Supersize Me!!!!!

[Final 3 Greens]

After all the whingeing by a bunch of mean people on this forum, it now appears that Canada has recognised the rights of larger people to have suitable accomodation on aircraft.

One person, one fare, means that obese passengers will be able to have 2 seats to sit in.

Before the usual mean spirited whingeing about the unfairness of slim people getting only one seat, it would be wise to reflect on the good outcome for the person in the next seat, who will also be more comfortable.

Obese entitled to two airline seats for the price of one, Canadian court rules - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/3492599/Obese-entitled-to-two-airline-seats-for-the-price-of-one-Canadian-court-rules.html)

[FairlieFlyer]

And tall people will no doubt be given extra legroom rows if they cant safely fit in standard seating - about time!

[PaperTiger]

For the sake of accuracy, Canada's "Highest Court" did not rule anything. They simply declined to hear an appeal against a previous lower court decision. Same outcome, though it should be born in mind that this is less to do with obesity per se than with the (perceived) avoidance of racial discrimination.

I shall say no more :oh: .

[Capot]

One person, one fare, means that obese passengers will be able to have 2 seats to sit in.

Fine, OK, now let's see how that works.

Does the obese person make that fact known when booking? Easy enough on the phone, of course, "Oh yes, by the way, I'm very fat, please book two seats instead of one."

On-line booking? No problem, airlines will just have to add a button for "Click here if your body mass is =>30" (or whatever the right figure is). Would the airline have the legal right to suddenly find that all the cheap seats have gone? Or just say "Get lost"? I rather think it would, but no doubt this would be decided in court.

Travel agencies could instal a weighbridge, and make sure the airline is aware that it has to hold two seats available.

What cannot happen, of course, is that the very large person just turns up demanding two seats. Who would get off-loaded from a full flight? The fattie, or some innocent passenger sacrificed to the cause of PC?

[Final 3 Greens]

I think it will be called a 'phyrric' victory!

I think that you will find that what you suggest will fall foul of the discrimination rules under the human rights convention.

The cost will be spread over all the passengers, in the same way that wheelchair costs are.

And that is fair enough, as it will make the travelling experience better for everyone and will be a miniscule increase in the bigger scheme of things.

I pay for a business class seat normally and the extra width means that if an obese person sits next to me, I don't suffer (nor do they.)

I certainly don't mind paying a little extra to increase the comfort of people sitting in the back, as it de-streeses the experience for everyone.

The tough problem, IMHO, is seat pitch, where an increase results in a significant cost increase due to the far greater proportion of tall people, compared to truly obese people.

PS: The people who will need two seats will have a BMI rather greated than 30.

[henry crun]

Final 3 Greens: If the human rights convention entitles the fatties to 2 seats, I can see no reason why the same right should not apply to tall people to give them extra leg length.

If the extra cost of carrying the fatties excess weight is to be born by the other pax, then they can also bear the extra cost of providing tall pax with more leg room.

[Final 3 Greens]

Henry

Please be a good chap and read the whole thread, then you might understand the reason for my comment.

[B Sousa]

This is also hammered on another forum on this site.
Either way does that mean I have to say I am fat, or do I have to prove it. Why can I not call and DEMAND two seats as it would discriminate against me if the second seat were denied. I dont need one, but I certainly dont want to share what I have with a "Calorically Challenged Person" As I mentioned before I do hope that the judge in this matter gets bumped in favor of one of large stature. This may initially cost the airlines, but you know who is going to eat it in the end.

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

I am amazed that you do not realise why this ruling will be good.

There will be a miniscule amount of pax who get two seats, but when they do, the pax next to them will benefit equally as much as they do.

The cost spread over the whole travelling public will be miminal.

Let me ask you if you think that people in wheelchairs should pay for those - think very carefully before you answer.

[PaperTiger]

IF they are that large, they can buy a business seat...Focussing on Canada (where this policy applies), many of the routes on which these large people travel are served by equipment or airlines which provide only single-class cabins. It could be argued that the policy should therefore only apply in those cases, but I can imagine the 'racial discrimination' hue-and-cry that would cause.

