Air France-KLM to charge obese flyers almost double

[panzerfaust]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald (Oz)

Obese people who are unable to squeeze into a single plane seat will have to pay nearly double to fly with Air France-KLM in future, the company says...

"We have to make sure that the backrest can move freely up and down and that all passengers are securely fastened with a safety belt," Matze said.

People who cannot fit into a single seat are fastened by slotting the belt tip of one seat into the plug of the next - stretching over both seats.

By paying for both, the overweight passenger will be assured that two seats will be available next to each other. However, they will get their money back on flights that are not fully booked, Matze said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/air-franceklm-to-charge-obese-flyers-almost-double-20100120-mjvq.html

---

Overdue: Common sense seems to me.

If you need more than one seat, you should expect to pay for more than one seat.

Am a bit unhappy though about the criterion being able to "squeeze into a single plane seat", since on many planes the divisions between seats are not solid, and one can end up with a lot of one's own seat filled with warm bulging fat from a morbidly obese neighbor. Setting a standard size for what constitutes a one-seat vs a two-seat passenger would avoid a lot of ad hoc on-plane argument.

Also bear in mind that aircraft seats are designed to sustain g-loads based upon a "standard passenger" In the US this is (still) 170# - given the prevalence of morbid obesity, it is easy to imagine having two "standard passengers" in the seat behind you. In the event of sudden declaration, their seat would be subjected to twice the load it was designed to withstand without breaking free. Then there is the whole issue of aircraft performance - which is heavily dependent upon the total weight carried by the plane.
As one aviation blogger put it "...is our growing weight eating into aviation’s margin of safety?"

Do seem to recall though about a year ago that Air France lost a lawsuit for having charged a two-seater for two seats?

[ingac70]

1. .....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/11/22/afx4366705.html

[dipsydoodle]

2. They should be offered the alternatives

of either travelling cargo or a window seat - outside the plane.

[ElmoBlatz]

37. Those wing seats ARE roomy

But my hair is always messed up by the time we land

[itsrobert]

3. Who is UNREC this?

Perhaps someone with fat fingers that meant to click on the "rec" button?

[dipsydoodle]

43. An anonymous

plank I guess.

[sailor65]

4. Here's a REC for balance

and yes, it is about time.

[leftynyc]

5. About time

I may not be the smallest person out there but my ass fits in one seat. The rule must absolutely cover those men whose shoulders don't fit in one seat either (a problem I come up against more than the obese). If you can't fit in one seat, pay extra - no brainer.

[smoogatz]

6. My shoulders don't fit all that well in a standard airline seat.

And I'm not all that large--6'2" and about 210. Funny thing--I used to fit just fine ten years ago (same size then as I am now), but the damn seats actually got smaller. So now I should pay double? Because the airlines design their planes for people who are 5'6" and 130 lbs?

[WriteDown]

10. May want to measure yourself...

"...The average plane seat is 43 centimetres wide - 44 centimetres for long-haul flights."

I think the concern is more about midsections than shoulders.

[leftynyc]

13. One would have to be built

very strangely in order for their waists to be wider than their shoulders.

[enlightenment]

16. 43 centimeters is 16.9 inches.

Hardly unusual that a morbidly obese person's waist would be wider than their shoulders - and hardly unusual that many people would find that their shoulder's are wider than the seats.

[leftynyc]

19. It's not unusual at all for

shoulders to be wider than seats - hence my complaint. Should I get to pay less because I fit in one seat?

[JDPriestly]

32. AIr travel has become impossibly expensive.

The fuel just costs too much. I think that the airlines industry will either have to develop planes that use less fuel or we will all fly a lot less.

It's time for fast rail within the U.S. anyway.

Airplanes should be used only for transcontinental travel. Rail for everything else. We can do it.

[WriteDown]

34. We "can" do it, but the consequences may be severe...

Especially where eminent domain is concerned.

