This one is going to get ugly before it gets better. Air Canada had a case that was settled at a very high level a few ye= ars back, though I can't remember the outcome. Both the airlines and discriminatory rights activists both have valid cases. Airlines don't charge for a seat, they simply charge to get you there. Score one for the "two seaters." But single seat fliers are also entitled to certain passenger rights (like oxygen, more than 22" of seat pitch etc.) I th= ink not being sat upon is a right. Score one for the "one seaters." Two seaters cry 'prejudice', but are faced, much like people on the opposite end of the scale with more expensive clothes= and other costs of living. Restaurants aren't required to serve two-seaters larger portions of food are they? Much like a double helping of mashed p= otato, there is a incremental cost for that second helping and that second seat. Southwest appears to have come up with a very balanced approach. Matthew Original Message: ----------------- From: Dennis W Zeuch DZTOPS@aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:30:03 EDT To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: double seat chgs With a couple of carriers planning to 'double fare' large passengers I wonder about large business travelers. Most companys would balk at paying double to send an employee on a business/sales/engineering/training air trip and would probably send someone else. This would effectively curtail the larger persons future as they could be pushed aside for no other reason than the increased costs of flying them. Sounds like some legal grounds (or at least moral grounds) for the airlines to rethink the policy. I think theyre just looking for a scapegoat so they can duck their responsibility for providing reasonabley comfortable accomadations for passengers. Dennis -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .