# United Airlines to Charge Overweight Passengers for Two Seats



## MrFSS

Overweight passengers hoping to travel on United Airlines may have to buy two tickets to fly the friendly skies.

The third largest U.S. airline announced Wednesday that it will join other carriers and start charging passengers for two seats if they can't properly fit into one.

Full Story *HERE*.


----------



## jackal

MrFSS said:


> Overweight passengers hoping to travel on United Airlines may have to buy two tickets to fly the friendly skies.
> The third largest U.S. airline announced Wednesday that it will join other carriers and start charging passengers for two seats if they can't properly fit into one.
> 
> Full Story *HERE*.


FWIW, Southwest and Alaska have been doing this for some time. (Well, Alaska started it last year, IIRC; don't know when Southwest did.)

Don't know if any other airlines are doing it.

Seems fair. FlyerTalkers seem to think it's mostly a good thing! :lol: (Here too.)


----------



## WhoozOn1st

jackal said:


> FWIW, Southwest and Alaska have been doing this for some time. (Well, Alaska started it last year, IIRC; don't know when Southwest did.)


TWO tickets to paradise? Here's the L.A. Times' take on the story:

"Although the policy has been on Southwest Airlines Co.'s books for a quarter of a century, the low-fare carrier faced a backlash when it reminded consumers of its standards for larger passengers in 2002, as Southwest switched from plastic boarding cards to electronic tickets."

United is eyeing _your_ wide-body (print edition headline)

There was a cable series awhile back, called "Airport" or something very similar, that featured Southwest airlines personnel dealing with passenger situations. One episode that I recall dealt with two separate instances of enforcing the two-seat obesity policy.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

While this policy may offend some people or anger them it really does make sense. If your going to affect another passengers travel by occupying part of that seat you need 2 seats. Although this whole thing doesn't factor another way. When I flew to Italy in 1999 or so there was a very large passenger behind my mom who when trying to recline her seat was met with a banging and yelling calling for the flight attendant. The crew didn't really no what to do... The lady ended up standing most of the flight. Seriously we should either figure out supersonic trans-atlantic or get that rail tunnel started.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Long Train Runnin said:


> While this policy may offend some people or anger them it really does make sense. If your going to affect another passengers travel by occupying part of that seat you need 2 seats. Although this whole thing doesn't factor another way. When I flew to Italy in 1999 or so there was a very large passenger behind my mom who when trying to recline her seat was met with a banging and yelling calling for the flight attendant. The crew didn't really no what to do... The lady ended up standing most of the flight. Seriously we should either figure out supersonic trans-atlantic or get that rail tunnel started.


We were onto supersonic with the Concord then they had a bad tire--

Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.

As for the tunnel-- not over my dead body will I take a train through a tunnel for... how many days would it take? Let's ASSUME you can get MAGLEV speeds-- it would still take a day or two to go from London to New York.

As for overweight pax... this is weight discrimination. They make the coach seats too small, they need to make them bigger. (Why don't they want to) because then everybody has to pay a lot more for their seat. Why should you make one group of people pay for everybody else's "comfort" ?

And btw-- broad shoulders and pregnant women would violate Southwest's policy... I remember an article that proved body builders and pregnant women would not be able to fit in by the book, however Southwest gives the latter two groups a pass and only targets the overweight.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway


Really? You have some evidence that supersonic maglev in a depressurized tunnel can't work?



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As for the tunnel-- not over my dead body will I take a train through a tunnel for... how many days would it take? Let's ASSUME you can get MAGLEV speeds-- it would still take a day or two to go from London to New York.


Google Maps doesn't seem to want to help me get swimming directions so I can figure out the distance, but I suspect at something like 350 MPH it could be done mostly overnight.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As for overweight pax... this is weight discrimination. They make the coach seats too small, they need to make them bigger. (Why don't they want to) because then everybody has to pay a lot more for their seat. Why should you make one group of people pay for everybody else's "comfort" ?
> And btw-- broad shoulders and pregnant women would violate Southwest's policy... I remember an article that proved body builders and pregnant women would not be able to fit in by the book, however Southwest gives the latter two groups a pass and only targets the overweight.


I think the thing that is actually expensive for an airliner to deal with is weight more than volume (though volume is also a factor to some extent, or the coach seats would be bigger). Certainly, every airplane has a maximum legal takeoff weight, and one of the factors that can affect passengers being bumped on days with poor weather is more spare fuel being required on that particular day due to weather conditions.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Right the FAA has a ban on commercial supersonic over the continental US. They used to have day trips where you fly out over the atlantic jump to supersonic while they serve champagne and then come back to New York. My dad went on a trip like this because aviation is more his thing.


