Most Late since Two Oh, Oh Eight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 27505
  • Start date Start date
I actually agree with charging for carry on space (My company doesn't do it.). The less carry on bags we have = the faster the turn time = the better the D0/A0 time.
 
From


7ba7c2c12d63fd268aad8bf277b8f8da.jpg



To


029052-130408-airline.jpg



070220_airline_hmed_10a.grid-6x2.jpg



article-2005029-0C9EB56700000578-520_634x409.jpg



article-2005029-0C9EA08B00000578-383_306x423.jpg



article-2005029-0C9EB5EF00000578-134_634x463.jpg




snack.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mike Wise said:
I actually agree with charging for carry on space (My company doesn't do it.). The less carry on bags we have = the faster the turn time = the better the D0/A0 time.
Click to expand...

I think you should pay for the total weight of you and your stuff. Where it goes on the airplane is somewhat irrelevant.
 
hook_dupin said:
I think you should pay for the total weight of you and your stuff. Where it goes on the airplane is somewhat irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Meh, that's the same concept of a take-out/away buffet. Get charged by the pound/ounces of your take-out box and off you go. I've done that once, didn't get very much and still ended up paying more than if I would have sat down and ate in the restaurant. Sell the same product to more people to balance out the cost. IMO, charging by weight would not only be incredibly time consuming but is an unsustainable model for 121.
 
hook_dupin said:
I think you should pay for the total weight of you and your stuff. Where it goes on the airplane is somewhat irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But that wouldn't be fair! Fat people would have to pay more, even though it costs more to haul them around. And then, all the fat people in the world would get mad, and a group of people would start a movement the destroy the airlines, bad press would ensue, and the whooooooole system would come tumbling down.
 
So here's your chicken/egg question for the day - what brought down the quality of the airline flying experience - the lowering of quality standards by the airlines to afford flight to a more economically diverse pax base, or the presence of a more economically diverse pax base? I'm sure even taking a bus was romanticized at some point in time. Now purchasing a Greyhound ticket is essentially consenting to being fondled in your sleep.
 
Murdoughnut said:
So here's your chicken/egg question for the day - what brought down the quality of the airline flying experience - the lowering of quality standards by the airlines to afford flight to a more economically diverse pax base, or the presence of a more economically diverse pax base? I'm sure even taking a bus was romanticized at some point in time. Now purchasing a Greyhound ticket is essentially consenting to being fondled in your sleep.
Click to expand...
I'd blame de-regulation for both options. The airlines lowered quality standards to be more competitive, the passengers demanded cheaper fares. Rather than one causing the other, I think both happened simultaneously.
 
pete2800 said:
I'd blame de-regulation for both options. The airlines lowered quality standards to be more competitive, the passengers demanded cheaper fares. Rather than one causing the other, I think both happened simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Why "blame" deregulation? Why not credit it? Airfares today are much cheaper in real dollars than under regulation. Sure, it's not as romantic as the days of yore, but it's better for America at-large.
 
mshunter said:
But that wouldn't be fair! Fat people would have to pay more, even though it costs more to haul them around. And then, all the fat people in the world would get mad, and a group of people would start a movement the destroy the airlines, bad press would ensue, and the whooooooole system would come tumbling down.
Click to expand...

You realize of course that weight is dependent on more than simply fat content of ones body correct? I mean a quick Google says Shaq is 7'1" and 325, I'd hardly call him fat. Average to above average height body builders will be penalized more for being in shape than an overweight person as muscle weighs more than fat. Similarly, those of us on the short side and in decent shape get a nice discount simply because we don't have the overall body mass as a taller person in equal shape.

I guess it makes sense if you just want to shame a person into losing weight, but with most sin taxes, the outcome is never what is intended. I'd image most people of larger size are already self conscious so penalizing them is not going to be the light bulb moment you hope it to be, but it could drive them deeper into depression. Seems sort of counter intuitive.
 
Matt13C said:
You realize of course that weight is dependent on more than simply fat content of ones body correct? I mean a quick Google says Shaq is 7'1" and 325, I'd hardly call him fat. Average to above average height body builders will be penalized more for being in shape than an overweight person as muscle weighs more than fat. Similarly, those of us on the short side and in decent shape get a nice discount simply because we don't have the overall body mass as a taller person in equal shape.

I guess it makes sense if you just want to shame a person into losing weight, but with most sin taxes, the outcome is never what is intended. I'd image most people of larger size are already self conscious so penalizing them is not going to be the light bulb moment you hope it to be, but it could drive them deeper into depression. Seems sort of counter intuitive.
Click to expand...


Want His Eminence to cease being proceeded by his eminence? Just board him at Fresno and give him a seat belt extender stamped: "FAT"
 
Matt13C said:
I guess it makes sense if you just want to shame a person into losing weight, but with most sin taxes, the outcome is never what is intended. I'd image most people of larger size are already self conscious so penalizing them is not going to be the light bulb moment you hope it to be, but it could drive them deeper into depression. Seems sort of counter intuitive.
Click to expand...

No looking to shame as much as seek compensation based on costs. A LA chick with two steamer trunks, a roll-a-board that doesn't quite fit into the overhead bin, one of those big-ass purses, and a dog-bag for her little yappy dog costs the operation as much as a big dude on an overnight trip with just his laptop, toothbrush, and Sky Miles card.
 
hook_dupin said:
No looking to shame as much as seek compensation based on costs. A LA chick with two steamer trunks, a roll-a-board that doesn't quite fit into the overhead bin, one of those big-ass purses, and a dog-bag for her little yappy dog costs the operation as much as a big dude on an overnight trip with just his laptop, toothbrush, and Sky Miles card.
Click to expand...
Difference being, she is making a choice to bring 200lbs of extra stuff, the larger person is simply bringing him/herself. I don't think anyone has an issue charging people for extra bags or even carry on's if airlines are not going to bake them into the price of the tickets. Charging people based on body weight is silly and would cut into airlines revenue as it would shrink the market, literally.
 
Matt13C said:
Difference being, she is making a choice to bring 200lbs of extra stuff, the larger person is simply bringing him/herself. I don't think anyone has an issue charging people for extra bags or even carry on's if airlines are not going to bake them into the price of the tickets. Charging people based on body weight is silly and would cut into airlines revenue as it would shrink the market, literally.
Click to expand...

I could see Ryan Air doing it.
 
I sincerely doubt there was any less ass in face (yctsaoh) in the golden days than the current ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top