Capot, if ever there was a "Post of the year", yours is a contender :ok: :D

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.

Sounds a bit condescending to me.


You cannot surely believe that if the vast minority of people who are overweight ate less, that it would make any significant impact on the worlds food problems.


This must also apply to smokers, drinkers and irresponsible drivers.


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.

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?

Actually, this thread is all about being discriminatory isn't it? That's the point of it. Whether or not to "discriminate" - which means "to identify a difference..." between people who pay for one seat but expect to share someone else's too. If you see a fat person and recognise their size as being different to everyone elses you are making a discrimination. Ditto recognising a person's age, sex, religion etc. Life would be pretty hard if you couldn't (or, via the poison of pc, weren't allowed to) tell one thing apart from another wouldn't it?

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...

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!

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.

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..

I apologise if I offend you in any weight, shape or form

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.

What hate? I think the position that being fat isn't a disease isn't a case of hate.

How does one hound and harass someone sitting next to you, unless you count being asked to stop overspilling the seat as harassment? Explain please?

Yes, that will help her case for not being singled out a lot.

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.

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.

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.

That is only a theory. It is more likely that if all the rich fat people (who are the ones who can afford to fly) decide to eat less then food production will fall as the hungry people cannot afford to buy it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Maybe the obese passengers have discovered this old medicine?

All these large people defending their (apparent) rights are forgetting that, at present, they reduce the quality of the journey for those sat next to them. Surely that is the key issue?

Really caiman27!!! So do smelly people, rude people, people who have loud clothing and I could go on and on.
Its public transport and if you don't like mixing with the general public fly in your own private jet!!!!!!!

So, Jarvy, you are saying that it is entirely fair for fat people to encroach into other people's physical space?

Why should they have to?
If I had paid good money for my own private seat, I don't expect other people to take up some of the space that I have rented for the duration of the flight.

Yes, you could go on and on (and you probably will), but rude people and people with loud clothing are easy to ignore and have little or no affect on my comfort whilst flying.
Smelly people are a bit different and can cause problems, but in general they don't worry me or have too much of an influence on my flight comfort.

747; you make the point perfectly. :D

Being morbidly obese is only partially a choice as there is a strong genetic background often to be found, e.g. for Typ 1 diabetes (and increasingly type 2). And, no, I am not obese but with a BMI of around 23...

How come then there are far more obese people now than before....? Oh yeah - lots of cheap calories to binge on.

Why would a fatty go on holiday to Hungry...

I find it uncomfortable when large people spill over into my seat. It shouldn't happen. The world has gone so P.C, eroding our rights as 'normal' sized people in this case. Sod that - 8 hours next/in front of a 'larger' person, knees poking your back, elbows sticking into your ribs, wheezing away...

Maybe someone should start an airline for fat people using Guppies or Belugas or perhaps a McDonald's Douglas!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mc...4B-Ih-_-Bi7BM:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fa...BvxUDOchME7FM:

Or behind a fattie, who chooses to enlarge his/her space by fully reclining his/her seat into your lap, so that there is enough space between his/her huge belly and the seat in front to lower the tray to load up with the food he/she finds necessary to sustain life for the next hour.

This happened to me on a BA European shorthaul a couple of weeks ago; 75 minutes of sheer bloody purgatory as this obese b******'s seat pressed hard on my knees. I could not lower my tray, even if I wanted to, nor could I move to restore circulation and avoid DVT without disturbing this inconsiderate lardarse's comfort.

And guess what? The b*gg*r had the nerve to raise his vast bulk enough off the seat to rotate his head and threaten me if I did it again!

The process of heaving his fat mountain up, and turning his head, must have taken 1-2 minutes. Emergency evacuation without endangering the lives of those behind him? Not a chance.

Originally posted by M-ONGO


Maybe to lose weight:)

No doubt breaking into a sweat which ran from his forehead to your lap. Charming. Should have had a word with the SCCM and had him repremanded for threatening behaviour. They could have met him with a 'meat wagon'...

In all seriousness, there is a 'massive' safety issue here. You have a right to your entire seat space, as he does. Not one inch more.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fa...4bDifT-ca_kXM:

Don't Start Me Off - fat people on planes

As a teacher who worked with people with special needs, including those with obesity, I think it is time to redress the general level of ignorance, superstition and bias so far displayed in this thread:
(From Wiki)
Note in particular the mention in the last line of the modern diet. It is a sad but true fact that children become obese at an early age because they are given, for any number of reasons, an inappropriate diet. By the time they reach their teens, their habits and size are pretty well determined and after that it is very difficult to undo the damage. It is easy in this scenario to blame parents but the fact is that many people in today's society do not have sufficient knowledge or education to understand what constitutes a healthy diet for their children. Hence the attempts by Jamie Oliver to try to get a healthy diet into schools. All of this is exacerbated by the processed food conglomerates who are able to produce inappropriate packaged food very cheaply and make vast profits.

You may well be discomfited by the obese person in the seat next to you but please do try to be a little less prejudiced when discussing such a situation. By the way, should you wonder, I am fortunate to have been slim all my life thanks to the fact that my mum brought me up on a very healthy wartime diet.

Point taken, John

But...

I don't suppose Jamie Oliver has to sit next to them in economy though. Unfortunately, the rest of your statement rings true - the lack of education and knowledge. That describes 2/3 of the LoCo pax demographic. One great oldie wanted "flying for the masses" - he instead got flying with the masses

Apart from the obvious safety implications of an obese person blocking the route to an escape exit - or even blocking the exit itself, the obese have to justify why they should expect to pay standard fares when the the slim girl sitting in the next seat may have had to spend a fortune in excess baggage charges.

Don't give them ideas Bill......

The LoCo's will be offering a premium 'sit next to a hot chick' seat for an extra £20. Very true, though. Why should a slim, lightweight woman pay because she has 22 kg's when a 300lb man pays no extra. I've even seen one fat family wearing several heavy jumpers and coats at check- in, obviously trying to avoid an orange airlines excess baggage charges. I pity the poor people sat next to or in between them.

@sunnyjohn

Listen, just because they , or their parents are stupid, is certainly no reason why they should get another, extra layer of compassion now.

It is not acceptable to pass their problem onto their neighbours, they have to deal with it themselves.

With respect, bolleaux. Very, very few people in today's society do not have sufficient knowledge or education to understand that, in the UK at least which is what I suspect you are referring to. Or in any developed society with an education system.

Indeed, lack of education - as seen in the third world, ie NO education - and lack of obesity seem to go together, don't they? I wonder why?

In the UK people eat junk food and lots of it because, so far as 99% of them are concerned, they are stupid, self-indulgent, lazy, and can always blame someone else.

They know perfectly well that this and lack of any exercise is making them what they are. But they don't give a toss. Look around in Tesco at the huge bottoms behind the fullest trolleys, and look at what's in those trolleys. And then realise that the person with that bottom can read, write, watch TV and has had at least 10 years education.

Perhaps the answer is to have a box similar to hand baggage sizers.

If can't get in that box, try the next size up, if you can't get into the double, try the triple. if you can't get into that one refused boarding.

Fares base on what box you fit into.

Oh and you have to be able to move your arms, not squeezed in with a shoehorn.

:p

Good plan. They should just change the size of the security gates to the width of the seats. If you can't get through security then they can't come on the plane