Supersize Me!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are you obese yourself?
Neither am I old, mentally impaired, deaf, blind, paraplegic/quadraplegic or partially sighted, a child etc, all other causes of delays or extra cost for 'other' airlines passgeners.
Obesity MAY be caused by lifestyle choices, but may not be, of course people like you are ignorant of the facts and make yourself look stupid with dogma.
Mental problems may be caused by drug abuse or sports injuries, disability likewise - why not ban paraplegics injured playing contact sports, after all it was their choice and as for people in wheelchairs due to car crashes or smokers who have problems and cause diversions...............
I am not telling you what to pay for Rainboe, you have the choice to stop flying, it it concerns you so much.
If this legislation ever does propagate outside Canada, all that airlines have to do is limit the number of obese pax on each flight, in the same way that Ryanair restricts the number of pax requiring special assistance.
It really is no big deal, but this question brings out the very worst in human nature.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you realise you pay 72c in the form of a wheelchair levy, even though you do not use one?
Just a little more Socialism.
If I give to Charity, its because I want too. The government gives it away to get votes.
F3G if your feeling sorry for me I will forward an address and you can donate to my retirement fund.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And I pay extra on my phone for 911. And I pay extra on my electricity for those who cannot afford it, and I pay taxes for schools for those who have kids and I pay and I pay and pay.
It's called the price of living in a civilised society.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is not Ryanair imposing the charge- the airports feel they can impose these charges covertly, and the customer (the passengers) will be obliged to pay.
I don't believe the airport in question was ever covert in charging for wheelchairs.
Ryanair chose to take an original course of action, in refusing to pay the fee, that a court ruled as being discriminatory, so they then levied a fee on everyone.
The underpinning logic is precisely the same that the court in Canada appears to have taken, I am sure that the court realises that the airlines will levy (openly or covertly) a recovery fee.
In the opinion of the court (which is empowered to impose such rulings), it is right that people who can't fit into one seat will get two for the same fare.
The passengers still pay and on Ryanair, it's simply made transparent and you know what? When I pay my 72c, I thank God that others are not paying their 72c on my account and that I still have my health.
Guest
Posts: n/a
But civilised society does not mean we pay for those who voluntarily follow an unsocial lifestyle choice. You don't seem able to grasp that.
Some people do choose to over eat or eat the wrong things and become obese.
But there are also others who are obese through no fault of their own; Next time you see your AME, why don't you ask him/her to enlighten you a little?
Let me gently draw you back to the point that you don't grasp - this ruling will benefit the person in the next seat as much as the obese person - I am lucky, I usually fly business class with plenty of room, but I pity the normal or slim person sitting next to a huge person spilling over into their seat - it's for their benefit, too.
I have never been a smoker, but find your comment about lung cancer heartless and despicable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rainboe
I'll stop here too, but would recommend you to research the subject a little more before making statements like you never seen it in Africa, as it is a status symbol in some cultures there (look at me, I can afford to eat a lot) and is absolutely a lifestyle choice.
FYI, look at China over the past 10 years, with the higher calorie diets now affordable for many.
Finally, you might research and recognise the genetic and pyschiatric causes of obesity, which certainly are not lifestyle choices.
Whether the decision travels at all, we'll just have to wait and see.
I'll stop here too, but would recommend you to research the subject a little more before making statements like you never seen it in Africa, as it is a status symbol in some cultures there (look at me, I can afford to eat a lot) and is absolutely a lifestyle choice.
FYI, look at China over the past 10 years, with the higher calorie diets now affordable for many.
Finally, you might research and recognise the genetic and pyschiatric causes of obesity, which certainly are not lifestyle choices.
Whether the decision travels at all, we'll just have to wait and see.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rainboe
Morbid obesity is a lifestyle choice. I don't see obese people like that in Asia or Africa. It's a voluntary western disease. This ruling is a voluntary Canadian disease. Lovely place though it is, it does have some rather frightening liberal views. It is not a judiciary decision that will travel well.
