Seriously obese passenger query.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Capot, if ever there was a "Post of the year", yours is a contender 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Body
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now let us address the oft-quoted difficulties the world has producing enough "food" for all the humans numbering 7 billion.
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
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.
Last edited by TSR2; 15th Dec 2012 at 16:49.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Body
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bordering on discriminatory
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...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Last edited by Capot; 17th Dec 2012 at 14:00.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Chuchinchow; 18th Dec 2012 at 00:21.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by surely not:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Shack37; 20th Dec 2012 at 14:30.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely Not
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.
Re read this thread and see if you are really proud to be proposing such a bigoted idea.
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.
Last edited by Capot; 24th Dec 2012 at 13:01.
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.
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.
Last edited by surely not; 24th Dec 2012 at 18:02.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.