Seriously obese passenger query.

[419]

A relative of mine has just returned from a trip to the US, and their outbound flight was one and a half hours late departing (VS from Gatwick) due to problems getting a family of 3 extremely overweight passengers seated.
There were 3 of them and they were each allocated 2 seats (with the arm rests raised), and this caused major problems for the people who had already prebooked those seats.

I know that in some parts of the world, passengers who require an extra seat are required to pay for this and was wondering if this happens in the UK, or are the people concerned simply given priority over passengers who have already booked their seats?

The to rub salt into the wound, there was a 2 hour wait for immigration in the US, but not for the family who caused the delay as they were whisked straight to the front on a passenger buggy and didn't have to wait a minute.

[Sober Lark]

BMI = weight (kgs)/height² (metres²)
The breakdown of BMI categories is as follows:
<18 Underweight
18 - 25 Acceptable healthy weight
26 - 30 Overweight
31 - 39 Obese
41+ Morbidly obese

For those considered obese or morbidly obese at the time of check in, rather than how many seats they require, an independent medical exam for fitness to travel should be mandatory.

[MarkerInbound]

I've always thought there should be an overwing exit mockup in the jetbridge with a sign, "You must be able to pass through this opening to board the aircraft."

[SMT Member]

Imagine you've booked a trip way in advance, and gone through the process of selecting your favourite seat on the aircraft. Then a (doubtfully well meaning) cabin attendant comes around, huffin' puffin' fatso in tow, asking you to move so that lard arse can get your seat.

Me, personally, I'd said "sure, if you upgrade me to Club". If that was denied, and disobeying an order by a crew member is unlawful, I'd ask to be involuntary denied boarding, collect the EUR 600 compensation as demanded by the EU and catch the next flight. If that was also denied, well, then I'd leave the aircraft and call the nearest tabloid newspaper and vent my guts. That usually result in a grovelling apology from the airline, and an offer of a free return ticket, if I promise to keep trap shut on the subject.

Not my problem some fat fcuker can't control their diet, and I won't be the one suffering from their poor choices.

I've always thought there should be an overwing exit mockup in the jetbridge with a sign, "You must be able to pass through this opening to board the aircraft." Seconded!

PS
I detest the PC word "obese", and much prefer "fatso", "fat fcuker", "lard arse" or other far more derogatory terms. They choose to become fat (in 99% of cases); I choose to ridicule them.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

A width gauge for passengers should also be mandatory for cabin crew from the land of the free.

Isn't the width of the aisle the deciding factor, or perhaps the toilet door.

Glf

[ExXB]

SMT, while I sympathise with your view it is neither the FAs nor the airlines fault, on the day. They are simply trying to accommodate all the fare paying passengers.

However what I think airlines must do is to include something in their conditions of carriage. Something along the lines of ...

1. The fare you have purchased is for accommodation in one (1) seat in your chosen class of service. (Insert here a clear description of the minimum seat size in each cabin).

2. If you are unable to fit in our seat, or if you require additional space for any reason, you must purchase a second seat at the applicable tariff and you must advise us at time of booking that you require adjacent seats. (or, for Cryanair types: you must arrive at the gate sufficiently in advance to secure two adjacent seats. We recommend that you purchase our rip-off advance boarding product. A charge for each seat will apply:) ). Otherwise we cannot guarantee that adjacent seats will be available. Should you fail to secure adjacent seats we will not accommodate you on our flight.

Having something like this will shift the responsibility back onto the individual traveller, where it should be. Airlines could include a "if our flight is not full, well give you a refund clause" but the passenger should pay up front.

[davidjohnson6]

From memory about 10 years ago one large airline in the US began a policy of upfront charging the very obese for the extra seat they needed with a refund if the plane was less than full. Cue huge protests in the US media and said airline backed down.

The USA is too far gone with a pandemic of obesity for an airline to try this again.

[radeng]

A nasty problem is if returning to the UK sick with urine retention. As I was in business class, occupying too much seat wasn't a problem but I NEEDED the extension seat belt.

When they did get the urine retention fixed, I got rid of 8.75 litres in 24 hours and lost 14kg in weight in 48 hours......

[PAXboy]

dj6 From memory about 10 years ago one large airline in the US began a policy of upfront charging the very obese for the extra seat they needed with a refund if the plane was less than full.As I recall, that was South West. Taking a quick look at the site, it seems that this ruling is still in force. (It was a quick look)

radeng Ouch! and Oooh! and Yikes! :eek:

[ExXB]

SMT - It was with WN in mind that I suggested the 'refund' clause. But that is up to them, if they want to offer it. You could have a flight with less than a 50% load, and it seems a little OTT to charge for two seats when everyone else could have three seats to themselves FOC.

[Capot]

Exxb, all very reasonable, but why should the airline carry the extra 70Kgs, or whatever, FOC, even if there are plenty of empty seats. Every extra Kg carries a cost penalty.

The only solution is the one you suggest of conditions for obese people which MUST then be enforced at the check-in desk or gate. The critical dimension for that purpose is not actually weight, it's the width of the body, in a sitting posture, at any level (ie hip, shoulders etc must all fit in the space). It's a very easy dimension to define and check, and of course the maximum allowed is the width between the armrests (inside dimension) of the seat the passenger wishes to buy. There would be the option of buying two seats, or upgrading to a wider seat, for those who fail the test.

As a second condition, I would have no objection whatsoever to a rule which states that anyone with a BMI of > nnn must be seated where he or she will be at the back of the queue to disembark in an emergency. I can see no reason whatsoever why the lives of other people should be at risk because of the inability of the obese to move quickly, or indeed to squeeeeze themselves though the fairly ample exits. Seats for people with a BMI of >nnn should be marked as such on on-line booking charts, and a fattie who books elsewhere must be stopped at the gate, relocated to such a seat if available and refused boarding - and a refund - if not.

BMI is not a perfect measure, as we know, some very fit people have high BMI scores. But it's a start, and such people can always demonstrate their fitness to self-evacuate. (Oh Lord, here we go down another avenue....)

I always now book an aisle seat, as near an exit as possible, if I can to reduce the risk of being trapped by a tu......grossly obese person.

[Load Toad]

By the argument of weight - very tall people could be penalised. Being tall is genetic - being morbidly obese is a choice - for which you should also choose to pay for two seats and pay for them.

Fat is not a disease.

[Rwy in Sight]

Capot,

How do we know which seats are for people last on the evacuation line? And some emergencies require different type of exit so an obese can evacuate via a Type I exit but not via an overwing hutch.

Rwy in Sight

[P6 Driver]

On a Singapore Airlines flight a couple of years back, I saw a passenger in the departure hall and fervently hoped that he wasn't going to be between me and any exit I might need as he was absolutely enormous (horizontally, not vertically).

