Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: Mike on April 16, 2009, 07:52:34 PM
Title: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Mike on April 16, 2009, 07:52:34 PM
I just saw on CNN that United Airlines is making a new rule when it comes to obese people on their airplanes. They say if you're too fat to fit in your economy seat and can't close your arm rest, you have to buy 2 tickets or buy a business class ticket. And of course some of the responses already were some guys screaming "discrimination!"
What do you guys think?
Somehow this topic gets me all wound up inside. Why is it discrimination? If I sit at a window and a really fat guy sits at the isle seat I feel it's not only unfair to me as a normal sized guy but I also feel it's a safety issue. How is a fat guy who can barely get down the isle get out of the plane in time in case of an emergency landing (remember the Hudson River Landing? things DO happen...) ? ? ?
When they practice emergency evacuation and when the test it for the FAA requirements, I am sure they don't use people weighing 400lbs. I know they usually practisce it with their own flight crews and most of them are not overweight. I don't know, the "discrimination" thing bugs me a little because 90% of the time (I know there are medical issues as well) somebody being fat doesn't happen over night and it's usually their own fault. It's funny, you can spit a smoker in the face and get away with it but as soon as you do something what UA just did, you are "discriminating".....
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: BrianGMFS on April 16, 2009, 10:39:55 PM
I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can see the safety issue. On the other, as someone who weighs over 300 pounds myself I can also see the discrimination side of things.
I've always been big. Some is genetics and some is the fact that I'm not as active as I should be. I was fairly active in high school and I still weighed 250 pounds when I graduated. I wasn't an athlete but I was still fairly active.
Considering that I was 250 pounds when I was 18 and now I'm about 320 at age 42, that's not too bad, relatively speaking. When I was a firefighter and EMT, I stayed around 280. When I stopped the fire side of things I went up to about 300 (too many hours sitting in the recliner, waiting for a call) I maintained 300 from the time I was 30 up until this last year. Being unemployed leads to a lot of time sitting on my backside, especially during the winter months. I can tell you I got out of breath raking the yard the other day.
Back to the airline seat issue.
Last time I flew commercially was on a 2 class MD-83 (That alone should tell you how long ago it was) I was comfortable in the seat when I had the row to myself. with three in it, I was a bit cramped (I have wide shoulders) As a test about a year ago, when we had a CRJ in the hangar at work, I tried strapping into a passenger seat. It was tight and not very comfortable but I could do it. Didn't need an extender but only just barely. I could probably tolerate it from Burlington to Philly or Pittsburgh but Atlanta? No way.
Right now I'd need an extender and the armrest would be digging into my ribs but I could still do it. Sides, give me the window seat any day!!!
Brian
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: spacer on April 17, 2009, 03:56:04 AM
Right now I'm about 310, but I fit comfortably enough in a single seat (if I flew airlines anymore, which I don't). As a matter of economy, and fairness... these guys are hauling a certain amount of weight a certain distance, and if a passenger weighs twice what a "normal" person does... how does that obligate the airline to just accept it and "take the loss"?
Real-world, however, especially in this litigious society we seem to be experiencing... if I were running an airline, I'd be afraid of crossing any potentially powerful groups, as they probably have powerful lobbies, which heavily influence vote hungry politicians.
In my opinion, though, if you take up more than one seat, ya need to pay for both of 'em. No airline put a pizza in front of me and forced me to eat it, after all. They wouldn't be responsible even if I couldn't "help" my physical condition.
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Baradium on April 17, 2009, 04:40:28 AM
They're far from the first airline to have that requirement.
Southwest has had it for a long time, although they will issue a refund if there isn't someone that would have bought that seat next to you.
Brian, what shift do you work? I do BTV-DTW occasionally. Did it twice last month and already once this month.
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Fabo on April 17, 2009, 04:56:39 AM
Well, unless they sell the other places too, I cant really see a problem... after all, you would be making them loss theoretical (and in some casis real) revenue on the seat next to you, plus there is the fuel burn issue. Yet I would still request some services doubled, such as check-in baggage weight and carry-on allowance doubled and possibly also double the in-flight service (what could be of a difference between "just enough eating to get hungry" and "mildly satisfied" with todays meal sizes).
And then there is the thing with passenger handling fees at airports - you should only pay once, as you only use resources once...
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Ragwing on April 17, 2009, 05:09:39 AM
Larger pax.
I took a commercial flight cross-country three years ago and a couple had purchased the window and isle seat. They were large and I had the middle seat.
They overhung from both sides. I paid for a seat and only received half. If you can stay within your seat boundaries, I would not have any problem with size. Unfortunately the larger passenger typically intrudes on my right. Right now I am heavy..... 220 lbs. Need to work some of this off. Even worse, If you are heavier than we should be, then avoid the new AA 737's American squeezed in two more rows in coach by placing rows closer together, using thinner seat padding and removing rear galleys.
