Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel News
Reload this Page >

Airlines told to accommodate obese, disabled

Airlines told to accommodate obese, disabled

Old Jan 11, 08, 5:15 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ORD MDW
Programs: AA, UA, DL , IHG Plat, Bonvoy Gold - 2009 FT Fantasy Football Champion
Posts: 6,739
Airlines told to accommodate obese, disabled

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...c-1b330b4e4657

Disabled-persons groups are celebrating a regulator's order that airlines must stop charging obese or disabled passengers for using extra seats.
The airline industry says Thursday's decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency means the carriers will face extra costs.
The CTA gave airlines a year to start a screening process for deciding which passengers need a free extra seat on domestic flights because they are obese or need a caregiver with them.
sobore is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 6:14 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 258
Obese and disabled are NOT the same thing. Obesity can be reversed...a true disability can't.

It is ridiculous to lump these two together. It is an insult to those with a true disability.

If a fat person can get a free extra seat to be comfortable then I want a free extra seat to be comfortable too.

Fair is fair.
vesicle is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 6:33 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Programs: Alaska Airlines
Posts: 1,037
Originally Posted by vesicle View Post
Obese and disabled are NOT the same thing. Obesity can be reversed...a true disability can't.

It is ridiculous to lump these two together. It is an insult to those with a true disability.

If a fat person can get a free extra seat to be comfortable then I want a free extra seat to be comfortable too.

Fair is fair.
^ I sooooo agree! I work at a grocery store here in the states as a checker and really 9 times out of 10 it is the over weight people that are buying up the chips, soda, cookies etc. It is their own fault they are fat. They eat the crap that is obviously not good for you and don't get off their butts. Hell they can't even walk around the grocery store! Rather then walk they get the electric buggy things to move around the store.
fly4funsea is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 6:34 am
  #4  
Moderator: Information Desk & Women Travelers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ATL
Programs: DL, AA
Posts: 6,030
The article sounds like this will only apply to domestic flights. How long before this applies to all flights originating/terminating in Canada?

I will be interested to see the criteria developed to determine who qualifies for a free extra seat - either for a disabled caregiver or an obese passenger.
scoow is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 6:35 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Near an airport
Programs: FB, EB, Delta, AC, PC, HH.
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by vesicle View Post
Obese and disabled are NOT the same thing. Obesity can be reversed...a true disability can't.

It is ridiculous to lump these two together. It is an insult to those with a true disability.

If a fat person can get a free extra seat to be comfortable then I want a free extra seat to be comfortable too.

Fair is fair.

I really really really hate discrimination against people for whatever reason. somker, non smoker, gender, sexuality, skin color, hair color, tall, short, fat, thin, you name it but - I find that I have to agree with you on this one.

A disabled person needing an assistant - fine - I'm OK with that. I think it is right or the airline should always have staff on hand to assist the disabled person who needs it - that is never going to happen.

But if I'm charged for excess luggage an overweight person needing two chairs should be charged of the extra seat. Just the seat - not the tax and all other addons, just the seat. We all know that a $300 ticket really only costs $50 odd.
Emma65 is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 7:21 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Princeton, NJ; Lviv Ukraine
Programs: UA 3.6MM, AF/KL Lifetime Plat, BA Gold, AA 1MM, IC Spire RA, Kimpton IC, Marriott Plat, et alia
Posts: 2,728
Originally Posted by vesicle View Post
Obese and disabled are NOT the same thing. Obesity can be reversed...a true disability can't.

It is ridiculous to lump these two together. It is an insult to those with a true disability.

If a fat person can get a free extra seat to be comfortable then I want a free extra seat to be comfortable too.

Fair is fair.
Hang on to your wallets because there's a lot of momentum (one could say inertia) to have obesity covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Like much of the application of this act, it is well-intentioned but out of control. "Legitimately disabled" get overwhelmed with an expansion to "fringe" disabled and then to "voluntarily" disabled and then to just plain not disabled, but the disability lobby/industry and pharmaceutical industry benefit the more people are diagnosed with some "syndrome" or "disorder" or other. And of course this means accommodations, treatments, and cost.

