|
Obese have right to 2 airline seats: Canada court (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
There are airlines that still give out dinners? Any flight I'm on we've been lucky if they're selling 9 dollar sandwiches. |
For long overseas flights, they do. If you're on a 12-hour flight into some part of Europe then they kind of have to. It's still awful though. I'd take an extra seat over 50 of those stale rolls. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by yankeeBaby
um, no thats why I posted that I understand EVERYONE has struggles. Thats the difference between you and I. I dont make excuses, but its a FACT that I have weight issues because of predisposed factors. This is why I DO work out and maintain a healthy lifestyle, because if I dont, I would be in serious trouble both health wise and looks-wise. And yet I still receive judgement? |
Who is judging you? I can't see any replies in here that seem to warrant this defensiveness.
Unless you've recently been forced to pay for an extra seat on a plane, nobody is talking about you or your weight. You're not in that category. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
There could be a pricing that would limit the damage to the airline's bottom line, but doesn't force an obese person to pay DOUBLE the fare when they are still ONE person. Like a 50 dollar extra fee or something for the second seat. *shrug* |
It doesn't really matter how you arrange it, it's not going to hurt their bottom line because they are going to pass the costs on to their other paying customers.
The airlines will solve this problem the same way I would solve it if I were working for one of them: by putting an additional field in their booking system that flags these "overflows", and a few extra lines of code in the system that actively track the associated costs and scale fares accordingly across the board.
Don't kid yourselves, it's you and I that will foot the bill in the end. This is welfare for fatsos. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Don't kid yourselves, it's you and I that will foot the bill in the end. This is welfare for fatsos. |
We also foot the bill for wheelchair ramps, handicap elevators and a number of other accommodations in society. Get over yourself. the cost to you in this case is drastically less than it is for those things. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
We also foot the bill for wheelchair ramps, handicap elevators and a number of other accommodations in society. |
All of which are for actual disabilities. Having a fat ass is not a disability. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I would argue that it is up to the airline's how they want to package their offering. But regardless, if you accept that logic, then I don't see how you'd be able to avoid taking it one step further and saying that the airlines shouldn't be allowed to segment at all.
They are already charging a different fare to everybody on the plane, based on the date of the departure, date of return, round-trip or one-way, demand at the time of booking, etc. If "equal accommodation" is really a requirement, it would also apply to all of those other factors. And once again, if you consider two seats to be "equal accommodation" then in order to be truly equal, they would be obligated to give two seats to everyone who requests them. Watch those fares double within a few weeks... |
by "equal accommodation", I don't mean equal space...I mean that the customer has been accommodated in an equal manner (i.e. adequate space).
the different price isn't unique to airlines. pricing for the *exact* item is often different for each customer (e.g. a car, a mortgage rate, etc).
I think the underlying decision is that the airline can't refuse service on the basis of disability...and further, that they must accommodate the disability without imposing an extra cost.
being unable to refuse service on that basis is not unique to airlines. the idea of contract law (offer and acceptance) is the same for retail stores, for example. you find a book, you're offering to pay the price indicated on it, the store accepts your offer and the contract is in place. that store CAN refuse your offer for any number of reasons (maybe you're being an , lol)...but NOT on the basis of you having a disability. that would be illegal.
same thing here. the decision is stating that the airline can't refuse to enter into the contract on the basis of someone's disability. in addition to accommodating the disability, they must absorb whatever cost/loss that accommodation entails (that's the interesting/debatable part, to me).
there ARE exceptions to this though. I think there have been rulings for certain buildings that aren't wheelchair accessible, for example...? Something to the effect that a retrofit would be an 'undue hardship' to the business? I suppose that if the obesity accommodation issue for the airlines doesn't often occur and thus isn't considered an 'undue hardship'? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
by "equal accommodation", I don't mean equal space...I mean that the customer has been accommodated in an equal manner (i.e. adequate space). |
That is a total cop-out. Equal means equal. Equal in every measurable sense, not equal in some abstracted definition of the circumstances.
What you've just said is the epitome of the "some are more equal than others" doctrine. I paid the same price as tubby over there - why should he get two seats and I only get one? That's not equality, it's discrimination against me on the basis of my (lower) weight. It doesn't matter if you think that this is being done for the greater good; your definition is the same one that was used to justify apartheid.
