Obese have the right to two seats: court

[DTM1]

"Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday."

Obese have the right to two seats: court


outrageous. without wanting to offend other members of this forum, methinks there may be some overweight judges on the court...

 

[medhead]

Not a lot of detail in the story. But it talks about being "functionally disabled by obesity" to get 2 seats.

If I'm funationally disabled by being an A...Hole, can I get 2 seats as well?

 

[DTM1]

It becomes a question of subjectivity and relativity. what is functionally obese depends upon the surroundings. that is, if you fly J, a given degree of obesity does not create an impairment - if you fly Y on a LCC, then it may.

PC gone mad....

 

[BAM1748]

Karma - once upon a time airlines included such things as fuel in the price of the ticket, they are ok with juggling things around to suit themselves.

Airlines in Canada will need to build a bridge and get over it, they like to challenge everything if it doesn't suit them.

 

[moa999]

ehhh.. just install seats without moveable armrests - that will fix the court case.

Same with the Vic Govt / Jetsar decision which from memory caused a total removal of the ability to change names on tickets.

(from reading some posts on the QF A380 the armrests only 3/4 raise in any event)

 

[Dave Noble]

I don't see it as necessarily outrageous. Airlines are not selling seats , they are entering into contracts of carriage. if they agree to take a passenger from A - B , they can hardly wait till the passenger turns up and then say "sorry , the fare has doubled"

Dave

 

[simongr]

I dont think that is a reasonable comparison Dave. The passenger would be aware of their size and should have an obligation to advise the airline if they need an extra seat as a minimum.

If I book a removalist to transfer my property from A to B and tell him it's a 3 Bedroom house and he bases his estimate on that, then finds 45 boxes of comics in the garage - it is reasonable that he might think his original estimate was wrong. The airlines work on the same principle - they assume they are selling a seat - not two seats.

One also could extend this to J - a Skybed is not that much wider than a whY seat so maybe obese people could ask for multiple seats in J?

 

[straitman]

I don't see it as necessarily outrageous. Airlines are not selling seats , they are entering into contracts of carriage. if they agree to take a passenger from A - B , they can hardly wait till the passenger turns up and then say "sorry , the fare has doubled"

Dave

Dave,

Your theory and ideology are admirable but quite frankly your logic is cxxp :!:

Bigger everything costs more than smaller. Why should airlines be any different :?:

Two Kg of meat always cost more to transport or buy than one Kg of meat :!:

 

[medhead]

If I book a removalist to transfer my property from A to B and tell him it's a 3 Bedroom house and he bases his estimate on that, then finds 45 boxes of comics in the garage - it is reasonable that he might think his original estimate was wrong. The airlines work on the same principle - they assume they are selling a seat - not two seats.

One also could extend this to J - a Skybed is not that much wider than a whY seat so maybe obese people could ask for multiple seats in J?

Only problem with this is removalists don't assume they are moving a 3 Bed house. They come around and assess the contents and then give a quote. So again the example doesn't fit.

If airlines are assuming about sales then the old adage applies about what assume does to u and me.

 

[Dave Noble]

Dave,

Your theory and ideology are admirable but quite frankly your logic is cxxp :!:

Bigger everything costs more than smaller. Why should airlines be any different :?:

Two Kg of meat always cost more to transport or buy than one Kg of meat :!:

Where's the illogicality? the airlines do not quote fares based on weight of passenger , just based on units. No different to , say, buying oranges in a greengrocers in the UK where the cost is charged per orange not per kilogrammme

In relation to the article itself, other transport carriers in Canada are already having to operate within the Canadian regulations but the airline wanted to be treated differently. I don't see why the airline should have expected that they be exempt the rules that apply to others

Dave

 

[simongr]

Only problem with this is removalists don't assume they are moving a 3 Bed house. They come around and assess the contents and then give a quote. So again the example doesn't fit.

Not in my case

Where's the illogicality? the airlines do not quote fares based on weight of passenger , just based on units. No different to , say, buying oranges in a greengrocers in the UK where the cost is charged per orange not per kilogrammme

It depends on how you measure the "units" - is the unit a pax or a seat. The pax believes its a pax and the airline believes its a seat...

 

[Dave Noble]

It depends on how you measure the "units" - is the unit a pax or a seat. The pax believes its a pax and the airline believes its a seat...

