NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

The intent was there. Someone also said that i'm not very bright.

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?
LMAO. So you know what you need to do with your luggage then, right?

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?


There is only one solution: Eat your luggage.:p

The intent was there. Someone also said that i'm not very bright.

You obviously aren't very bright. Your text is in black. If you want to be bright, change it to yellow.:wink:

That's right. NASA confirmed it.

Some of you people really need to open your minds.
no really they didnt. nasa has never heard of him or from him. its just a lie he made up to make himself sound good to the gullible.

fat people are normally fat because they eat too much and exercise too little, a sad fact of western culture.

while I realise that some people are fat due to diabetes or other glandular problems and sympathise greatly with them I do not see why the vast majority of fat people who are fat because of laziness should be allowed extra space in any mode of transportation because of there gluttony.

charge them more, encourage them to lose weight.

eating luggage sounds like a good way of transporting it if fat people can get extra space on flights I may well create a body suit for myself to hide extra luggage in and save some cash!

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.
its easier to accomodate fat people than really tall people eh?

maybe that's the next lawsuit to come

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.
Which line of thought exactly? Do you think disabled people shouldn't be accommodated?

My friend gets to bring her dog into buildings that dogs are not allowed, because she's disabled and needs him. I can not bring my cat into those buildings because I'm not disabled and do not need him. Is this unfair?

If you are obese enough to require 2 seats, you are probably fitting into the disabled definition, it's not all fat people, it's people who are disabled because of their size.

Just like my friend is disabled because of her blindness. I wear glasses, but I'm not blind. I'm fat but I'm not disabled. There is a point both with the size of your ass and the state of your eyes where it passes the line of "abnormal" to "disabled".

no really they didnt. nasa has never heard of him or from him. its just a lie he made up to make himself sound good to the gullible.

To be fair, all I can find are untrustworthy sources (blogs or forum threads and the guy's website) saying its true, and untrustworthy sources (blogs and forum threads, saying that they're quoting NASA but providing no link) saying its not. On that basis, case unproven, and to be assumed to be rubbish until proper evidence can be presented because it goes against all that we know about how the human body works.

Which line of thought exactly? Do you think disabled people shouldn't be accommodated?

My friend gets to bring her dog into buildings that dogs are not allowed, because she's disabled and needs him. I can not bring my cat into those buildings because I'm not disabled and do not need him. Is this unfair?


No. It isn't unfair, because you don't have the option of paying to be allowed to bring your cat in, and she doesn't have to pay only half-price to go in with her dog. It's a burden on the airline, so they have the right to charge for both of the seats they are taking up. It'd be different if they weren't allowing it at all.

To be fair, all I can find are untrustworthy sources (blogs or forum threads and the guy's website) saying its true, and untrustworthy sources (blogs and forum threads, saying that they're quoting NASA but providing no link) saying its not. On that basis, case unproven, and to be assumed to be rubbish until proper evidence can be presented because it goes against all that we know about how the human body works.
this is the most disproving one ive found so far.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3077.70;wap2

The intent was there. Someone also said that i'm not very bright.

That was me.

It was in direct response to a not very bright answer of yours to me, in which you entirely missed my point (that you being disgusted by how fat people look does not give them an objective quality of being "disgusting.")

Don't worry about it too much. Live on sunshine for two years, I'm sure that will make you brighter.

No. It isn't unfair, because you don't have the option of paying to be allowed to bring your cat in, and she doesn't have to pay only half-price to go in with her dog. It's a burden on the airline, so they have the right to charge for both of the seats they are taking up. It'd be different if they weren't allowing it at all.

As a person with a disability and mother of two children with conditions covered in the Americans with disabilities act, I have to say, yes, we are often a burden on other people, but it's the law that they have to reasonably accommodate us. In fact, if my children were in school, the accommodations don't even have to be reasonable, the school has to do whatever it takes. It's not unfair. We start out life with unfair....it's making things more fair.

I don't have a problem at all with accommodating the disabled, both because it's the non-shitty thing to do and also because the law says you have to.

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

Which, if it was the only factor, would mean no handicap spaces, no first class, etc.

And, anyway, who said anything about permanently replacing seats?


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.


How do you work that out? You HAVE TO assume that all demographics fly equally, you HAVE to assume that there are no seats available that can accomodate larger passengers, you HAVE TO assume that every person who is 'obese' is sufficiently obese to be 'disabled' by it. That's the only way you can get to that figure.

But - if we make those assumptions... if the airline KNOWS that fully a quarter of it's paying passengers are going to be too big to fit a seat, why not make all the seats a few inches bigger, and seat 85 people in slightly bigger seats, rather than 50 in little seats, and 25 in doubles?


First: Name one airline that isn't in this to make money.


Airlines are not the totality of business models.


Second: And you'll lose investors.


And? Why does that matter? You've already bought the machines, right?

You're adding in other factors, now.


Sorry for the long wait. Computer trouble.

At work here, working round typing and typing round working. I see the posts when I see 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.

I assume this is just trolling.

What disgusts me, is people pre-judging other people on how they look.

Which line of thought exactly? Do you think disabled people shouldn't be accommodated?

No, only that the accommodation should only extend to providing them equal access to services, not equal results from those services or reduced cost of services.

Especially when the 'disability' comes from an ongoing lifestyle choice and is not a permanent condition. Because anyone who is so far gone that they can't change themselves is well beyond needing two seats and probably wouldn't fit in the door of the airplane. Or should we cut a hole in the side of the plane for them?

My friend gets to bring her dog into buildings that dogs are not allowed, because she's disabled and needs him. I can not bring my cat into those buildings because I'm not disabled and do not need him. Is this unfair?

Can she access the service without the dog? Does she receive free or discounted items for the dog or herself as a result? If yes to either, then it's unfair. If yes, but it's allowed by choice and not law, then it's still unfair but within the business's rights to be so kind to her.

If you are obese enough to require 2 seats, you are probably fitting into the disabled definition, it's not all fat people, it's people who are disabled because of their size.

If you are obese enough to require 2 seats, it's most likely because of your continuing choice of lifestyles, and you need to live with the consequences of that choice and pony up the extra cash for the extra space. Unless the airline chooses to be kind of give you more than you need or deserve.

Just like my friend is disabled because of her blindness. I wear glasses, but I'm not blind. I'm fat but I'm not disabled. There is a point both with the size of your ass and the state of your eyes where it passes the line of "abnormal" to "disabled".

The difference is that with the blindness, even if it was caused by a choice, it's not reversible. You can't just decide to stop being blind and make changes in your life to make that happen.

You can with all but the most extreme cases of obesity (and again, the people who couldn't likely can't even get on the plane in the first place).

I 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.

It's a parody/blog site, anyway. Typical troll source.

I assume this is just trolling.

What disgusts me, is people pre-judging other people on how they look.
I agree to not being prejudice. But how else do you determine if the sight of someone is disgusting if not by looking at him.

In fact, if my children were in school, the accommodations don't even have to be reasonable, the school has to do whatever it takes. It's not unfair.

lol

And that is exactly what's wrong with this whole situation. It is unfair to give anything to anyone beyond what the norm is getting. Wheelchair ramps are fair, because they allow people in wheelchairs to have access to the same things everyone else does. Free coffee to anyone in a wheelchair is unfair.

We start out life with unfair....it's making things more fair.

Uhm, no. No matter what state you start out in, ending up with more than someone else is unfair.

If you started lower, you were already given more just to bring you on par. Giving you enough to boost you above someone is not simply 'making things more fair.' It's making things unfair in the opposite direction.

And that fixes nothing.

Fair and nice are not the same thing, and businesses are required to be fair, but not nice.

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

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

Damnit, I was hoping this wasn't posted. I wanted it to be my idea! MY IDEA!!!.......

If airlines charged by how much a passenger and their luggage weighs won't it encourage people to pack less on trips, or have a proper diet? On top of that, the weight of passengers and luggage hauled by aircraft will decrease so maybe over say the course of a year (probably not in the span of a single flight), significant fuel savings should be seen. None of those are bad things, are they?

LMAO. So you know what you need to do with your luggage then, right?
There is only one solution: Eat your luggage.:p
;) Exactly.

But that's something I never really understood. Either it is about how much weight you put on a plane (passenger + luggage), or it's just guesswork (passenger) and exact weight (luggage) - but then it's not okay to charge for extra weight on the luggage side.

However, that's just one thought that came to my mind. It's good enough for me to charge people for transportation, not seats. If flying safely wouldn't include having to sit down and wear a seat-belt, it'd be pretty much like boarding a train. You pay for transportation - whether or not you get to find an empty seat is not of the railroad companies' concern.

This has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer on it: What happens on an overbooked flight? Who gets to stay behind?
You can't really force the obese person to wait for another plane because that would discriminate against them because of what they are, would it not?
But if you force a 2 1-seat persons to wait, would that be fair?
(Disregarding that airlines often offer incentives to people to stay, like money, plane tickets, or good hotels for a night)

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

The thought is taken from Ashmoria's idea (and some others) that the airline is required to offer the same service to everyone.

I extend that idea, by saying that the service the airline provides is not just transportation, as of goods, but transportation at a certain level of comfort (and safety for that matter.)

My suggestion is that the same number of seats be provided in economy class, but that some of these be smaller than what is currently used and some larger. AND ALL PROVIDED AT THE SAME PRICE. We disagree, right?

The extent to which I am prepared to compromise that, is to allow a fraction of the ticket price to vary according to a quantity which regulators can assess, which is the expense to the airline of carrying weight. When that proportion of the ticket price has been calculated (I suggested twenty percent, its a guess) then the regulator should allow the airline to sell tickets at up to 10% over the standard, or 10% below, based on a measurement of the passenger's weight (including baggage would be logical.)

An arbitrary cut-off of weight or girth, beyond which the passenger's fare doubles is discriminatory. I'm with the Canadian court on that.

Fat people are not people.

And what are they, pray tell? Blobs? They're people too, but just because they're heavier than the average person doesn't mean they're entitled to 2 plane tickets. That's ridiculous.

It's a parody/blog site, anyway. Typical troll source.I know, but I was trying to give him a chance to back it up, or explain it, or replace it with any credible source. Silly troll.

where do we stop. As someone who is around 2m tall I would like more leg room. Can I demand that the airplane adjust the seat spacing and not impose me with the extra cost?

What if someone has a bad back and they need to lie down during the flight. Will the company be enforced to pay for that?

The simple fact is that obesity unlike the other two can be changed by the person. it involves eating less and excercising more. Being obese enough to need two seats on an airplane is a life style choice. Why should others pay for it?

Obese people take up more space. That is what this is all about. They should pay for it and if there are enough obese people wanting to fly with wider seats someone can build the Obese people air lines

The thought is taken from Ashmoria's idea (and some others) that the airline is required to offer the same service to everyone.

I extend that idea, by saying that the service the airline provides is not just transportation, as of goods, but transportation at a certain level of comfort (and safety for that matter.)

My suggestion is that the same number of seats be provided in economy class, but that some of these be smaller than what is currently used and some larger. AND ALL PROVIDED AT THE SAME PRICE. We disagree, right?

The extent to which I am prepared to compromise that, is to allow a fraction of the ticket price to vary according to a quantity which regulators can assess, which is the expense to the airline of carrying weight. When that proportion of the ticket price has been calculated (I suggested twenty percent, its a guess) then the regulator should allow the airline to sell tickets at up to 10% over the standard, or 10% below, based on a measurement of the passenger's weight (including baggage would be logical.)

An arbitrary cut-off of weight or girth, beyond which the passenger's fare doubles is discriminatory. I'm with the Canadian court on that.
the funny thing being that NO ONE pays the same price. the price of a plane trip varies from day to day. the only people who you know are paying the same price as each other are those who booked their flights together.

so the fat guy could end up paying HALF the price of the skinny guy no matter how many seats he takes up.

I agree to not being prejudice. But how else do you determine if the sight of someone is disgusting if not by looking at him.

Is the sight really so important?

I'd rather sit for an hour with someone who looked like George Bush, than someone who talked like him...

The only problem with fat people I have is that they smell. Usually.

I'm Canadian, and let me tell ya, I am MAD that they don't force an obese person to pay for the seats they use. =/
Of course, I'm also worried that if they do charge them for both seats that some fat person will try to squeeze themselves into one seat... *cringes*

The only problem with fat people I have is that they smell. Usually.
So do black people.

I'm Canadian, and let me tell ya, I am MAD that they don't force an obese person to pay for the seats they use. =/
Of course, I'm also worried that if they do charge them for both seats that some fat person will try to squeeze themselves into one seat... *cringes*
:rolleyes:

Is the sight really so important?

I'd rather sit for an hour with someone who looked like George Bush, than someone who talked like him...

I agree but some people are more shalliw than you.
And george bush isnt that bad looking.

I agree but some people are more shalliw than you.
And george bush isnt that bad looking.

Certainly better looking than sounding. And it's not his accent I object to. :)

As for people being shallow... I'm not sure that's an excuse. If someone were saying 'gay people are disgusting' or 'foreign people are disgusting', I'd have about the same degree of sympathy for their position.

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.So I cannot make fun of mutants?:eek2:

I smell. Same with almost everyone one i meet. We have that amazing body part called a nose.

I'm not going to read this whole thread.

I do note, however, that there is a significant difference between people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" and "fat people."

And shame on those of you that have lowered yourselves to prejorative epithets against those disabled by obesity.

I do note, however, that there is a significant difference between people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" and "fat people."
Well, here in Oz there is of course a large number of people from the Pacific Islands. I imagine it's similar in Hawaii.

These people, because of genetics mainly*, tend to be freakin' huge. That doesn't mean they're likely to get sick, or can really be counted as disabled in the traditional sense of the word. Many of them are actually reasonably fit (kinda like Sumo wrestlers).

Still, there is no way that people like that can fit into a normal airline seat. It would be interesting to know how the court expects airlines to figure out which fat people are "functionally disabled" and which aren't. And really, if we're just going to take it to mean "can't do some stuff because they're big", then there really is no difference between being fat and being functionally disabled with regards to plane seats.