I suspect there are or will be very few instances where this happen, and that any resultant increase in fares should be too small to be noticed. Hell, there are already enough hidden fees and taxes (esp. in Canada) that you probably won't even be able to identify it.

[Final 3 Greens]

I suspect there are or will be very few instances where this happen, and that any resultant increase in fares should be too small to be noticed. Hell, there are already enough hidden fees and taxes (esp. in Canada) that you probably won't even be able to identify it.[/B]

You call it right, IMHO.

That's what Rainboe doesn't get.

This is a utiliarian solution.

[B Sousa]

The cost spread over the whole travelling public will be miminal.


Sounds like a good Socialist to me. Certainly wish I could say, Oh the fat guys extra seat, F3G wants to pay for it...I dont.
Either way you know the airline is not going to eat it......

[henry crun]

Final 3 Greens: I have read the whole thread, so be a good chap and at least try to understand that just because you don't mind subsidising the fatties, there are some of us who do not want to.

[Final 3 Greens]

F3G wants to pay for it...I dont.

I already subsidise the people in Y, by buying C/J class fares, so that people like you are able to get a good deal through airline yield management.

The thing is that I am not a mean spirited individual and don't begrudge the morbidly obese a bit more space, equally important for the person who has to sit next to them in 31" x 17" seats.

As Papertiger points out, it will cost a few cents.

Look at the stick Ryanair got a couple of years back about it

And will you kindly explain who pays the additional costs for the wheel chair users on Ryanair?

You just blew your foot off with that line of argument :D

What you are struggling with here is the difference between generalisation and particularisation; Western society (via elected representatives and the judiciary) typically likes to take a socially benevolent view (not to be confused with socialism, per B Sousa) and therefore the principle of non discrimination is rife. That's why wheelchairs are free, as equal access for the disabled is enshrined in law in many countries.

Also Rainboe, that is why BAA (for all their sins) spent a fortune on their premises to provide equal access for the disabled.

Your comment about "why should the airlines pay" shows how illogical your thought processes are since (a) the airlines are in business and will ultimately recover cost from their users and (b) it is a well established principle that the airlines pay for (and recover) airport services, e.g. security charges.

IIRC your former airline was the first company to recover these charges from the passengers, so give it a rest, airlines are not charities, even though some do seem to be 'not for profits', if you look at their accounts.

Now one could argue that many "wheelchair" cases are just lazy and fancy a free ride through the airport and it would not surprise me if some here did that. They are also probably preparing for their meetings with the three spirits as Christmas approaches.

In the bigger scheme of things the cost is hardly crippling, 72c per passenger on a Ryanair flight. I am not mean enough to begrudge this cost to provide someone else with a wheel chair, are you?

Now one gets to the thorny issue of particularising a generalisation.

That's why oxygen is chargeable and so are stretcher cases. The latter is usually funded by insurance, so in effect society pays that way and the former is an instance of a special case - the user pays for their own. Very tall people are not yet considered affected, in the way that morbidly obese people are.

Is this fair? We can all have an opinion on that, but this is the reality.

I say again, the morbidly obese who will benefit from this Canadian law will be very few in number, but unlike the wheelchair costs (overt like Ryanair or blended in the price with others), this levy (should it ever actually happen) will benefit other people apart from the obese, so I am prepared to back it, even though I will gain nothing personally,

As they say, the last resort of a scoundrel on PPrune is looking for grammar errors, so back to Logic 101 for you Rainboe.

Henry Crun

When a court decides to intervene on seat pitch for tall people, then your point will be valid, until then it does not represent discimination and is therefore not a valid comparison.

[henry crun]

F3G: At last the penny has dropped and I think I can see the main point of your argument.
A court has decided that fatties will be sudsidised by all the other non fat pax, so I must immediately change my opinion on this situation and agree with them..

