Alaska Airlines
 

Boo Alaska airlines- second seat policy not enforced- woman could not put down arm rest but was allowed to fly using half my husbands seat- flight totally full- He flew the 5 1/2 hours(midnight to 5 am hanging out in the galley and squeezing himself in sideways against the window just for takeoff and landing) Do not book Alaska Airlines unless you want to pay for a seat and not have it!!!!!PS-- my husband is a senior ....this was a very hard flight for him physically...

That's a tough call for every airline. IF there is a second seat available, ASA will ask a large person to buy another seat. If there ISN'T a seat available, then what? I don't believe they can legally make the larger person get off the plane. Which gives you the option to take the next flight. It's lose-lose really.

Were there empty seats? If there were, then you should file a complaint with ASA. There won't be any reimbursement, but a good way to vent. You might get miles or a voucher.

Southwest has a model policy... perhaps we should just regulate that all airlines follow that. There is no rule which would prevent the airline asking the passenger to disembark if no second seat was available, if they have in their T&C's you must be able to put the armrest down.

Incidently, they might like to look at the fact they have designed in the problem. The first commercial flight in the US was around 1914. Through the wonders of google, I happen to know that people are on average 11cm's taller (Just over 4 inches) today than they were in 1914. In terms of girth, we are massively larger than over the same period. Curiously, the size of airline seats and amount of leg room appears to be in direct, inverse proportion to the size of the passengers. This is another area in which regulation would help. If the government regulated a minimum leg room in economy (I suggest 34 inches), on all flights over 2 hours, this would stop the airlines complaining that competitive pressures force them to do this.

Jim said "regulate." *drink*

While there is no rule that prevents them from asking a large passenger to leave, there are US anti-discrimination laws that prevents them from asking. A heavy person could invoke the ADA.

The sad fact is America's increasing obesity rate and illness'es that surround it.
The U.S. military said recently that childhood obesity could cause a national security issue because most of the kids could not pass the physical or PT to be in the military.
Recently had to buy some new shorts, have 31 waist and could not find anything smaller the 34's

Gromit, we have covered this previously in other threads.. an obese passenger cannot cite the ADA. First, the ADA does not apply to airlines and second, even if it did, there is no rule in the ADA which says that an obese person must be allowed to encroach onto the seat of a fellow passenger. The issue is that any special accommodation must be applied fairly and must be necessary. So, Southwest made an objective measurable ruling, which is fair and can be applied easily. Either the armrest goes down or it doesn't. There is nothing discriminatory about that.

The ADA DOES indeed apply to airlines in the US. It applies to ALL business in the US. Gawd where do you get your information. The ADA can indeed be claimed by an obese person if it can be medically shown their condition is not caused by overeating.

Who said there was such a rule? Obfuscation of the point. I said that an obese person can claim the ADA if they were asked to disembark. And depending on their actual condition, that claim can be made to stick.

My source is the DOT... what is yours?

I think you will find that the Air Carriers Access Act 1986, amended 2009 is the relevant act here. This is a link..

http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/asp/airacc.asp

The ADA says absolutely nothing about obesity and whether the cause of the obesity is "overeating". You are making that up Gromit... I would like you to find any reference anywhere which distinguishes the cause of the obesity as being relevant as to whether it counts as a disability or not. There will not be one. If someone cannot walk, as a result of their obesity, then they will be considered disabled. This is because their inability to walk is a functional impairment. The cause of the functional impairment is irrelevant, both in the ADA and the ACAA. This is the same for any functional impairment.

So here is the challenge. Find any ruling, anywhere, which distinguishes how you should treat someone based on whether their impairment was caused by "overeating" or any other cause and post it on here. I will happily post a fulsome apology if it is from a reliable source.

Been thinking about this for a while and having had to "share" my seat with a fat person (not only on planes but at theatre and thought close seating areas) maybe its time that we the one that had to "share" turn around and sue for our right and sue that fat person.
Besides having their mass on my seat, have had to sit by several that had offensive smells due to their size.
Just some food for thougth

I am not sure that there is a correlation between being fat and being smelly. There were many a one toothed, skinny alcoholic red neck when I lived in NC... and they smelled real bad.

