Should Obese Airline Passengers Pay Extra?
Featured, Issues, Obesity, Recent — By admin on March 17, 2010 at 12:00 amObese Passengers Create an Unfair Burden?
by: Jae H. Chung
Anyone who needs multiple seats due to their size should be required to purchase multiple seats. Why? Let’s conduct a thought experiment where the large passenger sits in a seat located by the aisle. In order for the large passenger not to bother the passenger next to him, he would have to sit in such a way that a portion of his body is protruding into the aisle. This is unacceptable because the aisle needs to be clear. Passengers need to use the aisle to access the restrooms, and stewardesses need to use the aisle to provide service to passengers.
What if the large passenger sits in a way to clear the aisle? This would imply that a portion of the large passenger’s body would obtrude into the passenger next to him. That passenger would be forced into an uncomfortable position for a prolonged period of time. Besides the physical discomfort, there are serious health issues that are associated with this for both parties. For example, blood flow could be blocked, which could lead to other health issues. The only way to mediate this situation is for a large passenger to sit in multiple seats.
How do airlines determine whether a passenger requires multiple seats? According to Southwest Airlines, “the armrest is the definitive gauge for a Customer of size. It serves as the boundary between seats and measures 17 inches in width.” Is this policy ethical? Yes. Each passenger pays for one seat (space on the plane) and they should be entitled to all the space that they purchased. The armrest serves as an indicator of the boundaries of the purchased space. The armrest for airplane seats is analogous of the fence for houses. A landowner does not have the right to break down their neighbor’s fence and utilize their neighbor’s property.
Even if the adjacent passenger consents, the airline has the right to demand that the large passenger purchase multiple seats. Given that there are health risks associated with a passenger being confined into a tight location for a prolonged period of time, the airline has the right to demand that the passenger follow the safety precautions established by the airline. As a private enterprise, the airline not only has the right to look out for its own interests but the obligation to look out for the well-being of its customers, even if its customers may not. A parallel scenario would be a bar that turns down an intoxicated patron. The bar maintains and enforces its safety precautions to protect itself and its customers.
Given that large passengers must take up multiple seats, the fundamental issue is whether a passenger of size should pay for the additional space. The current policy is one-seat-per-ticket. When passengers purchase an airline ticket, they are allotted a space on the plane. Although one could upgrade to first class if one wishes to purchase additional space, passengers cannot purchase one ticket and occupy more space than they were allotted. The alternative is a one-ticket-per-passenger policy where the airline charges passengers for the flight regardless of the amount of space the passengers take up. The former standardizes the cost per space whereas the latter standardizes the cost per travel.
The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy. Although the primary reason for flying is to travel from one destination to another, passengers are also paying for comfort. The latter policy fails to address the issue of comfort for passengers traveling on an airplane. Although passengers have the right to relinquish comfort to save money, it cannot be at a cost to the other passengers. On the other hand, the one-seat-per-ticket policy charges a flat rate for a plot of space. It enables every passenger to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, so that they could travel without encroaching on another’s space. Secondly, the former policy addresses the issues concerning the health hazards. By requiring passengers to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, the policy effectively deals with the threat of decreased blood circulation and other health problems. Conversely, the latter policy increases the chances of health issues arising from cramming passengers together.
The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy.
It is Unethical to
Tax a Disability
by: Robert Hinck
I s it ethical to charge obese individuals extra for taking up extra space? Last spring the media blew up after United Air announced it was forcing passengers who could not fit within the airplane’s arm rests to pay for two tickets. Although this policy brought United Air in line with the five largest U.S. carriers, the policy drew heated debate and for good reason. Requiring obese passengers to purchase additional tickets is not only unethical, but sits on a slippery slope that could result in further discrimination.
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The fact is, obesity is a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Obesity has long term health effects. The Center for Disease Control lists coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, high cholesterol, stoke, liver disease and more as potential health risks arising from obesity. Obese individuals may have difficulties getting in and out of cars, chairs, and even bed. Morbidly obese individuals may even have problems walking. Regardless, discrimination against obese individuals runs high in America due to the belief that obesity results from individuals eating too much and not caring about their diets. Although this may true for individuals who are overweight or those barely considered obese, according to Medicine.net, obesity is often multifactorial, based on both genetic and behavioral factors. Treatment of obesity usually requires more than just dietary changes. Exercise, counseling and support, and sometimes medication can supplement diet to help patients conquer weight problems. Courts are even beginning to rule morbidly obese individuals as qualifying for benefits under the ADA.
Yet, the airline industry continues to charge morbidly obese passengers extra. Even though airlines are willing to accommodate passengers in wheel chairs additional space free of charge, obese passengers are forced to pay extra due to the distress they cause other airline passengers. First, morbidly obese passengers are the ones most often targeted by these policies, and morbid obesity is not a result of simply choosing to eat more. According to a New York Times article published in August 2007, genetics, psychological problems, and childhood eating habits significantly influence one’s weight later on in life. Dieting and exercise rarely work and relapse is high. Obesity, let alone morbid obesity, is not a choice we willingly make. Second, forcing obese passengers to pay extra merely ostracizes these individuals. The humiliation and pain caused by testing obese passengers whether they make the cut or not causes greater harm than the discomfort of passengers sitting next to them. Ethical approaches focusing on protecting the moral rights of individuals also speaks out against these airline policies. Human beings have dignity and are to be treated as ends, not means to an end. We cannot fine obese individuals to incentivize them to lose weight. Morbidly obese or other handicap individuals have not volunteered for their impairments, and should be treated with respect and dignity for who they are, not discriminated against so they feel unwanted or seen as some inconvenience to those around them.
