Fatass Forces Passenger to Stand for 9 hr Flight

[Knife]

I'm with PainRack on this one. On the complain, we just have a pissed off customer's account, the only part of the story from the flight crew is that he 'refused to sit in a jump seat' and nothing on the original problem. Maybe the fat guy was taking up half of the pissed off customer's seat, maybe not. I don't know. Maybe they offered him a jump seat and maybe they didn't, I don't know.

The situation should not have gotten that far. Perhaps they should have an airline chair next to the gate to size people with before boarding, or perhaps pissed off customers say exagerated things when they're mad. Out of all of them, I feel sorry for the flight crew.

[Flagg]

I'm with PainRack on this one. On the complain, we just have a pissed off customer's account, the only part of the story from the flight crew is that he 'refused to sit in a jump seat' and nothing on the original problem. Maybe the fat guy was taking up half of the pissed off customer's seat, maybe not. I don't know. Maybe they offered him a jump seat and maybe they didn't, I don't know.

The situation should not have gotten that far. Perhaps they should have an airline chair next to the gate to size people with before boarding, or perhaps pissed off customers say exagerated things when they're mad. Out of all of them, I feel sorry for the flight crew.

Did you read the article? The airline doesn't really contradict anything the passenger says. At all.

[Knife]

Yes, I read the article. The only thing they stuck in there was the bit about the flight crew saying he 'refused the jump seat' and then all the compensation bit. No account of if the fat guy was spilling into the pissed off customer's sea or not. So, I don't know if he was or not. All I got is one article totally on the pissed off customer's side. I doubt the air crew will be quoted saying 'Yes, the fat guy was all over the other guys seat' but... there we go.

[Flagg]

Yes, I read the article. The only thing they stuck in there was the bit about the flight crew saying he 'refused the jump seat' and then all the compensation bit. No account of if the fat guy was spilling into the pissed off customer's sea or not. So, I don't know if he was or not. All I got is one article totally on the pissed off customer's side. I doubt the air crew will be quoted saying 'Yes, the fat guy was all over the other guys seat' but... there we go.

No, they refused him the jump seat.

Berkowitz said he alerted flight attendants to the problem, but they were unable to accommodate him, according to his account on elliott.org. “They were sympathetic, but they could not do anything. No other seats existed on plane. They would not permit me to sit in their jump seats, and fully acknowledged the mistake by their gate agent, in allowing this individual on plane without requiring him to purchase and occupy two seats,” he said.

[Broomstick]

I have to wonder if the reason the crew didn't allow him a jump seat is because they where using the jumpseats and there were no extra ones. Crew are required to be buckled in, too. Exceptions are made for necessary flight duties in preparation for take-off or landing, but during those two they must also be strapped in.

[DoomSquid]

That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I don't think I've ever been on a flight where all the bucket seats weren't occupied by cabin crew, although to be fair, I'm not exactly a frequent flyer.

[evilsoup]

That's not really a reasonable explanation. If the crew were worried about following regulations with regards to their sitting down, then that show they were aware of the regulations and should have known not to take off with a passenger out of a seat.

[PREDATOR490]

I presume fatass was sitting at the window seat for the poor bastard to be pushed out to the aisle. Although I'm imagining a horrific fate of the poor bastard being splattered against the window.

Wouldnt it have been simpler to get Mr. Fatass to move somewhere that provides room or ask if someone will swap seats ?
Bonus points if you foot the bill to the Fatass.

The statement from the Airline is really stupid and contradictory. The guy cant sit down, cant fasten his seatbelt because Fatass is in the way... which they admit then they say its not fair for the guy to be pissed and threatening them with safety violations because he refused to sit down and fasten his seatbelt ?

I like the bit where they say it was his responsibility to resolve the situation diplomatically... how is he meant to do that without getting a knife and shanking fatass ?
I doubt Fatty is going to stand for 7 hours in the aisle and I would be woefully unimpressed if noone on this flight thought to actually speak to Fatty about the situation. Did all of this happen in a vaccum with Fatty unaware ?