He was seated on the rear row of seats at the back end, spreading over two complete seats and into the third. Apart from the normal belt, he had two child belts attached together.

The people I felt sorry for on this 13 hour flight were those sat on the row in front of him, as they couldn't recline their seats at all - his gut was pressing against them! He didn't leave his seats for the whole flight, and trying to access a toilet would have been a joke.

I was hoping that he would have had to pay for the extra seating, and/or the passengers in front got a refund - I didn't find out, but was grateful that I was sitting further away.

[Capot]

P6 Driver

The "obese seats" will, for any given aircraft type and configuration, be those seats which are the furthest from the emergency exits, in other words halfway between any two exits.

There would be one row designated as such at each such halfway point; thus in an A320, for example there would be 2 "obese rows" totalling 12 seats. This number could be increased by designating the next rows forward or back, but only if they are not filled already with normal people.

People who can only squeeeze through a Type 1 exit would be permitted to use any designated "obese seat row" where the next exit, either fore or aft, is a proper, wide door (Type 1?). Again using the A320, this would be each of the two designated "obese rows".

If the superfattie were to disregard instructions, try to use an overwing exit and get stuck, it wouldn't matter because he or she would be at the back of the line in any event. The cabin attendant, if there, must make sure he or she exits before the superfattie, first having advised him or her politely to proceed to the front or rear door as appropriate. (That's advise politely, not proceed politely, which hopefully the superfattie would do, but it's not obligatory.)

[TSR2]

The critical dimension for that purpose is not actually weight, it's the width of the body, in a sitting posture, at any level (ie hip, shoulders etc must all fit in the space). It's a very easy dimension to define and check, and of course the maximum allowed is the width between the armrests (inside dimension) of the seat the passenger wishes to buy.

In that case I would suggest that the vast majority of the male population would have to buy two seats.

Do the maths for a 16" wide seat and you will be amazed at what the max chest size would be.

[Capot]

Yes, well, you have a point; shoulders are, on a normal person, wider than the hips. So we would have to add an inch or two each side, the exact amount depending on the exact width of the seat at that point, plus 50% of the gap between it and the next seat, on each side. Dimensions for the middle seat in a row of three would apply to the two other seats in the row.

The underlying principle is that no passenger should encroach on another passenger's space on each side, or stick out to be clobbered (unintentionally, ho, ho, ho) by the trolley.

[radeng]

there is the point that seats are rather too small for many 'normal' size people - as well as too close together.

[PAXboy]

Indeed radeng. Watch out for those 777s with 10-across in Y, rather than the designed for 9.

[Jarvy]

So by most peoples definition I should pay for 2 seats. I am 6' 1" and 230 lbs so using the bmi method I am just obese!
But I do fit in a normal seat, I can move fast when needed and I am a pilot!
I do like you tolerance and understanding of peoples problems especially as your all so perfect!!

[Shack37]

Jarvy
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Great to see some common sense non hysterical comments:ok:

[Sober Lark]

Obesity occurs when the calorific intake exceeds the energy used. Lord Toad, other factors that may contribute include genetic or psychological factors.

Jarvey would have a BMI of 30.3 so overweight. Another 5 pounds and he'd go into the obese category and if he looked for a new life assurance policy in this part of the world he'd have to pay +50% more for it. Not sure what it would do for a pilots medical certificate?

Given more than a billion adults globally are either overweight or obese, it seems a consequence of modern life that such persons cost more to transport and and should be charged say on a per kilo basis where their BMI is over 31.

On check in a body mass index calculator could be used to calculate a passengers BMI and an appropriate excess weight charge, extra seat charge or refusal to carry could be levied there and then.

[Jarvy]

Sober lark, I am from your part of the world (I'm English) and have a class 2 FAA medical and have held a class 1 CAA medical (not at present due to problem unrelated to my size) when my weight was up to 250lbs!

[Shack37]

To use BMI as criteria is absolute tosh. I have a BMI of 28 and therefore overweight. I could easily move up to obese (lardass if you prefer) and still not be encroaching into any adjoining seat.

This is because, apart from being a lardass, I am also a shortass at 1.57m who could never become wide enough to be in contact with both armrests let alone encroach into adjoining space. But because I am overweight at 69Kgs the fanatics posting here propose that I should pay extra whilst being well below the weight of most of said posters.

Perhaps I should be entitled to a discount as I don't use all the available legroom.

[Capot]

BMI is not a perfect measure, as we know, some very fit people have high BMI scores. But it's a start, and such people can always demonstrate their fitness to self-evacuate.

Do keep up, Shack, your configuration has been allowed for, in a generic kind of way. It is recognised that there is a small problem arising from the possibility of a misunderstanding when asking people with poor language skills to demonstrate that they can self-evacuate, but that can probably be overcome with suitable graphics and, if all else fails, some wet-wipes and a mop and bucket.

Refinement of the proposal has led to the probability that passengers will, within a couple of years, be required to board through a mock-up emergency exit at all EU airport gates. This will achieve the dual purpose of training them in using an exit, and checking that they are able to do so.

The regulation is going through the EASA Rulemaking process and will be allocated a task number within a week or two, now that the Rulemaking Director has formally agreed that it should proceed. A Working Group will be formed before the end of the year.

[Load Toad]

Fat isn't a disease.

I never said the measurement of obesity was correct, nor did I say the dimensions of airline seats or seating was perfect.

[Sober Lark]

BMI provides a significantly more accurate representation of body fat content than simply measuring a persons weight.

At 250 pounds that would have given such a person a BMI of 33 which would increase a life assurance premium by 50% here assuming there are no other risk factors. Risk factors such as family members (mother, father, brother, sister) suffering from early heart disease or diabetes before age 60, raised blood pressure, raised cholesterol, cigarette smoking.

A life assurance company would charge a person 50% more in premiums for just having a BMI of 33 with no other risk factors yet the FAA would give a first class medical, what type of a safety hazard is that?

Back to PAX, one could say at present it looks like healthy weight persons subsidise the airfare of overwight passengers.

[Pontius Navigator]

It depends just where you bulge.

I spent an very uncomfortable 4 hours next to this chap who clearly was not wearing Y-fronts. He sat with his knees apart encroaching on my space. I have long thighs and it was B uncomfortable.

Then had an 8 hour next to this young, slim chap for whom toilet paper was unknown. Every time he moved . . . We had both blowers at full strength in his direction. :(

[James 1077]

BMI provides a significantly more accurate representation of body fat content than simply measuring a persons weight.

BMI is a statistical tool that works well for populations but should never be used by itself for individuals are there are far too many variables. My insurer has a standard BMI test - exceed it and they require a medical to continue to get the "healthy" discount. Pass the medical and they pay for it. So it is used as a way of splitting the population but they understand its flaws so don't use it as an ultimate test. Any medic (or health provider) who does is utterly incompetent and should never have got their licence.

