Seriously obese passenger query.
 

A relative of mine has just returned from a trip to the US, and their outbound flight was one and a half hours late departing (VS from Gatwick) due to problems getting a family of 3 extremely overweight passengers seated.
There were 3 of them and they were each allocated 2 seats (with the arm rests raised), and this caused major problems for the people who had already prebooked those seats.

I know that in some parts of the world, passengers who require an extra seat are required to pay for this and was wondering if this happens in the UK, or are the people concerned simply given priority over passengers who have already booked their seats?

The to rub salt into the wound, there was a 2 hour wait for immigration in the US, but not for the family who caused the delay as they were whisked straight to the front on a passenger buggy and didn't have to wait a minute.

BMI = weight (kgs)/height² (metres²)
The breakdown of BMI categories is as follows:
<18 Underweight
18 - 25 Acceptable healthy weight
26 - 30 Overweight
31 - 39 Obese
41+ Morbidly obese

For those considered obese or morbidly obese at the time of check in, rather than how many seats they require, an independent medical exam for fitness to travel should be mandatory.

I've always thought there should be an overwing exit mockup in the jetbridge with a sign, "You must be able to pass through this opening to board the aircraft."

Imagine you've booked a trip way in advance, and gone through the process of selecting your favourite seat on the aircraft. Then a (doubtfully well meaning) cabin attendant comes around, huffin' puffin' fatso in tow, asking you to move so that lard arse can get your seat.

Me, personally, I'd said "sure, if you upgrade me to Club". If that was denied, and disobeying an order by a crew member is unlawful, I'd ask to be involuntary denied boarding, collect the EUR 600 compensation as demanded by the EU and catch the next flight. If that was also denied, well, then I'd leave the aircraft and call the nearest tabloid newspaper and vent my guts. That usually result in a grovelling apology from the airline, and an offer of a free return ticket, if I promise to keep trap shut on the subject.

Not my problem some fat fcuker can't control their diet, and I won't be the one suffering from their poor choices.

Seconded!

PS
I detest the PC word "obese", and much prefer "fatso", "fat fcuker", "lard arse" or other far more derogatory terms. They choose to become fat (in 99% of cases); I choose to ridicule them.

I prefer Volumetric Challenged
 

A width gauge for passengers should also be mandatory for cabin crew from the land of the free.

Isn't the width of the aisle the deciding factor, or perhaps the toilet door.

Glf

SMT, while I sympathise with your view it is neither the FAs nor the airlines fault, on the day. They are simply trying to accommodate all the fare paying passengers.

However what I think airlines must do is to include something in their conditions of carriage. Something along the lines of ...

1. The fare you have purchased is for accommodation in one (1) seat in your chosen class of service. (Insert here a clear description of the minimum seat size in each cabin).

2. If you are unable to fit in our seat, or if you require additional space for any reason, you must purchase a second seat at the applicable tariff and you must advise us at time of booking that you require adjacent seats. (or, for Cryanair types: you must arrive at the gate sufficiently in advance to secure two adjacent seats. We recommend that you purchase our rip-off advance boarding product. A charge for each seat will apply:) ). Otherwise we cannot guarantee that adjacent seats will be available. Should you fail to secure adjacent seats we will not accommodate you on our flight.

Having something like this will shift the responsibility back onto the individual traveller, where it should be. Airlines could include a "if our flight is not full, well give you a refund clause" but the passenger should pay up front.

From memory about 10 years ago one large airline in the US began a policy of upfront charging the very obese for the extra seat they needed with a refund if the plane was less than full. Cue huge protests in the US media and said airline backed down.

The USA is too far gone with a pandemic of obesity for an airline to try this again.

A nasty problem is if returning to the UK sick with urine retention. As I was in business class, occupying too much seat wasn't a problem but I NEEDED the extension seat belt.

When they did get the urine retention fixed, I got rid of 8.75 litres in 24 hours and lost 14kg in weight in 48 hours......

dj6 As I recall, that was South West. Taking a quick look at the site, it seems that this ruling is still in force. (It was a quick look)

radeng Ouch! and Oooh! and Yikes! :eek:

SMT - It was with WN in mind that I suggested the 'refund' clause. But that is up to them, if they want to offer it. You could have a flight with less than a 50% load, and it seems a little OTT to charge for two seats when everyone else could have three seats to themselves FOC.

Exxb, all very reasonable, but why should the airline carry the extra 70Kgs, or whatever, FOC, even if there are plenty of empty seats. Every extra Kg carries a cost penalty.

