Thai Airways BAN fat people!

[Billy Shears]

On 3/22/2018 at 01:23, blueforever25 said:

I feel like we should charge overweight customers on planes more - they cost more money to the airline so why are healthy people subsidizing their ticket every time they get on the plane. And don't get me started when their flab starts to encroach on your space.

It is fine if you want to be fat, but don't pass the costs (public healthcare, airplanes, etc.) onto others.

Going by that thinking. Shouldn't there be a additional health care tax for people that have sex with prostitutes? If they catch HIV the cost to give them the correct medicine will be substantial.  

[regyai]

What about sick people

 

Temperature?

Coughing?

 

No fly

 

8hrs sat next to some fooker barking infection all over you, at the very least cuts away a number of days fun out of your vacation

[gimmesum]

It's about time.  This makes total sense.  If you ship something freight weight is always a factor.  It should be the same for passengers and too much weight will prevent additional passengers or luggage or shipments and increase fuel costs.  Additionally, why should someone be squeezed in their seat due to another's obesity?

[forcebwithu]

On 3/22/2018 at 00:14, Oukiva said:

"Cannot accommodate obese passengers", yes, same as many seats in Eco class, but where did you see that belt extenders can't be use on these new seats with airbag the same way they are used on Eco seats ?? The only change seems to be that one side of the lap belt is a bid thicker, because of the airbag, but the open/close system is still the same.

It's not that a seat belt extender won't work, they're not allowed due to safety regulations that require airbags for the type of seating in the first class cabin. The article linked to in the OP's post doesn't explain this reasoning, instead it reports only half the story which makes for a more attention grabbing and misleading headline.

Below is a post I made on another forum that explains the safety reg and reasoning behind the reg.

This old Wired article has a good explanation of why airlines are moving to airbags. The last paragraph explains why pod style seats are being fitted with airbags.

CONTRARY TO POPULAR belief, most airliner accidents are survivable. Many crashes are relatively slow impacts where the forces on passengers are similar to those experienced in a car accident. For that reason, airlines are cribbing from automotive technology that has protected drivers for years — airbags. It could help them meet new federal safety regulations.

Bill Hagan is blunt in describing the problem with many seating areas in an airliner: “You have objects that are not friendly head-strike surfaces.” The former General Motors engineer is president of AmSafe Aviation, which makes 95 percent of the seat belts used on commercial airplanes. His company leads the way in implementing the use of airbags for airline passengers.

When you talk to somebody like Hagan who is responsible for designing safe occupant spaces in aircraft, you often hear terms like “head-strike surface.” At first these terms create an image that isn’t so pleasant. But new regulations that take effect later this month are aimed at increasing the margin of safety in a crash. That means many more airliners will minimize unfriendly head-strike surfaces by installing airbags in in problematic areas such as front row bulkheads and some of the reclining and bedlike seats often used in first class cabins.

The requirements take effect Oct. 27 and require all new airliners rolling off assembly lines to meet new FAA rulesthat say seats must withstand 16 times the force of gravity without deforming or detaching from the tracks securing them to the floor. That’s significantly stouter than the 9-g requirement in place since 1952. More importantly, passengers must be protected to this 16-g requirement. Many airliners already are equipped with the 16-g seats, but until now, only entirely new designs created after 1988 — such as the Boeing 777 — have been required to meet this standard.

A large percentage of airplane crashes occur during takeoff and landing when speeds are relatively low and the aircraft usually meets the ground at a oblique angle. “Most are very survivable crash events,” Hagan says.

One of the problems is that in some seating areas the passengers are exposed to surfaces that do not absorb energy in an impact — the “not-so-friendly head-strike surfaces” Hagan referred to. In the event of a crash, most passengers are protected by the seat back in front of them which is designed to absorb much of the energy. But there is nothing to absorb that energy at the bulkhead or behind the immovable exit-row seats. Airlines could remove seats to meet the new requirement, but that would mean lost revenue. Many are opting instead for the seat belt-mounted airbag to meet the 16-g standard.

In the beginning, Hagan explains, the challenge facing engineers was how to mount airbags on the aircraft itself. You can’t mount them as you do in a car, where they’re installed in the dashboard, because “Every interior is different, it’s not practical.” The simple solution was to put the airbag in the seat belt. This not only simplifies the problem of where to place the airbag, Hagan said, but is a safer option. “The airbag inflates away from the occupant where it can’t induce an injury.”