Have I got that right now ? :rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

so I must immediately change my opinion on this situation and agree with them.

Not at all, but you can conclude that a court has ruled that obese persons who cannot fit in standard seat must be given a second seat at no extra cost.

When a court makes a similar ruling in the case of height and insists on some compensating action, you will then be able to make your argument comparing the two and it will be unassailably logical and valid.

But because the ruling would have a major cost impact (unlike this one), I very much doubt that it will be anytime soon.

That's all I was saying when bringing up taller people.

Just my opinion and you probably have a different one.

[henry crun]

F3G: From the number of obese people I see on my TV screen, waddling around on every type of program, and the well researched and reported obesity epidemic in most countries in the western world, I have no faith in your assertion that giving fatties a free double seat will have minimal impact.

Only time will tell which one of us is right.

[boardingpass]

Not wanting to disparage the morbidly obese, but the majority of medical diversions are for morbidly obese pax suffering heart or breathing problems. Will this mean more obese flying = more diversions? Will your generous subsidies, F3G, extend to a couple hours delay, extra fuel costs and environmental costs of an extra take off and expedited heavy landing? (pardon the pun).

[Final 3 Greens]

Will your generous subsidies, F3G, extend to a couple hours delay, extra fuel costs and environmental costs of an extra take off and expedited heavy landing? (pardon the pun).

They already do.

Next question?

[hardhatter]

I agree comp[letely with Rainboe,

what about the people who are 'skinny' and have to pay for the obese people's extra seat? Somebody will have to pay for that unoccupied seat, and the airlines will only do that when hell freezes over!

And I do not want to pay for someone's choice to become obese!

[Final 3 Greens]

Are you obese yourself?

I fit easily into a standard 17.2" airline seat, at an age where "middle aged spread" is often prevalent.

Neither am I old, mentally impaired, deaf, blind, paraplegic/quadraplegic or partially sighted, a child etc, all other causes of delays or extra cost for 'other' airlines passgeners.

Obesity MAY be caused by lifestyle choices, but may not be, of course people like you are ignorant of the facts and make yourself look stupid with dogma.

Mental problems may be caused by drug abuse or sports injuries, disability likewise - why not ban paraplegics injured playing contact sports, after all it was their choice and as for people in wheelchairs due to car crashes or smokers who have problems and cause diversions...............

I am not telling you what to pay for Rainboe, you have the choice to stop flying, it it concerns you so much.

If this legislation ever does propagate outside Canada, all that airlines have to do is limit the number of obese pax on each flight, in the same way that Ryanair restricts the number of pax requiring special assistance.

It really is no big deal, but this question brings out the very worst in human nature.

[Final 3 Greens]

Hardhatter

what about the people who are 'skinny' and have to pay for the obese people's extra seat?

Do you ever fly Ryanair?

Do you realise you pay 72c in the form of a wheelchair levy, even though you do not use one?

[B Sousa]

Do you realise you pay 72c in the form of a wheelchair levy, even though you do not use one?
And I pay extra on my phone for 911. And I pay extra on my electricity for those who cannot afford it, and I pay taxes for schools for those who have kids and I pay and I pay and pay.

Just a little more Socialism.
If I give to Charity, its because I want too. The government gives it away to get votes.
F3G if your feeling sorry for me I will forward an address and you can donate to my retirement fund.

[Final 3 Greens]

And I pay extra on my phone for 911. And I pay extra on my electricity for those who cannot afford it, and I pay taxes for schools for those who have kids and I pay and I pay and pay.

Me too.

It's called the price of living in a civilised society.

[Final 3 Greens]

It is not Ryanair imposing the charge- the airports feel they can impose these charges covertly, and the customer (the passengers) will be obliged to pay.

What is the difference between the airports charging for a service and the airline? The passengers still pay ultimately, one way or the other.

I don't believe the airport in question was ever covert in charging for wheelchairs.

Ryanair chose to take an original course of action, in refusing to pay the fee, that a court ruled as being discriminatory, so they then levied a fee on everyone.

