Fatass Forces Passenger to Stand for 9 hr Flight

[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.

[Flagg]

Not to mention there are airlines that force them to buy 2 coach tickets or a first class ticket so their tonnage doesn't spill over into other seats.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The story said they wouldn't let the thin guy sit in a jump seat, but I can't figure out WHY they wouldn't do that unless that's also against airline rules.

[Korto]

What I'm curious about is this bit...

"We have attempted to address this customer’s service concerns,” the airline statement said, “but offering increasing amounts of compensation based on a threat of a safety violation isn’t really fair — especially when the passenger himself said he didn’t follow crew members’ instructions and fasten his seatbelt.

“The way to ensure you have space available next to you — whether you are a person of size, or you would simply like to ensure you have more personal space to relax on a long flight — is to purchase that additional seat, or First Class, in advance.”

Are they seriously suggesting that the bloke (the skinny one) should have bought an extra seat himself, if he wanted to be sure of being able to sit down? Or am I reading that wrong?

[Flagg]

What I'm curious about is this bit...

"We have attempted to address this customer’s service concerns,” the airline statement said, “but offering increasing amounts of compensation based on a threat of a safety violation isn’t really fair — especially when the passenger himself said he didn’t follow crew members’ instructions and fasten his seatbelt.

“The way to ensure you have space available next to you — whether you are a person of size, or you would simply like to ensure you have more personal space to relax on a long flight — is to purchase that additional seat, or First Class, in advance.”

Are they seriously suggesting that the bloke (the skinny one) should have bought an extra seat himself, if he wanted to be sure of being able to sit down? Or am I reading that wrong?

They don't seem to know what tack to take on this so they are throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

[Thanas]

And the anti fat backlash on SDN continues apace I see...

Dude, I am pretty sure the average body weight of a SDN member is more than that of the average member of the public. I am also pretty sure that many people, including at least two in this thread, know that there may be legitimate medical reasons for being fat.

That being said, if you are so fat that you require two seats, you should be required to pay for two. That is not being anti-fat, that is not being a dick and making other people suffer for your problems. Now, if you want to make the argument that due to the population getting fatter seats should be wider that is fine, but you do not seem to be making it.

[Ryan Thunder]

What I'm curious about is this bit...

"We have attempted to address this customer’s service concerns,” the airline statement said, “but offering increasing amounts of compensation based on a threat of a safety violation isn’t really fair — especially when the passenger himself said he didn’t follow crew members’ instructions and fasten his seatbelt.

“The way to ensure you have space available next to you — whether you are a person of size, or you would simply like to ensure you have more personal space to relax on a long flight — is to purchase that additional seat, or First Class, in advance.”

Are they seriously suggesting that the bloke (the skinny one) should have bought an extra seat himself, if he wanted to be sure of being able to sit down? Or am I reading that wrong?

I don't think so. They're suggesting that you do thatif you want more space than you paid for, whatever your reason.

[Solauren]

And the anti fat backlash on SDN continues apace I see...

Hi. Let me introduce myself.
My doctor has told me I need to lose about 60 pounds. Yourself?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I weigh more than twice as much as my somewhat-overweight girlfriend, myself.

[DoomSquid]

I don't think so. They're suggesting that you do that if you want more space than you paid for, whatever your reason.

Yeah, but he didn't want more space than he paid for. He wanted just the space that he paid for. In my mind, the solution is simple; if you take up the space of two seats, you should have to pay for two seats, and if you don't then you don't fly once your requirement becomes obvious. The person causing the problem should suffer the costs, not the person being screwed over by the fat guy taking up his seat.

[PainRack]

Didn't anyone miss the stewardess explaination? The fat passenger should had been charged for two seats, but for reasons unknown, wasn't. She accepted that it was a mistake the airline made.

What happened then was aircrew adlibbing a service recovery(although god knows why they couldn't allow the jump seat to be used) but the customer remained unhappy about his service experience.


