If obese passenger requires two seats on an aircraft who should bear the cost?

[The Last Conformist]

As for the market taking care of everyone's safety, this is what would happen: some companies would take of all safety measures and lower the prices. No accidents would happen immediatly, because they are so rare. But when one happen, chances are it will be with one of the companies that lifted security. Then there would start a great paranoia and rejectionm of said company, that would lead either to bankrupcy or to the return of safty norms. Maybe it would take more then one accident, but human nature guarantees that it would happen.
As I said, the market solution for this particular case, albeit possible, is not desirable. Because it would take times and put lifes in risk. So those are norms that make sense.

My point was that the level of safety the market solution would arrive at would not necessarily be the same as that currently enforced by regulation.

An Economist article a while ago made a convincing-sounding case that we'd be better off on the whole if some safety measures on flights, such as flotation devices on overland flights, were dropped, because the money saved could then be used more productively, enriching society as a whole. The state could remove some of the tax exemptions from airlines, thus taking back some of the money previously spent on the flotation devices, and spend it on programmes that save more lives per dollar.

I do not have the background to check their numbers.

And I agree with you, morally the gvt. should not intervene. It is kind of ridiculous that we expect the gvt. to care more about our security then ourselves.

I love when people express agreement on issues on which I've not expressed an opinion.

 

[luiz]

My point was that the level of safety the market solution would arrive at would not necessarily be the same as that currently enforced by regulation.

An Economist article a while ago made a convincing-sounding case that we'd be better off on the whole if some safety measures on flights, such as flotation devices on overland flights, were dropped, because the money saved could then be used more productively, enriching society as a whole. The state could remove some of the tax exemptions from airlines, thus taking back some of the money previously spent on the flotation devices, and spend it on programmes that save more lives per dollar.

I do not have the background to check their numbers.

I never gave much thinking to this subject. Maybe the market would be more effecient, like in most other things. Safety norms always looked reasonable to me, though.

I love when people express agreement on issues on which I've not expressed an opinion.

I thought you had expresse your opinion. At leats you endorsed a POV.

 

[FredLC]

There is not unlimited airplene seats, but there is the possibility of unlimited airplane seats. As such, the supply is Elastic, to put in Economic terms. There's nothing preventing anyone from starting a new airline - didn'y Gol start just recently?

As for land, there is only one maximum quantity. No matter the given price, the ammount supplied is the same. This creates some serious distortions.

Oh, sure; theoretically, there can be MILLIONS of air companies operating out there, making flights so cheap that a person can by ten sits in the first class by the same price of a coconut. However, the clever economists that theorizes about it probably must know a thing or two about supply and demand, and that in practice, the number of airplane sits will be limited by the viability of the market. So, your offering of a theoretical response to a practical problem does not really help anyone.

But I love theories, so I’ll indulge.

So, land is different because, no matter what, there is a limited amount of it. Well, maybe we could count the possibility that in the future lands in other planets will be available as well, but that’s just me still playing with the ridiculous. One might observe that the amount of land is not as important as their capacity to produce, and as modern techniques are making the land produces every time more, and faster, in less space, and making previously unworthy spots become profitable, the argument of limited land does not really hold water.

Not only that. See, because the actual number of atoms in the earth is not infinite, if every single resource of the planet were transformed into airplanes, a theoretical response for your theoretical opposition, still, the number of sits would not be unlimited. Maybe they would be sufficient, but unlimited? Never.

Well, unless you argue with me that the amount of land available on earth is insufficient to sustain humanity, this pretty much crushes your comparison.

If he does not take another seat, then there is the chance of he making the trip of his passenger a living hell, what costs to the airline the risk of a lawsuit(like in the original post).

If he does occupy another seat, then there is an increase of cost of 100%, what is very real.
Because to give 2 seats to one passenger means that one less seat was sold.

Well, apparently, the air companies are willing to take their chances on the possibility of lawsuits, now aren’t they? It’s their choice to do so. As I said, it’s the company, not the fat guy, that is responsible for the comfort of the other passengers.

As for the cost increase, I repeat, if it’s because of the acting of using 2 seats, than it does not advance you an inch, for nobody ever denied that this is a onus – the only discussion is who should bear it.

If the fat person is offended by the policies of Varig he can fly with TAM. Or not fly at all.

Yeah, and if a black person is offended by the racist policy of a restaurant, he can go to another; or not go to restaurants at all. It’s all private property, isn’t it?

The norms are good when they make sense. Safety norms make sense, demanding social functions on private property does not.

As for taking care of everyone's safety, this is what would happen: some companies would take of all safety measures and lower the prices. No accidents would happen immediatly, because they are so rare. But when one happen, chances are it will be with one of the companies that lifted security. Then there would start a great paranoia and rejectionm of said company, that would lead either to bankrupcy or to the return of safty norms. Maybe it would take more then one accident, but human nature guarantees that it would happen.
As I said, the market solution for this particular case, albeit possible, is not desirable. Because it would take times and put lifes in risk. So those are norms that make sense.

I beg of you to please not evoke some legitimacy in deciding what makes sense and what does not. For me, saying that Air Company can’t use property rights to create policies that are discriminatory of fat people makes a whole lot of sense.