From an individual perspective a better test is whether your waist is greater than half your height ... if it is then you are probably carrying too much fat. It still isn't a great test but is better than BMI as it is more tuned to individuals rather than populations.

[Jarvy]

This is all getting a bit silly now. So sober lark if I as an overweight passenger should pay more for my seat should my wife who is small get a discount?
I do agree that if passengers need 2 seats they should have to pay for the second but its up to the airlines not us!

[Pontius Navigator]

Jarvy, what is your view of a passenger that fits in one seat but whose sheer bulk impinges on the adjacent passenger(s). For instance large biceps and large pecs so they effectively shoulder their neighbour?

[Sober Lark]

James 1077, your insurer uses mortality tables to price the rate you pay. If you were not overweight the chances are they wouldn't have requested you to attend for a medical. The insurer uses the medical to identify other possible risk factors which combined with your BMI could have made you uninsurable.

Standard passenger weights for a max seating capacity of aircraft (inc crew) of 300-499 adult male is 81.4kg, adult female 66.3kg, infant 0-3 years a, child 4 to 12 at 41kg an adolescent male 13-16 yrs at 60.50 and female at 54.7kg. For those of us who like the idea of more reasonable airfares having some sort of airline fat tax isn't an unreasonable suggestion.

Look at Wizzair. They wanted to reduce airfares so they are going to try to introduce a fee for cabin baggage. Don't Spirit and Allegiant Air charge over there?

Isn't weight an important part of airline economics?

[Jarvy]

Oh the joys of air travel. So let me get this straight, we want to charge more for fat people, big people, smelly people and people who dare to carry any sort of luggage. Have I missed any?
Those who want cheaper air travel must accept that the space will get smaller and that with the increase in passengers there will be a greater cross section of society.
If you really can't bear to sit next to others then pay more for better seats or even charter your own aircraft. It is after all public transport and therefore available to everyone! Not just some special people!!!

[Sober Lark]

Have I missed any?

Just one. Whether the CAA, FAA should be giving first class medicals to those who weigh 250 pounds. :)

[Capot]

charge more for fat people, big people, smelly people and people who dare to carry any sort of luggage.One down, three to go. It's unstoppable.

Mind you, fat and smelly are frequently found together. Some might say that big and fat are the same, but that's not the case; there are some very big people who are not fat at all. But they still need a bigger seat than the ones on offer at the back.

[matkat]

Surprised that know one has mentioned this but I wonder what the slides are tested in respect to extremly overweight pax, I am an engineer but have no idea at to what weight the slide is certified to, anyone have an idea?

[twb3]

Southwest's (WN) rule seems pretty common-sense: if a passenger cannot fit in a seat with the armrests lowered, they are obligated to buy two seats.

I looked up the FAA TSO (no chuckles, now) covering evacuation slides (TSO-C69c) and it requires a slide to be tested for three persons of 170lb minimum weight closely bunched, simultaneously descending each lane of the device - so a single individual should not be a challenge as long as they are under 510lb or so. Here is a link to the FAA TSO if you want to have a read:
Current Technical Standard Order (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgTSO.nsf/0/CF67750E10C416C286256DC1005384A0?OpenDocument)

[Sober Lark]

Airlines are facing a possible multi-million dollar lawsuit after a clinically obese woman died while on holiday in Hungary after she was refused a seat on three flights back to New York where she needed medical treatment.

Vilma Soltez, who weighed over 30 stone (420 pounds) and had only one leg and used a wheelchair, died from health complications nine days after she was kicked off the first of the three flights.

She was unable to board due to issues with seat extensions and wheelchairs and other equipment that would not hold her weight.

She had travelled to her summer home in Hungary with Delta and KLM Airlines but had reportedly put on weight during her trip.

According to reports, the couple's travel agent had told Delta/KLM before the trip that she needed to return home on October 15 to continue with medical treatment for kidney problems and diabetes.

But her husband Janos claimed the couple were told they could not fly on their original Delta/KLM flight from Hungary because the aircraft did not have the necessary seat extension.

He said they were directed to drive to Prague for a Delta/KLM flight home. At Prague, Soltez could not be transferred to the flight because equipment could not be found that would hold her weight.

Their New York travel agent then found them another flight with Lufthansa, via Frankfurt, but this was not viable for the same reasons despite three seats being available for the passenger.

According to the Daily Mail, a local fire crew were bought in to help move her into the seats but they could not lift her out of her wheelchair.

Delat, KLM and Lufthansa have issued statements explaining their reasons for being unable to accommodate her.

Lawyers are now considering legal action against the airlines for violating laws protecting the disabled.
and Delta, KLM sued for death of obese woman denied flight - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57554466/delta-klm-sued-for-death-of-obese-woman-denied-flight/)

[Capot]

Southwest's (WN) rule seems pretty common-sense: if a passenger cannot fit in a seat with the armrests lowered, they are obligated to buy two seats.This is the essence of the Rule now being proposed as an EASA AMC to Regulation Air Operations (EC 965/2012, effective 28th Oct 2012, as everyone knows), as mentioned above. It is couched in rather different terms, and focuses on a fatty's ability to use the Emergency Exit as rather more politically correct than his/her weight, girth, appearance and smell, so as not to offend the European Commission's numerous and varied sensibilities. But it amounts to the same thing. And there will be other critieria added at the Working Group stage of the process, such as those suggested by Jarvy and Sober Lark, of which EASA is now aware.

PS In breaking news, EASA is struggling more than usual trying to translate the draft TOR for the Working Group; it was originally drafted in Gaelic (to satisfy quota issues and practice for the day when a Gaelic-speaking Scotland joins Catatonia as an EU Member) with a title roughly translated as "Safety of the Grossly Obese and those in their Vicinity". The Spanish went for "eliminación de las tinas de manteca de cerdo", the Hungarians preferred the pithier "forgatás az elhízott", which the Poles matched, in a sense, with Slavic solidarity, choosing "strzelanie otyłych". The French interpreter said "Je m'en fou" and retired to his favourite Cologne restaurant. The Germans said "Wir urinieren auf euch alle" and went back to the bar, beating up a few Serbs on the way. The Finns stripped off and went to the sauna, followed by the Swedish and Norwegians. The Greeks, Portugese and Italians could not be woken up. The Bulgarians, Irish and Czechs could not be revived. Slovakia wanted "Nariadenie aby obéznych ľudí na zemi", which was almost accurate. The UK CAA had 8 meetings, came up with "Regulations for Controlling the Impact of Very Large People on Passenger Safety" and went back for more tea. And so on; it is likely that the Regulation will never emerge from this Black Hole of Babel, as so many others have not done.

