Fat pax in KLM will have to buy two seats

[clifford]

I'm a fan of everyone having say 120kg (including body weight and carry on). If you exceed this you pay a levy. This way the airline can measure carry on weight while making extra coin from large passengers without classing it a fat tax.

I generally agree with this, but the total weight Pax + Carry-on should be no more than 100 Kg max before extra fees are levied.

If I'm flying Y class (God forbid) I always try to get a seat with fixed dividers (eg bulkhead, exit, etc). That sorts out the fat pax from the goats.

I really don't want to do battle with a fat person sitting next to me (who is getting more than they paid for), but if I have to I will. I can be quite impolite at times, and this is sometimes called for.

 

[anat0l]

I generally agree with this, but the total weight Pax + Carry-on should be no more than 100 Kg max before extra fees are levied.

Hmmm...looks like I'll be shelling some money out if I don't shed the kilos. (Status only gives me extra allowance on my checked baggage, not my carry-on baggage).

I fit in a 737 Y seat without much trouble and I certainly make an effort not to have spillage in the adjacent seat. I usually avoid using the arm rest too - I'm not going to fight any wars w.r.t. arm rests.

Thankfully I can usually get the front row of Y these days with solid wall fixed arm rests.

 

[estate]

Last time I checked I wasn't a piece of luggage so do not want to be treated like one.

Neither do I. But nor do I want to be treated like a beanbag by the obese person in the seat next to me when I paid the same amount of money as they did for the flight.

 

[JohnK]

I generally agree with this, but the total weight Pax + Carry-on should be no more than 100 Kg max before extra fees are levied.

If I'm flying Y class (God forbid) I always try to get a seat with fixed dividers (eg bulkhead, exit, etc). That sorts out the fat pax from the goats.

I am really glad you are not the one making the decisions. I weigh 120kg and easily fit into the bulkhead seats with fixed armrests.

 

[prozac]

This is all a bit Animal Farm listening to some of your comments. The chickens get to pay less than the goats, who pay less than the pigs, and those cows will pay more than me. You'll be charging for toilet use next....maybe with electronic laser sensed weight correction scales to charge by mass. Better go before you get on the plane...don't tell Macquarrie Bank.

Now here's a winner!!! Put a metre on every seat "FA Call Button" for all those who constantly call for the FA. Don't you hate the ones who when it is all dark and everyone is asleep press the FA call and wake all the light sleepers? Yep, charge for pressing the button.

If they are going to charge a fat person 25% for an extra seat I would happily ask for one of those deals just to fit my broad shoulders in and not have a whiny skinny person sitting next to me.

 

[tardise]

I think for this issue to be debated there needs to be some more questions asked;

Who determines the minimum standard seat width ?
What determines the minimum standard seat width - is it based on WHO studies ?
When was the last time the standard minimum seat width was reassessed ? (Anyone remember the west wing episode that discussed the poverty line S3 E7 ?)
What considerations are given to different societies and ethnicities.
Should there be a different standard seat widths for different countries based society habits / economic triggers / levels of obesity within the country ?

 

[bellsux]

Southwest in the States also has the armrest rule..


Hollywood film director, Kevin Smith was left red-faced and furious after he was asked to disembark from a flight due to his weight.

Smith whose films include "Dogma", "Clerks", and "Zach and Miri Make A cougho," had boarded a flight traveling from Oakland to Burbank on Southwest Airlines when the request was made.

The clerks director claims Smith was deemed a "safety risk" to the aircraft by the captain, only moments before take off, and was asked to leave.

The airline states that overweight passengers must be able to lower both armrests or pay for two seats.

After being removed from the flight, an understandably irate Smith, 39 took to his Twitter page posting more that 40 angry tweets to his followers.

In his Twitter tirade he said "I know I'm fat. But was the flight captain really justified in throwing me off a flight for which I was already seated?"

"I'm way fat. But I'm not THERE just yet. But if I am, why wait till my bag is up and I'm seated WITH ARM RESTS DOWN in front of a packed plane with a bunch of folks who'd already ID'd me as Silent Bob" (a character he has played in several of his films).

Smith was offered a US $100 voucher as compensation but clearly that wasn't enough to calm the man down, who tweeted "Go coughk yourself. I broke no regulation, offered no 'safety risk.'