The underpinning logic is precisely the same that the court in Canada appears to have taken, I am sure that the court realises that the airlines will levy (openly or covertly) a recovery fee.

In the opinion of the court (which is empowered to impose such rulings), it is right that people who can't fit into one seat will get two for the same fare.

The passengers still pay and on Ryanair, it's simply made transparent and you know what? When I pay my 72c, I thank God that others are not paying their 72c on my account and that I still have my health.

[Final 3 Greens]

But civilised society does not mean we pay for those who voluntarily follow an unsocial lifestyle choice. You don't seem able to grasp that.

But I do, it's the schoolboy level of your logic and ignorance of the causes of obesity that is the problem.

Some people do choose to over eat or eat the wrong things and become obese.

But there are also others who are obese through no fault of their own; Next time you see your AME, why don't you ask him/her to enlighten you a little?

Let me gently draw you back to the point that you don't grasp - this ruling will benefit the person in the next seat as much as the obese person - I am lucky, I usually fly business class with plenty of room, but I pity the normal or slim person sitting next to a huge person spilling over into their seat - it's for their benefit, too.

I have never been a smoker, but find your comment about lung cancer heartless and despicable.

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

I'll stop here too, but would recommend you to research the subject a little more before making statements like you never seen it in Africa, as it is a status symbol in some cultures there (look at me, I can afford to eat a lot) and is absolutely a lifestyle choice.

FYI, look at China over the past 10 years, with the higher calorie diets now affordable for many.

Finally, you might research and recognise the genetic and pyschiatric causes of obesity, which certainly are not lifestyle choices.

Whether the decision travels at all, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Final 3 Greens]

Lifestyle for some, not all by any means.

You could do with the course, as you still haven't got that the people sitting next to the obese pax benefit equally.

[PaperTiger]

Morbid obesity is a lifestyle choice. I don't see obese people like that in Asia or Africa. It's a voluntary western disease. This ruling is a voluntary Canadian disease. Lovely place though it is, it does have some rather frightening liberal views. It is not a judiciary decision that will travel well.I take it you have not been to Fiji or Tonga then ? I have certainly seen very large people in Africa; but then they do tend not to live in mud huts.

It would be unfortunate if a ruling for a uniquely (sort of) Canadian issue were to be taken as a precedent, but I don't think any other nation is duty-bound to follow. The pro-large (?) movement may make note of this ruling, your courts are free to disregard it.

[PaperTiger]

Will this mean more obese flying ?I think it's unlikely. The section of the Candian population this is intended to accommodate do not generally have the wherewithall for discretionary air travel.

[henry crun]

F3G: I do get the fact that the people sitting next to the obese pax benefit equally, and I feel sure Rainboe does as well. We have got that point from the first time you posted it.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that we object to paying for that extra seat because we believe that the overwhelming majority of fatties are so by choice.

I have no verifiable figures to back up my belief, and I am willing to bet that neither do you.

[Canadapilot]

Quote:
"It's bad enough that I pay for free lung cancer treatment for lifelong smokers!"

This is a totally different branch of ethics in my mind...those smokers have usually paid taxes just like everyone else so why shouldn't they? People are reckless by their very nature...that's why we have the Coastguard and Mountain Rescue! By the way i'm a non-smoker and normal size, and cannot believe the ruling. Airlines sell seats, so why should they be made to give 2 away for the price of one?! Totally agree with the legroom for tall people comparison. But then again, i've always been an advocate of passenger + luggage being weighed together in the whole overweight luggage argument. Probably live in far too liberal and PC a country to ever hope for that!!!

[Scumbag O'Riley]

On consideration, I would say that flying on an airline is not a human right so the general flying population should not be subsidising fellow overweight citizens who elect to fly.

Southwest appear to have an appropriate policy, superbly named too! Customer of Size (http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html)

Passengers who book a seat which they cannot fit in, and cause the next door passenger distress and inconvience, should compensate the passenger they inconvenience.

