This I disagree with! It is now the law in Canada that if a coach seat is too snug for a person, the airline must give them two seats for the price of one, under the assumption that the overweight is a disability, like any other. I really think this is wrong, because we all know, the airline will not pay for this extra seat, other passengers will. Just had to vent!

I agree whole heartedly with you!

Well, if airlines have to forfeit enough seats, perhaps they'll make the seats wider for everyone. One can always hope.

James, can you post a reference to this law or a source where it can be found? Or is this just a story someone made up which you're passing on? I've looked at the Canadian Transportation Agency website (they regulate air travel in Canada similar to the FAA) and found nothing about it in their regulations, statutes, or rulings.

He read it in Dear Abby this morning.

I read about it in the Raleigh News & Observer! It's certainly not something I just made up.

So why not just wear oversize sweat pants padded with one of those preganancy simulator prosthetics, except at your hips, and get a free seat for yourself?

The truth of the matter is that three years ago, a Mrs. Linda McKay-Panos complained to the Canadian Transportation Agency that the action of Air Canada in charging her for the second seat needed to accommodate her bulk on a flight to Ottawa constitutes discrimination against overweight flyers. During the course of CTA's consultative process since May of 1998, no advocacy organization has emerged to present the view that obesity is a disability. To continue the process the CTA has hired a lawyer as amicus curiae, at a cost of $45,000, to represent the position that obesity is a disability at its upcoming hearing, against counsel from Air Canada who will argue the opposite. This decision of the Agency to hire a lawyer to represent Mrs McKay-Panos' position, when no legitimate disability agency would touch it, has led to some ridicule of the Agency in the press. As it stands now, obese people do NOT get free 2nd seats.

As I suspected when I read the Dear Abby or Ann Landers column. Those two get taken quite frequently by urban lengends and half-truths. Thank you for providing us with some real information.

Thank you Ron for your factual reply to this. However, I have a different position. I once paid for first class and was seated next to a very obese man. I found myself in a very expensive first class seat where I could not put down the arm rests and where I had so little room (I am 5'9, female and weigh 130) that I could hardly move. It was an embarressment to want to get up to use the "loo" because I couldn't get out without forcing this poor man to try to move out of his seat.

Indeed, initially I was most angry and asked for a change of seat which was denied (this was Australia) and further no refund was ever offered or recieved.

I found after sitting next to this man for several hours that he was indeed a pleasant travel companion who made my trip most enjoyable other than the discomfort. He certainly felt badly about the fact that he was obese and I was uncomfortable. Hence, the reason that he purchased first class as well.

BUT, if he had been allowed two seats, I would not have been put in that position. And, I really feel that this is preferable to being nearly suffocated due to the current rules. Unless you have been placed in the situation, you cannot really understand it (either side) - so I feel it is a good ruling and obesity is a disability.

James, what's it to you? Other passengers are paying for your freebie frequent flyer seat. Other passengers are subsidizing the upgrades to first or business class. Other passengers are even paying for your 14-day advance purchase discount seat.

And as to arguing about a disability -- how or why the guy is obese is a matter of history. He can't lose 180 lbs. just for your flight. He's overweight now, today. He probably wishes he weren't, and denying special arrangements on the basis of an assumption about how he got that way makes no sense at all especiallly if it guarantees that his seatrow-mates are uncomfortable now, too. If you want to link cause of disability to accommodations, would you deny special accommodations to the man who broke his leg in a drunk driving accident? The woman who needs oxygen because she's a life-long smoker? The bulkhead to someone who's made the mistake of living so long that walking is exhausting?

Blame Canada?!

Mr/Ms Tar Heel: you are way out in left field. What kind of logic do they teach "y'all" down there?
You think OTHER passengers subsidize 14 day advance or upgraded seats?
You want to require airlines to view all people with 'special circumstances' as being on equal footing...requiring that they all be given 'disability' status, regardless of 'cause'?

First off, the airlines calculate how many seats they need to sell at various combinations of price targets in order to achieve a set profit quotient. The prices are then adjusted on an ongoing basis to reflect shifting demand...the faster the seats are selling, the more they'll charge for remaining/higher priced seats (once a set number of cheaper seats are sold). The initial advance purchase prices have NOTHING to do with subsidization by other passengers... the late selling higher priced seats are sold that's all profit. And freebie seats are held to a conservative minimum on each flight so as not to skew profitability profiles meaningfully.
In your world of "all special circumstances demand special considerations", I'd like to see you run a profitable airline while giving free seats away to everyone with: a football player's frame (being big isn't his/her fault, after all), strong body odor (could be very stressful for such a person to know he/she might be offending someone in the next seat), all kids too young to fly alone (heck, youth isn't the kid's 'fault'...he/she should be allowed an accompanying adult for security/comfort/support), anyone who isn't feeling well and needs to stretch out (is feeling unwell the passenger's 'fault'? Of course not!).

One of the biggest problems the US faces is this despicable lack of personal accountability/responsibility which seems to pervade everyone's thinking. Burned my tongue on the coffee...sue McDonald's. The burglar who fell through the roof and sued the homeowner for injuries he sustained, etc. Makes me disgusted. Waaaay too much whining and waaay too little discipline/accountability.

Your accounting slight of hand doesn't change a thing -- divide the cost of flying any plane on any route by the number of seats and you get a figure that no one is paying. Some people pay more -- because the airline can get away with charging more to the last-minute business passengers; some people pay less -- because the airline has anticipated exactly what level of occupancy will fill the seats. And some pay nothing, because the airlines want to court a particular group of passengers. The ones who pay more subsidize the ones who pay less -- of course they do. (And the noun isn't "subsidization," fyi.)

As to all that "take responsibility" prattle, it gives you away as someone who still thinks obesity is a problem of personal morality, which puts you in the same league with those who dealt with insanity by jailing people.

And while you are jumping up and down about your idea of individual responsibility, I'm 100% certain you excuse corporations of doing anything they want to consumers, the electoral and political system, and the environment just because they have to meet inflated expectations of dividends and executive compensation packages. Profit is the only measure of virtue.

Your idea of accountability is completely skewed, and I particularly worry about the implications of your nom de plume, especially given the weird set of assumptions you seem to have made based on mine.