*Though I did collect anecdotal evidence at work at a pizza restaurant that they seem to be able to eat enormous amounts of food (eg two full-sized pizzas and a big serve of sides) as well. But that might still be less relevant to their health than it might be for a white person.

As a person with a disability and mother of two children with conditions covered in the Americans with disabilities act, I have to say, yes, we are often a burden on other people, but it's the law that they have to reasonably accommodate us. In fact, if my children were in school, the accommodations don't even have to be reasonable, the school has to do whatever it takes. It's not unfair. We start out life with unfair....it's making things more fair.

And yet life will always be unfair, and this is being unfair to those who ride airlines on a regular basis and fit in the seats. It'll raise the prices, because even if the percentage of people that take up two seats is incredibly small, they'll use this as an excuse to raise prices.
I don't have a problem at all with accommodating the disabled, both because it's the non-shitty thing to do and also because the law says you have to.
1. Since when have businesses been worried about what is and isn't the non-shitty thing to do?

2. Since when has "The law says so" been a good reason?
Which, if it was the only factor, would mean no handicap spaces, no first class, etc.

And, anyway, who said anything about permanently replacing seats?

I did. Obviously.:p

But with all seriousness, it was what I was talking about, how making the seats larger wouldn't work, which you originally brought up because you complained about how small the seats were.

How do you work that out? You HAVE TO assume that all demographics fly equally, you HAVE to assume that there are no seats available that can accomodate larger passengers, you HAVE TO assume that every person who is 'obese' is sufficiently obese to be 'disabled' by it. That's the only way you can get to that figure.

I concede that point.

But - if we make those assumptions... if the airline KNOWS that fully a quarter of it's paying passengers are going to be too big to fit a seat, why not make all the seats a few inches bigger, and seat 85 people in slightly bigger seats, rather than 50 in little seats, and 25 in doubles?

High initial expenses.

Airlines are not the totality of business models.

No, but they are the buisness that's being discussed at the moment, no?

And? Why does that matter? You've already bought the machines, right?

And what about the loan?

You're adding in other factors, now.

Yep.

At work here, working round typing and typing round working. I see the posts when I see them. :)
It'd be epic if your boss was on NSG right now.:D
The thought is taken from Ashmoria's idea (and some others) that the airline is required to offer the same service to everyone.

I extend that idea, by saying that the service the airline provides is not just transportation, as of goods, but transportation at a certain level of comfort (and safety for that matter.)

My suggestion is that the same number of seats be provided in economy class, but that some of these be smaller than what is currently used and some larger. AND ALL PROVIDED AT THE SAME PRICE. We disagree, right?

The extent to which I am prepared to compromise that, is to allow a fraction of the ticket price to vary according to a quantity which regulators can assess, which is the expense to the airline of carrying weight. When that proportion of the ticket price has been calculated (I suggested twenty percent, its a guess) then the regulator should allow the airline to sell tickets at up to 10% over the standard, or 10% below, based on a measurement of the passenger's weight (including baggage would be logical.)

An arbitrary cut-off of weight or girth, beyond which the passenger's fare doubles is discriminatory. I'm with the Canadian court on that.
It isn't arbitrary. It's the normal size of an airplane seat. The airlines shouldn't have to adjust or lose money to fit their needs. Also, I'd be fine with them charging the same price for the different seats if it isn't required by law. Of course, there's about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but that's not the point.

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

It's a very simple explanation. Not being from the United States but having been there before. Distilled to a single word, McDonalds.

Expanded, it's simply because there is a great deal more food abundant in North America, and it is often rich in both fats and protein. Despite the expansion of fast food places and the likes in Asian, Middle Eastern and Slavic countries, meat and high calorie foodstuff is not eaten that often, supplementing the lower protein and fat intake with carbohydrates instead, although the Western world is doing it's best to encourage they do eat more fatty* foods.

So yes, it does seem that the greater percentage of obesity in America can be boiled down to, they eat a lot more fatty foods.

* Fatty foods meaning food high in fat/oil content.

where do we stop. As someone who is around 2m tall I would like more leg room. Can I demand that the airplane adjust the seat spacing and not impose me with the extra cost?

Why not? I've been on some long flights, and I know that small people who have more freedom of movement in the standard seat space are a lot more comfortable.

I'm not as tall as you and I'm not fat at all. I'm about my national average for a man so I guess I'd get about the same seat as is standard now. I'd be OK with that if it means I never have a huge person next to me squeezed into a standard seat. YOU'd actually benefit, you should be in favour.

What if someone has a bad back and they need to lie down during the flight. Will the company be enforced to pay for that?

That's a good question. It gets beyond the seat size into providing a quite different service, a sleeper ... sleepers on trains are very expensive also, a person who genuinely needs to lie down (can't just deal with it with painkillers) is really at a disadvantage. They might be entitled to a welfare benefit if the travel is essential. If so, that could be paid to the airline.

Then we get into the question of medical fraud. Stature can be easily measured at the airport, but medical need can't. It comes down to doctor's certificates ... for a condition which is hard to verify. We're looking at substantial costs to the airline, or to government if it compensates airlines. I think we'd have to start applying a test of need to fly.

The simple fact is that obesity unlike the other two can be changed by the person. it involves eating less and excercising more. Being obese enough to need two seats on an airplane is a life style choice. Why should others pay for it?

Being obese enough to almost need two seats, but squeezing into one, deprives the passenger(s) alongside of use of the armrest. How is THAT fair?

A person's weight is largely their responsibility, yes. But the standard is a medical one, and the more overweight a person is the more risk they take. The standard "obese enough to need two seats" is a quite arbitrary line.

Obese people take up more space. That is what this is all about. They should pay for it and if there are enough obese people wanting to fly with wider seats someone can build the Obese people air lines

This is the airline industry you're talking about. It's a very mature industry with very narrow margins ... carriers who serve only a tiny minority don't have much chance.

Its only unfair if they get extra luggage room too.

Its only unfair if they get extra luggage room too.

Can't we just put them in the luggage hold? They get the extra space they need and the airline can sell their seat to someone else. Everybody is happy.

Wow someone believes I should get special seating and not pay for it. I am a strong believer in that everyone should pay for their own lifesytle and not complain about whatever costs go along with it. I put up with the seat spacing on all my airline flight because i dont want to pay for the first class.

Can't we just put them in the luggage hold? They get the extra space they need and the airline can sell their seat to someone else. Everybody is happy.

I know I shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it after reading this.

no its not a good enough reason.

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

Question.

Airlines allow each passenger a piece of luggage (or more depending on class), up to a certain weight limit. Let's say I have a piece of luggage that weighs more than the specified limit. Should I pay more for the extra weight?

And if so, why is this different from someone who takes up more space than one seat?

It isn't arbitrary. It's the normal size of an airplane seat. The airlines shouldn't have to adjust or lose money to fit their needs.

The normal size of an airplane seat is arbitrary. It's determined by the airlines when they fit the plane out on purchase, or refit it to make the insides all nice or adapt it to a different market.

That size is arbitrary when compared to the size of a person's body. The word "normal" isn't enough to cover the obscenity of it: people should eat or exercise to make their body the right size and shape to fit the animal pen. God forbid that any interfering busy-bodies try to tell a private company what size to make the pen.

Also, I'd be fine with them charging the same price for the different seats if it isn't required by law. Of course, there's about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but that's not the point.

And if my plan is too idealistic, I can at least accept the idea of airlines offering larger and smaller seats at different prices. Let people choose their own size to fit their budget ... without having to pay the massive price premium of First class travel.

Question.

Airlines allow each passenger a piece of luggage (or more depending on class), up to a certain weight limit. Let's say I have a piece of luggage that weighs more than the specified limit. Should I pay more for the extra weight?

And if so, why is this different from someone who takes up more space than one seat?
there has to be some limit as to how much voluntary stuff you take with. you cant leave your head behind to lighten the load.

and it pisses me off that airlines "nickle and dime" you to death these days on the luggage thing. JUST CHARGE WHAT YOU NEED TO TO MAKE MONEY, DAMMIT!

there has to be some limit as to how much voluntary stuff you take with. you cant leave your head behind to lighten the load.


Maybe you can't leave your head behind, but like your luggage, you pay for the transport weight and size of the luggage and for the right to sit on as many seats as you have tickets. Airlines don't object to you taking empty seats on a flight, because that is already a sunk cost, but they do their best to maximize seats occupied per flight. That's why flights get trimmed, or airlines end up with joint flights where passengers on both airlines sit in a single plane.

This means relying on a chance of empty seats for extra space is foolish. Airlines must operate on the assumption/guideline that a flight will be filled to capacity, and as such, will often restrict passengers to their seats until after the doors are closed and the aircraft is in the air.

So if someone during the seating process occupies two seats, why must the airline bear the extra cost?


and it pisses me off that airlines "nickle and dime" you to death these days on the luggage thing. JUST CHARGE WHAT YOU NEED TO TO MAKE MONEY, DAMMIT!

More weight = more fuel consumption. Fuel isn't cheap, and if they charged people an arbitrary extra 80kg worth of fuel weight, people would be up in arms as opposed to being nickle and dimed to death.

as i said before the "if the plane is full you pay for 2 tickets" policy is fine by me but the canadian supreme court made a reasonable decision based on equal access.

if a person has to have an extra amount of baggage for some legitimate medical/disability reason they should not have to pay extra to take it.

Ooops, it looks as though I've not read the whole thread and repeated a point already made. My apologies, please feel free to skip this.


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.

Just a mild correction to an apparent misinterpretation of physics:
An aeroplane uses most of its fuel getting up to altitude and controlling it's descent. [Incidentally this means that long-haul trips use less fuel per mile travelled than short distance trips].
It is not the space in the plane that impacts on fuel use and cost (except if it increases drag). It is the weight of the plane and its load (passengers and cargo).
This is why weight allowances are provided per passenger and any further luggage after that is charged for (it costs to carry it).
Whether it is right to subsidise travel for people who cannot fit into a standard seat or not, it will cost something. [unless of course their baggage allowance is to be reduced or flights only have this 2-seat service when the total passenger and cargo loading is less than average for that flight].
I'm not saying that I know the answer to this. I'm just wanting to ensure that you know what you're arguing. Everything has a cost or associated factors. If you want free health care you need someone/everyone to pay for it. If you want civil liberties you need to accept that some people might offend you. If you take aspirin for your headache you might have to cope with slower healing of your cuts, fewer blood clotting problems and greater chance of stomach ulcers. You could decide paracetemol is better - and, forgetting that your liver is not good - be that rare one in many who dies of it. You need to weigh up the whole thing not just the little sub-section you wanted to have.

Just a mild correction to an apparent misinterpretation of physics:
An aeroplane uses most of its fuel getting up to altitude and controlling it's descent. [Incidentally this means that long-haul trips use less fuel per mile travelled than short distance trips].
It is not the space in the plane that impacts on fuel use and cost (except if it increases drag). It is the weight of the plane and its load (passengers and cargo).
This is why weight allowances are provided per passenger and any further luggage after that is charged for (it costs to carry it).
Whether it is right to subsidise travel for people who cannot fit into a standard seat or not, it will cost something. [unless of course their baggage allowance is to be reduced or flights only have this 2-seat service when the total passenger and cargo loading is less than average for that flight].
I'm not saying that I know the answer to this. I'm just wanting to ensure that you know what you're arguing. Everything has a cost or associated factors. If you want free health care you need someone/everyone to pay for it. If you want civil liberties you need to accept that some people might offend you. If you take aspirin for your headache you might have to cope with slower healing of your cuts, fewer blood clotting problems and greater chance of stomach ulcers. You could decide paracetemol is better - and, forgetting that your liver is not good - be that rare one in many who dies of it. You need to weigh up the whole thing not just the little sub-section you wanted to have.
yes but the airline ticket pricing system makes no sense so im not going to worry if one guy's extra 200 lbs adds a significant cost to the flight.

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

Someone in a wheelchair takes up roughly three seats worth of space on a bus. Clearly all gimps must be charged triple.

if a person has to have an extra amount of baggage for some legitimate medical/disability reason they should not have to pay extra to take it.

Why should the airline bear the cost in fuel if you need more space/weight? Accommodating people with disability is one thing, but why should the airlines bear the cost of the extra weight not covered in the fare?

Why should the airline bear the cost in fuel if you need more space/weight? Accommodating people with disability is one thing, but why should the airlines bear the cost of the extra weight not covered in the fare?
because it IS accomodating the public no matter who they are. otherwise you effectively bar people from flying.

because it IS accomodating the public no matter who they are. otherwise you effectively bar people from flying.

Charging luggage by weight != barring. If you charge everyone the same rate on a weight basis, there is no discrimination.

Arguing that it is, smacks of entitlement.

Someone in a wheelchair takes up roughly three seats worth of space on a bus. Clearly all gimps must be charged triple.

For each seat they take up, yes.

Charging luggage by weight != barring. If you charge everyone the same rate on a weight basis, there is no discrimination.

Arguing that it is, smacks of entitlement.
not everyone can afford the extra costs.

apparently equal accomodation is a big deal in canada. so much so that it is considered wrong to penalize the disabled for their problems.

and it pisses me off that airlines "nickle and dime" you to death these days on the luggage thing. JUST CHARGE WHAT YOU NEED TO TO MAKE MONEY, DAMMIT!

They're trying to get people to actually pack that weight before bringing it in to board with. The punitive rate is meant to make the passenger more careful next time.

There's trying to get a predictable weight BEFORE having to tell people to throw their stuff away, or (as used to happen a lot) leaving some of the luggage behind for another flight.

Baggage charges could be a lot more flexible if the airlines knew the expected load of passenger flesh. That should probably be something you declare when you book the ticket.

not everyone can afford the extra costs.


