Fare deal for obese air travellers

[bambbbam2]

From
Fare deal for obese air travellers | NEWS.com.au

A CANADIAN tribunal has ordered domestic airlines to charge clinically obese or disabled passengers accompanied by an attendant only one ticket to fly, even if they take up two or more seats.


Under the Canadian Transportation Agency ruling, airlines have one year to bring in a "one-person-one-fare" policy for persons with severe disabilities who require two seats to accommodate them.


It also applies to disabled persons who need a medical attendant seated with them on flights.


However, it is up to the airlines themselves to come up with a screening process to assess eligibility, said the agency.


The decision follows a 2002 complaint and lawsuits by an obese woman and two severely disabled people, backed by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, who had requested extra seats on flights for themselves or attendants at no extra cost, but were denied.




In a statement, the Canadian Transportation Agency said its ruling is "based on longstanding principles of equal access to transportation services for persons with disabilities, regardless of the nature of the disability."

It also respects related high court and federal court decisions.

 

[drron]

Really opens up a can of worms doesnt it.The court in its wisdom said it should not inconvenience the airline as these case would only represent 0.09% of Air Canadas passenger revenue.A whole lot more of a percentage of its profit I would imagine.
Also when it comes to companions are they not going to eat or have access to entertainment etc.An empty seat is just foregone revenue but an occupied seat certainly is extra cost.
With no pun intended this decision will certainly lead to a growing problem for the airlines.

 

[NYCguy]

Now that I have put on my flame-proof asbestos underwear, I will make a comment about this subject - in my opinion,this was preposterous ruling by the Court. If your backside needs 2 seats, then you should pay for 2 seats. It's just more reinforcement to obese people that they are entitled to "special" treatment because of their alleged "disability".

Feel free to flame me, because I have an answer for just about everything!

 

[trooper]

If Governments want to make it possible for folks needing two seats (clinical obesity or attendant required or whatever) to only pay one fare.. AND the electorate agrees.. then it should be funded by PUBLIC monies... not imposed on a commercial operation....

I dunno.. a 100% tax deduction for the second seat for eligible applicants?

Whatever - but NOT an impost on a business!!!

 

[NYCguy]

I dunno.. a 100% tax deduction for the second seat for eligible applicants?

It would be more sensible to make bariatric surgery or medically-supervised weight-loss therapy tax-deductible, rather than rewarding people for being obese.

 

[Travel Guru]

What next, a court ruling ensuring the obese only pay for medium fries at McDonalds even though they need a Large to satiate them?

What a load of BS.

TG

 

[trooper]

Quite right NYC guy... I was referring to the "ideal" situation where only those with strictly defined "clinical" obesity would even get a shot at this...

Of course whether such definition is possible ....

In any case I was merely trying to emphasise my objection to ANY business being expected to take on the financial burden of a government imposed "social benefit"... IF electorates claim this is what they want .. then the funding method is obvious.. and it is NOT the responsibilty of the service provider!

Can't believe the ruling anyway....

 

[moa999]

or how about car company having to supply a 4WD instead of their cheapest small car because you don't fit.

Interesting the argument seems to have been - you must allow carers to travel free, and then that the extra seat is just like a carer (it is a requirement to enable the person to travel)

 

[Travel Guru]

Interesting the argument seems to have been - you must allow carers to travel free, and then that the extra seat is just like a carer (it is a requirement to enable the person to travel)

I know...here's an interesting suggestion I dare anyone in the public domain to put forward......eat less, eat better and exercise more then you wouldnt need two seats and a carer.

TG

 

[straitman]

I know...here's an interesting suggestion I dare anyone in the public domain to put forward......eat less, eat better and exercise more then you wouldnt need two seats and a carer.

TG

If they need two seats and a carer do they still only pay for one :?:

 

[Travel Guru]

If they need two seats and a carer do they still only pay for one :?:

Apparantly yes...though how any sane individual could come to that decision escapes me.

TG

 

[straitman]

Apparantly yes...though how any sane individual could come to that decision escapes me.

TG

Maybe the answer is in your answer :!:

'how any sane individual'

 

[simongr]

I do support the general consensus that people should take responsibility for their own weight, I think this comes back to equality. If a lung cancer victim due to their smoking habits is travelling with a companion carer and their "oxygen tank" takes up a second seat as well - are they required to pay for multiple seats? If so then the obese should be treated in the same way surely?