Overweight man sues Air France over seat row

[Radio Frequency X]

That absolutely correct. In this thread alone, we've been told that not flying is "just not an option" for some people, whereas it is certainly an option - albeit maybe not an attractive one.

Somewhere down the line, people have confused what is a need and what is a luxury to the point that they use incorrect examples of each. Life is a series of choices. And some of the ones we refuse to take may not be chosen for very good reasons, but they are still choices available to us.

Even if people need something, it doesn't make it the responsibility of others to provide it. People have come to believe that everyone depends on everyone else. We are not freely cooperative individuals, but co-dependants. As co-dependants, we have a right to the efforts of others, to their wealth, property, work, and sacrifice. Why? Because we have need.

This is where the silly idea of, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". This happens with every part of life for these people. They can no longer take responsibility for themselves. They can't take responsibility for their weight, for their plane tickets, or for anything. They pass the buck.

 

[FatMan]

Of course he refused to pay for an extra seat. He's never had to pay for one before on a flight.

And a person who's tall or a bodybuilder have dimensions that are "too large" and yet they do not receive this kind of treatment. That is discrimination.

You are incorrect. I know of quite a few bodybuilders and football players who have had to pay for extra seats before. I've not seen that for tall people, because the dimension in question is width, not height.

And most times a person does not have to pay for an extra seast - only when the flight is near capacity.

 

[Mister_T]

You are incorrect. I know of quite a few bodybuilders and football players who have had to pay for extra seats before. I've not seen that for tall people, because the dimension in question is width, not height

I personally have never seen this. I certainly have never heard of them pulling these groups aside to measure their width in front of everyone.

And most times a person does not have to pay for an extra seast - only when the flight is near capacity.

And this man has flown many times. I'm sure a good percentage of those flights were at full capacity. He had never encountered this problem before.

 

[Mister_T]

Holy Cow!!" - The Scooter Phil Rizzuto

Visit my blogs - FatMan's take on things and The Religious Right Unmasked

BTW, love the blog.

 

[Booko]

That absolutely correct. In this thread alone, we've been told that not flying is "just not an option" for some people, whereas it is certainly an option - albeit maybe not an attractive one.

That's not the point I was making, FatMan. Someone said that "you can just take alternative transportation" and I merely corrected that it's an incorrect assumption to make.

There's always the possibility of just not traveling. Lots of people have that left as their only choice. I don't think we need governmental intevention to remedy all facts of life, nor did I mean to imply any such thing.

Somewhere down the line, people have confused what is a need and what is a luxury to the point that they use incorrect examples of each. Life is a series of choices. And some of the ones we refuse to take may not be chosen for very good reasons, but they are still choices available to us.

The flip side is that people who have no limitations of any sort seem to be blissfully unaware of how easy it would often be to enable those who do have some moderate limitation to have a real life -- just like they do (and take for granted).

I've seen plenty of people in my life decide that they wouldn't budge one inch in their own life, even though it meant 100 others would just have to remain isolated at home.

Oh, it's legal -- but it is moral, or considerate? Hardly.

And to get back on the subject of the guy on the plane -- it seems the problem was he was never asked before to buy a second seat. Seems like someone in the airline has a training issue to deal with. I don't think it's inherently unfair to ask the man to pay for a second seat if the plane is full. If he doesn't like that, then he can get bumped to a later flight that has more room.

But I've also seen too many times in life where "company policy" is used as a hammer against an individual and isn't something that's actually practiced across the board. Whether this is one of those situations, the original article is too vague to really tell.

We've all met people behind the counter at business who treated us ill because we were the wrong gender/color/whatever or just because they felt like throwing their weight around that particular day. And those of us who've worked behind the counter know that there are customers who are stupid and inconsiderate enough to make our jobs more difficult.

For all I know, the customer went off on the guy behind the counter, who was having a bad day, and the situation just got out of hand. It happens.

 

[Booko]

Even if people need something, it doesn't make it the responsibility of others to provide it.

Very true.

