Delta and KLM sued over 'too fat to fly'

[rotornut]

BBC News - Delta and KLM sued over 'too fat to fly' Vilma Soltesz (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20510267)

[Victor Inox]

I've personally seen the utter disregard KLM have for passengers' luggage when the lose it, and can easily see how the underlying culture could lead to the described scenario.

In addition, KLM sell you a more comfortable seat (exit row in a 747) at an extra charge, but once you sit down you realize that the available width between armrests is less than in any other seat, because the tray tables are integrated into the armrests. Plus, if you get the 'window' seat, you'll realize that there is a)no window and b) the door frame intrudes into your leg space. In essence, you are paying extra for no window, less available seat width and less available width for your legs.

OK, the two points above are not as serious as the late Ms Soltesz' but they do help in establishing a certain pattern with KLM.

[fox niner]

I heard the woman was soooooo large that she couldn't make the 90 degree turn in the forward galley of the 737 airplane, in order to be transported down the aisle. So she was offloaded and offered transportation on a wide body jet out of LKPR Prague on Delta Airlines. (Skyteam partner)
The Wide body jet also wasn't big enough.
So they Tried Lufthansa.....Same treatment here. "Fat chance" she was simply too big to transport.

[glad rag]

But Peter Ronai, the lawyer acting for her husband, Janos, told CBS: "They [the airlines] took on the responsibility to get her to Hungary, it's their responsibility to get her back."

the question is was she the same dimension on the way out?

[finfly1]

Always thought a fair case could be made for selling passenger tickets by weight.

The immutable physics of flight versus the feel-good, PC, huggy fluffy nonsense about "persons of size" .....

[stator vane]

but personally i have no sympathy for such persons that get in such a state and to think that the airlines can be sued is a sign that solicitors/lawyers have lost all common sense. but i knew that already.

and to think that the airlines are in any way responsible for her death is absurd.

[con-pilot]

The question that I have, is how did she get to Europe in the first place?

Some airline got her there.

[b263354]

Have to agree, sueing would be a good thing, but not per definition because the airline(s) are wrong!

I've had the porblems of having to transport people of odour, "vocalness" and of size... I had little to nothing to go on but the seatbelt, aisle, or cabin crew not being able to handle the arising situation! A seat size is a seat size, and even armrests are having to be shared HALF the size they were by two persons now in coach, everything becoming ever more cramped!

A private transport aranged by her insurance company (like they do on ski hollidays when a leg is broken etc) would have been the way to go, not taking the cheapest way out, and then having this result, hoping for a remuneration that will bring "justice". Bad planning on their part, and IF the airlines and/or insurance company's' didn't come with this idea too, bad service on their part too!

[Agaricus bisporus]

Some airline got her there.

Not necessarily...


http://www.varnishgal.com/bullwinkle.jpg

[joseph500s]

She must have been a bit of a beefcake to not fit on. I don't see how sueing $6m will help anything but cashing in on his wifes death. :confused:

[sleeper]

Three airlines tried, three airlines unable to accomodate the passenger.
How on earth can you sue an airline if you are physically unable to board?

I don't see how sueing $6m will help anything but cashing in on his wifes death.

That's the reason.

[Shack37]

She died of kidney failure before a suitable flight could be found, after
refusing treatment from local doctors.
She suffered from kidney disease and diabetes and reportedly "did not trust"
Hungarian doctors.


She has kidney disease, goes on holiday to a country where she doesn't trust the doctors and refuses medical treatment.

Sounds lika a candidate for The Darwin Award.

[Avionker]

It's a tragic story, and I do have sympathy for her husband and family.

In true modern fashion though, it is of course somebodies fault.

Yep, it's the airlines fault obviously, after all the it was these airlines that:-

1) Caused her diabetes.

2) Caused her kidney problems.

3) Amputated her leg.

4) Made the decision to not seek medical treatment in Hungary. And the Czech Republic. And Germany.

Ultimately both Delta and Lufthansa attempted to accommodate her but both were unable to do so safely. I sincerely hope that this law suit is not successful, unfortunately I fear that it will be.

I strongly suspect that she had Type 2 Diabetes which she failed to control adequately. This would account for the loss of her leg and her kidney problems.

In the New York Post her husband is quoted as saying that she gained water weight due to her condition, so I also suspect that she was bigger on the return flight than on the outbound, leading to all the problems.

Looking at the video in the link below I am not surprised that problems were encountered trying to get her safely onboard and seated securely and safely.

Vilma Soltesz, 425-Pound Woman, Allegedly Deemed Too Fat To Fly Before Dying Abroad (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/vilma-soltesz-obese-425-pounds-dies-too-fat-to-fly_n_2193161.html)

[driftdown]

Really, travelling to Hungary for a holiday with those medical problems evident. How did they get there?

