Ship of Fools: Chub class for fat airline passengers?

Thread: Chub class for fat airline passengers? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023165

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Airbus is going to give obese passengers an extra two inches as aisle seat will increase to twenty inches wide, but the other seats will reduce by one inch.

Here is the link - apologies for making you read the Mail!

"Squeezing into a 'cattle class' airline seat is about to get a lot easier for the overweight traveller – but at the expense of more slimline passengers. The growing girth of flyers has prompted aircraft manufacturer Airbus to design extra-wide seats for its popular A320 jets. But it will shrink the size of ordinary economy-class seats so that each flight can still carry the same number of people."

This annoys me. I always book aisle seats as I feel less restricted. Now it looks as if I'll have to pay extra - even though I am slim! Either that or I put up with smaller seats in the centre or by the window, the worst choice all round.

I much prefer easyjet's policy - they ask obese passengers to buy an adjacent seat at a discounted price before they board the plane. This is the right way round - the fat people pay more. Obesity is a choice imo - and fair enough that fat people have to pay more, it might even encourage them to lose weight if they are frequent flyers.

But why should slim people who prefer an isle seat lose money? I fly a lot as my son lives abroad, so this feels like no small inconvenience to me.

What do you think shipmates?

<fixed link>

[ 17. June 2012, 08:10: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

easy solution. 110kg weight limit for all passengers, that's the weight of passenger and luggage combined. That way the wide seats will have a surcharge.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Obesity is a choice imo

You've not read much research on the subject then.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

Companies are not interested in rewarding or punishing *right/wrong* lifestyle choices (not getting into whether obesity can be quite so simply considered a *choice*) but in income. If the majority of customers are larger, then that is who they will cater for - cf. the clothing industry.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Obesity is a choice imo
You've not read much research on the subject then.

I haven't read any research on the subject. But I do know that I have struggled with my weight all my life. I have to work very hard to keep slim (unlike the rest of my family who seem to eat what they like and stay the same size)

Why then should I pay extra for an aisle seat, opposite someone who didn't bother with the weight struggle at all?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Obesity is a choice imo
You've not read much research on the subject then.
I haven't read any research on the subject. But I do know that I have struggled with my weight all my life. I have to work very hard to keep slim (unlike the rest of my family who seem to eat what they like and stay the same size)

Why then should I pay extra for an aisle seat, opposite someone who didn't bother with the weight struggle at all?

How do you know they didn't bother? Maybe they struggled and failed, possibly because it was even more difficult for them than it was for you. Being overweight isn't (necessarily) a moral failing.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Smokers pay dear for their habit and so should compulsive eaters .

Giving up smoking is far from easy, and I'm sure giving up eating excessive amounts of food is just as difficult.
I sympathise with both.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How do you know they didn't bother? Maybe they struggled and failed, possibly because it was even more difficult for them than it was for you. Being overweight isn't (necessarily) a moral failing.

Fair point, if they did struggle and fail, then let them pay for two seats.

But I didn't say moral failing, I said choice. We all make lifestyle choices and some of them are not good for us (I know I do). But when it comes to space on planes then our size affects others in a big way.

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
when it comes to space on planes then our size affects others in a big way.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
but the other seats will reduce by one inch.

The answer is obvious. Those who find losing weight easy will have no problems losing a few more lbs to shrink the required inch.

As a customer you have every right to boycott airlines that you believe are penalising you for being the 'right' size - that's how the market place is meant to work.

However, if there's a demand for larger seats then no airline is going to refuse to cater for it on the basis of what is morally right. If indeed you can prove being slim is a result of moral rectitude, which seems to be rather undermined by your own account of your family members eating whatever they want and yet being slim.

[ 17. June 2012, 10:05: Message edited by: Arrietty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:

As a customer you have every right to boycott airlines that you believe are penalising you for being the 'right' size - that's how the market place is meant to work.