More than that, as you agree that the market solution to the safety problem is unacceptable, I really don’t have anything to add – except that, as I see it, the market solution to the overweight problem can be, validly, considered to the same extent unacceptable, making the regulation quite a welcome measure.

Halcyon had the best answer for this argument.
If all that we buy is transportation, then first class seats would not cost more then Economical ones. Clearly, the space and comfort we demand cost too.

The fat person, for exemple, bought seat 2B. If he does not fit 2B, what makes you think that he should get 2C for free? The contract is restricted to the rental of seat 2B, not to the fitting of a fat man.

It’s not 8 or 80, Luiz. There is middle ground.

In practice, what the Air Company does when it creates different classes is to sell different services. To all of them, the most important aspect IS the transportation; now for those who can pay and want to, they sell more – they sell comfort and convenience.

As I said, placing the blame of not fitting in a sit on the fat guy is just the axiom you chose. Staring by saying that the company is to blame, for they created the problem with their policy in choosing air seats is an equally valid angle.

The company is not to blame that the human beings come in different sizes? No. Well, neither does the humans.

It’s not that I think that he is entitled to another sit. What I think is that he is entitled for the transportation he bought. If giving another sit is the only way the company have to fulfill its duties, so be it.

Again according to Halcyon, the price should not double. Because part of the price is transportation, and that costs the same to a skinny somalian or to a fat person. But another part is accomodation, and in this case the price doubles. So the total increase would be inferior to 100%, if the person bought a "fat tickett".

As I already mentioned, if the air company really offered different sized chairs, with some fitting for any human being, and the price reflected just the extent of the amended cost, I would not challenge it in anyway. As the air companies don’t do it, they probably think it’s not worthy. So, as I said, placing the blame on them is not absurd at all.

But the fact that diseased people have to pay pharmaceutical bills may be called a man-made inquity as well. The pharmacy could, theorically, hand them the drugs for free.

It's the same with the airline. They could give the seat for free, but they rather sell two seats for two people, or make him pay for two seats.
Just like the pharmacies, they should not have to pay for someone else's disabilities, even if thise someone is not to blame for beign disabled.

Tsk. This is just a variation of the restaurant analogy, in case you haven’t noticed. Subject to the same problems, the only difference is that you chose now something with an unforeseeable outcome to try to rule out my response that “what he bought is opulence”, because now I can’t find a place where “what he bought is healthy, and he is entitled all the medicine he needs until he gets it”.

Unfortunately for you, the same reason that makes the argumentative flaw less obvious also makes it even less fitting. For unlike what happens with medicine, transportation does have a guaranteed outcome. Just like “eating until you get full”, “traveling from spot A to B” is a certainty, quite unlike being cured, because medicine is always subjective. And that is the only reasons why there aren’t “all healthy you can get” hospitals or pharmacies.

Again, the amount of medicine a patient needs is not a suitable example for other reasons as well. The first of them, because the medicine is exactly what he paid for, unlike the case of the air seat, where the demanded service is the transportation. As I said, I am not demanding that the company lets him travel for free, just that it delivers the product in a satisfactory manner, using, for that, all the resources it has two. If this means two sits, so be it.

Anyway, when you bought a pill, you got a pill. If the single pill is not enough for you, though luck, buy another.

You, however, will notice the relevant thing that pills does bring recommendations on doses varying on people’s weight, which can be customized to each person – unlike airplane sits.

Also, if for whatever reason the amount of medicine contained in the pill is not the one it promised – making, them that the pharmacy fails to deliver the product it sold, than you are, yes, entitled to go there and get another one, as amny as it takes until you have all the medicine you paid for.

They have promissed to transport him, on a pre-determined seat.

And didn’t have a problem in taking his money, even though they were quite aware of the seat issue, haven’t you noticed that?

In my flight to Los Angeles last month, there was this morbidly obese american tourist seating in Economical class. He was so big that he could not fit two seats, so he had to stand all flight(blocking the way to the restroom). And there was not a single seat avaiable, not even in the first class.
What I don't understand is why this guy, who already saved enough money to make a visit to another country, could not save a bit more and fly Executive or First Class. People must deal with their disabilities.

Luiz, I too have been aggravated by a fat seat mate once. I know it is bothersome. Again, your comfort is your problem and the problem of the company, not his. While it would be polite of him to be considerate of you, it’s not a duty.

Why this guy didn’t buy a first class ticket? Who knows? Maybe he really couldn’t afford. Maybe he won the ticket as a gift. Maybe he had to travel before he could safe more due to some future impediment. While it’s quite possible that he was just a sick cheap fatso, it’s unfair to assume that is certainly the case.

Why didn’t you saved more and bought first class? This way, no fat man in the world would be capable of bothering you. However, as we can’t go on checking every individual reason of every single person who buys economic class tickets, it is an exercise of futility to follow this line of arguing.

Regards .

 

[The Last Conformist]

No, I am not, as I intend to demonstrate in the following lines. Maybe my choosing of the terms “positive” and “negative” wasn’t wise in terms of accuracy of the meaning, but the issue of inaction I presented is perfectly valid, and unchallenged by your reply.