The Tower of Babel

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/EASA.png

[Jarvy]

Thats the answer, another cup of tea!

[redsnail]

Capot, if ever there was a "Post of the year", yours is a contender :ok: :D

[blueplume]

This is a big subject.

Let us make several assumptions.
That obesity/being overweight is not a disease. I agree.
That the quoted figure of approximately 1 billion humans being overweight/obese is correct.
I believe it merely by looking at what waddles around all over the place.

Now let us address the oft-quoted difficulties the world has producing enough "food" for all the humans numbering 7 billion.

If the "overweight" eat let's say on average 3 times more than required by a normal person and an "obese" person 5 times more than a normal, non-obese person we can safely settle on the figure of 4 times for the sake of argument.

Therefore it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that if the gluttonous ceased stuffing their faces with calories they do not need but merely "want" because that cannot stop themselves then there would be, at least in theory, a great deal more sustenance available for billions of people who are in greater need.

Am I the only one who finds the politically correct emphasis on "the right" of people in the "developed" world to do what they like at great cost to the healthcare systems nauseating? Not to mention the unappetising visions and practical inconvenience of having to assist self-produced lard arses through every stage of their over-consuming lives?

It has become a habit to refer to obesity rather than fatness because it might cause offence. By calling it obesity it is clinicalised and becomes the problem of healthcare bodies rather than making the fat and unhealthy accept responsibility for their situation.

If you're fat you're fat, not overweight or obese. Don't make it my problem.

[TSR2]

Now let us address the oft-quoted difficulties the world has producing enough "food" for all the humans numbering 7 billion.


Sounds a bit condescending to me.


Therefore it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that if the gluttonous ceased stuffing their faces with calories they do not need but merely "want" because that cannot stop themselves then there would be, at least in theory, a great deal more sustenance available for billions of people who are in greater need.


You cannot surely believe that if the vast minority of people who are overweight ate less, that it would make any significant impact on the worlds food problems.


Am I the only one who finds the politically correct emphasis on "the right" of people in the "developed" world to do what they like at great cost to the healthcare systems nauseating

This must also apply to smokers, drinkers and irresponsible drivers.


In my opinion your views on the subject of overweight people are bordering on discriminatory, so I would not like to hear your views on the elderly, partially sighted or less mobile in our community.

[blueplume]

TSR2

What is condescending about it? We do have a problem producing enough food. We won't be able to continue tweaking nature for ever. Sooner or later it will not respond any more. Politically correct drivel on your part.

It's simple maths that if people ate less then we would not be at breaking point trying to make ends meet therefore the whole enterprise will become easier to manage.

I certainly do apply the same yardstick to smokers and drinkers and irresponsible drivers. All of these including the face stuffers contribute to my and your rising health insurance costs. All avoidable.

I could not care less what you think my views border on being. Be offended if you like, that's your problem. Being twee and politically correct won't help you. But by all means do discuss it in a large group sitting in a circle if it makes you feel better.

The elderly and partially sighted certainly cannot help it so don't be silly. Age happens as long as you are alive and being or going blind often happens. Some self-inflicted conditions can contribute to the latter.

Are you fat?

[Agaricus bisporus]

bordering on discriminatory

Actually, this thread is all about being discriminatory isn't it? That's the point of it. Whether or not to "discriminate" - which means "to identify a difference..." between people who pay for one seat but expect to share someone else's too. If you see a fat person and recognise their size as being different to everyone elses you are making a discrimination. Ditto recognising a person's age, sex, religion etc. Life would be pretty hard if you couldn't (or, via the poison of pc, weren't allowed to) tell one thing apart from another wouldn't it?

Or did you mean discriminating unfairly which is another thing entirely?

I note that the words you wrote that immediately preceeded that quote are discriminatory as you identified ("discriminated") the existence of fat people...

Anyway, regardless of using a meaningless pavlovian pc meeja phraseology no one is carrying out unfair discrimination by passing opinions, because that would require a follow-up action wouldn't it? And in this case only the airline can do that.

And this has nothing to do with racist or religious hatred - knowing how the pc nutcases love to bring that into every argument - it is to do with paying a dollar and assuming you have a right to two dollars worth of goods just because of the size of your ass. And that's just plain stupid, isn't it?

I wonder if I'd get away with that in a restaurant because of the size of my appetite?
Mmmm - perhaps that's how they got fat in the first place...

[Businesstraveller]

Cheapo airlines require that at the point of embarkation that you demonstrate your cabin baggage fits within a pre-defined set of parameters, being size and weight. Perhaps a similar regime should be introduced for passengers, as well as their baggage. And before anyone pipes up with 'that's discrimination' - no it isn't. If you want to contract the services of one of these people/luggage couriers you should pay reasonable costs for being transported. I would hardly expect the Post Office to deliver a parcel for the same price as a letter!

[Malone]

This cropped up a few years ago when I used to work for a well-known national carrier, I think it must have been after one of those reality shows was screened.
We looked it up and the official rules stated that such a person should buy two seats. My supervisor said that he had never had to do this in the 20 years that he had worked there. The unofficial rule was to find two adjacent seats (upgrading the original pax if need be to create the space.) If none could be found the large pax would be politely informed that it would be more comfortable to travel later and they would be rebooked f.o.c. It would all be done with no drama.
Having to ask people to move from their prebooked seats was a daily occurrence, generally they were ok with it as long as the replacements were compatible. I suppose it is really down to how the PSA deals with it, being officious and offhand was a definite no-no.
However, things may well have changed for the worse now.

[Capot]

As well as considering the ability of passengers to move to and leave via an emergency exit, the Regulatory Authorities Obese Passenger Working Group set up by EASA is focussing on the very immediate issue of the loads imposed on the seat mountings, not only when the fattie sits down, but more importantly when there is a sudden deceleration such as hitting the ground at 170 Kts in an otherwise survivable manner.

The 4 mounting points are, between them designed to withstand a 9G force. This is based on an average weight plus a considerable allowance. Typically this will mean that the mountings for a 3-seat economy assembly are stressed to share a load of 2,970 KGS without the seat separating rom the floor.

Now, if you get a real fattie alongside 2 males of average weight, the total load on all 4 mountings in the event of a 9G deceleration is likely to be in the order of 3,290 Kg.

This would mean that the entire assembly, complete with strapped in fattie and 2 others, would part company from the floor and fly at high speed into or over the seat(s) in front, imposing unacceptable loads on those seats in a kind of domino effect that rapidly progresses forward through the cabin until stopped by the little curtain put there to stop hoi polloi from looking at their betters.

For this reason, the Tampa Association for Mutual Protection and Aviation Excellence recommends to its members that they should occupy the rearmost rows of seats. And sound advice that is, to be sure.

