Poster: A snowHead
|
Ricklovesthepowder, you, by your own admission said that you're fat. I picked out three atheletes, none of whom are fat, who are taller than you, two of which are lighter than you. Maths is not my strong point, no, but it obviously isn't yours. Byrne is three stones lighter and doesn't look like a lanky plank. And yes, people who need clothes that need more material should pay more than smaller people whose clothes require less material. You, as someone who's 80lbs heavier than me, require more aviation fuel to transport you the same distance, hence your are a higher-cost passenger.
queen bodecia, I note that the women who go to these sessions are all fat, hairy wenches that I don't want to see, so perhaps it's for my benefit, too. I much prefer to swim while the women's tri-club training is in progress. Isn't smoking a form of socially acecptablediscrimimation, too?
Slim people - we're just better.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
People are different and if you cant see that then you are just stubourn. I would say if i lost 2 stone i would look superb again, to suggest i need to lose 4-6 is an insult. How can you even compare me, as someone who you have never ever seen to your son in law pam w, Its like saying Vernon Kay is 6ft 4 and weight 14st 5lb, then comparing him to lawrence Dallaglio who weight 18stone and saying he is 3 and a half stone overweight, total crap as usual from some on here. You still have not told me how to send a pic and put it on here - which i will do just to prove my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
hyweljenkins wrote: |
Ricklovesthepowder, you, by your own admission said that you're fat. I picked out three atheletes, none of whom are fat, who are taller than you, two of which are lighter than you. Maths is not my strong point, no, but it obviously isn't yours. Byrne is three stones lighter and doesn't look like a lanky plank. And yes, people who need clothes that need more material should pay more than smaller people whose clothes require less material. You, as someone who's 80lbs heavier than me, require more aviation fuel to transport you the same distance, hence your are a higher-cost passenger.
queen bodecia, I note that the women who go to these sessions are all fat, hairy wenches that I don't want to see, so perhaps it's for my benefit, too. I much prefer to swim while the women's tri-club training is in progress. Isn't smoking a form of socially acecptablediscrimimation, too?
Slim people - we're just better. |
And always a smug upper class twit who is so far from reality its untrue, when you retreive your head from your own anus, brush your teeth and then come back on, until then, stop spouting trash from your useless mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ricklovesthepowder, easy way to upload a picture...
Go to www.tinypic.com, and upload your picture. This will then give you a url address, with [img] [/img] tags around it. Copy that and paste into a reply, job done.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
cheers, in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Ricklovesthepowder, oh dear, oh dear. Where did you get the idea I'm upper class? At best I'm middle. I thought fat people were meant to be jolly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here you go, hope this makes you happy. Since this photo i have probably put on MAX 6lbs. Im honest and dont have anything to hide whatsoever. Im not a slim super fit athlete and i want to lose a few stone, but to say that i need to lose 4-6 stone is a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ricklovesthepowder, who ever's in that photo isn't 18 stone.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
hyweljenkins, plus or minus?
I'm guessing minus.
Ricklovesthepowder, nowhere near fat, just a bit extra like most SH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shimmy Alcott, well under. That guy has fat, just like everyone, but isn't fat.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
like i said in that photo i weigh around 17st 4lb, now im 18 stone. i dont exactly look skiny there, but im not fat, and that is me actually, if anyone is interested where it is, its called Kynance Cove on The Lizard in cornwall, its amazing, shame the fat w****r is spoiling the view!!!
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Ricklovesthepowder, no, you dont have to pay extra
|
|
|
|
|
|
hyweljenkins, got a couple of mates with that build and at 6' they're about 16 stone, so 6'2" and 17 1/2 seems reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
thanks Shimmy Alcott, i can still afford to go away now!!! where abouts in cheshire are you from??? cheers midgetbiker, someone else who sees the wider picture (pardon the pun )
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Ricklovesthepowder, you look great to me. Far healthier than some skinny chap with lucky legs.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
so now ive proved my point about weight were going to move onto something else are we. Just the was he came across that was the impression that i got thats all. Just an opinion i may be wrong, i may be right. So do you think im really fat still pam w, ???
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Well padded, I'd say..... nice love handles.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great video on the website. looks stunning actually over there, may have to give it a go sometime!!!
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
hyweljenkins wrote: |
What happens if a plane is filled with 200 20st chubbies and their max'd out luggage? |
It cartwheels into the ground. An American internal flight did just that (late80'/early90's IIRC) because the weight allowance per passenger hadn't been readjusted since the 60's, and on this particular flight it became critical.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway the debates not supposed to be about if Ricklovesthepowder is fat, its about whether he should pay more than me (6' & 12 1/2 stone) for his airfare. I've had a couple of blokes who've worked for me standing at circa 6' and 18 stone+ with not an ounce of fat between them, the point still stands.
ps I reckon I could (and will) happily stand to lose a stone (I was less than that at EOSB '08 )
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
like you said midget, back to the original debate. it would never ever happen, i just dont see how they would enforce it.
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Quote: |
It cartwheels into the ground
|
happened to a charter flight on a light aircraft out of Nairobi airport, in the 'eighties, with large Americans and the vital trunks of goodness knows what they couldn't possible do without. They had taken off happily at Mombasa, but somebody forgot to allow for the fact that Nairobi is at much higher altitude. the pictures in the local press the next day were the sort that wouldn't be allowed in a UK newspaper; and I was flying out of Nairobi in an identical plane, the following day.....
I don't know why people should be outraged at the thought of paying more for larger sizes. Where material costs are a significant proportion of manufacturing costs, then most certainly you pay more for larger sizes. You take it for granted that you pay more for a bath towel than for a hand towel of similar quality. Or an electric blanket, a house, a car, a shower cubicle, a padlock, a gold chain......