And I thought that they had already removed the padding. My seat hurts.
American has increased the number of seats in a typical 737-800 airplane from 148 up to 160. That represents 2 additional rows. American says passengers shouldn't notice a difference because they are using thinner seats, and have shrunk the size of the galley in the back, to accommodate the new seats. In addition, they are touting better reclining seats, which "cradle" the passengers, yet doesn't interfere with the living space of the person directly behind them. Nothing is published about the new seat pitch, but if it's anything like the older 737's they have, it will be up to 2" less per seat in coach.
Because of these thinner seats, I'm still a bit skeptical about the comfort of these newer seats, and especially how they will hold up after a couple of years of heavy use by people big and small. Can they really support the weight of someone who probably should be paying for 2 seats? What about the ever irritating kicking of your seat by the young child behind you? Will the thinner seats make it even more irritating, as the small amount of padding does little to absorb it? http://blog.seattlepi.com/northwestfrequentflier/archives/166693.asp (http://blog.seattlepi.com/northwestfrequentflier/archives/166693.asp)
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: BrianGMFS on April 17, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
They're far from the first airline to have that requirement.
Southwest has had it for a long time, although they will issue a refund if there isn't someone that would have bought that seat next to you.
Brian, what shift do you work? I do BTV-DTW occasionally. Did it twice last month and already once this month.
Actually, I'm no longer working at BTV. I was fired last June. But, If you get a layover sometime with any notice, let me know and I can run up there and grab a beer with you.
Brian
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Mike on April 17, 2009, 03:56:51 PM
Wow, I didn't know you guys were all that "healthy", weight wise! I hope I didn't offend anybody. I myself don't care about remarks like that and there has been more than one occasion where I was called a "skinny little s#!t" and even got in trouble where I found myself defending myself against "bigger kids" who thought they picked an easy target. But such is life.
For example, you guys couldn't work for my day-job as helicopter pilot either. We have a 200lbs limit for our pilots. Discrimination? --> not really. Our contracts are all bid using a "standard" pilot weight of 200lbs, and the performance margins are really close in light helicopters, so if we had a 300lb pilot show up, the USFS would unofficially frown upon that. Officially they couldn't do anything because they are more afaraid of getting sued than anybody, but still we wouldn't wanna be in that situation. Not to mention it's a safety thing for us as well. The CG limits on those ships are reached a lot quicker on a helicopter than on an airliner. And then there is a lot of physical work as well (hauling gear, water bucket, and so on) and that at 8000ft and above....
When I was flying offshore, we were using a "standard" weight of 220lbs per passenger per manual. But we ended up adjusting that ourselves up to 260lbs per pax because oil field workers are BIG GUYS! ::eek:: Not fat and/or out of shape, just really really huge guys. I never felt as small and short than on an oilrig! ;D I actually ended up finding the gym on every platform and worked out like crazy while I was waiting for my pax trying to bulk up. (got me in shape but my frame just isn't built to get all yolked ;))
Back to the airline issue:
How about charging by the pound? Weight is what affects aircraft performance, right? So if I weigh 180lbs and I want to bring 60lbs of gear with me, I pay the same amount as a 220lbs guy with a 20lbs bag. Sounds fair to me! Spacer had a good point in his post. I do sometimes feel chipped when I get charged for 10lbs too much luggage (happens in my business, where I have to carry gear and tools) while a 320lb guy (which is more than twice my weight) walks right past me (and then usually sits next to me in the plane). I can't help but to think that way, sorry.
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: vldflight on April 17, 2009, 08:17:35 PM
Let another big guy chime in with my two cents ::rofl:: I am 43, 6'4" and currently tip the scales at 330lbs. But I too have always been big, usually around 280 or better, spent twenty years of my youth playing linebacker in american football, but thats another story. I don't have a problem with the extra ticket, just be fair about everything. Charge extra for that screaming baby I have to listen to for six solid hours cross country. Even better, serve me a meal that feels my jolly self up and not that sample plate they bring you out now adays. Be willing to shell out some extra bucks for that one too.
And never worry, I take no offense at the original post. I know I'm a big dude, no need getting bent out of joint about it. Got two sons now and they are complete opposites. 14yr old weighs 100lbs soaking wet, while my 16yr old is big as I am. Just he don't jiggle as much as I do now. ::rofl:: ::rofl::
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Mike on April 18, 2009, 01:10:08 AM
He he!
The screaming baby issue should be discussed as well sometime, huh?!
