Man sues Etihad in Queensland over obese passenger

[samh004]

Some airlines already force some pax to buy a "comfort" seat in addition to their original seat.

I think the important thing here is that people need to realise that the norm for airline seats isn't someone really thin, but also isn't someone who's obese, and if you are a bit or a lot bigger it is not discrimination to require you to purchase the number of seats required for your size.

All too fast this will spiral out of control into frivolous lawsuits, and they need to be silenced and make way for common sense.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The issue of not getting the seat you paid for (if another passenger fills half the space) is a related, but separate issue.

I disagree. If the airline had fulfilled it's obligation to the man by providing him the full use of the seat he rented from them, then he would not have had to contort his back (which is certainly true, I can contest to that as I've been placed in a similar situation) and hence he wouldn't have aggravated his back problem. It's 100% about someone else thinking they can take what is not theirs to take....and a lazy airline attitude aiding and abetting such thinking, which then in turn injures someone.

The related, but separate issue is about people sneezing and coughing and babies crying. They are clearly issues which may annoy people or infect people, but they have nothing to do with the sneezer, cougher or crier forcing someone to contort their back due to an airline allowing other pax to take half of someone else's seat!

 

[get me outta here]

I just heard that the airline will fight it. Interesting precedent if the pax won. I think the claim was ~ $250K.

 

[JohnK]

Airlines already make bigger seats, it's called business/first class. If a person cannot afford to, or does not want to pay for J/F, than they also have comfort seats for sale. If a guest who does not fit in a single seat still does not want to pay for the extra, then they should be refused carriage as quite simply put, their size (be it due to medical or lifestyle reasons) should not be permitted to impact on any other passengers right to occupy, in full, the product they purchased.

This is where the airlines have got it totally wrong.

Economy seats are too narrow. The majority of the population has been getting fatter and wider for the past 30 years. Have a look around you today and see how many people you see with abnormally huge hips and buttocks where the rest of the body size is normal.

Having 6 across on 737's/A320's is a joke. Weren't the early models 5 across? Much better solution for all involved. And if that means airfares are a little more expensive then so be it.

It is not a God given right for everyone to be able to afford to fly.

 

[DrA]

Is part of the problem that these morbidly obese pax don't purchase the "comfort" seat in advance, then the pax gets to the airport only to find the flight fully (or over-) booked, so there's actually no comfort seat available? I can imagine that this is a huge issue (pardon the pun), where pax don't want to pay the extra, or are deluding themselves that they don't need it, and by the time they get to the airport it's too late to force the issue because the flight is full.

Like others in this thread, I've had an experience with it too. I'm tiny, a whole 5'2" and around 46kg. Yet I've been on a flight where I boarded towards the end, and quite literally couldn't get into my window seat because the guy next to me was so large that even at my size, there wasn't enough room left for me to squeeze in. I ended up being bumped up to business because there was not a single other seat in economy for me to move to. What would have happened if business was full? Who gets deplaned? Me because I randomly boarded after him? Or the big guy?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I'm surprised they didn't simply make the other PAX in the row stand up to let you in to your seat. Then it would have become their problem to squeeze into their own.
I'm 6 ft tall and over the past 10 years my weight has fluctuated between 69 kg and 105 kg. I've never been unable to fit into an economy seat.

 

[DrA]

This guy was a big Pacific Islander on a flight home from Fiji, and probably would have weighed in more around the 180+ kg mark.

At any rate, the cabin crew saw what was happening. Other guy was on a whole "I was here first, I'm not moving" thing. I got sent to business. At that stage I wasn't going to complain.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Oh I didn't wonder why you didn't complain!

 

[SeatBackForward]

Oh I didn't wonder why you didn't complain!

MEanwhile the other guy, got two seats by a window all to himself, an upgrade in itself. Win-Win situation for all..or so it may seem..

 

[DrA]

Sure, but as I said, what would have happened if there wasn't a spare seat in business class? Economy was already full. One of us would have had to be deplaned, as it was physically impossible for both of us to fit in that row. He likely would have claimed discrimination if it was him. I probably would have been screaming blue murder and threatening legal action if it were me. It's a no-win situation, and one that I expect airlines are probably going end up being forced to deal with if they don't come up with a better policy (or a better way of enforcing it).

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Yes I was just thinking perhaps I should find an overweight travelling companion - two economy fares for 1 seat in business and 2 seats in economy sounds like a bargain!