Not everyone can afford to go on a Yacht cruise. Point?

apparently equal accomodation is a big deal in canada. so much so that it is considered wrong to penalize the disabled for their problems.
Apparently businesses are not a big deal in Canada, so much that it is considered good to grant people free seats on airplanes, seats they failed to pay for.

For each seat they take up, yes.

Thus demonstrating the "fuck you I got mine" philosophy behind this position.

Charging luggage by weight != barring. If you charge everyone the same rate on a weight basis, there is no discrimination.

Arguing that it is, smacks of entitlement.

Look, I think it would be fairer if people who were short of money could travel light and get a refund.

The problem is that a "per-kilo" rate would leave some flights overweight (if the destination was unseasonably cold or the passengers unusually prosperous and not caring about the baggage cost) ... and you'd pretty much have to stop checking passengers in when the total cargo got to the safe takeoff weight. That's people being turned away and their seat going empty, so someone else can carry excess baggage.

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.

It's amazing to me how willing people are to talk smack about an entire population in a forum in which they cannot see who else is participating. Particularly when they have no effin' idea what they're talking about.

what percentage of passengers require 2 seats? seems to me that its pretty damned low so. the airlines can just eat the cost.
Or instead people that need two seats can pay for two fucking seats.

not everyone can afford the extra costs.

So?

Airlines are not the sole means of transportation. If one cannot afford airlines, there are other, more economical means. Why must one be entitled to free service simply because one has not the means to pay for it?


apparently equal accomodation is a big deal in canada. so much so that it is considered wrong to penalize the disabled for their problems.

And this is not penalizing in any way. This is charging luggage by weight. People's needs differ, so they pay according to their needs, or they forgo the service.

Your argument is simply that because one is merely disabled and has extra necessary luggage, one should have free or subsidized service, at the expense of a non-governmental, profit making organization.

Perhaps you would be willing to pay higher taxes to cover such additional costs then?

Thus demonstrating the "fuck you I got mine" philosophy behind this position.
Really? How so? Perhaps I didn't get a seat either? This is merely compensating whoever's running the bus for the extra space taken up. I see nothing wrong with that.

Thus demonstrating the "fuck you I got mine" philosophy behind this position.
Exhibit A:
http://www.chijanofuji.com/musashimaru1c.jpg

This man is perhaps not fat by choice, but he is certainly fatter than he otherwise would be because it's part of his job. He earns good money doing it, he'd be relatively healthy and certainly fit.

Is he, or is he not entitled to a free airline seat?

Why must one be entitled to free service simply because one has not the means to pay for it?
Haha, you're heading in the right direction. Gather up the courage to generalise this sentence to life in general, and you'll be there.

Perhaps Canada should make a special exemption from all this meddlesome regulation for hardy market pioneer types.

Just to see how it works out let one or two startups refuse passage to anyone for any reason, charge whatever they can get away with without having to advertise a price, employ taxi drivers as pilots. Whatever they want, so long as prospective passengers are fully aware that the Canadian government takes no responsibility for anything that happens on board.

Hell, let passengers bring ten tons of turf on board and play polo if they want. Or perhaps a nice fox-hunt. So long as they're paying what the airline asks, lassez faire suckers.

And if it flies into the ground ten minutes after takeoff because the the airline forgot to put fuel in ... well, the market will deal with that. Passengers won't fly Conserative Airlines again!

Maybe you can't leave your head behind, but like your luggage, you pay for the transport weight and size of the luggage and for the right to sit on as many seats as you have tickets. Airlines don't object to you taking empty seats on a flight, because that is already a sunk cost, but they do their best to maximize seats occupied per flight. That's why flights get trimmed, or airlines end up with joint flights where passengers on both airlines sit in a single plane.


The arguement for charging for transport is basic at best.

Why is it I have to pay extra money for a late ticketing and yet find the plan 1/2 full.


This means relying on a chance of empty seats for extra space is foolish. Airlines must operate on the assumption/guideline that a flight will be filled to capacity, and as such, will often restrict passengers to their seats until after the doors are closed and the aircraft is in the air.


Excluding recent times; open seats were way more frequent then you think.

So if someone during the seating process occupies two seats, why must the airline bear the extra cost?

If the seats were already empty then there is already an assumed lost cost. If the fat person opts out then they lost that seat as well.


More weight = more fuel consumption. Fuel isn't cheap, and if they charged people an arbitrary extra 80kg worth of fuel weight, people would be up in arms as opposed to being nickle and dimed to death.

Care to do the math on that one? What is acceptable weight for travel?

Hm, while I'm at it, let me confer Obesity 101 upon an unwitting audience.

1. Count me in as a "fat-ass" participant. I bet I'm not the only one here, either.

2. Calorie theory is B.S. There is no absolute formula for calories + level of activity = weight, no matter what the "experts" tell you. It is possible to eat in a way that would be considered piggish and stay slender. It is also possible to eat very little and be large. As for fatness vs. activity, I know a fat woman who runs marathons and have encountered another who is a triathlete. I myself was lazy when I was slender and avoided exercise whenever I could. Had I not first gone on the Pill and then through two pregnancies (almost a decade apart), I might have gone on like that indefinitely.

3. There is no conclusive proof that fatness increases mortality risk unless it accompanies diabetes or you're so fat you can't move. But you can be diabetic and thin. With no diabetes you've just got energy stored in your cells--that is all fatness means.

4. The BMI tables were made up by insurance companies. They are not based in anything remotely resembling reality. I used to be in the Army and their height/weight tables weren't much better. They would ding a guy for being "overweight" when his only problem was being a bodybuilder with a thick neck. Poor guy would have to go in the tank because he'd even fail the tape test. These days, Brad Pitt and Russel Crowe count as overweight according to BMI. The standard answer to this is that "BMI doesn't count for the physically fit." ORLY?

5. In any case, fatness itself isn't a disability. Being so fat you can't move might be, but the only disabling things about fatness otherwise are not being able to fit in seats and being harshly judged by society. And you know, fat people don't design the seats. It's like designing military or firefighting equipment so that they can best be handled by a 6'4" guy who bench-presses 500 pounds and then labeling a woman "disabled" because she can't attain that standard. Change the freakin' standard to reflect something closer to the realities of human diversity.

Most of all, the way society approaches this issue is ridiculous. In the old days I could put away a box of Hamburger Helper without working hard... at dinnertime, after hardly eating anything all day. I ate badly otherwise too, favoring chips over salads. The most I ever fluctuated in weight was about five pounds before the year I went on the Pill. Wasn't active, was a big bookworm and artist and craftie. You almost had to literally force me to go run. I remained thin. Lots of people can tell a story like mine, they take bad care of themselves and they eat all wrong and many of them don't gain weight, ever. I just happened to be unlucky. The ironic part is that I gained something like the last fifty pounds while breastfeeding exclusively and while eating vegan--two conditions which are supposed to support weight *loss*, not weight *gain*.

But the excuse given for hating fat people--let's face it, you do--is that we "don't take care of" ourselves. OK, so the next time you see a skinny person eating crap or sitting around on his butt and avoiding exercise or chain-smoking, give him crap and hate him too. Won't do it, will you? I mean, he must be doing something right or he'd be fat. Well, when you figure out what that something is, get back to me.

And I never heard of anyone being given that much crap over a health issue. If someone gets cancer, you don't call them nasty names. If they get measles the only reason you avoid them is it's contagious--if it wasn't, you'd sympathize and send them flowers. But no remarks about their personal character, no matter what they might have done to catch it. If someone has brown hair instead of blond you don't usually hold that against them personally. So what is it about fatness, exactly?

I notice that fat women are given more grief than fat men. Ain't that something? So there's probably an element of sexism in there somewhere too. I know there's definitely classism going on, because poor people are more likely than rich people to be fat--mostly because rich people can camouflage fatness more effectively with stupid diet programs and liposuction. They can also afford the gym.

And that last one's probably the most important thing--see, it IS important to exercise, regardless of your weight. Because researchers have found that fat people who exercise are healthier than thin people who don't--and thin people who don't exercise have all the risk factors for heart disease that everybody thinks fat people have simply by virtue of being fat. How about that, huh?

So if you're making fun of fat people because we're "unhealthy" but you don't exercise regularly, I guess the fat people who run marathons will have the last laugh. Maybe you should find something more meaningful to get fired up about, but I won't hold my breath.

Charging luggage by weight != barring. If you charge everyone the same rate on a weight basis, there is no discrimination.

Arguing that it is, smacks of entitlement.

It's funny how discrimination is argued as entitlement.

You can decide to adjust your luggage.

You can also decide to do your weight but that takes time.

So should we charge people that use air tanks? What about wheel chairs? Let's not forget the women who have to carry car seats as well.

While you are at it we might charge for race as well. Dark skinned people seem to hijack more so all that cost involved with a hijacking.

Not everyone can afford to go on a Yacht cruise. Point?

:rolleyes:


Apparently businesses are not a big deal in Canada, so much that it is considered good to grant people free seats on airplanes, seats they failed to pay for.

Canada does many things better then the US.

Why should I have to pay extra for a late booking for an 1/2 empty plane? Did that quite often in my business travels.

So should we charge people that use air tanks? What about wheel chairs? Let's not forget the women who have to carry car seats as well.
The basic logic doesn't change in those cases either. There is limited space on a plane, and that space has a cost associated with it. If someone is bigger and/or heavier and needs more space, transporting that person costs more than transporting a smaller, lighter person. That's not really up for debate.

I think what this really should be concentrating on, but doesn't because both sides are kinda missing each other's points, is whether or not moral concerns on equitable (that term itself being somewhat debateable here) treatment are more important than economic reality.

While you are at it we might charge for race as well. Dark skinned people seem to hijack more so all that cost involved with a hijacking.
I think that's grasping at straws to make a point.

Exhibit A:
*snip Sumo pic*

This man is perhaps not fat by choice, but he is certainly fatter than he otherwise would be because it's part of his job. He earns good money doing it, he'd be relatively healthy and certainly fit.

Yes. Carefully chosen example of an obese person who is not "functionally disabled" by his obesity.

Is he, or is he not entitled to a free airline seat?

Since being large is a status symbol for a Sumo, he'd probably pay for three seats even if he only needed two.

Yes, this is a case where a person could abuse the intent of the law while following the word of it. If your hypothetical stingy Sumo had been brought suit against by Air Canada, the result might have been different.

:rolleyes:



Canada does many things better then the US.

Why should I have to pay extra for a late booking for an 1/2 empty plane? Did that quite often in my business travels.

The US does many things better then Canada. Point?

You paid extra for a late booking because it was exactly that: Late. They had less notice and less time to prepare. If they let everyone do late bookings without any extra cost, there'd be chaos on some of the more crowded flights. They wouldn't know how many people they had to put on there, and would likely be swamped, not enough seats for everyone, and have to give out refunds by the sackful. No company wants that.

Yes. Carefully chosen example of an obese person who is not "functionally disabled" by his obesity.



Since being large is a status symbol for a Sumo, he'd probably pay for three seats even if he only needed two.

Yes, this is a case where a person could abuse the intent of the law while following the word of it. If your hypothetical stingy Sumo had been brought suit against by Air Canada, the result might have been different.

What are they going to do, sue everyone who's stingy and has to be large in order to do their job? Hardly.

The basic logic doesn't change in those cases either.

You don't always have to be logical for illogical. ;)

There is limited space on a plane, and that space has a cost associated with it. If someone is bigger and/or heavier and needs more space, transporting that person costs more than transporting a smaller, lighter person. That's not really up for debate.


Ah! But the fat tax has been argued in times when things where good. I had been on many flights were the seats were 1/2 filled and the airlines argued they were loosing money as well.

The airlines are simply trying to press the point again now that times are bad and they have changed flights to increase ridership.


I think what this really should be concentrating on, but doesn't because both sides are kinda missing each other's points, is whether or not moral concerns on equitable (that term itself being somewhat debateable here) treatment are more important than economic reality.


Can the airlines show they are going insolvent because a couple fat people fly?

But you are right. If they have the right to charge more then we should also kill all tax incentives they receive.

I think that's grasping at straws to make a point.

Hijackings loose the company money. Isn't that what is being argued.

Can't we just put them in the luggage hold? They get the extra space they need and the airline can sell their seat to someone else. Everybody is happy.

We could load them in the same containers that they ship water buffaloes and elephants...

Yes, this is a case where a person could abuse the intent of the law while following the word of it. If your hypothetical stingy Sumo had been brought suit against by Air Canada, the result might have been different.
Well, what about Islander people? Big Rugby defenders? There are plenty of people in the world who are large in some way and won't comfortably fit into a single seat.

That's the point Cat-Tribe was meaking earlier - there is a distinction between fat and disabled/disadvantaged. And hence there are fat people to whom pretty much all the same physical attributes apply as to those who are supposedly worthy of free seats, but who aren't seen as victimised or discriminated against here. Hence why all this talk about people's weight is probably missing the point.

The US does many things better then Canada. Point?

You get it.

You paid extra for a late booking because it was exactly that: Late. They had less notice and less time to prepare.


Sorry they don't. They allot for people doing that. So it's not a case of "shit we need to get extra pillow food and blankets."

If they let everyone do late bookings without any extra cost, there'd be chaos on some of the more crowded flights.


Ah 1/2 full planes in my case. No chaos there.


They wouldn't know how many people they had to put on there, and would likely be swamped, not enough seats for everyone, and have to give out refunds by the sackful. No company wants that.

You do know they stopped using the abacus to count people for travel right? They have these nifty things called computers.

The US does many things better then Canada. Point?


What? I can only think of two, those being suck and die.

:)

Though in seriousness, if the law says you must provide reasonable accommodation to people with disabilities, morbid obesity is a disability, and thus you are not able to fit into an airline seat as a result of this disability, then any piss-ant arguments against the Canadian Court's decision are only whining. If it matters so much to you, change your damn constitution.
Oh, and if you do, enjoy being a laughing stock of the civilized world (oh, I guess that is one more thing USA does better, but I guess that would count under suck, huh?:p)

The airlines are simply trying to press the point again now that times are bad and they have changed flights to increase ridership.
When an argument is being made doesn't impact its validity, does it?