Inexplicably, at a recent EASA Conference on Safety Management this issue was not raised, but behind the scenes the RAOP Working Group is working flat out on it, and prompt regulatory action can be expected within, oh, 2 years.

Until then airlines are being advised to prepare a special pallet for very obese passengers, and load them firmly fastened down on it, into the hold. To kill two birds with one stone, the Over Wing Exit Egress Ability Test will be used to define a very obese passenger. If they can't manage the exit, it's into the hold with them, for their own safety and comfort, of course..

[Sober Lark]

I apologise if I offend you in any weight, shape or form

Big Flying Elephant - YouTube

[Chuchinchow]

I honestly cannot ever recall a thread on PPRuNe that was so impregnated with hate, derision, prejudice and ignorance.

Yesterday, I travelled by train between London and Bournemouth. A woman, possibly weighing 110-115 kg, was hounded and harassed by the man sitting next to her. However, when he attempted to alight at Southampton Central she refused to budge a single centimetre, with the result that her adversary was forced to travel on to the next stop, some 30 miles away.

[Load Toad]

What hate? I think the position that being fat isn't a disease isn't a case of hate.

[GrahamO]

A woman, possibly weighing 110-115 kg, was hounded and harassed by the man sitting next to her.

How does one hound and harass someone sitting next to you, unless you count being asked to stop overspilling the seat as harassment? Explain please?

However, when he attempted to alight at Southampton Central she refused to budge a single centimetre, with the result that her adversary was forced to travel on to the next stop, some 30 miles away.

Yes, that will help her case for not being singled out a lot.

[surely not]

Capot you are lucky to have your health and your adonis physique, but be aware that neither are guaranteed to last.

15 or so years ago I was borderline skinny, then a change of job resulted in much less physical exercise. Oddly I didn't notice my weight climbing as I rarely bothered the scales as I am not obsessed with looks and have good health. Nor did others point it out.

Today I am about 25 kgs heavier than I was back then. I still fit into an airline seat without too much trouble, and I am happy with my life. If I lose weight fair enough but I am not going to do so just to satisfy others who are so sanctimonious about themselves.

Under your dictat check-in would need to start hours earlier to allow for all the weighing, checking of documents proving weight, and the arguments etc.

I'm with Jarvy on this. Re read this thread and see if you are really proud to be proposing such a bigoted idea.

[Shack37]

Originally posted by surely not:

15 or so years ago I was borderline skinny, then a change of job resulted in much less physical exercise. Oddly I didn't notice my weight climbing as I rarely bothered the scales as I am not obsessed with looks and have good health. Nor did others point it out.
Today I am about 25 kgs heavier than I was
back then. I still fit into an airline seat without too much trouble, and I am
happy with my life. If I lose weight fair enough but I am not going to do so
just to satisfy others who are so sanctimonious about themselves.

sn, whilst agreeing with your opinion re some of the comments posted here being unneccessarily harsh I don't understand how anyone could put on 25kgs, around 4 stones in old money, without noticing. Shirts, jackets or trousers would have to be adjusted or replaced to accommodate the extra inches.

[Piltdown Man]

A passenger who overspills onto another seat will fly only if the seat next to them has not be booked. If you need two seats and have to fly, you buy two seats. It is nothing to do with BMIs, just the size of the seats. Yes I will and yes I have denied boarding on these grounds.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Therefore it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that if the gluttonous ceased stuffing their faces with calories they do not need but merely "want" because that cannot stop themselves then there would be, at least in theory, a great deal more sustenance available for billions of people who are in greater need.

That is only a theory. It is more likely that if all the rich fat people (who are the ones who can afford to fly) decide to eat less then food production will fall as the hungry people cannot afford to buy it.

[Sober Lark]

Regarding rich people remember it is because of the less well off that we are so well off.

I know there are a few no-frills exceptions, but does anyone know why the cost of a childs air fare is less than an adult fare?

[Capot]

Surely Not

Re read this thread and see if you are really proud to be proposing such a bigoted idea.

Look, I'm only reporting on the latest thinking in the regulatory world that I visit from time to time. Mind you, I would agree with anyone who thinks that placing a dummy overwing exit at every gate so that passengers must go through it to get to the aircraft is a good idea. It not only sorts out those who should not be allowed on board for their own safety, it provides excellent training in using the exit. Who could not welcome it?

The latest development is a proposal (from Bulgaria) to use a new index they have devised known as the Flatulence Acceptability Threshold; in simple terms this involves a sniffer being next to the dummy overwing exit who would identify any passenger who exceeds the FAT index as they squeeze through the exit. Such a passenger would be denied boarding for the benefit of all other passengers. Again, who could object to this sensible proposal from a country with great experience of oppressive flatulence in close quarter situations such as buses and trains?

I should add that the reason that the FAT is indexed is to allow the acceptable index value to be varied in accordance with the nature of the flight and the customs and sensibilities of its passengers. A flight from Leeds/Bradford to Malaga, for example. would have a very high FAT index, while one from Exeter to Chambery would be very low. A flight from Bourgas to Palermo probably wouldn't use the FAT index at all, on the grounds that no-one notices the fruity whiff in the cabin, and that's only from the cabin staff.

[surely not]

So what will you go after if you succeed with your master plan against 'fatties'?

Maybe only people with blonde hair and blue eyes should travel as they don't look sinister at all and would exclude those from dodgy countries?

Perhaps as someone on the borderline between overweight and obese I should have a big yellow 'F' for fatty affixed in a place to be easily visible for the check-in agents to see? It would also enable the skinnies to be able to identify me for taunts, insults and jokes.

I have a friend who would fulfil the criteria for being a 'chosen' one. He is slight of build and runs, swims and cycles to almost obsessive amounts. However his body is now rejecting this regime of goodliness and he is on multiple medications all at a cost covered by his health insurance, which is the same company I use. So I am subsidising his treatment am I not as I, although overweight, am not costing the insurance company anything for medications.

There are many 'keep fit' people I know who regularly cause damage to their bodies with their keep fittery and require treatments that add cost to my insurance.

What to do with these persons?

The more elitist and divisive we become the more difficult it is to set the parameters because there will always be exceptions. I bet you would make exceptions for a guy who was in a rugby front row even though they probably exceed all your parameters.

[Capot]

Surely Not

I say again, lease don't shoot the messenger! I'm only passing on inside information about regulatory deliberations.

