Air Canada to face class action suit from obese

[olp1fan]

Does this mean I could sue the obese person for taking some of my chair?

And don't we have to pay extra for more luggage? Shouldn't obese people have to pay more for their "body luggage"

? I have an idea ..hey obese people, don't fly!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/12/12/air-canada-obese-class-action.html

A Quebec judge has authorized a class action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of obese travellers who had to pay extra because of their disability during a three-year period ending in December 2008.

The Montreal law firm BGA Barristers & Solicitors LLP announced the ruling on Monday. David Bourgoin, a lawyer with the firm, said a similar suit against WestJet was thrown out because of a technicality, but the firm has about 30 days to fix the problem and continue the case against WestJet.

The case against Air Canada is aimed at reclaiming fees the airline charged obese passengers for a second seat or a seat for an attendant before a tribunal and court ruling outlawed the practice.

In January 2008, the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled that Canada's major air carriers — Air Canada and WestJet — must offer a single fare to those with disabilities, including the severely obese, who require two seats to accommodate them. The ruling also said people with disabilities did not have to pay extra for medical attendants who must be seated with them on flights.

The agency estimated the requirement would cost Air Canada about $7 million a year and WestJet about $1.5 million a year.

In November 2008, the Supreme Court rejected an application by the two airlines for permission to appeal the tribunal's ruling, which had the effect of upholding it.

Justice Catherine La Rosa of the Superior Court of Quebec gave the go-ahead to the class action on Oct. 3, BGA said in a news release.

The lawyers said the action was launched on behalf of "all persons domiciled in Canada who are disabled or recognized as having a functional disability by reason of their obesity who had to pay additional fees to Air Canada for the seat of an attendant and/or for a seat adapted to their condition on a domestic flight operated by Air Canada or by another carrier on its behalf between December 5, 2005 and December 5, 2008."

Bourgoin said the parallel case against WestJet was thrown out because the plaintiff who represented the class did not qualify as a member of the class. BGA has to find a qualified representative within about 30 days or the case will expire, he added.

[Jack Weber]

So we are going to pay more to fly because of the fatties???

[Wilber]

So we are going to pay more to fly because of the fatties???

What do you think?

[sharkman]

I saw the thread title and was going to suggest that they follow the Quebec language strategy used against Air Canada a few times previously. Lawsuits were brought because of such foolish things as being brought the wrong soda.

But it looks like the extra large sized lobby is way ahead of me, they are even bringing suit in Quebec.

[Guest Manny]

People should have the right to be fat. My cousing Alfredo, he used to weigh 400 pounds. He look like Dino Cazares, man.

[Boges]

Could always make them travel in the luggage compartment.

[Wilber]

People should have the right to be fat. My cousing Alfredo, he used to weigh 400 pounds. He look like Dino Cazares, man.

Sure they should but should the other passengers have to pay for part of his extra seat. The airline has to recoup the money somehow.

[cybercoma]

The airline HAS TO recoup somehow? They're a non-profit?

[TimG]

The airline HAS TO recoup somehow? They're a non-profit?

This is a good example of the "creepy reality" created by leftists. In your 'non fact based reality' you believe that decisions like free seats for fat people can be made without any consequences. This is objectively false. There will be consequences and the most likely consequences will be higher seat prices for everyone else.

[cybercoma]

This is a good example of the "creepy reality" created by leftists. In your 'non fact based reality' you believe that decisions like free seats for fat people can be made without any consequences. This is objectively false. There will be consequences and the most likely consequences will be higher seat prices for everyone else.

This isn't a non-fact based construction at all. I asked a rhetorical question. They run flights all the time with empty seats. Yet they have to recoup the costs if they need to reduce the number of passengers on a flight by 1 if there's an obese person on it? Please. How often is it an issue? I have never been on a flight where someone was so obese that they required an extra seat or belt extensions and I fly regularly.

[guyser]

This is a good example of the "creepy reality" created by leftists. In your 'non fact based reality' you believe that decisions like free seats for fat people can be made without any consequences. This is objectively false. There will be consequences and the most likely consequences will be higher seat prices for everyone else.

Would it be fair then to say 'this post (tim g) is a good example of "creeping stupidity" or "'not thinking when making assertions' ? Seems fair I guess.

The reality, as you so want to dispel, Air Canada will try and re-coup the price from fatties but only because they think they can.

Truth is, AC reports on 82.8 % capacity which means those seats are empty anyhow.