The airline in response DID offer compensation, but the customer doesn't like it. More importantly, the safety violation wasn't MADE by the airline, but was a choice by the passenger because he felt his personal space being violated by the other passenger.

So to summarise, a person has a bad service experience due to another fat passenger and is spreading the news. The passenger is not at fault for violating safety regs because obviously, his other passenger prevents him from safely seating down. Its not the fault of the airline, (apart from jump seat)because regarding safety, the passenger COULD had sat in the seat and suffered the problem of intrusion into his personal space/cramping and all that involves.

The bad service experience regarding the flight, the promise for an airline seat and etc was compensated for via a 200 dollar voucher. Adequate? Not in the eyes of the passenger, but the airline declines to increase compensation.

So..... where the angst people?

[Broomstick]

So to summarise, a person has a bad service experience due to another fat passenger and is spreading the news. The passenger is not at fault for violating safety regs because obviously, his other passenger prevents him from safely seating down. Its not the fault of the airline, (apart from jump seat)because regarding safety, the passenger COULD had sat in the seat and suffered the problem of intrusion into his personal space/cramping and all that involves.

The bolded part is incorrect. The aircrew IS responsible for seeing all safety regs are observed. If even one passenger, for any reason, can not be safely seated in accordance with the regulations, or refuses to comply for any reason, the flight is not legal to take off. Even if nothing bad happened, that is still actionable under the aviation regulations of every nation whose regulations I am familiar with. If the FAA decides to be dicks about it both pilots could have their licenses revoked over this. The onus is on them to make sure the flight is legal prior to take-off, and in this case, due to the regulations mandating safety restraints duringany ground movement, even before they left the gate. Likewise, the airline can be held responsible for the lapses of its employees.

As far as the jump seat issue goes - it may be, after the crew were all strapped in, there simply wasn't an extra one available.

The LEGAL and ethical choices were:
1) Remove the fat guy from the airplane
2) Insist the skinny guy squish himself in for ground movement, take-off, and landing but permit him to move around during cruise.

[DoomSquid]

Didn't anyone miss the stewardess explaination? The fat passenger should had been charged for two seats, but for reasons unknown, wasn't. She accepted that it was a mistake the airline made.

What happened then was aircrew adlibbing a service recovery(although god knows why they couldn't allow the jump seat to be used) but the customer remained unhappy about his service experience.


The airline in response DID offer compensation, but the customer doesn't like it. More importantly, the safety violation wasn't MADE by the airline, but was a choice by the passenger because he felt his personal space being violated by the other passenger.

So to summarise, a person has a bad service experience due to another fat passenger and is spreading the news. The passenger is not at fault for violating safety regs because obviously, his other passenger prevents him from safely seating down. Its not the fault of the airline, (apart from jump seat)because regarding safety, the passenger COULD had sat in the seat and suffered the problem of intrusion into his personal space/cramping and all that involves.

The bad service experience regarding the flight, the promise for an airline seat and etc was compensated for via a 200 dollar voucher. Adequate? Not in the eyes of the passenger, but the airline declines to increase compensation.

So..... where the angst people?

Apparently, the thin guy couldn't fasten his seatbelt when he was sitting down. That is a violation of safety regulations just as much as him standing up in the aisle (you are, in fact, a fair bit more likely to survive a crash on landing or takeoff if you're wearing a seatbelt), and the plane shouldn't have taken off at all if he couldn't strap in. Presumably, the blubber covered up the seatbelt or something.

[Faqa]

So to summarise, a person has a bad service experience due to another fat passenger and is spreading the news. The passenger is not at fault for violating safety regs because obviously, his other passenger prevents him from safely seating down. Its not the fault of the airline, (apart from jump seat)because regarding safety, the passenger COULD had sat in the seat and suffered the problem of intrusion into his personal space/cramping and all that involves.

