does not involved "large sums of money". Perhaps from the perspective of someone whose primary goal is "cheap" that's the case. > As a friend said to me some while ago "you might upgrade from economy > to FC to get away from screaming shitty kids and slobs, only to find > that you're seated close to a FC screaming shitty kid or a rich slob." If your goal is to get away from people you think are inferior to you ("slobs" is the way you phrased it) then you need to buy your own plane or quit flying. Or change your attitude about other people. > Perhaps all passengers with kids should be located in one section of > the plane where they can be more easily controlled? I dunno. But this > problem, coupled to seats which are too narrow for larger than average > or obese people have collectively turned flying into an endurance test > for ordinary decent folk. Back to seat size which is easily resolved as long as your primary goal isn't "cheap". I'm an "ordinary decent folk" and I quite enjoy flying. There is the occasional glitch but that's part of life. In the whole it's a fairly enjoyable experience. |