I want everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis to read the following link - it's a news story that appeared on Yahoo! News today. Read the story before you read the rest of the post. Go on, I dare you. :p
Read Here Before You Read The Rest
Okay, read the story? Good deal. Here's my take on it.
I had very mixed feelings while reading this article. On the one hand, as a woman that's been overweight (okay, well, obese maybe even) most of my life... I was utterly disgusted by UAL's action today. But... on the other hand I can actually see the reasoning behind it. With that being said.. I'm not actually sure of whether I approve of this action or not. I'm horribly conflicted.
As time goes on, I'm starting to lose a lot of weight - I know I've lost close to 40, 50 pounds since my last airline trip (last summer to Sydney). I didn't have to use an extension belt on that trip, and yes, I could get the armrest down - so perhaps UAL's proposed action doesn't affect me at all. (Especially not now. If I could follow regulation for a plane trip back then, I assure you that I'm not even close to being considered 'obese' by their standards now.) Maybe I have no right to say anything at all, then. But... here is what bothers me about the decision they're undertaking.
They're (the folks at UAL) running the risk of a discrimination suit. Not because Person A eats too many Big Macs and fries, all right - but there are other causes of obesity than simply 'eating too much'. People who have documented medical difficulties such as thyroid problems, diabetes, eating disorders (and I don't mean eating too much - I mean things like bulimia, anorexia, etc.), polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)... the list goes on and on. As a matter of fact, if you look hard enough, you can find a lot of reasons why someone might be overweight/obese. Just Google it - you'll find enough information to fill the Library of Congress and then some.
In any case... let's say that you suffer from one of said medical conditions, and that your weight is a direct result of that condition. Should you be forced to pay for two seats? That's like telling black people to "go sit in the back, the front seats are for whites only", now isn't it?
UAL and other airlines (because they're not the only ones by a long shot) have their reasons for making a policy like this, on the other hand. Who wants to be on a long-haul flight where you can't even be comfortable in a seat? Especially if you're being crushed by someone's flesh? I've been in situations like this myself. As overweight as I am (or was), I myself have had the unpleasant experience of being overwhelmed by someone who was morbidly obese to the point where they couldn't even walk correctly. I find that a frightening, sad thing - but there is help for this. There isn't a reason to suffer like this anymore, and those who don't get that taken care of by a doctor, well, that's on them. The people who are happy with being that kind of a size? They're the ones that should absolutely pay for two, three, four seats. Hell, let them have a whole row to themselves.
But those under a doctor's care, that's a dicey situation. It really is.
Airplanes are not known for their comfortable seats, anyway, unless you're in business class. When I flew to Sydney last year, I was probably shoved into the most uncomfortable seating arrangement ever, and that wasn't Air New Zealand's fault - that was just how the plane's made. There's nothing one can do about that.
Anyhow, I found this story rather fascinating. And I'm interested in what you all think about it. Is there anything to all of what UAL is trying to do, do you consider it discrimination, are there solutions to make all sides happy? I'm really curious as to what you think.
Briefly, on a personal note: things are improving. More later on that.
2 comments:
there is no real solution, but in my opinion, if an extra seat is needed to accommodate someone, then that extra seat should be paid for, plain and simple. if a larger first class seat can fit them, that's an option too.
Like the article stated, UAL is just one of the more recent airlines that started this policy, as 8 other carriers already have had it in place for years and have won their discrimination suits in this capacity, as they should not lose money toward a seat due to any individual, no matter their size. Just like the nuts that want a seat for their toy dog in their purse. You use it, you pay for it.
Just like at amusement parks where seats are confined to a certain amount of space, and even some rollercoasters, a certain MOLD of a seat. You can't even GET on those if you are obese, so at least the airlines are giving an option.
On the flip side, what if they DO make large enough seats in a plane to accommodate these people? Then the lawsuits will be about discriminating them to a certain section of the plane, again, like you said, it would be like blacks on the bus back in the day. It's also a liability to the carrier when most people that obese have numerous health problems, and just like that amusement park, if you have this, this and that.. you should not ride.
With numerous travel options, no one is forcing them to fly, and if they can't afford to fly abroad, then they can't.
It's a no win situation.
I'd find it likely that someone that size due to some medical condition would likely make arrangements with the airline prior to boarding that would override the policy. At least that's what common sense says, I could be wrong. Other than that, if you have chosen to make yourself large enough to require more than one seat (and it IS a choice if there are no medical issues), abso-fucking-lutely you should pay for it.
Post a Comment