Fatass Forces Passenger to Stand for 9 hr Flight

[Thanas]

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.

Clincher right here. Common sense sadly seems to be lacking.

[Ryan Thunder]

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.

Frankly people who believe that 'discrimination' against morbidly obese people* is a problem deserve nothing but ridicule.

*Who don't have some kind of underlying medical issue causing it, that is.

[Kanastrous]

I have to admit that there seems to be a lot of what sure smells like malice (name-calling, questioning of character, etc) aimed at obese people in general, that isn't in any way useful or helpful. How do I know that any given individual isn't morbidly obese due to a medical problem? Being morbidly obese is in and of itself a medical problem that becomes more and more difficult to address, the worse it gets. It deranges the metabolism, it wrecks the very systems (joints, tendons, ligaments, circulation) upon which any hope of getting the exercise vital to recovery depends.

There's a school of thought - a rational one, I think - suggesting that people with this kind of weight problem frequently aren't simply lazy and/or gluttonous, they are emotionally and/or psychologically injured, and their horrific physical condition is a symptom of that distress. You can say that I'm just offering excuses for laziness, and for some proportion of people I guess that's likely true, although I find it tough to imagine allowing myself to get into or persist in that kind of state without being in some way psychologically or emotionally damaged.

Yes, it's grotesque, and unpleasant to look at. Yes, it's a burdensome cost for medical care and special accommodations, that non-obese people are obliged to share. Yes, it can be a royal pain to have to deal with the special requirements of someone in that state. But the vitriol directed at these people is just so damned uncharitable and malignant, that whatever failings their condition may indicate on their part, it's undeserved.

Being in that kind of state may to one's way of thinking be a kind of crime, but it's one that is also its own punishment.

[Simon_Jester]

I think there's a lot to that: if it's a crime, it's its own punishment.

I suspect fighting obesity can be compared to fighting an addiction of other sorts- it's an ongoing, day by day struggle. And if you don't have the chemical dependency that is an issue with alcohol or drugs, you do have a huge factor working against you: you have to eat, because you keep getting hungry. You can't just fast for a month and lose X pounds that way.

For people who have fallen out of the habit of watching and limiting their weight, this requires a whole new, unprecedented behavior: they must redefine what a 'normal' amount of food is so as to eat less. It can be done, it is done, but it isn't something people who already have the problem can snap their fingers and do trivially.

[DPDarkPrimus]

They compensated him for his ticket. What more does he fucking want or deserve?

No they didn't. They gave him a $200 voucher, and he paid more than $800 for the ticket, according to this.

Also, the obese passenger was more than 400 pounds. That's not just a bit overweight. And yes, those sorts of people are usually required to purchase a second seat, if they cannot occupy a single one. He should have been removed when it was obvious that one seat was not enough to safely accommodate him and the others sitting in the same row.

[Lisa]

surprised no one has mentioned this http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 42,00.html

Kevin smith's experience. maybe that's why they didn't make fatty buy two seats.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

surprised no one has mentioned this http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 42,00.html

Kevin smith's experience. maybe that's why they didn't make fatty buy two seats.

Really? So Kevin Smith admits to regularly getting two seats on an airplane, the airplane clearly stated the safety issues behind why he was removed from the flight, yet he still decides to pitch a fit about it. Going on just the article, even his reasons for doing so amount to a roundabout way of saying, "I'm an asshole and I'm going to cause trouble just because I can."

But yeah, it's understandable to an extent how this sort of thinking led to the flight attendants' decision. It was a really stupid and unsafe decision, and they should be properly disciplined for it, but I can understand the psychology behind not wanting to cause a scene.

[Havok]

They compensated him for his ticket. What more does he fucking want or deserve?

No they didn't. They gave him a $200 voucher, and he paid more than $800 for the ticket, according to this.

And if he hadn't gotten to where he was going, the point of buying the ticket, I would say you are correct. HOWEVER, as he used the airline's fuel, presumably food, baggage services and stewardess time, plus federal taxes etc., and did indeed get to where he was going, on time?, then the compensation seems fine to me as the seat is just a part of the ticket.

As for my first post, I will concede all points except for wanting to punch numbnuts in the face for being a worm, and I will amend THAT to include Kanastorus so he doesn't feel left out.