I would say the same applies to parents with indisciplined kids

[Final 3 Greens]

Canadapilot

Airlines sell seats, so why should they be made to give 2 away for the price of one?!

I think that straight answer is that it's a cost of doing business in Canada, in the same way that equal access for the disabled laws are a cost of doing business in many countries. Your business may not ever see a disabled person, but you still have to provide the access.

What Rainboe, Henry Crun and others are arguing against is that obese people should receive this assistance.

I'm not a politico, but I am a frequent traveller and do sometimes see the unpleasant result of huge people travelling (as in the person in the next seat being squashed), so pragmatically, given that the number of people who would get a "free ride" is likely to be very small, I regard the outcome as okay, especially as the airlines will factor in the cost in the bigger scheme of things and it will be a few cents per passenger, one might regard it as being a very small insurance policy for normal sized Y class pax.

I guess that politicians and others probably see this ruling as costing little, given the big picture and thus not something to exercise themselves about.

In this sense, I also don't mind paying 72c (euro cents) towards the cost of providing wheelchairs for disabled pax, when I travel Ryanair. On other airlines, I don't know what the cost is as they do not charge it separately.

My thought process doesn't even consider whether the wheelchair is required through any personla choice/fault, its clearly the right thing to do.

I do agree with your comments about legroom for tall people, but given that a decision to increase seat pitch would cost an absolute fortune, very much doubt that anyone will address that in the near future.

Rainboe

Purely out of interest, did you know that the definition of morbid obesity is a BMI of 40.0 or above - I'd take a guess that Idi Amin (in the later years, especialy) may well have fallen in this category - any thoughts?

Henry Crun

You seem to be incapable of understanding that we object to paying for that extra seat because we believe that the overwhelming majority of fatties are so by choice.

I do understand that, but you wouldn't be paying for that extra seat, would you? Just a part of that.

To take the Ryanair example, everyone pays 72c.

If you were levied, say 50p (GBP) would you really object to some other person being segregated from a huge person and having a better flight?

In theory, I should object to that more than an economy passenger, because it won't happen to me in business class (spare middle seat or larger seats), but I don't.

Why? Because I take a utilitarian view that it would de-stress the experience and that's a good thing.

Don't take this as being approval of the political decision, but more a pragmatic take on the effect.

[Capot]

If you were levied, say 50p (GBP) would you really object to some other person being segregated from a huge person and having a better flight?

What a curious spin to put on it; now we're not being asked to pay for the sweaty lardarse's huge bottom, we're being asked to pay for the poor sod next to him/her to have a more comfortable ride in another seat, which has miraculously been kept unsold for this purpose!

F3G, you have an opening waiting for you at No 10.

[boardingpass]

I must say, the Southwest way of doing it is fantastic. An oversize pax buys two seats, and then provided the flight wasn't oversold, they get a refund! Fabulous, not just win win, but win for everyone!

[jetset lady]

this ruling will benefit the person in the next seat as much as the obese person

You keep saying this but I'm struggling to follow your logic. So I've paid for my seat in full, yet I then have to pay an extra charge to ensure that I get all of that seat, the same one that I've already paid for, to myself. How exactly is that a benefit?

[BladePilot]

Flying last week discovered I couldn't hook up my seatbelt I thought I'd suddenly become 'super size' until I realised I had the seatbelt wrapped around the armrest...Phew! ;)

[clareprop]

I have read this thread with interest and formed a mental image of the two main protagonists:

Rainboe:

Uniformed in the old BOAC style, 6ft, thin frame and carries himself in the Trevor Howard style....







F3G

One of those blokes you see on reality TV having a stomach band fitted.....

:E:E

[Ten West]

Definitely make them pay for an extra seat, or take a standard seat and don't bloody whinge.

It doesn't often happen to me, but I absolutely hate it when the next Pax to me is the sweaty and invariably flatulent Chief Test Pilot for Ginsters. :*

[Dushan]

A slight thread drift.