Can the airlines show they are going insolvent because a couple fat people fly?
It doesn't matter. They could be earning trillions and lose a dollar over the year because of big people needing extra seats, the point doesn't change.

This is an argument about morality vs efficiency, which in itself is tricky because the defenders of efficiency in this case, who don't see the point of other passengers essentially subsidising big people, are also making a moral argument.

But you are right. If they have the right to charge more then we should also kill all tax incentives they receive.
I don't think that follows, but go right ahead. It's certainly within the abilities of the government to do so.

Hijackings loose the company money. Isn't that what is being argued.
I was more talking about the link between brown people and hijackings - it's so weak and the probabilities so low that you wouldn't really be able to manufacture anything like the scenario with big people.

Wow! That's really F***ed up.

You get it.

Not really. I'm having trouble finding out what Canada does better then the US, other than hockey. I can find out what Britain, Germany, Japan, and several other nations do better then the US, but I'm having trouble finding Canada's strong point.

OH! I know! Exporting oil, right?

Sorry they don't. They allot for people doing that. So it's not a case of "shit we need to get extra pillow food and blankets."

No, but if they allowed everyone to get late bookings for no extra cost, like I said later in my post, there would be absolute chaos, with too many late bookings and not enough seats.

Ah 1/2 full planes in my case. No chaos there.

But there could've been. It's like the law. No one has ever committed a crime against me, yet if there were not any laws against it, I almost certainly would've been robbed, or pick pocketed, or burgled by now. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

You do know they stopped using the abacus to count people for travel right? They have these nifty things called computers.
Computers are touchy. They still require human input, and human input is often flawed, especially when under stress. Such as a large amount of calls coming in for a late booking.

Well, what about Islander people? Big Rugby defenders? There are plenty of people in the world who are large in some way and won't comfortably fit into a single seat.

That's the point Cat-Tribe was meaking earlier - there is a distinction between fat and disabled/disadvantaged. And hence there are fat people to whom pretty much all the same physical attributes apply as to those who are supposedly worthy of free seats, but who aren't seen as victimised or discriminated against here. Hence why all this talk about people's weight is probably missing the point.

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but don't drag me into it -- as it is not what I said.

I find this article helpful (emphasis added):

Canadian Transportation Agency decides in favour of one-person-one-fare policy (http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=371549)
OTTAWA - January 10, 2008 - The Canadian Transportation Agency has ordered Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet to adopt a one-person-one-fare policy for persons with severe disabilities who travel within Canada by air. The airlines have one year to implement the policy.

The tribunal's Decision means that for domestic services, Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet may not charge more than one fare for persons with disabilities who


are accompanied by an attendant for their personal care or safety in flight, as required by the carriers' domestic tariffs, or


require additional seating for themselves, including those determined to be functionally disabled by obesity for purposes of air travel.

The Decision does NOT apply to:


persons with disabilities or others who prefer to travel with a companion for personal reasons;


persons with disabilities who require a personal care attendant at destination, but not in-flight; and


persons who are obese but not disabled as a result of their obesity.

The Decision is based on longstanding principles of equal access to transportation services for persons with disabilities, regardless of the nature of the disability, and the Agency's legislative mandate to remove "undue obstacles" to their mobility. The Decision respects related decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Appeal.

The airlines are expected to develop a screening process to assess eligibility under the one-person-one-fare policy. For persons who travel with an attendant as required by the carriers' domestic tariffs, the Decision notes that carriers already perform assessments and have screening mechanisms to determine fitness and conditions for travel. Their screening mechanisms could be adapted to include functional assessments, and related screening expertise is available to them. For persons disabled by obesity, the Agency cites the practical experience of Southwest Airlines, which screens for entitlement to an additional seat by determining whether a person can lower the seat's armrests.

The airlines failed to demonstrate to the Agency that implementation of a one-person-one-fare policy will impose undue hardship on them. The Agency estimates that the cost of implementing the one-person-one-fare policy represents 0.09 per cent of Air Canada's annual passenger revenues of $8.2 billion and 0.16 per cent of WestJet's equivalent revenues of $1.4 billion.

The three applicants in the case were the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Joanne Neubauer of Victoria, and the Estate of the late Eric Norman, who was a resident of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador.

In a separate statement released today, the Agency offered to facilitate a collaborative process for implementation of the one-person-one-fare Decision. "It would be desirable to have a common screening approach to determine eligibility to benefit under the one-person-one-fare policy," said Geoffrey Hare, Chairman and CEO of the Agency. "A co-operative approach would be potentially beneficial to Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, WestJet and the Gander International Airport Authority as well as other Canadian air carriers and airport authorities that may consider voluntary implementation of the one-person-one-fare policy."

The Canadian Transportation Agency is an independent tribunal which operates like a court to render decisions on a case-by-case basis. The Agency's jurisdiction with respect to persons with disabilities, stated in Part V of the Canada Transportation Act, is to ensure that persons with disabilities have proper access to effective transportation service. The Agency makes decisions and orders to eliminate undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities in the federal transportation network.

-30-

The Agency's Decision No. 6-AT-A-2008 (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html) on the one-person-one-fare application may be viewed at www.cta.gc.ca (http://www.cta.gc.ca/). The Executive Summary, two backgrounders and a related news release may be found in the Media Room at www.cta.gc.ca (http://www.cta.gc.ca/).

When an argument is being made doesn't impact its validity, does it?

This is the NSG.

It doesn't matter. They could be earning trillions and lose a dollar over the year because of big people needing extra seats, the point doesn't change.

This is an argument about morality vs efficiency, which in itself is tricky because the defenders of efficiency in this case, who don't see the point of other passengers essentially subsidising big people, are also making a moral argument.


Efficiency? So is it efficient to be flying 30+ year old planes? New models use less full do they not?

Is it subsidizing if the plane is not full? Again the fat tax has been argued for years.

I don't think that follows, but go right ahead. It's certainly within the abilities of the government to do so.

Point is the with all the tax incentives they receive they are not loosing money because a couple fat people fly.

I was more talking about the link between brown people and hijackings - it's so weak and the probabilities so low that you wouldn't really be able to manufacture anything like the scenario with big people.

Is it? You have the racial profiles of previous hijackers?

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but don't drag me into it -- as it is not what I said.
Well, here's what I mean:
The Decision does NOT apply to:

persons who are obese but not disabled as a result of their obesity.

This isn't about being physically big, it's about people actually being disabled. The Sumo wrestler or big Fijian pay for two or more tickets to fly. So you could then argue about why disabled people's airline travel should be subsidised in this way, but I think the whole "fat people" thing has really been a bit of a red herring during this entire discussion.

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but don't drag me into it -- as it is not what I said.

I find this article helpful (emphasis added):


Thanks Cat. Much more detail then the news blip.

Efficiency? So is it efficient to be flying 30+ year old planes? New models use less full do they not?
I don't know their finances, but I have to assume that if they could save enough money in fuel and maintenance to pay for the finance on a newer plane, they'd be inclined to do it.

Is it subsidizing if the plane is not full? Again the fat tax has been argued for years.
So your point is that their ticketing and booking procedures aren't as flexible as they should be? I would say they'd probably agree with you, given that they'd in all likelihood prefer a full plane than a half-full one with a few big people in it and you paying extra for a late booking.

Point is the with all the tax incentives they receive they are not loosing money because a couple fat people fly.
They're losing some money ($7.38 million according to TCT's article), but I still don't see how that impacts the question of whether or not big people have a right to a free seat or not.

Is it? You have the racial profiles of previous hijackers?
I don't, but it's beside the point. At best we could do a repeat of the whole "police racial profiling" debate.

I come back to a thread that got even stupider than I thought possible.

Seriously. Some of you aren't even trying.

I don't know their finances, but I have to assume that if they could save enough money in fuel and maintenance to pay for the finance on a newer plane, they'd be inclined to do it.


If they were efficient sure. That is why the argument of efficiency is suspect at best.

So your point is that their ticketing and booking procedures aren't as flexible as they should be? I would say they'd probably agree with you, given that they'd in all likelihood prefer a full plane than a half-full one with a few big people in it and you paying extra for a late booking.


I would understand a full plane in a heavily traveled route. But the routes I had to travel were not.

They're losing some money ($7.38 million according to TCT's article), but I still don't see how that impacts the question of whether or not big people have a right to a free seat or not.


Are they?

The airlines failed to demonstrate to the Agency that implementation of a one-person-one-fare policy will impose undue hardship on them. The Agency estimates that the cost of implementing the one-person-one-fare policy represents 0.09 per cent of Air Canada's annual passenger revenues of $8.2 billion and 0.16 per cent of WestJet's equivalent revenues of $1.4 billion.

Sounds like the agency didn't believe them.

But that is why they are called estimates instead of facts.

I come back to a thread that got even stupider than I thought possible.

Seriously. Some of you aren't even trying.

No of course not, i never try...

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but don't drag me into it -- as it is not what I said.

I find this article helpful (emphasis added):

Canadian Transportation Agency decides in favour of one-person-one-fare policy (http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=371549)
OTTAWA - January 10, 2008 - The Canadian Transportation Agency has ordered Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet to adopt a one-person-one-fare policy for persons with severe disabilities who travel within Canada by air. The airlines have one year to implement the policy.

The tribunal's Decision means that for domestic services, Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet may not charge more than one fare for persons with disabilities who


are accompanied by an attendant for their personal care or safety in flight, as required by the carriers' domestic tariffs, or


require additional seating for themselves, including those determined to be functionally disabled by obesity for purposes of air travel.

The Decision does NOT apply to:


persons with disabilities or others who prefer to travel with a companion for personal reasons;


persons with disabilities who require a personal care attendant at destination, but not in-flight; and


persons who are obese but not disabled as a result of their obesity.

The Decision is based on longstanding principles of equal access to transportation services for persons with disabilities, regardless of the nature of the disability, and the Agency's legislative mandate to remove "undue obstacles" to their mobility. The Decision respects related decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Appeal.

The airlines are expected to develop a screening process to assess eligibility under the one-person-one-fare policy. For persons who travel with an attendant as required by the carriers' domestic tariffs, the Decision notes that carriers already perform assessments and have screening mechanisms to determine fitness and conditions for travel. Their screening mechanisms could be adapted to include functional assessments, and related screening expertise is available to them. For persons disabled by obesity, the Agency cites the practical experience of Southwest Airlines, which screens for entitlement to an additional seat by determining whether a person can lower the seat's armrests.

The airlines failed to demonstrate to the Agency that implementation of a one-person-one-fare policy will impose undue hardship on them. The Agency estimates that the cost of implementing the one-person-one-fare policy represents 0.09 per cent of Air Canada's annual passenger revenues of $8.2 billion and 0.16 per cent of WestJet's equivalent revenues of $1.4 billion.

The three applicants in the case were the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Joanne Neubauer of Victoria, and the Estate of the late Eric Norman, who was a resident of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador.

In a separate statement released today, the Agency offered to facilitate a collaborative process for implementation of the one-person-one-fare Decision. "It would be desirable to have a common screening approach to determine eligibility to benefit under the one-person-one-fare policy," said Geoffrey Hare, Chairman and CEO of the Agency. "A co-operative approach would be potentially beneficial to Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, WestJet and the Gander International Airport Authority as well as other Canadian air carriers and airport authorities that may consider voluntary implementation of the one-person-one-fare policy."

The Canadian Transportation Agency is an independent tribunal which operates like a court to render decisions on a case-by-case basis. The Agency's jurisdiction with respect to persons with disabilities, stated in Part V of the Canada Transportation Act, is to ensure that persons with disabilities have proper access to effective transportation service. The Agency makes decisions and orders to eliminate undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities in the federal transportation network.

-30-

The Agency's Decision No. 6-AT-A-2008 (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html) on the one-person-one-fare application may be viewed at www.cta.gc.ca (http://www.cta.gc.ca/). The Executive Summary, two backgrounders and a related news release may be found in the Media Room at www.cta.gc.ca (http://www.cta.gc.ca/).

Thanks for the article. Having actual information on what the decision entails definitely helps sway me more towards agreeing with it.

I come back to a thread that got even stupider than I thought possible.

Seriously. Some of you aren't even trying.

Maybe we are just doing it to annoy you?

:fluffle:

If they were efficient sure. That is why the argument of efficiency is suspect at best.
Wait, so what possible reason could an airline have to keep an old plane, if it could use the savings from getting a new one to cover the financing costs of doing so, and perhaps even have some left over?

Are they?
"No undue hardship" doesn't mean "no hardship". The very section you quote has in it that the policy will cost the airlines some money - the court just didn't think that this loss was large enough to trump what it saw as the positive aspects of the policy.

Canadian Transportation Agency decides in favour of one-person-one-fare policy (http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=371549)
OTTAWA - January 10, 2008 - The Canadian Transportation Agency has ordered Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet to adopt a one-person-one-fare policy for persons with severe disabilities who travel within Canada by air. [Airlines] may not charge more than one fare for persons with disabilities who


are accompanied by an attendant for their personal care or safety in flight, as required by the carriers' domestic tariffs, or


require additional seating for themselves, including those determined to be functionally disabled by obesity for purposes of air travel.

The Decision does NOT apply to:


persons with disabilities or others who prefer to travel with a companion for personal reasons;


persons with disabilities who require a personal care attendant at destination, but not in-flight; and


persons who are obese but not disabled as a result of their obesity.

The Agency estimates that the cost of implementing the one-person-one-fare policy represents 0.09 per cent of Air Canada's annual passenger revenues of $8.2 billion and 0.16 per cent of WestJet's equivalent revenues of $1.4 billion.



This says it all really: you're not talking about fat people, you're talking about people who for medical reasons have to have an attendant _in_flight_ with them.
The revenue figures do not really tell you anything though as we don't know what sort of profit they're makinjg nor their expenditure which would give you similar answers.