----------



## jackal

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As for overweight pax... this is weight discrimination. They make the coach seats too small, they need to make them bigger. (Why don't they want to) because then everybody has to pay a lot more for their seat. Why should you make one group of people pay for everybody else's "comfort" ?
> And btw-- broad shoulders and pregnant women would violate Southwest's policy... I remember an article that proved body builders and pregnant women would not be able to fit in by the book, however Southwest gives the latter two groups a pass and only targets the overweight.


I'm 6', average-shouldered, and not skinny by any stretch of the imagination, and I have never had a problem fitting in a coach seat width- OR length-wise. I prefer first class (who doesn't?), but if I don't get my upgrade or I fly an airline I'm not elite with, I'm honestly quite happy in coach (I'd like a bit more recline in order to snooze, but on flights where I don't sleep, I honestly barely notice the difference between first and coach once I get into my movie or whatever--as long as I'm not in a middle seat!).

If you increase the seat size, you have to take seats out of the aircraft, and that means fares have to go up. I'm quite happy with more seats and lower fares, thankyouverymuch. If you want a bigger seat, fly United and pay for Economy Plus...or book a first-class ticket.


----------



## JAChooChoo

_The third largest U.S. airline announced Wednesday that it will join other carriers and start charging passengers for two seats if they can't properly fit into one._

_The new rule applies to tickets purchased on or after March 4, 2009, for travel on or after April 15, 2009_

Several comments:

Applying these requirements to previously purchased tickets seems unethical since with e-itickets purchasers may not be notified - OH! - they get to the gate and are refused the use of their legitimately acquired passages - do I hear lawsuits?

What is the Federal Seat Width Standard?? OH! there is none - I suspect congressional action which will apply to all transport modes.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Before you guys reply, do you bother reading my posts? I mean... seriously. Out of the three direct responses only ONE understood what the hell I was talking about and I'll give you all a hint-- it was the youngest of ALL of us here.


----------



## Ispolkom

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.


As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?



> As for overweight pax... this is weight discrimination. They make the coach seats too small, they need to make them bigger. (Why don't they want to) because then everybody has to pay a lot more for their seat. Why should you make one group of people pay for everybody else's "comfort" ?


Hmm, as a fat person myself, I'd disagree. The seats are what they are. You can buy them or not. If you want a bigger seat, most airlines sell them. They're called first class. I'll admit that I still remember a full flight from Minneapolis to Memphis where the two largest men on the plane (I came in second in this case) were seated together (it was a DC-9, and we were on the 2-seat side). I bought my seatmate a drink.

Another option is found in Slate.com.

To get back to Amtrak, if I take you view, should I claim discrimination that the upper bunk in Superliner roomettes is so small?


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Ispolkom said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember that noise, they used to be a little lax about the rules in the 50s.


----------



## Ispolkom

PetalumaLoco said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I remember that noise, they used to be a little lax about the rules in the 50s.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, in North Dakota there were no rules.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Before you guys reply, do you bother reading my posts? I mean... seriously. Out of the three direct responses only ONE understood what the hell I was talking about and I'll give you all a hint-- it was the youngest of ALL of us here.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

So I win the prize?


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Ispolkom said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I remember that noise, they used to be a little lax about the rules in the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I know, in North Dakota there were no rules.
Click to expand...

Was that Minot AFB?


----------



## Ispolkom

PetalumaLoco said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I remember that noise, they used to be a little lax about the rules in the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I know, in North Dakota there were no rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that Minot AFB?
Click to expand...

You bet, "Only the best come North."


----------



## GG-1

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I'll give you all a hint-- it was the youngest of ALL of us here.


Are you referring to mental or physical years? That changes a lot, 64=10 so I am 10 mentally :lol: wish my body was younger.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Ispolkom said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I remember that noise, they used to be a little lax about the rules in the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I know, in North Dakota there were no rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that Minot AFB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bet, "Only the best come North."
Click to expand...

I visited there as a kid, cousins were Air Force. Lots of BUFFs there.


----------



## Ispolkom

PetalumaLoco said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supersonic can only be done over water anyway, the boom is just annoying as hell. When approaching land the Concords had to go subsonic IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who grew up near an air force base in the 60s and 70s, that's not annoying, that's the sound of Freedom! (Though it did freak out my visiting grandmother, born in 1889.) And didn't someone mention on this forum how he'd miss the double boom of the Shuttle coming in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I remember that noise, they used to be a little lax about the rules in the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I know, in North Dakota there were no rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that Minot AFB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bet, "Only the best come North."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I visited there as a kid, cousins were Air Force. Lots of BUFFs there.
Click to expand...

BUFFs, Delta Darts, missiles, helicopters and armored cars for the security police, pretty much the whole shooting match. Every Soviet map of the US I have ever seen features Minot. Sure, that's partly because you want to have a few cities everywhere on the map, but Minot is there when larger plains cities (Fargo, Billings) aren't. Even in the liveliest parts of the Cold War, we never worried about nuclear war. We knew we'd be vaporized.

The B-52s and missiles are still there. You must be able to see silos from the Empire Builder, but for some reason they are more noticeable when driving. I'll have to pay better attention next month when I go to Minot.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Ispolkom said:


> BUFFs, Delta Darts, missiles, helicopters and armored cars for the security police, pretty much the whole shooting match. Every Soviet map of the US I have ever seen features Minot. Sure, that's partly because you want to have a few cities everywhere on the map, but Minot is there when larger plains cities (Fargo, Billings) aren't. Even in the liveliest parts of the Cold War, we never worried about nuclear war. We knew we'd be vaporized.
> The B-52s and missiles are still there. You must be able to see silos from the Empire Builder, but for some reason they are more noticeable when driving. I'll have to pay better attention next month when I go to Minot.


The closest Cold War hardware to me; Marin Headlands Nike missile site;







Oh yeah, almost forgot, the building my job works out of used to be a spent fuel rod storage facility for nuclear subs, on Mare Island.


----------



## Ispolkom

PetalumaLoco said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUFFs, Delta Darts, missiles, helicopters and armored cars for the security police, pretty much the whole shooting match. Every Soviet map of the US I have ever seen features Minot. Sure, that's partly because you want to have a few cities everywhere on the map, but Minot is there when larger plains cities (Fargo, Billings) aren't. Even in the liveliest parts of the Cold War, we never worried about nuclear war. We knew we'd be vaporized.
> The B-52s and missiles are still there. You must be able to see silos from the Empire Builder, but for some reason they are more noticeable when driving. I'll have to pay better attention next month when I go to Minot.
> 
> 
> 
> The closest Cold War hardware to me; Marin Headlands Nike missile site;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, almost forgot, the building my job works out of used to be a spent fuel rod storage facility for nuclear subs, on Mare Island.
Click to expand...

That is such a neat site. I visited it ten years ago, and enjoyed it thoroughly. If you like coastal fortifications, the Bay Area is paradise, from 18th century Spanish batteries to that Nike site. Let's say that on that trip I found out Mrs. Ispolkom's limits for coastal fortifications. Apparently there are other reasons to go to San Francisco.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Ispolkom said:


> That is such a neat site. I visited it ten years ago, and enjoyed it thoroughly. If you like coastal fortifications, the Bay Area is paradise, from 18th century Spanish batteries to that Nike site. Let's say that on that trip I found out Mrs. Ispolkom's limits for coastal fortifications. Apparently there are other reasons to go to San Francisco.


Like Fort Point under the GG bridge. Where my wife and I shared our first kiss. These places are quite romantic you know.


----------



## Ispolkom

PetalumaLoco said:


> Like Fort Point under the GG bridge. Where my wife and I shared our first kiss. These places are quite romantic you know.


Romantic in small doses, I found. I've learned. On our rail trip east in November I've planned one morning in Savannah to visit Fort Pulaski. That's it. Plus, it's a photogenic 3rd system fort like Fort Point. Not a less-appealing WW2 installation like Battery Townsley, which I think has a sort of art deco allure to it. As I'm sure you know, marriage is all about capitulation negotiation.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Ispolkom said:


> Romantic in small doses, I found. I've learned. On our rail trip east in November I've planned one morning in Savannah to visit Fort Pulaski. That's it. Plus, it's a photogenic 3rd system fort like Fort Point. Not a less-appealing WW2 installation like Battery Townsley, which I think has a sort of art deco allure to it. As I'm sure you know, marriage is all about capitulation _*negotiation*_.


Of course, that's how you avoid breaking noses.


----------



## gswager

I've seen several missle silos- at least 3 northeast of Roswell, NM (UFO city) and one west of Abilene, TX. I've been inside of it in scuba diving gear. No, it's not for radioactive, it's underground water.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Long Train Runnin said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you guys reply, do you bother reading my posts? I mean... seriously. Out of the three direct responses only ONE understood what the hell I was talking about and I'll give you all a hint-- it was the youngest of ALL of us here.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> So I win the prize?
Click to expand...

If I had one to give...

Sorry Eric. Physical age only.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you guys reply, do you bother reading my posts? I mean... seriously. Out of the three direct responses only ONE understood what the hell I was talking about and I'll give you all a hint-- it was the youngest of ALL of us here.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> So I win the prize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I had one to give...
> 
> Sorry Eric. Physical age only.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: So Close! At least I won! :huh: :huh:


----------

