Should obese individuals be allowed to fly in single seats?

[Straha]

I've seen this in a couple of blogs, and I wanted to know what the reaction here would be.

The story: An obese man buys one seat on a American Airlines plane and is let through the gate and onto the plane. The result is this:



Without knowing anything outside of this, do you think the plane should be let off the ground as is? And if not, what do you propose instead?
Spoiler

No. The man is clearly a safety hazard in two ways. First blocking the aisle-way so that if there were an evacuation, to say nothing of the Flight Attendant cart or passengers going to the bathroom, passage would be delayed if not impossible. Second, if there were a mid-air incident he's obviously not securely held in place by a seatbelt. That leads to a 350+ pound man flying around the cabin and hitting whoever happens to be in his way.

Frankly, I'm not even sure he should be allowed to fly unless a special seat were made available for him, and I would not be against charging him extra for that seat.

[Spoonist]

Spoiler

No. The seats should be certified for a min-max amount. If you are bigger/smaller than the min-max you need to get either extra equipment and/or a different seat. All airlines should provide seats so that not only obese but small/large fly safely and securely. I have flown next to a body builder and he could not squeze into one seat, so its not only the obese. Also when I have a small child in a car I use extra safety equipment but if I fly I'm not required to, that's not rational.

Then on topic but slightly to the side I think that it is time that airlines charge for accumulative weight. So Person+Carryon+Luggage. This so that the cost for fuel is not distributed unfairly as it is now. (Yes, that is harsh I know).

[SCRawl]

There was a ruling in Canada not so long ago about this very issue.
Spoiler

Canadian carriers cram to obey obesity ruling
High court forces airlines' hands; experts have varying ideas for compliance

Canadian airlines are scrambling to meet a government-mandated policy that says disabled passengers who must travel with a personal attendant — including those who are disabled due to obesity — will only be required to pay only one fare.

“You’ve dawdled this whole year. Now stop all that bellyaching and get on with it.”

That, in essence, is the message Canada’s Supreme Court gave the country’s major airlines late last month. Now, after spending a year trying to weasel out of it with repeated court appeals, Canadian airlines are scrambling to figure out how to meet the January 10th deadline for complying with “one-person, one-fare” policy mandated by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). It is groundbreaking legislation some hope — and others fear — may spread to the United States and beyond.

So pay attention.

Under the new rules, applying only to domestic flights, Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet cannot charge more than one fare to persons with disabilities who cannot fly without the help of an attendant.

Few people will take issue with that.

What some folks are taking issue with, however, is the part of the ruling that also promises a complimentary second seat to passengers who are “determined to be functionally disabled by obesity.”

But what exactly does that mean? After spending a few hours chewing the fat about the meaning of this phrase with travelers, obesity experts, airlines representatives and others, one thing is clear: Nothing is clear. Especially, when it comes down to passengers seated — or trying to get seated — on an airplane.

‘Uncharted territory’
“No other country in the world has told airlines to do this,” WestJet spokesman Robert Palmer said. “We’re in uncharted territory here. We know how to run an airline. But we’re not experts on at what point obesity becomes a disability.”

Yet, come January 10th, Canadian airlines will be expected to have it figured out.

They’ll have to hurry.

Last year when it first issued the ruling, CTA offered to facilitate a collaborative process to help the airlines work out a way to implement the new policy. CTA spokesperson Marc Comeau says only WestJet has met with the agency about a potential proposed screening proposal. But while all the airlines spent a lot of time, energy and money trying to stop the process through the courts, “the clock kept ticking.”

Now, like students who have been avoiding that big final paper, the airlines are in cramming mode.

How are they doing? Air Canada’s Peter Fitzpatrick sent this curt e-mail: “At this point we have nothing to say on this matter other than that we intend to comply with the new regulation.” WestJet spokesperson Robert Palmer said the airline was “putting its nose to the grindstone,” and meeting with disability rights groups to get input on a plan. “We’re seeking advice and feedback, looking at research and, of course, we have some ideas of our own,” he said.

