Obese have right to two airline seats

[Humber10]

Does this mean that they get two meals aswell? I'm classed as obese, how the hell am I gonna get two seats up the front? :}

Obese have right to two airline seats

Reuters | Friday, 21 November 2008


Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare.
The airlines had lost an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal in May and had sought to launch a fresh appeal at the Supreme Court. The court's decision not to hear a new appeal means the one-person-one-fare policy stands.
The appeal had been launched by Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet.

[Herod]

How long before the idea of charging per kilo catches on. It would raise extra revenue, increase the airline's green credentials (less weight, lower fuel burn) and address the western world's health time-bomb caused by obesity.
I'll bet it has already been discussed within Europe's largest low-fare airline.
;)

[meat bomb]

If they can pay for two big macs, surely they should pay for two seats

[Symbian]

Its true then the law is an ass. Why should the airlines pay the price for individuals short comings, it is utterly unfair to expect the airlines to foot the bill yet again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[B Sousa]

Lets hope the Airline appeals this one all the way as far as they can. It has some serious economic impact for the already penny pinching thats going on.
I just hope the liberal Pr1ck Judge gets bumped because some tub of guts needs his seat.

[Tahitimax]

Well, we are talking about equity here.
The Justice is saying that it is fair to treat each people the same way, regardless of race, religion, weight, sex, ...

Woud you like to see male ticket more expensive than female ? ( statistically, the are lighter ).

[MungoP]

I would like to see pax AND their baggage weighed inclusively.. I've been charged $25 per pound for overweight baggage... ( away on contract for a year a 40 lb baggage limit is a bit impracticle)...and had grossly overweight pax travelling alongside who are a menace from both safety and comfort points of view...

I have an absolutely 100% guaranteed system for losing weight... send $10 to an account supplied by PM and I promise you'll see the difference in one week AND it will save you the $10 in 2 days ! ( stop eating ! )

[KENNEDY TOWER]

Hi,

It is obvious that the old fogies who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada are completely out of touch. Where is all this madness going to end.

The world is becoming too politically correct, airlines need to sell every seat to make money, the lawmakers obviously are completely out of touch with reality, its ok for them they have a job for life while the rest of struggle.:ugh:

[Tahitimax]

I would like to see pax AND their baggage weighed inclusively..The difference lies in that you can choose to have less bagage, wether sometimes you do not choose to be obese ( ask people who are ), and for shure, you can't loose weight the day you pack your bags.

[Capot]

Bearing in mind that the extra - free - seat would necessarily have to be requested by the fattie at the time of booking, and that any airline has the absolute right not to sell a seat if it chooses not to, just as a restaurant or shop can refuse to serve a particular customer, I don't see this one getting very far.

It would be impossible to prove discrimination. The single seat is not being refused; what's not available at the time of booking, by sheer bad luck, is the spare one for the oversize bottom to expand into.

[Tahitimax]

It would be impossible to prove discrimination. The single seat is not being refused; what's not available at the time of booking, by sheer bad luck, is the spare one for the oversize bottom to expand into.

It would be easy to proove that two seats are available for two different person, but not TWO for one obese PAX. Then it is discrimination

[Tahitimax]

Then who would think it is fair to set the price depending if you are a man or a woman ?

Statistically, there is a weight difference.

[Mikehotel152]

Outrageous; not because I want to have a dig at "functionally disabled" obese people but because it sets an awful precedent that fails to discourage the general public from the drift towards acceptible obesity. :ugh:

In any event, how can a person be safely seated across two seats designed to keep only one person safe? And with aircraft aisles necessarily restrictive in terms of width, perhaps there is a significant safety risk posed by obese people during aircraft evacuation?

What's the best way to tackle this 'growing' problem?.

[tonker]

Symbian your right why should you pay for my shortcomings.

But then consider like yourself i have to pay every month for smokers getting free patches on the NHS, druggies getting yet another drug to help them off their current one, alchies who piss in the streat and then go and beat up their wifes(like my mother was) who then get meetings and drugs payed for by people like us(some of whoom are fat), or the gay promiscous man who amazingly castches AIDS after his umpteenth unprotected encounter and then expects £36,000 a year in treatment and sypathy.