I have sympathy for the position of people who are seated next to someone who simply doesn't fit the seat. However, we need to face reality. People are getting larger... in the US and in most western nations including the UK and France. We can either provide public accommodations which take into account this increase in girth and height, or we continue to put leatherboy in the position of having to share his seat. However, I do feel that if someone cannot put the armrest down, they should pay for another seat. Either that, or provide wider seats at an additional cost.

AK Airlines allowed dog to pee on my luggage
 

Never mind. Realized I have to post somewhere else. Sorry.

Gromit..

Any chance of an apology? Admission you are wrong?

You have gone very quiet.... funny that...

I am a big woman and I will be honest with you. When I was a smaller woman I still felt crapped in coach.
Now yeah I would buy two seats or go first class. I agree that if you are big get 2 seats.
But, I think airlines need to make bigger seats for EVERYONE.. Come on pushing people together like sardines is not a fun way to travel. Just saying!!

Again Jim, you are skewing my point in an attempt to make yours. Epic fail.

As a matter of fact, thanks for making my point for me.

I am skewing which point Gromit, the one where you said that the ADA was the relevant act? In that case, I provided a source and a link.... but I accept your apology... thank you for being so gracious.

In skewing your other point, is this the one where you said..

I said...

Do you want to try and cite any source, anywhere, where any act or regulation requires an obese person to show medically their condition is not caused by overeating? I'll up the ante if you like.. if you find any reference from a verifiable source, I will donate $25 to charity.

CRAZY idea!!! Maybe instead of airlines (or theaters, or trains, or buses, etc) making their seats bigger and bigger to accommodate the fat ***** that are humans, we should take a long hard look at our diet and exercise habits and STOP being fat and unhealthy. I don't feel bad for you if you can't fit in an airline seat... lose some weight and you will. And for those who are going to say, "what about people that have medical conditions that cause them to be overweight?" I say, go to a doctor and get it fixed, pretty simple.

Gromit and Jim... I found relevant info straight from the US Dept of Justice. (It's near the bottom of the page if you want to read it yourself) The ADA in fact does NOT cover passengers traveling on airlines, but it DOES cover employees/applicants. From their site it says...
**Bold mine for emphasis**

You can also find more info about flying with disabilities here.

Thank you Justme... I stated an obese passenger cannot cite the ADA, but rather the ACAA... and Justme provides independent backup... ball's in your court Gromit... lets hear it!


Justme... you conveniently ignored the fact that people are not just getting fatter so their "fat *****" don't fit the seat..but also significantly taller.. do you think we should have more leg room, or ask people to have their legs shortened surgically?

The seats are NOT only small for FAT people but, anyone who is over then 100 pounds and no one over 5'0 tall. My husband was in the Navy (can't be fat) and he is 5'11 and he had to sit with his legs apart to have knee room and his legs were in the way of other passengers.
Clearly you are just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing.

Making the rows a few inches further apart to accommodate evolution is a-ok by me... I myself definitely feel the squeeze when I sit in coach. (Which admittedly isn't very often.) Making them wider to accommodate human gluttony, greed, and sloth is not.

Sounds like something my mom used to always say to me when I was growing up, guess I should've been a lawyer. :)

I am 6'1" and 175lbs. I fit just fine in every coach seat I have ever been in. (Minus a few inches of feet room... read above) To say that someone who is 5' and 100lbs can't fit is ludicrous and clearly shows that it is YOU who is arguing for the hell of it. Not saying you're lying about your husband's weight, but I have seen more than my fare shake of grossly overweight people in every branch of the military. As long as you get fat AFTER you're in, I've never known them to say much. The fact that your husband has to sit with his legs apart to be comfortable is solely because he is a man, nuff said.

Wow!!
 

My husband is a fit 170 pounds

I have traveled Delta (which is worst then Southwest)...sat by a taller guy and his legs were in MY way. I don't believe AIRLINES should fit human beings on a plane like Sardines for the sake of a dollar...Like I stated before...if there were more ways to travel quickly in the U.S...Airlines would have to make their passengers HAPPY.

You work for a airline so you will think it is the best thing around. I do admire you dedication...but, I am right in saying alot of folks would agree with me about the seats.

At one time...Air was a nice way to travel...NOT ANY MORE!!!

100% correct. But what you fail to mention along with that, is that when air travel was "nice" it was also very expensive, exclusive, and mostly only used for the upper class. The degradation of the airline industry rests solely on the shoulders of the masses screaming for cheaper and cheaper fares. As my dad used to always say, "You get what you pay for." You want to pay $259 for a ticket from EU to US? Good, glad you found a good deal, but don't in any way, shape, or form expect more than $259 worth of service. Want GREAT service? Pay $1500 for the same trip, or $10,000 if you want to sit in business.

US airlines where they fly head to head with foreign airlines are often not cheaper than the alternative and their service standards are significantly worse. You can fly Singapore Airlines for similar prices to US based airlines and you will have a dramatically better experience. It is not just price it is ATTITUDE.

I am trying to say that...with all the charges for extra legroom, food, charging for advance seating...ummmm let's see here anything I miss airlines aren't charging people for?

Luggage...With all the extra charges that weren't charged before, HOW ARE WE SAVING!!!??

Ummm...I remember at one time paying for 199 dollars for a round trip from VA to CA on USAir (when it was called that). I got food, leg room, and free headphones for movies.

You can get on Amtrak...Get a private room and pay 1000 dollars (a family)...get free food water, no charge for luggage, free meals, and your own shower.
When I vacation I vacation....so what if I am on their for 3 days.

Can you imagine if Amtrak would go high speed...Not only greener but, more enjoyable?

I do wish we had trains like Europe.

I guess you don't want to hear that Justme because, you maybe out of a job.

I think you'll find that trains are in fact NOT greener than airlines when you take the whole picture in to account.

You "remember" at one time you paid that. And that's fine, but how long ago are we talking? The era of airline travel being exclusive and upscale was far before you could get a ticket for $199. I wasn't talking about 7 years ago, I was talking about 30+ years ago.

When I vacation, I don't want to spend 6 days getting there and back. Not to mention I don't vacation in places that a train could get me to. Last I checked I can't get from ATL to Asia, Europe, Africa, South/Central America, and certainly not the Caribbean. Ok, maybe I could get to a few places in Mexico, but again, why waste 6 days getting to and from somewhere when I can get there in a few hours?

Nah, if Amtrak did somehow manage to dominate the industry I'm sure I'd have a job with them.

justme

Well since you work for a airline and that is your business. I will not trust you have a bias opinion on any other travel but, taking a plane.

I have found several articles regarding Amtrak being "green". I believe we were talking domestically...not international. That isn't a case to argue. I am sure you get free travel to anywhere you want. But, for the PAYING folks like myself..do not get to travel overseas at a drop of a hat. I guess you can not take a train across the ocean.

I did see that ONE Article regarding your argument.. I have more

So here is my argument.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tra...l-reasons.html

http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/1637

http://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/environment.htm

I can find more if you want...

O.K...I need to stop preaching to a person who doesn't care.

I get it... just because you can find more articles means you're right and I'm wrong. Fine, I'll breakdown why your articles don't convince me.

1. planetgreen - it's 5 reasons why you should ride trains to reduce CO2 emission. Problem is, 4 of the 5 have NOTHING to do with emissions at all. Scenery, relaxation, people, and price have NO impact on CO2 output what-so-ever. Also, they don't have any evidence to back themselves up. They're simply stating their opinion hoping you'll believe it without asking questions. Obviously you have.

2. dailygreen - they're comparing a train to a car, not air travel. That pretty much renders this one irrelevant don't ya think?

3/4. seat61/cahighspeedrail - for starters the article starts with the following sentence: "It's not an exact science, and I'm certainly no expert." But the real reason I'm not convinced is because they fail to take in to account anything other than emissions produced from propulsion from one place to another. What about the footprint of the tracks, the production of asphalt, tar, and iron, used in RR tracks, maintaining the tracks, producing the fuel for the trains, etc. The article I cited took ALL of this into account, and compared "full life-cycle" emissions, yours do not.