[Block]

That's not really a reasonable explanation. If the crew were worried about following regulations with regards to their sitting down, then that show they were aware of the regulations and should have known not to take off with a passenger out of a seat.

It's an FAA regulation that passengers can't be in the crew areas during flight. You can't stand near the bathroom waiting in line anymore, you have to sit in your seat and wait. There's no way he was standing during takeoff and landing, he'dve been thrown to the back of the plane. So he could sit, he just was uncomfortable doing so.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At least on Asian international flights there's people doing stretches and stuff by the jumpseats for the flight attendants, so if true it's very strictly an FAA regulation that doesn't apply once out of US airspace.

[Knife]

Yes, I read the article. The only thing they stuck in there was the bit about the flight crew saying he 'refused the jump seat' and then all the compensation bit. No account of if the fat guy was spilling into the pissed off customer's sea or not. So, I don't know if he was or not. All I got is one article totally on the pissed off customer's side. I doubt the air crew will be quoted saying 'Yes, the fat guy was all over the other guys seat' but... there we go.

No, they refused him the jump seat.

actually, the article stated for the airline...

Liz Landau, a spokesperson for US Airways, confirmed that Berkowitz was inconvenienced by a passenger of size and told msnbc.com “it was his choice to stand.”

They acknowledge that the passenger felt inconvenienced by the fat guy but refused a seat and choose to stand. So you have one side saying fat guy was sooooooo large it made pissed off customer stand the whole flight and the flight saying that he was inconvenienced by a fat guy and choose to stand. Who's right? I don't know. The company tried to compensate the guy, a $200 voucher is pretty nice but I don't know how much he paid for his ticket. Then again, I don't know if fat guy literally pushed him out of his seat, or if pissed off guy was just mad at sitting next to someone who smells like cheetos. Who the fuck knows... well the flight crew does but I doubt we'll get a quote off of them.

[Flagg]

Yes, I read the article. The only thing they stuck in there was the bit about the flight crew saying he 'refused the jump seat' and then all the compensation bit. No account of if the fat guy was spilling into the pissed off customer's sea or not. So, I don't know if he was or not. All I got is one article totally on the pissed off customer's side. I doubt the air crew will be quoted saying 'Yes, the fat guy was all over the other guys seat' but... there we go.

No, they refused him the jump seat.

actually, the article stated for the airline...

Liz Landau, a spokesperson for US Airways, confirmed that Berkowitz was inconvenienced by a passenger of size and told msnbc.com “it was his choice to stand.”

They acknowledge that the passenger felt inconvenienced by the fat guy but refused a seat and choose to stand. So you have one side saying fat guy was sooooooo large it made pissed off customer stand the whole flight and the flight saying that he was inconvenienced by a fat guy and choose to stand. Who's right? I don't know. The company tried to compensate the guy, a $200 voucher is pretty nice but I don't know how much he paid for his ticket. Then again, I don't know if fat guy literally pushed him out of his seat, or if pissed off guy was just mad at sitting next to someone who smells like cheetos. Who the fuck knows... well the flight crew does but I doubt we'll get a quote off of them.

Yes, but his choices were between apparently having half a cetacean on him and standing, he never had the option of a jump seat as explicitly stated by my quotation of the article which you seemingly ignored.

[Faqa]

That's why I say - from the point of view of the air crew, who were the ones who made the decision to allow the OP, the fairest thing to do is remove both because both passengers were failed by the airline. To attempt to dole out blame and make a decision based on that is not productive and potentially unfair.

No, because the fat guy didn't book two seats like he should have and the other guy did exactly as he should have, so kicking the fatass off the plane is punishing him for doing the wrong thing, while kicking the other guy off the plane is punishing him for doing nothing unreasonable. Holy shit, what is it going to take to get this through your head?

What the fat guy "should have" done is what the airline was likely to request of him given his weight. So, unless he was told by the airline ahead of time that he would require two seats, he is perfectly within his rights to feel wronged. Does the fact that the first and foremost screw-up was the company's escape you, despite my repeated stating of it?

And if they had, this wouldn't have been a story. But the flight crew didn't have the luxury of retroactively refusing to assign the obese passenger to a second seat; they had to deal with the problem with which they were presented.

