Who should pay for the extra seat for large passengers?

[Beefitarian]

Also not to bully anyone that massive but if you need to take up a second seat, you’re going to need to pay extra.

Of course if I was in charge they might have some wide seats available on some flights. No reason to punish them with the regular crappy seats while charging extra. Sigh, it’ll probably never happen in my lifetime.

[cdnavater]

Also not to bully anyone that massive but if you need to take up a second seat, you’re going to need to pay extra.

Of course if I was in charge they might have some wide seats available on some flights. No reason to punish them with the regular crappy seats while charging extra. Sigh, it’ll probably never happen in my lifetime.

Wait, don’t they have those, I believe it’s called business class

[Crewbunk]

Research, however, suggests otherwise. In 1985, according to the Consumers Union, none of America's big four airlines offered less than 19 inches of width. Now, 17 inches is the norm, and United goes as low as 16.”

We as aviation “experts” know that is 100% bullsquirt.

The cabin widths of the 707, 720, 727, 737 are identical and have been for over 60 years. All Economy seats were 17” wide, just like today’s seats, (777 and 787 included). It would be physically impossible to put a 19” wide seat at six abreast in that cabin. And those aircraft have been six abreast in economy since the 707 first flew.

I’m also curious about United with a 16” wide seat. On what type would that be? The lowest I’ve ever seen on a jet transport aircraft is 16 1/2” and that was on the nine abreast A300/A310/A330 and ten abreast DC-10 and L1011.

[rigpiggy]

I’m not morbidly obese but I’m very tall and in a cheap airline seat I often find the pitch is almost exactly the length of my thigh bone so I ‘spill over’ the other way. Sometimes I worry that the person in front of me might feel my knee against their seat and I don’t want to be a bother to anyone else but I also don’t spring for business class either.

Am I the same as an overly wide passenger or different? I don’t think any of my actions led to me being this way, maybe I could have backed off on the milk a bit as a kid? Started drinking coffee earlier? There’s nothing I can do about it now though, as far as I know.

pay for the emergency exit. I have to

[all_ramped_up]

You take up two seats, you pay for two seats.

Why make it more complicated than that.

You need to use a wheel chair, you pay for a wheel chair.
You need assistance and priority boarding because of mobility issues, you pay for it.
You're blind and need a guide through the terminal, you pay for it.

Why make it more complicated than that.

Being "big" is different than those disabilities.

Being blind doesn't take up an extra seat, nor does being in a wheel chair. There's ACAPs in the Terminals for assistance which is free.

[digits_]

You take up two seats, you pay for two seats.

Why make it more complicated than that.

You need to use a wheel chair, you pay for a wheel chair.
You need assistance and priority boarding because of mobility issues, you pay for it.
You're blind and need a guide through the terminal, you pay for it.

Why make it more complicated than that.

Being "big" is different than those disabilities.

Being blind doesn't take up an extra seat, nor does being in a wheel chair. There's ACAPs in the Terminals for assistance which is free.

The 'free' assistance is paid by the other travellers. Which is one of the options in this discussion. While rare, there are people that have medical issues causing them to be big. For those people, these examples are very relevant. It's not just as easy as 'if you need it you pay for it'.

[Lurch]

There is a middle ground answer.

They should be required to pay for two seats at the time of booking, but when the doors close and there are still unsold seats then they get a refund on the extra seat.

If you need a seatbelt extender or the armrest can't go down then you are required to pay for an extra seat. The rest of society should not have to cover the cost of your bad lifestyle choices.

[rookiepilot]

Size isn't a protected characteristic. So it's quite legal to discriminate against people because of it.

Interesting statement. Are you sure?

So any airline can fire an FA for being too heavy? They do this commonly in Asia.

(and there are too many of those slamming into me in my aisle seat with their butt over the years —- my shoulders literally do not fit within a 16.5 inch wide seat. What am I supposed to do — lean into the poor middle seat pax?)

Can an airline then also refuse boarding to anyone too heavy?

There. Problem solved.

[digits_]

So any airline can fire an FA for being too heavy?

You need to be able to fit in the aisle, so yeah, pretty sure they can filter on that, and that they do filter applicants based on their size.

Can an airline then also refuse boarding to anyone too heavy?

There. Problem solved.

Other than the PR nightmare of course.

[rookiepilot]

So any airline can fire an FA for being too heavy?

You need to be able to fit in the aisle, so yeah, pretty sure they can filter on that, and that they do filter applicants based on their size.

Not nearly well enough.

[Bede]

Size isn't a protected characteristic. So it's quite legal to discriminate against people because of it.

The CTA has ruled that it's a disability and is therefore a protected ground.

So any airline can fire an FA for being too heavy?

Depends if it's a bonefide occupational requirement. Is the FA's size impeding their job duties? Then probably, yes, they can get fired. Does the airline just prefer thinner, prettier FA's? Than no they can't get fired.

They do this commonly in Asia.

They do a lot of things in Asia that would be illegal in Canada. (Like suppressing free speech...oh wait, they do that here too.)

[photofly]

Size isn't a protected characteristic. So it's quite legal to discriminate against people because of it.

The CTA has ruled that it's a disability and is therefore a protected ground.

Your size, in and of itself, isn't a disability. Being morbidly obese might be. But as between two people of relatively normal weight, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate between them on the basis of their size.

[digits_]

Size isn't a protected characteristic. So it's quite legal to discriminate against people because of it.

The CTA has ruled that it's a disability and is therefore a protected ground.

Your size, in and of itself, isn't a disability. Being morbidly obese might be. But as between two people of relatively normal weight, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate between them on the basis of their size.

Telling a pilot or an FA "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you, because they weigh less" would not have any legal consequences?
Honest question, I have no idea, but find it interesting.

[photofly]

The CTA has ruled that it's a disability and is therefore a protected ground.

Your size, in and of itself, isn't a disability. Being morbidly obese might be. But as between two people of relatively normal weight, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate between them on the basis of their size.

Telling a pilot or an FA "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you, because they weigh less" would not have any legal consequences?
Honest question, I have no idea, but find it interesting.

You'd have to convince me it would be any different to "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you because they have red hair".

[tsgarp]

The CTA has ruled that it's a disability and is therefore a protected ground.

Your size, in and of itself, isn't a disability. Being morbidly obese might be. But as between two people of relatively normal weight, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate between them on the basis of their size.

Telling a pilot or an FA "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you, because they weigh less" would not have any legal consequences?
Honest question, I have no idea, but find it interesting.

“We’re hiring someone else because you don’t fit down the aisle or in the cockpit seat” would be a valid reason.

[photofly]

Your size, in and of itself, isn't a disability. Being morbidly obese might be. But as between two people of relatively normal weight, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate between them on the basis of their size.

Telling a pilot or an FA "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you, because they weigh less" would not have any legal consequences?
Honest question, I have no idea, but find it interesting.

“We’re hiring someone else because you don’t fit down the aisle or in the cockpit seat” would be a valid reason.

If it’s a genuine occupational requirement then you can discriminate on that basis, even if the characteristic is protected.

An FA needs adequate vision; a blind person cannot win a claim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability because the job was given to a sighted person.

[lownslow]

I’m not morbidly obese but I’m very tall and in a cheap airline seat I often find the pitch is almost exactly the length of my thigh bone so I ‘spill over’ the other way. Sometimes I worry that the person in front of me might feel my knee against their seat and I don’t want to be a bother to anyone else but I also don’t spring for business class either.

Am I the same as an overly wide passenger or different? I don’t think any of my actions led to me being this way, maybe I could have backed off on the milk a bit as a kid? Started drinking coffee earlier? There’s nothing I can do about it now though, as far as I know.

pay for the emergency exit. I have to

My point is that somewhere along the way it just becomes a line-drawing exercise. So fatty needs an extra seat, you and I have to pay for exit row or better, I guess the parent flying with a screaming kid needs to charter a bizjet, what else have we got? What’s acceptable to the passengers around someone and what isn’t? Do we keep up the social Ponzi scheme of banding together against the next target group or do we reach a point where we all shrug and say close enough?

