PDA

View Full Version : Aussie Man Sues American Airlines - 'Obesity' Issue in Economy...


Ex FSO GRIFFO
5th May 2017, 08:18
Could this be the start of something BIG?....

(Where have I heard that before?...)

Australian man squashed in economy seat sues airline (http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australian-man-squashed-in-economy-seat-sues-airline/ar-BBAL5JW?li=AAabC8j&ocid=spartandhp)

Any "Flow on effect" in OZ?... Do ya reckon?

Cheers :ok:

bafanguy
5th May 2017, 10:25
FYI:

American Airlines shrinks legroom on new 737 jetliners | The National (http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/american-airlines-shrinks-legroom-on-new-737-jetliners)

Ex FSO GRIFFO
5th May 2017, 13:56
"Ouch".......

:yuk:

Derfred
5th May 2017, 14:25
What he "should have done" is just stand up in his seat prior to departure. When the obligatory "you must sit down sir" direction arrived from the cabin crew, he should have merely replied "I have been trying to, but the seat I paid for is currently occupied by other passengers. What are you going to do about it?"

Then the rent-a-cops would have been called in to smash in his face, teeth and skull. He then would have been able to launch a law-suit, which would of course be quickly settled out of court to the order of 8 or 9 figures, and he would never have to fly economy again. Problem solved.

That's how we solve customer complaints in the 21st Century. Not many passengers complain. For those that do, it's cheaper to just physically assault them and then pay them out until only the compliant proles remain.

BNEA320
6th May 2017, 07:01
FYI:

American Airlines shrinks legroom on new 737 jetliners | The National (http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/american-airlines-shrinks-legroom-on-new-737-jetliners)it seems this silly reporter thinks seat pitch is legroom, which of course it's not.

For those who don't know. 2 identical aircraft with same seat config, could have as much as 4 or 5 inches difference in legroom. It's all about the thickness of the seat back. eg. old thick seats, versus ultrathin seat backs on many new lightweight seats.

Pinky the pilot
6th May 2017, 12:21
OK everyone! I am curious as to know just what is the Legal situation in the scenario denoted below.

ie; You are an 'average sized' individual, and in this I mean you are NOT deemed by any stretch of the imagination and/or/ Legal definition of the words 'obese.'

Through ignorance/casual happenstance/whatever, you find yourself seated in the middle seat between two individuals who could easily be described as 'morbidly obese,' or to put it bluntly, lardarses, fatties or any other epithet that springs to your mind!

What are your rights if you choose to refuse to take the seat allocated to you because of the obvious discomfort caused by the two obese individuals, and what is the Airline legally obliged to do to rectify the situation.

FWIW; Stuffed if I would tolerate being sandwiched between two people fitting the 'morbidly obese' category, at any time under any circumstances.:ugh::=

AerialPerspective
6th May 2017, 16:14
What he "should have done" is just stand up in his seat prior to departure. When the obligatory "you must sit down sir" direction arrived from the cabin crew, he should have merely replied "I have been trying to, but the seat I paid for is currently occupied by other passengers. What are you going to do about it?"

Then the rent-a-cops would have been called in to smash in his face, teeth and skull. He then would have been able to launch a law-suit, which would of course be quickly settled out of court to the order of 8 or 9 figures, and he would never have to fly economy again. Problem solved.

That's how we solve customer complaints in the 21st Century. Not many passengers complain. For those that do, it's cheaper to just physically assault them and then pay them out until only the compliant proles remain.
One wonders if it's worth the price of a ticket to visit the US and follow instructions but speak in a way that is reasonable but could be taken two ways... then wait, get teeth broken, bones fractured (because they just won't be able to help themselves) and then leave the country with a pocket full of money. I wonder if Dr Dao will be retiring soon???

megan
7th May 2017, 02:38
Know an individual who is of such proportions that he has to purchase two seats in order to travel. Surely the airlines must have a cut off point, though I don't see anything on any airline web site.

You could invoke FAR 25.785, to wit,(b) Each seat, berth, safety belt, harness, and adjacent part of the airplane at each station designated as occupiable during takeoff and landing must be designed so that a person making proper use of these facilities will not suffer serious injury in an emergency landing as a result of the inertia forces specified in 25.561 and 25.562.