In that context you will be interested to know that your idea that all fatties should wear a distinguishing marker such as a yellow F was proposed within EASA (by the Germans, naturally enough) and incorporated into the upcoming NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment) regarding the identification and treatment of obese passengers. However, a protest was lodged by the French, who wanted th letter C (obviously) and the matter went to the ECHR who ruled that it had to be all or nothing, ie that everyone in Europe should wear a mark denoting their obesity/skinniness status or that nobody should. The Commission then spent some months debating whether to introduce this, but could not agree on the location of the marker; the Southern Member States were n favour of having it on the bottom, while the French wanted it pinned to the breast. The English wanted it stencilled on the forehead. And so on; every meeting dissolved in chaos before breaking up for lunch.

You ask about exceptions for rugby forwards. The AMC for the proposed Regulation does include a section on dealing with unruly but powerful objectors. It was drafted by a Committee comprising French and Italian representation, since those States had expressed most concerns on this issue. The essence of the AMC they have produced is that if the objector is bigger than the official, the official should run away.

As wih all EASA NPAs, it is open to anyone to comment using the Response Tool on the EASA website, and this is the best way to lodge the objections you clearly have, rather than blaming me.

[ricardian]

Maybe the obese passengers have discovered this old medicine (http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1920&bih=951&tbm=isch&tbnid=pf_4LcQGbjD25M:&imgrefurl=http://motleynews.net/tag/cocaine-toothache-drops/&docid=BuRKWlnZFrcC0M&imgurl=http://llwproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/vintage-ad-groves-tonic-to-make-you-fat.jpg&w=528&h=720&ei=QTzbUMauFs7I0AW40oHYBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=856&vpy=448&dur=2944&hovh=262&hovw=192&tx=117&ty=118&sig=104457574948590381388&page=1&tbnh=131&tbnw=96&start=0&ndsp=53&ved=1t:429,r:25,s:0,i:175)?

[caiman27]

All these large people defending their (apparent) rights are forgetting that, at present, they reduce the quality of the journey for those sat next to them. Surely that is the key issue?

[Jarvy]

Really caiman27!!! So do smelly people, rude people, people who have loud clothing and I could go on and on.
Its public transport and if you don't like mixing with the general public fly in your own private jet!!!!!!!

[caiman27]

So, Jarvy, you are saying that it is entirely fair for fat people to encroach into other people's physical space?

[747 jock]

Its public transport and if you don't like mixing with the general public fly in your own private jet!!!!!!!

Why should they have to?
If I had paid good money for my own private seat, I don't expect other people to take up some of the space that I have rented for the duration of the flight.

So do smelly people, rude people, people who have loud clothing and I could go on and on.
Yes, you could go on and on (and you probably will), but rude people and people with loud clothing are easy to ignore and have little or no affect on my comfort whilst flying.
Smelly people are a bit different and can cause problems, but in general they don't worry me or have too much of an influence on my flight comfort.

[caiman27]

747; you make the point perfectly. :D

[grimmrad]

Being morbidly obese is only partially a choice as there is a strong genetic background often to be found, e.g. for Typ 1 diabetes (and increasingly type 2). And, no, I am not obese but with a BMI of around 23...

[Load Toad]

How come then there are far more obese people now than before....? Oh yeah - lots of cheap calories to binge on.

[M-ONGO]

Airlines are facing a possible multi-million dollar lawsuit after a clinically obese woman died while on holiday in Hungary after she was refused a seat on three flights back to New York where she needed medical treatment.

Why would a fatty go on holiday to Hungry...

I find it uncomfortable when large people spill over into my seat. It shouldn't happen. The world has gone so P.C, eroding our rights as 'normal' sized people in this case. Sod that - 8 hours next/in front of a 'larger' person, knees poking your back, elbows sticking into your ribs, wheezing away...

Maybe someone should start an airline for fat people using Guppies or Belugas or perhaps a McDonald's Douglas!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mcdonalds+aircraft&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=cUngUOPOJMnftAapjIC4Bw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=768&bih=928&sei=xUngUMr7Eon1sgam94GgAQ#biv=i|6;d|I4B-Ih-_-Bi7BM:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fat+airlines&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=KYXgUJ2rItSL4gTvhoC4Cg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=768&bih=928&sei=xoXgULO8M-LV4gTC4YCgCA#biv=i|9;d|fBvxUDOchME7FM:

[Capot]

8 hours next/in front of a 'larger' person, knees poking your back, elbows sticking into your ribs, wheezing away...

Or behind a fattie, who chooses to enlarge his/her space by fully reclining his/her seat into your lap, so that there is enough space between his/her huge belly and the seat in front to lower the tray to load up with the food he/she finds necessary to sustain life for the next hour.

This happened to me on a BA European shorthaul a couple of weeks ago; 75 minutes of sheer bloody purgatory as this obese b******'s seat pressed hard on my knees. I could not lower my tray, even if I wanted to, nor could I move to restore circulation and avoid DVT without disturbing this inconsiderate lardarse's comfort.

And guess what? The b*gg*r had the nerve to raise his vast bulk enough off the seat to rotate his head and threaten me if I did it again!

The process of heaving his fat mountain up, and turning his head, must have taken 1-2 minutes. Emergency evacuation without endangering the lives of those behind him? Not a chance.

[Shack37]

Originally posted by M-ONGO


Why would a fatty go on holiday to Hungry...



Maybe to lose weight:)

[M-ONGO]

And guess what? The b*gg*r had the nerve to raise his vast bulk enough off the seat to rotate his head and threaten me if I did it again!

No doubt breaking into a sweat which ran from his forehead to your lap. Charming. Should have had a word with the SCCM and had him repremanded for threatening behaviour. They could have met him with a 'meat wagon'...

In all seriousness, there is a 'massive' safety issue here. You have a right to your entire seat space, as he does. Not one inch more.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fat+fighters+little+britain&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=z7jhUIuwHqWO4gTOx4G4Bw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|3;d|o4bDifT-ca_kXM:

Don't Start Me Off - fat people on planes (http://www.dont-start-me-off.com/CelebInfo.php?celeb_id=309)

[Sunnyjohn]

As a teacher who worked with people with special needs, including those with obesity, I think it is time to redress the general level of ignorance, superstition and bias so far displayed in this thread:
At an individual level, a combination of excessive food energy intake and a lack of physical activity is thought to explain most cases of obesity. A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness. In contrast, increasing rates of obesity at a societal level are felt to be due to an easily accessible and palatable diet, increased reliance on cars, and mechanized manufacturing (From Wiki)
Note in particular the mention in the last line of the modern diet. It is a sad but true fact that children become obese at an early age because they are given, for any number of reasons, an inappropriate diet. By the time they reach their teens, their habits and size are pretty well determined and after that it is very difficult to undo the damage. It is easy in this scenario to blame parents but the fact is that many people in today's society do not have sufficient knowledge or education to understand what constitutes a healthy diet for their children. Hence the attempts by Jamie Oliver to try to get a healthy diet into schools. All of this is exacerbated by the processed food conglomerates who are able to produce inappropriate packaged food very cheaply and make vast profits.