So higher seat prices may result, but thats only because they think they can.

Now as for full flights, not to mention the extra aviation fuel needed to haul that plane with an extra 150 lbs....well......

[TimG]

Truth is, AC reports on 82.8 % capacity which means those seats are empty anyhow.

Almost every flight I have been on in the last year has been sold out. The issue is not whether some unused seats will get used on some flights but how revenue on full flights will drop because of seats given away for free. The airline will need to recover this cost.

Now if the ruling allowed air canada to only give away seats on flights when the seat would be otherwise empty then I would agree. But that is not what the ruling did.

Edited December 13, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Almost every flight I have been on in the last year has been sold out. The issue is not whether some unused seats will get used on some flights but how revenue on full flights will drop because of seats given away for free. The airline will need to recover this cost.

Now if the ruling allowed air canada to only give away seats on flights when the seat would be otherwise empty then I would agree. But that is not what the ruling did.

Again, you're constructing reality. That's very nice that the flights YOU have been on are full, but AC reports that it's operating with over 17% of its seats empty. That's more than 1 seat empty for every 6 seats sold.

[Wilber]

The airline HAS TO recoup somehow? They're a non-profit?

If the law prevents you from charging for two seats when one person is taking up two, the fares paid by the rest of the passengers will have to reflect the revenue lost from that seat. That is a seat the airline cannot sell.

[guyser]

Almost every flight I have been on in the last year has been sold out. The issue is not whether some unused seats will get used on some flights but how revenue on full flights will drop because of seats given away for free. The airline will need to recover this cost.

Now if the ruling allowed air canada to only give away seats on flights when the seat would be otherwise empty then I would agree. But that is not what the ruling did.

Pretty good back peddle I say !

[Wilber]

Again, you're constructing reality. That's very nice that the flights YOU have been on are full, but AC reports that it's operating with over 17% of its seats empty. That's more than 1 seat empty for every 6 seats sold.

That's 17% system wide over the whole year, not on every flight or every quarter. Many routes are often overbooked particularly at this time of the year and during the summer when airlines make most of their money. A good third quarter usually determines whether an airline is profitable for the year.

[guyser]

If the law prevents you from charging for two seats when one person is taking up two, the fares paid by the rest of the passengers will have to reflect the revenue lost from that seat. That is a seat the airline cannot sell.

That seat is empty 16% of the time. They werent getting revenue on it anyhow.

[TimG]

That seat is empty 16% of the time. They werent getting revenue on it anyhow.

You seem to have missed my point. The problem is the lost revenue on the busiest routes where there are no empty seats. That revenue needs to be recovered.

[guyser]

You seem to have missed my point.

Dont think so.

You saids

There will be consequences and the most likely consequences will be higher seat prices for everyone else.

I showed you that is not the case for a majority of thier flights.

Then you modified your position.

[TimG]

I showed you that is not the case for a majority of thier flights.

Who said anything about a majority of their flights? You quoted a generic statistic with no breakdown by route. You have no idea whether the majority of passengers fly on full planes or not. It is mathematically possible for the majority of passengers to fly on full flights while a small number of 'loss leader' routes pull down the average seat count per plane.

In short, I modified nothing about my position. You simply assumed that because of your wrong assumption that the "majority" of flights have empty seats.

Edited December 13, 2011 by TimG

[Wilber]

That seat is empty 16% of the time. They werent getting revenue on it anyhow.

Except that people who require two seats will probably be wanting to travel at the same time everyone else does, not when there are a lot of empty seats available. This ruling will just make that more likely.

[sharkman]

Does no one find it sad that the courts are open to such activist law suits? Perhaps we are all desensitized to it since the hot coffee law suits numbed our common sense.

The airlines should respond with charging everyone according to their weight, not just certain people. Say 2 bucks a pound with a 200 buck minimum. Of course more for longer flights. I'd be happy because I'm a middle weight. Or is it welter weight, I can't remember.

Edited December 14, 2011 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

Why don't people with other disabilities have to pay for medical attendants that fly with them?

[sharkman]

I don't know. Why?

[guyser]

Perhaps we are all desensitized to it since the hot coffee law suits numbed our common sense.

I had a feeling this (McDonalds coffee suit) may be trotted out.

The McD's case only numbed the people who have no idea what the case was about and it is an excellent example of what is right with our justice system, not the reverse.

Gross injustice, falsifying data, ignoring suis, payoffs under the table, the McD case had it all.

Edited December 14, 2011 by guyser