That’s where there was um understanding conflict. By “positive” and “negative” discrimination, I don’t mean a discrimination to privilege and a discrimination to undermine.

Positive discrimination, as I used the terms, means using a different treatment to undo a factual inequality; now negative discrimination, means creating a man-made inequality by establishing a different treatment. So, as you can see, I was calling them “positive” and “negative” regarding the intentions behind them, not by the goals they pursuit.

I think that, after this clarification, it’s hard to dispute that the second one IS wrong.

OK. That's however still not coterminus with discrimination based on relevant difference vs not so based. I don't see how forcing an obese passenger to pay extra for taking an extra seat fits into either of your categories; we're not undoing the fact that he needs extra space, nor are we creating an inequality where there was none (unless he got fat in mid-flight because the flight attendants force-fed him!).

Now, for the specific issue you brought:

If you were a shoe manufacturer, you would, as you very well said, create shoes with varying sizes – shoes that fit every person individually. Now, if companies were willing to have multiple chair sizes, there wouldn’t be an issue in discussion here, now would it? The problem is exactly that the air companies, for reasons that fit their interests, decided to deal with the average need – if that is smart or not, is another issue – so arguably, it lies on them the very origin of the problem, for it’s them who decided to ignore the fact that humans vary enormously.

Except that most flights do offer seats in different sizes.

While after I addressed the conceptual contempt we faced, this question lost much of its relevance, I have no problem addressing it. See, even under your given perspective of a “negative discrimination”, this example can’t hold water – for while the practical difference is existent in both situations – one being the excess in weight, and in other, the lack of age (that truly means the lack of experience) – and in both cases there would be a loss – in one case loosing the flight, in the other being alienated from the democratic process – fact is that a kid WILL grow; hence, the term condition will be inevitably met. This is not true about the other example, and we can’t be sure that a fat man will be thin one day, specially because, I repeat, commonly the ones who get THAT fat have body issues they can’t help.

If you accept that a minimum voting age is justified, you have accepted that discrimination is sometimes justified. It follows that discrimination cannot be inherently unjustifed.

(I'm not arguing that if you accept the voting age, you must accept obese passengers paying double, only that if you accept the voting age, you cannot reject the obese passenger having to pay extra solely on the grounds that it's discrimination.)

Also, if you are following the entirety of this discussion, you must have seen the doctors analogy made by BJ; well, the same answer applies here – as only those who prove able becomes doctors, only those who meet legal age get to vote. And while it’s true that some kids may be better voter than some adults, the idea that most young people aren’t prepared to take part yet is reasonable. You guys, on the other hand, are yet to make an argument that demonstrate that fat people are incapable of being airplane passengers, to any degree of natural difficulty, except for the constriction created by the air companies policy in seat selecting.

Aircraft are technological artefacts, and the rules surrounding their use are social constructs; to the extent there are any "natural difficulties" to deal with, it's precisely what seat sizes the manufacturers supply.

Well, surely, someone will have to pay. As the fat guy can’t help being fact, except in very rare cases, he is as much a victim of the circumstances as any of the others you mentioned. As I said, several times, it’s not that your proposal lacks viability; it’s that the other proposal is being dismissed too easily.

In such situation, every solution is unfair, and picking which unfair solution is the less harmful is not as simple as people are making it look.

The usual way is that if someone has an undeserved misfortune which causes additional costs, he/she either pays him-/herself, or society, in the guise of the state, steps in. The issue would then be whether the obese person should have to pay extra, or if the state should pay the difference.

As I've already said, I'd like the state to pay the difference for an individual who truly has an metabolic problem causing his or her obesity. For other highly obese people - and there are a few around - forgive me if I see a certain justice if they have to pay for the extra costs caused by their life-style.


I can't be arsed right now to dig up the post where I spoke of the seat vs flight issue. The core of the argument is that if one bought a flight pure and simple the airline would not be justified in charging different rates for First and Economy class. Clearly, at least part of the ticket price goes for the amount of space and comfort you get.

Now, you might argue this shouldn't be the case. The reply, of course, that it's again a matter of what degree of economic freedom we want to allow. There's no reason a priori that air traffic shouldn't be regulated to the point that no-one remotely sensible would touch the business with a ten-foot pole. I happen to believe, however, that we're better off as a society if we allow airlines to operate in a reasonably free market, free to compete on price, comfort, and butt space allowances.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I thought you had expresse your opinion. At leats you endorsed a POV.

I said it made sense for a certain POV. Doesn't say anything whether that's an appropriate POV.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

[quoting original post]Barbara Hewson, 63, was offered damages by Virgin Atlantic after suffering a blood clot, torn leg muscles and sciatica following a flight to Los Angeles in January 2001, the UK's Press Association reported.
She said the woman passenger [sitting next to her] was so large she had to sit with the arm rests up, but when she complained, the crew said there was nothing they could do as the plane was full.[end]

Why are we arguing about the treatment of large people on aircraft? This woman should have been required to work hard to prove that sitting with the armrest up caused her leg problems. Other things which are known to cause these problems: birth control pills (probably not in her case due to age) or hormone treatments, megadoses of certain vitamins, inactivity for an extended period, a huge host of medications/OTCs/herbals, poor health in general, her own weight, age, smoking... Did she make any effort to flex her legs/feet or get up and walk during the flight? Was she slouching in her seat (which certainly can cause or exacerbate sciatica)? How long was the flight (I'm guessing transatlantic UK to LA) and did the airline give notice that passengers should move about at some time during extended flights?