The only solution is the one you suggest of conditions for obese people which MUST then be enforced at the check-in desk or gate. The critical dimension for that purpose is not actually weight, it's the width of the body, in a sitting posture, at any level (ie hip, shoulders etc must all fit in the space). It's a very easy dimension to define and check, and of course the maximum allowed is the width between the armrests (inside dimension) of the seat the passenger wishes to buy. There would be the option of buying two seats, or upgrading to a wider seat, for those who fail the test.

As a second condition, I would have no objection whatsoever to a rule which states that anyone with a BMI of > nnn must be seated where he or she will be at the back of the queue to disembark in an emergency. I can see no reason whatsoever why the lives of other people should be at risk because of the inability of the obese to move quickly, or indeed to squeeeeze themselves though the fairly ample exits. Seats for people with a BMI of >nnn should be marked as such on on-line booking charts, and a fattie who books elsewhere must be stopped at the gate, relocated to such a seat if available and refused boarding - and a refund - if not.

BMI is not a perfect measure, as we know, some very fit people have high BMI scores. But it's a start, and such people can always demonstrate their fitness to self-evacuate. (Oh Lord, here we go down another avenue....)

I always now book an aisle seat, as near an exit as possible, if I can to reduce the risk of being trapped by a tu......grossly obese person.

By the argument of weight - very tall people could be penalised. Being tall is genetic - being morbidly obese is a choice - for which you should also choose to pay for two seats and pay for them.

Fat is not a disease.

Capot,

How do we know which seats are for people last on the evacuation line? And some emergencies require different type of exit so an obese can evacuate via a Type I exit but not via an overwing hutch.

Rwy in Sight

On a Singapore Airlines flight a couple of years back, I saw a passenger in the departure hall and fervently hoped that he wasn't going to be between me and any exit I might need as he was absolutely enormous (horizontally, not vertically).

He was seated on the rear row of seats at the back end, spreading over two complete seats and into the third. Apart from the normal belt, he had two child belts attached together.

The people I felt sorry for on this 13 hour flight were those sat on the row in front of him, as they couldn't recline their seats at all - his gut was pressing against them! He didn't leave his seats for the whole flight, and trying to access a toilet would have been a joke.

I was hoping that he would have had to pay for the extra seating, and/or the passengers in front got a refund - I didn't find out, but was grateful that I was sitting further away.

P6 Driver

The "obese seats" will, for any given aircraft type and configuration, be those seats which are the furthest from the emergency exits, in other words halfway between any two exits.

There would be one row designated as such at each such halfway point; thus in an A320, for example there would be 2 "obese rows" totalling 12 seats. This number could be increased by designating the next rows forward or back, but only if they are not filled already with normal people.

People who can only squeeeze through a Type 1 exit would be permitted to use any designated "obese seat row" where the next exit, either fore or aft, is a proper, wide door (Type 1?). Again using the A320, this would be each of the two designated "obese rows".

If the superfattie were to disregard instructions, try to use an overwing exit and get stuck, it wouldn't matter because he or she would be at the back of the line in any event. The cabin attendant, if there, must make sure he or she exits before the superfattie, first having advised him or her politely to proceed to the front or rear door as appropriate. (That's advise politely, not proceed politely, which hopefully the superfattie would do, but it's not obligatory.)

In that case I would suggest that the vast majority of the male population would have to buy two seats.

Do the maths for a 16" wide seat and you will be amazed at what the max chest size would be.

Yes, well, you have a point; shoulders are, on a normal person, wider than the hips. So we would have to add an inch or two each side, the exact amount depending on the exact width of the seat at that point, plus 50% of the gap between it and the next seat, on each side. Dimensions for the middle seat in a row of three would apply to the two other seats in the row.

The underlying principle is that no passenger should encroach on another passenger's space on each side, or stick out to be clobbered (unintentionally, ho, ho, ho) by the trolley.

there is the point that seats are rather too small for many 'normal' size people - as well as too close together.

Indeed radeng. Watch out for those 777s with 10-across in Y, rather than the designed for 9.

So by most peoples definition I should pay for 2 seats. I am 6' 1" and 230 lbs so using the bmi method I am just obese!
But I do fit in a normal seat, I can move fast when needed and I am a pilot!
I do like you tolerance and understanding of peoples problems especially as your all so perfect!!

Jarvy
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Great to see some common sense non hysterical comments:ok:

Obesity occurs when the calorific intake exceeds the energy used. Lord Toad, other factors that may contribute include genetic or psychological factors.

Jarvey would have a BMI of 30.3 so overweight. Another 5 pounds and he'd go into the obese category and if he looked for a new life assurance policy in this part of the world he'd have to pay +50% more for it. Not sure what it would do for a pilots medical certificate?

Given more than a billion adults globally are either overweight or obese, it seems a consequence of modern life that such persons cost more to transport and and should be charged say on a per kilo basis where their BMI is over 31.

On check in a body mass index calculator could be used to calculate a passengers BMI and an appropriate excess weight charge, extra seat charge or refusal to carry could be levied there and then.

Sober lark, I am from your part of the world (I'm English) and have a class 2 FAA medical and have held a class 1 CAA medical (not at present due to problem unrelated to my size) when my weight was up to 250lbs!

To use BMI as criteria is absolute tosh. I have a BMI of 28 and therefore overweight. I could easily move up to obese (lardass if you prefer) and still not be encroaching into any adjoining seat.

This is because, apart from being a lardass, I am also a shortass at 1.57m who could never become wide enough to be in contact with both armrests let alone encroach into adjoining space. But because I am overweight at 69Kgs the fanatics posting here propose that I should pay extra whilst being well below the weight of most of said posters.

Perhaps I should be entitled to a discount as I don't use all the available legroom.

Do keep up, Shack, your configuration has been allowed for, in a generic kind of way. It is recognised that there is a small problem arising from the possibility of a misunderstanding when asking people with poor language skills to demonstrate that they can self-evacuate, but that can probably be overcome with suitable graphics and, if all else fails, some wet-wipes and a mop and bucket.

Refinement of the proposal has led to the probability that passengers will, within a couple of years, be required to board through a mock-up emergency exit at all EU airport gates. This will achieve the dual purpose of training them in using an exit, and checking that they are able to do so.

The regulation is going through the EASA Rulemaking process and will be allocated a task number within a week or two, now that the Rulemaking Director has formally agreed that it should proceed. A Working Group will be formed before the end of the year.

Fat isn't a disease.

I never said the measurement of obesity was correct, nor did I say the dimensions of airline seats or seating was perfect.

BMI provides a significantly more accurate representation of body fat content than simply measuring a persons weight.

At 250 pounds that would have given such a person a BMI of 33 which would increase a life assurance premium by 50% here assuming there are no other risk factors. Risk factors such as family members (mother, father, brother, sister) suffering from early heart disease or diabetes before age 60, raised blood pressure, raised cholesterol, cigarette smoking.

A life assurance company would charge a person 50% more in premiums for just having a BMI of 33 with no other risk factors yet the FAA would give a first class medical, what type of a safety hazard is that?

Back to PAX, one could say at present it looks like healthy weight persons subsidise the airfare of overwight passengers.

It depends just where you bulge.

I spent an very uncomfortable 4 hours next to this chap who clearly was not wearing Y-fronts. He sat with his knees apart encroaching on my space. I have long thighs and it was B uncomfortable.

Then had an 8 hour next to this young, slim chap for whom toilet paper was unknown. Every time he moved . . . We had both blowers at full strength in his direction. :(

BMI is a statistical tool that works well for populations but should never be used by itself for individuals are there are far too many variables. My insurer has a standard BMI test - exceed it and they require a medical to continue to get the "healthy" discount. Pass the medical and they pay for it. So it is used as a way of splitting the population but they understand its flaws so don't use it as an ultimate test. Any medic (or health provider) who does is utterly incompetent and should never have got their licence.

From an individual perspective a better test is whether your waist is greater than half your height ... if it is then you are probably carrying too much fat. It still isn't a great test but is better than BMI as it is more tuned to individuals rather than populations.

This is all getting a bit silly now. So sober lark if I as an overweight passenger should pay more for my seat should my wife who is small get a discount?
I do agree that if passengers need 2 seats they should have to pay for the second but its up to the airlines not us!

Jarvy, what is your view of a passenger that fits in one seat but whose sheer bulk impinges on the adjacent passenger(s). For instance large biceps and large pecs so they effectively shoulder their neighbour?

James 1077, your insurer uses mortality tables to price the rate you pay. If you were not overweight the chances are they wouldn't have requested you to attend for a medical. The insurer uses the medical to identify other possible risk factors which combined with your BMI could have made you uninsurable.

Standard passenger weights for a max seating capacity of aircraft (inc crew) of 300-499 adult male is 81.4kg, adult female 66.3kg, infant 0-3 years a, child 4 to 12 at 41kg an adolescent male 13-16 yrs at 60.50 and female at 54.7kg. For those of us who like the idea of more reasonable airfares having some sort of airline fat tax isn't an unreasonable suggestion.

Look at Wizzair. They wanted to reduce airfares so they are going to try to introduce a fee for cabin baggage. Don't Spirit and Allegiant Air charge over there?

Isn't weight an important part of airline economics?

Oh the joys of air travel. So let me get this straight, we want to charge more for fat people, big people, smelly people and people who dare to carry any sort of luggage. Have I missed any?
Those who want cheaper air travel must accept that the space will get smaller and that with the increase in passengers there will be a greater cross section of society.
If you really can't bear to sit next to others then pay more for better seats or even charter your own aircraft. It is after all public transport and therefore available to everyone! Not just some special people!!!

Have I missed any?

Just one. Whether the CAA, FAA should be giving first class medicals to those who weigh 250 pounds. :)

One down, three to go. It's unstoppable.

Mind you, fat and smelly are frequently found together. Some might say that big and fat are the same, but that's not the case; there are some very big people who are not fat at all. But they still need a bigger seat than the ones on offer at the back.

Surprised that know one has mentioned this but I wonder what the slides are tested in respect to extremly overweight pax, I am an engineer but have no idea at to what weight the slide is certified to, anyone have an idea?

FAA TSO
 

Southwest's (WN) rule seems pretty common-sense: if a passenger cannot fit in a seat with the armrests lowered, they are obligated to buy two seats.

I looked up the FAA TSO (no chuckles, now) covering evacuation slides (TSO-C69c) and it requires a slide to be tested for three persons of 170lb minimum weight closely bunched, simultaneously descending each lane of the device - so a single individual should not be a challenge as long as they are under 510lb or so. Here is a link to the FAA TSO if you want to have a read:
Current Technical Standard Order

Airlines are facing a possible multi-million dollar lawsuit after a clinically obese woman died while on holiday in Hungary after she was refused a seat on three flights back to New York where she needed medical treatment.

Vilma Soltez, who weighed over 30 stone (420 pounds) and had only one leg and used a wheelchair, died from health complications nine days after she was kicked off the first of the three flights.

She was unable to board due to issues with seat extensions and wheelchairs and other equipment that would not hold her weight.

She had travelled to her summer home in Hungary with Delta and KLM Airlines but had reportedly put on weight during her trip.

According to reports, the couple's travel agent had told Delta/KLM before the trip that she needed to return home on October 15 to continue with medical treatment for kidney problems and diabetes.

But her husband Janos claimed the couple were told they could not fly on their original Delta/KLM flight from Hungary because the aircraft did not have the necessary seat extension.

He said they were directed to drive to Prague for a Delta/KLM flight home. At Prague, Soltez could not be transferred to the flight because equipment could not be found that would hold her weight.

Their New York travel agent then found them another flight with Lufthansa, via Frankfurt, but this was not viable for the same reasons despite three seats being available for the passenger.

According to the Daily Mail, a local fire crew were bought in to help move her into the seats but they could not lift her out of her wheelchair.

Delat, KLM and Lufthansa have issued statements explaining their reasons for being unable to accommodate her.

Lawyers are now considering legal action against the airlines for violating laws protecting the disabled.
and Delta, KLM sued for death of obese woman denied flight - CBS News

This is the essence of the Rule now being proposed as an EASA AMC to Regulation Air Operations (EC 965/2012, effective 28th Oct 2012, as everyone knows), as mentioned above. It is couched in rather different terms, and focuses on a fatty's ability to use the Emergency Exit as rather more politically correct than his/her weight, girth, appearance and smell, so as not to offend the European Commission's numerous and varied sensibilities. But it amounts to the same thing. And there will be other critieria added at the Working Group stage of the process, such as those suggested by Jarvy and Sober Lark, of which EASA is now aware.

PS In breaking news, EASA is struggling more than usual trying to translate the draft TOR for the Working Group; it was originally drafted in Gaelic (to satisfy quota issues and practice for the day when a Gaelic-speaking Scotland joins Catatonia as an EU Member) with a title roughly translated as "Safety of the Grossly Obese and those in their Vicinity". The Spanish went for "eliminación de las tinas de manteca de cerdo", the Hungarians preferred the pithier "forgatás az elhízott", which the Poles matched, in a sense, with Slavic solidarity, choosing "strzelanie otyłych". The French interpreter said "Je m'en fou" and retired to his favourite Cologne restaurant. The Germans said "Wir urinieren auf euch alle" and went back to the bar, beating up a few Serbs on the way. The Finns stripped off and went to the sauna, followed by the Swedish and Norwegians. The Greeks, Portugese and Italians could not be woken up. The Bulgarians, Irish and Czechs could not be revived. Slovakia wanted "Nariadenie aby obéznych ľudí na zemi", which was almost accurate. The UK CAA had 8 meetings, came up with "Regulations for Controlling the Impact of Very Large People on Passenger Safety" and went back for more tea. And so on; it is likely that the Regulation will never emerge from this Black Hole of Babel, as so many others have not done.

The Tower of Babel

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...ooter/EASA.png

Thats the answer, another cup of tea!