It's the manufacturers who are changing the planes, and so many airlines use airbus - I doubt it will be long before there is no choice for customers, except to pay more. Just as there is no choice for taking hold baggage, you pay more whether it's by using expensive airlines or surcharges.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
If indeed you can prove being slim is a result of moral rectitude, which seems to be rather undermined by your own account of your family members eating whatever they want and yet being slim.

I have already said that being slim isnothing to do with moral rectitude.

It is, in my opinion, a choice (a difficult one for me as it's daily hard work). Am I jealous of those who find it easy to stay slim? You bet I am!

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Why should fat people get cut any slack, and expect others to subsidise them? I'm six foot six and weigh ninety kg. I would very much like to see the seat depth increased on planes so that I don't by default end up with my knees around my ears when I get aboard. In practice I end up paying an extra twenty five quid for an extra-leg room seat. Fat people should have to pay for an extra seat if they don't fit into a standard one. I don't care whose fault it is that they are obese. I have to live with my height and pay the price - same rules should apply.

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
If indeed you can prove being slim is a result of moral rectitude, which seems to be rather undermined by your own account of your family members eating whatever they want and yet being slim.
I have already said that being slim isnothing to do with moral rectitude.

It is, in my opinion, a choice (a difficult one for me as it's daily hard work). Am I jealous of those who find it easy to stay slim? You bet I am!

You seem to be saying it's a choice to be slim, except for those who are effortlessly slim.

In the same way, it could be a choice to be fat, except for those who are for various reasons unable to reduce their weight? You say you haven't read any research on this but the idea that reducing calorie intake in itself reduces weight is overly simplistic. And AFAIK, no slimming club has produced any stats to show that the long term effect of their regimes is permanent maintenance of weight loss in the majority of members which sort of speaks for itself in terms of simple calorie reduction as a permanent weight loss strategy.

Your basic point - that airlines should not accommodate fat passengers - is down to market forces. If you really feel strongly about it you can exercise consumer choice or exert consumer pressure. I find it unlikely many airlines look at Purgatory before formulating policy but you never know.

[ 17. June 2012, 10:33: Message edited by: Arrietty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
And AFAIK, no slimming club has produced any stats to show that the long term effect of their regimes is permanent maintenance of weight loss in the majority of members which sort of speaks for itself in terms of simple calorie reduction as a permanent weight loss strategy.

This is very true. If people who go to slimming clubs return to their previous diets the pounds will creep back on, of course.

In this world of high calorie food and drinks filled with corn fructose, permanent weight loss isn't a short term 'slimming club' style regime - it's a life long effort to avoid the prevailing food culture.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I think it is all a ramp to charge more for space. At the moment, airlines can sell the extra legroom in the emergency exit rows for a premium - but there can only be so many of those on a plane. So if you can't gain more space lengthwise then - aha! - there's crosswise. 'Give us more money and you can be that teeny bit more comfortable. Most of you won't of course, and will travel in (even more) cramped misery. Like we care; it's not as if you have that much choice for long- distances, is it?'

It's not about who's fat or thin, but who's prepared to pay.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

I'm a fan of larger passengers having a spot on the plane with wider seats, but not at the expense of one inch less in my seat!

I once was on a 12.5 hour packed out flight over-seas and wound up sitting next to a rather larger Italian gentleman who just didn't fit where they'd put him. It was miserable! His bulk was shoving me out into the aisle where I kept getting hit by the drink cart. [Frown]

It would be nice if they had a section in the back or front of coach where instead of eight seats across they fit seven wider ones. Hell, I wouldn't even complain if they wanted to give out free bumps up to business class for those who didn't fit in the coach seats.

Of course, they'd never do that for the reasons Firenze mentions.

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

Not being a massive Daily Mail fan, I went looking for other sources. According to the Huffington Post, only two American airlines have even expressed an interest in buying the aircraft with the extra-wide seats.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I'm a fan of larger passengers having a spot on the plane with wider seats, but not at the expense of one inch less in my seat!

Got it in one!

I think this person has the right idea, have the wide seats in the aisles - but only charge those who spill out of normal seats.

Then we can choose isle seats but only pay if we are obese - a nice incentive to get slim!

quote:
The answer is quite simple! Just as some airlines have 'sizer' boxes at the departure gate into which one has to put hand luggage to ensure it fits into overhead lockers, they should have 'sizer' seats for passengers to quickly sit in to ensure that they will fit comfortably into the cabin seats, if not, charge them to use two seats or wider seats. This would ensure everyone's comfort and safety............

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Obesity is a choice imo
You've not read much research on the subject then.

That, IMO, is not the point. Flying is a choice. Yes it is inconvenient if you cannot fly, but we have become so dependent on being able to fly anywhere we want that we no longer treat it as a choice.

Or pay more, go business class or go to an airline that has all wide enough seats. And probably pay more.

It is one of the problems of the airline industry today that we do not pay enough for our flights.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Just as some airlines have 'sizer' boxes at the departure gate into which one has to put hand luggage to ensure it fits into overhead lockers, they should have 'sizer' seats for passengers to quickly sit in to ensure that they will fit comfortably into the cabin seats, if not, charge them to use two seats or wider seats.

Because with queues for security and removing coats, jackets, cardigans, belts, shoes, unpacking bags to take out laptops, iPads and toiletries, with body scans and pat-down searches and being photographed and showing passes and ID here there and everywhere - there's not nearly enough delay and humiliation involved in getting on an aeroplane as it is.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Which is why some of us have elected not to travel by air anymore unless absolutely and unavoidably necessary. Now here's yet another reason -- fattie class!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Because with queues for security and removing coats, jackets, cardigans, belts, shoes, unpacking bags to take out laptops, iPads and toiletries, with body scans and pat-down searches and being photographed and showing passes and ID here there and everywhere - there's not nearly enough delay and humiliation involved in getting on an aeroplane as it is.

It's a fair point, but the idea of having to sit in a size chair may be just the incentive many need to lose those pounds!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's the manufacturers who are changing the planes, and so many airlines use airbus - I doubt it will be long before there is no choice for customers, except to pay more.

Wrong. Airbus have simply announced that they will offer that option because they have a reasonable belief that some airlines might order that option.

Interior specifications are set by the airline, and if this option proves unpopular then the airlines would not order it. There is always the option of switching to an airline not using this interior specification or not choosing to fly.

I would prefer a "sizer" seat (or a doorway, this would easily separate those unfit to fly because they would be the only ones left on the entry side) of some kind in the terminal for everybody anyway. Either that or a refund when some lardarse spills over into the seat I paid for.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Boogie, just GET OVER IT that fat people need more incentives to get slim!

As if daily humiliation, laughter in the streets, discrimination at work, lesser salaries, health problems, and crappy clothing choices weren't enough.

I went so far as to deliberately cripple myself through surgery in order to lose weight. Now I suffer with the results at every meal, and I'd do it again. It wasn't incentive I was lacking, it was ability. And I'm not talking willpower. I have that in spades.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Just recently I was mentioning to friends that I thought they should take one inch off of the aisle and window seats and add two inches to the center seat --it would make that seat less dreaded. If they actually take an inch off the center seat it will make it suitable only for small children, and the window seat almost as bad.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Don't worry, Boogie, we obese passengers are suitably punished for our 'choice' to be fat even if we get the aisle seats. After all we're bound to 'overhang' it, and get battered and beaten every time the refreshments trolly motors up and down, to say nothing of fast-moving skinny people galumphing through with luggage, handbags and badly placed elbows and knees.

Besides everyone can still sit and point at us and laugh, or shake their heads, tutting, if they reckon that travelling in a plane with a little bit of comfort is too good for the likes of us [Big Grin]

.

Okay. I know that's not your point (mainly). I'd be happy to pay extra for a seat that fits. Don't know how an aircraft could be best fitted out. 'Fat' seats would need to be dispersed among the 'normals' eg, because some people will need to sit together regardless of bmi. And how could one plan seating without knowing the consistent proportion of fatties to skinnies?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Which is why some of us have elected not to travel by air anymore unless absolutely and unavoidably necessary. Now here's yet another reason -- fattie class!

Part of the evil plot, of course, to keep you thin people on the ground, where it's easier to crush you with our mighty bingo wings and cankles [Devil]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'd be happy to pay extra for a seat that fits. Don't know how an aircraft could be best fitted out. 'Fat' seats would need to be dispersed among the 'normals' eg, because some people will need to sit together regardless of bmi. And how could one plan seating without knowing the consistent proportion of fatties to skinnies?

I also think that weight needs to be evenly distributed on planes - of course it costs more fuel to fly more weight too. So I would have the aisle seats as airbus seem to be moving towards - but only charge the fatties for using them!

Sorry to be fattest - it's because I'm back on the my healthy diet after 'time off' while visiting my sons over the past couple of months. Those few extra pounds will disappear and the straight and narrow path will be resumed - but I can't say I enjoy the process.

I'm jealous - plain and simple. (Both of the fatties who don't care how big they become and the skinnies who don't need to watch what they eat!) This article simply underlined my jealousy. Not only do I 'choose' to keep slim, but I'm also going to get even less space on planes, or be charged more.

:frowning smilie - not the blue sad one or the flaming angry one - just a grumpy, sugar craving frowning one:

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I hate to post and run, but for those who might be interested, here's a post that has links to research stating body size is not a diagnosis, and it goes on to discuss some of the stigma that is put on people.

I'm 325 pounds, but I can fit in an airline seat. I had to fly next to someone who seemed to be less than that, but had broad shoulders that impressed into my space. Can I force that dude to buy a second seat because he annoys me?

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

Well here's the thing - I thought I was 'effortlessly' slim when I ate what I liked - largely a healthy diet but plenty of it - but it just turns out I walked a lot without even thinking about it.

Then a series of health problems stopped me walking freely and lo and behold, my 'healthy' diet on its own was not enough to keep me slim any more.

But - here's the Catch 22 - through trial and error I discovered that all the main slimming club low calorie diets - which are by and large low fat as well - have 2 side effects which I thought were psychosomatic - depression and IBS - but which it turns out are known effects of low fat diets. So it was a question of balancing out one set of side effects with another set, but avoiding depression tends to outweigh most other things for me.

Then I invested in personal training sessions twice a week when my mum died, which over three years may have taken about a stone (14lbs) off me but more importantly has improved my core muscle strength and my stamina.

When I was rushed to hospital with a gall bladder abscess last year, I came out with strict instructions to eat NO FAT which I adhered to apart from a very small amount of oil a week to try and offset the mental effects, which weren't very good.

And guess what - I've lost maybe another half stone (8 lbs) over 8 months. Fortunately I wasn't counting on losing loads of weight, but it does show that my body doesn't give up its fat stores easily.

I'm now in the weird position of having come out of hospital after having my gall bladder out with a firm instruction NOT to attempt a slimming diet for at least 6 weeks because the body needs a lot of nutrition for my wounds to heal.

Quite frankly in the grand scheme of things I couldn't give a toss if I have to pay more for a bigger seat, at least I'm still here to enjoy the flight.

[ 17. June 2012, 14:39: Message edited by: Arrietty ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Which is why some of us have elected not to travel by air anymore unless absolutely and unavoidably necessary. Now here's yet another reason -- fattie class!
Part of the evil plot, of course, to keep you thin people on the ground, where it's easier to crush you with our mighty bingo wings and cankles .

I'm with Amanda. While aeroplanes are wonderful and recreational flying great fun, air travel is awful and airports are worse. This makes me look even harder for an alternative. Any alternative.