...

I still don't see why you insist that the standing passenger, who had no trouble fitting into the seat to which he was assigned, should be denied that seat in the interest of fairness. If you really want to be fair, following this logic, there should have been a lottery among all passengers on that flight to see who had to stay behind. After all, why should this one guy be singled out for being so unlucky as to have drawn the short straw before the flight.

Correct. And FROM their point of view, kicking them both off would seem to be the only reasonable solution. If you were dealing with the airline as an entity as opposed to a flight crew, things change. There you have the luxury of being able to judge the stories of both sides and understand where the mistake was that led to the situation.

But from the flight crew's POV, what you have is two passengers who were wronged by the airline, and you aren't in the position to judge if one is more at fault than the other's.

Why should no one else be involved? Because the debate is over those two seats that the two passengers paid for, not over any others.

Why deny the standing passenger? Because you don't know why the fat guy is there. Maybe he's an idiot who ignored a big honking "CHECK THIS BOX FOR SPECIAL NEEDS" when registering for his flight. Maybe he'd flown before and the airline had told him it would be no problem.

What you DO know is that the airline should never have allowed him to board. As much as a service to him as to the other passengers. By allowing him to board, the airline has failed him. As well, of course, as the other passenger.

Two passengers wronged. From the POV of the flight crew, both should be removed, since both cannot be flown safely.

If the flight crew did not have the luxury of retroactively not boarding the fat gentleman, they certainly did not have the luxury of knowing why he had been boarded.

Person 1: Bought one ticket, fits into his seat.
Person 2: Bought one ticket, would have needed to buy two to accommodate him. He should have know that he doesn't fit his seat, as he does know that he is grossly overweight - using up half of the next seat is an indicator, I know fat people, and every one of them fits a single seat - so the guy had to be huge.

Person 1 has done everything right.
Person 2 had neglected to buy 2 seats, although he must know that he won't fit.

Why should Person 1 leave when he did everything right?

I simply apply logic to the case, while you, Sir, are actively discriminating against normal-weight people.

Because we don't know that that is the case, see above. And certainly the flight crew making the call did not.

[Nephtys]

This entire threat boggles me.

We have a hypothetical airplane of 199 more or less normal weight people, and 1 aberration that prevents buckling up of a seat for not only one person, but likely ANYBODY else on the plane. And yet we've got people on this thread bending head over heels to not put him at fault?

If anybody else was in the fat guy's seat instead, there'd have been no issue. It's not the fault of the 'skinny' guy that he just happened to get sat next to this dude. All this talk of 'discrimination' is ridiculous when NATURAL LAW indicates that this person in fact, occupies the resources of two passengers. And his very presence and inability to reserve those resources greatly inconvenienced another, who had absolutely nothing to do with the entire situation except having bad luck.

Is this really any different than again, someone who must bring bulky equipment, or perhaps a mother who's taking a small child aboard? It's their responsibility to reserve those extra resources.

[Faqa]

No, it isn't any different. And perhaps people would be more sympathetic if it were equipment or a small child (let us say a mother who was used to flying with said child on her lap and then was told on the plane itself that that was not a possibility).

The point is not the lack of fault of the fat guy or the thin guy. The point is the first and primary fault of the airline.

[Vendetta]

We have a hypothetical airplane of 199 more or less normal weight people, and 1 aberration that prevents buckling up of a seat for not only one person, but likely ANYBODY else on the plane. And yet we've got people on this thread bending head over heels to not put him at fault?

The only "fault" you could find with fatty is guzzling so many pies in the first place.

The fault lies with the airline. They know how wide their seats are, they should be able to tell when a passenger has brought more ass than will fit in their seats and to reserve extra ass-space, whether they charge the fatty for it or not.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wasn't there perhaps a CHILD who could fit in the seat next to the fat guy? They don't take up as much space, and it seems like a reasonable solution.

Also, 'It was his choice to stand' doesn't mean he was offered a comfortable seat. His other 'choice' could have been 'Sit with 30% of your ass on your seat with the armrest crushing your ribs'. He was SPECIFICALLY DENIED a jump seat when he asked to ride in one.

