Do you agree with Canada's Supreme Court decision that obese have right to two airline seats, one fare
Submitted 46 days ago by livelettFavoriteEmbedOptions
Do you agree with Canada's Supreme Court decision that obese have right to two airline seats, one fare(Please click yes or no)
What if they were charging 2x the fee for people of Arabic descent (increased security costs). Or refusing to carry people over the age of 70 (increased probability of medical emergencies).
Those are obviously both ridiculous policies, and it is the court's business to stop that kind of nonsense.
That said, I'm not sure this ruling was the correct one. But I definitely think their fare policies are fare (pun intended) game.
If policies are ridiculous it is up to other airlines to compete with better ones. government interence into private companies should be limited to safety rules. Courts should only interfere if the airline - or other company - is state owned and taxpayer funded.
All the airlines have to operate under the same rule, it is not as if one company was singled out over another. Since they all get to compete under the same rules it should make it easier for them to compete, not harder.
We restrict what companies can fly in our sky's, so when we limit competition, we also have to make sure they do not abuse the monopoly either. We could stop regulation altogether and allow any one to operate an airline in our perspective countries without any regulation, but I don't think that would be a good idea either.
The case was originally introduced 6 years ago by people with disabilities who needed room for personal equipment (wheelchairs, crutches, etc) and who can't function without attendants. Obese people fall under the umbrella of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (one of the 3 parties involved in the case).
There are still tons of questions surrounding the decision, particularly for obese people...like what determines morbid obesity and how airlines make that determination in a respectful manner.
It is good that Canada wants to accomodate those who need assistance, but obese people usually don't need anything but self control. By this argument, alcoholics should drink for free.
Not a very good argument. Obese people pay for their food, just as alcoholics pay for their drink. The issue is whether a ticket represents 1 person or a weight/space limit, and whether the limits on that fare are to be determined by the airline or regulated by the government.
[4 points]46 days ago by TheSheepReplyEdited 45 days ago by TheSheep
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I was going for brevity, sheep. To say "alchoholism is a disease" or obesity is a disease therefore alchohol should be provided to these people, or buckets, or pretzels, or extra seats, whatever accomodation. Because they need it, right? No. The issue is wether a person who made themself a 900 pound sack of grease deserves any help at all. You're right, sheep. Obese people pay for their food, and they can pay for another ticket too. Keep in mind I will not be drawn into an anal retentive argument. This is not a logic class and I have better things to do.
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
LOL! That is typical! CDC!
You said one fare, but is the one fare the same as the "one seat" fare? Many US airlines charge 1.5x the regular fare if you require two seats.
It's been changed from a 1.5 to a 1 seat fare.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I disagree. The lard buckets should walk to where they are going. Work off some of those calories.
If the airline is a private company it is no court's buisness to interfere with its fare policies.
This comment was deleted by fenrisA1974 .
[1 point] 46 days ago byIsn't it?
What if they were charging 2x the fee for people of Arabic descent (increased security costs). Or refusing to carry people over the age of 70 (increased probability of medical emergencies).
Those are obviously both ridiculous policies, and it is the court's business to stop that kind of nonsense.
That said, I'm not sure this ruling was the correct one. But I definitely think their fare policies are fare (pun intended) game.
If policies are ridiculous it is up to other airlines to compete with better ones. government interence into private companies should be limited to safety rules. Courts should only interfere if the airline - or other company - is state owned and taxpayer funded.
All the airlines have to operate under the same rule, it is not as if one company was singled out over another. Since they all get to compete under the same rules it should make it easier for them to compete, not harder.
We restrict what companies can fly in our sky's, so when we limit competition, we also have to make sure they do not abuse the monopoly either. We could stop regulation altogether and allow any one to operate an airline in our perspective countries without any regulation, but I don't think that would be a good idea either.
The case was originally introduced 6 years ago by people with disabilities who needed room for personal equipment (wheelchairs, crutches, etc) and who can't function without attendants. Obese people fall under the umbrella of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (one of the 3 parties involved in the case).
There are still tons of questions surrounding the decision, particularly for obese people...like what determines morbid obesity and how airlines make that determination in a respectful manner.
It is good that Canada wants to accomodate those who need assistance, but obese people usually don't need anything but self control. By this argument, alcoholics should drink for free.
Not a very good argument. Obese people pay for their food, just as alcoholics pay for their drink. The issue is whether a ticket represents 1 person or a weight/space limit, and whether the limits on that fare are to be determined by the airline or regulated by the government.
Yup, agreed...and for the people involved it's all about who gets to determine what makes a person.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I was going for brevity, sheep. To say "alchoholism is a disease" or obesity is a disease therefore alchohol should be provided to these people, or buckets, or pretzels, or extra seats, whatever accomodation. Because they need it, right? No. The issue is wether a person who made themself a 900 pound sack of grease deserves any help at all. You're right, sheep. Obese people pay for their food, and they can pay for another ticket too. Keep in mind I will not be drawn into an anal retentive argument. This is not a logic class and I have better things to do.