2:1 seat sales for oversize flyers-- fair?

Earlier this week the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal (brought by the Canadian airline industry) of an earlier Canadian Transportation Agency ruling requiring airlines to allocate two adjoining seats (for a single fare) to passengers that are “functionally disabled by obesity”.

I have been considering the broader implications of this precedent. I believe the Supreme Court should have heard the Appeal and reversed the Agency’s ruling. This is not because I do not believe that Canadian business should be free to operate with cavalier disregard for the rights of the physically impaired to be free from unfair discrimination. It is also not because I am insensitive to the comfort and space needs of heavier people.

If there are extra seats available on a particular flight, I am sure most passengers would be more than obliging in re-juggling their original seat assignments to vacate the seat adjoining that occupied by a heavier person, in order to allow everyone more personal space. Doing so makes practical good sense and hurts no one. But increasingly, I find myself boarding flights that are fully booked and bearing a full passenger load. Vacant seats seem to be more and more of a rarity. In this age of soaring energy prices and fuel surcharges, airlines seem to have done a stellar job of realigning adjusting their fleet capacities and scheduling to “right size” capacity to optimize passenger loads at near capacity.

Against this backdrop, I believe the Court should have considered whether it is fair and appropriate to spread the costs of the second seat allocated to the heavier passenger across the fares of all paying passengers flying in the aircraft. Consider that most airlines currently charge an economy fare passenger who overpacks a surcharge for checking overweight luggage or pieces in excess of the allowable limit. The Court should have likewise considered whether it is fair and inappropriate to deprive a standby passenger of a seat because two seats need to be allocated to a heavier passenger flying on a confirmed basis.

This decision could actually compromise the interests of "aerotubbies" by subjecting them to derision and scorn by fellow lighter passengers forced to endure a flight in cramped close quarters (particularly longer passengers), particularly if other family, friends or associates were left on the ground waiting on a standby seat assignment.

While I realize that body shape and weight may to some extent be traceable to genetic hereditary factors, a bigger cause relates to lifestyle choices (the ability to balance caloric intake of food to physical activity levels). It is entirely possible for the obese to control their weight by modifying their own behaviour. They can begin to make healthier (lower fat and calories) food selection and to increase their level of physical activity. By providing a free seat reward to the obese, subsidized by all passengers, are we not incenting bad lifestyle choices and penalizing better choices? Are we not providing one less reason for an obese person to make positive changes in their lifestyle to slim off some pounds?

Some alcoholics contend that their alcoholism is a condition akin to a disease-- that they develop an addictive dependency on alcohol that compels them to drink. And yet airlines, in the interest of safety, routinely deny boarding to passengers that are obviously intoxicated, under the influence of alcohol. No one contends that taking such action discriminates against persons with a physical disability.

The court should have also considered the broader implications of where this decision might lead? This precedent could lead us down a very slippery slope. Could the obese now demand that car dealers sell them larger (mid size) cars for the price of sub-compacts or threaten to bring a class action alleging discrimination? Could the obese now demand that supermarkets sell them two pounds of ground beef for the price of one or that McDonalds sell them two Big Macs for the price of one on the grounds that a larger stomach takes more to fill by threatening to bring a court action alleging discrimination?

The practical implications of the decision also need to be vetted:

Where does one draw the line between being clinically obese and just plain fat?

Will travel agents be expected to validate that a passenger is, in fact, obese, in order to qualify them to receive two seats for on fare?

Will travel agents be required to inquire about a persons’ weight (at the risk of offending them) in order book a heavier passenger on the correct fare basis?

What if a passenger loses or gains weight in the interim period between reserving their flight and the date of travel?

Ultimately, I think this decision has the potential to lead to increased marginalization of obese people in Canada. Heavier people who might have, prior to this decision, been completely willing to pay two fares, to book on a first or business class (instead of economy) basis or to simply contend with the discomfort of accommodating their hefty girth in a single seat, may now find themselves subject to the hateful scorn of resentful fellow passengers jealous of their larger (same priced) flying space.

Have any other jurisdictions in the world passed similar rulings in favour of obese passengers? Or is Canada on the vanguard of championing the rights of the obese? I fear the rest of the world may regard we Canadians with puzzled bemusement on account of allowing this decision to stand. In my view, the decision pushes the boundary line of tolerance and accommodation well beyond where it ought reasonably to be drawn.