Supersize Me!!!!!

[Final 3 Greens]

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

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

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

Obese entitled to two airline seats for the price of one, Canadian court rules - Telegraph

[FairlieFlyer]

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

[PaperTiger]

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

I shall say no more .

[Capot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Final 3 Greens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[henry crun]

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

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

[Final 3 Greens]

Henry

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

[B Sousa]

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

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

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

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

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

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

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

IF they are that large, they can buy a business seat...

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

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

[Final 3 Greens]

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

You call it right, IMHO.

That's what Rainboe doesn't get.

This is a utiliarian solution.

[B Sousa]

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

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

[henry crun]

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

[Final 3 Greens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You just blew your foot off with that line of argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry Crun

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

[henry crun]

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

Have I got that right now ?

[Final 3 Greens]

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

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

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

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

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

Just my opinion and you probably have a different one.

[henry crun]

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

Only time will tell which one of us is right.

[boardingpass]

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

[Final 3 Greens]

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

They already do.

Next question?

[hardhatter]

I agree comp[letely with Rainboe,

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

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