I have yet to hear that traveling with the armrest up (whether sitting by an obese person or not) causes any kind of leg problems during flight. Oh, and if it was caused by the person next to her, why did she seek damages only from the airline and not from the other passenger?

 

[The Last Conformist]

It’s not that I think that he is entitled to another sit. What I think is that he is entitled for the transportation he bought. If giving another sit is the only way the company have to fulfill its duties, so be it.

The other perspective is that he, out of lacking information or out of stupidity, bought a service, viz. being transported from X to Y in seat Z, which he cannot use. Unless he was mislead to think he would be able to use it - the lady at the travel agency told him he would fit into one seat - he's legitimately screwed, and can't blame anyone else for his mistakes.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Why are we arguing about the treatment of large people on aircraft?

Because that was what Mapache asked about in the OP and poll.

 

[FredLC]

Hehehe. Debates can REALLY be tiresome when you are single-handed against a crowd. I have just finished a reply, there is already another ready.

Well, let’s go:

OK. That's however still not coterminus with discrimination based on relevant difference vs not so based. I don't see how forcing an obese passenger to pay extra for taking an extra seat fits into either of your categories; we're not undoing the fact that he needs extra space, nor are we creating an inequality where there was none (unless he got fat in mid-flight because the flight attendants force-fed him!).

We are undoing the inequality that we are aggravating the fat person’s expenses just because he has hormonal issues that forces him to occupy more room.

Except that most flights do offer seats in different sizes.

Not all of them.

And those who do, do it in a different class, forcing people to buy amended services. When they have economic class large seats, you will have a point.

If you accept that a minimum voting age is justified, you have accepted that discrimination is sometimes justified. It follows that discrimination cannot be inherently unjustifed.

(I'm not arguing that if you accept the voting age, you must accept obese passengers paying double, only that if you accept the voting age, you cannot reject the obese passenger having to pay extra solely on the grounds that it's discrimination.)

While this is true, it’s not like I’m screaming “it’s discrimination, it’s discrimination, you bastards”. I am saying that it is unjustified discrimination, and bothering to give the reasons why.

Aircraft are technological artefacts, and the rules surrounding their use are social constructs; to the extent there are any "natural difficulties" to deal with, it's precisely what seat sizes the manufacturers supply.

I accept that economy has in and on itself a natural component, and rules of market have to be observed in a profitable business. However, as I always say when this points shows up, the human acknowledgement of the law of gravity didn’t prevent us from creating the parachute.

So, while the air companies does have the right to choose standard sized sits for their airplanes is this proves to be more profitable, they can also be held accountable for the exceptions created by this policy. The manner they deal with this responsibility – either changing their seat selecting criteria, or giving free seats to the super-fat, is a choice I place entirely on them, in respect of their prerogatives of ruling their business.

But as the old saying dictates, “my rights ends where yours begin”. So evoke right of property to discriminate someone does not justify it, not even evoking market necessities.

The usual way is that if someone has an undeserved misfortune which causes additional costs, he/she either pays him-/herself, or society, in the guise of the state, steps in. The issue would then be whether the obese person should have to pay extra, or if the state should pay the difference.

I dispute this claim. Laws does interfere with property and business to make them respect the difficulties of unfortunate people. Laws determine that they have separate parking spaces; Laws determines that buildings have ladders, not only stairs; Laws determine that busses have to have stairs which’s lower step is low enough for people with movement difficulties step in; laws determine that senior citizens and pregnant woman don’t need to wait in bank lines.

There are many instances in which the dealing with private property is constricted to guarantee the access of crippled people. Many of them goes unnoticed by the ones among us that are lucky enough not to need any of these things.

This very case is only an issue because, exactly due to the fact that such regulation is missing, than the private property is having it on its own way – which places profit far ahead of respect.

As I've already said, I'd like the state to pay the difference for an individual who truly has an metabolic problem causing his or her obesity. For other highly obese people - and there are a few around - forgive me if I see a certain justice if they have to pay for the extra costs caused by their life-style.

Not unfair, and a possible solution. Again, if implemented, I’d have no problem with it. What bothers me is the current inaction, that becomes the effective discrimination I described before.

I can't be arsed right now to dig up the post where I spoke of the seat vs flight issue. The core of the argument is that if one bought a flight pure and simple the airline would not be justified in charging different rates for First and Economy class. Clearly, at least part of the ticket price goes for the amount of space and comfort you get.

Now, you might argue this shouldn't be the case. The reply, of course, that it's again a matter of what degree of economic freedom we want to allow. There's no reason a priori that air traffic shouldn't be regulated to the point that no-one remotely sensible would touch the business with a ten-foot pole. I happen to believe, however, that we're better off as a society if we allow airlines to operate in a reasonably free market, free to compete on price, comfort, and butt space allowances.