The bolded part is incorrect. The aircrew IS responsible for seeing all safety regs are observed. If even one passenger, for any reason, can not be safely seated in accordance with the regulations, or refuses to comply for any reason, the flight is not legal to take off. Even if nothing bad happened, that is still actionable under the aviation regulations of every nation whose regulations I am familiar with. If the FAA decides to be dicks about it both pilots could have their licenses revoked over this. The onus is on them to make sure the flight is legal prior to take-off, and in this case, due to the regulations mandating safety restraints duringany ground movement, even before they left the gate. Likewise, the airline can be held responsible for the lapses of its employees.

As far as the jump seat issue goes - it may be, after the crew were all strapped in, there simply wasn't an extra one available.

The LEGAL and ethical choices were:
1) Remove the fat guy from the airplane
2) Insist the skinny guy squish himself in for ground movement, take-off, and landing but permit him to move around during cruise.

Actually, choice 3 is remove both from the airplane. And that's probably the fairest. It's not the skinny guy's fault he can't squeeze in, it's not the fat guy's fault he spills over (it could be his fault that he's fat, but that's different). Things should never have been allowed to get to this point, of course. But assuming you can't verify with the ticketing agent or whoever why it did, the solution is to remove both passengers, because there is no way to decide which should stay on.

(If "fat" bothers you, assume we're talking about a guy with medical equipment that takes up a seat. Same case)

[LaCroix]

Actually, choice 3 is remove both from the airplane. And that's probably the fairest.

So the one not infringing on the other's rented space has to be removed along with the guy who is infringing on the first's rented space. Golden mean bullshit.

So if somebody shows up drunk and starts hitting his seat neighbour, who is not hitting back, but forced out of his seat by this. Solution - both are removed from the plane. Sounds legit, right?

Hint: The only just action is to remove the one who his causing the problem, whether he does it on purpose or not.

[Ryan Thunder]

I don't think so. They're suggesting that you do that if you want more space than you paid for, whatever your reason.

Yeah, but he didn't want more space than he paid for. He wanted just the space that he paid for. In my mind, the solution is simple; if you take up the space of two seats, you should have to pay for two seats, and if you don't then you don't fly once your requirement becomes obvious. The person causing the problem should suffer the costs, not the person being screwed over by the fat guy taking up his seat.

Not what I meant. The fatass should have been required to pay for a second seat, or two seats should have been reserved for them for the price of one.

I guess that doesn't penalize the fatass for being a hideously obese fatass but eh, it'd work if the airlines stopped overbooking their flights, methinks.

[Faqa]

Actually, choice 3 is remove both from the airplane. And that's probably the fairest.

So the one not infringing on the other's rented space has to be removed along with the guy who is infringing on the first's rented space. Golden mean bullshit.

So if somebody shows up drunk and starts hitting his seat neighbour, who is not hitting back, but forced out of his seat by this. Solution - both are removed from the plane. Sounds legit, right?

Hint: The only just action is to remove the one who his causing the problem, whether he does it on purpose or not.

Given that I clearly stated in my post that in this context, I don't consider the fat guy's spillage to be his fault, I can only conclude that you suffer from severe retardation that prevents you from reading past the first sentence of a post. Since as we know, one's physical size is totally under the same level of immediate control as drinking and violence, right?

Hint: By assuming that the fat guy is "causing the problem", you are actively discriminating against him. And I ask, again - if this was somebody with medical equipment that took up more space than his seat, would you feel the same way?

Things should not have been brought to this point. Both passengers were in a situation where through no fault of their own, they could not both fly. If you take off just one, you are punishing him, which is not fair since there is no fault here to punish for. By removing both, you are at least being impartial.

[Lusankya]

Most airlines have a box that passengers can tick if they have special needs, which allows the airline to make preparations for the special needs passenger before the flight. If the fat guy didn't inform the airline that he was unable to be contained within a single seat, then it's his own damn fault that the airline was unable to accommodate him.

[Broomstick]

The fat guy didn't become fat overnight. He knew he was fat. He should have bought two tickets to accommodate his size. Failing that, the gate attendant should have noticed he was too large to fit into a single seat. Yes, it IS the fat guy's problem. It would be unjust to punish the thin guy who can fit into a seat who did purchase sufficient accommodation for his backside by removing him from the airplane.

Likewise, someone required to drag sufficient medical equipment around such that they and the equipment do not fit all into one seat also has to purchase two tickets. Presumably, they didn't wake up the morning of the trip suddenly attached to all that medical equipment, and thus should have anticipated the need for two tickets.

What the airline should have done is told Mr. Large he was to get off that flight, purchase a second ticket, and get on the next flight that could accommodate him.

[PainRack]

The bolded part is incorrect. The aircrew IS responsible for seeing all safety regs are observed. If even one passenger, for any reason, can not be safely seated in accordance with the regulations, or refuses to comply for any reason, the flight is not legal to take off. Even if nothing bad happened, that is still actionable under the aviation regulations of every nation whose regulations I am familiar with. If the FAA decides to be dicks about it both pilots could have their licenses revoked over this. The onus is on them to make sure the flight is legal prior to take-off, and in this case, due to the regulations mandating safety restraints duringany ground movement, even before they left the gate. Likewise, the airline can be held responsible for the lapses of its employees.

Ah... I see.

[Faqa]

The fat guy didn't become fat overnight. He knew he was fat. He should have bought two tickets to accommodate his size. Failing that, the gate attendant should have noticed he was too large to fit into a single seat. Yes, it IS the fat guy's problem.

As you yourself say - somebody should have noticed this problem BEFORE the large gentleman arrived on the plane. Why did the airline not demand he purchase an extra seat beforehand (which, in this context, they absolutely should have)? Why did it come down to the air crew having to make these decisions?

And, in that context, why should one passenger suffer more than another from these faults, which were the airline's and not theirs?

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.

(The analogy of medical equipment was mainly made because I felt people were fixated too much on the passenger being fat rather than the basic problem)

Most airlines have a box that passengers can tick if they have special needs, which allows the airline to make preparations for the special needs passenger before the flight. If the fat guy didn't inform the airline that he was unable to be contained within a single seat, then it's his own damn fault that the airline was unable to accommodate him.

THIS I could agree with - but of course it depends on the specific policy of the airline, and how clear said field is.

And STILL the ticketing agent should have stopped him before it ever made it to the plane.

[SCRawl]

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.

And yet, that's how this problem has been spun in the past: those who will not fit into the standard seat have claimed to have been discriminated against. There might have been a directive from above to not turf any large passengers, for fear of giving the airline a bad name among some groups. Ultimately the flight crew decided to take the path that would probably do best in a focus group: everyone got to where they were going, with one guy being inconvenienced in transit, and oh by the way they broke some rules to do so. There's that "maverick spirit" Americans are so well known for: rules are there to be broken. The airline is just lucky that they didn't hit any turbulence bad enough to bounce the standing buy off the ceiling and floor a few times.

[Ryan Thunder]

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?

[SCRawl]

And STILL the ticketing agent should have stopped him before it ever made it to the plane.

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.

It is incumbent upon those with special needs to make the airline aware of them at the time of the booking. If the obese passenger had never flown before, and was an idiot, then perhaps you could make a case for ignorance as an excuse. It is far likelier that the obese passenger knew that he was too large for a standard seat and didn't care to pay for a second one, and hoped that his needs would simply be accommodated. It just didn't work out that way for him this time.

[LaCroix]

Given that I clearly stated in my post that in this context, I don't consider the fat guy's spillage to be his fault, I can only conclude that you suffer from severe retardation that prevents you from reading past the first sentence of a post. Since as we know, one's physical size is totally under the same level of immediate control as drinking and violence, right?

Hint: By assuming that the fat guy is "causing the problem", you are actively discriminating against him. And I ask, again - if this was somebody with medical equipment that took up more space than his seat, would you feel the same way?

Things should not have been brought to this point. Both passengers were in a situation where through no fault of their own, they could not both fly. If you take off just one, you are punishing him, which is not fair since there is no fault here to punish for. By removing both, you are at least being impartial.

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.