NationStates Jolt Archive

Obese have right to 2 airline seats: Canada court

OTTAWA (Reuters) – 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.

The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare.

The airlines had lost an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal in May and had sought to launch a fresh appeal at the Supreme Court. The court's decision not to hear a new appeal means the one-person-one-fare policy stands.

The appeal had been launched by Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet.

(Reporting by Randall Palmer)

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/hl_nm/us_obesity)

What I want to know is what is wrong with the airline charging the obese people extra for taking up two seats? That is one less seat that the airlines can sell to a passenger, so they should be allowed to make up that loss seat somehow, and the fact that they lost that seat to an obese person, it should stand to reason that the obese person should pay for the extra seat.

I'm a pretty tall dude. Do I get a free seat so I can sit comfortably too?

Fat people are not people.

Ah, Canada. Too polite to do what's right. You need the space? Fine. Pay for the space. If you've eaten so much that your ass doesn't fit into a standard seat, then you gotta cough it up to pay for two. Shit, fat-asses might be better served by walking to their intended destination.

...

Wow. Just wow.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/hl_nm/us_obesity)

What I want to know is what is wrong with the airline charging the obese people extra for taking up two seats? That is one less seat that the airlines can sell to a passenger, so they should be allowed to make up that loss seat somehow, and the fact that they lost that seat to an obese person, it should stand to reason that the obese person should pay for the extra seat.

On the other hand, if the airline companies were a little more realistic about the actual size of real people, and made human-sized seats, rather than trying to fit as many of their mini-chairs into the space as possible, there would be no issue.

Real people are not one uniform rectangular size that fits in a space a foot wide.

On the other hand, if the airline companies were a little more realistic about the actual size of real people, and made human-sized seats, rather than trying to fit as many of their mini-chairs into the space as possible, there would be no issue.

There would be. There always is.

Real people are not one uniform rectangular size that fits in a space a foot wide.
No, but these planes can only carry so many people. Space is limited, so they try to get as many people in as they can. If the companies began to make the seats larger, they would fit less people. This means almost double the cost of a seat. And if they made their planes larger, the seats would still cost more because a larger plane would weigh more, and require more fuel. So by making them pay for two seats, they aren't getting off any worse then if they made the seats larger.

what percentage of passengers require 2 seats? seems to me that its pretty damned low so. the airlines can just eat the cost.

If you've eaten so much that your ass doesn't fit into a standard seat, then you gotta cough it up to pay for two.

You're aware, of course, that obesity has a strong genetic component?

Shit, fat-asses might be better served by walking to their intended destination.

:rolleyes:

what percentage of passengers require 2 seats? seems to me that its pretty damned low so. the airlines can just eat the cost.

Can they? In the US? With obesity rates being what they are? Have you flown recently? The profit margin is already thin, though recent fuel price drops have helped. Most airlines are dancing on the edge of insolvency.

Another thing came to mind. What is obese? I mean are we going by how much with a person has, or the BMI scale? Because obese is different for everyone.

You're aware, of course, that obesity has a strong genetic component?

Which has no effect whatsoever on the hand-to-mouth component.

:rolleyes:

Roll 'em all you want. There's one way to ensure you don't store extra calories. Burn them.

Another thing came to mind. What is obese? I mean are we going by how much with a person has, or the BMI scale? Because obese is different for everyone.

This is definitely true.

what percentage of passengers require 2 seats? seems to me that its pretty damned low so. the airlines can just eat the cost.

Yea, I'm sure airlines who are on the brink of bankruptcy will be more than happy to "eat the cost".

Airlines are a business, they are there to make profit. Most airlines are in the private sector. So, no, they don't have to "eat it", nor should they. Two Ton Billy wants two seats, he should have to pay for two seats.

You're aware, of course, that obesity has a strong genetic component?

If that is so, why is it that Western societies outside North America don't have nearly the amount of morbidly obese individuals that can be found in the States?

Which has no effect whatsoever on the hand-to-mouth component.

Pretending that this amounts to making people responsible for their own actions is rather disingenuous. What it's doing is guaranteeing equal treatment to people with a particular health condition--in much the same spirit as the recent law passed here in the US to bar genetically-based discrimination.

Roll 'em all you want. There's one way to ensure you don't store extra calories. Burn them.

Ad hominems are beneath you.

Can they? In the US? With obesity rates being what they are? Have you flown recently? The profit margin is already thin, though recent fuel price drops have helped. Most airlines are dancing on the edge of insolvency.
yes i have flown recently and i didnt notice anyone taking up 2 seats on any flight i was on.

either the plane is full and the problem is that someone is denied a seat because the fat guy takes 2 or the plane is not full and there is no reason to charge him for an extra seat.

If that is so, why is it that Western societies outside North America don't have nearly the amount of morbidly obese individuals that can be found in the States?

For cultural and sociological reasons that also are not reducible to particular individuals being careless and lazy?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/hl_nm/us_obesity)

What I want to know is what is wrong with the airline charging the obese people extra for taking up two seats? That is one less seat that the airlines can sell to a passenger, so they should be allowed to make up that loss seat somehow, and the fact that they lost that seat to an obese person, it should stand to reason that the obese person should pay for the extra seat.
Morbid obesity is considered a disability, and you cannot discriminate against someone with a disability (ie, charge them for two seats).

People who travel with an aid do not have to pay airfare for the seat that aid takes. It's called accommodation, and it is the positive reinforcement of human rights in this country.

Yea, I'm sure airlines who are on the brink of bankruptcy will be more than happy to "eat the cost".

Airlines are a business, they are there to make profit. Most airlines are in the private sector. So, no, they don't have to "eat it", nor should they. Two Ton Billy wants two seats, he should have to pay for two seats.
they arent losing anything by having someone take 2 seats unless someone else is denied a seat.

I'm ridiculously thin. Do I deserve only half a seat?

there is no reason to charge him for an extra seat.

The simple fact that he takes up two seats, is good enough of a reason to charge him for two seats.

Once again Airlines = company = they're in the business to make profit.

The simple fact that he takes up two seats, is good enough of a reason to charge him for two seats.

Once again Airlines = company = they're in the business to make profit.
no its not a good enough reason.

that it wouldnt apply to you doesnt make it fair for someone else to have to pay.

Morbid obesity is considered a disability, and you cannot discriminate against someone with a disability (ie, charge them for two seats).

People who travel with an aid do not have to pay airfare for the seat that aid takes. It's called accommodation, and it is the positive reinforcement of human rights in this country.

But the question then becomes, are they disabled because of something out of their control, or did they shove 40 big macs down their mouth every day for a year? Since airlines can't test every morbid obese person to see whether or not it was by nature or by their own stupidity, it'd be safer to charge them for the two seats.

I'm ridiculously thin. Do I deserve only half a seat?
yes you should be required to share you seat with some other ridiculously thin person --or a small child--so that the airlines can make more money.

[/sarcasm]

they arent losing anything by having someone take 2 seats unless someone else is denied a seat.

They are losing profit. This is simple math. You have two seats, if two people take up those two seats, then they have 2 source of profit. However if Two Ton Billy takes up two seat, and he's only charged for one, then for those two seats alone, profit been cut by 50%.

They lose profits, which hurts a business. Once again, you want two seats, then pay for two seats.

But the question then becomes, are they disabled because of something out of their control, or did they shove 40 big macs down their mouth every day for a year? Since airlines can't test every morbid obese person to see whether or not it was by nature or by their own stupidity, it'd be safer to charge them for the two seats.
it doesnt matter.

They are losing profit. This is simple math. You have two seats, if two people take up those two seats, then they have 2 source of profit. However if Two Ton Billy takes up two seat, and he's only charged for one, then for those two seats alone, profit been cut by 50%.

They lose profits, which hurts a business. Once again, you want two seats, then pay for two seats.
it only matters if there is someone else who is denied that seat.

no its not a good enough reason.

that it wouldnt apply to you doesnt make it fair for someone else to have to pay.

Since when did a business have to be humanitarian in their practices? They don't have to be, that's the point I'm trying to drive into your skull here. They're in the business to serve people, but at the same time they're in the business to make a profit. If serving people starts to cut in on their profit, guess which one is going to suffer first.

it only matters if there is someone else who is denied that seat.

Why does it has to take someone else being denied that seat for it to matter?

it doesnt matter.

You're right it doesn't. Double the seat, double the price for Two Ton Billy.

no its not a good enough reason.

that it wouldnt apply to you doesnt make it fair for someone else to have to pay.
It doesn't apply to me, so it's not fair to make me pay taxes for welfare.:rolleyes:

Since when did a business have to be humanitarian in their practices? They don't have to be, that's the point I'm trying to drive into your skull here. They're in the business to serve people, but at the same time they're in the business to make a profit. If serving people starts to cut in on their profit, guess which one is going to suffer first.
since the court ruled it so.

i get it. you are bigoted against fat people. many people are.

but that doesnt make it right to discriminate and the canadian courts have ruled it so.

But the question then becomes, are they disabled because of something out of their control, or did they shove 40 big macs down their mouth every day for a year? Since airlines can't test every morbid obese person to see whether or not it was by nature or by their own stupidity, it'd be safer to charge them for the two seats.

Nope, that's bullshit.

If you've got no arms and no legs, you are just as disable whether you were born like that, or just thought wrestling a lawnmower looked like fun - and it's just as illegal to discriminate either way.

If you're obese to a disability level, it doesn't matter how you got there. Disabled is disabled.

Ah, Canada. Too polite to do what's right. You need the space? Fine. Pay for the space. If you've eaten so much that your ass doesn't fit into a standard seat, then you gotta cough it up to pay for two. Shit, fat-asses might be better served by walking to their intended destination.I'm a little disappointed you'd take such an extreme stand.

Another thing came to mind. What is obese? I mean are we going by how much with a person has, or the BMI scale? Because obese is different for everyone.
Those who are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare. That is the ruling. Understand that the court is using the WHO definitions (http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/) here. While a person may be perfectly able to walk into the airport, and onto the plane without assistance, once in the seat, they become functionally disabled.

The woman who launched this particular case with the human rights tribunal originally, is a brilliant lawyer and a very successful professional who happens to be morbidly obese. Her experiences in flight were horrid. She was not given a bulkhead seat, as she had arranged beforehand, and she was repeatedly rammed into by service carts as they passed by her. She came off that flight absolutely battered and bruised, and the extra fare she was charged only added insult to injury.

I understand that you people are disgusted with fat people, and assume that they are lazy overeaters, but frankly, it doesn't matter. We don't blame people who become disabled because they drove a car too fast, and deny them services. You do not get to point at one group and say 'it's their fault they're disabled, we're not going to accommodate their needs'.

Not in Canada.

In part's of Germany women get double parking spaces too. :)

Since airlines can't test every morbid obese person to see whether or not it was by nature or by their own stupidity, it'd be safer to charge them for the two seats.

It's interesting to note which option you consider "safer" in a case of uncertainty.

In any case, it shouldn't matter. Disabled people should still be accomodated fairly.

But the question then becomes, are they disabled because of something out of their control, or did they shove 40 big macs down their mouth every day for a year? Since airlines can't test every morbid obese person to see whether or not it was by nature or by their own stupidity, it'd be safer to charge them for the two seats.
Irrelevant.
They are losing profit. This is simple math. You have two seats, if two people take up those two seats, then they have 2 source of profit. However if Two Ton Billy takes up two seat, and he's only charged for one, then for those two seats alone, profit been cut by 50%.

They lose profits, which hurts a business. Once again, you want two seats, then pay for two seats.
Irrelevant.

Services offered to the public cannot discriminate against anyone based on religion, gender, ethnic origin, disability etc. You do not get to make personal judgment calls about someone's religion, gender, ethnic origin or disability, etc. You do not get to invoke your need to make a profit in order to discriminate.

since the court ruled it so.

i get it. you are bigoted against fat people. many people are.

but that doesnt make it right to discriminate and the canadian courts have ruled it so.
Woah. Wait a minute... He doesn't want to have to pay more for his seat... Because the court ruled that the obese get a seat for free... And that makes him bigoted against fat people? I don't like the fact the Obama was elected, because I oppose his policies, does that make me a racist?

I can't quite make up my mind on this issue. On the one hand, asking someone to pay for as many seats as they intend to use seems only reasonable; on the other, when we're talking about genuinely disabling obesity, the principle of reasonable accommodation ought to apply.