They can't take responsibility for their weight...

<wonders when someone will be asked to "take responsibility" for their cancer or heart disease>

Fortunately, I'm not morbidly obese, and I figure it's my problem to deal with the extra pounds I'm carrying, the fact there are darned few places I can eat out, my own difficulties traveling, etc etc. I don't expect my friends or relatives to change what they do to suit me, so I'd hardly expect strangers to do so.

OTOH, I'm rather tired of inconsiderate jerks in real life (i.e. not RF) who assume I'm not "taking responsibility" for a thyroid imbalance, insulin resistance, and food allergies.

What the heck do people think I pay $30K a year for? I'm not going to the doc weekly for the parties. :sarcastic

 

[FatMan]

All I've been trying to say is that the airlines are simply following the written rules they've had in place. I've put baggage on planes that has either exceeded the limitiations of size or weight several times without an issue, but I've also had times that the airline was going to charge me extra.

In the case of the athletes I know getting extra seats, they usually do so without a fuss because they can afford them.

We can always complain that maybe the most tactful way of absolving the situation wasn't taken, but that in itself shouldn't mean the airlines ignore their set standards. They try not to be too draconian unless they are in a situation where they need the space.

It just seemed that the point that was made early on regarding the fact that if you take up more than a seat then you pay for it is being turned into a debate on discrimination of the obese.

 

[FatMan]

BTW, love the blog.

Thank you.

 

[jamaesi]

I fail to see where asking a person who takes up more than one seat to buy another seat violates the principle of "extending equality".

If I read your responses correctly, you want the disabled to have clearly written rules bent to save them embarrassment, or worse yet, discrimination. Whereas I and others are simply asking that the written rules be followed - you take up more than one seat, you pay for it. If you don't like it - choose another form of transportation.

This topic only becomes a matter of discrimination when you present it as such. There is nothing discriminatory about following the rules. Just as it is not discriminatory to measure or weigh somebody's baggage to make sure they fit within the written guidelines.

Actually, it's not called "bending the rules." It's called "leveling the playing field." It's already clearly written, why don't you try looking at the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a matter of discrimination because it is, not because some bleeding heart liberal is making into discrimination. There is a lot of discrimination written into rules- just the fact they're rules doesn't make them right. Slavery was legal and in the rules, the laws, of the USA- did that make it right?

I am talking about the cause of the obesity. How about this jamaesi... Lets say there is an overweight person who takes up two seats booked for a flight that is completely full. Who should be bumped from the flight? A skinny person or the overweight person? Is it not discrimination to always pick the overweight person?

The person who gets taken off is... the person who volunteers to take a later flight! All the people on the plane are offered the option of taking a later flight with the bonus of perks like free flights and meals and discounts. In a completely full flight it's rare someone doesn't take that option.

So are you saying that they measured his waist in public because he was fat? So if he agreed to pay the amount right off the bat they still would measure his waiste just because he is fat? Do you have any evidence of this? If not, then I'm sorry, it is not discrimination.

I've never heard of a skinny person getting their waist measured on a plane for raising a fuss about something.

So people who do not agree with you are promoting eugenetics? How exactly does eugenetics come into the debate? Did someone mention that we should get rid of the fat people somewhere that I did not see?

"I'm not comfortable!"
"Well you have to pay more for comfort..."
"Quit promoting eugenetics!"

That is an excellent response. Somewhere along the way, this topic went from being about following the written rules of an airline to ridding the planet of obese people. Theoroetically, if this debate had stayed on topic, it would have only lasted about 4 posts.

I know you're both intelligent enough to understand sarcasm when you read it. Don't act dumb. This is about discrimination because... oh it is! Obesity is a disability! Treating people differently because of their disability is discrimination!

Becoming fat is a reasonable consequence from eating too much and not exercising. Ride your motorcycle down an animal trail through the woods for the fun of it and see how much money your insurance company will pay you for the damages.

Did you even read Booko's post number 92?

And just a note... I am not talking about people who become obese DUE to a medical condition... To me they should be allowed to follow the same rules as everyone else with a disability that requires special attention by the airlines... Namely that little rule that says you might be required to show medical papers proving your disability.

What might be how you want it to work, but that's not how it works in the real world. Obesity is a disability no matter what the cause was. The definition of disability is NOT based on causes that make abled people warm and fuzzy and feel better about themselves when they patronise and pity us.

 

[FatMan]

Actually, it's not called "bending the rules." It's called "leveling the playing field."

You have continually missed the argument on this thread. It isn't about leveling the playing field, it is about charging a person for the space they take up. why is this such a hard concept to grasp??

If you want a "leveling of the playing field", what is to stop a normal sized person from taking up 2-3 seats just so they can have the same rights as an obese person if the rules weren't enforced?

The point being made from the start of the thread is that airlines have CLEARLY WRITTEN RULES detailing what they will do in the case of somebody exceeding the size of the seat. I'm fairly certain it has passed the muster of the Americans with disabilities Act as well. The point is quite succinct:
"Take up more than a seat and you pay for the extra seat."

I'm really surprised that people who I know are quite intelligent have overblown this thread by missing that very basic point.

 

[jamaesi]

You have continually missed the argument on this thread. It isn't about leveling the playing field, it is about charging a person for the space they take up. why is this such a hard concept to grasp??

Why is discrimination against the disabled such a hard concept to grasp?

If you want a "leveling of the playing field", what is to stop a normal sized person from taking up 2-3 seats just so they can have the same rights as an obese person if the rules weren't enforced?

What is stopping a "normal sized" and NONDISABLED person from taking up as many seats as they want is the fact they aren't disabled and don't need the extra seats.

The point being made from the start of the thread is that airlines have CLEARLY WRITTEN RULES detailing what they will do in the case of somebody exceeding the size of the seat. I'm fairly certain it has passed the muster of the Americans with disabilities Act as well. The point is quite succinct:
"Take up more than a seat and you pay for the extra seat."

Disability laws trump whatever rules a company wants to make up or impose. If they want to pretend they're above it, they've got a lawsuit coming to them.

I'm really surprised that people who I know are quite intelligent have overblown this thread by missing that very basic point.

I'm surprised so many quite intelligent people know nothing about disabilities or disability rights.

 

[FatMan]

There is no such disability law that allows for a person to take up as much room as possible while only paying for the room of a normal sized passenger. Until you can establish that one exists, your argument is without merit.

I'm fairly certain that if a disability law existed that covered that area, airlines would have been forced to make changes. It speaks volumes to me that even the Americans with Disabilities Lobby recognizes that the system that the airlines have instituted is a fair one.

 

[kateyes]

Okay first this isn't about normal and not normal. It is about safety. If a person is large enough that they spill over into the next seat or so large that they cannot use a seat belt with extender there are safety issues involved. Next an airplane's ability to lift off and stay in the air is all about weights and balances. There is an average weight alotted to each butt in a seat on the aircraft. Hypothetically speaking if that weight is 175 lbs and you have a 400 lb person in the seat--the weights and balances are going to be off unless you have the person occupy 2 seats, and that affects the ability of the plane to stay in the air.

For the record if a thinner person wants to purchase 2 seats to have extra room on a long flight--the airlines allow that. I have clients who do that on a regular basis. I also have heavier clients who purchase 2 seats because of the comfort issue. It is generally less expensive than 1st class.

I am a larger person--I don't think this is an issue of discrimination or disabilities(I didn't think that term was PC any longer). It IS a matter of doing what is safest for
all the passengers on the aircraft. This is an issue that is gaining more attention in the press because people are upset about being charged for the second seat--but the truth is there are more heavier people than ever before---and the more there are the larger(no pun intended) and more serious the issue becomes.

 

[jamaesi]

There is no such disability law that allows for a person to take up as much room as possible while only paying for the room of a normal sized passenger. Until you can establish that one exists, your argument is without merit.

I'm fairly certain that if a disability law existed that covered that area, airlines would have been forced to make changes. It speaks volumes to me that even the Americans with Disabilities Lobby recognizes that the system that the airlines have instituted is a fair one.

Try the Air Carrier Access Act which is is to ensure that persons with disabilities will not experience discrimination in "a way consistent with the safe carriage of all passengers."

To get these acts and laws enforced is a slow process (and takes lots of lawsuits and threatening of legal action), but disabled people are getting equality slowly- even if we have to memorise our rights and fight tooth and nail for it.

 

[kateyes]

Okay--gonna stick my neck out here--exactly when and by whom--were overweight people classified as disabled?

I am overweight (it was a real shock to see obese written on my medical chart)--but have NEVER and would NEVER consider myself in any way disabled.

 

[jamaesi]

Okay--gonna stick my neck out here--exactly when and by whom--were overweight people classified as disabled?

I am overweight (it was a real shock to see obese written on my medical chart)--but have NEVER and would NEVER consider myself in any way disabled.

Under the ADA a disability is a person is has, has a record of, or is regarded to have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life function or activity. Obesity counts as one even if you don't consider yourself to be disabled.

 

[kateyes]

Well, thank you for the clarification. Are obese people defined as disabled (I really thought we were supposed to say challenged not disabled) under the disability laws? Are they entitled to disablility payments from the government/social security? And again I would ask--is it really discrimiation if it is an issue that regards the safety of all the passengers on the aircraft. For example--people with challenges(nor children) are not allowed to sit in the exit row because they do not have the capability to get the exit door open. So is requiring a larger than average person to purchase a 2nd seat really discriminatory--if not doing so effects the aircrafts ability to fly?

 

[jamaesi]

Well, thank you for the clarification. Are obese people defined as disabled (I really thought we were supposed to say challenged not disabled) under the disability laws? Are they entitled to disablility payments from the government/social security?

It's disabled. Let's not mock PC here- it has done a lot of good. I'd rather be called disabled than "cripple" or "gimp" or all those other horrible terms used to lower people like mine's humanity and value.

If their disability prevents them from working- then yes, they are able to apply for assistance.

And again I would ask--is it really discrimiation if it is an issue that regards the safety of all the passengers on the aircraft. For example--people with challenges(nor children) are not allowed to sit in the exit row because they do not have the capability to get the exit door open. So is requiring a larger than average person to purchase a 2nd seat really discriminatory--if not doing so effects the aircrafts ability to fly?

Disabled people can sit in seats that provided for them or areas that won't get into anyone else's way or effects their safety. That's what the law says, them's the breaks.

 

[FatMan]

Try the Air Carrier Access Act which is is to ensure that persons with disabilities will not experience discrimination in "a way consistent with the safe carriage of all passengers."

To get these acts and laws enforced is a slow process (and takes lots of lawsuits and threatening of legal action), but disabled people are getting equality slowly- even if we have to memorise our rights and fight tooth and nail for it.

The Air Carrier Access Act itself acknowledges that asking somebody to pay for two seats is not discriminatory. That would be part of the "safe carriage of all passengers"

Like I said before, instead of being a simple issue of understanding that a person who takes up the area of more than one seat will need to purchase an additional seat, you've turned it into an issue of discrimination, yet the sources you cite disagree with you that it is discrimination.

 

[jamaesi]

The Air Carrier Access Act itself acknowledges that asking somebody to pay for two seats is not discriminatory. That would be part of the "safe carriage of all passengers"

Like I said before, instead of being a simple issue of understanding that a person who takes up the area of more than one seat will need to purchase an additional seat, you've turned it into an issue of discrimination, yet the sources you cite disagree with you that it is discrimination.

No, what the Air Carrier Access Act says in 14 CFR §382.38 "Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased.""

Also, under the ACAA the only thing they can charge extra for is if the equipment the disabled person uses takes up another seat.

It's a case of them needing to upgrade their seating, not punishing the disabled for things they can not control.