ralfp

Some cases of obesity are a result of another medical condition (say hormone issues, side effects of some drugs/medical treatments, etc.), so not every obese person that wants special treatment is deserving of the same disdain. In the end they all have to eat to get that fat; I don't know too many people getting fat on feeding tubes or IVs.

^ What's next? Do home builders have to provide special houses (at no extra cost) to obese people? Wider doors, bigger toilets, showers, and bathtubs, bigger refrigerators, reinforced floors, etc. etc?

You intentionally got a bad parking spot? Now that's dedication. Kudos to you. ^

J-M

Great... what's next? Can I go to McDonalds and demand to get 2 Big Macs for the price of one because I'm still hungry? Stupid, stupid, stupid...

tulsan

I guess it will be like the Army of the past, you smoked so you could take a break - now you overeat to get more room

What next?

fatfrog

I don't know how it works -- is it automatic at the 100 lb cut off? If so, it seems that having to get some sort of doctor's approval of obesity as a medical condition is only rational. Presumably that happens already for people who are legitimately considered disabled (though I don't really know anything about this are and am just extrapolating from worker's comp).

oneant

Two types:
1) obese-by-choice
2) obese, but not by choice

I have no problem with type 1 getting an extra seat, so long as it's not a full flight. An airline should never be forced to lose a seat to what amounts to a non-rev pax (aka Harvey the obesity rabbit) just because the pax is large by choice. If it's a full flight, the pax should have two options: a) purchase, at a specified "large pax" rate, an extra seat; b) have the airline accommodate them on another non-full flight.

Type 2, however, should always be accommodated as if they had any other legitimate disability. The airline should require proof of disability.

trooper

Regardless of the burden of proof/type of disability etc etc..

NO business should be required by legislative fiat to take on the financial costs of a Government mandated "social good".

If Governments (on behalf of their electorates) want these things put in place then it should be the whole electorate that pays for them.. through the tax system. Not a commercial entity like an airline!

Doesn't matter how it is done.. 100% tax relief to the passenger concerned?.. or to the airline?... but to make the airline foot the bill????

That's just not right....

oneant

I don't disagree about the burden of cost falling squarely on the company. Perhaps a tax break, as suggested.

But the cost of doing business is conformity to gov't mandates. Sometimes, it's just not fair.

TravisMT81

this is insane!

DeafFlyer

Here in the US (I know the topic is about Canada)that is not allowed. It's stupid that a disabled person has to get a doctor's note for every little thing they want to do.

ralfp

I understand the reason for not being allowed to ask... except why are you required to "prove" and publicly advertise your disability for parking?

Would it be so hard to carry a "note" from an MD saying something like "Person A is disabled and may require accommodations including, but not limited to X, Y, and Z. He/she is not faking it. Signed, Dr. SomeSuch, M.D., license number 1"

oneant

I don't think it's stupid if you're requiring that a company lose substantial revenue because of your disability.

ylwae

Interestingly, the Canadian Transportation Agency dismissed a claim by the same person in 2002. Wonder what changed their mind this time? And what is this vague "genetic condition" her lawyer mentions?

"In terms of activity limitations, Ms. McKay-Panos contends that the activity at issue is the requirement to be seated as a passenger in a seat. She refers to her experience detailed above, particularly to the difficulty she experienced in forcing herself into the passenger seat, the pain she suffered, the difficulty she experienced to access the chair table and the fact that she was bumped into by flight attendants as evidence that she has limitations in performing the activity. As for participation restrictions, Ms. McKay-Panos explains that she suffered a limitation in accessing public transportation in Canada. This limitation is found in the difficulties she experienced when making her travel arrangements."

"The Agency found that Ms. McKay-Panos had not identified activity limitations relating to accessing the transportation system, since she can physically access airports, check her luggage, present herself to security points in airports and reach the boarding gate, like the majority of Canadians."

Excerpted from this site.

I think the airlines should politely decline her offer to help them establish guidelines for deciding who gets an extra seat, etc.

cs19

You know what else can't be reversed??? Being 6'8" tall.

I think I should get some ADA protection to guarantee me a mandatory exit row or bulkhead before fat people get free seats or some ADA protections.

Besides, airlines already block bulkheads for ADA-covered handicap passengers and are prohibited from filling the seats until 24 hours out. Just give me access to those. I already fit into their system.

Captain Schmidt

Aha, I think you've found the real problem - it's not the fat people, it's the legal scavengers sensing another payday. I'm with Shakespeare on this one: "First, we shoot all the lawyers"

vesicle

Honestly I would be for you getting an extra seat or some space before a self inflicted fat person getting one.

I am 6' and I have a bad enough time...I can't imagine being your size.