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
same thing here. the decision is stating that the airline can't refuse to enter into the contract on the basis of someone's disability...and further, must accommodate it, and must absorb whatever cost/loss that accommodation entails (that's the interesting/debatable part, to me). |
This all rests on the premise that obesity is a disability, which it isn't.
Disabilities are circumstances that you can't change. An amputee can't just sprout new arms. A paraplegic can't just decide to get up and walk. Schizophrenics can't make themselves sane, and someone with Down's cannot start speaking normally simply because he/she chooses too. Deaf and blind people can't decide to hear/see again - nothing they can ever do will make that possible.
Anybody over 500 pounds, regardless of genetics, can lose weight. In order for something to be a disability it has to be permanent, or at the very least has to be defined in one of the disability acts (ODA, ADA, etc.), and obesity is not in ANY of them. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That is a total cop-out. Equal means equal. Equal in every measurable sense, not equal in some abstracted definition of the circumstances.
What you've just said is the epitome of the "some are more equal than others" doctrine. I paid the same price as tubby over there - why should he get two seats and I only get one? That's not equality, it's discrimination against me on the basis of my (lower) weight. It doesn't matter if you think that this is being done for the greater good; your definition is the same one that was used to justify apartheid. |
I disagree that it's a cop out and Spam's point of paying for the "fare" and not the seat is the right way to look at it.
if an obese person gets on the TTC (same limited space as a plane, for example) and takes up two seats (or even just standing there, takes up twice the space an average person does), should they pay double? if not, are you saying the average person should then get the same 'space' on a crowded bus (imagine a sphere of half a foot around you, lol).
same thing, no?
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
This all rests on the premise that obesity is a disability, which it isn't.
Disabilities are circumstances that you can't change. An amputee can't just sprout new arms. A paraplegic can't just decide to get up and walk. Schizophrenics can't make themselves sane, and someone with Down's cannot start speaking normally simply because he/she chooses too.
Anybody over 500 pounds, regardless of genetics, can lose weight. In order for something to be a disability it has to be permanent, or at the very least has to be defined in one of the disability acts (ODA, ADA, etc.), and obesity is not in ANY of them. |
I won't argue this...because I don't know enough about obesity, its "causes", how it can be avoided, mitigated, reversed or whatever.
you're quite right though in that the case is assuming that obesity is considered a 'disability'.
disabilities most certainly are not defined as being permanent though (e.g. mental health condition, requiring a wheelchair after serious accident while recovering, etc). |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
All of which are for actual disabilities. Having a fat ass is not a disability. |
Go back and read the article I posted.
Being overweight can be considered a disability because there are causes for it beyond stuffing your face. The problem is that, just like other disabilities such as being blind or otherwise handicapped, the cause of the disability is irrelevant under human rights law. The cause of being overweight is irrelevant.
It's only society's stupid attitudes towards overweight people that have caused this whole ruckus. I bet the only reason you aren't a judgemental dickwad towards people in a wheelchair is because it's socially unacceptable to be so. You're just using this opportunity to make yourself feel better by putting down overweight people, and are ignoring the actual issue. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I disagree that it's a cop out and Spam's point of paying for the "fare" and not the seat is the right way to look at it.
if an obese person gets on the TTC (same limited space as a plane, for example) and takes up two seats (or even just standing there, takes up twice the space an average person does), should they pay double? if not, are you saying the average person should then get the same 'space' on a crowded bus (imagine a sphere of half a foot around you, lol).
same thing, no? |
No, it is not the same thing. If 4 people get into a taxi cab, it's the same fare for all 4 as it would have been for just one person. One could just as easily argue that it should be the same for public buses and subways, and that the $2.50 (or whatever it is now) should be split between all passengers.
Of course it doesn't work that way, and the reasons should be obvious: the pricing models are different. Taxi fares are based on mileage and some basic service cost - it makes no difference how many people are in the car. TTC vehicles, on the other hand, always have to travel the same route on the same schedule, and the economic model is based on the total number of riders in a given period - therefore, the price is per rider.