Experts weigh in
Since that clock is ticking loudly, and because “seatmates of size” is a hot topic, we thought the airlines might want to crib some ideas from a few outside experts.

Robert Jarvis, a law professor with a specialty in aviation at the Nova Southeastern University Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., laid out four possible policies, and conveniently pre-graded them for difficulty:

* Easy: A traveler would simply self-declare as obese and receive an extra seat;
* Moderate: A doctor would give a traveler a note declaring the traveler to be obese;
* Difficult: A traveler would need a doctor’s note and meet an objective standard (such as the Body-Mass Index), which would require an in-person measurement either on the day of travel or, within 30 days before the day of travel;
* Hard: A traveler would need to take a physical exam from a doctor of the airline's choosing.

“Obviously, option 1 is subject to abuse,” Jarvis admitted. “In a tight economy, even thin people might declare themselves to be obese to save money.” And he thinks option 4 would be subject to “consumer backlash and the possibility of invasion-of-privacy lawsuits.” So he expects the airlines will begin with option 2 and move to option 3.

Canadian carriers cram to obey obesity ruling
How to behave in that home away from home
Other experts would mix and match the Jarvis options. Adam Drewnowski, director of the University of Washington’s Center for Obesity Research in Seattle, suggests that the extra seats be made available to travelers who bring a doctor’s letter and who have a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 35 or above. (BMI is a measure of body fat based on height and weight. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered average.) “A BMI of 25 is considered overweight. A BMI of 30 is obese. A BMI of 35 is medically significant obesity. There can be no argument,” Drewnowski said.

But Dr. Arya M. Sharma disagrees. “You can’t bring it down to a BMI. People’s body shapes are different.” Instead, the chair of obesity research at the University of Alberta suggests a solution inspired by the baggage sizers already in place at many airports. Instead, Sharma would like airlines to place an airplane seat in the terminal — “somewhere that offers travelers a bit of privacy.” Then, if it’s not obvious that a traveler won’t fit in one seat, they can sit in the sample seat. “If they don’t fit in the seat, then they’re too big and they’ll need to have that extra seat. At no cost. It’s not rocket science.”

Peggy Howell of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance isn’t so sure that plan meets the spirit of the “one-person, one-fare” policy. “This shouldn’t mean that every fat person should get a free seat just because they’re fat. If you look at the ruling it says the extra seats are for people ‘determined to be functionally disabled by obesity.’ And fat does not necessarily equal disabled.”

She offers a different, even simpler solution: Option 5 — bigger seats for everyone.

That’s not rocket science either.

I don't really like it, but it's not like they consulted me. One problem immediately occurred to me when I first heard of this ruling: what do you do with the obese passenger who shows up without informing the airline ahead of time about needing the extra seat? Does the airline have to underbook in order to accommodate those who might show up and not fit in the normal seats?

Anyways, the analogy with the extra luggage fee seems appropriate.

[Knife]

What's with all the spoiler tags?

Anyway, I'd support charging and seating people via volume, so I guess I'd charge him for two or three seats. A 'seat' would represent the standard, or norm, of what one would expect a person to inhabit on a plane, but it in no way would represent the only increment. Having over half of him hanging out of his seat is unsafe for him, unsafe for people sitting next to him, and unsafe for the crew of the plane. Making him purchase extra space isn't a slight against his weight, rather just a realistic notion of the physics of him and every one else being on that plane. He takes up more space than the average and standard spot so he should have to purchase more space to inhabit on the plane.

[White Haven]

The caveat to that is that you'd also need periodic checks to make sure that airlines don't shrink their seats so that non-enormous people start having to purchase multiples as well.

[Frank Hipper]

I'm thin; skinny, even.

I'm 6'4" tall and have a 32" waist, yet I find airline seats constricting.

Convince me that airline seats represent a reasonable standard for reasonably sized people.
Illustration; Ecyclopedia Brittanica lists slave spaces on the middle passage as having approximately 16 inches of width, and Wikipedia lists coach airline seats as having a width of 17 inches...

[SCRawl]

I'm thin; skinny, even.

I'm 6'4" tall and have a 32" waist, yet I find airline seats constricting.

You have 3" in height on me, and we're about the same width. I don't fly much, but when I have I wouldn't say that the seats have felt uncomfortably narrow. They do feel confining in a sense, as they tend to have those intrusive armrests, are pushed right up close to the seats in front, and the ceilings are rather low.

Convince me that airline seats represent a reasonable standard for reasonably sized people.
Illustration; Ecyclopedia Brittanica lists slave spaces on the middle passage as having approximately 16 inches of width, and Wikipedia lists coach airline seats as having a width of 17 inches...

I suppose it's all about what you consider to be reasonable. If a person within three standard deviations of the average size (accounting for height and width) can fit within the standard airline seat (assuming there is such a thing -- I plead ignorance here), comfortably or not, then I would consider that to be a reasonable accommodation. The question in my mind is whether or not the standard seats meet these criteria, and if it does, then there is little basis for complaint.

[Bounty]

Without knowing anything outside of this, do you think the plane should be let off the ground as is? And if not, what do you propose instead?

The man is a safety hazard to anyone who needs to use that aisle, and if the flight crew has any concern for their passengers they'd kick him off. Passengers have an obligation to ensure they don't endanger or needlessly inconvenience the other occupants on the plane and that man quite obviously can't care less.

I'm not even seeing what the debate here would be. People who are drunk, violent or ill can be removed from planes because they are a hazard; there's no reason this man can't be treated equally.

[General Zod]

Without knowing anything outside of this, do you think the plane should be let off the ground as is? And if not, what do you propose instead?

The man is a safety hazard to anyone who needs to use that aisle, and if the flight crew has any concern for their passengers they'd kick him off. Passengers have an obligation to ensure they don't endanger or needlessly inconvenience the other occupants on the plane and that man quite obviously can't care less.

I'm not even seeing what the debate here would be. People who are drunk, violent or ill can be removed from planes because they are a hazard; there's no reason this man can't be treated equally.

Don't most airlines have handicapped sections specifically for people like this guy? I don't think they'd be able to just wantonly kick him off without getting a massive lawsuit smacked in their face.

[Bounty]

Don't most airlines have handicapped sections specifically for people like this guy? I don't think they'd be able to just wantonly kick him off without getting a massive lawsuit smacked in their face.

Kicked out of that particular type of seat then.

As for lawsuits, this isn't a case of discrimination, it's a blindingly obvious case of force majeur on the airline's part. That man can't even buckle his seatbelt; there's no way you can argue he can actually safely complete the journey in that seat.

[aerius]

I'd do it the same way airlines charge for carry-ons and checked luggage. Setup some kind of frame & scale assembly that people have to fit through at the check-in counter, if they fit in the jig and the weight is under X kg, they get to sit in the seats at the ticket prices. If they don't fit or they're too heavy they get hit with a surcharge just like the luggage and sit in the bigger seats or whatever. If they're way over they don't fly unless they get loaded on cargo plane or something.

[General Zod]

Don't most airlines have handicapped sections specifically for people like this guy? I don't think they'd be able to just wantonly kick him off without getting a massive lawsuit smacked in their face.

Kicked out of that particular type of seat then.

As for lawsuits, this isn't a case of discrimination, it's a blindingly obvious case of force majeur on the airline's part. That man can't even buckle his seatbelt; there's no way you can argue he can actually safely complete the journey in that seat.

The easiest solution would be to simply provide accommodating seats for plus-sized passengers and charge them extra, since it's just that many more seats they can't sell to regular sized flyers.

[jcow79]

Isn't obesity caused by physiological reasons protected by the ADA? Airlines have procedures and accommodations in place for wheel bound travelers. I could easily foresee them having to institute accommodations for obese passengers as well. However the solution in the image provided certainly isn't safe for anyone.

I think Zod's solution is reasonable as long as passengers that prove they have disabled status aren't charged additionally.

[Big Phil]

That leads to a 350+ pound man flying around the cabin and hitting whoever happens to be in his way.

There's no way that guy was only 350 lbs.

[Themightytom]

the picture is gone.

[Havok]

That leads to a 350+ pound man flying around the cabin and hitting whoever happens to be in his way.

There's no way that guy was only 350 lbs.

Fucking A right. I am almost 390 (Admittedly, I'm not built the same way a lot of fat people are) and I don't come anywhere CLOSE to occupying more than one seat like that. That guy is pushing 500lbs plus. My issue is actually with my arms and shoulders, not my ass and waist. Business and first class are a fucking dream compared to coach though.

That said, yes fatties like that should have to buy two seats, although possibly at a discounted price, but still two complete seats and they need to be seated in the furthest possible seats from the emergency exits.

[Zixinus]

Airplanes need more fuel the more mass they transit. Now, I'm not in favour of discriminating against fat people, but if someone is beyond a certain weight (say, 100-120kgs, with accounting age, health condition and the question of pregnancy) you have a problem. The airlines are justified in asking for more money, to a certain point.

However, Zod's decision appeals to me. Obese people would prefer to have extra-large seats anyway, the only question is how much extra.

[Rye]

Fat people cost more to transport than kids and thin people. Their fares should go up accordingly.

[Alyeska]

They should never be allowed to fly in a single seat, period. Even if the law allows them the same purchase price, they should be required to check that they are disabled and need a second seat. If the obese individual shows up expecting a seat, tough fucking shit. You were a douchebag who withheld information on your checking that was critical for the proper assignment of seats.

[Stark]

I would imagine that simple safety would preclude this sort of thing; it shouldn't be the airlines stopping those poor helpless fatties, it should be the law. Hey, it's America; start your own 'wide seat' airline for the fatty community.

[CmdrWilkens]

So prior to getting downsized I travelled regularly (6+ flights/month) via air, and actually this week I'm travelling one last time. Given that I can sy that there does come a poitn when someone is so large that they intrude upon the space of others not just in terms of width but also free access to the aisles and overhead bins. I think what is needed is legislation establishing a minimum standard for coach passenger size in terms of all four relevant dimensions (height, width, depth, and weight) that a single ticket must be required to carry.



From that point you proceed with the extras:

- Any person who is disabled should not be required to pay additional passage. Conversely Airlines (and all other transportation modes) should not be required to set aside more than a certain percentage of seats for such persons. Should all seats be taken the airline should be under no obligation to offer additional disabled seating. Functional disability should be restricted to those who qualify as disabled under the ADA standard. With this standard the airlines honestly wouldn't have to modify much, just make the bulkhead row in to priority seating, switch to 2x2 configuration on all planes and there are at least 4 and possibly 8 seats/flight that will fit just about anyone. If there are 3 wheelchairs, and an ADD case in front of an obese person tough sledding.

- Disability would have to be declared upon ticket purchase, failure to do so exempts the airline from offering the special seat

- Persons who exceed the standard dimensions otherwise, that is they are not disabled, would be required to pay either for a larger seat (the disabled seats, 1st class seats) or a 2nd seat via pay a surcharge up to a maximum of 75% of the full coach fare.

[spaceviking]

The easiest solution would be to simply provide accommodating seats for plus-sized passengers and charge them extra, since it's just that many more seats they can't sell to regular sized flyers.

Probably be easier to create a no perks option on business class

[weemadando]

I'm by no means a small man, but certainly do not approach anywhere near the fatness of the person in the pic in the OP. My thoughts on this (as someone who flies fairly regularly and has also worked for an airline).

