New Canadian Airline Policy re Obese and Disabled Travellers

Just heard that Canadian airlines (Air Canada, Jazz and Westjet) have one year to change their policy regarding charging double for obese passengers requiring two seats and disabled passengers who need to travel with an attendant.  Two seat requirements for obese travellers will be only charged one fare - disabled passenger's attendants will travel for free.  Yeah!

Perhaps they should just start charging by the square inch, rather than per seat!

I think they should be charged for every seat they occupy.

I agree with trhawley.

I agree with him too. If a person can be charged for a "seat" for their dog in a dog carrier they keep under the seat, they should be charged for taking up a whole extra seat.

Obese people can't go to a restaurant and say "my caloric desires/needs are twice or three times what other peoples' are, so give me three plates of my favorite dish and I'll only pay for one". I don't see how this is any different. 

This is bullsh*t, you know the rates are gunna go up now right? As if traveling wasn't expensive enough in the first place.

Why should I have to pay just because someone else is taking up two seats?

I only think the attendants for the disabled passngers should get a free seat.

I kind of think the attendants should pay for their seats.  Even if it's a discounted price for being an attendant to a disabled person, I still can't help but think they should pay.

They're using a service.  Using ainedb's example, if the attendant accompanied the disabled to a restaurant, would they get their meal for free, too?  They are, after all, using a service.

I also agree, if you're using two seats you should have to pay for two seats.

my mother is disabled.  should my father travel for free when they go on vacations?  he's her primary caregiver, and she certainly can't travel alone, but i don't think he would think that earns him a free trip.

what if my disabled mother gains two hundred pounds?  do they get three seats for the price of one?

they charge by weight for freight - why not do the same for people?  no - i don't mean that.  then the high-school linebacker would have to pay more than the anorexic supermodel, and that doesn't make sense. 

geez, i dunno.  but in a pay-for-service economy, two seats is two seats, right?  if two people on a 200 seat plane get a second one for free, then the rest of us have to pay for 1.01 seats, but with obesity rates topping 30%...scary.

how about adding a few extra large seating areas, like hanidcapped parking spaces on the ground.

Giggle: don't waste time with hate...it serves no purpose, and the universe has a way of dealing with it in an unlooked for way :)

*is devastated that someone as emotionally evolved and intellectually astute as 'giggle puppy' hates her*

giggle_puppy suffers from testosterone poisoning.  pay no attention.

i agree that extra-large seats would be a good idea, except then you'd end up with an "obesity class" right behind "first class" and that would be segregation or discrimination or something equally not-PC.

i don't know.  clearly, it costs airlines more to provide service to obese people.  i mean, we're talking about a gigantic hunk of metal flying through the air: weight matters.  even if people can fit in one seat, it takes more fuel to keep 300 pounds aloft than it does 130 pounds.  i don't think the airlines (or the other passengers) should have to swallow that cost.

maybe if we all had a weight allowance that included luggage: that way, i could take clothes, books, and shoes, but the linebacker would have to get by just with clean underwear....

Hee hee *is amused by the notion of scantily clad linebackers filling airline seats*

just might work PG :)

gonna have to agree with the majority of you all here.  People have the right to be as big as they want to be.....but when the rest of us have to pay extra because of it, that starts to be unfair.  If you take up two seats (for whatever reason) you should have to pay.  I don't care if you are taking up two seats because you are obese or because you insist that your rock collection have its own seat.  A seat is a seat.

I also don't think that making the seats bigger is the answer.  The bigger seats would end up costing more anyway.  So pretty much it would be the same as buying two regular sized seats in the first place.

I don't think this is discrimination...it's just business and focusing on the bottom line.

obese people => own fault, apy the second seat

disabled people => no own fault, caretaker should be free

 

I'm (mentally/psychological) disabled, if the employment agency wouldn't provide an extra educated caretaker for me, I couldn't do my schooling and would be completely isolated and unable to have a normal life; if someone is physical disabled, he probably needs a caretaker or he can't have a normal life either - being able to take part in normal life is a human right guys - think about it.

what about someone whose disability is their own fault - say, someone paralyzed in a mountain climbing accident?  arguably, my mother caused her disability (stroke) by smoking for 50 years. 

what about someone who's obese because of the habits they learned from their parents?  do they suddenly become monetarily responsible on their 18th birthday?

fault is too fuzzy, and a slippery slope.

i agree with most...two seats = two fares.

i think you could make a section of larger seats that isn't just for the obese.  add a little extra leg room too, so that taller people have more space.  charge more than a regular seat, but not as much as first class, and skip all the other first class perks.  i bet it would even be popular for non-obese people on longer flights.

as for the disabilities...again, two seats = two fares.  that said, airlines could do programs where people can donate frequent flier miles so that assistants could travel for free, governments could offer airline vouchers to people who prove the need of such assistance, etc. 

It's been a while since I checked this, but I believe when you buy a plane ticket, you aren't buying a 'seat', you're buying the service of being transported from one place to another.  I guess they're saying one person shouldn't have to pay double for that service.  

But I agree with everyone else.  If an obese person gets an extra seat free, I think they should have to provide a medical certificate saying they have a gland disorder or something. 

I think if the disabled person is VERY disabled - unable to feed him/herself, unable to  use the toilet, etc - then it's a good idea to allow the care provider to travel free, otherwise the flight staff might be expected to deal with situations they aren't qualified to handle.

I don't think changes like this will result in disabled people deciding to take extra holidays around the world.  But with the population becoming more and more obese, everyone is going to pay if fat people get extra space for free.  I'm fat and I still fit in the seat.  Sure it's cramped, but you'd have to be huuuuuuge to need two seats.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

what about someone whose disability is their own fault - say, someone paralyzed in a mountain climbing accident? arguably, my mother caused her disability (stroke) by smoking for 50 years.

what about someone who's obese because of the habits they learned from their parents? do they suddenly become monetarily responsible on their 18th birthday?

fault is too fuzzy, and a slippery slope.

 Well call your dear mother an acception then. Most people are NOT disabled because they did something wrong, like your mother obvisouly did and I find it somewhat stupid to bring that rare case of your mum as a alltime excuse to make innocent people's life harder.

If someone is obesed by the habits his parents taught him - he is still able to lose that weight over his life, he will move out with what 18? 20? If he keeps that disordered eating it's not an exuse at all.

Many people got told 'what's on your plate must be eaten' but not everybody is fat because of that.

I think you're being a bit mad at your mum and that's why you're so agressive in that case...

you completely misunderstood my argument.  i was saying that the concept of "fault" isn't absolute.  many people are disabled because of choices that they make - just like many people are obese because of choices.