I will say that the issue of how someone became disabled and whether it's their "fault" should absolutely not be relevant, whatever some posters here think. If you became a paraplegic because you drove into a telephone pole, it is your "fault," but you should still be able to ask for wheelchair ramps. Heck, if you became blind after deliberately stabbing yourself in the eyes, your seeing-eye dog should still be able to accompany you around. As far as reasonable accommodation is concerned, whether one has an untreatable thyroid condition or just really loves eating twenty Big Macs a day does not matter one bit.

Presumably the price you pay is for the flight not for the seat.

Woah. Wait a minute... He doesn't want to have to pay more for his seat... Because the court ruled that the obese get a seat for free... And that makes him bigoted against fat people? I don't like the fact the Obama was elected, because I oppose his policies, does that make me a racist?
no his posts make it clear that he is bigotted against fat people.

Since when did a business have to be humanitarian in their practices?

There is a vast difference between 'humanitarian' and 'in respect of human rights'.

This matter deals with the latter, not the former. Try to keep up.

Irrelevant.
Services offered to the public cannot discriminate against anyone based on religion, gender, ethnic origin, disability etc. You do not get to make personal judgment calls about someone's religion, gender, ethnic origin or disability, etc. You do not get to invoke your need to make a profit in order to discriminate.

Exactly. Non-obese people are now being discriminated against, in that they pay twice as much for a plane seat as an obese person who takes up two seats.

Exactly. Non-obese people are now being discriminated against, in that they pay twice as much for a plane seat as an obese person who takes up two seats.
no. they pay the same price.

the occasional extra-fat person takes up 2 seats. it doesnt affect them at all.

They're in the business to serve people, but at the same time they're in the business to make a profit.

And every country enacts laws to ensure that they "make a profit" in a way that is consistent with fairness and the public good.

This ruling is perfectly consistent with that.

no his posts make it clear that he is bigotted against fat people.
Maybe so. But you made it clear in your post that you think that, by merely opposing this policy, it is discrimination against the obese.

There would be. There always is.

No, but these planes can only carry so many people. Space is limited, so they try to get as many people in as they can. If the companies began to make the seats larger, they would fit less people. This means almost double the cost of a seat. And if they made their planes larger, the seats would still cost more because a larger plane would weigh more, and require more fuel. So by making them pay for two seats, they aren't getting off any worse then if they made the seats larger.

Horse-puckey on so many levels.

Not least the apparent idea that there is a good reason why planes are the size they are. There's ONE reason - profit maximisation. Planes are the size they are because it's where the break-even points are - size versus fuel versus capacity, etc.

There's no rule that says a plane of x size has to have y number of seats - that's an attempt to maximise profits per flight.

Now - I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it's also not a GOOD thing for your ONLY consideration to be the bottom line. Apart from anything else, it's shitty business sense, which is why no-one actually adheres to that kind of principle as a universal rule.

I'm a pretty tall dude. Do I get a free seat so I can sit comfortably too?

This is what I want to know. My hips are wide and don't really fit well between the arms of the chair. I'm also too tall to be comfortable. Why shouldn't I get an extra seat for free?

Maybe so. But you made it clear in your post that you think that, by merely opposing this policy, it is discrimination against the obese.
you cant discriminate by opposing a policy.

the policy of charging people for 2 seats IS discriminatory and has been ruled so by the canadian court.

no. they pay the same price.

the occasional extra-fat person takes up 2 seats. it doesnt affect them at all.

Which they get for the price of one seat. Meaning that they pay half the price per seat of a non-obese person.

Simplest way around this? Charge per seat instead of per person. If you want more than one seat for whatever reason, be it that you're obese, want somewhere convenient to store your hand luggage, want to lounge a bit, you can buy more than one seat.

This is what I want to know. My hips are wide and don't really fit well between the arms of the chair. I'm also too tall to be comfortable. Why shouldn't I get an extra seat for free?

Presumably because the standard is more stringent than "uncomfortable."

If you weigh as much as two people, take the space of two people, and require the aircraft to consume the fuel for two people, the airline ought to be able to charge for two people. If another airline sees an opportunity in charging for only one fare for someone who takes two seats, they would gain a new customer base that the first airline discouraged. It's a policy best set on a company-by-company basis rather than by government statute.

I know there are people who suffer from MS or other diseases, and I understand the desire to help them, but requiring a company to charge x instead of 2x seems like a poor solution to me. The space belongs to the airline, not the government or the passenger. If you object to the airline's policy, don't fly on their airplanes. Choose airlines that do act as you prefer.

Exactly. Non-obese people are now being discriminated against, in that they pay twice as much for a plane seat as an obese person who takes up two seats.

What an unintelligent thing to say. You are working from a highly disfunctional apple pie model...where the protection of rights for one group means the loss of rights for another. That simply isn't the case. As has been pointed out, what you pay for airfare is for travelling on the plane...you are not paying for a seat.

The decision, if anyone is interested, can be found here (http://www.schenklaw.ca/resource/mackay.htm).

Why does it has to take someone else being denied that seat for it to matter?

Basic math?

If you fly regardless of whether all your seats are full or not... then someone using two seats or ten is irrelevent. If no seating is 'lost' by my taking up more seats, then no profit is lost.

Incidentally - the last time I flew on an international flight, the plane was about half full. They actually came back and encouraged everyone to take up as many seats as we needed... my little girl (who was about 4 at the time) actually slept across three seats for most of the flight.

What did that cost the airline?

Pretending that this amounts to making people responsible for their own actions is rather disingenuous. What it's doing is guaranteeing equal treatment to people with a particular health condition--in much the same spirit as the recent law passed here in the US to bar genetically-based discrimination.

Very well. What we need then is a way to determine which people are genetically incapable of being thin enough to fit into an airline seat and which are not. That being a long, arduous and costly course of action, a free second seat it is. Path of least resistance. I can see that.

Ad hominems are beneath you.

As calling something that isn't an ad hominem and ad hominem is beneath you. How is stating a simple fact about how food energy works in any way an attack on a person? Jesus, when did people get so high and mighty around here?

yes i have flown recently and i didnt notice anyone taking up 2 seats on any flight i was on.

Well, there's relief for you, then. I've been wedged into full flights between what felt like the Albanian Women's Weightlifting team from Detroit to Seattle. Three-plus hours of wheezing and very earthy odors. Unpleasant.

either the plane is full and the problem is that someone is denied a seat because the fat guy takes 2 or the plane is not full and there is no reason to charge him for an extra seat.

Fair enough. That falls under the same rubric as being able to "stretch out" my 6-foot frame when the seat next to me is empty.

I'm a little disappointed you'd take such an extreme stand.

My humanity demands that I displease everyone every so often. Sorry.

Those who are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare. That is the ruling. Understand that the court is using the WHO definitions (http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/) here. While a person may be perfectly able to walk into the airport, and onto the plane without assistance, once in the seat, they become functionally disabled.

Situational disability? You'll have to explain that.

The woman who launched this particular case with the human rights tribunal originally, is a brilliant lawyer and a very successful professional who happens to be morbidly obese. Her experiences in flight were horrid. She was not given a bulkhead seat, as she had arranged beforehand, and she was repeatedly rammed into by service carts as they passed by her. She came off that flight absolutely battered and bruised, and the extra fare she was charged only added insult to injury.

That's the airline not doing what it said it would, if they told her she'd have her bulkhead seat.

I understand that you people are disgusted with fat people, and assume that they are lazy overeaters, but frankly, it doesn't matter. We don't blame people who become disabled because they drove a car too fast, and deny them services. You do not get to point at one group and say 'it's their fault they're disabled, we're not going to accommodate their needs'.

You've not hung around many ardent Protestants, have you? Okay, mostly kidding.

What about addicts? We sure as hell don't accommodate them, do we? You can't smoke on planes anymore. I've heard many times from smoking friends what torture it is to go Seattle to NYC without a cigarette. Okay, lame example, but the principle holds. How many exceptions are we as a society prepared to make for people?

What if you only need 1.3 seats? Or 2.2 seats?

I think airlines ought to charge by the pound. :D

Presumably because the standard is more stringent than "uncomfortable."

Well, Dem does bring up a good point - exactly how do we define that standard? By weight? By waist diameter? Just by guesswork? Are people going to have to be weighed and measured before stepping on a plane, or shall we trust that anyone who books a ticket claiming to "need" two seats really does? Neither one really seems like a great solution.

So.. if I would mass, let us say... 170 kg... I would only have to pay for say.. 80 kg ?
Hmm. Does that mean I can bring 90 kg in luggage for free instead of 90 kg of bodymass as well ?

This is what I want to know. My hips are wide and don't really fit well between the arms of the chair. I'm also too tall to be comfortable. Why shouldn't I get an extra seat for free?

You do not become functionally disabled when you sit there. This is not about comfort, it is about disability.

Ok, let's take this another route. It's time for Aviation Knowledge with Wilgrove, your friendly, yet cynical Private Pilot!

Weight and where that weight is, is very important when it comes to safe operation of an aircraft. Why, because every aircraft, from a Piper Cub to the Boeing 777 has a Center of Gravity. CG is the optimal balance of aft and foward of the aircraft. If you have too much weight in the back, then the aircraft performance is hindered. Same if there's too much weight in the front.

Aircrafts can also be overweight, which also cause possibly dangerous condition in operation of the aircraft.

Every pilot has to do what is called a W&B worksheet. We figure out how much weight the aircraft has and where it's distributed. We also do a CG chart, that looks like this.

http://www.ridinthewave.com/images/Chart.gif

As long as the CG comes in that box, we're fine.

So my question is this. If a morbid obese person poses a threat to the safe operation of an aircraft, would it still be violation of their rights if the airline decides to kick them off?

Which they get for the price of one seat. Meaning that they pay half the price per seat of a non-obese person.

Simplest way around this? Charge per seat instead of per person. If you want more than one seat for whatever reason, be it that you're obese, want somewhere convenient to store your hand luggage, want to lounge a bit, you can buy more than one seat.
you could. but that would be discrimination.

Well, Dem does bring up a good point - exactly how do we define that standard? By weight? By waist diameter? Just by guesswork? Are people going to have to be weighed and measured before stepping on a plane, or shall we trust that anyone who books a ticket claiming to "need" two seats really does? Neither one really seems like a great solution.

A doctor's note seems reasonable?

Horse-puckey on so many levels.

We'll see as I examine your post piece by piece.

Not least the apparent idea that there is a good reason why planes are the size they are. There's ONE reason - profit maximisation. Planes are the size they are because it's where the break-even points are - size versus fuel versus capacity, etc.

Profit maximization. Exactly. Have you any idea how much a plane costs? Millions. It isn't cheap to get a new plane. The larger the plane is, the more it'd cost, both to purchase and to fuel. So that's not the reason.

There's no rule that says a plane of x size has to have y number of seats - that's an attempt to maximise profits per flight.

To get back their investment. Millions of dollars go in each plane, so they have to maximize how much money they get back, or they'll go bankrupt. Heck, some still do.

Now - I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
Your post disproves this.
But it's also not a GOOD thing for your ONLY consideration to be the bottom line. Apart from anything else, it's shitty business sense, which is why no-one actually adheres to that kind of principle as a universal rule.
Once again, a part of one of your posts has confused me. Do you mean
Apart from anything else, it's shitty business sense, which is why no-one actually adheres to that kind of principle as a universal rule.
that as referring to the practice of making all those tiny seats on a plane? If so, I've already answered that: Planes aren't cheap. They have to make as much money as they can with each flight, or they won't be able to pay off the plane or even fuel up for another flight. If not, please clarify.

Ok, let's take this another route. It's time for Aviation Knowledge with Wilgrove, your friendly, yet cynical Private Pilot!

Weight and where that weight is, is very important when it comes to safe operation of an aircraft. Why, because every aircraft, from a Piper Cub to the Boeing 777 has a Center of Gravity. CG is the optimal balance of aft and foward of the aircraft. If you have too much weight in the back, then the aircraft performance is hindered. Same if there's too much weight in the front.

Aircrafts can also be overweight, which also cause possibly dangerous condition in operation of the aircraft.

Every pilot has to do what is called a W&B worksheet. We figure out how much weight the aircraft has and where it's distributed. We also do a CG chart, that looks like this.

http://www.ridinthewave.com/images/Chart.gif

As long as the CG comes in that box, we're fine.

