Being obese is “extremist behavior?” Jeez, you make it sound like Louie Anderson was one of the 9/11 hijackers.
As far as charging people extra if they’re overweight… one hopes the airlines wouldn’t consider it in the first place. Flying is unpleasant enough. Weighing people and treating them like cattle is not going to win them a lot of new business.
The thread title, and the first sentence of the article, both suggest that the Supreme Court decided the issue. It didn’t. A lower court did. It’s false to say that the court ruled anything in this case. And no, that’s not “paramount to an acceptance of it.” At all. That’s why it’s misleading.
…making this what? ‘Judge Celine’…? Airing 4-5pm weekdays? (Court victors get signed CDs, Court losers get serenaded behind unbreakable bars for 12 hours?)
I don’t have a problem with this. This is exactly the reason I won’t let the person next to me raise the armrest between us. I don’t want someone 2 or 3 times my size spilling into my seat. If they get two seats, there’s no need to take away my space.
As long as there is a fair regulation on who is benefiting from this, I don’t see the problem. We’re talking about people who are disabled by obesity, not someone who is mildly obese and needs a little more comfort room.
The airlines might want to consider that with the world economy the way it is, this might be something that doesn’t cost as much as they might think. If you’ve got someone who weighs 400 pounds, I doubt they’re doing a lot of flying now. There are often empty seats on planes. Having someone pay for one seat and getting two is better than both being empty and no money for either. It would allow people who don’t get to fly the chance to travel more.
IMHO, this is pretty ridiculous. We’re talking about people who are disabled because of their weight. Do you really want to start getting specific about causes of disability?
What about someone in a wheelchair who has a handicapped parking permit? Should we ask him how he got in the wheelchair? Maybe he was driving drunk and did this to himself?
What about the people who are boarding a plane first due to disability? Perhaps that woman in the wheelchair can’t walk because she’s got emphysema from smoking all of her life. Well, guess she can board with everyone else. After all, she’s done it to herself.
Do we want to extend this nosy behavior to health insurance? Guess we won’t be paying for those chest xrays for smokers. Better not let your child climb that tree, he might fall and break his arm with his extremist behavior.
I really hope you don’t wreck your car while you’re speeding. Double whammy there! Your auto insurance won’t pay because you were speeding and your health insurance is going to tell you to slow down next time and wreck like a responsible person, and they’ll pay your claim.*
*Yes, I’m getting ridiculous with this. Still, you really want to start shaming people who are disabled, Mr Grinch?
Example of a more accurate headline and story:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1ac531e7-facd-4c08-a4bd-a2ba92d66bdc
Everything in the headline is accurate, and the lede explains what really happened.
Compare:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081120/canada/canada_us_obesity_1
Why not just a discount-say, buy one, get one HALF off? Wouldn’t that be a wee more fair?
As long as nobody reclines the seat, which I’ve recently learned is the rudest thing ever.
I’d guess maybe ‘if you need a seatbelt extension, you need an extra seat’, but who knows.
Seems obvious what the airline response will be. Spread the cost of that extra seat across all passengers.
fictional numbers for demonstration
They have three passengers occupying a single seat and one large passenger taking up two. Four passengers, five seats. Raise ticket price 25%. Four passengers at 125% fare = five seats.
Fair to everyone? Go ask the supreme court.
I say nay. If you are so large, for whatever reason, that you need two seats, then that’s what you should pay for. An exceptionally skinny couple doesn’t get to share one seat at half-price each, no matter how well they fit together. The Supreme Court of Canada should have weighed in (ahem) and reversed the lower court.
Elendil’s Heir, C.J., dissents.
Interesting. Although I haven’t flown for years because of disability and cost, I’m not sure that I agree with this. I honestly think an extra half fare would be more appropriate, even for a needed attendant (which I would need).
Some people require constant care by a specialized attendant (some random airline employee will not do). For example, Conservative MP Steven Fletcher is dependent upon his attendant to the point where the House of Commons created a special status just for her to allow her to stay in the House when in session. I’m sure you can see where charging such an attendant a second ticket would be a double burden on the travelling person.
Leaving aside how insulting this sounds with regards to obesity in general, the lawyer who brought the suit is obese as a result of polycystic ovary syndrome. She could starve herself and still be obese.
That is absolutely not true.
I would be perfectly fine with this if everybody else got some kind of discount for only occupying one seat. I see it as biased against people of average size.
I’m tall. Should I be entled to two seats (one for my butt, the second in front of me folded down so I can stretch my legs)? No, I’m going to have to make due.
I agree they should simply charge a base price+ a rate per gross pound. People with severe medical conditions could get a discounted rate. Its a truly fair way to contribute.
Fine. It may have been hyperbole - but not by much. I have very little sympathy for somebody who eats until they can’t fit into a chair that fits the vast majority of the population. Nor do I weep tears over emphysema patients who’ve smoked two packs a day for decades. Subsidizing somebody’s self-destructive behavior isn’t something I enjoy doing - I find the fact that litigation was required in this circumstance ridiculous.
When you buy a ticket on an airline, you’re buying volume - a seat and some luggage space. I guess, though, the argument is whether the morbidly obese should be considered a protected class, but that’s a different thread.
Honestly, though: you don’t feel like cattle in the current situation? I frequently moo aloud as I’m shuffling through the double-backing security ropes.
ETA: matt_mcl, I would think it was obvious that I’m not talking about the tiny fraction of the obese population that has a valid medical reason for being so. In fact, I said precisely that. Most people however are fat because they eat too much and don’t exercise enough - and if you want to do that, it’s fine with me. Honestly, I’m okay with it! But you don’t get to have privileges for disabling yourself through your lifestyle on my dime.
I would tend to agree with you. Please feel free to change the title so that is not misleading.
Changed thread title from “Supreme court rules obese get two airline seats for the price of one” to “Canada Supreme court won’t hear obesity two-for one seating case vs. Air Canada”
Gfactor
for the Dope
Gfactor is right - it’s more than just a semantic distinction. The difference Gfactor is pointing out carries significant legal implications for the precedential value of the lower court decision.
It’s true that for the parties to this particular case, the outcome is the same as if the SCC had heard the appeal and ruled in favour of the passenger, but the main function of the SCC isn’t to decide individual cases - it’s to determine the law in a particular area raised by a case. Only a majority of the Court can fulfill that function, after a full hearing on an appeal.
A decision by the leave panel is only a decision on whether the Court will hear the case. That’s all that they’ve decided. Since that is a yes-no decision, they typically don’t give any reasons. As well, since the leave panel is composed of three judges of the nine, their decision is nowhere near to being a majority decision of the court, particularly if the leave panel were to have been split, 2-1.
If the leave panel refuses to grant leave, then the decision of the lower court stands - but it’s not given any additional precedential weight by the fact that the SCC has declined to grant leave. The decision to refuse leave does not mean that the lower court’s ruling on the law has been affirmed by the SCC. The SCC has not ruled on the legal issues raised by the case.
That’s very important in a system of precedent, particularly in a federation with 14 different Courts of Appeal. A decision from the Court of Appeal of one jurisdiction is normally not binding on the courts of the other jurisidictions - and that doesn’t change just because the SCC has declined to grant leave.
For example, I was once arguing a case in the Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan and opposing counsel cited a decision in his favour from the Court of Appeal from another province. That decision, from another province, is not binding on the courts of Saskatchewan. But, counsel argued, the SCC had declined to grant leave, and therefore it was binding. Not so, said the QB judge - it remained a decision from another province, not a decision of the SCC. He would review it carefully, because a decision from the highest court of another province is worthy of careful consideration, but he was free to reach a different conclusion. If it had been a decision of the SCC, he would of course have been bound to follow it.
So if a similar issue of obesity arises in an area of transport governed by provincial law, under a provincial human rights code, the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in this case is not binding on the provincial courts. They may be convinced by the FCA’s reasoning and might reach a similar result. Or, they might decide that the FCA got it wrong, and reach a completely different conclusion. The fact that the SCC declined to hear the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal doesn’t give that decision any extra weight.
As for the merits of the decision - if the airlines chose to sell their tickets on a per passenger system, rather than on a weight system, I don’t have a problem with it. Their costs of flying people ultimately depend on weight. They’ve chosen to use the per passenger approach as a proxy for weight. They can’t really squawk if a particular person is at the extreme end of the weight range.
And yes, that means that on a per pound approach, some lighter passengers are paying more for their fare than others - but that’s already happening. For example, an argument could be made that the current airline approach of a flat fare per passenger is discriminatory against women, as a class, since women on average tend to weigh less than men. Since women , on average, are paying a higher rate per pound than men, should the airlines be required to give discounts on the fare to women, or to men who are under the average male weight?
All I can say to that is, I hope you never suffer a health problem that somebody else decides was your fault.
Yes, I do - either cattle or a suspected terrorist. The airlines still have an incentive to avoid irritating their customers further, although I admit it doesn’t feel like they have ever tried to do that in even the tiniest way.