The point here is that while one is first and foremost buying a flight, he surely is not buying a “flight pure and simple”. He is buying a safe trip, and different degrees of convenience and comfort by choosing to pay or not for an extra privileged service.

As for the matter of the free market, I have already addressed it in this post.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

The other perspective is that he, out of lacking information or out of stupidity, bought a service, viz. being transported from X to Y in seat Z, which he cannot use. Unless he was mislead to think he would be able to use it - the lady at the travel agency told him he would fit into one seat - he's legitimately screwed, and can't blame anyone else for his mistakes.

I quite agree that this is a viable outlook on the issue - though it would place an equal blame on the company for selling a service it knew it would be unable to deliver.

Nevertheless, as I said, the reason why I am playing devil's advocate is because this side of the argument was being hammered, with no one taking a minute to give it a second thoght. Well, I did, and I perceived that there were merit in that opinion too, so it deserved a better presentation than the one it was getting.

Because that was what Mapache asked about in the OP and poll.

Indeed. But as for the rest of his points, you gotta agree that they are quite reasonable.

Regards .

 

[The Last Conformist]

We are undoing the inequality that we are aggravating the fat person’s expenses just because he has hormonal issues that forces him to occupy more room.

Er? That's precisely what we do not do if we force him to pay for the extra seat.

Not all of them.

And those who do, do it in a different class, forcing people to buy amended services. When they have economic class large seats, you will have a point.

Now you're adding extra requirements. The fact remains, most planes offer different-sized seats. If you have to buy something you don't need in order to get something you do need, tough luck.

While this is true, it’s not like I’m screaming “it’s discrimination, it’s discrimination, you bastards”. I am saying that it is unjustified discrimination, and bothering to give the reasons why.

Then why did you protest at my implying that discrimination isn't inherently wrong?

I accept that economy has in and on itself a natural component, and rules of market have to be observed in a profitable business. However, as I always say when this points shows up, the human acknowledgement of the law of gravity didn’t prevent us from creating the parachute.

So, while the air companies does have the right to choose standard sized sits for their airplanes is this proves to be more profitable, they can also be held accountable for the exceptions created by this policy. The manner they deal with this responsibility – either changing their seat selecting criteria, or giving free seats to the super-fat, is a choice I place entirely on them, in respect of their prerogatives of ruling their business.

But as the old saying dictates, “my rights ends where yours begin”. So evoke right of property to discriminate someone does not justify it, not even evoking market necessities.

Well, if you believe people have a right to comfortable flights at a reasonable price, it's little surprise if we find it hard to argee.

I dispute this claim. Laws does interfere with property and business to make them respect the difficulties of unfortunate people. Laws determine that they have separate parking spaces; Laws determines that buildings have ladders, not only stairs; Laws determine that busses have to have stairs which’s lower step is low enough for people with movement difficulties step in; laws determine that senior citizens and pregnant woman don’t need to wait in bank lines.

Those are the exceptions. I've not heard any convincing argumentation that we should have a similar exception for fat people aboard airplanes.

 

[luiz]

Oh, sure; theoretically, there can be MILLIONS of air companies operating out there, making flights so cheap that a person can by ten sits in the first class by the same price of a coconut. However, the clever economists that theorizes about it probably must know a thing or two about supply and demand, and that in practice, the number of airplane sits will be limited by the viability of the market. So, your offering of a theoretical response to a practical problem does not really help anyone.

But I love theories, so I’ll indulge.

So, land is different because, no matter what, there is a limited amount of it. Well, maybe we could count the possibility that in the future lands in other planets will be available as well, but that’s just me still playing with the ridiculous. One might observe that the amount of land is not as important as their capacity to produce, and as modern techniques are making the land produces every time more, and faster, in less space, and making previously unworthy spots become profitable, the argument of limited land does not really hold water.

Not only that. See, because the actual number of atoms in the earth is not infinite, if every single resource of the planet were transformed into airplanes, a theoretical response for your theoretical opposition, still, the number of sits would not be unlimited. Maybe they would be sufficient, but unlimited? Never.

Well, unless you argue with me that the amount of land available on earth is insufficient to sustain humanity, this pretty much crushes your comparison.

The fact that there is not an infinite ammount of airplane seats avaiable is not what matters. What matters is that the air market is Elastic to some degree, this can be proven with empirical evidence.

The market of unused land is not. But you made a good point, when regarding the increase productivity. Notice that in my original address to this subject I mentioned that the problem is land not used. Indeed, the market of used land, or improved land, is also elastic to some degree and is not a problem like unused land. There is no need to regulate the market of farms or agricultural lands.

Well, apparently, the air companies are willing to take their chances on the possibility of lawsuits, now aren’t they? It’s their choice to do so. As I said, it’s the company, not the fat guy, that is responsible for the comfort of the other passengers.

As for the cost increase, I repeat, if it’s because of the acting of using 2 seats, than it does not advance you an inch, for nobody ever denied that this is a onus – the only discussion is who should bear it.

The person who should bear the cost is the person using the product.

Yeah, and if a black person is offended by the racist policy of a restaurant, he can go to another; or not go to restaurants at all. It’s all private property, isn’t it?