If i can't fit in a seat i should pay for another one not everyone else, but before everyone goes on about fatties take a good look in the mirror and see what cross you bear(and the burdon it might cost ME)

All this ranting has got me the munchies so i'm off to fill my face:\

[Tahitimax]

Perhaps MungoP's point about the safety risk posed by obese people on aircraft is the way to tackle this 'growing' problem...

Then kids are dangerous, blind people are dangerous, and so on.

[Sepp]

Set up emergency exit-sized "must fit through this hole" boards, like for hand luggage.

If you can't get through the emergency exit, you're not getting on the aircraft!

[Tahitimax]

If you can't get through the emergency exit, you're not getting on the aircraft!

Again, how about the guy on the stretcher, do he deserve to die ?

[tonker]

Sepp, well that's international rugby tours cancelled then:rolleyes:

And maybe if you can't operate a door and swing it out on your own we could ban all small people/old people/children/footballers and all you would have left is the Uberrace of 5'7 men with a 32' waist:ok:

[sidtheesexist]

Does anyone remember the sci-fi comic 2000AD? There was en episode in there with an eating competition - the contestants were so large that they had a wheeled support for their bellies. One contestant was disqualified because he started to eat his feeder's arm....:E

So the PC virus has spread to the Canadian Judiciary - gawd help the Canucks
:mad:

[Abusing_the_sky]

How about a compromise?
In my opinion, there are 2 types of "obese" people: obese by choice, when they stuff their faces like the food would disappear from the face of the Earth in an instant, and obese not by choice, i.e. illness.

How about upon arrival at the check in desk, the obese not by choice present a medical certificate that states the type of illness and they would be entitled to an extra seat free of charge.

The obese by choice should pay as it's their own fault for getting to that point where they need an extra seat on an a/c. If they can afford all the junk food, all the beer and are not bothered about exercising, surely they can afford paying for an extra seat. Either that or go on a diet!:suspect:


Rgds,
ATS

[Longhitter]

The court did state that the second-seat-entitlement only applies to people who are severely overweight due to a medical condition. Eating too many pies does not give you the right to claim an extra seat. How are they going to check this, a statement from your doctor?

[west lakes]

Meanwhile south of the border

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

[BEA 71]

Why all this fuss-making? The rules have always been clear - two seats to be booked for overweight passengers ( extended seat belt provided ), no
children or handicapped passengers in emergency rows. All for safety reasons, nothing else. When this continues, law makers will provide the
safety cards.

[BOAC]

There's always the Air Lingus solution - one seat either side of the aisle.

[Symbian]

Tonker

I also pay those same taxes and it boils my blood to see where my taxes are going. But at least it is the government paying and does not threaten my job where as this ruling potentially does. The airlines are going through a difficult enough time as it is without, out of touch judges adding to their woes! All of this on top of ineffectual security which the airlines are having to pay for just so some politician can be seen to be doing the right thing.

The world is truly going mad.

[Sepp]

What? No footballers?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Promise? :zzz:

[Doodlebug2]

Stick some seats in a hold with temperature control, and place them there. No one said they have to be comfortable! Just check the TRIM!:*

[tonker]

Symbian i agree, and if you read my thread thoroughly it does say that we all have to pay taxes to cover these people. I don't think this ruling will have any effect on the airline industry, poor management and politicians on the other hand will do that with great effect.:ok:

[PAXboy]

KENNEDY TOWERIt is obvious that the old fogies who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada are completely out of touch. Where is all this madness going to end.
Some courts in some countries have the ability to make law and some do not. If that is not the case in Canada, then the judges were simply executing the law - and you must rant at the politicians that made the law

[Dr Eckener]

I'm all for a weight allowance of say 100kg for male and 90kg for female, including bags. If you go over this weight, you pay. So if you weigh over 100kg, tough, you pay for your extra weight and your bags. If you are a normal weight, you can take yourself and your bags, up to the allowed weight. Sounds fair enough to me, but then I weigh 75kg :ok:

[Re-Heat]

It would be impossible to prove discrimination. The single seat is not being refused; what's not available at the time of booking, by sheer bad luck, is the spare one for the oversize bottom to expand into.
Another solution - fixed armrests.