[barb162]

45. I think it's really cheap compared to just a few decades ago. n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

54. Taking the train in Europe is usually too expensive

Next month I am traveling between a suburb of Paris and London, taking Eurostar would be more than £100 more than flying.

[smoogatz]

14. Until they got bought up by Delta, I flew mostly Northworst.

Tiny little seats--I always sit on the aisle, and I'm constantly getting bashed into by the drink cart. It blows. Your basic passenger jet was designed to seat 2/2 across, not 3/3. As a large-ish person, I find that the loss of personal space is just one of the many reasons commercial air travel sucks so much in this country.

[leftynyc]

12. I'm sorry the airlines don't make it

easier for you, I really am - however, how do you propose to fix the fact that someone with wide shoulders is taking up 1/3 of my seat when flying?

[smoogatz]

15. Seat passengers 2/2 instead of 3/3.

Stop treating people like livestock.

[leftynyc]

17. Agreed

And until that fantasy gets realized?

[smoogatz]

21. We're all screwed.

Unless we want to pony up for first class.

[WriteDown]

22. So decrease flights by 1/3?

That would have some interesting ramifications on ability to travel and price.

[smoogatz]

24. No--passengers per flight.

Make the seats bigger and the planes less crowded. Sure, ticket prices would go up. Fine. I'd happily pay another $100 for a comfortable flight, but that option isn't available--the only other choice is the $1200 first class ticket that no one can afford who isn't flying on an expense account. Somehow Jet Blue does it on every flight, and without charging a whole lot more--nice, big seats, 2/2, no first class section, little TVs in every headrest. Airlines generally suck because they choose to: they've taken a punitive approach to air travel, IMO.

[WriteDown]

27. You would be happy to pay an extra 100$ a flight...

but that would put air travel out of reach for many people.

[smoogatz]

28. Sure, if every airline did it, some people

wouldn't be able to fly as much. But if there were one or two more Jet Blues, especially serving Minneapolis/St. Paul, that wouldn't be a sign of the apocalypse, would it? Have you ever flown on Singapore Airlines? Or Lufthansa? Or Virgin? Great experience--absolutely top notch, even in coach. Most U.S. domestic carriers blow goat in comparison. Do they have to, or do they choose to? I think the fact that there are exceptions like Jet Blue proves that they choose to.

[WriteDown]

35. Some people?

Those are usually the poorest among us who need the vacations the most. I have flown intl many times and its a whole different ballgame. Generally, you're paying for luxury.

The real problem arises in that if you start putting more obstacles to people travelling there is less opportunity to interact with other cultures. I've ridden on planes that make US commercial jets look like imperial galactic cruisers so its a sliding scale.

[smoogatz]

38. Domestic air travel is a bargain, and would still be a bargain

at $100 more/seat. Before deregulation it was MUCH more expensive than it is now--but the experience was also a lot more pleasant.

I wouldn't want to rob the poor of their much needed vacations, obviously. I just don't see why MY vacation has to suck as a consequence. What I'm asking for is a wider range of options--basically, flying out of MSP, if we want to get there today it's Delta/NW or nothing.

[sazerac]

51. Amlerican

One side was 2 chairs and the other side was 3 chairs. And you pick the seats online. both take offs were a couple of minutes early. That was the best trip I ever had!

[marshall]

31. The seat back width is 31"

This link gives a good idea of the median and range for body size:

http://www.fama.org/img/pdf/FirefighterAnthroDataWhitePaper.pdf

Median for hips is 16.3 inches, for shoulders median width is 20.5.

[smoogatz]

33. Okay, I measured--and I'm about 24" from deltoid to deltoid.

If the seat's 31"--and I'll bet they're smaller than that on NW's punitively outfitted planes--that leaves me 3.5" on either side. So pretty much any turning, bending or leaning's going to put part of me in the aisle or the middle seat. 3.5" isn't a lot of room unless you're planning to sit perfectly still the entire flight.