People who can't walk through the metal detector - this is your first hint. Extension belts are another good indicator that it's too much(I've needed one twice, but this has seemed completely random as on the connecting flights on the same type of aircraft I had many many inches of spare belt to play with).

Whenever I fly I make sure to check in as early as possible. I then make an effort to find a seat away from others (usually at the back in a corner). This way I can hopefully minimise any inconvenience to others.

I have the problem that my shoulders are about 4-6" wider than the average airline seat (including arm rests) and the head rests stop at about hte level of my shoulderblades. My knees in theory should reach somewhere into the middle of the seat infront of me and are usually forced to be at about the height of the tray table. Thus, even before you take into account the fact I'm fat an airline seat is already bad enough for me.

Should I end up next to someone I make every effort to ensure that I don't cross the armrest with any part of my body. And I tell them to let me know if they have any issues. I know that it has the potential to suck to sit next to me, which is why I try to minimise the problem - even if it is at the cost of massive comfort loss (and numbness) to myself.

I'd have no problem paying for an extra seat (should I need one - which I hope never to), because I can admit to myself that this isn't a disability, or a medical issue or anything like that - I would have gotten more fat because I eat shit and too much of it.

As for paying extra - how would you base it? Why should I have to pay more if (assuming this is back when I was in shape), I was still 6'6" and 110kg, while some fat fuck who's 5'5" and 110kg has to pay the same amount despite the fact he'd be spilling over 2 seats without even trying? Do we base it on BMI and then have a scale for excess above that - this is probably the fairest way, but is by no means a happy solution. Wait until you have to get some fucking elephant onto the scales at the airport to see how much excess he has to pay for surcharges - and that's before you have to bring out the fucking forklift to lift him onto the plane because he can't climb the stairs (yes - this does happen).

[Psychic_Sandwich]

As for paying extra - how would you base it? Why should I have to pay more if (assuming this is back when I was in shape), I was still 6'6" and 110kg, while some fat fuck who's 5'5" and 110kg has to pay the same amount despite the fact he'd be spilling over 2 seats without even trying? Do we base it on BMI and then have a scale for excess above that - this is probably the fairest way, but is by no means a happy solution. Wait until you have to get some fucking elephant onto the scales at the airport to see how much excess he has to pay for surcharges - and that's before you have to bring out the fucking forklift to lift him onto the plane because he can't climb the stairs (yes - this does happen).

Why base it on weight at all? The actual weight of the person isn't really the problem, I think; it's the size. If a 200kg body builder (or whatever) can fit into a single seat without being dangerous, he should only have to pay for a single seat. Likewise, if said bodybuilder can't fit into a single seat, then he should be required to pay for the second one just like an obese person who can't fit into a single seat should be required to pay for both, but should only pay for one if he can fit into one safely. If they don't book enough seats, then tough shit, they don't fly. We don't let people who are drunk or ill fly because of safety issues, so why should we let large people (and it doesn't matter why they're large, be they super-ripped or flab-mountains) fly when they introduce safety concerns, like that chap in the OP?

Basically, you should pay for the seats you use, regardless of your weight, and you should use enough seats that you don't block the aisle or spill into other people's laps.

[tim31]

At the beginning of the year, round the dinner table with family I posed the conversation starter: should the lactose intolerant be subsidised for the extra cost of soy, and should those with yeast allergies be subsidised for the special bakery products they purchase?

The answer, of course, was a resounding Fuck No, because weren't not talking about a necessity. While I'll grant that the above allergies aren't disabilities, is it necessary for morbidly obese people to travel by plane? Are they flying cross-country to Princeton‑Plainsboro so the team can magic them back to good health? Air travel is, for the most part, a luxury. It's ridiculously cheap these days as it is, and thus I stand by the position I've held for years: if you take up two seats, you pay for two seats. Of course, bleeding(overworked, undervalved) hearts do not agree with this.

(snip plane etiquette that should apply to everyone, not just those of a larger frame)

You can be my wingman sit next to me anytime, Ando.