Now, with all of that said, I think there is definite benefit to using light rail systems for mass transit in urban areas instead of everyone driving their huge SUV with only 1 person in it. That's a no-brainer. But for distance travel such as vacations, airplanes are the way to go for me. And you're right, flying for free does have something to do with that, but I also take our environment very seriously and do everything I can to reduce my impact. I grow my own garden, I compost my trash, I ride a small motorcycle instead of driving a "gas guzzling" car or truck, I utilize solar panels and plan on getting a personal wind turbine soon. Obviously you prefer riding a train for your own reasons, and I prefer an airplane for my own reasons. One of which I believe is that they, while not perfect, are better in the long run for the environment than trains. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. :)

Please read it again...Once again you are incorrect...

You should be reading your own articles again since you are the one who is incorrect... They in fact DO NOT COMPARE train emissions to airline emissions.

This one sentence makes it relevant to air travel? I don't think so. All the data they use in their article is comparing CARS to TRAINS. Not a single comparison was made to an airplane. And is this really the only rebuttal you have to me breaking down your articles? Guess you weren't captain of the debate team.

The article was only 2 paragraphs...but it still supports my claim...Most so in Europe whereas the trains there are mostly electric...Yes Amtrak does run on a bio-diesel...Here is a article NOT written by Amtrak...

http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/20...biodiesel.html

As for as asphalt, steel for tracks...Those things are already in place...and they do need repair...

Yes they are alot of things that humans have done to harm the earth but, claiming that airlines don't do that much damage is CRAZY...Just think how close the fuel gets to our Ozone from a plane. I am not only saying passenger planes hurt the Ozone but, military jets are worst..

Look at the sky on a clear blue day...what do you see? Jet streams...so what is jet streams?

I am saying we can agree to disagree but, do not even say I don't know what I am talking about...I do!!!

Thanks

Oh just a thought...Have you ever taking a train for pleasure? I don't look at the days as a waste of time...I make it part of my vacation. Our country is beautiful from Lake Tahoe to the Rockies to the Mississppi River or the sunrise in the Utah's deserts..and you just can't get to relax and take in all that beauty on a plane...

This is the last from me...

This argument will run and run. There is evidence to suggest that the emissions in the high atmosphere are more damaging that those at the surface. It is also without doubt significantly less polluting to take the train for short haul journey's. The other factor is that the "infrastructure" argument could work for largely undeveloped infranstructure countries such as China... it certainly doesn't work for Europe or parts of the NorthEast US, where the infrastructure carbon has already been spent.

The New Scientist article also doesn't address the fact that air travel doesn't actually take you to where you want to go. Trains tend to run city centre to city centre, so the journey is virtually complete. ~Airports tend to take you to some place well outside the city.. and then require further infratructure (and thus carbon) to actually take you to where you were going.

The truth is, as with all of these things, it is not either/or. We need to reduce gas guzzling car usage, and in particular, to price gas realistically based on the true environmental cost. We then need alternative fuels including solar, wind, nuclear, tidal etc.. and we need to increase the costs of travel to reflect the damage it does.

I have said the same, and very rarely follow through with the threat... knowing that, I will keep the convo going.

I am still dumbfounded... How on earth does it support your claim that airplanes are more harmful than trains, when there is ABSOLUTELY NO data that has anything to do with airplanes!?! The entire, 2 paragraph, "article" only speaks about CARS and TRAINS, then at the end, almost as an afterthought, the author says, oh yeah, take trains for vacation too!

Quite honestly, I didn't even bother reading this for 2 reasons. One, based on your other "sources" I surmised that it probably wouldn't be relevant. Two, it's a blog... which means it's just some random person's opinion.

Do you really think that the US has the infrastructure in place to run a serious train transit system? I think that with a little research, and comparison to EU, you will find that we (the US) are seriously lacking in the rail department.

What I am saying is that taking into account the "full life-cycle" of an airline versus a train operator, the airline produces less of a carbon footprint. As far as a "plane" doing more damage because it is closer to the ozone, you have got to be kidding. I just don't know what else to say, oh, I know... maybe we should just fly the airplanes lower!! That'll fix it! And as far as military jets being worse... I'm not sure about the actual emissions being more, but I do know that they are not subject to the same noise restrictions as commercial jets.