But this applies only to people who cannot even fly alone. Taht seems to answer all the sceptic's questions. We're not talking about fat people we're talking about damaged people - like a bed-ridden lung cancer patient (could be life-style caused or influenced but also some bad luck).

Wait, so what possible reason could an airline have to keep an old plane, if it could use the savings from getting a new one to cover the financing costs of doing so, and perhaps even have some left over?


*edit what the hell am I trying to say*

Old gas guzzling greater pollution planes are probably cheaper then the newer planes.

But I have to state it's an opinion since I don't have anything to compare rates.

But we would start a morality argument vs free markets.


"No undue hardship" doesn't mean "no hardship". The very section you quote has in it that the policy will cost the airlines some money - the court just didn't think that this loss was large enough to trump what it saw as the positive aspects of the policy.

There are some that would argue a loss of a dollar is hardship.

The airlines claiming to loose. The question is if their figures are honest.

lol, Fat people dont have a right to two seats, fat people need two seats. Sorry fat people no offense ment, I could'nt resist this one.

People who need service dogs can bring them anywhere they need to be, no matter WHAT the airlines, restaurants, hotels or any other business says about it. It's an accommodation made under the law.

If obesity has been ruled a disability in Canada, then obese people are entitled to their accommodation.

Frankly, the comments some of the posters have made here are disgustingly judgmental, and I can't help but think of that old cliche about glass houses.

It's funny how discrimination is argued as entitlement.

You can decide to adjust your luggage.

You can also decide to do your weight but that takes time.

So should we charge people that use air tanks? What about wheel chairs? Let's not forget the women who have to carry car seats as well.

While you are at it we might charge for race as well. Dark skinned people seem to hijack more so all that cost involved with a hijacking.

It doesn't cost anything more or less no matter your skin tone for the carrier. Nice red herring.

The weight and size of your luggage however, have a direct fuel cost. Or are you going to complain that DHL charges you more to ship that 2 ton CAT scan machine while some guy pays a fraction of the cost for his envelope?

Ok let's imagine something boys and girls...
Fatty bought his ticket on-line... he does not have to inform anybody (ie the airline) about his "condition" because the mere fact of the reveal of the so-called "condition" would be an invasion of his privacy thus a discriminatory gesture... So, Fatty holds now a ticket for one seat... the flight is full to the top and YOU have one ticket as well... for your surprise, you have to seat next to Fatty... I guess that this would upset you a lot... My point in this exercise is that simply, you have to pay for the space you are taking... If drive a bycicle and You drive a car, You pay your parking and I will pay less or even nothing... I dont care if Fatty got like because his genes were against him or if he is applying for a Mcstroke, but the fact is he takes up space that could have gone to another person... I think Canada is being to polite towards the obesity-issue...

Fat people are not people.

First of all, I hope that this is a failed attempt at humor. I am fat and I am very much a person.

Second of all, if you need two seats, you should pay for them. I have contorted myself into all sorts of painful positions so that I could sit in one seat in an airplane, because all I paid for was one seat.

Boring troll is boring.
I suggest a search on the name in the sig. I think you'll find it illuminating.

I suggest a search on the name in the sig. I think you'll find it illuminating.I went to his website that he linked to in another thread. It was the funniest thing I've read in a while.

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 am starting a new company called "CCA" and it stands for: Cheat the Canuck Airlines. I am hiring fat people to be my ticket representatives as of now. We offer great deals, you buy 3 seats and get the 4th FREE!!! Great for families.

[To those that don't get it. Fat people buy 2 tickets for 4 seats. Thus my company only pays for 2 seats. However, I get the price of free seats, so in short, I get cash in my pocket, for 1 of every 4 seats sold.]

In all honesty, how in the World do you know whether the person buying a ticket over the phone is fat or not? And how do you even check? Cause if you write "Fatty" on the ticket - it's discrimination. So how are you supposed to know?

? And how do you even check? Cause if you write "Fatty" on the ticket - it's discrimination. So how are you supposed to know?

You write "doubleseater" on the ticket ;)

You write "doubleseater" on the ticket ;)

You calling me doubleseater? You calling me fatty? You know damn well doubleseater means fatty! Why you are discriminating against me, I'm taking you to a CANADIAN Court!

If I pay £300 to fly from London to New York and there are no obese people on the flight who have been given two seats - the cost of my flight is £300. On the way back I pay £300 and there is an obese person and they are given two seats - I have still paid £300 for my flight.

In other words I have not suddenly paid double for my seat.

i dont think that that is going to help people who are planning on going to lose a few pounds

I think they should have to pay for the extra seat.

yes thats true

and i dont think this encourage people to lose weight

If I pay £300 to fly from London to New York and there are no obese people on the flight who have been given two seats - the cost of my flight is £300. On the way back I pay £300 and there is an obese person and they are given two seats - I have still paid £300 for my flight.

In other words I have not suddenly paid double for my seat.This.
I mean, really, people, honestly.

and i dont think this encourage people to lose weight

I doubt a lot of them are losing weight anyway, and also, it probably would, because you wouldn't want the embarrassment of 2 seats.

If I pay £300 to fly from London to New York and there are no obese people on the flight who have been given two seats - the cost of my flight is £300. On the way back I pay £300 and there is an obese person and they are given two seats - I have still paid £300 for my flight.

In other words I have not suddenly paid double for my seat.

No, but did you have to sit next to said obese person? For X hours?

Having done seat load/installation on airliners ranging from KLM to Southwest, I can tell some of you thus: the cheaper the airline's ticket, the smaller the leg room, and the more seats per row (that is, narrower them seats are).

If you're in Europe, and can manage to get the EU to buy off on excessive height as a "Disability" state similar to excessive weight? Ryanair's got the most adjustable seats in the industry for leg-room, and about a foot or so at the front rows after the track-filler and seal are removed and the carpets and track covers re-cut- one allen screwdriver and about two minutes and that seat'll slide right along in the seat-track.

Unfortunately, nobody's come up with a way to make the seats WIDER, however, without removing a seat from the bench. Here in the U.S. southwest's seats are crammed with about 26 inch centres-that is, twenty six inches of space to put your feet, if they're going under the seat in front of you.

This is called trying to work the economies of scale enough to pay for that eighty million dollar plus aircraft-a 737-700 is a spendy piece of kit-even with the cram-'em-in configuration, and passenger service doesn't pay like Freight service does.

Why? because unlike Freight service, passenger service is per-seat, rather than by weight, and your pricing isn't as flexible with passenger service.

Now, if I were running an airline in Canada, and I had to cope with this kind of regulation-by-court, I'd probably start cutting back on my passenger services, and increasing my freight-space. Why?

A 747-400F (that's the "Freighter" model) pays for itself in a year-at over 200 million apiece, whereas it takes about five years for a passenger-only 737 (with some air-freight capacity) to pay for itself running regular routes. Adding special dispensations for fat guys (and treating them like blind folk, those who require guide-dogs, those that require actual NURSING CARE, and the like) makes what's already a very marginal area of the aviation business a good deal less likely to stay in the black-ink and out of the red-ink.

Subsidized airlines don't have to worry that much about it-they get some, most, or all of their externality costs handled by their Government-let them have the passenger business in countries like Canada-the marginal profit from passengers isn't worth the extra meddling and headaches from High Courts.

If I pay £300 to fly from London to New York and there are no obese people on the flight who have been given two seats - the cost of my flight is £300. On the way back I pay £300 and there is an obese person and they are given two seats - I have still paid £300 for my flight.

In other words I have not suddenly paid double for my seat.
Unless of course you are bumped from the flight because they are obligated to give the fat guy your seat.

Well, what about Islander people? Big Rugby defenders? There are plenty of people in the world who are large in some way and won't comfortably fit into a single seat.

That's the point Cat-Tribe was meaking earlier - there is a distinction between fat and disabled/disadvantaged. And hence there are fat people to whom pretty much all the same physical attributes apply as to those who are supposedly worthy of free seats, but who aren't seen as victimised or discriminated against here. Hence why all this talk about people's weight is probably missing the point.

I have wred The Cat-Tribe's reply. It is a most unwelcome intrusion of facts into this discussion of principle. :p

Honestly, it weakens both our positions. But let's carry on, by principle if not by law.

There are large people who are not obese in a "disability" sense. Sumos, Rugby players, bodybuilders etc are carrying fat or muscle for professional reasons. Quite the opposite of a disability.

But the case of Islanders is interesting. The Pacific Islanders we speak of (eg Samoans, Fijians) are large at their healthy weight. They can be quite a bit "fatter" without being medically obese, and this would certainly not be considered a "disability" (and nor would great bulk in a Rugby player or Sumo not be considered a disability.)

Certainly the largest people (for whatever reason) would not fit comfortably into the narrowest economy seat offered by some airlines. They would take up some of the space of the seat next to them, including the armrest. That's an intrusion into the space which that other passenger has paid for. I think an airline is quite right to disallow that, as part of their obligation to that other customer.

But these people, not disabled, are entitled to the same service as any other customer! We should no more tax them, for having bodily assets, than we should punish an morbidly obese person for what is already a disadvantage to them (in that it threatens their health.)

I say that people are entirely responsible for their own bodies. For better or worse, and for them to judge. Whether their body is a tool of their trade, or a luxury they permit themselves, or a medical disability: their fat, their muscle, or the mole they tolerate to grow on their nose ... is their body. The body is essential to being a person, and the body is the most legitimate property of a person.

Airlines transport people. Not livestock, not freight. Humans, with human rights, including the right to be respected for their bodily form. All of it, no matter how gross it appears to others.

The most compromise I will make in this, to the profitability of transporting different people, is to allow a factor of weight to be considered, a factor of girth to be considered, and a factor of height to be considered, in the setting of a fair price to transport a person's body. Those factors should be assessed (and reviewed, say, every five years) as components of a fair airline price, and REGULATED.

A cut-off point, where a person is considered "too fat" or "too big" to fit in one arbitrarily sized, and arbitrarily assessed (eg is "touches both armrests" too wide? Or "hangs over both armrests" ...?) where they are obliged to pay double fare, is way way outside what I would consider a reasonable consideration of costs to carry them.

The main factor in price should be just as it is for any passenger needing only one "standard seat." Route, date of travel, pre-booking time. Weight is a real cost (should be for baggage too) but less significant compared to a seat filled or unfilled, so the head count (subject to the above factors) is the major component of travel price. And next, least significantly, comes the persons girth.

I would allow airlines to charge on the basis of a person's girth. BUT I would only allow a very small differential in ticket price between the narrowest and widest passenger. (The differential would be based on real costs, like fuel use, provisioning, flight-attendant labour, loading and unloading time -- not on an airline's reputation for protecting other passengers from the disgusting sight of fat people, or etc.) And I would expect that, when they next come to refit the plane or buy a newly fitted plane, that they provide wider seats for these passengers which they are charging more by girth.

If an airline, on a particular route, has an abundance of obese people, they raise the standard fare. That is entirely within their discretion already, to set the fare for a route and time. Those higher fares should pay for a future refit to their seating, to allow them transport all passengers in equal comfort.

Ashmoria called my plan "cumbersome." I'm prepared for you to call it something even stronger.

I don't care. I have a very strong principle on my side, and it's the sovereignty of a person in their body. Their body, their choice. Insofar as the weight or girth of a person costs the airline more or less, they may charge more or less. But the airline cannot, and should not, set a price to transport a person in that way: "normal fare if you are normal, double if you are over that."

"That's the size of our seats" isn't good enough. They provide bigger seats (at a fair premium, assessed within a bracket of likely costs by the regulator) or they GIVE them two seats.

===========(TC-Tribe inserted case facts here)===========

Well, here's what I mean:

This isn't about being physically big, it's about people actually being disabled. The Sumo wrestler or big Fijian pay for two or more tickets to fly. So you could then argue about why disabled people's airline travel should be subsidised in this way, but I think the whole "fat people" thing has really been a bit of a red herring during this entire discussion.

The Sumo wrestler or the professional pile of muscle should not BE REQUIRED to pay for two or more tickets to fly. If the money doesn't mean much to them (and for sporting personalities, spending the extra money to prove how big they are might in fact have positive value, beyond the two seats) then certainly they should be asked "do you want to book one seat or two, sir?"

There should not be a "double or nothing" line where they are "too wide for a seat." Nor should anyone less than twice the average girth get two standard seats for the price of one! All it takes is taking out a row of seats, or two, and replacing them with a range of wider seats up to slightly less than two seats wide. Two rows is, what? Twenty standard seats? In terms of "standard seats" that's a loss of perhaps four. To accomodate sixteen passengers in comfort. Giving each of them two seats would mean a loss of ten seats.

People who genuinely need the width of two standard seats are very few. Most of the problem could be solved by replacing two lines of seats.

I'm fine with the airline taking two fares for someone who knows they're big and will pay to prove it. That covers your sporting stars (Sumos included.) What I can't accept is a size 48 dude inconveniencing other passengers and burning more than his share of fuel for a standard fare, while a size 50 dude is told to pay double or stay on the tarmac. It's an arbitrary line, and a wider standard seat won't fix that.

Unless of course you are bumped from the flight because they are obligated to give the fat guy your seat.

When did that happen?

This thread as a whole is proof of how self-absorbed Americans are to the point where they bitch and howl about things that aren't even taking place in the United States. Absolut Mexico, anyone?

It also smacks of another Wilgrove "Let's Dehumanize These Fucks" thread except it involves the morbidly obese instead of pedophiles (Note: This category does not include convicted child molesters, who are criminals by that very definition). And let's face it, human beings love Acceptable Targets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTargets) they can all rail against while holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." If this had been a rant on Jews or Blacks having the right to two seats how many people here would be so eager to bitch about it on vitriol alone?

I'm willing to bet some of the most horrible abuse aimed at the overweight are from people who either were or even are overweight themselves.

And let's not forget the opening post of a certain someone in this thread who gave us a Triple Crown when he threw in Racism and Sexism on top of dehumanizing contempt for the morbidly obese.

Canada as usual, is at least a mile ahead of the United States in the recognition of human rights.

