Fat? Two for one seat sale if you fly

[August1991]

Canada's two largest airlines must give disabled and morbidly obese passengers an extra free seat on domestic flights, beginning in January, after the Supreme Court refused yesterday to consider the carriers' appeal of a federal order.

The Supreme Court, by convention, gave no reason for declining to intervene in the case.

The decision ended a six-year battle by disabled travellers to secure two seats for the price of one if they need inflight attendants. Obese people can also qualify if they are too large to fit in a single seat.

Air Canada and WestJet failed in their pitch for the court to consider a January 2008 decision from the Canadian Transportation Agency that gave them one year to implement new policies in the absence of being able to show that a "one-person, one-fare" structure would cause undue hardship.

CanWest

This is first wrong because it is tantamount to making us all pay, through a private entity, for the foibles of others. A court should avoid forcing individuals to transfer money to others.

But this decision is severely wrong because it alters a private contract. Where will this go?

If airlines choose to offer lower fares to children or students, will a tribunal intervene and the Supreme Court refuse to stop it? I thought the Supreme Court existed to protect the individual and individual rights.

[Keepitsimple]

While it is unsettling to see the couirts dictate the rules of private contracts, I don't think it will really be that big a deal if one assumes that only a small percentage of travellers "qualify" - perhaps 2 or 3 seats on each flight. For example, despite the ruling, I believe Air Canada would still retain the right to charge a non-discounted "full-fare" for the seat.....as opposed to Tango or Tango Plus. That would recoup most of the cost for the second seat.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-quoted Opening Post

[Wilber]

Want to bet the next decision will prevent airlines from exempting discounted seats? One way or another, the other passengers will end up paying for this.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted repeated previous post

[Wilber]

From what AC says, this ruling doesn't apply to international flights or domestic portions of international flights.

[Oleg Bach]

What's odd about the Supreme Court is that they do not have to tell you anything regarding their back room rulings. They can deny you an explaination and access to documents...It's a "because I say so" approach. So they actually do not answer to anyone - which makes them an unelected governmental body.

Also the buggers if you catch them or the lower courts committing fraud they have a real slick law firm that will convolute the results and send out a false rationalization to the public at large. You can beg the Justice Minister to do her job and actually judge - but her and her registrar are to busy with their hobby of prancing about involved in international law that they seem to find more interesting than domestic matters.

Once they rule via some strange policy mechanism they will recycle the complaining party downward to the Human Rights Tribunal...it's a pass the buck policy, Which by design is made to simply ware out a person physically - mentally and finacially. You would assme that judges actually judge - they don't. Before they make a ruling these internationalist probably consult with someone in France or Britain or else where - some other law maker that is in line with their personal ideaolgy - they are useless.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-quoted Opening Post

[guyser]

.. which makes them an unelected governmental body.

Has anyone ever said they were elected? I doubt it.

Also the buggers if you catch them or the lower courts committing fraud they have a real slick law firm that will convolute the results and send out a false rationalization to the public at large.

Of course they do. Got anything we could read to back that up?

You can beg the Justice Minister to do her job and actually judge - but her and her registrar are to busy with their hobby of prancing about involved in international law that they seem to find more interesting than domestic matters.

Guess the memo about the Minister being elected and not an actual Judge was lost on you?

Since Supremes, county Court Judges and the rest can only adjudicate on cases in Canada wtf are you talking about w respect to int'l law?

Before they make a ruling these internationalist probably consult with someone in France or Britain or else where - some other law maker that is in line with their personal ideaolgy - they are useless.

Your knowledge of law is useless evidenced by the kooky notion that they would call Britian or France for a consult.

We know, you lost in court and now you have a woody against all things legal. Lots of people lose in court, you are just another one in a million.

[Oleg Bach]

Has anyone ever said they were elected? I doubt it.

Of course they do. Got anything we could read to back that up?

Guess the memo about the Minister being elected and not an actual Judge was lost on you?

