MrMango

Actually that was my case. My cataracts were mild and I was tired of the hassle of contacts. My regular Doc told me I really did not need it, but he told me how to lie (a little bit) so the insurance would pay for it... The surgeon was more than happy to do the work and he submitted the documentation to the insurance company and they approved. The actual procedure was different than the OP posted as they only did one eye at a time but there were 2-3 weeks of meds before and after the procedure.

Since I had been using mono vision with contacts, it was obvious to the Doc I would want the same with the replacement lens and there was no increase in price. I now live without any glasses for far or near.

But I cannot think of any other reason to have lens replacement surgery other than cataracts. Maybe a rare brain disorder or accident, but 99.9% of lens replacements are done for cataracts IMHO.

yes all correct and I was offered the option of the more expensive one, but he said that cataract replacement lens were more expensive than replacement lenses I believe, which does not make sense to me.

Are you saying the price difference is the lenses they use are different? That makes no sense to me.

That is unclear, but for others who might be interested in the procedure, I added my experience.

I am a bit confused, you said there is an extra charge for cataract surgery, which is simply removing and replacing the existing clouded lens - Why the extra charge? And you did not mention the type of lenses that they would be inserting, as there are several options - Astigmatism correcting, variable focus etc. which adds considerably to the price, and from what the Doc told me, the variable ones have a spotty success rate. For many years, I have been wearing "mono" contact lenses (One eye for reading, one eye for distance) and in addition, they were 30 day 24 hour wear and then throw away - No glasses for near or far, but my lens was getting clouded so I had cataract surgery a few years ago and it turned out great, I now have 20-20 for both close and far, no glasses, and my insurance covered almost all of the cost. From my experience, I would do a bit more research.

Of course we all know that .exe files are executable, and we all know not to open one unless we know with certainly it is a legitimate file, not a virus or Trojan. When I have a chance, I will look at taht when I can sandbox it.

As I am of course. I expected to be given a URL with some sort of description what the plan does, how it does it etc.

Thanks, I will try it now. I just did but it is a exe file and it requires me to allow it to modify my win, a no no for me. I will find a throw away machine and try it.

Do you have a Win version?

That only makes sense. Marketing 101 would say don't push something that portrays a bad image.

I assume Boeing and its sales force does what any sales force does - Sells airplanes and they don't benefit by pushing the number of seats to a customer who doesn't want that. They are not selling to some rube, but to very sophisticated Corporations who know exactly what type of bird they want.

Come on stop that BS! Who gives a rats ass what Boeing "encourages" Very knowable customers with huge engineering and marketing departments that are going to spend billions of US$ to buy Birds, do what they think is best, not what Boeing "recommends"

The seating is a function of the cabin width as well as the desires of the Airlines, not boeing or Airbus. And the pitch of he seats is the same, up to the customer.