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.

Why don't we just eliminate airline seating as we know it? We can install all bench seating on airplanes, and charge passengers by the pound.

It actually makes a fair amount of sense, each person takes up their required space (and no more), and pays for their weight (which also helps to compensate for heavy people causing increased fuel ineffeciency).

Also, the reason we shouldn't refit every plane with larger seating is the ridiculous amount of money that it would cost an already injured industry... maybe we should drive all airlines into bankruptcy by federally mandating larger seats, so that fat people have the equal right to fly nowhere on the no airlines that could afford such an expensive refitting.

Why is it all about the capitalism until it disadvantages an important white person (obese lawyer in this case)? Sweatshops in the 3rd world? That's capitalism, live with it. Rich white woman disadvantaged? Oh no, call in the government.

If the aeroplane company is obligated to provide a higher service for a customer paying the same price, then the government should step in and subsidise the extra cost. If it doesn't do so, I can't see why a person paying the same ticket price as someone else should get a better service.

What about an Obsessive Compulsive. She has a need to pack 80 kilos of luggage as she must take every piece of clothing she owns. She has to pay through the nose for that.

Why is it all about the capitalism until it disadvantages an important white person (obese lawyer in this case)? Sweatshops in the 3rd world? That's capitalism, live with it. Rich white woman disadvantaged? Oh no, call in the government.

If the aeroplane company is obligated to provide a higher service for a customer paying the same price, then the government should step in and subsidise the extra cost. If it doesn't do so, I can't see why a person paying the same ticket price as someone else should get a better service.

What about an Obsessive Compulsive. She has a need to pack 80 kilos of luggage as she must take every piece of clothing she owns. She has to pay through the nose for that.

Just waking up are you petal?

Have a cup of tea, or whatever it is you do. :)

This thread as a whole is proof of how self-absorbed Americans are to the point where they bitch and howl about things that aren't even taking place in the United States. Absolut Mexico, anyone?

Only a fraction of the people here on NSG are Americans to begin with. I wonder if it is a sign of egocentrism to assume that everyone you speak to on the internet is an American. Hmmm....

Canada as usual, is at least a mile ahead of the United States in the recognition of human rights.
How on Earth is having a seat on an aeroplane a human right?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the ability to sit on a plane."

Well, eventually no one will be able to afford a flight anywhere, so screw it, what do I care?

Personally, I'd say if someone needs two seats, they have to pay for two seats. I don't really see the logic in anything else.

That said, I'm no lightweight myself, and although being far from needing more than one seat, some airlines have their seats narrower and closer than others. Amusingly, it's not the cheap ones. I'm very comfortable on Ryan Air or Aer Lingus planes. It's the outrageously expensive ones that seem to enjoy ripping off their economy classes, first and foremost Lufthansa. The chairs are just about wide enough, and the seatbelts require some aerobics to lock. Which, in all honesty, I find pretty embarassing. And needless, since as I said I'm perfectly fine on most other airlines... :(

No, but did you have to sit next to said obese person? For X hours?
Did you (collective, not you particularly, Intangelon) have to sit with the screaming infant behind you?

Or the kid who kicked your seat?

Or someone who just ate curry/garlic pizza/stinks of cigarettes?

Did you have to sit next to the asshole who has no concept that you're NOT his new best friend and won't shut the hell up?

Or the one with the tiny bladder who insists on the window seat and has to get up every fifteen minutes?

How about the frankly fugly one who should wear a bag over their head? Oh my GOD, why should you have to sit in the same PLANE as them?

What about the one how has their dog or cat in a carrier under the seat! PET HAIR, OMG! SMELLS! And I might hear it BARK!

The fashion tragedy?

I know I had to sit next to the person who panicked for six hours and kept insisting we were going to crash. That was a joy.

Jesus Christ, I'm very very glad that so very many people are so very very PERFECT that they can afford to bitch and whine and snarl like the fabled dog in the manger about something that costs them absolutely NOTHING and is a temporary inconvience to them but is a life-threatening and often humiliating condition to someone else. But hey, someone else might be getting something MORE THAN I'M GETTING, so let's attack them. Let's call them names and keep trumpeting about the forty Big Macs they eat a day because we're so much better than they are spending six hours (or more) a day sitting on our asses talking big on the internet like we eat sunshine and shit rainbows.

The hilarious thing is that the people who said them have no idea how ugly and stupid the things they said in this thread make them look.

The hilarious thing is that the people who said them have no idea how ugly and stupid the things they said in this thread make them look.

Why is making people pay for the services they use, no more, no less, ugly and stupid?

If this had been a rant on Jews or Blacks having the right to two seats how many people here would be so eager to bitch about it on vitriol alone?


I see, because Jews and Blacks choose to be of that race and demand extra seats for free.

Canada as usual, is at least a mile ahead of the United States in the recognition of human rights.

It's a human right to get a free seat?

The hilarious thing is that the people who said them have no idea how ugly and stupid the things they said in this thread make them look.

All I did was make a joke about it being no big deal unless they got the extra baggage space too... because that makes it a crime against humanity :(

The hilarious thing is that the people who said them have no idea how ugly and stupid the things they said in this thread make them look.

Because that post of yours didn't make you look stupid at all. Also, since when is demanding people pay for a seat they're having to use because they eat way too much and don't exercise stupid? It's common sense.

Because that post of yours didn't make you look stupid at all. Also, since when is demanding people pay for a seat they're having to use because they eat way too much and don't exercise stupid? It's common sense.

It's none of your business how much a person eats or execises. And nor should it have any bearings on the price of their airline ticket.

If they need two seats, they should pay for two seats. But that includes the stupid body-builder who gorws out of his seat as much as the guy who injured himself jumping from some bridge and now has to rest his leg up when sitting for more than an hours.
If they need more space, they ought to pay. No matter WHY they need more space.

It's none of your business how much a person eats or execises.


Did I say it was?

And nor should it have any bearings on the price of their airline ticket.

If they require an extra seat then it should.

Did I say it was?


Also, since when is demanding people pay for a seat they're having to use because they eat way too much and don't exercise stupid? It's common sense.

I bolded it for you, in case you never read what you typed...

I bolded it for you, in case you never read what you typed...

Oh, I know I typed that, but I didn't say that fat people should have to exercise or only eat a certain amount of calories, I was just stating they're fat because they eat too much, which is fair enough.

Oh, I know I typed that, but I didn't say that fat people should have to exercise or only eat a certain amount of calories, I was just stating they're fat because they eat too much, which is fair enough.

Well... no, actually, you didn't.
You said they ought to pay for two seats because of how much the eat and excercise.
You might want to make sure to really type what you want to say in future.

Why is making people pay for the services they use, no more, no less, ugly and stupid?
If you don't understand the difference between saying, "I think they should pay more" and "Two Ton Billy eating 40 Big Macs" and "Fatty" are a danger to the industry and I hate to have to look at them, then I really and honestly feel sorry for you.

Well... no, actually, you didn't.
You said they ought to pay for two seats because of how much the eat and excercise.
You might want to make sure to really type what you want to say in future.

Well I meant they should have to pay extra because of their size, which is a direct result of eating too much.

Because that post of yours didn't make you look stupid at all.
Really?

How about people who are incapable of learning how not to make personal attacks and lose nations? Are they geniuses?

Really?

How about people who are incapable of learning how not to make personal attacks and lose nations? Are they geniuses?

That nation was not deleted due to a personal attack.

EDIT: And even if it was, what does that have anything to do with it? That's completely off topic.

If they need two seats, they should pay for two seats. But that includes the stupid body-builder who gorws out of his seat as much as the guy who injured himself jumping from some bridge and now has to rest his leg up when sitting for more than an hours.
If they need more space, they ought to pay. No matter WHY they need more space.

And if they need less space ? Do anorexia patients and "little people" get a discount ?

Well I meant they should have to pay extra because of their size, which is a direct result of eating too much.

There are plenty of people who are mucho grande sized that eat almost nothing; sometimes people have no control over thier wieght.

That nation was not deleted due to a personal attack.

EDIT: And even if it was, what does that have anything to do with it? That's completely off topic.
Which one? And off topic? About as off topic as your taking the time to tell me, personally, how stupid I am. See?

There are plenty of people who are mucho grande sized that eat almost nothing; sometimes people have no control over thier wieght.

That's muy grande, and it's extremely rare for that to happen.

Which one?

What d'you mean which one?

Which one? And off topic? About as off topic as your taking the time to tell me, personally, how stupid I am. See?

I didn't actually call you stupid. You said some people's comments had made them look stupid, and I said your comment had made you look stupid.

And if they need less space ? Do anorexia patients and "little people" get a discount ?

The way I see it, airlines sell their seats in units.
Look at it like this : If you want to eat two burgers, you need to pay for two burgers. But I don't know any burger place that will cut one in half for you if you feel like only half of a burger... you'll still have to pay for a full burger, right?

I didn't actually call you stupid. You said some people's comments had made them look stupid, and I said your comment had made you look stupid.

*gets popcorn to watch this suicide by mod*

*gets popcorn to watch this suicide by mod*

How is this a suicide by mod?

I didn't actually call you stupid. You said some people's comments had made them look stupid, and I said your comment had made you look stupid.

Originally Posted by No Names Left Damn It
Because that post of yours didn't make you look stupid at all.

Right. Because pointing out bullying, being judgmental and name-calling as opposed to saying, "I think they should pay more" is ugly, is stupid, because people who call names and feel the need to attack others are not acting ugly.

I completely understand. Dehumanizing people = A-ok, pointing out that being a creep is not ok = stupid.

Got it.

And no, Cabra, this is not going to turn into a suicide by mod.

That's muy grande, and it's extremely rare for that to happen.

I don't pretend to know more than enough spanish to say "I don't speak spanish". And regardless of rarity it should be proof enough that your rather assinine assumption that all overwieght people suck down hamburgers like oxegyn is false and baseless.

all overwieght people suck down hamburgers like oxegyn

I never said that.

The way I see it, airlines sell their seats in units.
Look at it like this : If you want to eat two burgers, you need to pay for two burgers. But I don't know any burger place that will cut one in half for you if you feel like only half of a burger... you'll still have to pay for a full burger, right?

Until someone succesfully sues the company for the discriminatory size of their burgers of course.

Until someone succesfully sues the company for the discriminatory size of their burgers of course.

*lol
Possibly. I haven't heard of any case yet, though, have you?

*lol
Possibly. I haven't heard of any case yet, though, have you?

I thought of doing that once or twice... when I want a Big Mac I want a Big Mac, not a slightly larger than a double cheeseburger.

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 don't think that it's wrong that the airline charges double for a two-seats tickets. If I'm 2.30 m tall and want more space for my legs, I'll take business class or first class, and I shall pay for it.

Maybe we could discuss: if obesity is the result of a sort of disease, shouldn't the health service refund the extra cost the obese passenger has to pay? Squeezing into a tight place for long time can be deadly (tourist class syndrome, or whatever it's called), so that extra space can be seen as a necessity of the obese people.

I never said that.

SO I took a bit of an artistic license, you said something to the same effect.

Maybe we could discuss: if obesity is the result of a sort of disease, shouldn't the health service refund the extra cost the obese passenger has to pay? Squeezing into a tight place for long time can be deadly (tourist class syndrome, or whatever it's called), so that extra space can be seen as a necessity of the obese people.

I think for that, you'd need to come up with a really, really watertight reason why the person in question needs to travel, and why airtravel is the only option...

*lol
Possibly. I haven't heard of any case yet, though, have you?

Only relating to the "supersize me" thing and the public health hazard - nothing from this angle.

But perhaps now we will. After all, due to his officially recognised disability person A may in fact require more food to sustain himself than person B, just like his disability leads to him requiring the two seats in the plane.

I daresay survival should carry more weight (no pun intended) than comfort during a flight. So if a company is forbidden to charge him extra for his needs in the comfort case, why can they charge extra where it involves a primary need like food ?

I daresay survival should carry more weight (no pun intended) than comfort during a flight. So if a company is forbidden to charge him extra for his needs in the comfort case, why can they charge extra where it involves a primary need like food ?

To be honest, I've never flown with an airline who would hand out more food to one passenger than to another.
It's all pre-packed, one portion per person. At most you can maybe get a little more orange juice, if the stewardess likes you...

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I don't feel like reading 27 pages of people who've never struggled with weight be little petulant assholes, so I'll just put this out there-

Handicapped seating takes up two or more seats. A person with a handicap gets that seating regardless of whether they were born with that handicap or if they got it trying to ollie their skateboard off the roof of their house and over their parent's car. So, since we don't additionally punish a self infected handicap from injury the arguments that obesity is a self inflicted handicap (and if you are large enough that you need two seats, it's a handicap) have no basis in additional punishment.

A person with a handicap gets that seating regardless of whether they were born with that handicap or if they got it trying to ollie their skateboard off the roof of their house and over their parent's car.

But they can't fix that handicap. If you're fat you can do something, and it could've been avoided in the first place.

what percentage of passengers require 2 seats? seems to me that its pretty damned low so. the airlines can just eat the cost.
The only legitimate reason for a business to "eat" a cost, is to build customer good will. Usually that only happens after the business has done something to irritate a customer.

How does that apply to this situation?

In my opinion, airlines piss off customers every day -- especially with their seating arrangements. That still doesn't require them to act to gain customer good will.

But they can't fix that handicap. If you're fat you can do something, and it could've been avoided in the first place.

The skateboarder could have avoided his injury in the first place, and perhaps after years of physical therapy can recover, and yet he is still allowed handicap seating.

You have not demonstrated a difference other than your own prejudice against the obese.

I think for that, you'd need to come up with a really, really watertight reason why the person in question needs to travel, and why airtravel is the only option...

Well, a watertight reason might be work. Also, for some places airtravel is the only option for obese people: example, you can go from Milan to Palermo by car+ferry+car, by train+ferry+train, or by airplane. Both landroutes take about 20 hours, while a flight takes about 90 minutes (unless it's an Alitalia flight :D). Cramming an obese person into a car or a train (that is, a tight place where you must remain seated for most of the time, just like an airplane - well, maybe the train a bit less so) for 20 hours can lead to health risks: 90 minutes are less risky.