You may well be discomfited by the obese person in the seat next to you but please do try to be a little less prejudiced when discussing such a situation. By the way, should you wonder, I am fortunate to have been slim all my life thanks to the fact that my mum brought me up on a very healthy wartime diet.

[M-ONGO]

Point taken, John

But...

It is easy in this scenario to blame parents but the fact is that many people in today's society do not have sufficient knowledge or education to understand what constitutes a healthy diet for their children. Hence the attempts by Jamie Oliver to try to get a healthy diet into schools. All of this is exacerbated by the processed food conglomerates who are able to produce inappropriate packaged food very cheaply and make vast profits

I don't suppose Jamie Oliver has to sit next to them in economy though. Unfortunately, the rest of your statement rings true - the lack of education and knowledge. That describes 2/3 of the LoCo pax demographic. One great oldie wanted "flying for the masses" - he instead got flying with the masses

[scotbill]

Apart from the obvious safety implications of an obese person blocking the route to an escape exit - or even blocking the exit itself, the obese have to justify why they should expect to pay standard fares when the the slim girl sitting in the next seat may have had to spend a fortune in excess baggage charges.

[M-ONGO]

Don't give them ideas Bill......

The LoCo's will be offering a premium 'sit next to a hot chick' seat for an extra £20. Very true, though. Why should a slim, lightweight woman pay because she has 22 kg's when a 300lb man pays no extra. I've even seen one fat family wearing several heavy jumpers and coats at check- in, obviously trying to avoid an orange airlines excess baggage charges. I pity the poor people sat next to or in between them.

[AlpineSkier]

@sunnyjohn

You may well be discomfited by the obese person in the seat next to you but please do try to be a little less prejudiced when discussing such a situation.

Listen, just because they , or their parents are stupid, is certainly no reason why they should get another, extra layer of compassion now.

It is not acceptable to pass their problem onto their neighbours, they have to deal with it themselves.

[Capot]

the fact is that many people in today's society do not have sufficient knowledge or education to understand what constitutes a healthy diet for their children

With respect, bolleaux. Very, very few people in today's society do not have sufficient knowledge or education to understand that, in the UK at least which is what I suspect you are referring to. Or in any developed society with an education system.

Indeed, lack of education - as seen in the third world, ie NO education - and lack of obesity seem to go together, don't they? I wonder why?

In the UK people eat junk food and lots of it because, so far as 99% of them are concerned, they are stupid, self-indulgent, lazy, and can always blame someone else.

They know perfectly well that this and lack of any exercise is making them what they are. But they don't give a toss. Look around in Tesco at the huge bottoms behind the fullest trolleys, and look at what's in those trolleys. And then realise that the person with that bottom can read, write, watch TV and has had at least 10 years education.

[clicker]

Perhaps the answer is to have a box similar to hand baggage sizers.

If can't get in that box, try the next size up, if you can't get into the double, try the triple. if you can't get into that one refused boarding.

Fares base on what box you fit into.

Oh and you have to be able to move your arms, not squeezed in with a shoehorn.

:p

[In_Transit]

Good plan. They should just change the size of the security gates to the width of the seats. If you can't get through security then they can't come on the plane

[TightSlot]

I've resisted the urge to close this thread for some time, but it is becoming more tempting.

There is a serious point to be discussed here - The use of gratuitous abuse and name calling simply achieves nothing except to encourage others to ignore your comments, or not take them seriously.

Stop it.

[GrahamO]

They should just change the size of the security gates to the width of the seats. If you can't get through security then they can't come on the plane

Interestingly, this is an approach which visitors to the Universal Studio (now defunct) ride of Duelling Dragons will be familiar with - my wife always reminds me of the sign which said 'guests of a certain size who are unable to sit in these seats, with the restraint in place and fully locked down, will not be permitted to ride, for reasons of safety to themselves and other riders.'

If folks would accept this for a fairground ride then its not entirely unreasonable to ask the same of an aircraft seat.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Just out of curiosity - Is there a standard length for passenger seat straps?
I find that on some aircraft there is plenty of spare and on others I can hardly make ends meet.

PS I am of the large variety of passenger.

[herman the crab]

Interestingly, this is an approach which visitors to the Universal Studio (now defunct) ride of Duelling Dragons will be familiar with - my wife always reminds me of the sign which said 'guests of a certain size who are unable to sit in these seats, with the restraint in place and fully locked down, will not be permitted to ride, for reasons of safety to themselves and other riders.'

If folks would accept this for a fairground ride then its not entirely unreasonable to ask the same of an aircraft seat.

There is still one there on the lower lot for the Revenge of the Mummy ride at Universal Hollywood. It was rather sad to see a young kid crying because neither of her parents could even start to fit in it, which of course meant she couldn't ride.

[appex]

"I certainly do apply the same yardstick to smokers and drinkers and irresponsible drivers. All of these including the face stuffers contribute to my and your rising health insurance costs. All avoidable."

Actually in Australia smokers pay more in extra tax than they cost.

As for the larger fliers...

Its is unacceptable to have the space, that I paid for encroached on someone who can not fit in the seat they occupy.

It is also unacceptable to make them feel like crap because of it.

[Sunnyjohn]

Its is unacceptable to have the space, that I paid for encroached on someone who can not fit in the seat they occupy.

It is also unacceptable to make them feel like crap because of it.

Thanks, appex - I was beginning to think I was on my own!

[ricardian]

BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681) that Overweight or unhealthy people who refuse to attend exercise sessions could have their benefits slashed, in a move proposed by Westminster Council.

[IceKitty]

Regardless of the causes of weight “issues”, at some point airlines will have to face the fact that the general population is increasing in both width and height. In my family (mainly “skinnies”) each generation is significantly taller than their parents, even if not much wider.

[ExXB]

It may be an urban myth, but I've heard that 'on average' the shortest child in a family will grow to be taller than the shortest parent. Not always, but more often then not. I.e. we are getting taller.

Perhaps it is time for BA to bring back their triple/double convertible seats available to any passenger that requires them, or desires them, at 150% of the fare. The technology exists.

Now that is going to make load factor calculations difficult!

P.S. Tightslot :ok: I had stopped reading comments here for the reasons you mentioned. It was only due to fat finger syndrome on my iPad that I saw your post.

[DaveReidUK]

Perhaps it is time for BA to bring back their triple/double convertible seats available to any passenger that requires them, or desires them, at 150% of the fare.Presumably while insisting that oversized passengers always travel in pairs, to avoid loss of revenue. :O

[ExXB]

OK, Charge them 200% of the fare if they are not traveling with another passenger that requires/desires the other wider seat.