On edit: there's also the matter of arms: It's virtually impossible to keep your arms and elbows within the frame of your body for any length of time unless you're wearing handcuffs. So much for that 3.5".

[marshall]

36. I think the actual seat would be narrower than the back

The width of the seat bottom is decreased by the arm rests, producing three to four inches of "no man's land" in between people. Folks usually wordlessly negotiate the use of this area for their elbows.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. 31" is typical seat pitch -- are you sure that the seat backs are that wide?

(for those who don't know, pitch is the distance between rows.)

Since standard seat width in economy class is about 17" the seat backs at 31" would be nearly twice as wide, and quite frankly that doesn't make sense because there would be gaping holes between the seat cushions if that were the case. Allowing for the arm rests typical seat backs are probably about 19.5-21 inches wide.

[smoogatz]

7. Ah, DU--can't you just feel the love?

Oy.

[nolabear]

8. Reasons to charge for more than one seat:

1. Your perfume is so strong it nauseates people three seats on either side.

2. Your under-seat bag is so big I have to travel four hours with my feet turned sideways.

3. You sleep soundly, with your head on my shoulder, your knees in my lap and your snoring ringing in my ears.

4. Your attitude curdles the air around you, me and everyone within uncomfortable earshot.

5. Your pants suddenly burst into flame.

[barb162]

46. Bwahaha

:)

[WriteDown]

9. Funny, when Southwest did this DU went into a fiery rage....

This hasn't gotten much attention (so far). This does make a lot of sense.

[edbermac]

11. So do anorexics get half price?

:shrug:

[dipsydoodle]

41. Only if

they travel in the overhead locker as hand baggage.

[Nihil]

55. Thanks a bunch for that! (n/t)

:spray: :spank:

[surrealAmerican]

18. Is that true...

... "aircraft seats are designed to sustain g-loads based upon an average passenger"? Surely, that would mean that HALF the passengers are in an unsafe seat for their size. If 170lbs. is the maximum the seats are designed to hold, that is too low, and ought to be changed. Plenty of non-obese people would weigh more than that.

[toopers]

20. I think all tickets should be a function of weight and distance . . .

Have everyone step on a scale with their luggage and determine the price of the ticket. At least then I could understand how the airlines come up with their charges. Now it is worse than getting the price from your physician.

[Divernan]

23. Article fails to mention any objective measurement standard

"Too large to fit into a seat" really doesn't do it. A specific, objective criteria needs to be specified at the time passengers book their tickets. Then the flight attendants need to be prepared to enforce that limitation. That could really delay takeoffs - maybe you could be asked to step on a scale when they take your boarding pass at the gate? What's a little more humiliation in today's air travel?


On planning a trip to Alaska, we planned a day trip to Admiralty Island via a local air service. Their website stated that if you weighed more than 225 pounds, you'd have to pay for two seats.
Our trip was canceled because the fog was too thick to fly that day, so I don't know how the air service checked out the weight issue. The guy I was traveling with had to diet before the trip to get his weight down.
Final thought - re using a seat belt that extends across two seats. I've never seen that, but have often seen obese passengers automatically request and receive a seat belt extender.

[bbgrunt]

25. great! Now all they have to do is make seats

and leg room even smaller and voila! they can charge everyone double!

what a crock of crap.

[totodeinhere]

26. If it costs more to transport them due to their weight then they should pay more.

It's not fair to the thinner passengers to expect them to pay to transport obese passengers.

[smoogatz]

29. So, airlines should charge on a sliding scale based on weight?

Have a little weigh-in before you can buy your ticket? Great! Right now we pay full fare for our two kids, aged five and two. My wife's pretty shrimpy, too--so they'd all fly a lot cheaper than a larger person. I guess I'm a bit above average, but that's okay--I think we'd make out pretty well, as long as we flew as a family.