In addition to protecting bulkhead and exit-row passengers, the seat belt airbags have allowed airlines to develop several creative seating arrangements. One example is the pod-type seats used by Singapore Airlines in the Boeing 777. During development, the airline was having trouble meeting the 16-g requirement for the first class seats. “They had a lot of head-strike problems” says Hagan. But by using the seat belt airbag, the airline met the safety requirements. The airbags are now the norm on many airlines using similar premium seating arrangements.

[Explorer8939]

Airplanes have airbags?

[blueforever25]

9 hours ago, WhiteThai said:

Going by that thinking. Shouldn't there be a additional health care tax for people that have sex with prostitutes? If they catch HIV the cost to give them the correct medicine will be substantial.  

Probably, I'm all for personal responsibility and that includes people taking responsibility for the harmful ways they could be interacting with others. But you might already see this in the market now - perhaps prostitutes are factoring in the possibility of catching HIV/AIDS in the cost that they demand of you at the bar. While this might be a market where taxes are the only way to figure it out I think it is best to try not to tax whenever possible and instead let the parties figure out how to price the negative externalities that might exist in any interaction between them.

Times when this definitely doesn't work is when the two parties do not interact at all, like it is the case with smog, lots of water pollution, and when CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. Those I think are all good examples of when it does make sense to get some sort of tax involved, whether it discourages the behavior or is able to make those who are hurt better off through cash transfers.

[bullseye]

About time those lard arses had to cough up for being over weight. A guy of 20 stone should pay double what a 10 stone fella pays. You pay more for excess baggage weight....you pay more at the post office for a large parcel.

[OoJohnnyoO]

Airplanes have airbags?

Watched a plane pass over my work the other night, it had its headlights on. I thought, wtf does a plane have headlights for? Just incase a kangaroo pops out...?? 555

[CyberPro]

Landing lights are to used illuminate the Runway as well as advertise the plane's presence on the ground and in the air. If you've ever had a view of planes lined up in a glide path stretching for miles as they descend to land, they all have their landing lights on. 

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?224718-When-to...landing-lights

Jan 4, 2011 - 10 posts - ‎9 authors

Some folks in the real world use the landing lights frequently to maximize the ability of other aircraft to see their aircraft - figuring any mid-air collision is bound to be more expensive than replacing light bulbs. 

https://www.quora.com/Do-pilots-use-landing-lights-during-take-off-too

Weirdly they are called landing lights, but they are used from takeoff all the way to about 10,000 feet and then they are turned off. When the airplane starts ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_lights

One convention is for commercial aircraft to turn on their landing lights when changing flight levels. Landing lights aresometimes used in ...

 

[Billy Shears]

15 hours ago, bullseye said:

About time those lard arses had to cough up for being over weight. A guy of 20 stone should pay double what a 10 stone fella pays. You pay more for excess baggage weight....you pay more at the post office for a large parcel.

So, should there be a scale at the airport? I'm guessing that you think children and skinny girls should pay less than men? Why do you care anyways? Do you have some airline stock, or are you just being British?

[C1988]

should also ban bodybuilders then

[Biennial]

On 3/20/2018 at 06:28, william77 said:

http://www.traveller.com.au/thai-airways-ban-fat-passengers-and-young-parents-from-business-class-seats-on-their-new-boeing-dreamliner-7879-h0xpsg

..if pompoi too mutt can not go business class, seat too lek, no good. Farang need go fitness. 

You heard it here first. 

Good for them. We all need to lose weight.

[Biennial]

On 3/25/2018 at 23:15, WhiteThai said:

So, should there be a scale at the airport? I'm guessing that you think children and skinny girls should pay less than men? Why do you care anyways? Do you have some airline stock, or are you just being British?

There are many scales at the airport, used to weigh luggage. Just have each passenger step on there.

If you're overweight you pay extra, maybe also for an extra seat, if available, or else you stand by or book another flight.

Weigh yourself before booking to see if you need two seats.

[Biennial]

And charge full fare for babies. They can often be a pain on a long flight. Discourage parents from bringing them.

[boxershrimp]

18 minutes ago, Biennial said:

Good for them. We all need to lose weight.

 

13 minutes ago, Biennial said:

There are many scales at the airport, used to weigh luggage. Just have each passenger step on there.

If you're overweight you pay extra, maybe also for an extra seat, if available, or else you stand by or book another flight.

Weigh yourself before booking to see if you need two seats.

 

10 minutes ago, Biennial said:

And charge full fare for babies. They can often be a pain on a long flight. Discourage parents from bringing them.

What we need is a troll tax that hits people for every occurence of being a skinny arsehole.

[Biennial]

44 minutes ago, boxershrimp said:

 

 

What we need is a troll tax that hits people for every occurence of being a skinny arsehole.

I wish I was a skinny arsehole. (Well skinny, anyway - guess I'm already an arsehole)

[boxershrimp]

On 31/03/2018 at 23:19, Biennial said:

I wish I was a skinny arsehole. (Well skinny, anyway - guess I'm already an arsehole)

Apologies for mistakenly stereotyping you. I would never call a fellow fat arse skinny

But anyways, I wouldn't be completely opposed to a system based on total weight. But every time someone brings it up now, it's all "fat people have to pay more". No mention of luggage, no siree. Nor any mention of the fact that one can be very heavy without being fat in any way.
Ever notice how it's always the small people who travel with 20kg of carry-on + the regulation max 20-23kg checked in?
I'm not really all that horribly fat, but I am a bit heavier than the world average, for sure.  Using only tiny carry-on luggage most of the time, though, would more than make up for that difference in my own personal weight.

On 31/03/2018 at 22:20, Biennial said:

And charge full fare for babies. They can often be a pain on a long flight. Discourage parents from bringing them.

Since no good can come of agreeing to much on the Intarwebs; fuck you man, I'll bring my kid all I want!

I'm joking, obviously. Plus ours is actually very very well behaved on planes. I was fully expecting it to finally be my turn to torment everyone instead of being on the recieving end. But alas, all he does is eat and sleep. And when other kids cry, he finds it funny. Kids, they never do what you expect them to

[bullseye]

On 3/26/2018 at 08:15, WhiteThai said:

So, should there be a scale at the airport? I'm guessing that you think children and skinny girls should pay less than men? Why do you care anyways? Do you have some airline stock, or are you just being British?

yep....get weighed in.....over a certain percentage for your  bmi for your height....you pay more...simple.

[bullseye]

On 3/31/2018 at 22:20, Biennial said:

And charge full fare for babies. They can often be a pain on a long flight. Discourage parents from bringing them.

should have adult only flights....nothing worse than screaming kids on long haul.

[Billy Shears]

1 hour ago, bullseye said:

yep....get weighed in.....over a certain percentage for your  bmi for your height....you pay more...simple.

Why?

[Wolf Cat]

One tine I flew over the Pacific Ocean sitting next to a lard ass that needed a seat belt extender, it was either let his sweaty blubber rest on me or I lean away in my seat for 10 hours.  When I asked the stewardess for a new seat, I was told the plane was full, so I sat leaning in the isle like a scoliosis patient getting bumped every time someone walked by.

 F those fat slobs!

[T-T-T]

wish it was total weight inc bags and pay per Kilo.. so if you want to travel  light you dont pay as much.    large people really should have to by 2 seats when I use to travel economy some of the large people I had to sit next to they use to take up some of my seat I should have been able to charge them rent... 

[Biennial]

2 hours ago, WhiteThai said:

Why?

Weigh more - pay more, just like luggage. You cost the airline more fuel and make fellow passengers less comfortable. And an added benefit is incentive to lose weight.

[boxershrimp]

39 minutes ago, Biennial said:

Weigh more - pay more, just like luggage. You cost the airline more fuel and make fellow passengers less comfortable. And an added benefit is incentive to lose weight.

Fly business, and don't care.

An added benefit is that you will probably try harder after that to not fly cattle class.

 

[Billy Shears]

1 hour ago, Biennial said:

Weigh more - pay more, just like luggage. You cost the airline more fuel and make fellow passengers less comfortable. And an added benefit is incentive to lose weight.

Then they should charge kids triple, because they make fellow passengers very uncomfortable with the crying, screaming and crawling around they do. And of course give a discount to single, thin women.

Also, if they allow you to take 2 bags but you just take 1 there should be some form of rebate. And considering there's only 1 group of people that hijack planes, they should have to pay a surcharge that is then split among the passengers according to class. And anyone asking for a special meal should have to pay extra. 

The possibilities are endless. 555