So my question is this. If a morbid obese person poses a threat to the safe operation of an aircraft, would it still be violation of their rights if the airline decides to kick them off?

In a 747, that passenger would need to way what? 80 tons?

What an unintelligent thing to say. You are working from a highly disfunctional apple pie model...where the protection of rights for one group means the loss of rights for another. That simply isn't the case. As has been pointed out, what you pay for airfare is for travelling on the plane...you are not paying for a seat.

The decision, if anyone is interested, can be found here (http://www.schenklaw.ca/resource/mackay.htm).

Well, that's nice of you. And no, I'm not working from an "apple pie model", I just don't think that this protects any real rights at all. Last time I checked, there is no such thing as a "right to free plane seats".

But the question then becomes, are they disabled because of something out of their control, or did they shove 40 big macs down their mouth every day for a year? Since airlines can't test every morbid obese person to see whether or not it was by nature or by their own stupidity, it'd be safer to charge them for the two seats.

Define 'control'. There are latchkey kids and genetic predispositions to obesity, there are unhealthy diets in schools and parents from poor families who are convinced that fat and happy kids with lots of food on their plates are signs of their success. They don't all have me chasing them with a rubber chicken and a tube of lubricant. :D

In a 747, that passenger would need to way what? 80 tons?

You have to factor in the luggage, fuel, and other people, as well as the (believe it or not) powerplants of the aircraft.

you could. but that would be discrimination.

Discriminatory how? Which group is being discriminated against? Everyone pays exactly the same price for their seat (well, varying for Business Class etc but that isn't really relevant).

Well, there's relief for you, then. I've been wedged into full flights between what felt like the Albanian Women's Weightlifting team from Detroit to Seattle. Three-plus hours of wheezing and very earthy odors. Unpleasant.


im not saying there werent fat people. there were. but i saw no one taking up more than one seat.

which is obviously only observation but my POINT is that the number of extra-seat-taking passengers is low enough that accomodating them does not impact an airline's profitability.

What if you only need 1.3 seats? Or 2.2 seats?

I think airlines ought to charge by the pound. :D

Hmmm....

*snip the aviation*

So my question is this. If a morbid obese person poses a threat to the safe operation of an aircraft, would it still be violation of their rights if the airline decides to kick them off?

Of a Piper Cub, sure. Of a B757? Ludicrous.

Thats the stupidest thing ever. If they are disabled due to obesity they should take wheelchair seats.

Discriminatory how? Which group is being discriminated against? Everyone pays exactly the same price for their seat (well, varying for Business Class etc but that isn't really relevant).
the person who has to pay for 2 tickets.

Define 'control'. There are latchkey kids and genetic predispositions to obesity, there are unhealthy diets in schools and parents from poor families who are convinced that fat and happy kids with lots of food on their plates are signs of their success. They don't all have me chasing them with a rubber chicken and a tube of lubricant. :D

Control is not shoving 40 big macs down your throat every day.

im not saying there werent fat people. there were. but i saw no one taking up more than one seat.

which is obviously only observation but my POINT is that the number of extra-seat-taking passengers is low enough that accomodating them does not impact an airline's profitability.

How do you know that?

the person who has to pay for 2 tickets.

Who gets two seats in return. I fail to see what is so unreasonable about this.

you cant discriminate by opposing a policy.

Really? So, if I opposed say, the Civil Rights act of 1964, because it granted equality to African-Americans, I wouldn't be racist?

the policy of charging people for 2 seats IS discriminatory and has been ruled so by the canadian court.
And yet, you seem to be taking the Canadian courts word for it. What about people who think it (The practice of charging people for every seat they take up) isn't discriminatory? Is their opinion worthless in the face of a few select men?

Situational disability? You'll have to explain that.From the judgment:


During these proceedings, the Agency received expert evidence on models of disability, including the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (the "ICF model"), which identifies three elements for determining whether a person has a disability: impairment, activity limitations, and participation restrictions.

Unlike the medical model, which focuses only on the medical condition of the person, the ICF model looks at the medical condition (called "impairment") and then considers the activity limitations resulting from the condition. The activity limitations are defined as difficulties an individual may have in executing a task or an action. Under participation restrictions, consideration is given to the impact of the activity limitations on the ability of the person to participate in basic life situations.
Morbid obesity is classified as a disability, but it does not mean the person is disabled at all times because the definition of 'disabled' is situational. As I said...she could walk into the airport and onto the plane just like anyone else...but once seated, she was essentially disabled in a manner completely unlike you or I.

In light of the concession that the applicant suffers from an impairment, and the fact that she has encountered an activity limitation on account of this impairment, the only conclusion open to the Agency was that the applicant is a person with a disability under the CTA.



What about addicts? We sure as hell don't accommodate them, do we? You can't smoke on planes anymore. I've heard many times from smoking friends what torture it is to go Seattle to NYC without a cigarette. Okay, lame example, but the principle holds. How many exceptions are we as a society prepared to make for people?

As many as are possible and needed, and which do not constitute an undue hardship. That is what my society has decided.

Addiction is also considered a disability, btw. We do not charge addicts extra airfare, or restrict their mobility because of this disability...yet the airlines have done exactly that for someone with a different disability.

Control is not shoving 40 big macs down your throat every day.

Come on. If you're going to go for an analogy, make it possible.

Of a Piper Cub, sure. Of a B757? Ludicrous.

once again....

You have to factor in the luggage, fuel, and other people, as well as the (believe it or not) powerplants of the aircraft.

A doctor's note seems reasonable?

Yeah, that'd probably be the best solution. Perhaps if you showed up at the airport having requested two seats and didn't look like you needed them, you could be asked to present such a note. Otherwise, I just can't help but suspect lots of people would suddenly "need" two seats - after all, I'm pretty darn tiny, and I feel cramped and squished in the little tiny spaces airplanes provide. :p

Well, Dem does bring up a good point - exactly how do we define that standard? By weight? By waist diameter? Just by guesswork? Are people going to have to be weighed and measured before stepping on a plane, or shall we trust that anyone who books a ticket claiming to "need" two seats really does? Neither one really seems like a great solution.

It's not up to the airline to decide if it's a disability or not, just as it would not be up to the airline to decide if someone were functionally blind or not. That is a medical decision. When someone needs an aid to accompany them on a plane, they must provide documentation to support this request, in return for which they are not to be charged for the extra seat.

you could. but that would be discrimination.

I think it's discrimination that normal-sized persons aren't allowed to get two seats for the price of one just because they are still able to see their own genitals without the help of a mirror.

Profit maximization. Exactly. Have you any idea how much a plane costs? Millions. It isn't cheap to get a new plane. The larger the plane is, the more it'd cost, both to purchase and to fuel. So that's not the reason.


Planes are expensive. Yeah. What's the point supposed to be?

Flights often lift-off without every seat filled, flights are cheaper on Wednesdays because it's a slack day, incentives exist to encourage flying - you're ALWAYS making balance point decisions.

You don't flat-out aim for absolute maximum profit on every seat, on every flight, every day. That's not how you repay the cost of your machinery.


To get back their investment. Millions of dollars go in each plane, so they have to maximize how much money they get back, or they'll go bankrupt. Heck, some still do.


Irrelevent. Unless you're seriously arguing that air transport companies are going tits-up because they sometimes have to carry 'special' passnegers.


Your post disproves this.


No, it doesn't. 'Not good' =/= 'bad'.


Once again, a part of one of your posts has confused me. Do you mean

that as referring to the practice of making all those tiny seats on a plane? If so, I've already answered that: Planes aren't cheap. They have to make as much money as they can with each flight, or they won't be able to pay off the plane or even fuel up for another flight. If not, please clarify.

I mean that no company uses absolute profit as it's pure business model - at least, not without some kind of situation like an absolute monopoly. It's bad business.

the person who has to pay for 2 tickets.

A man has an overactive *ahem* libido. He also has a wife with a similar 'problem'. It's been psychologically diagnosed as such. Should they get free tickets on a plane for their many children?

From the judgment:


Morbid obesity is classified as a disability, but it does not mean the person is disabled at all times because the definition of 'disabled' is situational. As I said...she could walk into the airport and onto the plane just like anyone else...but once seated, she was essentially disabled in a manner completely unlike you or I.

That doesn't tell me how someone becomes disabled by sitting down. Perhaps I wasn't clear. That's the question.




As many as are possible and needed, and which do not constitute an undue hardship. That is what my society has decided.

Addiction is also considered a disability, btw. We do not charge addicts extra airfare, or restrict their mobility because of this disability...yet the airlines have done exactly that for someone with a different disability.

So how is the addict helped? The smoker is not allowed his addiction while flying. Isn't that discriminatory?

Really? So, if I opposed say, the Civil Rights act of 1964, because it granted equality to African-Americans, I wouldn't be racist?

And yet, you seem to be taking the Canadian courts word for it. What about people who think it (The practice of charging people for every seat they take up) isn't discriminatory? Is their opinion worthless in the face of a few select men?
you keep changing words.

you cant DISCRIMINATE by opposing the civil rights act of 1964

You have to factor in the luggage, fuel, and other people, as well as the (believe it or not) powerplants of the aircraft.

Exactly. And here's you trying to pretend that one 400 lb passenger is going to make even the slightest difference.

Well, that's nice of you. And no, I'm not working from an "apple pie model", I just don't think that this protects any real rights at all. Last time I checked, there is no such thing as a "right to free plane seats".

Wow, two gems in one thread, I'm impressed!

Your attempt to mischaracterise and then trivialise the matter are noted, and rejected.

This is about the right not to be discriminated against due to disability.

I think it's discrimination that normal-sized persosn aren't allowed to get two seats for the price of one just because they are still able to see their own genitals without the help of a mirror.
one person, one ticket, genital viewing not required.

Thats the stupidest thing ever. If they are disabled due to obesity they should take wheelchair seats.

Then where do you put the wheelchair passengers?

A man has an overactive *ahem* libido. He also has a wife with a similar 'problem'. It's been psychologically diagnosed as such. Should they get free tickets on a plane for their many children?

No, but I would be in favour of sterilizing this happy couple free of charge.

once again....

Which I'm sure the pilots of airliners do. I don't think they do things like figuring out if the 300-lb. man in seat 17F needs to be moved to 24D in order to maintain CG. Come on.

Exactly. And here's you trying to pretend that one 400 lb passenger is going to make even the slightest difference.

It could on a fully loaded International Flight.

Control is not shoving 40 big macs down your throat every day.

Which is irrelevent.

Which I'm sure the pilots of airliners do. I don't think they do things like figuring out if the 300-lb. man in seat 17F needs to be moved to 24D in order to maintain CG. Come on.

You're right, most of them would just kick the guy off.

Flights often lift-off without every seat filled, flights are cheaper on Wednesdays because it's a slack day, incentives exist to encourage flying - you're ALWAYS making balance point decisions.
I don't think it would be a problem if the obese people asked for a seat next to one that hasn't been sold. and usually if the row has three seats and two passengers the airline will choose to leave the middle one empty.

Who gets two seats in return. I fail to see what is so unreasonable about this.
its a point of view which the canadian courts have ruled on in a very reasonable manner.

it used to be the policy of US airlines that if you took 2 seats they would only charge you for 2 if it was a full flight. (what the policy is in this larcenous time i dont know).

also a reasonable policy.

what is NOT reasonable is to try to make money on the back of someone's disability.

You have to factor in the luggage, fuel, and other people, as well as the (believe it or not) powerplants of the aircraft.

Yeah, and if an additional few hundred pounds from fat people is enough to bring down the plane, I think we have a big, big, BIG problem with the number of passengers being allowed on the aircraft in the first place. I'm sure as heck not getting on any passenger plane that is that close to being overloaded.

Wow, two gems in one thread, I'm impressed!

Your attempt to mischaracterise and then trivialise the matter are noted, and rejected.

This is about the right not to be discriminated against due to disability.

Wow, two attempts to claim I'm trivialising the topic in one thread, and no attempts to actually refute my point. I take it this "debating" thing doesn't come naturally to you.

They are in no way being discriminated against by having to pay for two seats if they require two seats.

It could on a fully loaded International Flight.

For someone who claims to fly, you have a shocking grasp of basic physics.

If you look at the weight of even an unladen 747, it is minimal to the point of insignificant where you put one 400 lb passenger. Load it up, fill it with other passengers and various assorted crap like hand luggage, and the 400 lb passenger isn't even a decimal point in the equation.

You're right, most of them would just kick the guy off.