Well, yeah. I don't see a convincing moral argument as for why the owners of private business should be forced to sell their products to everyone. It's not like we have the right to buy from someone else's shop.
I understand that there are world-wide laws against discrimination, but I don't agree with that part of those laws.

I beg of you to please not evoke some legitimacy in deciding what makes sense and what does not. For me, saying that Air Company can’t use property rights to create policies that are discriminatory of fat people makes a whole lot of sense.

More than that, as you agree that the market solution to the safety problem is unacceptable, I really don’t have anything to add – except that, as I see it, the market solution to the overweight problem can be, validly, considered to the same extent unacceptable, making the regulation quite a welcome measure.

The difference beign that this regulation is giving for free a commodity that has a price for evrybody else.

It’s not 8 or 80, Luiz. There is middle ground.

In practice, what the Air Company does when it creates different classes is to sell different services. To all of them, the most important aspect IS the transportation; now for those who can pay and want to, they sell more – they sell comfort and convenience.

As I said, placing the blame of not fitting in a sit on the fat guy is just the axiom you chose. Staring by saying that the company is to blame, for they created the problem with their policy in choosing air seats is an equally valid angle.

The company is not to blame that the human beings come in different sizes? No. Well, neither does the humans.

Exactly, the middle-ground would be an increase in the price inferior to 100%. The transportation is definately part of the cost and the contract, but can't you agree that space is also part of the cost?

It’s not that I think that he is entitled to another sit. What I think is that he is entitled for the transportation he bought. If giving another sit is the only way the company have to fulfill its duties, so be it.

The solution would be to refuse to sell a single Economical seat to a very fat person. In this case, the fat person cannot complain that he bought the right to transportation.

As I already mentioned, if the air company really offered different sized chairs, with some fitting for any human being, and the price reflected just the extent of the amended cost, I would not challenge it in anyway. As the air companies don’t do it, they probably think it’s not worthy. So, as I said, placing the blame on them is not absurd at all.

They should refuse to take passengers that they are unable to accomodate, or only accept those passengers if they buy a seat or seats enough to accomodate them.

Tsk. This is just a variation of the restaurant analogy, in case you haven’t noticed. Subject to the same problems, the only difference is that you chose now something with an unforeseeable outcome to try to rule out my response that “what he bought is opulence”, because now I can’t find a place where “what he bought is healthy, and he is entitled all the medicine he needs until he gets it”.

Unfortunately for you, the same reason that makes the argumentative flaw less obvious also makes it even less fitting. For unlike what happens with medicine, transportation does have a guaranteed outcome. Just like “eating until you get full”, “traveling from spot A to B” is a certainty, quite unlike being cured, because medicine is always subjective. And that is the only reasons why there aren’t “all healthy you can get” hospitals or pharmacies.

Again, the amount of medicine a patient needs is not a suitable example for other reasons as well. The first of them, because the medicine is exactly what he paid for, unlike the case of the air seat, where the demanded service is the transportation. As I said, I am not demanding that the company lets him travel for free, just that it delivers the product in a satisfactory manner, using, for that, all the resources it has two. If this means two sits, so be it.

Anyway, when you bought a pill, you got a pill. If the single pill is not enough for you, though luck, buy another.

You, however, will notice the relevant thing that pills does bring recommendations on doses varying on people’s weight, which can be customized to each person – unlike airplane sits.

Also, if for whatever reason the amount of medicine contained in the pill is not the one it promised – making, them that the pharmacy fails to deliver the product it sold, than you are, yes, entitled to go there and get another one, as amny as it takes until you have all the medicine you paid for.

But the ammount of space avaiable to the fat person is exactly what is promissed - seat 4B, for exemple. If he needs another seat, tough luck.

And didn’t have a problem in taking his money, even though they were quite aware of the seat issue, haven’t you noticed that?

This is a real problem, in which I agree with you. They should not sell single Economical seats to people who are clearly over-sized.

However, measuring every passener would be impractical and insulting. The solution would be to create a clear company policy: fat people must buy seats that fit them. If they fail to do so, they will not be allowed to enter the plane. If this policy is well advertised, the responsability is entirely of the fats.

 

[FredLC]

Er? That's precisely what we do not do if we force him to pay for the extra seat.

We have to be misunderstanding each other now, for I don’t get what you just said. How exactly making sure that a man is not charged twice, due to a contingency of his body, for a service that is essentially the same (traveling from spot A to B) is not solving “ the inequality that we are aggravating the fat person’s expenses just because he has hormonal issues that forces him to occupy more room”.

Now you're adding extra requirements. The fact remains, most planes offer different-sized seats. If you have to buy something you don't need in order to get something you do need, tough luck.

They did it first, when they made it mandatory that to buy extra-large seat you have also to buy different food and a bigger flight attendant per person average.

I am just fighting fire with fire.

Then why did you protest at my implying that discrimination isn't inherently wrong?

Because you did so in the context of a discrimination that is wrong, without detailing your opinion enough to allow me perceive the subtlety.

But if we have found agreement on the issue, we can drop it from now on.

Well, if you believe people have a right to comfortable flights at a reasonable price, it's little surprise if we find it hard to argee.

Than again, if you don’t, the argument being held in this thread that the fat person cannot invade the area of the other passenger will loose all it’s value.

We can expand this concept, also, and revoke things like the forbiddance of people smoking; or allow people to drink lots of alcohol and bother other passengers; etc., etc, etc…

Granted, I don’t think it’s you that resorted to this line of argument. Nevertheless, it’s still but a straw man of my point, for what I am arguing is not the “right of a comfortable flight”; it is the right to flight at all, when you own a ticket, by any means necessary, these provided by the one who sold the ticket.

This means that if the fat guy fits in a single chair, even if barely, that’s all he is entitled to. If he fits in two comfortably, good for him. If he is SO fat that in two chairs he still would be constricted, tough luck, he is not getting three – and so on and so fourth.

Those are the exceptions. I've not heard any convincing argumentation that we should have a similar exception for fat people aboard airplanes.

Even for the case of the fat people which are victims of hormonal issues, to which you admitted that governmental help would be welcome?

How are they any guiltier than the given exceptions?

Regards .

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, yeah. I don't see a convincing moral argument as for why the owners of private business should be forced to sell their products to everyone. It's not like we have the right to buy from someone else's shop.

Without going onto moral turf, I'd like to point out that under Swedish law, if you put up something for sale in a shop or similar locale, you cannot refuse selling it to anyone willing to pay, unless that anyone is legally prohibited from buying the thing in question (eg, alcoholic drinks to minors). Does Brazil have similar laws.

(This does not apply in other settings - a barman can refuse to sell more beer to an overly drunk patron, and, I would assume, an airline could refuse to sell a ticket to someone they couldn't accommodate.)

 

[luiz]

Without going onto moral turf, I'd like to point out that under Swedish law, if you put up something for sale in a shop or similar locale, you cannot refuse selling it to anyone willing to pay, unless that anyone is legally prohibited from buying the thing in question (eg, alcoholic drinks to minors). Does Brazil have similar laws.

(This does not apply in other settings - a barman can refuse to sell more beer to an overly drunk patron, and, I would assume, an airline could refuse to sell a ticket to someone they couldn't accommodate.)

We do have similar laws, probably even more strict then most other anti-discrimination laws.

 

[The Last Conformist]

We have to be misunderstanding each other now, for I don’t get what you just said. How exactly making sure that a man is not charged twice, due to a contingency of his body, for a service that is essentially the same (traveling from spot A to B) is not solving “ the inequality that we are aggravating the fat person’s expenses just because he has hormonal issues that forces him to occupy more room”.

I said that if we forced the obese passenger to pay for an extra seat we wouldn't commit either of your two kinds of discrimination. To which you replied that we would then discriminate to remove an inequality. Presumably, you misread my first statement on the subject.

If we did give him an extra seat for free, we would indeed discriminate positively in your sense.,

They did it first, when they made it mandatory that to buy extra-large seat you have also to buy different food and a bigger flight attendant per person average.

I am just fighting fire with fire.

Why should they be required to offer every conceivable combination of seat size, attendant attention, and food? There are plenty of goods that come in different classes without all possible combinations of parts, and while I've heard many people complain about it, I've never before heard anyone suggest the manufacturers/sellers were being unfair in doing so.

Than again, if you don’t, the argument being held in this thread that the fat person cannot invade the area of the other passenger will loose all it’s value.

Indeed, I didn't bring up that argument. See below, however.

Granted, I don’t think it’s you that resorted to this line of argument. Nevertheless, it’s still but a straw man of my point, for what I am arguing is not the “right of a comfortable flight”; it is the right to flight at all, when you own a ticket, by any means necessary, these provided by the one who sold the ticket.

If you've bought a ticket you've got the right to the flight under the conditions specified, viz. normally in a specfic seat. This means a) that if you cannot use the flight under those conditions, that's your problem (assuming you've not been unfairly mislead re: seat size or the like), and b) the airline has to make sure that the seat is there for you, rather than occupied by the obese person on the seat next to you.

The right I denied was the right to a comfortable flight at a reasonable price - the airlines are under no obligation to offer flights at any specific combination of comfort and cost, or to offer flights at all. Once you've bought a flight, for a price reasonable or unreasonable, you've got the right to that particular flight under the (implicitly) agreed conditions, which includes a certain amount of butt space. If you can't use the flight you've bought under those conditions, tough luck. Try and get a refund.

Even for the case of the fat people which are victims of hormonal issues, to which you admitted that governmental help would be welcome?

Even for those - that's why the state should pay, not the airline.

 

[FredLC]

The fact that there is not an infinite ammount of airplane seats avaiable is not what matters. What matters is that the air market is Elastic to some degree, this can be proven with empirical evidence.

The market of unused land is not. But you made a good point, when regarding the increase productivity. Notice that in my original address to this subject I mentioned that the problem is land not used. Indeed, the market of used land, or improved land, is also elastic to some degree and is not a problem like unused land. There is no need to regulate the market of farms or agricultural lands.

Thank you.

Anyway, as this incidental issue has appeared only to let us verify whether “land” is a kind of property with characteristics that allows it to be treated differently from regular property or not, I think we should drop this subject, because it drifted too off-topic (create a topic on it if you want to go on). I know it has it’s particularities, but I don’t think any of them qualifies it for a different treatment on this particular issue we dealt in this thread.