Surely they would have medical insurance that would take care of the return journey, unless there were exclusions placed on the policy from the outset.

A sad case but of course it is somebody elses fault and they must of course pay :mad:

[herman the crab]

I am absolutely appalled by the comments and pictures (no, it wasn't funny). This woman has died, please show some respect. Sometimes, just sometimes, a person has no control over their weight.A friend of mine had a medical condition which needed medication. The side-effects from those medications caused rapid weight gain. Unfortunately, on many occasions, I witnessed first hand the abuse, jokes and sarcasm directed at her. I was appalled then as I am now with some of these comments.:ugh:

But it WAS her decision to leave the USA, refuse treatment in the European area, stay overseas so long - presumably there wasn't the same issues leaving the USA?

HTC

[Avionker]

Martinmax 69

Who's laughing? I assure you I'm not. The reason I posted that link was to illustrate the problems the airlines faced and to show why, in my opinion, this lawsuit is unjust.

Also please bear in mind that if, and it's only IF, my speculation about her suffering from Type 2 diabetes is correct her condition would most likely have been avoidable with the correct diet.

[Octopussy2]

In the UK courts, at least, this case would have no prospect of success. From what has been reported, it seems that she gained weight (or retained water as a result of her kidney condition) while she was away and the aircraft were simply unable to accommodate her. The argument that the airline got her there and should therefore get her back would not succeed because their failure to fly her home did not cause her death; she had a medical condition for which she should have sought treatment in Hungary.

The reality is that the case will have been brought in the hope that the airline settles out of court; the airline may be tempted to do that rather than set a precedent. Although I would like to think that a court would refuse to extend the airline's duty of care to this extent, I suspect in a US court the likelihood is stronger.

[stator vane]

what is the proper term? bullocks? physical fact....people don't get that big without enormous uncontrolled oral intake. the husband is nothing but a gold digger. sue me!

[TFlyguy]

Yes you're correct she did make VERY questionable decisions and as a human being she made mistakes.

How then is that the fault of anyone but herself? From what I read 3 airlines tried and failed but the point is they DID try. Throw this out of court!

[KBPsen]

martinmax69,

While it is has become popular to be outraged on other people's behalf, the fact remains that fat, or should we call it weight so as not offend anyone, does not materialize out of thin air. Had she eaten only some dry white toast daily there is no possibility whatsoever that she could have reached the impressive 425 pounds, on the other hand if what she ate was four fried chickens and a coke...

[James 1077]

The only way to get fat is to eat more than you expend. Medication can do a number of things - from enabling you to get more out of what you put in, altering the "full" feedback or stopping you from expending too much. But it can not make you fat.

If you are getting fat on medication then you need to either do more, or eat less.

It is a very simple formula.

[+TSRA]

All things being equal, the airline industry would love to be able to accomodate every type of person - small, big, obese. The more passengers, the more money, the more profit. However, they [passengers] are not entitled to the airlines generosity.

It sounds to me like some of you are going down the wrong path with the line of thinking. From an airlines stance, we don't care how you got to be too big to fit the seat. We really don't. We don't care if you have a sob story about medication; we don't care if you can't control what goes into your mouth. We just don't care. If you require two seats to meet the safety requirements, or comfort requirements of other passengers, then you must purchase a second seat. Why should other passengers "subsidize" a larger passenger?

The airlines main concern is how you [the larger passenger] are going to exit the aircraft during an emergency. Are you going to be able to exit the aircraft on your own without assistance? If not, are you relying on someone other than the crew? It is the crew's responsibility to make sure everyone gets off. It's not their responsibility to deal with each persons individual medical issues during such an emergency. Also, are you able to secure yourself into the seat with the safety equipment we give you? Do you require a seatbelt extension, or more? Are you impedeing the exit ability of another passenger? If so, what say does that passenger get into where you are seated? As someone mentioned before, what happens if you need to utilize the onboard facilities? I'll tell you right now that I would never expect one of my flight attendants to look after your bodily functions.

These are the important questions that larger passengers must consider, regardless of how they got to be that size. There may be times where you are just too big to be accomodated. The most the airline should have to do is refund the full purchase price of your ticket, and maybe help find an alternative means - as it sounds like KLM did here.

Also, just to dispel the myth: Larger people are not entitled to the emergency exit row. In fact, if you're too big to get up on your own, you'll definately not be getting that row. That extra space is built only to accomodate the evacuation of passengers, not as a comfort item. If you are too big to help with the evacuation or you block the exit, sucks to be you but you're not sitting there. I've personally had to move larger passengers for that reason before, and I'll do it again.

THAT folks is the issue at hand. Does her husband have a right to sue? I don't think so. Everyone gains weight on a holiday. Perhaps they were able to accomodate her on the way out, but she gained weight and could not be accomodated on the way in. Perhaps the aircraft had a different configuration on the way out that enabled the crew to help her. Whatever the case, the airline decided she was a risk to other passengers and to herself.