Since Supremes, county Court Judges and the rest can only adjudicate on cases in Canada wtf are you talking about w respect to int'l law?

Your knowledge of law is useless evidenced by the kooky notion that they would call Britian or France for a consult.

We know, you lost in court and now you have a woody against all things legal. Lots of people lose in court, you are just another one in a million.

I did not lose - I was constantly excluded from the court - and was not allowed to fully participate on behalf of my younger dumber brother - The money was not collected and that was normal fair - they don't hand out cash to common carpenters....It was my brothers affair...not my case. I did not say they contacted another nation to be granted instructions - The point I was making is that these legalists were elitists and liked to putter about globally to compare notes with other lawyers. And I am sure that some of them effect some of them.

I do not have a "woody" against things that are legal - just immoral - They knew that my brothers own lawyer had betrayed him and uttered false statements in the begining - They said we were present in the body of a court and we had given concent - meanwhile we were not there...and after we "lost" we retrieved the original transcript...that showed fraud within the system by members of the bar.

During disclosure - all documents were provided by the opposition except one single endorsement - the very first one of many.. They hid this for five solid years and at the last moment sprung it forth like a dagger in the back. We even at that time could not counter because it was slid to a judge in a manner that did not allow us to even know what it was -

The Supreme court was provided these details along with affidavits from all parties stating that none were present in the first court...so in eccence - The Supreme court buried the fact that it's own members in the lower courts had breached the law with a refusal to disclose fully - I would say that was pretty damned shiffty - they were totally embarassed that they had been caught by a laymen...plus - it cost the defence a bundle of cash - and that bleeding of these creeps was the win.

[blueblood]

CanWest

This is first wrong because it is tantamount to making us all pay, through a private entity, for the foibles of others. A court should avoid forcing individuals to transfer money to others.

But this decision is severely wrong because it alters a private contract. Where will this go?

If airlines choose to offer lower fares to children or students, will a tribunal intervene and the Supreme Court refuse to stop it? I thought the Supreme Court existed to protect the individual and individual rights.

Wouldn't having morbidly obese people on an airplane be a safety hazard to those on board. They're lucky even to be let on airplanes let alone getting a bloody discount. That is discriminating against the other person who doesn't get the seat, what about his rights?

This ridiculous ruling makes as much sense as a farmer going to the supreme court and successfully arguing that he should be allowed to bring a jackknife on the plane because of cultural reasons and for him not to would be discrimination (hypothetically speaking of course).

Air travel is a privilege, not a right.

[noahbody]

Next the airlines will have to have lavatories with double-wide toilets.

[capricorn]

Next the airlines will have to have lavatories with double-wide toilets.

That "depends".

I was thinking that. How do the morbidly obese get through those lavatory doors?

[blueblood]

That "depends".

I was thinking that. How do the morbidly obese get through those lavatory doors?

How do morbidly obese people fit through the damn aisle?

[capricorn]

I don't know that they need to. I think they are assigned the very first seat as you board that has all that leg room. And I imagine they are first to board the plane.

[guyser]

I did not lose -

Ok, your brother lost and you are still pissed. Fine.

The fact that you contradict yourself in your post is enough for me to think you dont understand how it works.

Anyhow, besides irrelevant, you are taking this off topic.

[guyser]

Wouldn't having morbidly obese people on an airplane be a safety hazard to those on board. They're lucky even to be let on airplanes let alone getting a bloody discount. That is discriminating against the other person who doesn't get the seat, what about his rights?

Safety hazard to whom? Would you say the same to a person with a broken leg...?...or someone being transported in handcuffs?

Lucky to be let on? Why are they lucky since they paid the same fare. The issue with the other seat I can see discussing, but then all they have to do is escort that person off, sell the seat and then tell the fat one there is only one seat and you need two. Try again on the next flight.

I think for the most severe cases this makes sense, but only so far in that the person travelling has a medical need to attend to and is not going on a holiday. So in the same way that airlines will heavily discount a ticket for bereavement reasons, they could have done the saem without the court telling them to.