Obviously volume makes a difference in that a small child takes up a seat, as does a large adult. But that is only one factor; commercial freight is charged in various combinations of volume/weight. Not clear why, logically, the same should not apply to passengers and their luggage.
In the meantime, on many airlines, a 4 year old child pays the same as a 20 stone man and therefore subsidises his travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I stated in opening thread it was a bit tongue in cheek, but as with all open forums it leads to some posts that go beyond debate or reasonable discussion.
The point does still stand as pamw has highlighted. It is not that unreasonable that an item of clothing is more expensive because it contains more material. And it is not that unreasonable to suggest that an airline can charge a bit more or less on total weight carried on the plane.
Taking clothes as an example, M&S were charging more for bras that were of a certain size. They recently ran a PR campaign when they stopped this.
However, you need to consider that in manufacturing (bras) or service provision (flights) there are considerable fixed costs. Some of the variable costs will be size or weight dependent and as such would only impact part of the price. So a bigger bra may cost £21 not £20 and the extra weight on a flight may create a ticket price of £105 not £100.
If I were fat would I pay the extra £5. Yes. If I were a woman with large breasts would I be outraged at spending an extra £1 or so on a bra? Probably not, but as I am a bloke with no manboob issues this is simply an opinion and not fact.
Remember this is a light-hearted look at Airlines punitive charges that may be deemed unfair by people of a smaller frame than those that appear on day time TV to ‘take da DNA test’. (<- sweeping generalisation of course)
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Ricklovesthepowder, South Cheshire but did live in Manc for about 10 years. Didsbury.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Ricklovesthepowder wrote: |
i just dont see how they would enforce it. |
Easy you are weighed in with your coat, laptop, handbag, hold bag et al. Just as you sometimes are (for fuel/safety calcs only) when flying on smaller aircraft for short hop flights.
As somebody said: If your total was say 120kg compared to anothers 100kg that doesn't mean you'ld pay 20% more (because of volume issues) but you might pay 5% more. One of my businesses deals in surface/air freight and that just how we work.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 21-01-10 9:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
pam w wrote: |
Obviously volume makes a difference in that a small child takes up a seat, as does a large adult. But that is only one factor; commercial freight is charged in various combinations of volume/weight. Not clear why, logically, the same should not apply to passengers and their luggage. |
First of all, the same restrictons already do apply to luggage; and rightly so as it puts a limit on people bringing more than 1 normal-sized suitcase. Although we can probably agree that some luggage limits are too low.
But the overall weight of the passengers makes up only a small fraction of the aeroplane; when you take into account the weight of the plane, equipment on board, total fuel load, food & drink etc, the actual weight of passengers is only a small fraction of this. A few stones here or there for the odd passenger make no material difference. What's next with this approach; would you ask the airline for some money back after a half-full flight, as the plane would have used less fuel than a full flight?
It's very right to ask the large passengers who don't fit into one seat to have to pay for two. But it would be a logistical headache to introduce weight scales for passengers, especially when it would have very little material difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Quote: |
What's next with this approach; would you ask the airline for some money back after a half-full flight, as the plane would have used less fuel than a full flight?
|
I wouldn't otherwise they'ld counter claim as what fuel was used has split amongst fewer paying passengers
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
midgetbiker wrote: |
Quote: |
What's next with this approach; would you ask the airline for some money back after a half-full flight, as the plane would have used less fuel than a full flight?
|
I wouldn't otherwise they'ld counter claim as what fuel was used has split amongst fewer paying passengers |
Maybe you could counter counter claim that they had too many cabin crew for the reduced passenger load.....
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Air france are going to charge people that need 2 seats, because of their size, 25% for the extra seat. BUT....... only if the plane is full. If the plane is not full then they get it back.
Personally, I think people should be charged the same, irrespective of size/weight. Baggage weight restrictions of 32Kg are for health and safety of the ground crew lifting the bags into the hold.
People are people, and should not be discriminated in any way except personality.
IE Doesn't matter if they are thin/fat/bald/one eyed then if they are a good guy that is good. If they are a plonker then they are a plonker.
Cheers
Bob, who looks like Geoprge Clooney (unfortunately George Clooney when he's 90)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
Hurtle, I've had cases 30kg in the past and never been charged just a "heavy" sticker stuck on it. I've never paid for extra. Jees, if i can lug two of them through an airport with handluggage and kids to sort then I'm sure the baggage handlers can manage it. |
Can you come with us next time please, my wife packs for Britain and only just manages to carry her handbag
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I was once told that in the 1920s the weight of the passenger and his luggage combined was subject to a limit.
No idea if it was true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
Personally, I think people should be charged the same, irrespective of size/weight. Baggage weight restrictions of 32Kg are for health and safety of the ground crew lifting the bags into the hold.
|
This limit of 32KG does not apply to most airlines that I have used recently for short haul. Yes long haul flights, but not first choice/crystal (aka TUI), snowjet, easyjet, ryanair or any of the other short haul airlines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike-H, What do you mean by "does not apply"?
Do you mean that they apply lower limits, or do you mean they allow individual pieces of luggage larger than that?
If you mean the latter, I would be very surprised indeed, because that is a limit set by H&S at the airports.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
im happy to pay per total kilo.. i'd pay for 350 kilos and get a huge business class seat .. those opting for the 65 kilo option can have a 65 kilo seat, or bench as we like to call it..
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, Lower. Not more than 23kg.
|
|
|
|
|
|