The point is that us 'skinnies' shouldn't be paying higher fares to cover other passenger's needs. I don't need a wider seat, but if I want one I should pay for it. Someone who needs it should do the same.

[Sober Lark]

Under British Airways Conditions of Carriage they state "
7a) Our right to refuse to carry you

We may decide to refuse to carry you or your baggage if one or more of the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen.

7a1) If carrying you or your baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger.

7a2) If carrying you or your baggage may affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft."

If in the airlines opinion seating a seriously overweight person next to you does not affect your comfort, health or safety and you can prove otherwise you could possibly claim redress for the injury.

[ExXB]

Sober Lark,

True, but I don't want a flight where my space is stolen by somebody else and then it's up to me to assume the hassle of claiming back from the airline.

[Sober Lark]

Understood ExXB. On boarding you discover your space has been stolen and there are no other seats available. You make a discreet complaint to the cabin crew manager. Naturally he or she should take the option of looking for a volunteer (along the lines of denied boarding compensation) rather than knowingly risking your health, safety or comfort.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Just out of curiosity -

Is there a standard length for passenger seat straps?

I find that on some aircraft there is plenty of spare and on others I can hardly make ends meet.

PS I am of the large variety of passenger.

[martinmax69]

The absolute intolerance displayed in this thread is astounding. I guess the ones complaining the most are slim, athletic and run a mile in under a minuet,attend a gym 3 times a day and are dedicated vegetarians.Congratulations on being the super slim people you are. Heaven forbid you should ever put an once of weight on. Genetics does play a part.Medications can also cause weight gain (I tried to explain that and other reasons in another thread about passengers of size but I felt I was talking to a brick wall)

How about showing some respect to those who are weight challenged. After all, those that are complaining are probably of such slender proportions that they could fit two to a seat so the "encroaching" person of size should not be a problem.Also, as people age, their body metabolism slows down and weight gain happens.Fact. World wide, obesity is becoming the norm.Perhaps a rethink on seat width is needed as this problem will only increase as time goes by.

Honestly, the 'holier than thou' attitude is disgusting. If it upsets you so much,move to another seat and just pray that the super slim person sitting next to you has the decency to have had a shower within the last two weeks and had access to deodorant (Oh the irony of it all-to move because some one is weight challenged only to end up next to someone who smells like a sewer)

You may be super slim and fit but age will catch up with you and you will put on weight. What a horrible thought that must be.Show some tolerance,respect and sympathy to those that aren't super slim.As someone else in this thread said, go first-class or hire a private jet just to keep away from those disgusting over-weight pigs who are entirely to blame for their weight issue.

Do you have the same contempt for people who are diabetic, suffer from Parkinson's diease, suffer from Alzheimer's disease(goodness, they could try and open a door couldn't they-their a real danger on aircraft, they should be placed in a straight jacket to stop them harming other passengers) and the list goes on.Yes, you may have someone encroach on your 'space' but that happens on trains and buses, but to insult them due to their weight is obscene.Just show some repect-yes, its clearly an idea that is dying out through out the world.

I have seen first hand the intolerance and abuse dished out to people of size.One instance occurred in a super-market.I heard quite clearly (She intended her statement to be heard by those around her) state, "'
I bet she only has chips, cakes and lollies in her trolly and thats why she's a fat trollop". Infact, my friends trolly only contained fruit and vegetables. My friends weight gain was due to a medical issue she had.I felt so sorry for her and outraged that people would say such things and say them loudly.

It isn't always what goes in their mouths that cause weight gain.But, as in the other thread concerning people of size, I was dismissed buy super slim, athletic vegans who insisted that that scenario was a lie.They stated that people get fat only by what they eat. Talk about closed minds and total lack of empathy.

Sadly we inhabit a world which is "Its all about me". Sad that this intolerant behaviour is fast becoming the norm.

[Sunnyjohn]

Good luck MM69. I said very much the same thing in Post 73; that didn't make much difference either.

[scotbill]

How about showing some respect to those who are weight challengedThere are indeed reasons for obesity other than over-eating (such as medically prescribed steroids) and blanket prejudices are inexcusable.
However, weight and volume are key price deciders in the aviation industry and safety procedures are predicated on the ability to use emergency aisles and exits. Load calculations are based on an assumed average passenger weight.

I have yet to see a cogent defence of the right of someone twice that weight to travel at normal prices when the slim person sitting in the adjoining seat has had to pay extra for luggage a few kilos overweight.

Furthermore, slim people have every reason to feel alarmed if the said obese person is not only intruding into their space but, more importantly, blocking their emergency exit path.

[martinmax69]

SunnyJohn, your completely right as is TightSlot.

The amount of venom and bile slung at people of size is astounding.My jaw is on the floor with some of the comments expressed here and I'll single out Capot for special mention.Someone else asked him to re-read his venomous statements which have similarities with concentration camps of WW11 with the appropriate insignia attached to clothing denoting(using his inflammatory word)-FATTIES. Infact, most of his posts contain such bile and as TightSlot has mentioned, he cannot be taken seriously, in fact I find his comments are becoming quite amusing in a weird sort of way.

By the way Capot, blame the fast food outlets as they target children and teenagers with their advertising. In most cases that is the demographic their products are aimed at.The other tool the Fast Food outlets use is 'pricing'. Yes, they are cheap to buy for a reason. They appeal to lower income families as they are cheaper to buy than the healthier alternatives.

There are so many causes for obesity, not just the "grub that they stuff down their piggy little mouths" . Educate yourself on the causes for obesity.If Im correct Capot, you mentioned obese people and what they had in their shopping trollies. I gave you an example above concerning a close friend of mine who is no longer here. Her obesity was due to medications she had to have and suffered ridicule from people like you on a daily basis.She was a vegetarian so your theory has just been deflated and stamped upon.

If I had to prove I could fit through an "emergency exit mock-up", I think I'd change airlines, ditto for wearing a patch denoting that Im of normal weight.

Oh, and Capot, seeing as you love to quote scientific articles ad nauseam, this little gem has obviously missed your attention, because perhaps it doesn't fit your fanatical views on obecity. A study done at John Hopkins University (I think) has indicated that for some reason, men who have had knee replacements have, with in a five year period, on average gained 10% body fat. Why this has occurred has baffled scientists and on-going research is being undertaken into why this happens (No, it has nothing to do with 'stuffing their mouths with food as they can't walk'-they incorporated an exercise regime so their goes another one of your dodgy hypothesis)

I am absolutely appalled by the comments expressed in this thread.Thankfully there are a few shinning lights that have the knowledge and have expressed their views in this very thread.Unfortunately, we are conversing with people who have ear-plugs in and are more concerned in disseminating their rather closed -minded , ill-informed views due to the fact that they are wonderfully slim, healthy and full of zippyness.