Delta and KLM sued over 'too fat to fly'
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.
If you are getting fat on medication then you need to either do more, or eat less.
It is a very simple formula.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by herman the crab; 30th Nov 2012 at 06:43.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
closed minds?
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.
and i will maintain my position that the airlines shouldn't need to waste another 5 minutes on this claim.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