 

[SeatBackForward]

Sure, but as I said, what would have happened if there wasn't a spare seat in business class? Economy was already full. One of us would have had to be deplaned, as it was physically impossible for both of us to fit in that row. He likely would have claimed discrimination if it was him. I probably would have been screaming blue murder and threatening legal action if it were me. It's a no-win situation, and one that I expect airlines are probably going end up being forced to deal with if they don't come up with a better policy (or a better way of enforcing it).

Much like airlines are able to charge for overweight baggage, they could set a limit on an individuals weight also. Using the rub that "it effects operational performance" will always leave it ambiguous enough to be defensible from an airlines perspective. The issue will of course be, where do you draw the line on such a limit?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I disagree. If the airline had fulfilled it's obligation to the man by providing him the full use of the seat he rented from them, then he would not have had to contort his back (which is certainly true, I can contest to that as I've been placed in a similar situation) and hence he wouldn't have aggravated his back problem. It's 100% about someone else thinking they can take what is not theirs to take....and a lazy airline attitude aiding and abetting such thinking, which then in turn injures someone.

The related, but separate issue is about people sneezing and coughing and babies crying. They are clearly issues which may annoy people or infect people, but they have nothing to do with the sneezer, cougher or crier forcing someone to contort their back due to an airline allowing other pax to take half of someone else's seat!

I meant it would be a separate cause of action.

The passenger is suing for injury, not for loss of the seat. Injury is covered under the Montreal Convention which is where the passenger is bringing their action.

 

[DrA]

Much like airlines are able to charge for overweight baggage, they could set a limit on an individuals weight also. Using the rub that "it effects operational performance" will always leave it ambiguous enough to be defensible from an airlines perspective. The issue will of course be, where do you draw the line on such a limit?

I don't disagree, but I suspect that's just begging for a discrimination lawsuit (admittedly IANAL). I have vague recollections of an airline attempting to implement this in the past and it didn't last long.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't disagree, but I suspect that's just begging for a discrimination lawsuit (admittedly IANAL). I have vague recollections of an airline attempting to implement this in the past and it didn't last long.

I don't believe there is an action for discrimination based on size? Lots of other things, but I don't think size is one of them.

Some airlines have successfully introduced the 2-seat rule for passengers-of-size... if you can't lower the armrests on each side you need a second seat. You must purchase that seat in advance in order to fly, however some airlines will refund that second seat if the flight isn't full.

I think that's a fair outcome.

 

[DrA]

I don't believe there is an action for discrimination based on size? Lots of other things, but I don't think size is one of them.

If their size is due to a medical condition (and some are calling for obesity to be officially labelled a disease), then it would be a protected class and therefore grounds for discrimination.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If their size is due to a medical condition (and some are calling for obesity to be officially labelled a disease), then it would be a protected class and therefore grounds for discrimination.

Interesting. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission they seem to indicate obesity would fall under the DDA if a person's functioning was impaired in any way.

I guess an airline policy requiring the payment of two seats could set themselves up for a challenge (as happened in Canada).

 

[dajop]

Having 6 across on 737's/A320's is a joke. Weren't the early models 5 across? Much better solution for all involved. And if that means airfares are a little more expensive then so be it.

Trouble is it only takes one airline to run 6 across and that ruins it for everyone. Whilst there may be many individuals who would probably be happy to pay an extra 20% .... $120 instead of $100 or $720 instead of $600 for a five across aircraft, many probably wouldn't if a 6 across exists and seats are cheaper. And that's forgetting the many companies who would insist on flying their employees around in the 6 across that is 17% cheaper.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Trouble is it only takes one airline to run 6 across and that ruins it for everyone. Whilst there may be many individuals who would probably be happy to pay an extra 20% .... $120 instead of $100 or $720 instead of $600 for a five across aircraft, many probably wouldn't if a 6 across exists and seats are cheaper. And that's forgetting the many companies who would insist on flying their employees around in the 6 across that is 17% cheaper.

Competition comes in to play. If airlines thought they could get an advantage with 5 across instead of 6, they'd do it. Obviously there's not enough demand.

As for 6 across narrow bodies... it's been that way for what... 40-50 years? The B707 was already 6 across. While i think boeing introduced the 727 with five across, it didn't last long.

 

[dajop]

Competition comes in to play. If airlines thought they could get an advantage with 5 across instead of 6, they'd do it. Obviously there's not enough demand.

Seems to work for some carriers on widebodies though - 9 across vs 10 across on 777. I guess the loss is only 10% of seats, not 17%.