To me, this is just a case of someone whining in hopes of getting something for nothing. There was a time when never giving a company your and your family and possibly friend's, business again was enough. This isn't a fat issue as you guys are making it into. This is a weasel person that saw a fat guy sitting next to him and his eyes lit up in hopes of being able to sue and get a free paycheck. I bet he was hoping for some "unexpected" turbulence to throw him into the ceiling.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

To me, this is just a case of someone whining in hopes of getting something for nothing. There was a time when never giving a company your and your family and possibly friend's, business again was enough. This isn't a fat issue as you guys are making it into. This is a weasel person that saw a fat guy sitting next to him and his eyes lit up in hopes of being able to sue and get a free paycheck. I bet he was hoping for some "unexpected" turbulence to throw him into the ceiling.

I'm glad you either know those involved personally, or are privy to facts and evidence the rest of us plebeians simply don't have access to. I admit I envy your privileged position which allows you to make broad sweeping claims about the personalities and motives of people with absolutely no facts to back it up.

[Havok]

You should. Spend more time with real people and not renfaire rejects and you may attain the position too.

It's called observation dumbass. How many times have you heard someone in your life say "Oh, you should sue."?

Plain and simple fact is our culture as a whole has become sue happy and is always looking for what is going to be a quick and easy buck. We used to be a country that used the term "ambulance chaser" as a derogatory, now they are the first numbers in our phones.

This is a perfect example of this. Strip away everything from this, and it's a guy that had to stand up for 7 hours and wants something out of it. There is no physical damage, no psychological damage, no hardship, yet he wants to make a federal case out of it. (Do I need to explain that that is just a saying, or why it IS a saying?)

[Havok]

And I love how in your previous post, you can understand the mindset of the flight attendants because you read an article about a completely separate incident.

"I'm glad you either know those involved personally, or are privy to facts and evidence the rest of us plebeians simply don't have access to. I admit I envy your privileged position which allows you to make broad sweeping claims about the personalities and motives of people with absolutely no facts to back it up."

El oh el.

[DPDarkPrimus]

This is a perfect example of this. Strip away everything from this, and it's a guy that had to stand up for 7 hours and wants something out of it. There is no physical damage, no psychological damage, no hardship, yet he wants to make a federal case out of it. (Do I need to explain that that is just a saying, or why it IS a saying?)

You're very right, Havok. Simply violating regulations and laws and creating an unsafe situation isn't enough - corporations should only be punished when an injury occurs.

[Havok]

This is a perfect example of this. Strip away everything from this, and it's a guy that had to stand up for 7 hours and wants something out of it. There is no physical damage, no psychological damage, no hardship, yet he wants to make a federal case out of it. (Do I need to explain that that is just a saying, or why it IS a saying?)

You're very right, Havok. Simply violating regulations and laws and creating an unsafe situation isn't enough - corporations should only be punished when an injury occurs.

Is this a reoccurring event? Are you saying this is worthy of a class action lawsuit?

There is a HUGE difference between people making an error once and a corporation consistently violating rules and regulations.
Punish the flight attendants, the gate workers and whoever needs to be for violating the regulations. And by punish, a mildly worded reprimand should suffice.

Why should this guy get anything more than he did? Even IF the airline gets punished?

Look at the key facts about this guy... he wasn't happy with what he received from the airline, so then he went to the media. I bet if the airline offered him full value, and then some, or even some free tickets, he wouldn't have said shit, meaning that this was just a situation about getting something for nothing... oh wait, not nothing, he was forced to stand for 7 hours.

“I didn’t fly from Alaska to Philadelphia on Flight 901,” Arthur Berkowitz told Christopher Elliott, a consumer advocate who operates elliott.org. “I stood.”

He wasn't mad because of violations or rules being broken, he was mad because he had to stand. he wasn't concerned with his well being or any injuries he might have gotten, he was pissed he only got a $200.00 voucher. He is a whiny worm.

P.S. No, dumbfuck, you still did fly. You just didn't get to sit.

[Broomstick]

There is a HUGE difference between people making an error once and a corporation consistently violating rules and regulations.
Punish the flight attendants, the gate workers and whoever needs to be for violating the regulations. And by punish, a mildly worded reprimand should suffice.

Well, OK, I'd be on board with that except the usual way the FAA handles something like that is a fine of $10,000 per offense and/or suspension of license where applicable. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but the notion the FAA would let them off with a "mildly worded reprimand" is laughable. That's not how things work in aviation.

And, given that the FAA hasn't come down like a ton of bricks on anyone here really makes me thinks there's something we're not being told here.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Hey Hav, you're fat. You're a fat fuck who eats too much and weighs far more than you should.

Holy shit, I can ad-hom too!

I assumed a state of mind on the part of the flight attendants that best explains why they engaged in actions that present a significant risk to their careers and a clear violation of safety standards. Even then I pointed out that while such a mindset is understandable, it's still not acceptable and they should be disciplined and quite possibly lose their jobs for putting the man at risk just to avoid a scene.

You assume there's some sort of conspiracy between the passenger, attendants and company to not only frame the innocent fat guy as an evil villain, but also make all of them look really stupid in the process... as opposed to several different parties acting in their own immediate self-interest, y'know, the way people do.

One of our proposed scenarios requires far less assumptions that go against basic human nature than the other. Quite frankly I don't give a shit if the customer's a complete litigation-happy asshole looking to make a quick buck. The fact of the matter is that said opportunity would never have arose if Mr. Fat Fuck got two seats like he should have in the first place, and if the attendants would have just done their goddamn jobs and not violated safety procedures just to avoid a potential scene.

Of course we might not be getting the whole story here, but I'm running under the assumption that the guy's fat enough to completely block seat-belt use for adjoining passengers, the cause of the issue in the first place. If this is shown to be false, then that's my theory out the window.

[Havok]

Hey Hav, you're fat. You're a fat fuck who eats too much and weighs far more than you should.

Holy shit, I can ad-hom too!

Yeah, but like the way you dress, it's horrible when you do it.

You assume there's some sort of conspiracy between the passenger, attendants and company to not only frame the innocent fat guy as an evil villain, but also make all of them look really stupid in the process... as opposed to several different parties acting in their own immediate self-interest, y'know, the way people do.

One of our proposed scenarios requires far less assumptions that go against basic human nature than the other. Quite frankly I don't give a shit if the customer's a complete litigation-happy asshole looking to make a quick buck. The fact of the matter is that said opportunity would never have arose if Mr. Fat Fuck got two seats like he should have in the first place, and if the attendants would have just done their goddamn jobs and not violated safety procedures just to avoid a potential scene.

Like... for real? I'm not even responding to you anymore.

[Havok]

There is a HUGE difference between people making an error once and a corporation consistently violating rules and regulations.
Punish the flight attendants, the gate workers and whoever needs to be for violating the regulations. And by punish, a mildly worded reprimand should suffice.

Well, OK, I'd be on board with that except the usual way the FAA handles something like that is a fine of $10,000 per offense and/or suspension of license where applicable. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but the notion the FAA would let them off with a "mildly worded reprimand" is laughable. That's not how things work in aviation.

I was referring to the Airline, not the FAA. There has to be some recourse within the company that the FAA allows before they step in.

And, given that the FAA hasn't come down like a ton of bricks on anyone here really makes me thinks there's something we're not being told here.

Maybe the fat guy is built like I am? I'm around 360 at the moment, but I have never even had to consider buying two seats on a plane. In fact, I have offered to move to an empty couple of seats on a Southwest flight because I thought I would inconvenience the person next to me. Her response, "Not even close sweety." or something to that effect. My shoulders are wider than my girth widthwise, even when sitting.

Has there been any picture posted of Mr. Fattypants?

[Broomstick]

There is a HUGE difference between people making an error once and a corporation consistently violating rules and regulations.
Punish the flight attendants, the gate workers and whoever needs to be for violating the regulations. And by punish, a mildly worded reprimand should suffice.

Well, OK, I'd be on board with that except the usual way the FAA handles something like that is a fine of $10,000 per offense and/or suspension of license where applicable. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but the notion the FAA would let them off with a "mildly worded reprimand" is laughable. That's not how things work in aviation.

I was referring to the Airline, not the FAA. There has to be some recourse within the company that the FAA allows before they step in.