No, they wouldn't.

As someone who has actually travelled with someone over 350 lbs, (and thus, certainly within the catchment for 'morbidly obese) I can assure you, you're wrong.

Yeah, and if an additional few hundred pounds from fat people is enough to bring down the plane, I think we have a big, big, BIG problem with the number of passengers being allowed on the aircraft in the first place. I'm sure as heck not getting on any passenger plane that is that close to being overloaded.

If you can't work the weight where the CG is within the box, then you have to get rid of some of the weight. Usually the heaviest object (that isn't needed for flight) goes first. Since you can't get rid of the power plants, or the fuel, and if you put the luggage on another flight, people are going to bitch. Usually the heaviest people are going to bite the dust.

Then where do you put the wheelchair passengers?

Depends on who purchased their ticket first. some one may have to take a different flight. They are both physically disabled (Apparently).

You're right, most of them would just kick the guy off.

Bullshit. Show me ONE example where an airliner the size of a five-seven kicked a fat guy off.

its a point of view which the canadian courts have ruled on in a very reasonable manner.

it used to be the policy of US airlines that if you took 2 seats they would only charge you for 2 if it was a full flight. (what the policy is in this larcenous time i dont know).

also a reasonable policy.

what is NOT reasonable is to try to make money on the back of someone's disability.

I agree that, if the plane isn't full, you should be allowed to take extra seats for free. However, people shouldn't be able to expect two seats when they've only bought one if the plane is empty. In the event that the plane is full, should the obese person take two seats, thus depriving another paying passenger of their seat? Of course not. The only way around this is to have them buy two seats in advance.

No, they wouldn't.

As someone who has actually travelled with someone over 350 lbs, (and thus, certainly within the catchment for 'morbidly obese) I can assure you, you're wrong.

Oh well...I bow to your superior intelligence of aviation and air travel...

Tell me, what pilot certificate do you hold again?

Damn, this thread is just going too fast for me. I'll go read Weekend Web on Something Awful instead.

To get back their investment. Millions of dollars go in each plane, so they have to maximize how much money they get back, or they'll go bankrupt. Heck, some still do.


So they should charge two children full price but make them share a seat?

Yeah, and if an additional few hundred pounds from fat people is enough to bring down the plane, I think we have a big, big, BIG problem with the number of passengers being allowed on the aircraft in the first place. I'm sure as heck not getting on any passenger plane that is that close to being overloaded.

It's bullshit math anyway, as I suspect Wil knows.

If the weight ratio of passengers was that important in the scheme of things, there would be an absolute rule on how much luggage you could bring, for example... and you would HAVE to take a minimum weight of hand-luggage.

(Think about it - if you assume, say, 10 lbs of hand luggage for each passenger... but everyone only brings 5? According to Wil's math, your plane is going to crash, or something).

If you can't work the weight where the CG is within the box, then you have to get rid of some of the weight. Usually the heaviest object (that isn't needed for flight) goes first. Since you can't get rid of the power plants, or the fuel, and if you put the luggage on another flight, people are going to bitch. Usually the heaviest people are going to bite the dust.

Again, if passenger planes were being built such that merely adding chubby passengers would render the plane overloaded, there is a major, major, major design flaw here that is most definitely not the fault of those chubby passengers.

Wow....this just keep getting better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2346319.stm

So it is a battle between the skinny people and the obese....

Oh well...I bow to your superior intelligence of aviation and air travel...

Tell me, what pilot certificate do you hold again?

I hold every claim you make in the most dubious light possible. You've not shown anywhere an instance of an obese passenger being taken off a commercial flight on a plane the size of a B757 or larger. Your "civilian licensure" doesn't mean shit in that context if you can't show us that such an event has actually happened. Okay, Mister Expert Pilot?

So they should charge two children full price but make them share a seat?
They could if they wanted to but it would be a bad buisness plan. People would use a different airline when flying with children. Like a restauraunt that charged full price for a kids meal that is half the size of an adult meal. You wouldn't bring your kids to eat there unless you liked getting ripped off. Thus, no restauraunt would do that.(except ones that hated kids)

People who travel with an aid do not have to pay airfare for the seat that aid takes. It's called accommodation, and it is the positive reinforcement of human rights in this country.


People with an aid should have to pay for the space it takes up, even if it's not taking space from another person. It's extra weight and therefor extra fuel cost for the plane.

The whole point of anti-discrimination is that you cant' deny someone a service for a disability. That's as it should be.

But the idea that a company should have to provide extra service for someone based on their disability is not equal rights.

That's special rights. And that's wrong.

Oh well...I bow to your superior intelligence of aviation and air travel...

Tell me, what pilot certificate do you hold again?

Rather than indulge your appeal to authority (which, as you know, is a logical fallacy) how about you simply show me the evidence of air-travel company policy that kicks obese passengers off?

Your pretend math doesn't impress me, your claims to superior knowledge don't impress me - because I've travelled with exactly the people you are saying the airlines wouldn't allow on.

Thus, your claims must be bullshit. QED.

Depends on who purchased their ticket first. some one may have to take a different flight. They are both physically disabled (Apparently).

But only one has a wheelchair? Right?

Unless the obese person is in a wheelchair, in which case - problem solved.

Again, if passenger planes were being built such that merely adding chubby passengers would render the plane overloaded, there is a major, major, major design flaw here that is most definitely not the fault of those chubby passengers.

Airlines often overbook flight, once again, for profit. There has been cases of airlines shifting luggage around due to CG issues, and there's been cases of obese people (trust me chubby passengers are not a problem) being moved to a different flight.

See, the airlines are banking that not everyone shows up for the flight, which is why they overbook flights. However, once in awhile everyone does show up. You also have to keep in mind that airlines don't know how much you weigh, they don't ask it when booking your flight.

Now whether or not they inconvenience several passenger by moving luggage to another flight, or moving passengers. Well that depends on whether or not the airlines want to piss off one or two people, or several.

Airlines often overbook flight, once again, for profit. There has been cases of airlines shifting luggage around due to CG issues, and there's been cases of obese people (trust me chubby passengers are not a problem) being moved to a different flight.

See, the airlines are banking that not everyone shows up for the flight, which is why they overbook flights. However, once in awhile everyone does show up. You also have to keep in mind that airlines don't know how much you weigh, they don't ask it when booking your flight.

Now whether or not they inconvenience several passenger by moving luggage to another flight, or moving passengers. Well that depends on whether or not the airlines want to piss off one or two people, or several.

Yet another post without an example of such an incident. Keeeeeeeep dancin'!

Rather than indulge your appeal to authority (which, as you know, is a logical fallacy) how about you simply show me the evidence of air-travel company policy that kicks obese passengers off?

Your pretend math doesn't impress me, your claims to superior knowledge don't impress me - because I've travelled with exactly the people you are saying the airlines wouldn't allow on.

Thus, your claims must be bullshit. QED.

I never said that they wouldn't allow them on. Of course they allow them on, if they didn't they wouldn't make profit.

Planes are expensive. Yeah. What's the point supposed to be?

Flights often lift-off without every seat filled, flights are cheaper on Wednesdays because it's a slack day, incentives exist to encourage flying - you're ALWAYS making balance point decisions.

My point is that investors have to make a profit back on their investment. Flights often lift off without their seats filled because the seats are already incredibly expensive! People are already struggling to pay for a flight to almost anywhere, and yet you are encouraging a policy that will only increase those prices? Those incentives have toe exist, because without them, these businesses would make even less money. Maybe even shut down. Someone isn't going to keep a business making a very small profit, when they could easily put their money in, say, oil.

You don't flat-out aim for absolute maximum profit on every seat, on every flight, every day. That's not how you repay the cost of your machinery.

Of course not. You aim to maximize profit in the long run, so you can pay off that machinery.
Irrelevent. Unless you're seriously arguing that air transport companies are going tits-up because they sometimes have to carry 'special' passnegers.

Sometimes?
According to the 2004 CCHS, 23.1% of Canadians aged 18 or older, an estimated 5.5 million adults, had a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, indicating that they were obese
Link (http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/articles/adults/aobesity.htm) That's almost one in four people. That's very often, not sometimes.

No, it doesn't. 'Not good' =/= 'bad'.

Really? I disagree. (http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=bad)

I mean that no company uses absolute profit as it's pure business model - at least, not without some kind of situation like an absolute monopoly. It's bad business.
True. But companies don't exist for any other reason then to make money. So while absolute profit won't be their pure business model, profit, sure as hell, is going to influence their investors.

It's bullshit math anyway, as I suspect Wil knows.

If the weight ratio of passengers was that important in the scheme of things, there would be an absolute rule on how much luggage you could bring, for example... and you would HAVE to take a minimum weight of hand-luggage.

(Think about it - if you assume, say, 10 lbs of hand luggage for each passenger... but everyone only brings 5? According to Wil's math, your plane is going to crash, or something).

Hehe, indeed.

Just to consult the intarwebs for a moment, if I'm reading this correctly, it appears that the empty weight of a Boeing 727 is approximately 100,000 pounds, and the maximum safe weight is about 170,000 pounds. The seating capacity is 149. So, you know, if every single person on the plane weighed 500 pounds, you could be in trouble. :rolleyes:

I hold a private pilots license. I'm hoping to fly for Singapore airlines in the future. All those hot Asian air hostess'.

Obese people are almost as disgusting as this ruling. I fly first class. The main benefit of this is that i get more room. I have to pay extra for this extra room. Why should a fat person get extra room for free?

Ok, this is a perfect article on why a person's weight matter to the airlines when it comes to W&B and CGs.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/198400_fatfliers05.html

Eat it.

From the article.

Bulky magazines have gone out the door. Metal forks and spoons have been replaced with plastic. Large carry-ons are being scrutinized and even heavy materials that used to make up airplane seats are being replaced with plastic and other lightweight materials.

"We're dealing in a world of small numbers -- even though it has a very incremental impact" to reduce a 60- to 120-ton aircraft's weight by bumping off a few magazines, Evans said. "When you consider airlines are flying millions of miles, it adds up over time."

I agree that, if the plane isn't full, you should be allowed to take extra seats for free. However, people shouldn't be able to expect two seats when they've only bought one if the plane is empty. In the event that the plane is full, should the obese person take two seats, thus depriving another paying passenger of their seat? Of course not. The only way around this is to have them buy two seats in advance.
well what is done (if its still done) is to notify the airline that you might have need of 2 and they save the seat for you until it is the last seat available. then you have to pay for it. (or maybe you pay in advance and they refund it, im not sure)

but it is NOT unreasonable for the court to decide that equal accomodation requires that people of a certain size must be given an extra seat. the airlines already do all sorts of things to accomodate all sorts of people without charging them extra. how that accomodation is done is a matter for the airlines to work out with the courts.

Repeat question:
Can I replace the 80 kg of excess mass I do not have but which would travel free with luggage ? Seems only fair.

That doesn't tell me how someone becomes disabled by sitting down. Perhaps I wasn't clear. That's the question.Ok, this (http://www.asphi.it/english/DisabilitaOggi/DefinizioniOMS.htm) will help you out a little more.

The WHO has three classifications that are important. Impairment, disability and handicap. Impairment is at the level of the organ (take that loosely), disability is at the level of the person, and a handicap is at the level of the environment, both social and physical. So a morbidly obese person has an impairment in terms of their obesity, which creates a disability of movement, but a handicap only in certain situations. Once she sat in that seat, she was handicapped in a way most other people on the plane were not. She literally could not get out of the seat, she was trapped. Her mobility was absolutely taken from her.


So how is the addict helped? The smoker is not allowed his addiction while flying. Isn't that discriminatory?

Huh? It's not about being 'allowed' your addiction. Your addiction does not impact your mobility. There is no pressing need to accommodate an addict mid-flight.

Here's (http://www.faslink.org/Supreme_Court_rules_addiction_is_disability.htm) a link to back up my assertion that addiction is considered a disability btw.

You also have to keep in mind that airlines don't know how much you weigh, they don't ask it when booking your flight.


Exactly.

And, that easily, you make the argument for me.

See what you did there?

So they should charge two children full price but make them share a seat?
No, because they don't make everyone share a seat. Just like they don't give everyone an extra seat. Making two children share a seat that they paid for, fully, would be incredibly bad business. Those two children won't be riding on that plane again.
you keep changing words.

you cant DISCRIMINATE by opposing the civil rights act of 1964
I can't? Really? I'm indirectly discriminating against African-Americans by opposing the civil rights act of 1964, because I am opposing giving them legal equality.