No. Airlines believe they enter a contract of carriage between airline and the passenger. If they were selling a seat , then there would be little to stop someone buying a seat and seling it on.

regardless, this case is to do with the Canadian airline thinking that it should be exempt Canadian regulations just because it might cost it money

Dave

 

[DTM1]

I don't see it as necessarily outrageous. Airlines are not selling seats , they are entering into contracts of carriage. if they agree to take a passenger from A - B , they can hardly wait till the passenger turns up and then say "sorry , the fare has doubled"

Dave

if you adopt that approach, then it will only be a matter of time before the terms and conditions contain maximum waist measurements per seat, like the measurements for cabin luggage.

 

[SeaWolf]

There's an interesting article on Wired about this:
Canada Gives Obese Flyers an Extra Seat for Free | Autopia from Wired.com

For many, the free-seat fracas goes to the question of whether obesity is a disability. A Vancouver Sun columnist argues you can't define a disability without considering the environment in which it exists. The way he sees it, most people would consider a blind man disabled, but if he lives in a land where everyone else is blind, he's just another guy. An editorial in the Denver Post raises the same point. "Airlines should do their best to accommodate all passengers," the Post says. "Yet a majority of obese Americans are making a lifestyle choice. Forcing companies and passengers to make impractical financial adjustments on their behalf is unfair."

I think it's also worth noting here that the court did not rule on the matter of if an obese passenger was entitled to an extra seat. The court simply ruled that the CTA had the legislated authority to regulate the airline industry in this manner and there was no legal reason the CTA couldn't create a 'one person, one fare' regulation. The end result is the same, but there seems to be a nasty undertone in some articles that this is some sort of liberal activist court descision. It's really not, the court didn't even consider obesity as an issue.

 

[JohnK]

I sat opposite a larger sized man on my flight up to BNE on Sunday. I was sitting in 6C and he was in 6D. He was able to fit in to the seat reasonably comfortably, although no one sitting in the middle seat, but his stomach was up against the seat in front. I think he is ~230 kilos and does not travel very often! Very nice bloke and we had a long chat during the flight and then on the way to the baggage carousel. Apparently he was in Sydney for the weekend on a Youtube gathering of ~60 people.

The bloke in the seat in front was not able to recline, and was visibly upset, although his wife sitting in 5C reclined for the duration of the flight no matter how loud I cursed or talked about her to the person sitting in 6A. When was the last time we had a good reclining debate? :mrgreen:

 

[drron]

It is not always the big guy that is the problem.Flying DJ SYD-MCYmonday last week there were 2 of us 6ft,100kg fellows in 14A,C.14B was about 60% of our size but insisted on sticking his elbows out across the armrests.When he gave his rubbish to the FA both 14A and myself simultaneously stuck our elbows across the armrests.He scowled,we smiled.

 

[medhead]

Not in my case

Well in every case I've experience the removalist have assessed the uplift quantity. Yes, when I moved from the remote outback they didn't come around and assess my contents but they did get me to fill in a form listing everything I owned.

And I'm sure they, at least, do that in everycase.

That's why removalists are not a good analogy for airlines selling seats.

 

[crazydave98]

I think Southwest have a very sensible policy about obese people who cannot fit in a single seat with the armrests down - Southwest only make the passenger pay for the extra seat if the flight is full (that is if the airline would have otherwise sold the seat). I think it strikes a good balance between some of the arguments in this thread that the airline is undertaking to transport the person (as opposed to provide a seat) but that the airline should not be out of pocket when the person is out of size. The other alternative if a flight is full could be to offer a later flight that is not full (i.e. the obese person can have two seats on that flight) if possible.

There have been some memorable incidents of airlines measuring up people in public view to see if they will fit into a seat - evidently some improvements needed here. Maybe use the security rooms?

cheers

CrazyDave98

 

[Alanslegal]

Its a fair court decision and LW's probably stuck it on the head with the fact that its a contract of carriage not a purchase of a seat.

I would guess not many super-sized people who require two seats would travel often or let alone want to be seen travelling. I would have a bet that the story probably would not change super-sized peoples' behaviours to want to travel or travel more.

Also its probably not set in stone but check-in agents should be able to place super-sized travellers into seatings which have a vacant adjacent seat anyway, where possible.

 

[comint]

What proportion of the population is considered "obese" or more importantly, can't fit their waist between the arm rests on a B737?

It would seem fairer to fit this proportionally to a seat quota for each flight. For example, I don't know the figures, but maybe a limit of 6 per plane? (Meaning a maximum opportunity cost to the airlines of 3 middle seats remaining empty.) Of course, this would also mean obese people would have to self identify during the booking process, to determine if the allocation on that flight has already been reached.