I'm really hoping this isn't a serious question. I do indeed know what "jet streams" are (if by jet streams you mean contrails), they are simply condensed water droplets. A cloud would be another therm you may be familiar with. A contrail is formed by warm, moist air which passes through the engines of a jet and then comes into contact with cold air, causing the water to precipitate out and condense. So, as you can see, "jet streams" are indeed NOT pollution, but in fact only artificially created clouds.

I think you are coming close to showing that you actually don't have any clue what you are talking about.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with taking a train because you enjoy the ride. I am saying your justification of doing it because it is "greener" is unfounded. And I do plenty of relaxing on airplanes and have seen some pretty amazing things from the air that you will never see from the ground.

I know you would ask so I will as well... let's see it.

I don't deny that for a second. Matter of fact I said recently, "I think there is definite benefit to using light rail systems for mass transit in urban areas instead of everyone driving their huge SUV with only 1 person in it. That's a no-brainer."

Parts, of the top right teeny tiny corner of the US, have infrastructure in place. The rest of the US is seriously lacking and wouldn't be far behind China in their lack of rail.

How do you know where I'm going? Who says I want to go to the city center? I get what you're saying, but if I'm not going to the city center, the journey is indeed NOT virtually complete. The transit you would be using after you fly is in a different category. It doesn't count for the airline. Also, I can think of plenty of airports that are pretty close to the middle of the city. ATL, NYC, BOS, LAX, DCA, HOU, LAS, etc, etc.

Agreed, Agreed, Agreed, Agreed, and Agreed.

Justme,

The emissions in the upper atomsphere create NOx. This from NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html

I think we are in danger of agreeing Justme... which is probably a first.

Well, as an ex-railroad engineer, I have to side with JustMe on this one. Rail travel is exceeding dirty. Just about every rail-yard in the US is on the EPA clean up list. The number of train crew that have died from cancer (diesel exposure) or are ill from the exposure is a very long list.

Every mile of rail in the US is a path of toxicity from leaked oil and fuel, grease (tracks are actually greased in many places to reduce wear on curves), and don't even talk about derailments where massive quantities of toxic chemicals get spilled. Example: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-...uthern-pacific

Passenger travel is a tiny percentage of rail usage, but the rail system as used every day is anything but green.

Gromit I do apologize.
 

I am sorry...You are right!!!

But, I was only refering to Amtrak...and yeah that industery is dangerous. I feel foolish and like a complete butt.

I was being narrow minded and talking with blinders on...as far as rail usage in the U.S...

I do feel my claim is right about Amtrak though...and the trains over in Europe.

to justme..
 

I can admit I am wrong. You are singling out the ONE article and dismissing the other articles.. No really.

You are one of these people who feel like YOU have to be right.

No my opinion is not FACT...and Your opinion is NOT fact either.

I did look on different websites and yes train is better then driving...but, it can be better then flying.



I thought that this article kinda put it in perspective. If you want to argue even if I stated..."Maybe I was wrong..."...that will be YOU alone.

I do not feel like I should apologize to you because, u got nasty first.

Never was on the debate team. I guess you were.

I Feel Foolish!!
 

I am a idiot...I do get blindsided when folks like justme. I was expressing my opinion and suddenly I felt like I had to defend myself....

Your right...I did read kind of the same thing.

http://www.greenfudge.org/2009/09/25...-to-fly-green/

But, military jets are a differant story though...

Actually I dismissed them all, you only chose to defend ONE of them after I dismissed them.

My wife would totally agree with you there... but I would tend to say it's more a case of when I KNOW I'm right, I feel the need to defend it to the end. Maybe I get a bit overzealous in doing so, I never intended to "blindside" you. But I learned very quickly that when you post something here that requires factual back-up, you had better be good and ready to provide relevant facts, not opinions.

I do not dispute that it CAN be in certain situations, and I have stated that more than once.

When exactly did I get "nasty"? When I said I thought you were wrong and then backed myself up? Just because I disagree with you and have factual info to support my opinion does not make me nasty. Either way, I was never looking for an apology, only trying to educate you on a subject that you seemed interested in but not very well informed. I do find it a bit strange though that Jim and Gromit disagree with you and you all the sudden flip and are calling yourself an idiot, a butt, foolish, and narrow-minded. And I wasn't on a debate team either, although my mom always said I should've been.