The airline even admitted it was a mistake to let the fat guy on the plane without buying a second ticket, but saying 'its his choice' would be like if a restraunt dropped your food on the floor and then said it was your choice to not eat your steak just because it got covered in carpet lint and band-aids.

He paid for a service, it was not provided, and the airline refused to give him a solution he was satisfied with.

[Vendetta]

Wasn't there perhaps a CHILD who could fit in the seat next to the fat guy? They don't take up as much space, and it seems like a reasonable solution.

Depends. If the fat guy was blocking the seat restraints then possibly even a child couldn't have safely buckled in whilst sat there.

[Broomstick]

At least on Asian international flights there's people doing stretches and stuff by the jumpseats for the flight attendants, so if true it's very strictly an FAA regulation that doesn't apply once out of US airspace.

And I'm sure there are parts of Africa and New Guinea where you don't need a license to be a pilot, but whatever, right? Canada, Europe, and Australia, at least the last time I checked, ALSO have very similar requirements in regard to passenger and crew restraints - which I even mentioned in a prior post, that it was just the US making such regs but other nations, too. And just ignore that this was an American flight in American airspace, too. Finally, I will point out that Asian airlines don't have the enviable safety records of the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia, either, and maybe, just maybe, safety regs that are more lax than those other nations/continents might be a factor in that.

[Simon_Jester]

At least on Asian international flights there's people doing stretches and stuff by the jumpseats for the flight attendants, so if true it's very strictly an FAA regulation that doesn't apply once out of US airspace.

And I'm sure there are parts of Africa and New Guinea where you don't need a license to be a pilot, but whatever, right? Canada, Europe, and Australia, at least the last time I checked, ALSO have very similar requirements in regard to passenger and crew restraints - which I even mentioned in a prior post, that it was just the US making such regs but other nations, too. And just ignore that this was an American flight in American airspace, too. Finally, I will point out that Asian airlines don't have the enviable safety records of the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia, either, and maybe, just maybe, safety regs that are more lax than those other nations/continents might be a factor in that.

Did she say the regulation was a bad idea, or that it was specific to the US? There's a difference. Not all US-specific things are bad.

As to whether the regulation is a good idea, maybe you could explain to me the impact on safety of barring passengers from standing in crew areas, when "crew area" is defined to include the corridor by the bathroom? There are obvious comfort issues, especially on extremely long intercontinental flights where you're basically telling people they have to stay cramped up in a chair for a dozen or more hours and not get up except to use the bathroom. If the safety issue overrides the comfort issue, it has to be pretty substantial in size. Is it?

[Broomstick]

Did she say the regulation was a bad idea, or that it was specific to the US? There's a difference. Not all US-specific things are bad.

What she said was:

so if true it's very strictly an FAA regulation that doesn't apply once out of US airspace.

Which implies that it is ONLY an FAA reg and doesn't exist anywhere else. In other words, at best, it was very poorly worded. In actual fact it's a common regulation found in many nations around the world.

As to whether the regulation is a good idea, maybe you could explain to me the impact on safety of barring passengers from standing in crew areas, when "crew area" is defined to include the corridor by the bathroom? There are obvious comfort issues, especially on extremely long intercontinental flights where you're basically telling people they have to stay cramped up in a chair for a dozen or more hours and not get up except to use the bathroom. If the safety issue overrides the comfort issue, it has to be pretty substantial in size. Is it?

The main safety issue that seat restraints address is being tossed about the interior cabin. This is most likely to occur on the ground, where impacts with other objects resulting in a sudden jolt are most likely; at take-off, with the floor of the cabin at a significant angle and/or the possibility of needing to dodge obstacles/other aircraft/birds arises which may require unannounced sudden movements. In cruise, far above ground obstacles and birds, and most weather, with the planned flight in straight-and-level attitude, such sudden movements are much less likely and thus there is less risk in letting people move about the cabin unrestrained. If there is bad weather, or reports of turbulence, however, people are advised to remain in their seats and buckle in due to increased risk - turbulence has not only caused severe injury, it has on occasion caused death. The rules are to prevent rare but potentially catastrophic events.

