Jetstar: 160kg passenger's flight fury

[chooms]

Cairns Post

160kg passenger's flight fury - Local News - Cairns, QLD, Australia
160kg passenger's flight fury


Tuesday, February 3, 2009
© The Cairns Post

A Cairns woman says there is fat chance she'll fly with Jetstar again after she claims she was discriminated against for being overweight.

Samantha Scafe (pictured) , an IT expert who weighs 160kg, said she was forced to pay for a second seat for herself "for other people’s comfort" when she flies from Cairns to Coolangatta today.

After making the initial booking on January 15, she claims she was then told twice on January 18 by Jetstar not to worry about paying for a second fare because "we can get around the policy of charging a big person for two seats".

"I was told by Jetstar to phone the night before my flight to book excess luggage and not to worry about paying for the second seat," Ms Scafe told The Cairns Post yesterday.

"Then on Saturday, they advised me to book and pay for a second seat for other people’s comfort because of my size … and, would you believe, they then made a further mistake which I later noticed on the web by splitting up my seats so they weren’t next to each other."

Jetstar late yesterday apologised to Ms Scafe but said it was not policy to provide overweight customers with a two-for-the-price-of-one deal.

Ms Scafe said she had cited in discussions with Jetstar a Canadian court ruling last November that overweight people could have two seats for the price of one.

She said she had filed a complaint with Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland.

 

[Alanslegal]

Poor lady - both for the alleged discrimination plus for being that size. She looks very uncomfortable but that's my $0.02

 

[MissBurrill]

"Ms Scafe said she had cited in discussions with Jetstar a Canadian court ruling last November that overweight people could have two seats for the price of one."


I thought Canadian Courts didn't have jurisdiction in Australia yet Ms Scafe seems to think they do..........

Karen

 

[Natt]

"Ms Scafe said she had cited in discussions with Jetstar a Canadian court ruling last November that overweight people could have two seats for the price of one."


I thought Canadian Courts didn't have jurisdiction in Australia yet Ms Scafe seems to think they do..........

Karen

It doesn't, unless they were a Canadian Airline I would guess

Its an interesting issue - and has implications for other passengers too.

What happens at the moment for passengers that are really tall & cannot comfortably sit in a normal seat?

Im actually surprised a second seat was needed - they are pretty generous width & an extension belt will suit most big people.

 

[JohnK]

Im actually surprised a second seat was needed - they are pretty generous width & an extension belt will suit most big people.

A second seat was probably not needed.

As a general rule airline seats in WHY are not that generous in width especially if the person is bigger around the hips and thighs. And if you happen to be in a bulkhead or exit row with the fixed armrests it can be very uncomfortable. I think airlines need to be more understanding of these situations taking into consideration the general population is becoming more overweight and the seats are getting narrower....

 

[Moody]

Would a solution be to offer a wide-bodied seat at a premium price? Sort of like the way premium economy is setup (two seats in place of three), but instead of having a small tablespace between the seats you would just make them 50% wider.

There would not be any special cabin service and they need not be exit rows, so these seats would not appeal to the wanna-be bankers. If they don't sell then at worst the airline has lost the opportunity to get revenue for a couple of normal economy seats, and maybe they could be offered on departure as love-seats for honeymooners!

 

[Junji]

do airlines account for extra fuel in these circumstances, where someone may be considered outside of a particular average mass range?

 

[Natt]

do airlines account for extra fuel in these circumstances, where someone may be considered outside of a particular average mass range?

I think they would probably have some average for the weight of the plane, as things like baggage would change mass too

Its interesting - maybe one day the airlines will set a limit such as 70kg + 10kg baggage - any excess and you have to fork over some extra $

They really could have taken a nicer picture of the women though - its not very flattering

 

[Alanslegal]

I thought Canadian Courts didn't have jurisdiction in Australia yet Ms Scafe seems to think they do.....

It doesn't, unless they were a Canadian Airline I would guess

Canadian case law may be applied here in Australia, as part of the common law system, for the sake of persuasive arguments (obiter dictum) and also for coming to a reason (ratio decidendi) if needs be.

The Anti Discrimination Board is basing the complaint on the merits of the incident rather than principles of law. They are assessing whether the person was discriminated because of her size rather than whether the airline was right to charge her two seats. Also evidentiary rules are a bit relaxed when it comes to these somewhat "informal" proceedings.

 

[Nigelinoz]

I think they would probably have some average for the weight of the plane, as things like baggage would change mass too

Its interesting - maybe one day the airlines will set a limit such as 70kg + 10kg baggage - any excess and you have to fork over some extra $

They really could have taken a nicer picture of the women though - its not very flattering

The idea was raised not so long ago,have a look here:

Will airlines start charging passengers by weight?

Interestingly just noticed the following lines from the same article
"Southwest comes closest to charging for weight, asking passengers to buy a second seat if their girth prevents the armrest from lowering"

 

[JohnK]

Its interesting - maybe one day the airlines will set a limit such as 70kg + 10kg baggage - any excess and you have to fork over some extra $

So more than half of the adult population would have to pay more for their airfares to be able to sit in the same seat as everyone else?