"What, was I gonna roll on a fellow passenger? I was wrongly ejected from the flight. And coughk your apologetic $100 voucher. Thank God I don’t embarrass easily."

"You cough**d with the wrong sedentary processed-food eater."

Luckily, Smith managed to board a later flight with the airline.

 

[JohnK]

This policy has clearly gotten to the stage where it is a total joke. Start treating people like human beings.

 

[estate]

This policy has clearly gotten to the stage where it is a total joke. Start treating people like human beings.

I wonder if the people sitting next to Mr Smith on his later flight felt they were being treated like human beings as he leant on both of them for the duration of the flight?

No, sitting next to someone overflowing onto your seat is a total joke.

In this case I quite understand South West's reasoning as if he had the armrests down then surely that should satisfy their criteria.

 

[JohnK]

I wonder if the people sitting next to Mr Smith on his later flight felt they were being treated like human beings as he leant on both of them for the duration of the flight?

You know for a fact he was leaning all over the people either side?

One more time for those a little slow to comprehend.

I am classed as "fat" but have never inconvenienced anyone, ever, on any flight. Why? Because I am considerate of the people around me.

And yet some of my horror flights have been sitting next to skinny people who feel it is OK to have both soles of their feet on the seat and lean all over the place, people constantly hogging both armrests, people who feel my shoulder is OK to be used a pillow, people sitting in window seats who know they need to get up more than 2-3 times during the flight, people who have iPods too loud, people who wreak of garlic, people who have not had a wash for over a week etc etc.

All these people are acceptable. "Fat" people are easy targets for extra revenue.

Don't make assumptions and class everyone in the same boat.

In this case I quite understand South West's reasoning as if he had the armrests down then surely that should satisfy their criteria.

You understand Southwest's reasoning even though he could fit into the seat with both armrests down?

 

[estate]

You know for a fact he was leaning all over the people either side?

One more time for those a little slow to comprehend.

I am classed as "fat" but have never inconvenienced anyone, ever, on any flight. Why? Because I am considerate of the people around me.

You seem to be taking this issue personally, JohnK. If you have never inconvenienced anyone sitting next to you on a flight, then why would anyone object?

For the purposes of this debate I think you should assume that when someone refers to "fat people*" they're actually talking about "people so fat that they overflow from their own seat into their neighbours'".

I don't think anyone cares how heavy their seatmates are, only how wide they are. If you're too wide for your seat and your seat only, then you should sit in two seats dedicated solely to you. I think that's perfectly fair to your fellow passengers. And I think that in the event that the plane is full, you should have to pay for that extra seat, to cover the revenue the airline would have earned by selling it to another passenger. That's fair to the airline.

And yet some of my horror flights have been sitting next to skinny people who feel it is OK to have both soles of their feet on the seat and lean all over the place, people constantly hogging both armrests, people who feel my shoulder is OK to be used a pillow, people sitting in window seats who know they need to get up more than 2-3 times during the flight, people who have iPods too loud, people who wreak of garlic, people who have not had a wash for over a week etc etc.

You're absolutely right. The more general case of the problem is passengers who inconvenience other passengers, usually their immediate seatmates, whilst on the flight.

All these people are acceptable.

No they're not! It's just that this is all we're discussing right now. Start a thread about smelly passengers or arm-rest hoggers and you'll find howls of agreement.

"Fat" people are easy targets for extra revenue.

Extra revenue? Where's the extra revenue? KLM's policy, as far as I understand it, is you pay for a second seat, and you get a refund if it's not full.
So if it is full, they were going to sell all the seats anyway - no extra revenue there. And if it's not full, you get a refund! If that's the policy, then there's no extra revenue!

Don't make assumptions and class everyone in the same boat.

I'm classing all "fat people*" in the same boat. They are the ones who inconvenience fellow passengers. Not you, despite your assertion that you're "fat", you are not "fat*".
I'm not being pedantic: the distinction is solely, and crucially, whether or not you inconvenience fellow pax. You don't. No problem.

You understand Southwest's reasoning even though he could fit into the seat with both armrests down?

Apologies - my brain got ahead of my fingers there - I left out the cruicial "don't". I don't understand Southwest's reasoning at all. If the armrests are down, there should be no problem.