suck it, southwest airlines
November 21st, 2008
I’ve been feeling a little pessimistic towards government since the whole Prop 8 thing, but my cold black heart has been warmed this morning when I learned that the Canada Supreme Court has ruled that airlines must make additional space available to disabled obese passengers, at no additional charge to them for extra space, so if they need two seats, then they get two seats. No charge. No fat tax. The ruling seems to clarify that it is meant for people who are functionally handicapped by their size, and I’ve been unable to find any of the stipulations so far, but Feel Good Friday? I think this covers it.
Thanks to Ladyloo for the link!
Posted by Weetabix
Filed under: Cold Hard Cash, Feel Good Friday, International
Yeah this would be good news if we lived in Canada where people have a RIGHT to health care and a RIGHT to marry who they damned well please. Oh and you can smoke dope there too!
Unfortunately in Scalito-ville, our highest court would rule that the person should have sued the airlines when they got fat. They’re just too late suing now. Or that my ass is somehow infringing upon eminent domain in the airline seats and harming the free conduct of business. Therefore the airline has a right to demand that my ass be bulldozed to make way for progress.
It is a good thing, but the language bothers me. “Functionally handicapped by their size”–what exactly does that mean? I’m a size 32. I can walk fine, carry my luggage, and am in no way functionally handicapped by my size, yet I certainly don’t fit in an airline seat without significant pain and discomfort. Can you say “bruised hips”…I knew you could… So what does this ruling mean for me if I’m flying in Canada?
I agree with Weightless One, functionally handicapped can lead to similar problems I had in Disneyworld, trying to use an EVC. If you’re not VISIBLY handicapped, then you’re just another lazy fattie trying to get away with something that should be only for VISIBLY handicapped people.
*I capitalize visibly, because I feel there is a lot of discrimination, regarding the issue that someone can’t be handicapped, or doesn’t have a right to use something unless they look like someone handicapped. Of course, this means thin and handicapped too, you can’t be fat and handicapped, fat people are considered just being lazy then. Which is why this claim is even more ridiculous, suggesting that people are going to understand the difference between someone who’s fat and handicapped, or someone who they want to claim is just being a lazy fattie.
I saw this yesterday, and to be honest, I don’t know how to react. A part of me thinks that maybe airlines need to look at the fact that so much of the world is a size 14, and that the seating configurations of airline seats are often much smaller than your average dining room chair. And you are charged top dollar for that.
I can understand why there are people who feel like they should get the second seat for free, and I can see why people of size, myself being one of them, should buy an extra seat if you are taking up more space than your physical limitations of your seat space. But not a lot of people can afford/or want/or feel that they should have to do that. I can understand that.
I can afford to buy the extra seat. My husband is also a BHM, and being almost 6′5″ he needs the extra room. So when we can afford it, and most of our travel is far more than 5000 miles each direction, we choose to purchase the extra seat. It is the comfort factor for me, personally, and I will not ever be made to feel like I am encroaching on anyone else’s personal space. I get enough stares, jeers, rude comments in my life already, if I can do other things to mitigate it, even a little bit, I will.
I am not fully disabled. I am slower than some, get help from my husband when I need it, but I get from point A to point B. I do not want special treatment. I want to be treated with respect, not like a freak.
Is that too much to ask?
Sometimes, I think that it it had a warmer climate, I’d totally move to Canada.
Just to point out something important, your summary of the court decision is missing an ‘and’ between ‘disabled’ and ‘obese’. The ruling applies BOTH to people who are disabled and those who are ‘obese’ (defined in an earlier court ruling on this matter as those people who are not able to fit into a single airline seat; you needn’t be classified in any official way as ‘disabled’).
Also, in the Canadian context, disability law focuses largely on a social-constructionist model of disability; that is, one is ‘disabled’ as a result of an environment that fails to accommodate people’s differing embodiments. Thus, in this context, a ‘disabled’ person is one for whom the built-environment of the plane interferes with the ability to travel, be it due to weight/size or other factors.
The ruling seems to clarify that it is meant for people who are functionally handicapped by their size
My understanding is that being unable to fit in an airline seat is considered a functional handicap. So anyone who is too large to fit in one seat gets a second one for free.
Oh and you can smoke dope there too!
Not legally =) But I think the penalties are less harsh than in the US.
Ahh, while I was typing Vidya explained it more clearly.
pot possession results in something about as serious as a traffic ticket, not jail time. whee!… which just means that not a day goes by in montreal that i don’t smell weed from somewhere.
if you’re worried about the canadian climate and seriously would like to live there, move to south-coastal british columbia. in warmer years the tulips come up in january.
The Canadian Supreme Court rulings said free seats need not be provided to obese people who are merely uncomfortable but not disabled by their size.
Sorry you have to be able to prove that you are disabled. Just being obese means no free seats.
I’m sorry, I really don’t think this is far to the airlines. If you are taking up two seats, you should pay for two seats. It’s the logical, fair thing to do.
Tara, read Vidya’s comment. Being unable to fit in the seat is considered a functional disability in the context of flying. A previous ruling suggested airlines use the model currently used on Southwest Airlines to determine whether a passenger needs a second seat - if they cannot lower the armrest, they need a second seat.
Lilah - when you’re buying a plane ticket, you’re not paying for a seat, you’re paying for passage. You’re paying for a trip from A to B. If you need two seats it is absolutely not either logical or fair to pay two fares, because you’re not getting two trips.
Of course that’s from the point of view of the customer. From the point of view of the airline - as long as the flight isn’t full, the same logic applies. If the flight is full, it is a burden on the airline because they’re losing a fare as the result of having one less seat to put someone in. But I don’t think that burden justifies charging someone two fares for one trip - and the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with me.
No the supreme court of canada says obese people who are disabled will receive an extra seat, are you disabled by your obesity?
I can fairly easily fit in a single airplane seat, so no, I am not functionally disabled by my obesity for the purpose of flying. People who cannot fit in a single airplane seat are functionally disabled by their obesity for the purpose of flying. This is not all that difficult of a concept. Try reading all the comments before you add yours.
I can walk fine, carry my luggage, and am in no way functionally handicapped by my size, yet I certainly don’t fit in an airline seat without significant pain and discomfort.
Weightlessone - can’t you see the contradiction here? If you can’t fit into a seat, them you are, indeed, functionally handicapped by your size.
Libbyblue, would that include Victoria? Thanks!
This announcement thrills me, because I 100% fall into that category with both my MS and obesity, and I haven’t been able to travel for the past couple of years because I need someone with me and can’t afford to bring anyone. Now I can! I’ll find a skinny attendant so my ass can comfortably spread into their free seat a bit. :D
Well, the thing that bothers me with this whole concept is: my child who is small travels with me and together we fit comfortably in two seats. According to Southwest Airlines, even though she is small and together we take up two seats, I must still buy two tickets for myself and one for her. Why? If their complaint is the seats taken up then this just shows that it is their BIAS and not the seats taken up which matters.
Also, why is there no similar cost to extremely TALL people? I have had guys 6′5″ behind me who push against my seat for a whole flight or who put their legs into the aisle, etc. IF the airline does not make them purchase another seat also…that again proves that it’s not about the logistics but rather about their bias!
Who would even consider charging someone for two seats just because they are obese! That is ridiculous!