Airline Tips for Large Passengers

On 25 Sep 2007 10:52:15 -0000, "Realistic BBW"
<realistic_bbw@nopublicemailaddy.net> wrote:


>EXIT ROW SEAT - The exit-row seats over the wings of most planes have
>considerably more leg room than the rest of the seats in economy class.
>While FM regulations state that exit-row seating may be denied to fat
>passengers, requesting an exit-row seat may be a viable option for fat
>people who are tall and those with reasonably good health and mobility.

I've seen it stated that you can't sit in an exit row if you need a
seat belt extender.

--
>
> (You can also buy business or first class.)
>
> But buying two seats would take of whatever advantage or releif is sought
> by the
> NAAFA advice to lift the armrest, stating "we'll both be more
> comfortable..",
> doesn't it?
>
> Banty
Which would really cost more? An extra seat in coach, or an upgrade to
business or first class? I'd upgrade just for the perks you pay for, no
matter how large or small I am.

"Alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:pjmNi.176785$ax1.156985@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> or"Craig Welch" <craig@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:bWiNi.5248$H22.958@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Robin King wrote:
>>
>>> Being fat is not an addictive behavior.
>>
>> Quite correct.
>>
>> Eating to excess, the cause of being fat, is an addictive behaviour.
>>
> Personally, I wouldn't accept that the cause of being fat is an addictive
> behavior. We live in a world where the word "addictive" has become a very
> trendy one and fatsos love to fall back on that misnomer as an excuse for
> failure. KM

Well, well, well - yet another flurry of posts from Keith. But not one
addressing my question put to him a while ago -

"Do you agree that a maker of a statement is accountable for that
statement? A simple 'yes' or 'no' from you will suffice."

Still, he clearly is not doing the Alvin Toda of crawling under that rock to
duck that question. Nor is he throwing out the usual Keith Martin of non
sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominems. And he has yet to once again
bring forth his six year old kid's response "Yes or no. KM." Instead, he
entertains us with snippets like this one on "addictive." Given his
ignoring my question of accountability to him, can anyone tell me whether
this "addictive" comment is on his part just plain blowing smoke - and an
attempt to simply stir the pot - or a statement behind which he stands?
Kind of tough to determine, Keith not answering my question on
accountability. I guess one interpretation on his behavior vis a vis
answering my question could be that Keith is "addictive" to not answering
simple, straightforward, "yes or no" questions such as mine directed to him.