Just as well it is discriminatory and with the Canadian precedent we are unlikely to see anything like it implemented....

 

[Nigelinoz]

Then there is this quote from
Airlines will never weigh passengers | News.com.au Top stories | News.com.au

"
But Australian carriers Jetstar, Qantas and Virgin Blue were quick to dismiss the idea, vowing never to introduce human weight restrictions.
"It's a preposterous proposal and something Jetstar would never consider," said Jestar spokesman Simon Westaway.
"The issue of charging people for how much they weigh will not be entertained and hasn't even come into mind of our thinking. No airline in their right mind would ever entertain the idea."

 

[Natt]

So more than half of the adult population would have to pay more for their airfares to be able to sit in the same seat as everyone else?

Just as well it is discriminatory and with the Canadian precedent we are unlikely to see anything like it implemented....

Or is it user pays at work

I was just musing - so I hope I did not offend :shock:

 

[JohnK]

Or is it user pays at work

I was just musing - so I hope I did not offend :shock:

No you did not offend.

Unfortunately with an airline it cannot be a user pays system as they are selling a seat. If you can fit into that seat why should you be penalised? Sure they can make seats even smaller but I would hazard a guess that they would lose a lot of business which would not be good for the airline in this economic climate.

 

[Nigelinoz]

If you can fit into that seat why should you be penalised?

A very fair point,JohnK,and one that I agree with completely,but
isn't this question about people who can't fit into the seat?
And in these days of high fuel prices (they have come down recently) is it reasonable for an airline to seek to recover some of it's costs by penalising
people over a certain weight?
I'm not saying that I'm in favour of it,BTW,far from it,I'm just throwing the question open and I certainly am totally against discrimination,just asking.
Or is it a case of the airlines needing to increase the costs of all seats in order to cover itself for increased weight?
Or am I totally out of order and do airlines just need to accept the reality that there are some people who weigh more than others and just accept it as a cost of doing business,especially as I guess there would be a reasonable chance that they would have to carry some people who weighed less than average ?

 

[simongr]

Weight is just one variable in the cost of delivering service to the PAX - booze, food, check in time, luggage, status runners - all these things are specific to an individual and I would not like to see pricing trying to take account of these factors.

However if a pax can not fit in a seat that deprives the airline of revenue for that seat so I think it is reasonable to advise people that if they can not fit in a seat and the a/c is going out with no empty seats they should pay for the revenue lost by the airline.

 

[JohnK]

A very fair point,JohnK,and one that I agree with completely,but
isn't this question about people who can't fit into the seat?

True but I went slighly off Topic at the mention that a limit, of say 70kgs, is imposed and then an overweight passenger charge can be applied over this limit.

And in these days of high fuel prices (they have come down recently) is it reasonable for an airline to seek to recover some of it's costs by penalising people over a certain weight?

Whilst I agree with your point to some degree, and I am overweight by the way, the airlines are selling seats to humans not transporting cattle. The only time I would find it acceptable to charge someone for a second seat, if they cannot fit into one seat, would be on a full flight. Is it Southwest Airlines that does this at the moment?

And as simongr points out a seat is only part of delivering a service to the passenger. I would hate to see the LCC model in use on mainline carriers. But then would they still remain mainline carriers or morph into LCCs themselves?

 

[MissBurrill]

From the Jetstar website:
Customers of size

Customers who are unable to lower both armrests (the definitive boundary between seats) and/or who compromise any part of adjacent seating should proactively book the number of seats needed prior to travel, by purchasing a second seat or alternatively, purchasing a StarClass seat (where available).

Limited special assistance - Travel information - Jetstar Airways



Thank goodness I'm back at work tomorrow - am on second day of bed rest (nothing too serious) and am spending my time looking at random websites.

Karen

 

[browski]

From what I recall the reasoning of the Canadian decision is that contrary to popular belief Airlines do not sell seats, they sell an agreement to transport a passenger. So I wonder if the conditions of carriage in Australia are worded the same as in Canada. I suspect that it would be and as such Jetstar will lose this case if sued. Jetstar/Qantas etc are obviously already aware of this.

 

[tuapekastar]

If it does come down to charging very overweight pax for two seats, then I fully expect to also see really skinny pax sitting two to a seat.

On a serious note if a pax is built such that they spill into another person's seat then that is not acceptable and they should either book a premium cabin or two (or three :shock seats. I do have sympathy but...

Does Southwest (it may have been mentioned earlier in the thread but I aint re-reading it) have a policy whereby POS has to buy 2 seats but if there are other empty seats when the plane takes off, they are refunded the cost of one. Maybe a few logistical problems, but perhaps a reasonable compromise IMO

I think JohnK mentioned that Joe Human is generally getting larger on average and that perhaps airlines and manufacturers should be considering this when spec'ing/building planes.

I guess they already do, but I'm reasonably sure I saw an "Air Crash Investigation" where weight calculations were based on a formula from the 1920s or thereabouts and caused a bit of mayhem.