[totodeinhere]

48. No, it doesn't have to be that complicated. I would say that if they are too fat to fit in one...

seat than have them pay a surcharge. And I'm not talking about moderately overweight people. I'm talking about morbidly obese people. As far as charging full fare for your small kids goes, that not fair either.

[Abq_Sarah]

49. If someone takes up a full seat

They should have to pay the full price. For safety reasons, they're probably not going to allow you to cram two children into a seat.

We all know that we can't take unlimited baggage on the plane so why do we think we should be able to take unlimited body weight?

[smoogatz]

50. It's not true at the movies.

Why should it be true on an airplane? No, I like the idea of charging by the pound. It's not just whether you take up a seat or not, it's the amount of extra fuel the plane has to burn to get your big ass from Phoenix to Detroit. If we want fairness, and if weight is going to be a determinant, then charging by the pound would be fair.

[marshall]

53. I flew numerous times with my son in my lap before he turned 2

Sometimes two people ARE put into one seat.

Now that I have to buy him his own seat I feel like my seat is huge.

[Hulk]

30. The reality is, weight is a main factor in flying....

It pissed me off royal when I would be 3 pounds overweight with my luggage, and be expected to pay an additional fee; or dispose of the 3 pounds from my suitcase, while my 170 lb. body frame stepped aside for some obese 300 lb person and his baggage to move forward at no extra charge.

I'm aware that dealing with body size is a major problem, but as our world watches obesity multiply in the industrialized world, we need to come to some grip with how to deal with this issue.

The article above makes a good point that the seat structure is NOT intended for someone double the weight to adequately protect passengers in the event of a sudden impact. This, in and of itself, is enough reason to discuss how to deal with passengers that are outside the norm GROSSLY, and cause a danger to other passengers as well as present an unfair expense for weight concerns.

Charge them extra for "large seats", and put them in the front where they won't crush the little lady ahead of them in an impact of some sort. Sorry. Little tolerance for this one.

[krabigirl]

39. What about pregnant women? I wouldn't think this would be fair.

[dipsydoodle]

42. Pregant women from observation

are not proportionately wider and its width which is the issue here - isn't it ?

[Guilded Lilly]

40. Ah, tolerance. Yes.

Nothing brings out the mean-spirited dreck about judging other people by their size and so-called physical abnormalities than airline prices and policies.

Yes, an airplane's function is determined by weight. (Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with charging per nasty-assed individuals, bullies, general shithead behavor OR intelligence level of anyone walking through the door or they could all make mountains of profit.)

In the process of trying to figure out a truly decent solution...let's of course, lay insults and blame on the physical condition of people using the services instead of the airlines inability(refusal??) to adjust to their customers' comforts and needs.

Based on weight considerations of passenger load and luggage? OK. Airlines should make every seat in their planes BIGGER(wider, higher, shorter, whatever...) for accomodating their paying passengers better, period. Tall, wide, pregnant, old, young, *normal* But they won't. It's a profit margin THANG moreso than safety. They could keep the planes safe for weight by adjusting the space alloted. But no, that would be too costly and of course that would be passed on to the passengers. Never mind that the passengers would FLOCK to their airlines and perhaps pay a little more, but be treated with respect (and not have to sit next to one of the aforementioned shitheads)

So of course it falls to some of the rest of the traveling world to belittle other people instead of getting annoyed at the airlines. That keeps the heat off the airlines having to make their planes FIT THE VARIETY of PEOPLE USING THEM.

Yeah yeah, profit margins, managing costs.
Right.

Tolerance. How about tolerating the human elements and being less tolerant of the airlines that offer too little? (no pun intended)

[barb162]

47. On my last flight I sat next to a huge football player

and he was a nice guy and all but I had basically half of my seat and he couldn't even put his tray down so I just said, here, use mine. Luckily it was a short flight so no big deal. He also couldn't sit down without having the armrest up.

[winninghand]

52. An idea whose time has come.

:thumbsup: