THAI sets waistline limit for passengers on 787-9 Dreamliners

Status
Not open for further replies.

Happy Trails

Established Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Posts
2,584
Thai Airways International has banned passengers with over 56-inch waistline and passengers with kids on their laps from Business Class seating on its Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner.

...
the aircraft manufacturer has fixed airbag in seat belt on Business Class seats. With this latest version of seatbelt, passengers with over 56 inches waist could not fasten the belt safely.

THAI sets waistline limit for passengers on 787-9 Dreamliners - Thai PBS English News
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I will probably get shot down for this but don’t have a problem with it if it is a genuine safety issue
 
So for all those that scream if you cant fit in a Y seat pay for J and when you do - the airline says you cant sit there.

Where the heck are you suppose to sit your (my) fat cough then? Obviously with another airline.

Sounds like the airline screwed up in seat design.
 
56 inches is pretty chunky. At the exercise pool today there was one around that size out of 16.
 
56 inches is pretty chunky. At the exercise pool today there was one around that size out of 16.
I think it's safe to say that most of the 'people of size' are not attending exercise classes, especially if swimwear is required. Hence the >56" waists.
 
Have some award flights in First and Business in June/August travelling with infant. Hope they don't swap to 787.
 
Good development - send the obese to LCCs. Thai should aspire to be a carrier that serves the cream of the crop.
 
I see people in the comments section on onemileatatime are already anticipating legal action. Perhaps they think the right to fly trumps safety.
 
Was on an EK flight in the mid 2000's. ENORMOUS man plonked himself in/on a J recliner seat. Significant turbulence 30 min into the flight and the seat collapsed trapping the man for 20 minutes while crew and passengers heaved him up.
 
Except safety should not discriminate against people with more than a 56" waist.

But it does, a pax cannot sit in the exit row if they need a seat belt extender and also for various other reasons including the ability to lift a defined weight.

I suggest that the reason for the waist size limit is determined by the manufacturer of the seat belt safety device and confirmed by the various national air safety organisations.

The actual airline has chosen to install these devices and is bound by the safety requirements of that equipment.
 
Except safety should not discriminate against people with more than a 56" waist.

But there probably comes a point where the additional strength of seating, anchoring of those seats, and other modifications (such as longer belts with revised airbags) is prohibitive to provide the same level of safety for passengers who are severely overweight. The solution might be the identification and modification of a single seat or seat unit (pair of seats) able to handle those pax, but even so, seat units can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.
 
Except safety should not discriminate against people with more than a 56" waist.
Perhaps, but the example above your comment shows that discrimination should be warranted where such a person creates an unsafe environment for the rest of the passengers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top