Ocn Vw 1K

Please follow the discussion in our Newsstand forum. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.

davidcalgary29

I don't see what the problem is, as this decision addresses a miniscule number of pax, and not just all flyers who are fat/overweight and want a free extra seat that they can use as storage space. It's pretty clear in the Federal Court of Appeal decision that the ruling expands the definition of "persons with disabilities", whose rights are enshrined in Canadian transportation legislation, to include people who are "functionally disabled" because of their obesity. I don't know about anyone else, but I've seen a number of individuals who certainly are disabled because of the weight that they're carrying.

I happen to have met the plaintiff in this case, and she really does have mobility problems (obesity-related or otherwise), so I say good for her! FWIW, she originally proposed to resolve the situation by buying an extra seat for herself, but Air Canada declined to accommodate her request. At the time (1997), Air Canada had no policy allowing obese pax to purchase an extra seat for themselves.

CO FF

I know nothing about Canada's disability laws. But in the US, the standard is always "reasonable accomodation".

WN has what - IMO - is the right policy: buy 2 seats; if there would have been an open seat anyway, we'll refund the 2nd one. Yes, I know it gets the POS a free empty adjacent seat that all of us want; I don't know a better way to do it, though.

But once it's law, if the US were to follow the Canadian standard, I could see something like this:

1) A POS must identify her/himself as disabled at the time of booking; no on-line booking is possible (but fee will be waived for phone booking).
2) A POS must check in in person at the airport no less than 90 minutes prior to scheduled departure, and be present at the boarding gate no less than 60 minutes prior to scheduled departure. (This allows the airline to verify the size and accomodation that will be needed, and make any necessary adjustments to weight & balance-related calculations.)
3) A POS may not be seated in an exit row, in an aisle seat (except if the POS also has the window of a 2-seat configuration), or in any seat with two fixed armrests where the pax requires a 2nd seat.
4) Any re-routing of connection, or re-accomodation on another carrier, resulting in a scheduled delay of 2 hours or less shall be deemed a "reasonable accomodation".
5) If an identified POS wants to buy 2 seats, the WN rule (refund if not full) will apply.

Why do I do it this way?
1) Force them to identify themselves up front; I believe it's ok to require the disabled person to disclose the disability as long as you don't use that as the basis for denying a service. It will also keep "overweight" (not disabled) people from trying to game the system.
2) Same as #1 -- if it's a legitimate "disability", you probably don't count on running thru the airport anyway, so an early arrival isn't much of a hassle.
3) Basic safety.
4) Maybe a POS would be a real issue on an AE RJ DCA-LGA, but not a problem on the DL shuttle; why not let AA decide to buy the POS a ticket on DL rather than losing the potential 2nd seat revenue?
5) As I said, I think this is the right way to do it...

Fredd

Fark features it with the tag "Midgets are following the case closely and hoping for half-price travel."

With apologies if any vertically-challenged individuals are offended...

icurhere2

US air carriers are specifically exempted from the Americans with Disabilities Act, so it's not coming . . . .

ralfp

But they're not exempted from the Air Carrier Access Act.

rankourabu

watch out for "Tubby Surcharge" in the near future on all Air Canada flights

tjl

In Canada, is the customer of size required to inform the airline of the need for the extra space at the time of booking?

If not, then things can get ugly if the airline sells the flight completely full and the customer of size issue is noticed only at the time of boarding.

WN (in the US) seems to have the most sensible policy regarding this issue.

ralfp

As I said in the other thread (that was here first ), I assume tall people like myself will get seats with extra legroom (or a free F seat) on flights to/from/within Canada.

LeSabre74

Wow what a surprise the original complainant was a "civil rights lawyer" Maybe Air Canada should just pay for her to have her stomach stapled.

Bart

Several years ago Southwest Airlines instituted a similar policy. Isn't it still in place?

Also, don't airlines have the right to refuse assigning emergency row seating to passengers who appear to be unable to comply with the emergency row procedures (get up, open emergency doors and get the hell out the way)?

Fredd

Canada's National Post editorializes on the ruling:

Robbing the slim to pay the portly

When they are first appointed, all federal judges in Canada take mandatory courses on racial, gender and cultural sensitivity, along with sentencing guidelines and court procedures. Perhaps they should squeeze in a seminar or two on economics, as well.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal by the nation's airlines against a Canadian Transport Agency (CTA) ruling requiring them to give obese passengers two seats for the price of one. The problem for the airlines -- and for the ordinary, non-obese Canadians who underwrite their operations through the purchase of tickets -- is that the Justices cannot make the cost of their decision go away. The laws of economics are not repealed merely because our sensitivity-indoctrinated judges are well-intentioned. Someone is going to have to pay for all these "free" extra seats, and it's not going to be the high-minded benchers who created the added expense.

http://tinyurl.com/5b67ux

Sam - DFW

+10

stupidhead

Houses should be able to handle all that weight in the first place. Yeah, even the normal ones. The furniture we put in our homes weighs probably 1000+ pounds already, especially if it involves a couple large beds and a sofa or two.

stupidhead

Eh. They lose money even when they're allowed to.