I have been wrestling with travel plans for a trip to a city about 16 hours away by car (I don't have one). Looking at buses, trains, and planes, I have the following options, ranked in order of least desirable (5) to most (1), where X = a certain amount of travel money:
5. two-day bus ride with night sleeping in Penn Station (one seat) (1/2 X)Which leaves the winner:
4. two-day train ride with night sleeping in Penn Station (one seat) (1/2 X)
3. flights to "nearby" cities with (coming) five-hr drive and (going) one-day drive/overnight stay added (two seats) (X)
2. flight to location (one seat) (X)
1. flight to location (two seats) (2 X)
--two seats on Southwest, with an additional 30 hours of travel added, available only (note) due to the generosity of a friend.5.4.
3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >2.1.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f7716/f7716bebe6ca4d344a9d37e3a8e91740453e3712" alt=""
So Southwest it is. I would prefer at this point (kevinsmith) to not fly them just to make a point, but I am forced to accept the situation. As ever. I am gambling on getting my money back from my second seat, money which is out of my pocket and in Southwest's for the month regardless. This will happen if there are any empty seats/seats occupied by airlines staff, but I cannot count on it.
I feel squozed. I am squozed.
If I were feeling riskier I might actually try option 2--which would make sense, yes--flying to where you are going? omgnoway--and hope that there was room for me, but I am not willing to risk the safety and comfort of myself and other passengers, nor the potential hassle and humiliation for myself.
So I pay for my size with thirty travel hours. 30 hours or two times as many travel dollars.
As a large person, I accept the travel compromise--barely. Fitfully. I understand that I am lucky to even grapple with the problem. But I feel that it's important to illuminate what the dilemma looks like in situ. It sucks.