I can see some more CW material in the making.... ;)
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Fabo on April 19, 2009, 01:52:09 AM
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: tundra_flier on April 21, 2009, 02:44:21 AM
There were cries of discrimination when smoking was banned from public places too. And if charging extra for oversized passengers is discrimination, then physics isn't fair. I really discriminate with my plane. I'm down to 205lbs and I fly a Cessna 150. If my Passenger weighs more than 220 we can't take hardly any fuel. ::unbelieveable:: Also, we'd be hard pressed to close the doors. :P
Heck, with the current administration I'm surprised the airlines aren't getting gov. funds for helping to promote healthier living! ;D
Phil
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Baradium on May 06, 2009, 10:05:40 PM
They're far from the first airline to have that requirement.
Southwest has had it for a long time, although they will issue a refund if there isn't someone that would have bought that seat next to you.
Brian, what shift do you work? I do BTV-DTW occasionally. Did it twice last month and already once this month.
Actually, I'm no longer working at BTV. I was fired last June. But, If you get a layover sometime with any notice, let me know and I can run up there and grab a beer with you.
Brian
Sorry about the work, hope you have a better job now.
I'll let you know next time I'm in town. I do "highspeeds though" so I'm on duty through my entire layover. I can go to a bar, but I sure can't touch anything with alcohol in it. They tend to frown on that. I'm not a drinker anyway, so it's not a big deal to me.
I think our BTV trips get in around 2200-2230 and leave again with the 0600 flight.
Phil: you've really gotta join us at Big Daddy's one of these days.
I'm interested in seeing what it looks like when he finishes that building across the street that he bought. A lot of history there. President Harding gave a speech from the balcony that faces the river. It was really interesting seeing it as they are renovating. It's going to be a banquet hall for the restuarant, complete with its own kitchen.
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Ragwing on June 26, 2009, 04:43:17 PM
6/25/2009 By Stephanie Chen
(CNN) -- You pay for checking your baggage, for snacks and for extra legroom. Word is one airline has even toyed with charging you to use the toilet. So it makes perfect sense to some fliers that heavier passengers should pay for spilling over into the next seat.
A growing number of airlines are forcing bigger passengers to pay more as they cope with the costly and uncomfortable quandary that arises when obese passengers cannot squeeze into a single coach seat.
Robin Urbanski, a spokeswoman for United, said the company received 700 complaints in 2008 from passengers who were upset because a larger passenger encroached on his or her seat. I should remember to write a complaint after a long tight flight
Full article http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/26/obese.passengers.airlines/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/26/obese.passengers.airlines/index.html)
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Ragwing on July 15, 2009, 04:24:05 AM
Delta Flight Attendants sue over red dress sizes (http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/aponline/57956.53Delta-Airlines-Uniforms.sff.jpg) A flight attendants' union is suing Delta Air Lines because the airline refuses to offer bigger sizes in its signature red dress uniform. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/173641.asp?source=pimail (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/173641.asp?source=pimail)
Uh, I have a question. They are messing with womens dress sizes. A size 12 gal can now wear a size 8.
What the heck is a size 18???
WTH is a size 28???
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Fabo on July 19, 2009, 12:43:18 PM
I dunno Ragwing, but I thought sizes went the other way - a size 8 gal now needs a size 12 dress.. anyway, someone noted that size 28 might mean size 6 in US terms... now thats SMALL in me eyes for a not offered dress. A slightly taller girls (I have seen FAs hitting 2 meters pretty often) who is not even slim but even thinner might be bigger size.
Title: Re: New rules for obese people on airlines
Post by: Ragwing on July 19, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
I can see confusion with the Italian sizes. This article does not mention other countries, I am assuming it is US sizes.
To make the female more comfortable with her larger size, they enlarged some of the clothes. Either they fit in the same size dress or their dress size that fits is numbered smaller. Magic - Happy Customer I found a variation in several size charts. No wonder women take so long to try on clothes - There seems to be no system
It is almost impossible to find great fit. The real reason is pretty simple: there's no standardization in women's sizes. A U.S. size 4 could be an 8 or a 2 depending on the maker. There is a very basic guideline for fit based on a 60-year-old study done by the US Dept. of Commerce who measured mostly young unmarried women. Also, this old data is out-of-sync with the way women have increased in size: in 1941 the average woman was 5' 2", 129 pounds. Today she is 5' 4" and weighs 144 lbs (wearing between a 12 and 14).
Another reason clothes never fit is that most sizes are based on the assumption that women's bodies are hourglass in nature. (Size 8 at the Gap is a 36 bust-28 waist -36 hips.) In reality, the average woman's body is much more a pear shape (smaller on top and heavier through the hips). To make matters even more confusing, factor in the inane sizing system itself. "Missy" sizes (2-20) originally designated age, not measurements. And the sizes themselves keep fitting bigger. This means that if you have always worn a size 10, you've actually grown by as much as 5" in the bust and waist over the past 30 years. ----------------- When I was young, the majority of girls wore clothes that were modified from the store or were sewn by their mothers from cloth. They fit and looked great.
The gals and their moms use to make an average dress into a WOW dress that fit them.
