If the tubs of lard can not fit into a normal size seat, then they MUST pay
for the second seat they occupy, same as for stretchers.
If they do not pay, then they do not fly.
This will then help airlines survive financially.
Not only will they get paid for the seat, but also for the extra blubber,
whether male or female.
Now, what to do about the stench emanating from all these excess
avoirdupoisnsive?
On 15 Sep 2007 15:02:09 -0000, doug@nomailplease.com (Doug) wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, "Real BBW" wrote:
>>Oscar wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2007/09/14/bod.squad.obese.tra
>>> vel.cnn
>>>
>>> Alternate link: http://tinyurl.com/336p2n
>>
>>
>>This is just another excuse for the fat bashing airlines to charge fat
>>people more money. SWA has been hurting since NAAFA started boycotting
>>them after their fat bashing two seat policy.
>
>Actually since SWA made the announcement of enforcing their two seat
>policy back in 2002, they have been continuously profitable. This in a
>time when most airlines are losing money. You need not take my word for
>it, go to
>http://www.southwest.com/investor_relations/fs_quarterly_earnings.html and
>see for yourself. In light of this, maybe other airlines should follow
>SWA's two seat policy.
>
>This was NAAFA's reaction to the policy back in 2002:
>http://www.naafa.org/news/SWA_letter.html . NAAFA obviously does not have
>any clout.
>
>For a little comedic relief, read the"NAAFA Think Tank: Airlines and Fat
>Passengers" at http://www.naafa.org/Convention2002/airlines.html .
>
|