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 feed the cost to the fat passengers?

Handicapped seating takes up two or more seats. A person with a handicap gets that seating regardless of whether they were born with that handicap or if they got it trying to ollie their skateboard off the roof of their house and over their parent's car. So, since we don't additionally punish a self infected handicap from injury the arguments that obesity is a self inflicted handicap (and if you are large enough that you need two seats, it's a handicap) have no basis in additional punishment.

Actually, paying double for using double isn't exactly a punishment.
Anyway, if you call that "punishment", then yea, our society "punishes" self-inflicted handicap. If you choose to jump with your skate off your roof your insurance won't cover the medical expenses, or the expenses for the wheelchair. And if the skater isn't an adult, his parents are going to be prosecuted for not controlling their kid.

Btw, personal account: last year I was almost obese (190 cm height vs 112 kg weight), and now I'm 94 kg (that is slightly overweight; I should lose another 4 kg to achieve the "ideal" weight). And I didn't have to change my dietary habits, I simply drastically reduced the amount of bread and biscuits.

The only legitimate reason for a business to "eat" a cost, is to build customer good will. Usually that only happens after the business has done something to irritate a customer.

How does that apply to this situation?

In my opinion, airlines piss off customers every day -- especially with their seating arrangements. That still doesn't require them to act to gain customer good will.

How about if the business accepts hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies? Then, it can be argued, the business should have to "eat" a cost any time their real meal ticket, the government, tells them to.

Airlines are quasi-governmental agencies. It's an industry that could never survive without the government's involvement and intervention. As such, they can expect to have to make certain accomodations when they're told to by the government. All the free-market blathering doesn't mean a damn thing when your business accepts millions of dollars of taxpayer money. If the airlines, or any of the free-market worshippers here, don't like it, they can forego government assistance, and see how long they can stay in business without playing ball with the government.

To be honest, I've never flown with an airline who would hand out more food to one passenger than to another.
It's all pre-packed, one portion per person. At most you can maybe get a little more orange juice, if the stewardess likes you...

Which seems to be unlawful discrimination. As the courts ruled, "one size fits all" is not proper. One needs to adjust the units to the special needs of the disabled passenger.

If you don't understand the difference between saying, "I think they should pay more" and "Two Ton Billy eating 40 Big Macs" and "Fatty" are a danger to the industry and I hate to have to look at them, then I really and honestly feel sorry for you.

Oh, I know what you're referring to, but your blanket statement seemed rather unfair, so I responded to it as such.

The only legitimate reason for a business to "eat" a cost, is to build customer good will. Usually that only happens after the business has done something to irritate a customer.

How does that apply to this situation?

In my opinion, airlines piss off customers every day -- especially with their seating arrangements. That still doesn't require them to act to gain customer good will.
no but the law (in canada) does.

The skateboarder could have avoided his injury in the first place, and perhaps after years of physical therapy can recover, and yet he is still allowed handicap seating.

You have not demonstrated a difference other than your own prejudice against the obese.

I am not prejudiced against the obese at all. The skateboarder could've avoided his injury, but while doing what he did was likely to end up with an injury, it wasn't guaranteed. Eating too much *will* get you fat, and you can see it coming a mile off, and therefore do something about it.

Actually, paying double for using double isn't exactly a punishment.
Anyway, if you call that "punishment", then yea, our society "punishes" self-inflicted handicap. If you choose to jump with your skate off your roof your insurance won't cover the medical expenses, or the expenses for the wheelchair. And if the skater isn't an adult, his parents are going to be prosecuted for not controlling their kid.
But this isn't about whether or not medical expenses should be covered, and it's not even as cut and dry regarding insurance (and since we're talking about Canada, even more so since they have universal healthcare) - we're talking about access to handicapped seating or accommodation without additional charge. That is the precedent that needs to be reached to justify punishing the obese because their handicap is 'disgusting.'

Btw, personal account: last year I was almost obese (190 cm height vs 112 kg weight), and now I'm 94 kg (that is slightly overweight; I should lose another 4 kg to achieve the "ideal" weight). And I didn't have to change my dietary habits, I simply drastically reduced the amount of bread and biscuits.
Congratulations. Your personal experience, however, does not give you any kind of license.

Obesity isn't a disease, it's a symptom.

Maybe being lazy and gluttonous is a disease though.

Which seems to be unlawful discrimination. As the courts ruled, "one size fits all" is not proper. One needs to adjust the units to the special needs of the disabled passenger.

So would you support lawsuits for car manufacturers to produce special production lines of tailor made cars for the disabled/oversized/etc, at no extra cost to the customer, despite the sheer unprofitability it is likely to represent?

There is being disabled friendly/accessible, which involves mostly single investment infrastructure, and there is giving free non-essential service/goods to the disabled just because they are disabled, which represents a constant sunk cost every time the disabled use them. Unless subsidized by the government, and the taxpayers, forcing the company to absorb the cost is from an economic standpoint, unfair.

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

Sufficiently oddly enough and coincidentally, this has happened to me. I was on a greyhound bus--I was about halfway to where I was going. The bus was full. Bus stopped at a station on the way, and I'm sitting there reading. Driver comes up to me and tells me and the guy I'm sitting next to because an ADA protected guy had to get on. Morbidly obese guy rolls in, takes over our seats, and me and random guy are trapped in Podunk, Ohio in the middle of winter for the next five hours, sitting in some Amish person's living room.

I am not prejudiced against the obese at all. The skateboarder could've avoided his injury, but while doing what he did was likely to end up with an injury, it wasn't guaranteed. Eating too much *will* get you fat, and you can see it coming a mile off, and therefore do something about it.

You say you aren't and then demonstrate that you are. Metabolisms change, and overeating is not the one and only way to gain weight. You continue to demonstrate a reductive one way ignorance about weight and weight gain that belies your prejudice.

However, it doesn't matter. A person with a handicap from injury is not grilled to see if his injury was avoidable, so even if he did something that was guaranteed to result in injury, he is still given access to special seating without extra charge. Your precedent has not been demonstrated.

You say you aren't and then demonstrate that you are. Metabolisms change, and overeating is not the one and only way to gain weight.

Yes, but it's the main one, along with not exercising. Metabolisms don't change so much that you eat the exact same amount but put on 20 stone. Also, when did I demonstrate I was prejudiced towards obese people?

So would you support lawsuits for car manufacturers to produce special production lines of tailor made cars for the disabled/oversized/etc, at no extra cost to the customer, despite the sheer unprofitability it is likely to represent?

Nope. I am just exploring what this decision of the courts actually means - and what you state is in fact a logical continuation.

Yes, but it's the main one, along with not exercising. Metabolisms don't change so much that you eat the exact same amount but put on 20 stone. Also, when did I demonstrate I was prejudiced towards obese people?

With every post.

But it doesn't matter.

Until you can demonstrate the precedent, there is no reason to over charge the obese.

Here's a solution... someone could just build passenger jets with extra large seats and sell airline tickets at about 150% the normal price. Bigger meals could be available upon request and the in lfight movie could be sweating to the oldies... it would give a whole new meaning to the term "Jumbo Jet". :rolleyes:

Btw, personal account: last year I was almost obese (190 cm height vs 112 kg weight), and now I'm 94 kg (that is slightly overweight; I should lose another 4 kg to achieve the "ideal" weight). And I didn't have to change my dietary habits, I simply drastically reduced the amount of bread and biscuits.

By similar token, I've put on about five kilos since I've started grad school because of the combination of work-school-study-unhealthy food. It's all my fault too, because I could do better, I just give up and don't. If I can't fit in the single seat three months from now, I should pay more.

With every post.

Not at all


there is no reason to over charge the obese.

So making them pay for an extra seat is "overcharging"? What a load of rubbish. They use an extra seat, they pay for it.

By similar token, I've put on about five kilos since I've started grad school because of the combination of work-school-study-unhealthy food. It's all my fault too, because I could do better, I just give up and don't. If I can't fit in the single seat three months from now, I should pay more.

Curiously, I took on a self concocted diet/exercise regime as an experiment, and ended up losing about 17 kilos in the last 4 months.

Not at all
Keep telling yourself that.




So making them pay for an extra seat is "overcharging"? What a load of rubbish. They use an extra seat, they pay for it.
Handicapped accommodations take up an extra seat, sometimes more. They are not charged double.

We've come full circle. I do not have a desire to play "That's Life" with you.

They use an extra seat, they pay for it.
So, you'd also contend that particularly skinny people should only pay half?

Or, if I don't eat my in-flight 'sandwich', do I get money off my ticket?

Handicapped accommodations take up an extra seat, sometimes more. They are not charged double.


Then let us move on to the question:
Should airlines (and other companies) be forced to offer the handicapped, including the obese, extra space, or should they be stimulated to do so, ofr instance through subsidies ?

Stick or carrot ?

Handicapped accommodations take up an extra seat, sometimes more. They are not charged double.

No disabled person chooses to be that way.

No disabled person chooses to be that way.

It's a magazine.

By similar token, I've put on about five kilos since I've started grad school because of the combination of work-school-study-unhealthy food. It's all my fault too, because I could do better, I just give up and don't. If I can't fit in the single seat three months from now, I should pay more.

I feel ya. Moved out of home in to a hostel which had amazing food and big servings.. The fact it was on a massive hill nearly provided enough exercise to balance it out... But said food, studying lots and drinking beer wasn't a great combo.

As for the issue at hand -- meh. I don't really consider it an issue. As far as I'm concerned if you use two, you pay for two.

Edit: just recognized how silly I sound -- saying how easily I put on weight, hmm. Oh well.

It's a magazine.

What?

People who need service dogs can bring them anywhere they need to be, no matter WHAT the airlines, restaurants, hotels or any other business says about it. It's an accommodation made under the law.

If obesity has been ruled a disability in Canada, then obese people are entitled to their accommodation.

Frankly, the comments some of the posters have made here are disgustingly judgmental, and I can't help but think of that old cliche about glass houses.
Agreed.

It's not as though I actually believed this would be an intelligent conversation, but the fact that the substantive legal and human rights issues have been consistantly ignored in favour of this ridiculous mudslinging, actually interferes with my ability to process so much fucking idiocy.

So, you'd also contend that particularly skinny people should only pay half?

Or, if I don't eat my in-flight 'sandwich', do I get money off my ticket?

You don't buy half a sandwich, half a car, or half a can of coke. You buy items in units, whether you use them or not is up to you. But if you want more, then you buy another unit of the item, same as seats.

Agreed.

It's not as though I actually believed this would be an intelligent conversation, but the fact that the substantive legal and human rights issues have been consistantly ignored in favour of this ridiculous mudslinging, actually interferes with my ability to process so much fucking idiocy.

And on the other side of the argument, economic issues are being ignored, so I think that does even out things.

Curiously, I took on a self concocted diet/exercise regime as an experiment, and ended up losing about 17 kilos in the last 4 months.

That, sir, is an admirable feat. During undergrad I was able to pull of morning exercises on a daily basis, but the combination of daytime work and night classes is so physically and mentally draining that I've not been able to keep up with that, or any of my other healthy activities (journaling, maintaining my (now dead) relationship and keeping in touch with family members being the mentally healthy activities that have gotten the axe).

And on the other side of the argument, economic issues are being ignored, so I think that does even out things.

And yet economic issues are factored into the analysis of accommodation. That's the 'undue hardship' determination. No one is forced to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

You don't buy half a sandwich, half a car, or half a can of coke. You buy items in units, whether you use them or not is up to you. But if you want more, then you buy another unit of the item, same as seats.
We're not discussing people wanting more seating space, and demanding they be given it for free, we're discussing people who need more seating space.

We're not discussing people wanting more seating space, and demanding they be given it for free, we're discussing people who need more seating space.

Maybe they could give them a complimentary lipo sucksion?


I know I am not helping

Sufficiently oddly enough and coincidentally, this has happened to me. I was on a greyhound bus--I was about halfway to where I was going. The bus was full. Bus stopped at a station on the way, and I'm sitting there reading. Driver comes up to me and tells me and the guy I'm sitting next to because an ADA protected guy had to get on. Morbidly obese guy rolls in, takes over our seats, and me and random guy are trapped in Podunk, Ohio in the middle of winter for the next five hours, sitting in some Amish person's living room.
oh god.

thats pretty awful.

i hope you made a big stink about it, it doesnt seem right to me.

The Canadian Transport Agency is in fact charged with the task of accommodating disabilities, and airlines are of course regulated by the CTA (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/access/index_e.html).

The Agency is responsible for ensuring that undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities are removed from federally regulated transportation services and facilities. The Agency removes undue obstacles in two ways: on a case-by-case basis by resolving individual complaints, and on a systemic basis by developing regulations, codes of practice and standards concerning the level of accessibility in modes of transport under federal jurisdiction, such as air, rail, and marine.


Now for those of you who keep harping on this as though it's a space and/or seat issue...I've requested you look at the legislation, but apparently I'll need to spoon feed it to you. When you travel, you are not paying for space, or a seat. You are paying for your travel. Here are the Air Transport Regulations (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-88-58/bo-ga:l_V-gb:s_104//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_104) regarding tariffs. Seats are not mentioned, only travel. You do not pay for a spot in a seat, you pay to be transported from one place to another....no matter how much you want it to be about seats.

You are required, as a person with disabilities to make arrangements before hand, by the way. So this boogeyman of people being thrown off the plane because you show up....is a boogeyman.

I know I am not helping
Admitting a problem is the first step to recovery. :p

Perhaps what's confusing this issue is all this talk of rights. I find it bizarre to think that someone has the human right, as Gauthier and others have stated, to a seat on an aeroplane, but it seems preposterous to force a person to pay extra because of their body-shape.

Or, at least, to only do so to overweight people. If we're demanding charging schemes by body size, then surely we should be weighing and measuring every single passenger on the plane, and calculating what each person owes. The overweight people we're discussing won't all take up two seats; does the person who takes up 1.5 seats pay 25% less than the person who takes up 2 seats?

Admitting a problem is the first step to recovery. :p

Perhaps what's confusing this issue is all this talk of rights. I find it bizarre to think that someone has the human right, as Gauthier and others have stated, to a seat on an aeroplane, but it seems preposterous to force a person to pay extra because of their body-shape.

That's because you're mischaracterising the issue. The issue is not about some ridiculous notion of a human right to sit on an airplane. It is rather about the human right to NOT be discriminated against on the basis of disability, regardless of what service is being provided.

oh god.

thats pretty awful.

i hope you made a big stink about it, it doesnt seem right to me.

Greyhound essentially told me to screw off, and my lawyer said that if I took them to court, I'd be painted by the defendant counsel as "the asshole who hates cripples", and that I didn't stand a chance.

That's because you're mischaracterising the issue.
I don't believe I am, if, as the OP indicates, the SCoC has ruled that obese people have the positive right to a seat on a plane.

Greyhound essentially told me to screw off, and my lawyer said that if I took them to court, I'd be painted by the defendant counsel as "the asshole who hates cripples", and that I didn't stand a chance.
you needed a better lawyer.

riding the bus is bad enough but being thrown off in the middle of no where--or where you know no one and have to fend for yourself--is unconscionable.

Greyhound essentially told me to screw off, and my lawyer said that if I took them to court, I'd be painted by the defendant counsel as "the asshole who hates cripples", and that I didn't stand a chance.

Ooo you get to sue them for throwing you off a bus despite already being on it and for slander/libel (Not sure which).

They might as well write you a big cheque and be done with it.

I don't believe I am, if, as the OP indicates, the SCoC has ruled that obese people have the positive right to a seat on a plane.
everyone has the right to equal accomodation.

they cannot deny anyone their services and have to make a reasonable accomodation to those with legitimate disabilities.

thats for everybody and if you ever find yourself in the situation where you need the extra space, you will be happy that the issue is already settled.

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.
You're calling it "discrimination" for people to charge someone twice the price of a seat for the use of two seats? I think expecting otherwise would be the real discrimination; people are supposed to pay for what they're asking for, not for why they're asking for it.

I don't believe I am, if, as the OP indicates, the SCoC has ruled that obese people have the positive right to a seat on a plane.

*facepalm*

First of all, the SCC REFUSED to hear the appeal, upholding the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. The SCC therefore has not ruled on anything. First mistake.

Secondly, the OP is comprised mostly of a news article attempting to explain the results of the FCA decision. It is not a detailed, legal analysis.

Third, I have linked to the FCA decision itself already. Nowhere in that decision is there mention of a 'positive right to a seat on a plane'. What is discussed, in length is the classification of obesity as a disability, and the positive right to accommodation by people with disabilities. Not a seat on a plane... accommodation.

You're calling it "discrimination" for people to charge someone twice the price of a seat for the use of two seats? I think expecting otherwise would be the real discrimination; people are supposed to pay for what they're asking for, not for why they're asking for it.

Oh sweet fuck I swear to god my fucking head is going to pop off if one more of you idiots continue to talk about paying for seats versus paying for transportation. How is it possible to so fundamentally misunderstand the issue? It has to be deliberate. I'm too scared of the other alternative.

I bet this has been said, but im not going to bother looking for it.

How comes fat people also get the same luggage allowance as me?, one guy I saw easily had his 20 kilos in one bloody leg!

Oh sweet fuck I swear to god my fucking head is going to pop off if one more of you idiots continue to talk about paying for seats versus paying for transportation. How is it possible to so fundamentally misunderstand the issue? It has to be deliberate. I'm too scared of the other alternative.
What are you talking about?

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.


Except for the issue of there being more planes in the air: thus more fuel being used, more emissions into the atmosphere, and probably a higher overall price of plane tickets being charged.

I bet this has been said, but im not going to bother looking for it.

How comes fat people also get the same luggage allowance as me?, one guy I saw easily had his 20 kilos in one bloody leg!
because he doesnt check his leg into the baggage hold.

I am in full favor of this ruling. When you charge two different people two different prices for the same service, we call that discriminatory pricing, and it's illegal for a reason.

I am in full favor of this ruling. When you charge two different people two different prices for the same service

But is it the same service?

What are you talking about?

the sheer depths of human stupidity, would be my guess.

What are you talking about?

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14239067&postcount=448).

I've said it at least five times in this thread already. You don't pay for a seat. You pay for transportation from A to B. So get over the freaking seat issue.

But is it the same service?

*prepares head for pop-off at the hint of the word 'seat'*

But is it the same service?

I buy a ticket from New York to Tokyo. This ticket provides me the service of transportation from New York to Tokyo, I am charged a price.

A larger man buys a ticket from New York to Tokyo, on the same day, at the same time, in the same class. He is provided an identical service, transportation from New York to Tokyo, on the same airline, in the same class.

The service in both instances is precisely the same.

So, the answer to your question is...yes, yes it is.

And I'm stupefied as to why anyone wound think differently.

you needed a better lawyer.

Well, he pussyfooted around on that one sufficiently awfully that I've reverted back to the default mode of utilizing one of the lawyers in the family rather than an outsider, even though he came with high recommendations.

riding the bus is bad enough but being thrown off in the middle of no where--or where you know no one and have to fend for yourself--is unconscionable.

Yes, it is. And while the Amish people were very nice, if it had not have been for them, I'd probably have been a human Popsicle by the time the next bus got there.

Greyhound is awful and comparatively expensive, especially now that it only takes me fifteen dollars in gas to get to Cleveland or Cincy by car, compared to forty for greyhound.

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.
The airlines have made the seats way to small and seem to have made no effort to determine what is an average comfortable size for a person. Their research into appropriate seat size seems to be based on fallacy that people are like chickens, and can be crammed into cage-like areas. PETA should go after them on behalf of humans! If they would get and install an average-size seat based on the average height and width of each population from around the world, then charging for two seats might be reasonable but, as it stands, they create a false need for charging for the two seats.

I buy a ticket from New York to Tokyo. This ticket provides me the service of transportation from New York to Tokyo, I am charged a price.

A larger man buys a ticket from New York to Tokyo, on the same day, at the same time, in the same class. He is provided an identical service, transportation from New York to Tokyo, on the same airline, in the same class.

The service in both instances is precisely the same.

So, the answer to your question is...yes, yes it is.

And I'm stupefied as to why anyone wound think differently.

*ponders an argument that doesn't involve neesika's head popping off*

If they are only charging for transportation, and don't have go consider the conditions of transportation, then they should take out all the seating and herd everyone like cattle and make them stand the whole way. They can get alot more people in the plane that way! They could also eliminate the lavatories to create more space, and hand out cups and pots for people to relieve themselves in.

*prepares head for pop-off at the hint of the word 'seat'*
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8562/forgetitjakeqr8.jpg

Seat.

If they are only charging for transportation, and don't have go consider the conditions of transportation, then they should take out all the seating and herd everyone like cattle and make them stand the whole way. They can get alot more people in the plane that way! They could also eliminate the lavatories to create more space, and hand out cups and pots for people to relieve themselves in.

trust me, if airlines could get away with this, I have no doubt they would.

*ponders an argument that doesn't involve neesika's head popping off*

I really, really appreciate that right now.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14239067&postcount=448).

I've said it at least five times in this thread already. You don't pay for a seat. You pay for transportation from A to B. So get over the freaking seat issue.

If that's how the CTA determines what is being paid for when one flies on a plane, then there is no argument.

I disagree that that is the appropriate way to determine what is being paid for, but that's a whole different matter, only related to this topic in a tertiary fashion.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8562/forgetitjakeqr8.jpg

You make an excellent point.

See, what bothers me so much right now about this discussion...is the way that people seriously seem to be unable or unwilling to sift through the information and figure out what kernel exists at the centre...very few people, like Ashmoria and Sarkhaan etc have been able to get over the revulsion of the morbidly obese that I think is a common first reaction, and understand what exactly this case is about. That most others just skim along the surface, ignoring the deeper arguments...is freaking depressing. It's not something that can only be done by the very education or extremely intelligent...I really think that anyone is capable of boiling this down to a set of principles and then debating it on that level. I'm just not, for the most part, seeing that here.

Seat.

Troll.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14239067&postcount=448).

I've said it at least five times in this thread already. You don't pay for a seat. You pay for transportation from A to B. So get over the freaking seat issue.
Don't expect me to read through the whole thread. Believe it or not I have a life, something you perhaps can't identify with. (Hey, you insulted me earlier, so I insulted you back, fair is fair)

People in this forum throw the word "troll" around a lot. I was called a "troll" for never having flown economy class. It's kind of pathetic. Much like allowing fat people to have two seats for the price of one. They're being rewarded for abusing their bodies. Disguisting.

But is it the same service?

Yes, skinny person "A" pays x amount to fly from point D to point E; Morbidly obese person "B" also pays x amount to fly from point D to point E.

That right there is what the ruling is enforcing as opposed to what was being done which was: skinny person "A" pays x amount to fly from point D to point E; Morbidly obese person "B" pays 2x amount to fly from point D to point E.

If that's how the CTA determines what is being paid for when one flies on a plane, then there is no argument.

I disagree that that is the appropriate way to determine what is being paid for, but that's a whole different matter, only related to this topic in a tertiary fashion.

Nonetheless, when it comes to human rights law, it isn't so much about form as it is about substance. So, if for whatever reason the CTA were able to change the regulations to mandate payment for 'seats' rather than transportation (the bizarreness of that proposition interest me somewhat on a property law level, but let's not go there), it still would not be able to justify the 'obstacle to mobility' that would create for certain people with disabilities.

I want the seat issue out of the way though, because people here can't seem to look beyond their economic argument (not that an economic argument can't be made, but should not simply focus on the seat issue...it'd be better made at the level of accommodation and undue hardship).

Don't expect me to read through the whole thread.

We shouldn't expect you to educate yourself on a topic or ensure you know what you're talking about before speaking?

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but, alright...

People in this forum throw the word "troll" around a lot. I was called a "troll" for never having flown economy class. It's kind of pathetic. Much like allowing fat people to have two seats for the price of one. They're being rewarded for abusing their bodies. Disguisting.

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps you could point out the relevance of No Names Left Damn It's post except to specifically instigate conflict with Neesika? Since, of all things, I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of throwing a word around by the likes of someone as illustrious as you.

I was called a "troll"

Much like allowing fat people to have two seats for the price of one. They're being rewarded for abusing their bodies. Disguisting.

wonder why

Perhaps you could point out the relevance of No Names Left Damn It's post except to specifically instigate conflict with Neesika?

It was supposed to be a joke, but OK. I didn't think one word answers such as that could be viewed as trying to instigate conflict.

People in this forum throw the word "troll" around a lot. I was called a "troll" for never having flown economy class. It's kind of pathetic. Much like allowing fat people to have two seats for the price of one. They're being rewarded for abusing their bodies. Disguisting.
no they arent being rewarded. they are not being punished for being over-sized.

Don't expect me to read through the whole thread. Believe it or not I have a life, something you perhaps can't identify with. (Hey, you insulted me earlier, so I insulted you back, fair is fair)

The post I linked to was made on the previous page...hardly forcing you to 'read through the whole thread'.

I love the whole "I have a life" reasoning when it comes to justifying wading into a discussion like a retarded hippopotamus on crack with a penchant for felching.

I was called a "troll" for never having flown economy class.

Link to the post or it's a lie.

Admitting a problem is the first step to recovery. :p

Perhaps what's confusing this issue is all this talk of rights. I find it bizarre to think that someone has the human right, as Gauthier and others have stated, to a seat on an aeroplane, but it seems preposterous to force a person to pay extra because of their body-shape.

Or, at least, to only do so to overweight people. If we're demanding charging schemes by body size, then surely we should be weighing and measuring every single passenger on the plane, and calculating what each person owes. The overweight people we're discussing won't all take up two seats; does the person who takes up 1.5 seats pay 25% less than the person who takes up 2 seats?

Not to mention those of us with broad shoulders that cannot help that airplane seats are designed for people who are smaller than very, very common full-grown males. It's not like I'm lineman huge. I'm 6 feet and 215 pounds. I can lose weight (which would make no difference) but I cannot cut off my shoulders.

I'm also not disabled. Should I have to pay more just because I'm fully grown?

wonder why

They are. If you're willing to eat yourself into a position where you cannot fit into a seat you should be willing to pay for two seats. I'm sure many fat people would rather pay for both seats anyway, since they'll be entitled to two in flight meals.

Believe it or not I have a life,

What you doing on NSG then?

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps you could point out the relevance of No Names Left Damn It's post except to specifically instigate conflict with Neesika? Since, of all things, I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of throwing a word around by the likes of someone as illustrious as you.

It was quite clearly just a silly remark made in jest, methinks you may be acting a bit drama-queenish here.

They are. If you're willing to eat yourself into a position where you cannot fit into a seat you should be willing to pay for two seats. I'm sure many fat people would rather pay for both seats anyway, since they'll be entitled to two in flight meals.

Poe

Link to the post or it's a lie.

I'm not all that concerned whether you believe it happened or not.

no they arent being rewarded. they are not being punished for being over-sized.

But companies are being forced (if I understand the ruling correctly) to cater to their "special needs" because they have a disability.

The "forced" irks me. Hence my earlier "why not use a carrot instead of a stick" question earlier.

It was supposed to be a joke, but OK. I didn't think one word answers such as that could be viewed as trying to instigate conflict.

:P

I thought it was funny, to be honest. And my head didn't pop off, obviously. It's not as though you continued to go 'wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaaa I pay for one seat and he gets two at half price!!!!!'

You just wanted to see a cranial ejection. Fair enough.

I'm not all that concerned whether you believe it happened or not.

So it was a lie.

Poe
What's that supposed to mean?