Overweight man sues Air France over seat row

[anat0l]

The girth of a passenger and the weight of the passenger cannot be a safety issue to the aircraft ( if it was , he would not be able to fly even paying extra ). Also, if it was for passenger comfort, it would make no issue since they are prepared to take him if he pays extra

Fair point, but the same is said about luggage. We can allow a few extra kilos here and there, and be prepared to charge high amounts for those that do want to carry the extra, but we don't outright say "it's 32kg in 1 bag or you don't fly". Well, at least I haven't seen it yet. As a corollary, why do we have a monetary penalty system for carrying extra baggage rather than an exclusive "make-the-weight-else-don't-fly" policy?

Also, there will be cases where there is such a passenger that cannot board the aircraft irrespective of any monetary penalty, because, as you have touched on, it will be a safety issue and no amount of money could pay for that. (e.g. person is so fat in girth that cannot be accommodated safely in a seat or may exceed seat stress specifications.) The passenger will just have to 'deal' really.

I'm sure there have also been cases where a passenger has brought along an impossible piece of luggage that cannot be checked into the aircraft (although it does not breach dangerous goods rules) and have been given the just 'comply-or-no-fly' treatment.

I guess 'fact' is that no one wants to admit that these are safety issues. This may be for PR reasons, but when push comes to shove the real reasons will surface - by then it's a bit over the top for common sense.

If the airline wants to be restrict passengers based on size ( which is a fair enough imo) then it should be an objective measure and not on the whims of airport staff. Can you imagine the chaos if QF did not specify a specific luggage allowance but just left the decision to what is ok to allow to staff at airports

The system is in place; this system is not dependant on the airport staffing whims. It is actually contractually defined between the corporation and the airport staff, but of course some staff are just going to have weak knees at times and go "oh alright you can have that extra 5kg of luggage" etc. etc. and the airline can't really do much about it (these performance issues are not tracked). After all, these employees get paid no matter what (as long as the plane doesn't crash) so they don't really give much a damn about the "safety" issues (they appear to be too small to be concerned with such issues). There are no tracking metrics (they don't weigh the planes! Let alone the weight of the cargo going in). And the last thing that these employees want is to get ranted and raved at. Hence the apparent 'failure' of the weight restriction system. (Yeah the same is going to happen if they start weighing people...)

 

[Dave Noble]

Fair point, but the same is said about luggage. We can allow a few extra kilos here and there, and be prepared to charge high amounts for those that do want to carry the extra, but we don't outright say "it's 32kg in 1 bag or you don't fly"

Actually they do often stop people checking in bags >32Kg

The system is in place; this system is not dependant on the airport staffing whims. It is actually contractually defined between the corporation and the airport staff, but of course some staff are just going to have weak knees at times and go "oh alright you can have that extra 5kg of luggage" etc. etc.

That was my point. For checked luggage they specifically quote what is permitted and may well charge should it be over . If they want to be able to charge the extremely obese , then they should put details of what max weight and dimensions are allowed to provide an definitive allowance rather than being at the whims of staff. As I said, how chaotic would it be if they changed checked baggage allowance to an amount where staff can just decide what the allowance is on the day, one day it might be 30Kg and the next 12Kg

Dave

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Actually they do often stop people checking in bags >32Kg
Dave

It was my understanding that this was due to OH&S issues for the baggage handlers, moreso than the excess weight on the plane. Still, very easy to measure and enforce.

That was my point. For checked luggage they specifically quote what is permitted and may well charge should it be over . If they want to be able to charge the extremely obese , then they should put details of what max weight and dimensions are allowed to provide an definitive allowance rather than being at the whims of staff. As I said, how chaotic would it be if they changed checked baggage allowance to an amount where staff can just decide what the allowance is on the day, one day it might be 30Kg and the next 12Kg
Dave

Agreed. We need some hard and fast rules. It works for traffic policing after all!
I would simply make it a total weight allowance per ticket. After all, there would be a specific 'average' allocation per pax for the flight - which would have an upperbound determined by the max takeoff specified by the route. Why not simply state that a ticket has a maximum total allocation specified for it - adjusted by class of travel of course . Then weigh pax + luggage together and be done with it.

<engineer side of brain kicks in>
"But what about cabin vs hold allocation, upper v lower deck (esp. A380), width v length, body shape?" Well, these need to be taken into consideration. (I'm glad I don't do airframe weight distribution)

Having had a nightmare trip trapped by a 'large' gent - his tray table wouldn't lie flat due to his girth - I would much prefer it if airlines simply assessed the width of pax before boarding and made adjustments as a result.
As to the least humilating way to do it? Well, that is left as an exercise for the reader...

mt

 

[anat0l]

Agreed. We need some hard and fast rules. It works for traffic policing after all!

(I hope, like me, there are some engineers out there to read this.)

Looking at Qantas's website, their 737-838 aircraft seats 12 Business & 156 Economy passengers, or 168 total. The volumetric payload (this is assuming maximum minus freight, empty plane and full fuel) is 21390 kg. Assuming that we never distinguish between the classes, this gives about 127 kg per passenger for both themselves and their luggage/carry-ons. Subtract 32 kg for the bag and 7 kg for the carry-on and that gives you 88 kg per person.

Bottom line: unless you're carrying an entire plane of obese passengers, there's little to worry about weight wise as long as everyone only carries their fair share of luggage.

So how do we set the rules? You've got things like a family of four with a fat father or mother and skinny kids - the kids give up weight allowance to allow for their fatter parents? Or how about a 130 kg man with no other bags? Why can't a 60 kg person carry 60 kg of luggage?

I think size is more an issue if anything. Have some sort of arch saying: "If you can't fit through this arch without touching the sides, you can't safely fly on this aircraft". A bit like those metal frame things you put carry-on luggage in to test whether it's within dimensions.

 

[Altair]

Regarding baggage, most airlines like to max out their below decks space and weight allowance with additional revenue earning freight. Take off and landing weights can also be affected by temperature, wind, altitude and humidity so it is a complex equation. Some aircraft within the same model have characteristics that will affect it as well, eg. red paint is the heaviest paint colour and with the additional decals Wunala Dreaming cannot operate Trans-Pacific (LAX-MEL) during the hot months in LAX.
But I wonder what would happen if an extremely tall person or obese person tried to fly Ryan Air or Easy Jet? I doubt they could fit in the seats, but then again the Ryan Air check-in agents that I have seen would probably just let them check in and let the passengers and aircrew sort it out.

 

[serfty]

Then there is the bit "... or it is necessary for the safety or comfort of other passengers or ...".

This is an oft discussed topic over on FT.

A consensus there seems to be in line with the idea that if a passenger cannot sit in their seat without an armrest being raised they cannot travel (unless they book an additional seat).

This puts a simple limitation on what seems to be the the main issue with obese travelers; that of physically invading the adjoining seat space of a neighboring passenger.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, if an additional seat is purchased and the flight is not full they get a refund (of course this may depend upon how many such additional seats are purchased by COS's on any one flight).

 

[clifford]

(I hope, like me, there are some engineers out there to read this.)

So how do we set the rules? You've got things like a family of four with a fat father or mother and skinny kids - the kids give up weight allowance to allow for their fatter parents?

Hi anat,

Just one minor thing, very rarely in my experience do fat parents have thin kids.

Blame little Johnny.

Oh, dear, that might offend some of the mods.

Well never mind.

 

[clifford]

Wouldn't people that large (and come on let's face it 160+ KG is not just fat it is Morbidly Obese) know that they are they large and not fit into 1 aircraft seat.

I think both Virgin, Jetstar and Qantas should bring in the Southwest policy regarding COS it seems to work very well for them.

I always thought that 1 ticket entitled you to one seat on the aircraft, it really isn't fair to take up half of the seat next to you that someone else has paid for.

Should adopt the NYC Transit approach. If your cough is too big to sit on one seat, you'll get fined (or alternatively, you can stand up).

And I'm a panynj Metro card holder, so I know.

 

[simongr]

But I wonder what would happen if an extremely tall person or obese person tried to fly Ryan Air or Easy Jet? I doubt they could fit in the seats, but then again the Ryan Air check-in agents that I have seen would probably just let them check in and let the passengers and aircrew sort it out.

I think there is a difference between tall and obese. A tall person just impacts their own comfort rather than impinging on other people (unless of course they stretch out across two seats to get more legroom - but I have seen short people do that).