[digits_]

Your size, in and of itself, isn't a disability. Being morbidly obese might be. But as between two people of relatively normal weight, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate between them on the basis of their size.

Telling a pilot or an FA "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you, because they weigh less" would not have any legal consequences?
Honest question, I have no idea, but find it interesting.

You'd have to convince me it would be any different to "we're hiring candidate Y instead of you because they have red hair".

Red hair usually has no consequences on ones health. Weight does.

Not hiring someone because they are fatter (but not obese) might implicate you'll have less claims on your benefits plan or disability insurance etc. Can you hire someone based on medical information, even if that medical information is openly visible (eg, weight), assuming they meet al medical requirements for the job?

[photofly]

You can discriminate against people on medical grounds. As long as it’s not a disability.

That’s a different issue to what medical information employers can demand.

Generally speaking, you’re free to discriminate (I.e. prefer) on any grounds you like except the specific protected ones. You cannot use a different unprotected characteristic as a proxy for a protected one, and your ability to discriminate on unprotected grounds is limited if by so doing you are indirectly discriminating on protected grounds. So, for example, for a job that genuinely doesn’t need tall people if you only employ people taller than 6 feet, that would indirectly discriminate against women who are on average shorter than men.

It’s always up to the person being discriminated against to construct an argument that ties that disadvantaged treatment back to a protected ground. That’s why lawyers are well paid.

It also seems to me that a successful claim of unlawful discrimination needs a clear cut categorization of the characteristic into defined groups: sex, race, disabled vs. Non-disabled. Size - is a spectrum.

And note that I am carefully using the word size, and you’re using the word weight. They’re not the same thing.

[photofly]

Might be worth reading the text of the Human Rights Act. This is federal legislation; provinces have their own anti-discrimination rules:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

(2) Where the ground of discrimination is pregnancy or child-birth, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of sex.

(3) Where the ground of discrimination is refusal of a request to undergo a genetic test or to disclose, or authorize the disclosure of, the results of a genetic test, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of genetic characteristics.

Everything else is "in".

Then, also:

15 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if

(a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;

[Beefitarian]

Of course if I was in charge they might have some wide seats available on some flights. No reason to punish them with the regular crappy seats while charging extra. Sigh, it’ll probably never happen in my lifetime.

Wait, don’t they have those, I believe it’s called business class

You might be right.

You can discriminate against people on medical grounds. As long as it’s not a disability.

I’m pretty sure there are no ironworkers, flight attendants or fire fighters being hired that are blind or in a wheelchair.

[photofly]

You can discriminate against people on medical grounds. As long as it’s not a disability.

I’m pretty sure there are no ironworkers, flight attendants or fire fighters being hired that are blind or in a wheelchair.

Indeed. See my prior post for the details of the exception for bona-fide occupational requirements.

[Beefitarian]

Missed that, sorry.

[rigpiggy]

There is a company that gives nonsmokers an extra 6 days vacay/year. should this then be required for everyone. It end arounds the whole discrimination thing, encourages others to quit, reduces health claims......but I'm sure some twatwaffle will cry foul and launch a human rights claim(at no cost to them). Then some bureaucrat with a sjw mandate will find against you. Then as a company you get to claw back all the vacation days. I HATES PEOPLE

[photofly]

There is a company that gives nonsmokers an extra 6 days vacay/year. should this then be required for everyone. It end arounds the whole discrimination thing, encourages others to quit, reduces health claims......but I'm sure some twatwaffle will cry foul and launch a human rights claim(at no cost to them). Then some bureaucrat with a sjw mandate will find against you. Then as a company you get to claw back all the vacation days. I HATES PEOPLE

It’s fine, as long as they do it in French too.