In Montreal a convicted criminal is being let out of jail 6 months earlier than his sentence because he is too fat. He apparently wasn't as fat when he got in. He is around 400 lbs now.

How do you obese-apologists react to that?

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

The easiest solution is that those who don't fit in a human seat pay for their own second seat rather than 'bum' off the rest of the human population, if you pardon the expression.[/QUOTE?

In which case, you will agree with me that it is quite unacceptable that children, who have their own seat and baggage allowance, freeload by receiving reduced fares?

Dushan

[QUOTE]How do you obese-apologists react to that?

If he has a sharp lawyer, he'll probably be able to sue for a handsome fee, given that he had to eat prison food and they (no doubt) have a duty of care to give him a healthy diet :}

Clareprop

Very funny, I fit easily into a standard seat :=

Jetset Lady

So I've paid for my seat in full, yet I then have to pay an extra charge to ensure that I get all of that seat, the same one that I've already paid for, to myself. How exactly is that a benefit?

Try looking at it this way then, if you don't get your full seat, the airline has just ripped you off, hasn't it?

This new ruling means no slim people are going to get ripped off.

As other posters have said, Southwest has a well thought out policy on this, but the other airlines do not.

The court, in its wisdom, has decideded it is fair that the extra sized people do not pay extra.

All I am saying is it's not the worst outcome in the bigger scheme of things.

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

Blustering again are we?

Generalisation and particularisation are always difficult to debate effectively, why not have a go, rather than just puff away?

You could try the argument that children use less fuel due to lower weight or you could argue that families deserve a little help with their costs or even that my argument is false, because some locos charge a uniform rate for all.

But to make a generalisation "The easiest solution is that those who don't fit in a human seat pay for their own second seat rather than 'bum' off the rest of the human population" and then to be apprently incapable of defending it against a dodgy attempt at particularisation, is weak stuff.

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

Let's have a go at educating you.

Fattie = does not pay full fare = freeloader = bad

Child = does not pay full fare = ________ = _________

Try filling in the blanks. (you may use more than one word in each blank.)

[clareprop]

OOOh where to start//?

Because child is a child naturally, wheras a fattie is a fattie because he/she eats too many pies..?

or

A Child has one or two full paying fare adults accompanying or if travelling alone pays extra?

or

A child weighs less than an adult, especial a fattie..?

I'm now opening a personal book on whether F3G says again "this is my last word on the subject..."

[jetset lady]

Try looking at it this way then, if you don't get your full seat, the airline has just ripped you off, hasn't it?

This new ruling means no slim people are going to get ripped off.

But surely, that's exactly what it does mean as I'm now having to pay extra, which is in itself, ripping me off.

As you say, it's not a huge thing in the great scheme of things, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent. As previously said, why should tall people not get concessions, especially considering they can't help their height? Come to that, as someone who's 5'2" and small framed, maybe I should push for a discount on my fares as it costs the airline less money to transport me. If they are going to have this sort of ruling for one group of people, then it will open the doors for everyone else who isn't your average height/weight/size. Who knows where it will end.

Jsl

[Final 3 Greens]

I'm now opening a personal book on whether F3G says again "this is my last word on the subject..."

Don't you mean Rainboe?:rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

JSL

But surely, that's exactly what it does mean as I'm now having to pay extra, which is in itself, ripping me off.


I quite understand your point of view and it's valid.

The heart of the argument is about generalisation and particularisation, which means how society chooses to create special cases to deal 'fairly' with certain situations.

We could probably have a 1,000 post debate about the definition of the word 'society, but if we accept that society delegates these decisions to politicians and other lawmakers, then this court in Canada represents 'society', even though many may not agree with the ruling.

This court appears to be treating obesity in the same way as being disabled and many on this board do not like that - fair enough.

But there are other examples of special cases who receive better fares or other benefits

- children
- disabled
- students

Then, what about

- pregnant women
- tall people

Some people's special cases are other people's freeloaders.