Ok, this is a perfect article on why a person's weight matter to the airlines when it comes to W&B and CGs.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/198400_fatfliers05.html

Eat it.

LMAO -- your linked article does not -- repeat DOES NOT -- tell the story of an obese passenger being asked to de-plane. Me eat it? I think not. You're completely full of shit and magically double that amount of offal when called on it. Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep dancin'!

I hold a private pilots license. I'm hoping to fly for Singapore airlines in the future. All those hot Asian air hostess'.

Obese people are almost as disgusting as this ruling. I fly first class. The main benefit of this is that i get more room. I have to pay extra for this extra room. Why should a fat person get extra room for free?

Hmm Singapore airlines do have hooootttt air hostess.

One of my friends kept dropping his pen in the isle on a Singapore flight, and the hostess just kept bending over and picking it up for him....

*laughs*

well what is done (if its still done) is to notify the airline that you might have need of 2 and they save the seat for you until it is the last seat available. then you have to pay for it. (or maybe you pay in advance and they refund it, im not sure)

but it is NOT unreasonable for the court to decide that equal accomodation requires that people of a certain size must be given an extra seat. the airlines already do all sorts of things to accomodate all sorts of people without charging them extra. how that accomodation is done is a matter for the airlines to work out with the courts.

See, that system at the top of your post sounds like a reasonable compromise. I like it. I just don't think that effectively giving them a free seat, potentially at the expense of another person, is fair.

LMAO -- your linked article does not -- repeat DOES NOT -- tell the story of an obese passenger being asked to de-plane. Me eat it? I think not. You're completely full of shit and magically double that amount of offal when called on it. Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep dancin'!

Did you even read the article or did you fail reading comprehension class?

Wow, two attempts to claim I'm trivialising the topic in one thread, and no attempts to actually refute my point. I take it this "debating" thing doesn't come naturally to you.

They are in no way being discriminated against by having to pay for two seats if they require two seats.

You haven't argued the susbstantive points. Once again, this is about disability, not about how many seats you need. Once again, if you require an aid (that's a living human being by the way) with you 24/7, that aid will get a seat on the flight for free because the person with a disability could not travel otherwise. An obese person who could not possibly travel in just one seat gets two, because to do otherwise would impede that person's mobility in a way no one else has to face.

You are paying for airfare, not for seats. One person, one ticket, and no, the airlines would not be able to get away with making it about seats and not transportation.

Repeat question:
Can I replace the 80 kg of excess mass I do not have but which would travel free with luggage ? Seems only fair.

Is the 80kg related to a disability? If so - you're probably covered.

Did you even read the article or did you fail reading comprehension class?

So - when it's explained to you that your source doesn't back the claims you've made, your response is ad hominem?

Ok, this (http://www.asphi.it/english/DisabilitaOggi/DefinizioniOMS.htm) will help you out a little more.

The WHO has three classifications that are important. Impairment, disability and handicap. Impairment is at the level of the organ (take that loosely), disability is at the level of the person, and a handicap is at the level of the environment, both social and physical. So a morbidly obese person has an impairment in terms of their obesity, which creates a disability of movement, but a handicap only in certain situations. Once she sat in that seat, she was handicapped in a way most other people on the plane were not. She literally could not get out of the seat, she was trapped. Her mobility was absolutely taken from her.

Seems like a lot of tapdancing to me, but hey, the law is the law. I don't have to agree. If the airline doesn't give the person the seat they tell her they're going to give her, that's actionable, given her disability according to what you've posted.

Huh? It's not about being 'allowed' your addiction. Your addiction does not impact your mobility. There is no pressing need to accommodate an addict mid-flight.

Here's (http://www.faslink.org/Supreme_Court_rules_addiction_is_disability.htm) a link to back up my assertion that addiction is considered a disability btw.

I don't argue that an addiction is a disability. I'm saying that if we're going to pass laws or make decisions that assist those with disabilities, where's the addict's help? If being unable to light up renders a smoker functionally disabled (and I've seen this in action), where's the assistance there?

Repeat question:
Can I replace the 80 kg of excess mass I do not have but which would travel free with luggage ? Seems only fair.
youre lucky they dont charge you for the air you use on the flight. they are never going to cut you a break on your weight.

Presumably because the standard is more stringent than "uncomfortable."

The problem with a person being obese is that they take up more room than the seat allows, thus making them (and others around them) uncomfortable.

Being tall or having wide hips causes the same basic problem. You can't fit into the space provided, which forces you either out into the aisle or causes you to have at least some portion of your body in the space of the seat next to you.

People with an aid should have to pay for the space it takes up, even if it's not taking space from another person. It's extra weight and therefor extra fuel cost for the plane.

The whole point of anti-discrimination is that you cant' deny someone a service for a disability. That's as it should be.

But the idea that a company should have to provide extra service for someone based on their disability is not equal rights.

That's special rights. And that's wrong.

You're right, this is better characterised as equity.

Is it wrong that companies are forced to build their buildings in accordance with codes that require them to make those buildings wheelchair accessible?

If you want to offer a service to the public, you need to ensure you have arranged to accommodate for people with disabilities. That's simply a factor of doing business in Canada.

Once again, if you require an aid (that's a living human being by the way) with you 24/7, that aid will get a seat on the flight for free because the person with a disability could not travel otherwise.

One again, that is special treatment, not equal treatment.

That should not be done (except out of the kindness of someone's heart - never by the law).

You're right, this is better characterised as equity.

Is it wrong that companies are forced to build their buildings in accordance with codes that require them to make those buildings wheelchair accessible?

No, (especially for government buildings) as the service cannot be provided without such access. The exact same service can be provided in airlines as long as they are willing to pay for space at the same ratio as a typical passenger.

If you want to offer a service to the public, you need to ensure you have arranged to accommodate for people with disabilities. That's simply a factor of doing business in Canada.

So, in Canada, special rights are enforced as the norm, even in the private sector?

So glad Obama won, as I now know I would have regretted trying to move there in the case of a McCain/Palin victory.

I never said that they wouldn't allow them on. Of course they allow them on, if they didn't they wouldn't make profit.

Um:

"You're right, most of them would just kick the guy off"

You're a liar.

Ok to indulge the idiots, here is a 300lbs woman who was kicked off a Southwest Airline flight. Southwest fly primarily Boeing 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=93

http://www.wlwt.com/travelgetaways/6838150/detail.html

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.

Ok, this is a perfect article on why a person's weight matter to the airlines when it comes to W&B and CGs.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/198400_fatfliers05.html

Eat it.

From the article.

....did you actually read your own article? It has nothing to do with planes being too heavy to fly and anyone being kicked off, but is simply about trying to cut fuel costs by flying lighter. So what?

No, because they don't make everyone share a seat. Just like they don't give everyone an extra seat. Making two children share a seat that they paid for, fully, would be incredibly bad business. Those two children won't be riding on that plane again.

I can't? Really? I'm indirectly discriminating against African-Americans by opposing the civil rights act of 1964, because I am opposing giving them legal equality.
nope. to discriminate you have to discriminate. thinking about it doesnt count.

now you might be racist, just as you might be racist if you oppose obama's policies.

or not, that depends on what you actually say and think eh?

You haven't argued the susbstantive points. Once again, this is about disability, not about how many seats you need. Once again, if you require an aid (that's a living human being by the way) with you 24/7, that aid will get a seat on the flight for free because the person with a disability could not travel otherwise. An obese person who could not possibly travel in just one seat gets two, because to do otherwise would impede that person's mobility in a way no one else has to face.

You are paying for airfare, not for seats. One person, one ticket, and no, the airlines would not be able to get away with making it about seats and not transportation.

I suppose that the problem I have with it is that they could, potentially, be able to take away a seat from someone who has already paid for it if the plane is full. With your own care assistant, you can at least let the airline know in advance and they'll reserve two seats for the price of one: unless the plane is overbooked, no-one loses their seat.

Did you even read the article or did you fail reading comprehension class?

Look. YOU HAVE CLAIMED that OBESE PEOPLE have been ASKED TO LEAVE THE PLANE in order to deal with an airliner's center of gravity.

I HAVE SAID YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

You have not. You instead posted an article about how heavier passengers affect airline considerations with regard to seating and fuel costs and overall weight.

I'll say it one more time, show us ONE, just ONE example of an obese passenger being asked to leave a plane because of weight distribution concerns. If you can't, I demand you retract your statement and admit you were utterly wrong.

If you insult me or my "reading comprehension skills" again after this post, your posts will be dealt with in Moderation.

Look. YOU HAVE CLAIMED that OBESE PEOPLE have been ASKED TO LEAVE THE PLANE in order to deal with an airliner's center of gravity.

I HAVE SAID YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

You have not. You instead posted an article about how heavier passengers affect airline considerations with regard to seating and fuel costs and overall weight.

I'll say it one more time, show us ONE, just ONE example of an obese passenger being asked to leave a plane because of weight distribution concerns. If you can't, I demand you retract your statement and admit you were utterly wrong.

If you insult me or my "reading comprehension skills" again after this post, your posts will be dealt with in Moderation.

http://www.wlwt.com/travelgetaways/6838150/detail.html

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.

Also, if you report me, then I'll report you for the "dance puppet dance" comment.

See, that system at the top of your post sounds like a reasonable compromise. I like it. I just don't think that effectively giving them a free seat, potentially at the expense of another person, is fair.
ya know, i was going to say that too.

but its NEVER going to be at the expense of another person.

charged for it or not, they are going to take 2 seats. if the plane is overbooked some person isnt going to get on that flight no matter what the fat guy paid for his space.

so its at the expense of the airline only. (or the passenger if he has to pay for an extra ticket).

Seems like a lot of tapdancing to me, but hey, the law is the law. I don't have to agree. If the airline doesn't give the person the seat they tell her they're going to give her, that's actionable, given her disability according to what you've posted. The handicap part of the analysis is only important to decide whether or not this person's disability needs to be accommodated. Simply because you HAVE a disability (impairment) does not mean everything you request must be done for you. That's not tapdancing, that's analysis. She could walk just fine into the airport...she had a disability then just as she did on the plane, but she was not handicapped as she walked into the terminal, therefore there would be no need for accommodation at that stage. Does that make it a bit clearer?



I don't argue that an addiction is a disability. I'm saying that if we're going to pass laws or make decisions that assist those with disabilities, where's the addict's help? If being unable to light up renders a smoker functionally disabled (and I've seen this in action), where's the assistance there?

I put the source in because I realise I hadn't backed myself up previously.

Functional disability has specific definitions, and does not merely mean 'discomfort' or 'cravings'.

In terms of addictions, accommodations that are most often sought are disability insurance for treatment and so forth. Not for a steady supply of crack, or a space to smoke it in.

My point is that investors have to make a profit back on their investment. Flights often lift off without their seats filled because the seats are already incredibly expensive! People are already struggling to pay for a flight to almost anywhere, and yet you are encouraging a policy that will only increase those prices? Those incentives have toe exist, because without them, these businesses would make even less money. Maybe even shut down. Someone isn't going to keep a business making a very small profit, when they could easily put their money in, say, oil.

Of course not. You aim to maximize profit in the long run, so you can pay off that machinery.


The point, as you admit, is that these balance point decisionsa re made all the time. Even you accept it. EVERY seat is not vital EVERY flight. Prices may fluctuate.


Sometimes?

Link (http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/articles/adults/aobesity.htm) That's almost one in four people. That's very often, not sometimes.


That would still mean three out of every four passnegers would be NOT obese, according to those statistics - and that's IF we assume that there is no demographic factor involved.


Really? I disagree. (http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=bad)


Your'e welcome to. Quibbling on an unimportant detail is probably the strongest argument you've got on this issue.


True. But companies don't exist for any other reason then to make money. So while absolute profit won't be their pure business model, profit, sure as hell, is going to influence their investors.

First - companies exist for lots of reasons. Making money is high on the list, for most. Not all.

Second - and?

unless the plane is overbooked

Theres your problem. Airlines regularly overbook seats bargaining approx 10% of people won't show up. In case of overbooking who gets chucked off first? The person who paid for 1 seat but occupies 2 or 2 people who paid for a seat each and occupy 1?

Obese people are almost as disgusting as this ruling.

