02-17-2010
06:15 PM
1 Love
I am a frequent flyer. I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to people - no one is better than another, regardless of size, shape, net worth, looks, physical abilities whatever. However, there are many times in life that reality sets in and our differences must be taken into account. In the case of airline seats, the size of the person next to you has a direct effect on your ability to realize the value of your purchase. At a certain point, the size of the person goes beyond some gray line of reasonableness and needs to be addressed.
One option is to force the airline to accommodate larger people by giving them more space, assumedly for the same price. This creates a negative impact to both the airline (bad economics) and society (higher airline fares).
Another option is to force the other people on the plane to accommodate larger people by squeezing themselves into smaller spaces - sitting to the far side of their seat, sitting far forward, giving up armrest space, etc. This is a negative for the less-large people on the plane who are reducing their purchase price benefit for others who are larger.
These two options are indicative of the victim mentality our nation to which our nation has been subscribing to for far too long. Rather than expect others (airlines, government, people) to meet our needs, we have lost the balance of responsibility for ourselves. The third option, which seems perfectly reasonable to everyone except for large people, apparently, is to define what is 'too large' for a single seat, offer the option to purchase additional space, and refund that cost if it is not otherwise used by the airline.
A silly analogy: Let's say a big guy 6'10" and 240 - not fat, an athlete - goes into a restaurant with his 5'10" and 180 friend. They both order a ribeye, baked potato, broccoli and a glass of wine. When they finish eating, the 180 guy is stuffed. However, because he's bigger, the 240 guy is still hungry. Should he be able to demand more food from the restaurant for the same price? Further, should the restaurant force the 180 guy to cut off a piece of his steak to give to the 240 guy who needs more, but without reducing his meal price?
Obviously, the rational answer to both questions is no. Like the third option above, the restaurant would be happy to give more to the 240 guy and would be happy to sell him an additional meal. And remember that, unlike most people who are 240, the guy in the example wasn't even that way by choice.
All of this to say - we need to eat less, argue less and think more about what's best rather than what's best for the almighty ME.
... View more