As far as the obese goes, there isnt any guideline what constitutes obese, so maybe they think 400LBs and up is obese. Who knows?

[blueblood]

Safety hazard to whom? Would you say the same to a person with a broken leg...?...or someone being transported in handcuffs?

Lucky to be let on? Why are they lucky since they paid the same fare. The issue with the other seat I can see discussing, but then all they have to do is escort that person off, sell the seat and then tell the fat one there is only one seat and you need two. Try again on the next flight.

I think for the most severe cases this makes sense, but only so far in that the person travelling has a medical need to attend to and is not going on a holiday. So in the same way that airlines will heavily discount a ticket for bereavement reasons, they could have done the saem without the court telling them to.

As far as the obese goes, there isnt any guideline what constitutes obese, so maybe they think 400LBs and up is obese. Who knows?

I don't know, if I'm on a plane and for whatever reason there needs to be an emergency evacuation, my right to life trumps fat ass's right to fly.

They discriminate people from bringing hair gel on a plane, either ditch the gel or your ass stays on the ground. A person who is morbidly obese poses a bigger threat than a person carrying beauty products.

I'd say the same for the broken leg, and the person being transported in handcuffs the RCMP has planes themselves.

I'm with August on this one.

[Smallc]

I don't know, if I'm on a plane and for whatever reason there needs to be an emergency evacuation, my right to life trumps fat ass's right to fly.

How do they in any way impact your ability to evacuate the plane?

[blueblood]

How do they in any way impact your ability to evacuate the plane?

Try and push a square peg through a round hole

[Bryan]

Just another reason why judges should be elected.

[guyser]

I don't know, if I'm on a plane and for whatever reason there needs to be an emergency evacuation, my right to life trumps fat ass's right to fly.

Uh, your comparison is way off base.

Your right to life is the same as his right to life.

They discriminate people from bringing hair gel on a plane, either ditch the gel or your ass stays on the ground. A person who is morbidly obese poses a bigger threat than a person carrying beauty products.

Is that because the fat guy is more flammable?...like the gel but only worse?

I'd say the same for the broken leg, and the person being transported in handcuffs the RCMP has planes themselves.

I'm with August on this one.

The RCMP dont, for the most part , transport on their own planes unless we are talking remote areas where commercial doesn t serve.

So, then you are ok with denying fatso's and broken legged people from flying, but what about...

Old people

Babies

Young children

Deaf and Blind

[guyser]

Just another reason why judges should be elected.

So they can be bought?

No thanks.

[blueblood]

Uh, your comparison is way off base.

Your right to life is the same as his right to life.

Is that because the fat guy is more flammable?...like the gel but only worse?

The RCMP dont, for the most part , transport on their own planes unless we are talking remote areas where commercial doesn t serve.

So, then you are ok with denying fatso's and broken legged people from flying, but what about...

Old people

Babies

Young children

Deaf and Blind

The fat guy can plug up the aisle, when in the possible scenario of an evacuation poses a problem.

I'm not saying my right to life is more important than his right to life, my right to life is more important than his "right" to fly.

These people don't plug up aisles like fat people do and don't screw people out of seats. The people your listing now cannot help their situation. A morbidly obese person can. August was right, why should society pay for an individual's stupidity.

I'm not talking about a 200+ pounder, I'm talking about the ones that have gone way too far.

[noahbody]

The fat guy can plug up the aisle, when in the possible scenario of an evacuation poses a problem.

On the positive side, you might be able to use him as a life raft if you land in the ocean. Or perhaps he could communicate with a family of whales and get them to tow the plane to safety.

[Smallc]

So they can be bought?

No thanks.

Exactly. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Not to mention politics shouldn't play a part in the decisions. A judge shouldn't be worried that their completely legal decision will cost them their job just because some people don't know the law and aren't happy with the outcome.

[Smallc]

Try and push a square peg through a round hole

ok....

[Smallc]

So much mature and enlightened conversation in this thread.