Personally, I find the weight of a person to be far less important than whether or not they act reasonably towards others.

nope. to discriminate you have to discriminate. thinking about it doesnt count.

Erm... Did you read my post? Where did I even mention "Thinking about it"? Or are you saying it isn't even a hypothetical example of discrimination, unless it's an actual example of discrimination?

now you might be racist, just as you might be racist if you oppose obama's policies.

or not, that depends on what you actually say and think eh?
Right, but by opposing something that gave a minority equal rights would be inherently racist, because I am indirectly opposing the notion that African Americans are equal to everyone else. Which is racist. So, you can be racist by opposing a policy.

Erm... Did you read my post? Where did I even mention "Thinking about it"? Or are you saying it isn't even a hypothetical example of discrimination, unless it's an actual example of discrimination?

Right, but by opposing something that gave a minority equal rights would be inherently racist, because I am indirectly opposing the notion that African Americans are equal to everyone else. Which is racist. So, you can be racist by opposing a policy.
yes im saying that hypothetical discrimination isnt discrimination.

yes you CAN be racist. but that is not the same as discrimination. this is why switching words is a problem.

One again, that is special treatment, not equal treatment.
That should not be done (except out of the kindness of someone's heart - never by the law).

We do not go around treating people exactly the same and pretend that is equality. There is no equality of access if an abled person can walk into a building but a person in a wheelchair cannot, and yet by your narrow definition of equality=same, that is precisely what we should do.

No, (especially for government buildings) as the service cannot be provided without such access. The exact same service can be provided in airlines as long as they are willing to pay for space at the same ratio as a typical passenger. It's not the same service when only you are paying more than anyone else. That is discrimination.

You don't need an extra seat. You have no disability that would require you to take up more space, the denial of which would actively impair your mobility. Targeting those people for higher airfares is discrimination.


So, in Canada, special rights are enforced as the norm, even in the private sector?

No one, government or not, who provides a service to the public can in any way discriminate on any of the prohibited grounds.

Personally, I find the weight of a person to be far less important than whether or not they act reasonably towards others.

Obese people don't act reasonably towards themselves. But that's by the by. To look at, they're disgusting. No two ways about it.

It's crazy to have two levels of space entitlement (ONE or TWO seats) based on a person's obesity.

The person whose girth doesn't quite qualify is still very uncomfortable, and they very likely make the passenger(s) next to them less comfortable too.

The person whose girth does qualify them for an extra seat, but only just, is very comfortable.

They pay the same? That's mad.

Luckily, I see a solution for the airline: provide some wider seats (eg the ones used in first or business class) in the economy section, at economy ticket prices. A range of sizes all the way up to double the usual economy width could be provided, and if they aren't taken by people who need them by the time all the other seats are sold, award them by lottery as a free upgrade to passengers who have already booked.

http://www.wlwt.com/travelgetaways/6838150/detail.html

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.

Also, if you report me, then I'll report you for the "dance puppet dance" comment.

Because I typed "keeeeeeeep dancin'"? That's a reference to you steadfastly dancing the goalposts by not answering the actual question. And you still haven't. Where's the mention of "puppet", by the way? Are you feeling okay?

Obese people don't act reasonably towards themselves. But that's by the by. To look at, they're disgusting. No two ways about it.

Is your avatar a picture of you, if it is...

Ok to indulge the idiots, here is a 300lbs woman who was kicked off a Southwest Airline flight. Southwest fly primarily Boeing 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=93

http://www.wlwt.com/travelgetaways/6838150/detail.html

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.

People who call you on your bullshit are 'idiots'?

Another ad hominem?

Let me point out that she wasn't kicked off for weighing 300 lbs. Or even for taking up two seats. She was kicked off because she refused to pay.

Also - of course - one carrier isn't the same as a general rule.

As an additional - I don't see any mention of the type of plane in this source.

http://www.wlwt.com/travelgetaways/6838150/detail.html

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.

Also, if you report me, then I'll report you for the "dance puppet dance" comment.

Also? SHE REFUSED TO ABIDE BY THE AIRLINE'S STATED POLICY of NEEDING TO BUY TWO SEATS.

That's in the FIRST PARAGRAPH.

How many times have I mentioned that people who require an aide with them do not have to pay for two seats, even though there are two people on the plane? Why is it none of you have picked up on it, or complained if you're so dead set against the airline being forced to abide by human rights legislation despite the loss of profit it causes them?

The handicap part of the analysis is only important to decide whether or not this person's disability needs to be accommodated. Simply because you HAVE a disability (impairment) does not mean everything you request must be done for you. That's not tapdancing, that's analysis. She could walk just fine into the airport...she had a disability then just as she did on the plane, but she was not handicapped as she walked into the terminal, therefore there would be no need for accommodation at that stage. Does that make it a bit clearer?




I put the source in because I realise I hadn't backed myself up previously.

Functional disability has specific definitions, and does not merely mean 'discomfort' or 'cravings'.

In terms of addictions, accommodations that are most often sought are disability insurance for treatment and so forth. Not for a steady supply of crack, or a space to smoke it in.

Got it, on both points. Thank you.

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.


Conjecture, not evidence. And not even conjecture that can be extrapolated from the source.

Is your avatar a picture of you, if it is...

I forced myself to refrain.

Obese people don't act reasonably towards themselves. But that's by the by. To look at, they're disgusting. No two ways about it.

If this is the best you've got, you're wasting my time.

Obese people don't act reasonably towards themselves. But that's by the by. To look at, they're disgusting. No two ways about it.

Rubbish. The disgust is yours, just as the attraction you feel for an "attractive" person is YOUR reaction to how they are.

Is your avatar a picture of you, if it is...

Yes it is. I assume you yourself are obese then. That's unfortunate, but i'm unlikely to get upset by a negative judgement on my emo angle picture. The contrast was turned up so high, that it might as well not be a picture of me at all. It's not very representative.

We do not go around treating people exactly the same and pretend that is equality. There is no equality of access if an abled person can walk into a building but a person in a wheelchair cannot, and yet by your narrow definition of equality=same, that is precisely what we should do.

The key is to provide equal opportunity and equal access. Equal results are never able to be guaranteed, and trying to do so only leads to situations like this.

Without a ramp, a person in a wheelchair does not have the opportunity to access the building. But I'd think it was silly for a car company not to charge extra to retrofit a vehicle to allow being driven by a person in a wheelchair (at the exact same cost it take for a person not in a wheelchair to get the same retrofits done).

It's not the same service when only you are paying more than anyone else. That is discrimination.

It is not discrimination to charge everyone the same amount for the same amount of space. If a skinny person wants two seats worth of space, they have to pay for two seats.

Under the current Canadian system, healthy people are discriminated against because they are getting half the space for the same cost!

Disability has nothing to do with it. Those people are not required to fly. They could drive or take a boat. Or even buy a ticket on a smaller flight with larger seats and more space standard. But they choose to fly with a major airline, and should thusly spend the same amount for the space as anyone else would.

Again, why should I pay more than them for the same amount of physical space?

No one, government or not, who provides a service to the public can in any way discriminate on any of the prohibited grounds.

And there is no discrimination in charging someone who occupies two seats for both of those seats.

Again, it would be nice of the airlines to not charge them, but since when is it the government's job to pass laws forcing people to be nice?:confused:

Rubbish. The disgust is yours, just as the attraction you feel for an "attractive" person is YOUR reaction to how they are.

People who let themselves become that size are disgusting. If you like the look of them, that's cool. But it verges on a fetish.

Another thing to keep in mind...morbid obesity is not something you can easily change, or even change at all depending on the situation.

So if you had some condition which meant you needed to take up two seats...let's say you were the lady with huge legs (http://www.mandysellars.com/)...why should you be paying double what everyone else does? This can not just be able profit and seats and this and that...at the base of it all is the fact that these service providers MUST accommodate people with disabilities and they MUST abide by human rights legislation and not discriminate against those people with disabilities.

Seems to me, a bunch of you are just mad that some people are fat.

People who let themselves become that size are disgusting.

Disgusting is to have an appearance which invokes disgust in the viewer. It is inherently subjective and you cannot claim anything possesses such a quality unilaterally.

People who let themselves become that size are disgusting. If you like the look of them, that's cool. But it verges on a fetish.
that wasnt his point.

a person IS. your reaction to them is attraction, neutral or disgust. that is YOUR reaction and not a part of the person you are reacting to.

no one has a duty to be attractive to you.

Obese people don't act reasonably towards themselves. But that's by the by. To look at, they're disgusting. No two ways about it.

I have friends who are obese. I do not find them disgusting to look at it. Look at that, apparently there are two ways about it after all. :rolleyes:

The point, as you admit, is that these balance point decisionsa re made all the time. Even you accept it. EVERY seat is not vital EVERY flight. Prices may fluctuate.

But each one of those seats, if taken out PERMANENTLY, to be replaced with a larger seat, would eventually add up.

That would still mean three out of every four passnegers would be NOT obese, according to those statistics - and that's IF we assume that there is no demographic factor involved.

That would still mean that an entire other quarter is taken up of the planes space. So now instead of seating 100 people, this plane can only seat 75 now. Use the equation above.

Your'e welcome to. Quibbling on an unimportant detail is probably the strongest argument you've got on this issue.

And you've never quibbled over an unimportant detail on NSG?:D

First - companies exist for lots of reasons. Making money is high on the list, for most. Not all.

Second - and?
First: Name one airline that isn't in this to make money.

Second: And you'll lose investors.

Sorry for the long wait. Computer trouble.

Another thing to keep in mind...morbid obesity is not something you can easily change, or even change at all depending on the situation.

So if you had some condition which meant you needed to take up two seats...let's say you were the lady with huge legs (http://www.mandysellars.com/)...why should you be paying double what everyone else does? This can not just be able profit and seats and this and that...at the base of it all is the fact that these service providers MUST accommodate people with disabilities and they MUST abide by human rights legislation and not discriminate against those people with disabilities.

Seems to me, a bunch of you are just mad that some people are fat.
I, personally, really don't care why a person needs two seats. whether they decided that eating until they were huge was OK, whether they were born with a hypoactive thyriod, or whether they have a conjoined twin, or if they travell with an aid. If two seats are occupied they should pay for both.

I have friends who are obese. I do not find them disgusting to look at it. Look at that, apparently there are two ways about it after all. :rolleyes:

I'm stupified. How can you not be disgusted by it? Maybe if the world got harder on the obese they'd be more inclined to sort themselves out.

The key is to provide equal opportunity and equal access. Equal results are never able to be guaranteed, and trying to do so only leads to situations like this.

Without a ramp, a person in a wheelchair does not have the opportunity to access the building. But I'd think it was silly for a car company not to charge extra to retrofit a vehicle to allow being driven by a person in a wheelchair (at the exact same cost it take for a person not in a wheelchair to get the same retrofits done). You're not very good at examples.

A company would of course be able to charge for retrofitting a car for better wheelchair access.

A car rental service could not insist upon renting a 'regular' car to a person in a wheelchair unless that person could actually use a 'regular' car.

Do you see the difference?

Let's try this again. A store could charge money for a cane being sold to a person with a disability. A store could not refuse to serve a person who uses a cane...or charge them double for services offered at half the price to everyone else.

Getting any clearer?




It is not discrimination to charge everyone the same amount for the same amount of space. If a skinny person wants two seats worth of space, they have to pay for two seats. And once again, you are not being charged for the space you take up. That's illegal. You are being charged for transporation. Check the CTA regulations.

Under the current Canadian system, healthy people are discriminated against because they are getting half the space for the same cost! It's not about space, sorry you're so confused on the issue.

Disability has nothing to do with it. Those people are not required to fly. They could drive or take a boat. Or even buy a ticket on a smaller flight with larger seats and more space standard. But they choose to fly with a major airline, and should thusly spend the same amount for the space as anyone else would.

Race has nothing to do with it. Those people don't have to live here...they can rent another apartment.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Those people can find jobs somewhere else.

Gender has nothing to do with it. I'm sure some other construction firm would hire women.

Sorry, but disability has everything to do with it. You do not get to force people out, discriminate against them, deny them the same access you provide to the general public. That is a matter of constitutional law here.

Again, why should I pay more than them for the same amount of physical space? Huh? Oh right. You still think it's about space.




And there is no discrimination in charging someone who occupies two seats for both of those seats. See the above. I said it enough times you might actually get it.