[Dushan]

All I am saying is it's not the worst outcome in the bigger scheme of things.

Well, it isn't for those who are bigger, but what about us "normal" folk?

Children, disabled, tall = no problem. They have no control over how they are.

Students, pregnant, fat - life choice = no deal...

[Ten West]

'Big' or 'Small' discrimination isn't the issue. I'm "Big" at 6ft4 and 15.5 stone, but due to the fact that I have a 34" waist I still fit into a single Human seat.
Need more than one seat = Pay for more than one seat. Simple as.

Of course, I could argue for a partial refund seeing as I don't get the use of a headrest? (The seat finishes at shoulder height for me). :hmm:

[Final 3 Greens]

Dushan

What about

Disabled - paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk

Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder

It's this generalisation/particularisation thing again, isn't it? Makes it tough to have a black and white rule that everyone accepts.

At least it's clear that children and tall people have no choice in the matter :}

[Dushan]

Final 3 Greens,

I think it's called Occam's Razor...

Trying to find the most convoluted way to explain something rather than to accept the most common occurrence. Something along the lines of 1st year med students being told "When you hear hoofs, it's most likely a horse, not a zebra."

"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling.

"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial.

[PaperTiger]

a fattie is a fattie because he/she eats too many piesObjection, M'Lud. Fact not in evidence.

[Final 3 Greens]

Dushan

You obviously do not understand the use of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor says, amongst other things, that a simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts, so the argument again comes down to generalisation and paticularisation. e.g. the med school example would make sense in a country with few zebras, but would be simplistic in places with prevalent populations of horses and zebras.

I could equally (and incorrectly) argue that the Canadian court had applied Occam's razor by deciding that the easiest option was to give all obese people two seats, thus going for the simplest solution.

Generalisation obviously falls fall of Occam's razor in this instance (whether one objtects to the giving of free seats or the principle that all obese people should pay.)

Particularisation meets the rigour of Occam's razor, but is difficult in reality, as it is difficult to gain consenus on what comprises a special case.

"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling. he has served his sentence and discharged his debt to society - why should he not be travelling???

"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial. So are you saying that people, obese through genetics should not be allowed a normal life?

[Dushan]

"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling. he has served his sentence and discharged his debt to society - why should he not be travelling???

"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial. So are you saying that people, obese through genetics should not be allowed a normal life?



I hear more zebras, in Toronto...

[Dushan]

As, for Mr. Ockham, from Wiki. Looks like I am onto something

Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". An alternative version "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity". [1]

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).

[Final 3 Greens]

Boy oh boy

You really don't understand it, do you?

Give the last line another read, here it is from your post, for your convenience

This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).

[Dushan]

as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon

e.g. How he got to be so fat...

[TightSlot]

Occam's razor, Zebras, Trevor Howard & Stomach bands - you lot are nothing if nor eclectic in your posting habits! Every time I get back from a trip something weird has happened in here - have you somehow got access to my roster?

[Final 3 Greens]

e.g. How he got to be so fat...

Which is no doubt the logic the Canadian judge used in deciding that cause was irrelevant, all obese people get two seats for the price of one.

It's still incorrect application of Occam's razor, but if it makes you happy..... :}:}:}:}:}:}:}

[Final 3 Greens]

have you somehow got access to my roster?

Rumbled....:eek:

[Ten West]

I probably have actually. Depends on who you fly for of course. Pink or Blue? ;)

[nebpor]

I believe Billy Connolly had the best explanation for the obese - "it's not glandular, it's chipular" :E

[TightSlot]

Depends on who you fly for of course. Pink or Blue?

Teal, actually

:)

[clareprop]

F3G
"I'm now opening a personal book on whether F3G says again "this is my last word on the subject..."

Don't you mean Rainboe?:rolleyes:



Ah...no...

Rainboe,

I'll stop here too,


.....said F3G in post #36 :=
We know what you're trying to say:)
If we're fat and we sit next to you, you'll happily pay for an extra seat.