That said, we can judge our contempt as perfectly diagnosed, and agree to disagree, what is the second best outcome a debate can ever reach.

The person who should bear the cost is the person using the product.

This is your conclusion on the matter – with which, I say again, I don’t disagree entirely. I am just showing the viability of a different opinion.

Just as a side note, today, by phone, I mentioned this debate with my fiancée. When she heard of the question presented, she didn’t have a doubt, nor hesitated a second, in concluding that it’s the Air Company that should bare the cost, as one ticket means one person. If I were debating this with her, I’d probably defend what you guys are defending, just to prove to her that your idea is also valid.

In all, I guess that when I can’t make up my mind on an issue, I want to express very clearly why is that.

Well, yeah. I don't see a convincing moral argument as for why the owners of private business should be forced to sell their products to everyone. It's not like we have the right to buy from someone else's shop.
I understand that there are world-wide laws against discrimination, but I don't agree with that part of those laws.

I disagree entirely, but I won’t bother to discuss this philosophically, for it’s an enormous issue, altogether off-topic and because I really don’t have the strength right now.

So I will just let you know that, at least in Brazil, the Consumers Defense Code states that a person who opens a store has the duty to sell his products to anyone who pays the price. It’s illegal not to sell, as the condition he posed for selling was met, and he is liable for punishment if he does it.

That said, again, I’ll just disagree from you.

The difference beign that this regulation is giving for free a commodity that has a price for evrybody else.

Luiz, I’ll say it one more time, and keep saying for as long as it takes: this is just the way you present the issue. If I present it differently, by saying that “the company has the duty to deliver the service by any means necessary, even if it hurts its profits”, we would have to reach a different conclusion.

Fact is that you can prove just about anything with sheer logic, as long as you pick fitting postulates to work with. And so far, I see no reason why the postulates you chose have more validity than the ones I am opposing to you.

Exactly, the middle-ground would be an increase in the price inferior to 100%. The transportation is definately part of the cost and the contract, but can't you agree that space is also part of the cost?

Well, I have been saying repeatedly that I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Just with the convenient imposition of the air companies “may seats costs X and have Y space; you don’t fit, you have to pay like if you were two people”.

When they make their part in solving the problem, by inserting a little bit of customization, than I’ll agree entirely that the fat people should also do their part, by paying the proportional extra.

The solution would be to refuse to sell a single Economical seat to a very fat person. In this case, the fat person cannot complain that he bought the right to transportation.

This goes back to the point I make right in the beginning about how the air companies make their advertisements. If they don’t want responsibility, they have to state things very clearly since their first contact with their possible costumers. If they don’t, for whatever reasons, than they are accountable, yes.

They should refuse to take passengers that they are unable to accomodate, or only accept those passengers if they buy a seat or seats enough to accomodate them.

As I said, I don’t think private property should be allowed to create such a constriction to fat people as to force them to fly in the most expensive sits, or not at all. However, if they start making extra-large sits available in economic class, I’ll agree entirely that the fat guy will either buy that one, or loose his moral complaining ground when he does not fit in the regular sit – and in that case, the company too would be within it’s rights if it simply refused to sell.

But the ammount of space avaiable to the fat person is exactly what is promissed - seat 4B, for exemple. If he needs another seat, tough luck.

Again, I am yet to see a flight ticket saying “you are entitled to occupy exactly X cubic inches of internal space of the aircraft”.

This is a real problem, in which I agree with you. They should not sell single Economical seats to people who are clearly over-sized.

However, measuring every passener would be impractical and insulting. The solution would be to create a clear company policy: fat people must buy seats that fit them. If they fail to do so, they will not be allowed to enter the plane. If this policy is well advertised, the responsability is entirely of the fats.

Insulting for insulting, being left behind also is. And measuring passengers may be impractical for the company, but missing the flight is impractical to the passenger. In all, it’s a question of who you choose to sympathize with in the issue.

Specially considering that the possibilities of variable sizes are limited, and that the advertisement does not clearly specify the conditions you describe, simply refusing people would be discrimination, and hence, illegal.

But in all, when they begin to respect the individuality of the passengers, and buying a sit, in the desired class, that does not fit, when another, on the desired class, would, just because he is a freaking cheap fatso, than I’ll agree entirely that it will be his responsibility, and his alone.

Only that this I have been saying since we begun this little debate.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Without going onto moral turf, I'd like to point out that under Swedish law, if you put up something for sale in a shop or similar locale, you cannot refuse selling it to anyone willing to pay, unless that anyone is legally prohibited from buying the thing in question (eg, alcoholic drinks to minors). Does Brazil have similar laws.

(This does not apply in other settings - a barman can refuse to sell more beer to an overly drunk patron, and, I would assume, an airline could refuse to sell a ticket to someone they couldn't accommodate.)

yes, it does. Read my immediate previous reply to Luiz.

 

[FredLC]

Ok, I'm off to lunch now - but I am glad to see we are getting somewhere, and begining to find our compromises.

More replies later, dudes.

Regards .

 

[The Last Conformist]

@FredLC: Did your fiancée explain why she felt that way?