Canada court says obese have right to 2 seats for price of 1

[Selena_Kitt]

The obese have the right to two airline seats for the price of one.

Canada ruling. They call the obese "functionally disabled."

 

[gauchecritic]

But aeroplane seats aren't designed for 'average' people anyway. They're far too small, for instance, for my son (for me even) whose knees are always pushing into the seat in front.

Average never suits anybody and discriminating against a fat arse is just as bad as making blacks sit at the back.

Fat people have money too.

If they want to cry about their profits then they need to get in touch with the packaged food industry and tell them to stop adding sugar to everything.

 

[JackLuis]

The obese have the right to two airline seats for the price of one.

Canada ruling. They call the obese "functionally disabled."

As long as they are not "fucktionally disabled."

 

[DirktheKnife]

I think the end result of this are people are going to be charged for their weight (including all luggage)

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The obese have the right to two airline seats for the price of one.

Canada ruling. They call the obese "functionally disabled."

Having just flown the other day...on Southwest, which I will never fly again...I noticed how small the seats have gotten. Luckily, I was able to get a window seat on the flight out and an aisle seat on the flight back. Lucky because on Southwest, if you don't already know, is first come, first served. No assigned seating. Not even a business class section to upgrade too, just an upgrade path that get you to the head of the line. Pay more money get in the plane first. Same seats just in the door first.

Well anyway...I'm of two thoughts on this. One, has me yelling at the top of my lungs, where's my extra seat! The other has me saying put them in business class where the seats are usually wider anyway. Or first class if there are no business class seats.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Canada.

Loonies in, loonies out.

How many loonies does it take to get a ruling from a Canadian court? Just a majority.

Puts the "wide" in "from far and wide, O Canada."

 

[Munachi]

what i am wondering is how they will define who is big enough for two seats and who isn't... is there a specific weight limit?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't agree that resisting the idea is the same as making blacks ride in the back. Nobody is saying they can't sit anywhere with as much consideration as anyone else--they're saying that the vehicle is not designed with people that large in mind.

It takes twice as much seating, then, to accomodate and its being required for free. Screw that.

Don't like it, then pressure an airline to cater to wider seats--reward them with your business if they do. There are enough overweight people in the country to make a market decision about it.

I'm 6'6" and God knows I'm not comfortable on most airlines seats--I fly American when I can because most of their planes accomodate better. I'm hardly going to sue for special treatment and my height is far less controllable than someone's weight (on average).

 

[Liar]

what i am wondering is how they will define who is big enough for two seats and who isn't... is there a specific weight limit?

More like a measure limit, I'd assume. Top heavy take up less ass space than bottom heavy.

 

[SlickTony]

Seat width and legroom in airplanes--at least in Coach--has been shrinking year by year, everybody knows that.

I would not say I'm obese--I just weigh about 30 or so pounds more than I did when I was a green lass. I'm not the size that has to pay for two seats in an airplane, but really, even being my size results in fewer clothing choices, plus not photographing well--it would suck even harder having to pay for two seats in an airplane.

 

[TE999]

Hah! I can see it now. A sign at ticket counters. YOU MUST BE THIS WIDE TO OBTAIN TWO SEATS showing a huge measuring tape and the width marked in red.

"If you'd just put your ass against the sign Mrs. Smith..."

 

[jomar]

Hah! I can see it now. A sign at ticket counters. YOU MUST BE THIS WIDE TO OBTAIN TWO SEATS showing a huge measuring tape and the width marked in red.

"If you'd just put your ass against the sign Mrs. Smith..."

"And no leaning against the sign, please."

 

[SlickTony]

Except it would be "if you are more than THIS WIDE you MUST pay for two seats."

 

[DesertPirate]

Just more of the "lets not hold anyone responsible for their actions" crapola

 

[Katyusha]

I don't agree that resisting the idea is the same as making blacks ride in the back. Nobody is saying they can't sit anywhere with as much consideration as anyone else--they're saying that the vehicle is not designed with people that large in mind.

It takes twice as much seating, then, to accomodate and its being required for free. Screw that.

Don't like it, then pressure an airline to cater to wider seats--reward them with your business if they do. There are enough overweight people in the country to make a market decision about it.

I'm 6'6" and God knows I'm not comfortable on most airlines seats--I fly American when I can because most of their planes accomodate better. I'm hardly going to sue for special treatment and my height is far less controllable than someone's weight (on average).

I don't agree either. Your skin color/heritage/ethnicity is not something you have any control over. You can't change it regardless of how you're treated because of it. And, the same thing applies to one's height. You are the height you are and unless you want to cut your legs off, you will be that height for the rest of your life. A lot of disabilities are things you can't change either; once you become disabled in some way you can be that way for the rest of your life whether you like it or not.

However, weight can be controlled and changed. People may be born with a predisposition towards obesity, yes, but there are ways to prevent it from happening anyway and if one is obese, one can still lose weight. Is it difficult? Of course. But the obese need to do what they can to lose weight anyway for health reasons. Because obesity is not an inherent, permanent condition, I don't think it's fair to force businesses to cater to it if doing so means losing revenue. JMO

 

[ottohauser1977]

Just more of the "lets not hold anyone responsible for their actions" crapola

For once, I agree. This is absurd. If you eat so much that you're that obese, you should be willing to pay the extra cost, just as smokers must pay the money for cigarettes and the tobacco tax. Which I think should be raised again to pay for national health insurance, but that's just my opinion.

 

[gauchecritic]

Just more of the "lets not hold anyone responsible for their actions" crapola

especially if there's a profit involved.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

However, weight can be controlled and changed. People may be born with a predisposition towards obesity, yes, but there are ways to prevent it from happening anyway and if one is obese, one can still lose weight. Is it difficult? Of course. But the obese need to do what they can to lose weight anyway for health reasons. Because obesity is not an inherent, permanent condition, I don't think it's fair to force businesses to cater to it if doing so means losing revenue. JMO

And in the mean time, they should pay for two seats?

The question of whether or not it's an inherent condition is irrelevant. It's a culturally bred condition. There is sugar and high fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING... the Western world has been reduced (or increased?) to this place by its own doing. For the very same reason that airline companies don't want big folks to have two seats for the price of one - PROFIT.

I think the Canadian ruling rocks. Give the airlines back some of their medicine. The bottom line shouldn't be about cash - it should be about people, their health and their comfort.

There should be affordable, organic locally grown produce, and grass-fed protein EVERYWHERE - including inner cities (where most stores won't even carry produce, let alone organic...) and packaged and fast foods should be shut down or forced not to use preservatives, additives, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, etc. (The latter of which would, essentially, achieve the former...)

Until that happens, we are going to continue to live in a world where eating crap is profitable for the corporations and cheap for the consumer, and those who are genetically predisposed to weight gain are going to gain it, unless they go way the hell out of their way to prevent/avoid it to begin with.

Remember, fat cells are forever. Once you've put the pounds on, your body struggles to keep them. So feeding children the CRAP they put in school lunches, or even Jif peanut butter and Smuckers jelly on white bread, is simply breeding more of the (very profitable and very unhealthy) same.

I don't care if it's "fair" to the companies to make them lose revenue - boo freaking hoo. Is it fair to feed the American people garbage just because it's profitable? To decrease the size of seating on airplanes to child-size? (Let alone adult plus size?)

When corporations can start looking beyond their greedy, psychotic masks and acknowledge that every day, their profit-seeking is doing nothing but more-quickly killing the consumers it would behoove them to keep healthy and comfortable, then maybe we can talk about "fair."

 

[oggbashan]

I don't fly.

Not because I'm too wide for the seats but because my skeletal condition means that I cannot bend to fit into the seats. Even in the higher classes I would have real difficulty remaining in the seat for more than half an hour.

I'm not registered as disabled because I can walk reasonable distances and do most things except bend.

There are many people like me who have real problems with the reduced size of airplane seats and their tight spacing.

Back to the train and ship...

Og

 

[Munachi]

i must say that when i just think about me personally, i don't care whether someone has to pay two seats, or gets them for the price of one - but that i do think there has to be a solution one way or the other against taking up their own one seat, and half of the one next to them. hasn't happened to me in an airplane so far - but in long bus rides, that someone large sat next to me and assumed that because i am small (I am not even all that thin, just normal for my height, but i am pretty short so i look small) i am fine with being crushed into the corner. i am very uncomfortable with body contact with strangers, i can live with it when it is for a short time (like in public transport within the city) or not that close (like if the arms touch a bit in an airplane or bus ride, i am okay), but having the whole side of my body being in constant contact with a sweaty elderly guy for ten or twelve hours is an experience i would very much like not to repeat...

as to who is responsible for the seating there, though, i really can't say. making people pay two seats, when their size might even be a health condition they can't control, or else thanks to wrong nourishment already in their childhood, when they couldn't control it, seems unfair to me... but giving someone two seats for the price of one, seems unfair in the other direction... but i guess there is not really a solution in the middle of the two...