As far as restricting passengers from designated crew areas - that may or may not be for safety reasons, but if so, it is for different safety reasons. The airlines would not want to have to pay an injury claim for some doofus who managed to scald themselves with the coffee maker, or who drank himself to unconsciousness or death after getting into the booze stock. Crew areas may or may not have access to airplane systems, and the rules may or may not involve security, and that was true even before 9/11.

If the airlines and regulatory agencies were going strictly by safety, everyone would spend the entire trip strapped into a four point harness in a rear-facing seat (in fact the military actually does this at times when transporting personnel). However, the paying public wouldn't stand for it, or sit still for it. Thus, the current state of affairs is a compromise - the seats face forward, the passengers have lapbelts only, and you're allowed to get up and piss at least some of the time. Do note, however, that the crew in their jumpseats normally do have both lap and shoulder restraints, and typically do face towards the rear. The pilots likewise have a much more robust restraint system, although these days you never actually see it.

As far as people standing outside the bathroom - quite a bit of the attendants' jobs involve crowd control as well as safety. They may not want a lot of people jamming a narrow area for several reasons: obstructing flight attendants in their duties, too many people out of their seats so if they do hit bumpy air there are more likely to be injuries, or more injuries, and since 9/11 fear of plotting by groups of passengers.

The fact is, the airline really would much prefer you stay in those cramped seats the entire time, with the restraint at least loosely buckled across your lap. Every time someone is walking around the cabin and gets injured in clear air turbulence, or just by falling over due to too many cocktails, they are incurring liability, might well get sued, and have to pay out. Of course, this has to be balanced by issues like deep vein thrombosis, which can be brought on or aggravated by sitting for long periods in cramped conditions and can also result in substantial injury, death, and/or payouts. Which is why at some point (barring something like bad weather) they do, in fact, permit you to get up and walk about the cabin. Or stand in the aisle and stretch. That doesn't mean they want you doing laps around the cabin or wandering about for extended periods of time.

[Ryan Thunder]

No, it isn't any different. And perhaps people would be more sympathetic if it were equipment or a small child (let us say a mother who was used to flying with said child on her lap and then was told on the plane itself that that was not a possibility).

No, not really. None of those alternatives at all justify throwing them both off the plane, as you continue to insist is the only fair decision that could have been made.

[Kanastrous]

What the fat guy "should have" done is what the airline was likely to request of him given his weight. So, unless he was told by the airline ahead of time that he would require two seats, he is perfectly within his rights to feel wronged.

It seems a bit much to suggest that the inhabitant of a plus-sized body would be unaware of the fact that a plus-sized body means a requirement for a plus-sized volume of space within which to accommodate it. If you know how large you are, and what accommodations you need, the onus is upon *you* to take that into account when making your travel arrangements.

Even someone who has never flown on an airplane before can be expected to understand from day-to-day experience with things like standard bathrooms, furniture, automobiles, clothing, etc that their dimensions create an unusual situation when using facilities designed around a smaller average body volume.

[Korto]

Against which, Kanastrous, you expect the airline to know its own business. Fat people aren't a rarity, you expect that the airline knows what they can handle, what they can't, and to have protocols in place. The guy bought the ticket in good faith. They had the opportunity then to know there was a problem. The mistake was all the airline's making.
PS. I've just realised this all assumes he bought the ticket in person, not necessarily the case. In which case, their opportunity was at boarding. Not as good, but still there.

Backtracking a little

Being a morbidly obese fatass is not an involuntary disability except in very rare cases, so any bad PR they got from that would be invalid.

Just because bad PR is "invalid" doesn't cause it to not exist. You may have right of way, but you're still just as dead if that truck runs over you.

[Kanastrous]

The guy bought the ticket in good faith.

I'm not suggesting that he's a bad person, but it's not 'good faith' to buy inadequate accommodations for yourself when you have reason to *know* that they are inadequate. You're basically assuming that some accommodation will have to be made *for* you, when it's your responsibility to arrange it for yourself.