There are people who are morbidly obese due to glandular and other medical reasons. They are but a tiny fraction of those who are overweight, but they face a legitimate disability. However, most overweight people (and statistics will tell you that 72% of Americans are "20 pounds or more overweight") are overweight by choice, not exercising, eating too many Triple Whoppers with cheese, eating prepackaged but nutritionally inane "lite" food and the like. Some of them "can't help it" because they have some "eating disorder."

Today, the EEOC designates those over 100 pounds over their ideal body weight to be covered by ADA protection. But "ideal body weight" is fairly low especially by some formulas (some of which are scare tactics by the diet and exercise industry).

And remember that many overweight people, whether they are overweight by choice/idiocy/laziness or not, suffer from many illnesses such as diabetes.

There are many organizations and institutions who benefit every time the ADA expands coverage. And airlines and other businesses suffer and have to pick up the cost (as does the taxpayer).

Can you imagine if every overweight person were eligible for a handicapped license plate? We'd need to change the parking lot all around so more than half the spots are "handicapped" (and at Burger Kings in Iowa, we'd need to dedicate 95% of the spots).

The cruel streak in me says that we should have "obese by choice" tags mandatory on cars for those people who are not "legitimately obese," and force these people to park at the FAR side of the parking lot; this would generally be the only exercise they get.
vsevolod4 is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 9:02 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by vsevolod4 View Post
Hang on to your wallets because there's a lot of momentum (one could say inertia) to have obesity covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The ADA does not apply to accommodations on airliners. That is covered by the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). The inertia would have to extend to the ACAA before it affected what an airline must provide to obese passengers.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 9:38 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Programs: NWA, AA
Posts: 95
I would think making the lav's handicapped accessable would be more important than an extra seat. Most of the lavs now can barely accomodate a thin person, much less a COS or disabled person.
pickinp is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 10:03 am
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 32,785
Might I remind everyone that the decision referred to in the first post is from Canada, not the US.
Xyzzy is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 10:10 am
  #10  
msv
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 21,648
Does 2 seats = 2 meals?
msv is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 10:53 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: on the Llano Estacado
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by vsevolod4 View Post
However, most overweight people (and statistics will tell you that 72% of Americans are "20 pounds or more overweight") are overweight by choice, not exercising, eating too many Triple Whoppers with cheese, eating prepackaged but nutritionally inane "lite" food and the like.
Triple whopper with cheese. Mm, 'scuse me, I've just figured out lunch. Mmmmmm. ^
deubster is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 11:07 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 32,785
Thumbs down

I find absurd the suggestion that someone who can not occupy two seats can get a second one for free. However, I find this mention in the article completely outrageous:
...<lawyer> she said her client, Calgarian Linda McKay-Panos is happy to work with the airlines to develop a "fair" process for deciding which passengers get a second seat, because of obesity or a need to have someone there to assist them during a flight.
I want to have my wife and kids with me to assist during the flight, but I always get charged for their tickets...
Xyzzy is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 12:06 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by pickinp View Post
I would think making the lav's handicapped accessable would be more important than an extra seat.
Accessable lavs (1) are required only on new widebody aircraft. That's part of the ACAA.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 1:36 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 196
The majority of obese people have the power to change it themelves. We are talking about some excess weight that you can take off if you take the time and work at it. If they improve their diet, they will lose weight.

An obese person is already a safety issue for the rest of the passengers on a plane. In the event of an emergency, you now have to deal with some extremely overweight person slowing everyone else down if they have to exit the plane quickly.

I don't think it is a disability because they choose to be obese.
Traveltalker is offline  
Old Jan 11, 08, 1:44 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by vsevolod4 View Post
The cruel streak in me says that we should have "obese by choice" tags mandatory on cars for those people who are not "legitimately obese," and force these people to park at the FAR side of the parking lot; this would generally be the only exercise they get.
That's not so absurd. Well it would never every fly, it is so not PC, but the reality is that most of us could use more excerise, and obese folks even more so. There was some recent study that "fit + obese" was perhaps better (in terms of morbidity) than simply not being obese, but being unfit.

I am on the low end of obese. For years I asked for parking at a lot 1/2 mile from my office (on a big campus). That way, I got at least that much exercise in a day. (Now I have stopped driving, instead walking 2.5 miles each way to a metro stop, but I would not legislate this virtue on others )
MojaveFlyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread