Nah, that would treat them as second class citizens.
Come to think of it, I was once bumped from a flight due to my weight.
I was being comped for a heli-ski flight to the World Tele Powder 8s, and was onboard the helicopter when I was pulled off so that some video camera batteries could be loaded. To add insult to injury, the folks who had loaned me a pair of protopype pow skis had already left the country by the time I made it back from the heliport, so I freighted the skis back to them, only to have Purolator’s dim-witted customs broker try to charge me several hundred dollars to bring them across the border.
I understand what you’re saying and this is the best reason given so far for withholding judgement. Letting the lower courts do the ground work certainly has its advantages.
But I would argue that something that covers more than one jurisdiction creates a problem as to how laws are prosecuted. How is a ticket treated on a multi-legged flight? Is an obese person charged double fair for the areas not covered by such laws and then prorated to a single ticket when the laws mandate it? What if the flight starts and ends in jurisdictions that charge double fairs but flies over an area that requires single fairs? Maybe this was all covered in the original decision.
Ultimately, Air Canada would have to raise prices to recover revenue lost of empty seats. And my original question stands about how to handle a 900 lb person. The airline would have to remove a row of seats in addition to using 3 seats. It’s not just a function of the lost revenue of 5 seats, it’s the extent that airlines would be required to accommodate passengers. Bathrooms, aisle spacing and emergency exits would need to be redesigned.
Disability rights laws generally require reasonable accommodation. Removing rows of seats and redesigning airplanes would not generally be considered reasonable. Allowing someone to raise an arm rest that’s designed to raise is not quite in that class.
The original decision was made by the Canadian Transportation Agency, which has jurisdiction over all Canadian airlines. So its decision would govern all Canadian airlines. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the SCC doesn’t have any additional powers that the Agency doesn’t have, and in any event couldn’t expand the decision past the airlines that were involved in the original application. So even if the SCC granted leave, it wouldn’t be able to consider issues that weren’t raised before the Agency.
but again, if the airline’s concern is weight, then they should charge a per pound rate for everyone. that rewards the passengers who fly light. as it is, anyone who travels light subsidizes anyone who has heavy luggage.
You should have to pay for the seat/s you need. I’ve had to fly next to a couple of gravy mountains, and it sucks. I paid for my seat, yet I was only able to sit in three quarters of it while trying to avoid “flesh overflow”.
Air Canada (and its partners) have never been anything short of accommodating to people with disabilities. Seriously. I fly with a service dog, and it’s their policy to block off a seat next to a person flying with a guide or service dog so the dog has floorspace (and the disabled person has footspace!) if they can. They actually don’t have to do this by law, but the airline does this to make their passenger more comfortable and the animal more comfortable.
It affects their bottomline, but they have always been really accommodating to the disabled community.
I can see why the obesity issue would seriously grind their gears though – I mean, where DO you draw the line? Looking at the stats, and looking at where the cut-off mark is, BMI-wise, for obesity? How do they decide who gets that second “free seat” to be more comfortable? Yikes.