In reality, it is only a factor on flights that are full, where the airline is being deprived of more revenue by the big bum. I can imagine that many will find suitable excuses ranging from inadequate safety specifications for persons over a certain weight, to safety in evacuation - all of which overrule "human rights".

It is not really the law being an ass though is it - it is the business failing to think how to accomodate such people. It is pretty clear that charging an individual 2x fare based solely upon size is quite unfair when all remaining passengers are NOT charged by weight & size (Ryanair have yet to place two petite grannies in the same seat).

Regardless of the sloth/medical problem that has put a person in that situation, better solutions exist than a blunt double charge.

[tonker]

Nice to know Winston Chuchill was a sloth.

[MarkD]

The original decision (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/media/communique/2008/080110-2_e.html) was not made by a court but by the Canadian Transportation Agency (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/about-nous/mission_e.html). Three of the seven codgers at the Supreme Court just felt it wasn't worth their while reviewing it.

[Capot]

How about upon arrival at the check in desk, the obese not by choice present a medical certificate that states the type of illness and they would be entitled to an extra seat free of charge.

Again, this ignores the fact that the extra seat would have to be BOOKED, not simply available on demand on check-in. Unless anyone knows how to suddenly add extra seats to a full flight.

fixed armrests......

The armrest on each side of me remains down. If my neighbour can't fit his or her bottom in, that's not my problem. Fixing the armrest might prevent a row over it, but that's all.

[pigboat]

Its true then the law is an ass.
Yeah, and a fat one at that.

[FrequentSLF]

If is a certified by a doctor that is a medical contion it might be understandable. What about guys which are 1.90 m? Their legs cannot fit in the crampled space of economy.
If you are uncofortable in economy buy a business class ticket, alot of space. Does a 6 month pregnant woman have the right to an extra seat? The whole story is absurd.
That could be streached to the point that an obese when buying clothing shall pay the same price of a slim guy. Or if a big mac is not sufficient he can get another free because is still hungry!

[bizdev]

Maybe they could book and pay for the first seat and get the other free but on a standby basis i.e. if the flight is not full they get to fly?

[Mr Quite Happy]

Based on how many times I have seen a fatty taking up two seats on a flight I suspect the actual impact to our ticket costs is going to be next to nil. If a plane was 100% sold then there is an impact but the reality is that this is rare and rarer still that a fatty is on that flight.

Its revenue protection and preventing a creeping rot that the airlines are worried about.

Speaking personally, they should ban all wheelchair-bound and disabled folk from flights. That'll save a ton of cash, there's always some old-fart waiting around for assistance with his useless legs dangling away..

[Final 3 Greens]

Speaking personally, they should ban all wheelchair-bound and disabled folk from flights. That'll save a ton of cash, there's always some old-fart waiting around for assistance with his useless legs dangling away..

Great idea. Maybe they should scope in the mentally impaired too, such as people who expect to get extra legroom seats for free?

[Mr Quite Happy]

F3G, that's only funny if you read my other thread and realise its me that started it..

With my last para on this thread that you have quoted here, you need to grab a dictionary and look up 'Sarcastic'. As would be clear if you read the entire post without looking to shout down at everyone you would see that we are agreeing on the subject of obesity and the arguers that feel that fatties should pay more are being discriminatory and so I simply turned the point around and said that old people....

Or is it you that is also being sarcastic and I am just confused.

[edited to change last para in case I am being a dunce]

[Final 3 Greens]

MQH

I was being sarcastic and do agree with you that it is outrageous for KLM to act like a charter op.

Your comment in this thread was very funny, I interpreted it as humour, not a serious post.

Should have used an emoticon.

[Rainboe]

If a plane was 100% sold then there is an impact but the reality is that this is rare
There are some bizarre statements made on this thread as if they were fact! The above is nonsense. Flights are fuller than before with fleet and service cutbacks to maximise loads.

Can I now expect a second seat for my personal use if the flight is not full, or will I be discriminated against because I am not morbidly obese? Nobody is morbidly obese 'for medical reasons'. Everyone is obese because they eat too much- usually burgers and pizzas. It goes no deeper than that. Morbid obesity makes you the ugliest thing possible. Deal with it, then come out in society. Don't demand your 'rights' citing obesity- you have none.

[TightSlot]

Duplicate thread after move from other forum - please continue discussion HERE (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/351886-supersize-me.html)