Rant over.

[herman the crab]

martinmax69

I had 15 years of dealing with people and their ailments and the outcomes. Probably 5% or if I am generous 10% were due to genuine medical or medication problems (excluding the fact obesity is a medical problem in itself, over eating can be a psychological issue for example).

The issue here IMHO is her choice to refuse medical treatment in Europe, her choice not to return to the USA whilst she still could. The airlines did not make that choice for her. I am surprised that the airlines even considered allowing her to fly in the first place, the effects of cabin altitude on illness and medical conditions is often poor understood by regular doctors that have no experience in aviation medicine; which is why many airlines will insist on obtaining clearance to fly from their own doctors.

If she had managed to fly and then died enroute, due maybe to hypoxia or an embolism would the husband then be suing the airlines because they allowed her to fly?

If the husband was campaigning for changes in policy, better medical care facilities for passengers rather than suing for $6M people might have more sympathy for his cause.

Where did he get the $6M figure from? There are accepted life values for people depending on various factors but with all due respect I doubt that an elderly disabled lady would be 'valued' the same as a fit wage earning young father.

I couldn't put any price on the loss of my wife, if I lost her I would be devastated and suing some one would be the last thing on my mind (had some one deliberately killed her then I would be out for their blood but that isn't the case here).

HTC

[stator vane]

you state you have given us one example where medicine was the direct cause....i have tried to find it, but all i see is this very thread. no links to others cases. so, call me close minded if you want, but i do not see a case apart from this thread itself, where anyone can get that big solely by the medicine. i am not a doctor, but if the medicine does this to anyone, then the patient should change doctors before it goes this far.

and i will maintain my position that the airlines shouldn't need to waste another 5 minutes on this claim.

[Piltdown Man]

If you are seriously ill, an airliner is not the place to be - no matter how desperate the cause. It's disappointing to read that this lady got as far the plane before she was told she would not be able to fly. She should have told at Check-in that it would not be possible for her to fly, even by purchasing two seats. I would also have declined to accept the lady on medical ground unless I had a very recent letter from her doctor stating that she was fit to fly. But before this had been obtained, I would have requested a medical assessment regarding her restraint and technical information from my engineers showing that she would not exceed the maximum seat loading.

What should the airlines do? Kindly ask her husband to withdraw his action. Pay nothing but if he insists, run him or his scumbag lawyers up a huge legal bill.

For what it's worth, virtually every airline has conditions of carriage. My airline refuses to accept people people who's appearance, behavior, demeanor or smell may cause offense. We'll also refuse people who appear to be medically unwell and those who are unable to fit in a single seat. And +TSRA makes the human/airline case very well.

PM

[Agaricus bisporus]

I think this business amply demonstrates the appallingly selfish and self-indulgent attitudes our society has burdened itself with as a result of the hideous social poison of political correctness.

The notion that "discrimination" is necessarily harmful is a ridiculous concept. Discrimination means identifying a difference between...and every item on the planet is different from its neighbour. Now acting unreasonably as a result of differences is quite another thing. Yet the 'rules" of what we "can" and "can't" do are irrational, inconsistent and composed from emotion rather than logic which calls the entire concept into disrepute. You can tell Irish jokes and it's fine, say "Americans are thick" (an "opinion" often expressed here) but even to identify someone as black, without expressing an opinion or view on them can and often does raise shrill squeals of "racism". The "crime" seems to be entirely randomly and emotionally defined and that is no basis for any legal process.

It is completely irrational to imagine that everyone can do everything and we daily see the insanity of trying to accommodate this in a manner beyond the rational, like a million pound footbridge over a highway with a massive zigzag wheelchair ramp that ends at a stile and a muddy path across a ploughed field. Blind people can't expect to drive cars. I expect somebody out there is going to slam me for using the term "blind" instead of whatever witless euphemism is in vogue this week but my point stands.

Equally if someone is too tall to buy trousers or has feet too wide (Hobbits for instance, so that must be racial discrimination too) to buy shoes they are NOT being discriminated against, they are simply too tall or their feet are too wide. Sorry, wear a sarong, and what of it? Point is, there is no fault involved.
So if you are too big to fit in an aeroplane it isn't anyones "fault" unless you think Mr Boing discriminated against you by maliciously making the door too small...Now if MacDonalds have been force-feeding you cheeseburgers then it's a different matter, but sorry, if you chose to eat them...Is Ford being sued for "discrimination" because their cars aren't big enough for buffalo sized lard-arses? The concept is so ridiculous it's funny.

Self indulgent money-grabbing greed and inability to take charge/responsibility for yourself is what this is about.

Pathetic.