Canada Supreme court won't hear obesity two-for one seating case vs. Air Canada

What say ye?

They need the extra fat up there for the heat in the long winter months, eh?

I wonder of the law specificall states that they have to be next to each other?

Yet thin folks have to pay to check a frigging suitcase!

Not a big fan of the airlines, but less of a fan of that decision.

I think it sucks, but I think lots of things suck. The extra, unpaid seat could be making the airline money. Everyone else on the plane is subsidizing an extra seat they don’t get to use. Punishing people solely for being overweight is mean spirited, but asking them to pay for finite resources they are consuming makes sense.
If I was running the show, this is how it would work:

My airline’s job is to get you and your stuff from point A to point B safely, on time, and as comfortably as possible. Every pound you put on my plane costs me money, in fuel and baggage handling costs.

Each seat on every flight has a certain, fairly low, minimum price. Your ticket gives you the right to a single seat, if you want extra seats (for your infant, or your dog, or the rest of you), you can pay for them.

In addition to the seat charge, you pay some rate per pound for the combined weight of you and your stuff. Long vacation with lots of luggage? You pay for my extra fuel, the guy on a one day business trip with no bags doesn’t. Have a 51 pound bag? You pay for 51 pounds, not the arbitrary $50 for that one extra pound. No need to rebalance your luggage at the airport! Carry on, checked, it’s all the same rate!

In the interest of good customer relations, we provide free water on the plane, so you don’t have to pay for the pound that your TSA approved water bottle weighs.

Logistically this would be a nightmare, but if we could pull it off it would be great.

That is fucked up. How is the airline to know that the person booking a ticket is obese? What if they put 60 obese people on one side of the plane? Wouldn’t that be a safety issue? Aside from the fact that my seat would be smack dab in between the largest of them.

But maybe this is good, and the airlines will be forced to make their seats human sized again.

I’m a very fat person. I do my best to reduce my impact on those seated next to me on airplanes, but I know it’s unpleasant for all concerned to be stuck next to me. It’s unpleasant for me, too, but I know it’s my fault, not yours.

I bet if you gave everyone a ticky box on their original ticket price that said ‘guarantee I won’t be seated next to a fat person shoved into their one seat - $2.00’ most people would tick it. On the other hand, if it’s going to cost me another $300 to buy a second ticket, I’m not going to do it unless I have absolutely no choice.

I don’t actually particularly agree with this decision from a moral/ethical standpoint, but I’m betting it will turn out to be of more benefit to more thin people than fat people.

So where do they draw the line? I’m not morbidly obese, but I am a bit cushier right now than I used to be. What if I just want an extra seat to be comfortable. Are they going to weigh you and your luggage now?

The story said that people who were ‘functionally disabled by obesity’ would get an extra seat. I wonder whether this means a doctor’s note?

What about people who disabled for other reasons? Why no free extra seat for them?

Do they get two bags of peanuts then as well?

Meh, I thought the op meant thereal Supreme Court, this is from Canada.

It looks to me like the Supreme Court of Canada actually did the opposite of what the thread title and headline suggest: (Emphasis added)

This is one of my all-time pet peeves about legal reporting. I’ll be happy to change the thread title if you like.

They declined to hear an appeal from the airlines, who are obviously opposed to the rule instituted by the Canadian Transportation Authority. I don’t understand how this is opposite of the thread title.

Very confusing article, but I think the current thread title is correct.

One-person-one-fare even though that person is taking up two seats.

Because declining to rule on something is the opposite of ruling on it. They didn’t affirm the decision of the agency–they refused to consider it.

I don’t understand this (from here:

If one person = one fare, then how can 2 people = one fare for someone who needs an attendant? Will that person not have baggage, food, use the bathroom, etc? Do they mean an airline employee as an attendant, which makes sense that there would be no charge? I mean, if I’m a disabled person with an at-home nurse, and we choose to fly to go on a trip, the AHN would fly for free? How does that make any sense whatsoever? And how is it remotely similar to an obese person, who, AFAIK, only needs to maintain one metabolism and needs only one vacation wardrobe! The AHN could choose to not travel; obese people can’t leave half their weight at home for vacations. I don’t get it.

Sticky situation. The vast majority of obese people are obese because they: eat too much. I don’t necessarily think that once somebody exceeds the third standard deviation or so of BMI, they should be entitled to free money. That being said, I’d rather not have a stranger spilling over the armrest and into my seat.

I say nay. Your extremist behavior does not mean society must conform around you.

Nay, nay, a thousand times nay! If my fat ass takes up two seats, then I should have to pay two fares. In fact, if I weigh the same as two normal adults, I should have to pay two fares even if I fit in one seat. Airline fuel is expensive. Why should half of me fly for free?

Ok. Let’s break this down like a fraction. I see where you are coming from, but if it’s a matter of semantics didn’t they refuse to hear/consider the appeal by the airlines, not the decision of the agency?

By declining to consider the appeal of the airlines,* **the already in place rule *** remains in effect. So obese people on flights in Canada are entitled to two seats for the price of one fare. The airlines appeal this because the feel it’s unfair. Their appeal is refused by the Canadian SC. While technically they did not rule on the policy their refusal to hear a challenge of that rule is paramount to an acceptance of it. So while the OP might have been worded more correctly the spirit and intent of the OP is accurate. The opposite did not happen.