 

[Kev H]

as to who is responsible for the seating there, though, i really can't say. making people pay two seats, when their size might even be a health condition they can't control, or else thanks to wrong nourishment already in their childhood, when they couldn't control it, seems unfair to me... but giving someone two seats for the price of one, seems unfair in the other direction... but i guess there is not really a solution in the middle of the two...

Heh, why not compromise for all? In these days of hard-to-sell airline seating, the deal should be "buy one seat, get the next at half price"--and this deal should go for everyone. Of course the airlines would calculate their expected "bargains" into the overall ticket pricing, like they do for everything from fuel to service and support. A passenger could get the "cost savings" by only buying one seat, while those who love their elbow room (or are overly rounded) could feel less of an outlier, since they are participating in an offer that everyone can do--no special allowances for rampant body fat.

If the seating fills up, then so be it--enough of that and the airlines will go back to increasing their routes. Hell, any about-average (6-foot) male knows the seats are designed for small women and children--it's simply a fact of life for those who need/want to fly. Complaining about it (or sticking it to the airlines) does not seem very productive to me.

 

[trysail]

Profit? In the commercial aviation industry? You must be joking! Nobody has ever made any money in the entire history of the commercial aviation business.



"Now the other great invention in the first half of the century was the airplane. In this period from 1919 to 1939, there were about two hundred companies. Imagine if you could have seen the future of the airline industry back there at Kitty Hawk. You would have seen a world undreamed of. But assume you had the insight, and you saw all of those people wishing to fly and to visit their relatives or run away from their relatives or whatever you do in an airplane, and you decided this was the place to be.

As of a couple of years ago, there had been zero money made from the aggregate of all stock investments in the airline industry in history.

So I submit to you: I really like to think that if I had been down there at Kitty Hawk, I would have been farsighted enough and public-spirited enough to have shot Orville down. I owed it to future capitalists."

-Warren E. Buffett
(as quoted by Alice Schroeder)

-Alice Schroeder
The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life.
New York, 2008.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Heh, why not compromise for all? In these days of hard-to-sell airline seating, the deal should be "buy one seat, get the next at half price"--and this deal should go for everyone. Of course the airlines would calculate their expected "bargains" into the overall ticket pricing, like they do for everything from fuel to service and support. A passenger could get the "cost savings" by only buying one seat, while those who love their elbow room (or are overly rounded) could feel less of an outlier, since they are participating in an offer that everyone can do--no special allowances for rampant body fat.

If the seating fills up, then so be it--enough of that and the airlines will go back to increasing their routes. Hell, any about-average (6-foot) male knows the seats are designed for small women and children--it's simply a fact of life for those who need/want to fly. Complaining about it (or sticking it to the airlines) does not seem very productive to me.

Best suggestion yet, Kev

 

[Kev H]

You're probably trying to be contrary or beside-the-point-ish, but , damn Trysail, that's an amusing quote.

Profit? In the commercial aviation industry? You must be joking! Nobody has ever made any money in the entire history of the commercial aviation business.



"Now the other great invention in the first half of the century was the airplane. In this period from 1919 to 1939, there were about two hundred companies. Imagine if you could have seen the future of the airline industry back there at Kitty Hawk. You would have seen a world undreamed of. But assume you had the insight, and you saw all of those people wishing to fly and to visit their relatives or run away from their relatives or whatever you do in an airplane, and you decided this was the place to be.

As of a couple of years ago, there had been zero money made from the aggregate of all stock investments in the airline industry in history.

So I submit to you: I really like to think that if I had been down there at Kitty Hawk, I would have been farsighted enough and public-spirited enough to have shot Orville down. I owed it to future capitalists."

-Warren E. Buffett
(as quoted by Alice Schroeder)

-Alice Schroeder
The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life.
New York, 2008.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"I owed it to future capitalists" Anyone else see the oxymoron in that statement?