[west lakes]

Of course what makes discussions such as this interesting is the missed points

From the newspaper report in Post #1


The agency recommended that the airlines adopt a policy used by the American carrier Southwest Airlines, which stipulates that people who are too big to lower the armrest should be given an extra seat.Which is a bit different to what is being argued about.

It seems to work like this: -

Passengers of size pay for 2 seats prior to the flight

Customers who are unable to lower both armrests (the definitive boundary between seats) and/or who compromise any portion of adjacent seating should proactively book the number of seats needed prior to travel. This purchase serves as a notification of a special seating need and allows us to process a refund of the additional seating cost after travel (provided the flight doesn’t oversell). Most importantly, it ensures that all onboard have access to safe and comfortable seating.At the following costs

What is the cost of the additional seating?
If the Customer is holding an advance purchase, discounted fare, the second seat will be sold at the same discounted fare. If the Customer has purchased one of our low, unrestricted full fares, the second seat will be sold at the Child's Fare.
If flight is oversold the cost stands, if it is not the cost is refunded.



How do I qualify for and request a refund of the additional seat purchase?
As long as the flight does not oversell (having more confirmed Customers waiting to board an aircraft than seats on the aircraft), we will refund the additional seat purchase after travel. A Refund Advice Slip (http://www.southwest.com/images/travel_center/refund_advice.gif), a guide for conveniently requesting refunds (via telephone or letter), is provided to the Customer of size at checkin. And, if it appears a flight will oversell, the option to purchase a second seat and travel on a less full flight is available.Can't see what the argument is about if this policy is used.

Quotes from: -
Southwest Airlines Travel Policies - Customer of Size Q&A (http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html)

[Memetic]

So would a Canadian judge rule that it would be discrimination for an airline to say no when an average sized person demands to be treated equally well as a "Person of Size" and hence be given two seats for the price of one?

I say bring on all up weight allowances, passengers pay for a standard sized seat and a total mass to be moved (Pax+hold baggage+hand luggage+dutyfree goods) go over the mass or the seat allowance - pay more, go under the mass, be credited in FF miles.

[Final 3 Greens]

So would a Canadian judge rule that it would be discrimination for an airline to say no when an average sized person demands to be treated equally well as a "Person of Size" and hence be given two seats for the price of one?

I interpret the decision as meaning that two seats for a 'person of size' equals one seat for a 'person not of size', so your question is invalid (in the eyes of the decision makers.)

One can argure till the cows come home about the rights and wrongs of this view.

Having taken a lot of stick on this thread from people like Rainboe, who cannot assemble a proper argument, let me state this.

I don't generally believe in rewarding anti social behaviour, so if we categorise obesity through over indulgence as anti social, then I would be against subsisiding extra seats, in the same way that I agree with taxing sales of tobacco and alcohol, due to the subsequent health and other problems created by their use, for which we all pick up the tab.

In the event of obesity being due to a genetic or mental problem, I would then say that, as is the case with children, disabled etc, they should be a special case and they should receive an extra seat.

Travelling society in general can afford the minor incremental cost, in the same way that we can afford to pay Ryanair 72c to provide wheelchairs.

It may be difficult, practicality, to prove definitively who should and should not receive an extra seat, so no doubt if people who cannot get the arm rest down (and you do have to be pretty huge not to) will be allowed an extra seat.)

Pragmatically, if in practice we end up having to pay a little more and one outcome is a de-stressing of the flight experience, then I accept that, although I have always thought Southwest's scheme is well thought through and demonstrates a level of competence that gives an insight into why the company has performed so strongly.

Of course, their solution is specially crafted for the US market, where social values are somewhat different to Canada or Europe and therefore allow different solutions.

Equally, perhaps it is also time that a ruling was made to recognise that tall people should not be crammed in.

In short, as the dimensions of the population increase, seat pitch has been downsized.

I am lucky that I can afford to travel C/J, but reflect that the seat pitch on European services is pretty much the same as it was in economy in 1978.