AF may ban obese passengers

[Darren Wheeler]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8471451.stm

Some would say 'A long time coming...'

Discuss, but nicely.

[Pete]

Big Tone, who some of you met at the weekend, regularly buys himself two seats. Totally understand if he'd only bought one seat - because that's simply not fair on the passenger next to him who has part of the seat they paid for stolen by his largess.

Tony's biggest problem though, is a trend of economy armrests not to go fully back. On VS and EasyJet, he tells me, although both airlines were happy to sell him two seats as a passenger 'of size', they were unusable as such. Flights taken with the armrest pushed back as far as it will go, but digging in his shoulder blade.

He also has a gripe with the PE seats. Whilst they're advertised with extra width, that all seems to be at the seat pan area, but the armrests overlap and cut into him, making a PE seat worse than an Economy seat with the armrest up.

Perhaps they just need an extra-wide economy seat section, available for a supplement in the same way extra legroom is?

[mcmbenjamin]

Fair point Pete.

Does the second seat cost the same as the first seat? Does the second seat attract miles/TPs?

Lots of issues with this - make it a real minefield for airlines.

Taxes make up a large percentage of a Y fare. Without one set of these 2xY can be almost as as cheap a single PE.

The AF acceptance that the second seat will be free if the aircraft is not full is good - I can see ExpertFlyer doing more business.

AF make a safety case - I would have thought that there is a strong safety case for having some seat pairs adapted so that armrests are fully removable. How quickly would other passengers recognise which seats were adapted? The adjacent seat might become a rather unpopular single.

How can arrangements be made for two large people to sit together?

There are particular problems when there is a centre seat. Is there a case for the twin seats at the back of Y in the 747 to be adapted to greater width? - at extra cost? - should they be reserved for larger people?

The arguments that all pax should have the opportunity for the same fare and not be disadvantaged due to size in the same way that disabled should not be disadvantaged can conflict with mechanisms to allow greater choice at extra cost.

[Scrooge]

To answer Ben's question.

Yes and no, the base fare is the same, but you are not charged double taxes and fee's, however you do earn double miles and TP's.

[Pete]

Pretty sure Tony *didn't* earn miles & TPs on the second seat, but will check. I'm also unless whether he paid taxes on it - thought he just ponied up the second fare, but again; something for me to check with him.

If someones height is a problem for them they have to buy a premium or business seat to be comfortable, so if people are wider it makes sense to me they go for a wider seat and pay for it. How someone gets to be the size they are large or small is semantics really.

Regarding a person who has his or her seat encroached by the person next to them I think they are quite entitled to use all the space they have paid for without sharing, again the size of other people around them should not be their concern.

[fozzyo]

Air France will give 25% discount on the second seat, and if the plane isn't full they won't charge you for the second seat as there are free ones available.

Mat

Wasn't there a court case a couple or so years ago involving an airline and a pax who sued them because she got DVT due to her neighbour encroached on her so much she could not move?

Air France have denied they are banning obese passengers...