I still have a hope of zero-carbon commercial cross-atlantic airships in my lifetime.

[ 17. June 2012, 14:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Couldn't agree more, Sioni Sais. Airports are a circle of hell all on their own. And my antipathy to being 35,000 feet above God's good earth is very, very strong. If I ever find myself in such a position, you can be sure it's not for the joy of depriving someone of two inches of their usual seat width. I'd much rather be totally unconscious in a crate in the hold along with the luggage, preferably in the part where they put transported animals, so I can breathe.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I am thinnn

Whenever I fly I do so in economy class.

And losing an inch or so of my seat will just make the whole exercise even more uncomfortable.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Part of the evil plot, of course, to keep you thin people on the ground.

Miss Amanda is no skinny Minnie, although she should probably take that as a compliment.

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
If they actually take an inch off the center seat it will make it suitable only for small children.

Which opens up another whole chapter on the discomforts of flying. I've always felt that small children should be securely stowed in the overhead compartments.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:

When I was rushed to hospital with a gall bladder abscess last year, I came out with strict instructions to eat NO FAT which I adhered to apart from a very small amount of oil a week to try and offset the mental effects, which weren't very good.

And guess what - I've lost maybe another half stone (8 lbs) over 8 months. Fortunately I wasn't counting on losing loads of weight, but it does show that my body doesn't give up its fat stores easily.

I had my gall bladder out too - my very first meal after the op was fish and chips from a chippy - yum!

The real monster in the obesity epidemic is not fat, it is sugar - especially corn syrup, which didn't exist in our diets until the 1970s. It is now to be found in nearly all processed foods and drinks.

[ 17. June 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The real monster in the obesity epidemic is not fat, it is sugar - especially corn syrup, which didn't exist in our diets until the 1970s. It is now to be found in nearly all processed foods and drinks.

You were watching "the men who made us fat" too then.

Obesity is not a persons choice, substantially. It is a society epidemic, not just an individual epidemic.

I have been on a low carb diet for 6 weeks now. It is interesting to notice how much food is high carb, and so potentially leading to increased obesity. It is not just about people making bad choices, it is about people not being given the information to make the right choices.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is not just about people making bad choices, it is about people not being given the information to make the right choices.

Having taken the trouble to educate myself -- and the food industry doesn't make it easy, so it's a fair amount of trouble, and I don't blame people a whole lot if they don't -- I can tell you that having the information to make the right choices doesn't make it a whole lot easier to make them in an environment that is weighted heavily toward making the wrong ones. Pun intended.

Airline pricing policies are already deeply unfair. Prices on any given flight can change as much as three times a day. If you buy at the wrong time you can pay hundreds of dollars more than the person in the seat next to you did. American airlines aren't even making money and never have. This is just one more stupid thing in a complete farce of a "service" industry.

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The real monster in the obesity epidemic is not fat, it is sugar - especially corn syrup, which didn't exist in our diets until the 1970s. It is now to be found in nearly all processed foods and drinks.

Yes, refined and processed food are the real villains. Most manufactured low calorie foods simply substitute fat with sugars and methyl cellulose (which is not that much different from wallpaper paste) to bulk them up. Of course your body knows it isn't getting what it needs nutritionally and so you're still hungry.

I've been to all the main slimming clubs at least twice, and temporarily lost weight with all of them. It's often claimed that they offer peer group support but I can honestly say, having always religiously stayed for the sessions as you are urged to, that mostly they are pushing as many branded diet foods and other products as they can at you.

I watched a fascinating programme on late night telly when I couldn't get to sleep last week which gave 10 scientifically proven ways of increasing weight loss. One section showed that we may genuinely forget how much we've eaten, even when recording it as faithfully as we can. But the other 9 points were all to do with what makes us feel fuller and what makes us more prone to over-eat, and none of it had anything much to do with will power.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've always felt that small children should be securely stowed in the overhead compartments.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've always felt that small children should be securely stowed in the overhead compartments.

Just for you - Enjoy!

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

I'm fairly slim, but I really need personal space. I would not be happy with losing even an inch off a seat. I find that when I need to sit on an aisle seat on the bus (I don't travel by plane, but I travel by bus a lot so I'll use the bus as an example) I sit on only half the seat so that I don't touch the person next to me. Most other people do not return this favour and as a result their bodies end up touching mine which I find horrible.

Plus the other thing I wanted to say is that obesity is not always caused by lifestyle choices. I am very aware that a number of medications can cause weight gain, as I am on one such medication and without it I would barely function with how disabling the symptoms I'm on it for are. I have been lucky to avoid the rather common weight gain side effect, but many others are not so lucky.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Sorry to be fattest - it's because I'm back on the my healthy diet after 'time off' while visiting my sons over the past couple of months. Those few extra pounds will disappear and the straight and narrow path will be resumed - but I can't say I enjoy the process.

It's very nice for you that those extra pounds will disappear. It doesn't work that way for all of us.

Three months ago my doctor changed my meds, and I have gained ten pounds since then. My eating habits have not changed.

Not all people are physiologically identical.

Moo

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

*isle* is actually spelled *aisle* in this context

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I haven't read any research on the subject.

Respect FAIL

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've always felt that small children should be securely stowed in the overhead compartments.
Just for you - Enjoy!

I love it!
[Killing me]

But I'm surprised the other passengers weren't appluading. (And who ever saw an airplane with an overhead bin that wasn't stuffed full?)

Posted by Deputy Verger (# 15876) on :

quote:
Balaam said:
easy solution. 110kg weight limit for all passengers, that's the weight of passenger and luggage combined.

I've long thought it was unfair that the baggage weight limit applies equally to a small person and a heavy one. I like the idea of a standard range - quite a wide range for the sake of simplicity. If you are under it you get a little discount, if you are over it you get a surcharge.

But I'm with Miss Amanda. The process of air travel has become so obnoxious that I just avoid doing it.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've always felt that small children should be securely stowed in the overhead compartments.
Just for you - Enjoy!

Make that man a saint! Thanks. You've given me a good laugh.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
... I much prefer easyjet's policy - they ask obese passengers to buy an adjacent seat at a discounted price before they board the plane. This is the right way round - the fat people pay more. Obesity is a choice imo - and fair enough that fat people have to pay more, it might even encourage them to lose weight if they are frequent flyers. ...

In Canada, the rule is one person, one fare. Persons who are considered disabled because of their obesity and provide medical documentation to the airline are entitled to an additional seat at no cost. (Same applies to those who need an attendant in-flight.) The Supreme Court declined to hear the airlines' appeal, so that is the law of the land. OliviaG

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Which is why some of us have elected not to travel by air anymore unless absolutely and unavoidably necessary. Now here's yet another reason -- fattie class!

Pretty much my reaction too. Unfortunately my work means that I have to fly back East with some frequency. It would please me greatly if I could persuade them to have all National meetings in St Louis!

My problem has never been butt room, but shoulder space. If the person sitting next to me requires extensive air rights too I usually end up sitting slightly twisted and as a result I usually end up with a bad back.

PD

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Come sit by me, PD, we'd be like a two piece puzzle.

I'm on a diet right now but a little voice keeps reminding me that, even if I don't go off the plan, my metabolism is dropping at an alarming rate, in keeping with the perceived famine, and that my deflated fat cells are frantically screaming to be plumped back up, and that 97% of all dieters regain their lost weight within a few years. I imagine the other 3% become heroin addicts.

If we have to pay extra for our seats do we get extra food?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I just did the cross country thing for Grandma's funeral and it was hell. I no longer overflow my space (though doubtless I will if they steal another inch!) but the guy next to me had huge shoulders, and I'm rather oversupplied with shoulder width myself. The result was a backache that lasted until the plane ride home (o joy) when the cause was reiterated. Of course it was the middle seat. Fortunately, I was related to the person on the other side, but still...

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm very sure it shouldn't involve making seats even smaller. I'm surprised nobody's sued the socks off the industry already for deep vein thrombosis (sp?), and expect that eventually just that will happen. If prices need to be raised across the board to make human life endurable (truth-in-pricing stuff), I guess it ought to happen. Better than paying it to the hospital, or God forbid, the cemetery.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Several things in response to some things on this thread.

First, depending on where you live, flying may not be optional. Driving for 4 days and nights to get somewhere is just not on. And there are no trains for passengers. There is the bus, which will drive 20 of 24 hours. Not in good shape when you get there. It is either fly or don't go.

Second, travel is very expensive here. We can't get to the Maritime provinces for less than about $1000. It can be 2-4 times that to go to the arctic.

I've not had the problem of sitting beside someone whose seating created problems that weren't solved by politely raising the problem with the passenger or the flight attendants. I've flown a lot. I assume that on airplanes that no one really wants to bother anyone else, that often people are stressed, and that we have a chance to help others while travelling. Good will goes a long way. But then I'm one of those people who always greets everyone and assumes that others want to communicate. And they always do, usually talking more than I. If you're sitting beside someone who is 'big', I'd recommend starting a conversation. I'm sure that they didn't set out to bother you, and they may have run into others not as kind and decent as you.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Turns out it's all a fuss over nothing and nobody is losing anything.

The current seats in the Airbus A320 are about 25mm (one inch) wider than the seats in the Boeing 737, which is considered the industry standard plane in the short/medium-haul sector, especially in the USA where Boeing is subsidised by the taxpayer. Airbus are proposing to offer the A320 with three-seat rows featuring with two standard-width seats and one seat that is about 50mm wider than standard. So even if airlines did replace old 737 airframes with the new standard-standard-wide A320 layout, it's still an improvement compared to the 737.

It's Boeing that people need to be annoyed at for setting the industry standard in that sector of the market so low. In addition to the seats being worse, a 737 is also a far nastier jet that is somewhat lesser in comfort than a public transport bus with wings. If Boeing raised the standard for short/medium-haul jets then Airbus wouldn't get away with reducing the A320 to meet those standards.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Missed the edit time thanks to slow internet.

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
...two standard-width seats...

Standard-width referring to the 737 seats here, not the wider current A320 seats.

There are many more 737s in service, this is why it's the de facto standard for short/medium-distance flights. It's a poor standard, last time I used a 737 the public bus home from the airport was a much nicer ride!

[ 18. June 2012, 05:07: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
In Canada, the rule is one person, one fare. Persons who are considered disabled because of their obesity and provide medical documentation to the airline are entitled to an additional seat at no cost. (Same applies to those who need an attendant in-flight.) The Supreme Court declined to hear the airlines' appeal, so that is the law of the land. OliviaG

I love Canada and want to move there - can you get to Germany for £60?

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I love Canada and want to move there - can you get to Germany for £60?

Add a zero and maybe a bit more: so more like £600 will get you here. If you have a skilled trade, like welding, electrician, etc. We're in an economic boom right now in western Canada with many job vacancies. For example, we cannot find office staff for my office right now. We need 2 people. Interviews occur and they don't even return calls when offered the job, and we're upping salary by 20%.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
... I love Canada and want to move there - can you get to Germany for £60?

There's no need. The Germans are all here in the summer. [Biased]

As for setting a minimum seat space standard, there's no financial incentive for an individual airline to offer more room in economy class (and hence fewer seats) if competitors still offer more cramped seats at a lower price. (Business and first class have different economics.) So let's say President Obama writes an executive order for the FAA to set minimum standards for leg and hip/shoulder room to reduce the risks of thrombosis and back pain. I can hear the screams already. Americans have a constitutional right to fly in a veal crate, you know. OliviaG

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0