(f) Each seat or berth, and its supporting structure, and each safety belt or harness and its anchorage must be designed for an occupant weight of 170 pounds, considering the maximum load factors, inertia forces, and reactions among the occupant, seat, safety belt, and harness for each relevant flight and ground load condition (including the emergency landing conditions prescribed in 25.561).So the max loading for a three seat row = 510 pounds. Just got to ask each lard ass, "How much does sir/madam weigh?" :}

We know how CASA are so strict about "THE RULES".

laardvark
7th May 2017, 03:31
it seems this silly reporter thinks seat pitch is legroom, which of course it's not.

For those who don't know. 2 identical aircraft with same seat config, could have as much as 4 or 5 inches difference in legroom. It's all about the thickness of the seat back. eg. old thick seats, versus ultrathin seat backs on many new lightweight seats.

thanks for the lesson .
i conclude that , other than variations in different seat types , seat pitch actually IS legroom . maybe i'm silly .

BNEA320
7th May 2017, 03:50
thanks for the lesson .
i conclude that , other than variations in different seat types , seat pitch actually IS legroom . maybe i'm silly .but it's totally based on the thickness of the seat back. eg. an airline rips out 20 year old seats in a 738, which are getting tired anyway & are heavy & puts in new light weight seats with ultrathin seat backs. Old seats had seat backs with 4 inch thick seat backs, while new ones have 1 inch thick seat backs. So without changing seat pitch, there's 3 inches extra legroom, or with eg. 27 rows of seats(all Y class), they could throw in 2-3 extra rows, without reducing legroom.

So no seat pitch does not = legroom, only if actual seats remain exactly the same.

Oodnadatta
8th May 2017, 03:00
No wonder the poor sod was squashed.
In the link in Post #1 it stated that " he found himself squashed between two obese fellow travellers." Towards the end of the article it states that " they spilled over onto his 43cm-wide window seat." If he was seated in his window seat and was squashed between his fellow travellers no wonder he had a problem.

Cheers,

Oodnadatta.

AerialPerspective
8th May 2017, 12:20
No wonder the poor sod was squashed.
In the link in Post #1 it stated that " he found himself squashed between two obese fellow travellers." Towards the end of the article it states that " they spilled over onto his 43cm-wide window seat." If he was seated in his window seat and was squashed between his fellow travellers no wonder he had a problem.

Cheers,

Oodnadatta.
Yeh, I thought that was a mis-print unless one of them was hanging on outside the aircraft.

mickjoebill
9th May 2017, 01:46
Airlines publish seat width of their aircraft, one could argue this is advertising.
Surely this forms part of the sales contract? i.e. a provision of a seat with 18 inches width, with the implicit understanding that all of the 18 inches would be for the sole use of the passenger.

The lack of resolution by airlines of this not unusual situation, implies that it is a passenger issue.
So why not apply civil law?
At what point does the continual refusal of a person making unwanted physical contact, deemed an assault?

If the obese person does not leave the plane then sue them, at the very least for the % of seat for which you have been deprived.
Obese folk are well aware of the inconvenience they cause on aircraft yet they selfishly hope they can get away with it.

For those obese folk suffering financial hardship, perhaps the booking system can give them an option for a change of flight (that has two seats available) without charge.


Mickjoebill

mickjoebill
9th May 2017, 02:11
Know an individual who is of such proportions that he has to purchase two seats in order to travel. Surely the airlines must have a cut off point, though I don't see anything on any airline web site.

You could invoke FAR 25.785, to wit,So the max loading for a three seat row = 510 pounds. Just got to ask each lard ass, "How much does sir/madam weigh?" :}

We know how CASA are so strict about "THE RULES".
I like where you are coming from.
But FAR 25.785 doesn't state the design loading can't be more.
So a pilot could claim the seats and seat belts are designed to restrain higher loadings to shut up a protesting passenger?
A survey of manufacturers is required to understand what a typical safety factor is for seat belts and seat anchors. I imagine it would be at least 1.5? So if FAA says 170lbs it will take 265lbs?
The load limit for the in-floor seat rails would be well defined.

