Page 1 of 1
April 16, 2009
→United to charge heavier passengers twice to fly
Newsradio 780 has learned that United has instructed its customer service representatives at O’Hare International Airport ticket counters and gates to be extra vigilant beginning Wednesday for passengers they deem to be overweight. Those unable to comfortably fasten a safety belt with one extension or sit comfortably with armrests down will be denied boarding unless they purchase an extra seat, even if they can be placed elsewhere in the aircraft next to an empty seat.
If no empty seat exists, the passenger will be forced to take a later flight.
This is a great move by United. With last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Canada, this could get interesting, but it’s a great step forward in stigmatizing this health epidemic.
While I don’t think passengers should be double-charged if the plane is not full and they are not occupying a second seat, I do think if a plane is flying full (as most do these days), people who take up two seats should be required to pay the airline for the extra seat, which is keeping another paying customer off the plane. I’m not saying this because I hate fat people or because I don’t want to sit next to a fat person on a plane. This comes strictly from a revenue standpoint. If you’re taking up two seats, preventing another paying customer from boarding the plane, and preventing the airline from getting that additional revenue, then you shouldn’t get a 2 for 1 deal just because you’re different. Passengers who come on board with any other medical issues that require them to take up more than one seat are required to pay for all seats they take up. It should be the same for everyone.
Now, if the plane isn’t full and you aren’t causing the airline to lose revenue, I disagree with having to pay twice. My guess is, though, the airline made this rule to avoid having to shuffle passengers during boarding to accommodate certain passengers, which can delay boarding and put a schedule for plane and crew behind for the entire day. Considering how many passengers come on board on any given day who need two seats (and I say this as a former flight attendant), this would probably delay 90% of flights that go out.
You know what is really quite rude? Eliminating parts of a person’s reblog so it looks like all the people you reblogged it from have no comment on the original post. If any of you would like to see Kia’s comment on the article, it is here, and it is not positive, and it has something to say to the original poster.
By removing her comment, Robot-heart and Sds (here) have made it seem as though Kia made a blind re-blog of the article. They are cutting out her disapproval and putting their approval, since her disapproval interferes with what they want to say. Essentially they are limiting the conversation and presenting it in a misleading way that is unfair to the person they reblogged it from.
It’s less egregious to eliminate portions of a comment that agrees with what you are about to say, but by selectively editing the conversation to eliminate disagreements, you are performing a type of propaganda.