Again, it would be nice of the airlines to not charge them, but since when is it the government's job to pass laws forcing people to be nice?:confused:
Since we have constitutionally guaranteed human rights in this country, and various levels of human rights legislation.

yes im saying that hypothetical discrimination isnt discrimination.

So you're saying no hypothetical situation can properly represent racism? Sorry about asking so much, I'd like to be sure here. I thinking I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

yes you CAN be racist. but that is not the same as discrimination. this is why switching words is a problem.
But discrimination CAN be racist. This is why switching words is not a problem. Discrimination is discrimination, whether racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever the case may be.

This has to be one of the best threads in a while. I just read through all twelve pages, and damn some of this banter is funny.

Yes it is. I assume you yourself are obese then. That's unfortunate, but i'm unlikely to get upset by a negative judgement on my emo angle picture. The contrast was turned up so high, that it might as well not be a picture of me at all. It's not very representative.If we don't find your avatar attractive, we must be obese. Can't argue with that logic.

Why would you choose a picture to represent you on a forum, when according to you the picture is not very representative?

How many times have I mentioned that people who require an aide with them do not have to pay for two seats, even though there are two people on the plane? Why is it none of you have picked up on it, or complained if you're so dead set against the airline being forced to abide by human rights legislation despite the loss of profit it causes them?

I'm reposting this because some of you seem completely incapable of paying attention.

And once again. When you buy a ticket on an airplane you are paying for travel. Not for space.

Why is it none of you have picked up on [that people who require an aide with them do not have to pay for two seats], or complained if you're so dead set against the airline being forced to abide by human rights legislation despite the loss of profit it causes them?

I have. :p They have equal access to space on a plane as anyone else. To not charge them the same price for the amount of space they take up (two seats) is special treatment above and beyond granting them equal access.

Seems to me, a bunch of you are just mad that some people are fat.

No, I'm mad that a group of people are magically given a discount on a choice they make.

I'm even madder when a large portion of that group could actually stop being part of that group if only they stopped being so lazy. And this type of hand-out isn't going to help that happen.

And yes, the majority of obese people (despite high genetic factors) can stop being obese or even become 'fit' with a proper lifestyle change (altering diet, exercise, and motivation - often eliminating stress or depression will go a long way to helping as well). But this kind of policy is literally rewarding them for a poor lifestyle choice. And that is simply ridiculous.

I am a fat person. I weigh about 220 at 5'9", though some of it is recent gain and, considering my lifestyle, I will likely weigh more in due time. I have always been at a minimum a bit chubby, well maybe not when I was 4, but nonetheless, I have been (forced) to diet by my parents and lost a fair amount of weight. I worked out and ate less (I before it and again today eat lot of junk, but I actually usually also eat the recommend amount of fruit ,vegetables, etc) and lost weight. Perhaps I would never be anorexic, but I was capable of losing weight and being only a little chubby or almost "average". I don't like dieting and don't care if I am fat so I ultimately convinced them to let me eat junk again and gradually I have regained the weigh and more, recently putting on 10 pounds in a month. If I keep it up, I may end up needing two seats (which, even with the obesity rate, is still very big and less common than made to seem) but even though I, a genetically fat person, need two seats, doesn't mean I should only pay for one! Very few people have actual medical or severe enough genetic illnesses to be that size just based on that. Even though I obviously don't want to pay for it, I still should since the group of fat people who are actually that size because of an illness or disorder in genetics are so slim in numbers (no pun intended), fat people should pay up. "But it's my genetics!" Unless you're one of the unlucky (or lucky depending on your point of view) people who have a disorder that makes you the size you are, it probably isn't. Perhaps you are naturally a bit chubbier than normal people due to your genetics, but most of that 200 pounds of fat is because you stuffed your face all the time (like me). No excuse. If you want to be that way or don't care to diet, IMHO, it's your choice, but you have to live with the consequences, like paying for two seats. I find it funny my government decided that, I would have thought America would. Nonetheless, they made a mistake.

I'm stupified. How can you not be disgusted by it? Maybe if the world got harder on the obese they'd be more inclined to sort themselves out.

Given how subjective disgust is, it seems quite easy not to be disgusted by obese people. And no, I doubt that being harder on obese people will encourage them to "sort themselves out". I concede that an increased suicide rate might lead to fewer obese people, but dropping weight is difficult (particularly when you're too heavy to exercise easily) whether you criticise the obese person or not.

So you're saying no hypothetical situation can properly represent racism? Sorry about asking so much, I'd like to be sure here. I thinking I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

But discrimination CAN be racist. This is why switching words is not a problem. Discrimination is discrimination, whether racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever the case may be.
you have stopped making sense.

This has to be one of the best threads in a while. I just read through all twelve pages, and damn some of this banter is funny.

If we don't find your avatar attractive, we must be obese. Can't argue with that logic.

Why would you choose a picture to represent you on a forum, when according to you the picture is not very representative?

Because it gives off the image i want to.

And the logic is sound, he must have some kind of connection to fat people to want to defend them.

I'm stupified. How can you not be disgusted by it? Maybe if the world got harder on the obese they'd be more inclined to sort themselves out.

...because I'm a decent human being, and I like my friends for who they are, not how they look in a swimsuit?

Given how subjective disgust is, it seems quite easy not to be disgusted by obese people. And no, I doubt that being harder on obese people will encourage them to "sort themselves out". I concede that an increased suicide rate might lead to fewer obese people, but dropping weight is difficult (particularly when you're too heavy to exercise easily) whether you criticise the obese person or not.

It's really not difficult. I had to lose 5 pounds in a week for an audition. I looked online at some different diets, and found one that suited me. The Lemonade diet. I stuck to it for a whole seven days, and lost 8 pounds.

And the logic is sound, he must have some kind of connection to fat people to want to defend them.

Rubbish.

...because I'm a decent human being, and I like my friends for who they are, not how they look in a swimsuit?

wow. I don't know what to say.

I have. :p They have equal access to space on a plane as anyone else. To not charge them the same price for the amount of space they take up (two seats) is special treatment above and beyond granting them equal access.



No, I'm mad that a group of people are magically given a discount on a choice they make.

I'm even madder when a large portion of that group could actually stop being part of that group if only they stopped being so lazy. And this type of hand-out isn't going to help that happen.

And yes, the majority of obese people (despite high genetic factors) can stop being obese or even become 'fit' with a proper lifestyle change (altering diet, exercise, and motivation - often eliminating stress or depression will go a long way to helping as well). But this kind of policy is literally rewarding them for a poor lifestyle choice. And that is simply ridiculous.
they are paying the same amount

i weigh 450 lbs; you weigh 100 lbs. we both fly from toronto to vancouver. you sit in half a seat, i sit in 2 seats. we both pay for transportation. we both pay the same amount because we both flew the same distance.

no one got a discount, no one paid extra. we both got the same service that we paid for.

transportation.

wow. I don't know what to say.
thats funny.

do you really make friends based on their swimwear?

Because it gives off the image i want to.

And the logic is sound, he must have some kind of connection to fat people to want to defend them.

Ahahahahahaha.

I can't wait for you to pop into all the various threads on this site to inform me that I MUST be a gay Christian Muslim black atheist who gets weekly abortions.

To the question of the costs to the airline:

The weight of passengers IS a factor in the costs of a flight. The net weight of the plane is irrelevant, what matters is its payload, which is far smaller and includes seats, carpets, air treatment etc. Fuel costs go up more than linearly with payload (has to carry fuel to carry the fuel to carry the payload. Aerodynamic efficiency goes down too.)

Number of passenger is a factor too. Baggage check, expendables like magazines and snacks, number of flight attendants employed, loading and unloading times, checkin times (these latter two borne indirectly by the airline as airport charges) ... all go up with the number of passengers. A passenger who takes two seats doesn't have double costs in this sense.

Because both these factors apply, it is not fair to charge passengers by the kilogram (including their baggage) as though they were freight -- this would overcharge the fat people.

But charging passengers by the head isn't entirely fair either.

A bracket of permissible fare differential could be decided by Canada's airline regulators. Charging people double when they pass some (arbitrary) line of obesity is unacceptable, but perhaps something like twenty percent of the far could be directly proportional to the person's weight.

thats funny.

do you really make friends based on their swimwear?

No. I just don't make friends with obese people.

And the logic is sound, he must have some kind of connection to fat people to want to defend them.'Some connection' is not what you said, and even if it had been, it's still wrong. I can't defend someone unless I have a connection to them? I'll let you inform our military, police officers, and firefighters to stop working until we're properly introduced.

Ahahahahahaha.

I can't wait for you to pop into all the various threads on this site to inform me that I MUST be a gay Christian Muslim black atheist who gets weekly abortions.

I'm sure we'll have oodles of fun.

No. I just don't make friends with obese people.

Before we go any further down this path can we please agree a definition of obese?

People who let themselves become that size are disgusting. If you like the look of them, that's cool. But it verges on a fetish.

You aren't very bright, are you?

YOU find them disgusting. They disgust YOU. You can't make that an objective characteristic of their body by a choice of words.

Ahahahahahaha.

I can't wait for you to pop into all the various threads on this site to inform me that I MUST be a gay Christian Muslim black atheist who gets weekly abortions.I always thought you were a Gay Black Christian Muslim Atheist. You know, keeping all the bases covered.

you have stopped making sense.

I would've said that about you about two posts ago, but I didn't want to be rude.

I always thought you were a Gay Black Christian Muslim Atheist. You know, keeping all the bases covered.

Poliwanacraca is Obama :eek2:

You aren't very bright, are you?

YOU find them disgusting. They disgust YOU. You can't make that an objective characteristic of their body by a choice of words.

Of course i can. Beauty is only subjective to a point.

Poliwanacraca is Obama :eek2:I never said she was a terrorist socialist. ;)

Sorry, sorry, off topic. Ok, people, head down power through.

Before we go any further down this path can we please agree a definition of obese?

Fat enough to require 2 seats on an airplane.

You're all arguing from shaky ground. Define Obese already or your arguments are subjective and weak...

Of course i can. Beauty is only subjective to a point.

Anyone ever tell you that you look like Clay Aiken?

That's not a compliment.

No. I just don't make friends with obese people.
how fat does someone have to be before they are unworthy of your friendship?

I always thought you were a Gay Black Christian Muslim Atheist. You know, keeping all the bases covered.

Oh, totally. I think I'm also Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, and transgendered. I must have defended people from all those groups on here at some point. :p

Fat enough to require 2 seats on an airplane.

A seat is not a constant yardstick. Economy Class? Business Class? A wooden bench someone strapped down in a gutted out 747?

Poliwanacraca is Obama :eek2:

Hee! :D

how fat does someone have to be before they are unworthy of your friendship?

Depends.

It's really not difficult. I had to lose 5 pounds in a week for an audition. I looked online at some different diets, and found one that suited me. The Lemonade diet. I stuck to it for a whole seven days, and lost 8 pounds.

Lucky you. There's also the minor issue that quick diets like the lemonade diet are totally unsustainable. Yes, you can last a week on it, but what if you had 100 pounds to lose? What about 200 pounds? A lemonade diet or similar over the period of time needed to lose that kind of weight would be fatal. The obese person would have to stick to a much more sustainable diet for a much longer period of time. They'd have to settle for a small drop in calorie input while only being able to manage a small amount of extra calorie output: by the time you're obese, it's very difficult to start exercising.

Oh, totally. I think I'm also Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, and transgendered. I must have defended people from all those groups on here at some point. :p
theres the connection!

they're people, you're a person!

A seat is not a constant yardstick. Economy Class? Business Class? A wooden bench someone strapped down in a gutted out 747?

Well, i've never flown economy class so i wouldn't know how big those seats are.

Well, i've never flown economy class so i wouldn't know how big those seats are.

Boring troll is boring.

Well, i've never flown economy class so i wouldn't know how big those seats are.

You miss the point entirely. You still havent defined Obese.

they are paying the same amount

i weigh 450 lbs; you weigh 100 lbs. we both fly from toronto to vancouver. you sit in half a seat, i sit in 2 seats. we both pay for transportation. we both pay the same amount because we both flew the same distance.

no one got a discount, no one paid extra. we both got the same service that we paid for.

transportation.

What do you think of the idea that in order to provide that transportation in a similar level of comfort, the airline should be allowed to have different width seats and allocate them for the same price, depending on the passenger's girth?

It would follow that seats could also be placed to give more or less leg-room and allocated according to a person's height.

