One of the biggest ironies in my personal life was being afraid to fly, and then seeking employment with an airline to alleviate my fears. Not only did I conquer my fear in many baby steps, but I was also given the opportunity to meet and be exposed to people from all walks of life. Hence, this is where I get off into a very touchy subject that was spawned from my post on Dallas' recent smoking ban.
I remember my first encounter with a passenger that was pissed off because she couldn't smoke on the aircraft. She recalled the days where she could get up into that metal tube and light it up, and now, the evil ones that be are coming up with more and more regulations. Of course, I was a little tyke back when it was legal, and the look on her face was that of a blissfully reminiscing lady.
At this point in the conversation, there were two choices -- not just for her, but for those around her that will be indirectly affected by whatever choice she makes at this juncture. It's not just about what's fair or unfair to her, and it's not about judging her as being right or wrong... and it wasn't an attempt at personal insensitivity -- it was about conformity. The dreaded "C" word that someone, somewhere will inevitably have to endure.
So back to the choices: 1) The lady could choose not to conform and get a refund -- take a car, bus, boat, or alien spacecraft instead. 2) The lady could choose to conform and board the plane, yet refrain from smoking until she landed.
And because her choices affect those around her, those people are now confronted with choices as well. For those people, their choices are: 1) Conform to an atmosphere that they feel is personally unfavorable to their bodies and endure the flight. 2) Refuse to conform, deplane, and request a refund or another flight.
I believe that conformity blends in with choice -- and choice almost always affects more than just one person. Like it or not, someone's "freedoms" are encroached in the situation above. I chose to listen to her complain about something that was beyond my control -- yet, something for which I could see two sides to the issue. Saying "Yes, Ma'am" over and over again wasn't my way of brushing her off and being insensitive, rather, it was my duty to inform her of her choices and address the next person.
That lady paled in comparison to an issue regarding the "Customer of Size". You have an overweight passenger that feels singled out when he is told that he must pay for an extra seat IF he chooses to fly on this airline. It was a very delicate tight-rope to walk, and I empathized with the gentleman. However, there was the "other side" of the equation that suffered in silence. Again, both sides have a choice. Both sides' pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness have been encroached -- because they are on different sides of the fence. As a result, someone has to conform if they want to receive their product.
Yes, I ultimately disagreed with the gentleman, because the fact is -- he did absorb two seats. It was one less seat that could have been purchased by another passenger -- not to mention the gentleman would have been encroaching the space of the passenger next to him. Insensitive? Depends on how you look at it. Judgmental? Depends on how you look at it. Unfair? Well, what exactly is the definition of unfair, and did that apply only to the Customer in front of me?
If a non-smoker and a smoker walked up to you, both wanting to go to a bar -- the non-smoker doesn't want to smoke, and the smoker wants to smoke -- how would you personally address the issue without singling one of them out? Do you believe things like a flat tax on all income and goods would be fair, equitable and realistic -- and can we truly achieve fairness and equality across the board in this world?
I remember my first encounter with a passenger that was pissed off because she couldn't smoke on the aircraft. She recalled the days where she could get up into that metal tube and light it up, and now, the evil ones that be are coming up with more and more regulations. Of course, I was a little tyke back when it was legal, and the look on her face was that of a blissfully reminiscing lady.
At this point in the conversation, there were two choices -- not just for her, but for those around her that will be indirectly affected by whatever choice she makes at this juncture. It's not just about what's fair or unfair to her, and it's not about judging her as being right or wrong... and it wasn't an attempt at personal insensitivity -- it was about conformity. The dreaded "C" word that someone, somewhere will inevitably have to endure.
So back to the choices: 1) The lady could choose not to conform and get a refund -- take a car, bus, boat, or alien spacecraft instead. 2) The lady could choose to conform and board the plane, yet refrain from smoking until she landed.
And because her choices affect those around her, those people are now confronted with choices as well. For those people, their choices are: 1) Conform to an atmosphere that they feel is personally unfavorable to their bodies and endure the flight. 2) Refuse to conform, deplane, and request a refund or another flight.
I believe that conformity blends in with choice -- and choice almost always affects more than just one person. Like it or not, someone's "freedoms" are encroached in the situation above. I chose to listen to her complain about something that was beyond my control -- yet, something for which I could see two sides to the issue. Saying "Yes, Ma'am" over and over again wasn't my way of brushing her off and being insensitive, rather, it was my duty to inform her of her choices and address the next person.
That lady paled in comparison to an issue regarding the "Customer of Size". You have an overweight passenger that feels singled out when he is told that he must pay for an extra seat IF he chooses to fly on this airline. It was a very delicate tight-rope to walk, and I empathized with the gentleman. However, there was the "other side" of the equation that suffered in silence. Again, both sides have a choice. Both sides' pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness have been encroached -- because they are on different sides of the fence. As a result, someone has to conform if they want to receive their product.
Yes, I ultimately disagreed with the gentleman, because the fact is -- he did absorb two seats. It was one less seat that could have been purchased by another passenger -- not to mention the gentleman would have been encroaching the space of the passenger next to him. Insensitive? Depends on how you look at it. Judgmental? Depends on how you look at it. Unfair? Well, what exactly is the definition of unfair, and did that apply only to the Customer in front of me?
If a non-smoker and a smoker walked up to you, both wanting to go to a bar -- the non-smoker doesn't want to smoke, and the smoker wants to smoke -- how would you personally address the issue without singling one of them out? Do you believe things like a flat tax on all income and goods would be fair, equitable and realistic -- and can we truly achieve fairness and equality across the board in this world?
go to the Hidden Door and The Eagle. Smokers can go outside, non-smokers can stay in. Then they both would be happy. Wished more bars were like that.
ReplyDeleteRay
I'm not real sure where you're going with this post, Kevin; you start out seeming to continue the thought from the previous post (cigarettes too expensive? too bad for you, sucka) but here you get into airline seats and nightclub choices before ending up with "can we have total fairness and equality in this world?"
ReplyDeleteNo doubt you had a train of thought in mind that connected all these seemingly unrelated ideas but it got lost in translation, Kevin! lol
What I do know is that the righteous nonsmoking majority has, in just the last few years, gotten very very unfair and dictatorial. Instead of saying, okay, smoking section there, non smoking here, as has been done for 30 years now - your side seems determined now to make it absolutely *impossible* to smoke anywhere - outdoors or in - and even in my own home, with the price of cigarettes skyrocketing unmercifully.
Now there's a question of fairness and equality for you; not to mention personal liberty. But who are you, or anyone else, to *force* me to quit something I dearly enjoy, and have enjoyed every single day for the last 35 years? Just where does that idea come from, anyway?
We all like to talk about freedom; but does that word have a real meaning, or is it just a pretty sound? I have to stop now because I'm too angry to write graciously on this subject for very long. Peace.