• FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4010·
    3 months ago

    No.

    Airlines should be regulated so the seats are larger and accommodate larger people.

    And if you managed to fly before airlines were deregulated, then you know that this was once the norm and isn’t too much to ask.

      • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        3 months ago

        There was also far fewer planes, far fewer pilots, far fewer airports (infrastructure in general), and far less advanced technology. Prices fell way before they started cramping seats.

      • Professorozone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        3 months ago

        And did you also know that those old timey flights included check through baggage, actual food, rules regarding getting passengers to their destinations and a host of other amenities and important regulations that were thrown in the trash because we trusted corporations to NOT create a plane that requires you to stand up for an entire flight (an actual concept that was considered). And you know how when you search for a flight a few times, the price keeps going up? Conspicuously lacking back then along with paying extra for a seat with a window only to be told an actual window isn’t guaranteed. Yeah, there was no Internet, but it’s still true.

              • Professorozone@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, I don’t believe you. I priced flying first class to Germany from Florida and it was $3000 one way. That’s not an option for me. I doubt seriously that air travel was that expensive. I did travel with my parents as a kid and I don’t think we spent an equivalent of $6000 per person for a round trip. That’s not something they would have done.

                The airlines continuously take things away and then act like it’s such a great deal if they give one back as a perk. They can go fuck themselves and if you think it’s so great you can do the same.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
        88·
        3 months ago

        You’re just reinforcing my point here.

        That’s why airlines need to be regulated. It should be illegal to draw a profit while giving zero value.

          • Professorozone@lemmy.worldEnglish
            33·
            3 months ago

            Right so, really the airlines should calculate the volume of a person and allocate a box of that size. When you get to your box, you have to fold yourself into it. If anything hangs out, maybe cut it off or just smash it in violently. Screw the bathrooms, just hold it or piss on yourself. Air conditioning and heating? Unnecessary. Think of the weight savings if the boxes were packed in like cargo. You wouldn’t need seatbelts. Maybe then those poor airlines that are barely eeking out a profit, might make money. We don’t need any amenities. I mean, did you get there?

            Oh and if the airlines aren’t making money then that just proves that deregulation doesn’t work. They were the ones that lobbied for it.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
            78·
            3 months ago

            The value is being transported from point a to b.

            If you flew in the 80’s or 90’s, then you know how significantly de-regulation has affected the value of the product.

            Frankly, you’re wrong, but you have a right to be. The problem here isn’t fat people, it’s rich people wanting to extract more money from passengers while offering nothing of value in return.

            Have a great day.

              • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
                63·
                3 months ago

                Not at all.

                Our culture hates fat people and thinks being fat is a moral failing. This doesn’t surprise me at all, and it likely hasn’t even crossed most people’s minds to blame billionaire capitalists instead of fat people.

  • mrfriki@lemmy.worldEnglish
    192·
    3 months ago

    Why is people downvoting an actual unpopular opinion? I meant, you might have your opinion on the subject but the post itself is on point.

    • Sunsofold@lemmings.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      It’s an inherent flaw in the community concept in its alignment with the up/downvote system. People just droll along, don’t look at comm, instance, or user, just title, and maybe text content, and then they hit up if it made them feel good, and down if it made them feel bad. This one particular comm goes against this pattern that basically every other one follows, so it never gets the correct reactions.

  • Pencilnoob@lemmy.worldEnglish
    142·
    3 months ago

    If you’re thinking of this, consider that those who buy clothes in XS have to pay the same amount as the XXL size for that same shirt or pants. Despite the XS garment being a third as much material and stitching.

    • IWW4@lemmy.zipEnglish
      92·
      3 months ago

      The extra material and stitching you are talking about costs less than a US penny for any manufacturing process.

    • BodePlotHole@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      Once you get above about XXXL, you typically have to pay significantly more to get a shirt that fits correctly in that size.

      Not arguing, just food for thought…

    • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      That only works for some clothing. Usually by the time you get to XL the arms or legs aren’t proportionately wider, only the body, so the sizing often doesn’t really work. If it’s numbered sizes, above the regular range there usually is a premium price for + sizes, same as for petite.

  • ccunning@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    3 months ago

    I feel like this is a fairly common opinion. Also, I believe they do have to after some point; not sure how the airline decides though?

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Exactly.

      And if you’re someone who has lost a lot of weight, and lived in the world of a fat person and an average-sized person, you know that very well.

    • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      33·
      3 months ago

      It’s got to do with calculating the amount of fuel for the plane. More weight requires more fuel.

      Edit: I’m sure it’s also partly exaggerated capitalism, the companies want every dollar they can milk from the passengers…

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        3 months ago

        I mean, mass is a massive factor for flight.

        If you ever fly on a small plane, they ask your weight, and cap your luggage weight because they absolutely have to.

        • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          34·
          3 months ago

          You’re using actual reasoning, while dismissing my edit of corporate greed reasoning. You better believe, especially in capitalist USA, they’d just as soon charge you $10 a fart if they could…

            • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
              13·
              3 months ago

              I won’t lie, I’ve never flown before in my life.

              I only lived within walking distance of two airports, one of them an international airport, and the other lightweight airport flew their planes right over our house.

              So I’ll pretend I don’t know anything if that makes you happy. Those of us on the ground learn the real rules when planes start crashing in your back yard…

              Edit: This comment coming from someone that actually applied to refuel airplanes at the local international airport. No they didn’t hire me, they probably figured me as a corporate risk, as I had too much experience seeing planes crash, not too far behind our house.

    • muyessir@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      3 months ago

      The ticket should come with a total weight of the passenger and their luggage. If I’m skinny let me bring 70kg bags.

  • Scott@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    92·
    3 months ago

    I’m tall and don’t fit in any seat other than an exit row. If there aren’t any exit rows should I be forced to pay for the seat in front of me?

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      41·
      3 months ago

      I mean, look at it from the passenger in front’s perspective. They’re paying as much for their seat as everyone else presumably, and yet if you’re too tall to fit in your seat and your knees are pressed up against theirs for the whole flight, they’re having a considerably worse experience than everyone else. Should they have to pay as much as everyone else does, with that in mind?

  • koshka@koshka.ynh.frEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    I’m not sure this is unpopular, even on Lemmy.

    Someone else already said that they should stop making the seats tiny.

  • BodePlotHole@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    Fatty here.

    Southwest Airlines in the United States let’s you buy an extra seat, and then when you check in at the airport, they will refund the cost of the extra seat provided you are a “person of size.”

    Being that the center arm rests go up, this makes it significantly more tolerable for both me, and the regular sized person who sits in the row with me.

    A lot of the other airlines used to do this as well. Now only Southwest does… For now…

    • Scirocco@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Wow — first seeing US Airways, and then later in the article Continental mentioned, lets me know that the page linked is wildly out of date.

      I wonder if Pan-Am will make an appearance.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        133·
        3 months ago

        I can draw the tangent. Airline industry executives cut costs to make more profits including decreasing seat sizes and increasing number of seats. If they cared less about profit and went back to sizes decades ago, almost no one would be uncomfortable. They go on to tell us it’s about fuel economy and the environment while they fly their private jets.