Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

Obese have right to two airline seats

Wikiposts
Search
Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Obese have right to two airline seats

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 11:21
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
The court did state that the second-seat-entitlement only applies to people who are severely overweight due to a medical condition. Eating too many pies does not give you the right to claim an extra seat. How are they going to check this, a statement from your doctor?
Longhitter is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 11:27
  #22 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Meanwhile south of the border

Southwest Airlines Travel Policies - Customer of Size Q&A
west lakes is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 11:32
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 80
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why all this fuss-making? The rules have always been clear - two seats to be booked for overweight passengers ( extended seat belt provided ), no
children or handicapped passengers in emergency rows. All for safety reasons, nothing else. When this continues, law makers will provide the
safety cards.
BEA 71 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 11:33
  #24 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's always the Air Lingus solution - one seat either side of the aisle.
BOAC is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 11:49
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tonker

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

The world is truly going mad.
Symbian is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 12:21
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 363
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
What? No footballers?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Promise?
Sepp is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 12:30
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Third Rock
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stick some seats in a hold with temperature control, and place them there. No one said they have to be comfortable! Just check the TRIM!
Doodlebug2 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 12:46
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Symbian i agree, and if you read my thread thoroughly it does say that we all have to pay taxes to cover these people. I don't think this ruling will have any effect on the airline industry, poor management and politicians on the other hand will do that with great effect.
tonker is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 13:27
  #29 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,152
Received 62 Likes on 50 Posts
KENNEDY TOWER
It is obvious that the old fogies who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada are completely out of touch. Where is all this madness going to end.
Some courts in some countries have the ability to make law and some do not. If that is not the case in Canada, then the judges were simply executing the law - and you must rant at the politicians that made the law
PAXboy is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 13:32
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm all for a weight allowance of say 100kg for male and 90kg for female, including bags. If you go over this weight, you pay. So if you weigh over 100kg, tough, you pay for your extra weight and your bags. If you are a normal weight, you can take yourself and your bags, up to the allowed weight. Sounds fair enough to me, but then I weigh 75kg
Dr Eckener is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 13:39
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would be impossible to prove discrimination. The single seat is not being refused; what's not available at the time of booking, by sheer bad luck, is the spare one for the oversize bottom to expand into.
Another solution - fixed armrests.

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

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

Regardless of the sloth/medical problem that has put a person in that situation, better solutions exist than a blunt double charge.
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 14:23
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nice to know Winston Chuchill was a sloth.
tonker is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 14:27
  #33 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The original decision was not made by a court but by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Three of the seven codgers at the Supreme Court just felt it wasn't worth their while reviewing it.
MarkD is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 15:07
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How about upon arrival at the check in desk, the obese not by choice present a medical certificate that states the type of illness and they would be entitled to an extra seat free of charge.
Again, this ignores the fact that the extra seat would have to be BOOKED, not simply available on demand on check-in. Unless anyone knows how to suddenly add extra seats to a full flight.

fixed armrests......
The armrest on each side of me remains down. If my neighbour can't fit his or her bottom in, that's not my problem. Fixing the armrest might prevent a row over it, but that's all.
Capot is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 15:15
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: CYZV
Age: 77
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Its true then the law is an ass.
Yeah, and a fat one at that.
pigboat is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 15:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If is a certified by a doctor that is a medical contion it might be understandable. What about guys which are 1.90 m? Their legs cannot fit in the crampled space of economy.
If you are uncofortable in economy buy a business class ticket, alot of space. Does a 6 month pregnant woman have the right to an extra seat? The whole story is absurd.
That could be streached to the point that an obese when buying clothing shall pay the same price of a slim guy. Or if a big mac is not sufficient he can get another free because is still hungry!
FrequentSLF is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 16:00
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Standby

Maybe they could book and pay for the first seat and get the other free but on a standby basis i.e. if the flight is not full they get to fly?
bizdev is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2008, 06:06
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mainland Europe
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Based on how many times I have seen a fatty taking up two seats on a flight I suspect the actual impact to our ticket costs is going to be next to nil. If a plane was 100% sold then there is an impact but the reality is that this is rare and rarer still that a fatty is on that flight.

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

Speaking personally, they should ban all wheelchair-bound and disabled folk from flights. That'll save a ton of cash, there's always some old-fart waiting around for assistance with his useless legs dangling away..
Mr Quite Happy is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2008, 06:21
  #39 (permalink)  
Final 3 Greens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Speaking personally, they should ban all wheelchair-bound and disabled folk from flights. That'll save a ton of cash, there's always some old-fart waiting around for assistance with his useless legs dangling away..
Great idea. Maybe they should scope in the mentally impaired too, such as people who expect to get extra legroom seats for free?
 
Old 23rd Nov 2008, 06:34
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mainland Europe
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
F3G, that's only funny if you read my other thread and realise its me that started it..

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

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

[edited to change last para in case I am being a dunce]
Mr Quite Happy is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.