This website says seats are tested to 16g.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q4/2/

zanzibar
9th May 2017, 03:28
. while new ones have 1 inch thick seat backs. So without changing seat pitch, there's 3 inches extra legroom, or with eg. 27 rows of seats(all Y class), they could throw in 2-3 extra rows, without reducing legroom.

Ah, so that would possibly explain why Qantas have gone from 29 rows to 30 rows on the 738.

megan
9th May 2017, 07:23
But FAR 25.785 doesn't state the design loading can't be moreThe entire design is based upon the 170 pound individual. Any person weighing more, or less, than the stipulated 170 pounds will have reduced levels of protection. See,

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/404561.pdfA survey of manufacturers is required to understand what a typical safety factor is for seat belts and seat anchorsThey comply with the requirements of,25.561 General.

(a) The airplane, although it may be damaged in emergency landing conditions on land or water, must be designed as prescribed in this section to protect each occupant under those conditions.

(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of escaping serious injury in a minor crash landing when—

(1) Proper use is made of seats, belts, and all other safety design provisions;

(2) The wheels are retracted (where applicable); and

(3) The occupant experiences the following ultimate inertia forces acting separately relative to the surrounding structure:

(i) Upward, 3.0g

(ii) Forward, 9.0g

(iii) Sideward, 3.0g on the airframe; and 4.0g on the seats and their attachments.

(iv) Downward, 6.0g

(v) Rearward, 1.5g

(c) For equipment, cargo in the passenger compartments and any other large masses, the following apply:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, these items must be positioned so that if they break loose they will be unlikely to:

(i) Cause direct injury to occupants;

(ii) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or cause fire or explosion hazard by damage to adjacent systems; or

(iii) Nullify any of the escape facilities provided for use after an emergency landing.

(2) When such positioning is not practical (e.g. fuselage mounted engines or auxiliary power units) each such item of mass shall be restrained under all loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The local attachments for these items should be designed to withstand 1.33 times the specified loads if these items are subject to severe wear and tear through frequent removal (e.g. quick change interior items).

(d) Seats and items of mass (and their supporting structure) must not deform under any loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in any manner that would impede subsequent rapid evacuation of occupants.

25.562 Emergency landing dynamic conditions.

(a) The seat and restraint system in the airplane must be designed as prescribed in this section to protect each occupant during an emergency landing condition when—

(1) Proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses provided for in the design; and

(2) The occupant is exposed to loads resulting from the conditions prescribed in this section.

(b) Each seat type design approved for crew or passenger occupancy during takeoff and landing must successfully complete dynamic tests or be demonstrated by rational analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat, in accordance with each of the following emergency landing conditions. The tests must be conducted with an occupant simulated by a 170-pound anthropomorphic test dummy, as defined by 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart B, or its equivalent, sitting in the normal upright position.

(1) A change in downward vertical velocity (Δ v) of not less than 35 feet per second, with the airplane's longitudinal axis canted downward 30 degrees with respect to the horizontal plane and with the wings level. Peak floor deceleration must occur in not more than 0.08 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 14g.

(2) A change in forward longitudinal velocity (Δ v) of not less than 44 feet per second, with the airplane's longitudinal axis horizontal and yawed 10 degrees either right or left, whichever would cause the greatest likelihood of the upper torso restraint system (where installed) moving off the occupant's shoulder, and with the wings level. Peak floor deceleration must occur in not more than 0.09 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 16g. Where floor rails or floor fittings are used to attach the seating devices to the test fixture, the rails or fittings must be misaligned with respect to the adjacent set of rails or fittings by at least 10 degrees vertically (i.e., out of Parallel) with one rolled 10 degrees.

(c) The following performance measures must not be exceeded during the dynamic tests conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Where upper torso straps are used for crewmembers, tension loads in individual straps must not exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for restraining the upper torso, the total strap tension loads must not exceed 2,000 pounds.

(2) The maximum compressive load measured between the pelvis and the lumbar column of the anthropomorphic dummy must not exceed 1,500 pounds.

(3) The upper torso restraint straps (where installed) must remain on the occupant's shoulder during the impact.

(4) The lap safety belt must remain on the occupant's pelvis during the impact.