Other approaches contend that individuals should be treated equally and justly. Obese passengers have just as much of a right for air travel as others. Crying babies cause discomfort for passengers, so do individuals with poor hygiene among a dozen other causes for inconveniences when people are crammed in close courters for hours, yet we do not charge those individuals extra. Obese individuals are people too, and should be treated like people. To promote the common good, we should be taking care of those who cannot take of themselves. We should not be chastising obese passengers, who cannot control their eating and must experience the dirty stares and everyday discrimination as a result of our societies demand for good looks. We must protect their rights and help them carry their burden.
Creating vague discriminatory policies will only cause us greater harm in the future. Although we might be rationalizing fining obese passengers for the “discomfort” they cause us today, who knows what we will find inconvenient tomorrow. Where is the threshold for a significant discomfort? Where is the cutoff for how fat is too fat? Charging obese passengers for additional space is simply unethical. It does not produce the greatest amount of happiness, nor promote the common good, and questions the dignity and rights of those who find themselves in violation. Although we might find ourselves in the majority today, perhaps tomorrow we will fall in the minority. What then? We must protect the rights of all people and fight against discrimination. We must change our outlook towards obesity and, instead of hindering those who hinder us, help those so they no longer hinder us.
I have recently heard that a few organizations at U of M are planning to bring students to Haiti to do volunteer work, either in relief or development. Relief projects would place students temporarily with a relief agency (such as the Red Cross) to address the immediate needs of earthquake victims. In development work, students would design a long-term project that attempts to install sustainable infrastructures for Haiti’s future. In the near future, I believe that any student project in Haiti is massively irresponsible. Long-term, I fear that any volunteer program based at U of M will attempt to graft a flawed model – a model of change brought about by temporary volunteer work – onto a failed state, and it may end disastrously.
First, let’s try to imagine a group of Michigan students traveling to Haiti in the next month. If they are able to get past the border, they will be entering an apocalyptic world. Massive shortages of food, water, and shelter persist everywhere. The sanitation system is in ruins, and cholera and dysentery are spreading wildly. The collapse of the state government has led to looting and mayhem. As the U.S. military attempts to gain control over the country, travel slows to a crawl. Whatever plans the students have to help people will have to be adaptable; donated items may attract the attention of those fighting for survival. Any relief agency that chooses to host these students will be taking on massive liability due to the dangers listed above. Simply feeding and housing volunteers will tear invaluable resources away from dying Haitians.
In the past, most projects like these have failed to do much concrete good and have often caused harm. Why do volunteer projects miss the mark when their intentions are so pure? There are many reasons.
First, students lack the language skills and cultural sensitivity needed to carry themselves appropriately and to gain the trust of the communities where they work. From a logistical point of view, the only people who have any business entering the country now are doctors who are fluent in French and/or Haitian Creole and who have experience in disaster relief. Beyond language are local customs and attitudes that will make or break any attempted project. Young students tend to believe in simple fixes and do not appreciate the knowledge and skills that are at hand in to project communities. This makes American students seem arrogant and becomes a cultural barrier. Often, a lot of promises are made and forgotten, giving developing communities a false hope that someone else will solve their problems for them.
Additionally, most programs – even those that claim to promote “sustainability” – do unsustainable work. They focus on short-term returns and do not establish a lasting presence that will see the project through to completion. At U of M, students cannot be involved with a project for more than 4 years, but many development projects like these have 10-year planning cycles – meaning that a project will have complete turnover at least twice between its inception and its conclusion. In Haiti, even the most sustainably-planned project may not be prepared for the instability that is characteristic to the area, from political coups to natural disasters and migratory populations.
In Haiti, in particular, a sustainable development project will be nearly impossible to coordinate. Political instability and lack of infrastructure present enormous obstacles. This is not to say that no U of M project could ever be successful in Haiti, but it would require a continuous, year-round presence and coordination with a well-established Haitian organization. Students will need preparation in Haitian Creole, cultural training, and study in sustainable development principles.
In general, the problems of developing world poverty are far more complex, deeply-rooted, and difficult to reverse than most young people assume. In their arrogance, students can cause more problems than they set out to solve, and I am deeply concerned that any U of M-led project in Haiti will be unproductive, inappropriate, and unsafe.
2 Comments
Thing is last time I looked air travel is not a right guarantied. One does not need to travel on an airplane since there are other options. Trains have larger seats, cars have as large a seat as you buy, and buses could work too.
I know many obese people who find it extremely offensive when their obesity is considered a “disability”. I seriously doubt if they consider that classification as being treated “with respect and dignity for who they are”.
Bit of a catch-22, no?