Transportation ... but at as close to the same level of comfort as the airline can reasonably manage with the same permanent seat lay-out.

Am I making sense? Too much sense to permit a proper Saturday night ding-dong?

Lucky you. There's also the minor issue that quick diets like the lemonade diet are totally unsustainable. Yes, you can last a week on it, but what if you had 100 pounds to lose? What about 200 pounds? A lemonade diet or similar over the period of time needed to lose that kind of weight would be fatal. The obese person would have to stick to a much more sustainable diet for a much longer period of time. They'd have to settle for a small drop in calorie input while only being able to manage a small amount of extra calorie output: by the time you're obese, it's very difficult to start exercising.

I saw a tv show about a guy who has managed to sustain himself for 2 years on a diet of sunlight. I fully intend to be able to do that in the future. Humans don't need to eat so much food that they become obese. If you're fat, stop eating so much. Then magical things will happen.

You're not very good at examples.

A company would of course be able to charge for retrofitting a car for better wheelchair access.

A car rental service could not insist upon renting a 'regular' car to a person in a wheelchair unless that person could actually use a 'regular' car.

Do you see the difference?

No, because I would also expect the car rental place to also be able to charge more for renting the retrofit car, since it cost them more to buy.

Let's try this again. A store could charge money for a cane being sold to a person with a disability. A store could not refuse to serve a person who uses a cane...or charge them double for services offered at half the price to everyone else.

That's exactly true, but not what we are discussing.

And once again, you are not being charged for the space you take up. That's illegal. You are being charged for transporation. Check the CTA regulations.

Then why does it cost me twice as much to buy two seats?

Either I can take up as much space as I damned well please no matter my body size, or you are wrong about the heart of the matter, regardless of what the 'official statement' is.

And why the does it cost extra for more luggage or for large luggage? If I'm paying just for travel, then I can take anything I want with me, since that cost isn't limited by the space my stuff takes up. Well, except that it IS, because the cost is about space provided, not the nebulous concept of 'travel.'

Race has nothing to do with it. Those people don't have to live here...they can rent another apartment.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Those people can find jobs somewhere else.

Gender has nothing to do with it. I'm sure some other construction firm would hire women.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Now, if, for example, women tended to suffer vastly more (read: statistically significant increase) injuries at a certain type of job, charging women in those jobs more for their work provided healthcare would be entirely reasonable, as you are providing them the exact same services at the same costs (risk is a cost determining factor in insurance, regardless of personal history). Costs of service go up as more or more intense service is provided. To force the cost to match when providing different services to different people is special treatment for those people. This is wholly different than saying you cannot deny service.

Do you understand that difference?

Charging more for a more involved service =/= denying service.

Sorry, but disability has everything to do with it.

No, it's about the service provided. As long as that service is provided with equal opportunity to all involved, the cost should be the same to all parties for the same services rendered. (To jump to a bad stereotype as an example) A black couple should have equal access to buying an apartment and it should cost them the same, but if they've put bullet holes in the wall, they should pay just as much for the repairs to them as a white couple would.

Since we have constitutionally guaranteed human rights in this country, and various levels of human rights legislation.

Now you're not giving people rights if you're being a dick?

Incredibly, terribly wrong. And missing the point entirely.

how fat does someone have to be before they are unworthy of your friendship?

If you cant look at someone without being repulsed then the friendship probably won't really take off....

I saw a tv show about a guy who has managed to sustain himself for 2 years on a diet of sunlight. I fully intend to be able to do that in the future.

Reality disagrees with you. Without those essential Amino Acids from food your body will quickly fall apart as it can no longer make replacement parts.

theres the connection!

they're people, you're a person!

You figured it out! It's my secret pro-person agenda!

...wait, I'm pretty sure I've also said nice things about dogs and cats on here before. It's my secret pro-mammal agenda?

What do you think of the idea that in order to provide that transportation in a similar level of comfort, the airline should be allowed to have different width seats and allocate them for the same price, depending on the passenger's girth?

It would follow that seats could also be placed to give more or less leg-room and allocated according to a person's height.

Transportation ... but at as close to the same level of comfort as the airline can reasonably manage with the same permanent seat lay-out.

Am I making sense? Too much sense to permit a proper Saturday night ding-dong?
it seems far too cumbersome to me.

i dont have a problem with the "two tickets if the plane is full" thing but the canadian ruling is a good one. equal access is equal access.

I think it should be made compulsory for obese people to pay for multiple seats, fat people take up more space and weigh the aircraft down so it should be within the right of airlines to charge them more

It would also encourage them to lose weight

I saw a tv show about a guy who has managed to sustain himself for 2 years on a diet of sunlight. I fully intend to be able to do that in the future. Humans don't need to eat so much food that they become obese. If you're fat, stop eating so much. Then magical things will happen.

Was this show a documentary, or was it science fiction? I agree that people don't need to eat so much food that they become obese (although sometimes it's due to illness), but once you are obese, cutting down your intake isn't enough: calorie output has to go up, and if you're too heavy for bicycles, too fat to jog, and too embarrassed to swim, your options are somewhat limited.

Reality disagrees with you. Without those essential Amino Acids from food your body will quickly fall apart as it can no longer make replacement parts.

We'll see.

I saw a tv show about a guy who has managed to sustain himself for 2 years on a diet of sunlight. I fully intend to be able to do that in the future. Humans don't need to eat so much food that they become obese. If you're fat, stop eating so much. Then magical things will happen.I literally spit my drink all over my monitor when I read this. You have to source that pearl of a story. Please.

we both got the same service that we paid for.

transportation.

Space on the mode of transportation is the service provided, because it's what you are sold. You aren't sold 'getting there,' you're sold 'a seat on something that will take you there.'

Luggage costs extra room. Buying extra space costs extra room. A larger person should be charged for that extra space just as a smaller person.

You are either lying or stupid to say otherwise until a smaller person can be given the same amount of physical space on that transportation as a larger person both for the cost of only one ticket (since 'space' isn't the service and therefor isn't charged for).

I think it should be made compulsory for obese people to pay for multiple seats, fat people take up more space and weigh the aircraft down so it should be within the right of airlines to charge them more

It would also encourage them to lose weight

Way to not fucking read the thread.

Ugh. Alright, I'm going to squeeze my big tits into a corset and head down to the Ave.

Was this show a documentary, or was it science fiction? I agree that people don't need to eat so much food that they become obese (although sometimes it's due to illness), but once you are obese, cutting down your intake isn't enough: calorie output has to go up, and if you're too heavy for bicycles, too fat to jog, and too embarrassed to swim, your options are somewhat limited.

It was on a chat show. Richard and Judy. The guy was also a german scientist.

If i ever became too fat to jog i would probably kill myself. It's not a nice way to live.

What do you think of the idea that in order to provide that transportation in a similar level of comfort, the airline should be allowed to have different width seats and allocate them for the same price, depending on the passenger's girth?

It would follow that seats could also be placed to give more or less leg-room and allocated according to a person's height.

Transportation ... but at as close to the same level of comfort as the airline can reasonably manage with the same permanent seat lay-out.

Am I making sense? Too much sense to permit a proper Saturday night ding-dong?

If you mean the larger seats cost more and smaller seats cost less, then yes. If not, you're still making sense, just not the kind of sense I agree with.:D

I literally spit my drink all over my monitor when I read this. You have to source that pearl of a story. Please.

Okay. This isn't the story i saw on tv, but it's the same thing.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/007/138.htm

If you cant look at someone without being repulsed then the friendship probably won't really take off....
very true.

although i do prefer people who are good at heart over those who are just good to look at.

That's right. NASA confirmed it.

Some of you people really need to open your minds.

It was on a chat show. Richard and Judy. The guy was also a german scientist.

If i ever became too fat to jog i would probably kill myself. It's not a nice way to live.

I'm somewhat skeptical about this German guy's science credentials. As for killing yourself if you became too fat to jog, that's obviously your right. But it doesn't change the fact that it is difficult to lose weight once you're that heavy.

Way to not fucking read the thread.

Ugh. Alright, I'm going to squeeze my big tits into a corset and head down to the Ave.

umm... read the first post in the thread it asks what is wrong with charging fat people more for places on a plane, in my post I am arguing nothing at all

Okay. This isn't the story i saw on tv, but it's the same thing.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/007/138.htmI don't suppose you have a source to the NASA study? Or that you read this line: "Every evening he looks at the sun for one-hour without batting an eyelid. It is his main food. Occasionally, he takes coffee, tea, buttermilk or some other liquid."

And I doubt he was morbidly obese when he started this.

I'm somewhat skeptical about this German guy's science credentials. As for killing yourself if you became too fat to jog, that's obviously your right. But it doesn't change the fact that it is difficult to lose weight once you're that heavy.

Then don't get that heavy. Maybe we just need to write the current crop of obese people off. But we can save their children.

Okay. This isn't the story i saw on tv, but it's the same thing.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/007/138.htm

Your source is a very reputable collection of crank ideas. NASA's expertise is space exploration and related physics, not Human Nutirition and related Biology.

Okay. This isn't the story i saw on tv, but it's the same thing.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/007/138.htm

It's some random guy's blog, totally without citations, and apparently by someone who doesn't know what NASA does. It kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief when he claims that a space agency of all things is researching diets.

what percentage of passengers require 2 seats? seems to me that its pretty damned low so. the airlines can just eat the cost.

Yeah, I'm pretty fat and I fit in the seat without problems flying last week, even in the little bitty connecting plane that held like 20 people. You'd have to be pretty freaking large to require more than one seat. The guy behind me weighed over 400 and he needed a seat belt extender but he fit in the seat.

You know, i came into this thread to discuss fat people. And was immediately insulted for my trouble. You people are not very welcoming.

it seems far too cumbersome to me.

i dont have a problem with the "two tickets if the plane is full" thing but the canadian ruling is a good one. equal access is equal access.

Only by a vast simplification of what an airline actually provides.

If people were freight (ie, objects) I'm sure we'd all be OK with the airline charging for their transportation by weight and by weight alone.

But what is actually being provided is transportation in reasonable comfort. That should include people who are fat, but don't qualify for two seats.

You know, i came into this thread to discuss fat people. And was immediately insulted for my trouble. You people are not very welcoming.

Alrighty, new debate.

Claim: Valentasia came into this thread to discuss fat people and was insulted for this.

Please support your claims of being insulted.

...but the canadian ruling is a good one. equal access is equal access.

The Canadian ruling does not provide equal access. Equal access was already provided. What it does is provide discounted access to a select group of people.

Will Christians get a government funded discount on buying cars next?

And yes, that's an absurd example, but it follows the same thinking. This is to show just how stupid this line of thought is.

Way to not fucking read the thread.

Actually, he may have read the thread. Or are you trying to say that allowing yourself to be obese (even with a genetic component) is not a lifestyle choice? Why should others suffer from your choice of lifestyle?

Forcing a company to deny service to another in favor of one person (with your lame 'transportation' as the service idea) or to charge one person less for the same service (with the truth of 'service = space on transportation') based on that person's lifestyle is simply ridiculous.

I would fully expect to be thrown off a plane or charged extra for the empty seats around me if I had chosen to not shower in so long that my stench was vomitous to anyone sitting near me. Because it was my choice not to shower, and I need to either live with the consequences of that or change my behavior. And again, other than the most extreme (and rare) cases, no one is so obese that they are that large without choosing to be. And yes, choosing not to take the actions needed not be that large is the same as choosing to be that large.

Alrighty, new debate.

Claim: Valentasia came into this thread to discuss fat people and was insulted for this.

Please support your claims of being insulted.

Some dullard made a remark about my avatar. That would have been insulting had my picture not been so obscure.

Some dullard made a remark about my avatar. That would have been insulting had my picture not been so obscure.

Thus you were not insulted according to your own logic.

Please support your claims of being insulted. Preferably without insulting other people in the process.

So, fat people who weigh more than twice as much as I do get a free seat while I have to pay extra for luggage that - were I to carry the weight as fat on my body would be free of any charge - costs me extra?

I mean, okay, on the one hand, I can see that the airline should rather be charging for the transport than the seat. On the other hand, the question remains whether "functionally disabled by obesity" also covers "ate too fucking much" and then gets a free ride (at least for half their fat ass). I do, however, welcome that obese people will have more space for themselves in two seats - I mean, whoever had to sit next to a bigger person on an airplane knows that it's simply a pain for your voluminous neighbor has no place to go.