The pricing model for an airline is based on weight. A certain amount of money goes into maintenance, but the most significant variable cost is fuel, and the primary factor affecting the amount of fuel used is the amount weight being carried. In practice, they can't actually charge people per pound because, among other reasons, there's no way to determine this ahead of time when setting fares. They fare equation (putting aside the standard market segmenting) starts by assuming that every seat on the plane is occupied by one paying customer, calculating the estimated fuel costs, setting appropriate weight restrictions on baggage (because, again, they obviously can't do this for the passengers themselves), and computing an average fare based on an average weight.
When you're overweight, you are already costing the airline more money even if you only take up one seat. You disrupt the pricing model. It may just be by a few dollars or even cents on an individual flight, but this adds up to a lot of money over hundreds of people on thousands or millions of flights. Of course the airlines build a certain amount of buffer into their fares to account for this - lots and lots of buffer if you ask me - but nevertheless, this is not the TTC where the operating costs are fixed, nor is it a taxi cab where the fare itself is variable.
Let me ask you a different question: should amusement parks have the right to refuse admission on certain rides on the basis of height restrictions? |
|
|
| Frenchie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Let me ask you a different question: should amusement parks have the right to refuse admission on certain rides on the basis of height restrictions?[/COLOR][/FONT] |
Yes. If you're to ride something where the constraints can't adjust all the way down to your height and you'd fall out you shouldn't be allowed to ride it. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No, it is not the same thing. If 4 people get into a taxi cab, it's the same fare for all 4 as it would have been for just one person. One could just as easily argue that it should be the same for public buses and subways, and that the $2.50 (or whatever it is now) should be split between all passengers.
Of course it doesn't work that way, and the reasons should be obvious: the pricing models are different. Taxi fares are based on mileage and some basic service cost - it makes no difference how many people are in the car. TTC vehicles, on the other hand, always have to travel the same route on the same schedule, and the economic model is based on the total number of riders in a given period - therefore, the price is per rider.
The pricing model for an airline is based on weight. A certain amount of money goes into maintenance, but the most significant variable cost is fuel, and the primary factor affecting the amount of fuel used is the amount weight being carried. In practice, they can't actually charge people per pound because, among other reasons, there's no way to determine this ahead of time when setting fares. They fare equation (putting aside the standard market segmenting) starts by assuming that every seat on the plane is occupied by one paying customer, calculating the estimated fuel costs, setting appropriate weight restrictions on baggage (because, again, they obviously can't do this for the passengers themselves), and computing an average fare based on an average weight.
When you're overweight, you are already costing the airline more money even if you only take up one seat. You disrupt the pricing model. It may just be by a few dollars or even cents on an individual flight, but this adds up to a lot of money over hundreds of people on thousands or millions of flights. Of course the airlines build a certain amount of buffer into their fares to account for this - lots and lots of buffer if you ask me - but nevertheless, this is not the TTC where the operating costs are fixed, nor is it a taxi cab where the fare itself is variable.
Let me ask you a different question: should amusement parks have the right to refuse admission on certain rides on the basis of height restrictions? |
the height restriction is a safety issue.
transportation is also considered more of a 'right' (for lack of a better word) as opposed to riding a roller coaster.
the airline doesn't credit someone for being an outlier *well* below the average weight...so why should they be able to charge someone significantly above it? does the anorexic person get a credit for occupying half a seat? lol! if the argument is that fat person is costing the airline more...well, the anorexic is disrupting the same pricing model by padding the airline's profit. Should they be able to pay less? Should the savings be spread among the other passengers?
silly...but you get my point.
I also don't save by not bringing a suitcase or carry-on. in fact, I split a suitcase with my bf on a short trip. we're EACH entitled to 50 lbs. the suitcase was 55 lbs but the airline doesn't factor in that it's between BOTH of us. We COULD have had an extra 45 lbs, but didn't, yet still had to remove 5 lbs. or pay a premium. How ed up is that logic? Why didn't I get a credit for not bringing a suitcase? Because they account for 50 lbs per passenger, period.
they logistically have to operate on averages. By definition of the law of averages, it will work out in the end. whatever statistical analysis they use to determine average weight of a full plane will include (if done properly) the rare occurrences of a couple of obese people on it, just as it will include the rare occurrences of a few waifs on another. |
|
|
|
|