It would be unfortunate if a ruling for a uniquely (sort of) Canadian issue were to be taken as a precedent, but I don't think any other nation is duty-bound to follow. The pro-large (?) movement may make note of this ruling, your courts are free to disregard it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by boardingpass
Will this mean more obese flying ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G: I do get the fact that the people sitting next to the obese pax benefit equally, and I feel sure Rainboe does as well. We have got that point from the first time you posted it.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that we object to paying for that extra seat because we believe that the overwhelming majority of fatties are so by choice.
I have no verifiable figures to back up my belief, and I am willing to bet that neither do you.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that we object to paying for that extra seat because we believe that the overwhelming majority of fatties are so by choice.
I have no verifiable figures to back up my belief, and I am willing to bet that neither do you.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: canada
Age: 40
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"It's bad enough that I pay for free lung cancer treatment for lifelong smokers!"
This is a totally different branch of ethics in my mind...those smokers have usually paid taxes just like everyone else so why shouldn't they? People are reckless by their very nature...that's why we have the Coastguard and Mountain Rescue! By the way i'm a non-smoker and normal size, and cannot believe the ruling. Airlines sell seats, so why should they be made to give 2 away for the price of one?! Totally agree with the legroom for tall people comparison. But then again, i've always been an advocate of passenger + luggage being weighed together in the whole overweight luggage argument. Probably live in far too liberal and PC a country to ever hope for that!!!
"It's bad enough that I pay for free lung cancer treatment for lifelong smokers!"
This is a totally different branch of ethics in my mind...those smokers have usually paid taxes just like everyone else so why shouldn't they? People are reckless by their very nature...that's why we have the Coastguard and Mountain Rescue! By the way i'm a non-smoker and normal size, and cannot believe the ruling. Airlines sell seats, so why should they be made to give 2 away for the price of one?! Totally agree with the legroom for tall people comparison. But then again, i've always been an advocate of passenger + luggage being weighed together in the whole overweight luggage argument. Probably live in far too liberal and PC a country to ever hope for that!!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On consideration, I would say that flying on an airline is not a human right so the general flying population should not be subsidising fellow overweight citizens who elect to fly.
Southwest appear to have an appropriate policy, superbly named too! Customer of Size
Passengers who book a seat which they cannot fit in, and cause the next door passenger distress and inconvience, should compensate the passenger they inconvenience.
I would say the same applies to parents with indisciplined kids
Southwest appear to have an appropriate policy, superbly named too! Customer of Size
Passengers who book a seat which they cannot fit in, and cause the next door passenger distress and inconvience, should compensate the passenger they inconvenience.
I would say the same applies to parents with indisciplined kids
Guest
Posts: n/a
Canadapilot
I think that straight answer is that it's a cost of doing business in Canada, in the same way that equal access for the disabled laws are a cost of doing business in many countries. Your business may not ever see a disabled person, but you still have to provide the access.
What Rainboe, Henry Crun and others are arguing against is that obese people should receive this assistance.
I'm not a politico, but I am a frequent traveller and do sometimes see the unpleasant result of huge people travelling (as in the person in the next seat being squashed), so pragmatically, given that the number of people who would get a "free ride" is likely to be very small, I regard the outcome as okay, especially as the airlines will factor in the cost in the bigger scheme of things and it will be a few cents per passenger, one might regard it as being a very small insurance policy for normal sized Y class pax.
I guess that politicians and others probably see this ruling as costing little, given the big picture and thus not something to exercise themselves about.
In this sense, I also don't mind paying 72c (euro cents) towards the cost of providing wheelchairs for disabled pax, when I travel Ryanair. On other airlines, I don't know what the cost is as they do not charge it separately.
My thought process doesn't even consider whether the wheelchair is required through any personla choice/fault, its clearly the right thing to do.
I do agree with your comments about legroom for tall people, but given that a decision to increase seat pitch would cost an absolute fortune, very much doubt that anyone will address that in the near future.
Rainboe
Purely out of interest, did you know that the definition of morbid obesity is a BMI of 40.0 or above - I'd take a guess that Idi Amin (in the later years, especialy) may well have fallen in this category - any thoughts?
Henry Crun
I do understand that, but you wouldn't be paying for that extra seat, would you? Just a part of that.
To take the Ryanair example, everyone pays 72c.
If you were levied, say 50p (GBP) would you really object to some other person being segregated from a huge person and having a better flight?
In theory, I should object to that more than an economy passenger, because it won't happen to me in business class (spare middle seat or larger seats), but I don't.
Why? Because I take a utilitarian view that it would de-stress the experience and that's a good thing.
Don't take this as being approval of the political decision, but more a pragmatic take on the effect.
Airlines sell seats, so why should they be made to give 2 away for the price of one?!
What Rainboe, Henry Crun and others are arguing against is that obese people should receive this assistance.
I'm not a politico, but I am a frequent traveller and do sometimes see the unpleasant result of huge people travelling (as in the person in the next seat being squashed), so pragmatically, given that the number of people who would get a "free ride" is likely to be very small, I regard the outcome as okay, especially as the airlines will factor in the cost in the bigger scheme of things and it will be a few cents per passenger, one might regard it as being a very small insurance policy for normal sized Y class pax.
I guess that politicians and others probably see this ruling as costing little, given the big picture and thus not something to exercise themselves about.
In this sense, I also don't mind paying 72c (euro cents) towards the cost of providing wheelchairs for disabled pax, when I travel Ryanair. On other airlines, I don't know what the cost is as they do not charge it separately.
My thought process doesn't even consider whether the wheelchair is required through any personla choice/fault, its clearly the right thing to do.
I do agree with your comments about legroom for tall people, but given that a decision to increase seat pitch would cost an absolute fortune, very much doubt that anyone will address that in the near future.
Rainboe
Purely out of interest, did you know that the definition of morbid obesity is a BMI of 40.0 or above - I'd take a guess that Idi Amin (in the later years, especialy) may well have fallen in this category - any thoughts?
Henry Crun
You seem to be incapable of understanding that we object to paying for that extra seat because we believe that the overwhelming majority of fatties are so by choice.
To take the Ryanair example, everyone pays 72c.
If you were levied, say 50p (GBP) would you really object to some other person being segregated from a huge person and having a better flight?
In theory, I should object to that more than an economy passenger, because it won't happen to me in business class (spare middle seat or larger seats), but I don't.
Why? Because I take a utilitarian view that it would de-stress the experience and that's a good thing.
Don't take this as being approval of the political decision, but more a pragmatic take on the effect.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were levied, say 50p (GBP) would you really object to some other person being segregated from a huge person and having a better flight?
F3G, you have an opening waiting for you at No 10.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Continental Europe
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say, the Southwest way of doing it is fantastic. An oversize pax buys two seats, and then provided the flight wasn't oversold, they get a refund! Fabulous, not just win win, but win for everyone!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
this ruling will benefit the person in the next seat as much as the obese person
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Thinking about it, give me a minute.
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panic!
Flying last week discovered I couldn't hook up my seatbelt I thought I'd suddenly become 'super size' until I realised I had the seatbelt wrapped around the armrest...Phew! 
I have read this thread with interest and formed a mental image of the two main protagonists:
Rainboe:
Uniformed in the old BOAC style, 6ft, thin frame and carries himself in the Trevor Howard style....
F3G
One of those blokes you see on reality TV having a stomach band fitted.....
Rainboe:
Uniformed in the old BOAC style, 6ft, thin frame and carries himself in the Trevor Howard style....
F3G
One of those blokes you see on reality TV having a stomach band fitted.....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely make them pay for an extra seat, or take a standard seat and don't bloody whinge.
It doesn't often happen to me, but I absolutely hate it when the next Pax to me is the sweaty and invariably flatulent Chief Test Pilot for Ginsters.
It doesn't often happen to me, but I absolutely hate it when the next Pax to me is the sweaty and invariably flatulent Chief Test Pilot for Ginsters.