No, there doesn't. The FAA will go after any violation it feels like pursuing, regardless of what an employer might or might not do as well. If they hear about something via the media they will pursue it if it looks like something is amiss.

About the only way to diffuse that is to go to the FAA before it comes to you - which might be the case here, with the involved parties admitting to a wrong-doing in hopes of leniency.

Or, as I think more likely, there's something missing from the story as told and the facts differ significantly in some respects from what is presented in the article.

[spaceviking]

There is a HUGE difference between people making an error once and a corporation consistently violating rules and regulations.
Punish the flight attendants, the gate workers and whoever needs to be for violating the regulations. And by punish, a mildly worded reprimand should suffice.

Well, OK, I'd be on board with that except the usual way the FAA handles something like that is a fine of $10,000 per offense and/or suspension of license where applicable. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but the notion the FAA would let them off with a "mildly worded reprimand" is laughable. That's not how things work in aviation.

I was referring to the Airline, not the FAA. There has to be some recourse within the company that the FAA allows before they step in.

And, given that the FAA hasn't come down like a ton of bricks on anyone here really makes me thinks there's something we're not being told here.

Maybe the fat guy is built like I am? I'm around 360 at the moment, but I have never even had to consider buying two seats on a plane. In fact, I have offered to move to an empty couple of seats on a Southwest flight because I thought I would inconvenience the person next to me. Her response, "Not even close sweety." or something to that effect. My shoulders are wider than my girth widthwise, even when sitting.

Has there been any picture posted of Mr. Fattypants?

I believe we had a thread like this sometime ago where you said that you could fit into an airline seat with the armrests down.

this guy was described as...

“His size required both armrests to be raised up and allowed for his body to cover half of my seat,” Berkowitz said. “It did not allow me to use my seatbelt

So I think it is safe to assume this guy was a fair bit wider than you, if not heavier. You may be perfectly fine to sit next to on a plane, doesn't mean this guy was.

[Block]

That's assuming it's not hyperbole.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Yeah, but like the way you dress, it's horrible when you do it.

Your jealousy is transparent, sweetheart.

Like... for real? I'm not even responding to you anymore.

Aww, and you didn't even try to hide the fact that you snipped away the part where I openly state I'm operating under the assumption that the story is true as-is, and am perfectly willing to change my position if new facts come up.

But you aren't a complete idiot, you likely already knew you'd get called out for being a liar, as well as being too cowardly to simply own up to the fact that you're knee-jerk bitching at any convenient target. Thus this preemptively declaring victory and running away.

[Havok]

You know... I actually wrote a big ol' response, but I think I have decided to just stick by you being a fucking idiot and just not responding to you anymore.
At least until you learn how to fucking read.

[Knife]

That's assuming it's not hyperbole.

I tried pointing out that the original article has only the one view point of pissed off customer earlier, they don't want to entertain that view point. They're too busy with the one sided fat ass story.

[Flagg]

That's assuming it's not hyperbole.

I tried pointing out that the original article has only the one view point of pissed off customer earlier, they don't want to entertain that view point. They're too busy with the one sided fat ass story.

You also blatantly lied about a salient fact in the article and never responded when it was pointed out, so you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass.

[Knife]

That's assuming it's not hyperbole.

I tried pointing out that the original article has only the one view point of pissed off customer earlier, they don't want to entertain that view point. They're too busy with the one sided fat ass story.

You also blatantly lied about a salient fact in the article and never responded when it was pointed out, so you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass.

I didn't lie about jack shit, asshole. Just about every fucking thing in that article was from pissed off customer's point of view. The only thing from the flight crew was a throw away line from the company about how the pissed off customer 'refused the jump seat.' I fully acknowledge pissed off customer said he wasn't offered one. That small exchange was the only balanced, two points of view, piece of information in the article.

When I pointed it out, all you did was quote the article where pissed off customer said he was denied, as if it erases the part where the flight crew said he refused it. Fuck off.

Edit:

My bad, the article didn't say refuse, they said;

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.”

Which implies he refused. Point remains the same. Pissed off customer says he was forced to stand, company says he refused what ever accommodation they had. Still don't know if fat ass was covering the pissed off guys seat or not, or if pissed off customer just didn't want to sit next to fat guy, smelling fat guy sweat.