The Colbert Report "being weighed for airplane tickets"

[philosopherqueen]

I was wondering if anyone saw the episode on$ The Colbert Report on the airlines weighing people for tickets. I was just wondering if this had any truth to it.

[Didymos Thomas]

No idea.

But the simple fact that the story was plausible enough to merit investigation says a lot about the airlines - and about the talent of Colbert's writing staff.

[The Mad Physicst]

I have heard of people saying that they want it, but I haven't seen it in anything official. I can see alot of people trying to lose weight to cut costs, unfortunately some of them would end up with eating disorders.

[BlueChicken]

I have NO idea about the policies of airlines in the United States, but up here in Canada a bill was just passed stating that airlines have to offer two seats to those people who require them (the overly large of behind) for the price of a single seat. So, regardless of how much you weight or how much space your posterior requires you will pay the same rate for the same seating arrangement as anyone else.

I personally think that airlines should NOT be responsable for how much weight or space certain segments require. Having been grossly overweight (which is hard on a meagre supply of grain) I can safely say that the onus should be on passengers, rather than airlines, to meet the requirements set for seating: if you are too large (either by mass or volume) then you should be required to make up the difference, or choose another airline. They don't let people take on extra luggage (or extra-heavy luggage), so why should it matter whether or not it is strapped to your belly?

[Didymos Thomas]

Luggage isn't human life.

Why should people be discriminated against due to their weight?

[BlueChicken]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Luggage isn't human life.

Why should people be discriminated against due to their weight?

Because they are responsable for meeting the requirements set out by the organization of which they are choosing to employ. If they do not meet the requirements there are ways around it (paying extra) or they can use the other options available. Air flight is not the only method of travel, nor is it a right guaranteed to all.

The flip side of the coin is: why should companies be penalized because of people's weight?

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

Because they are responsable for meeting the requirements set out by the organization of which they are choosing to employ. If they do not meet the requirements there are ways around it (paying extra) or they can use the other options available. Air flight is not the only method of travel, nor is it a right guaranteed to all.

Why do these companies have the right to discriminate based on weight?

You say the overweight person is responsible for meeting the requirements set out by the organization - but this is tantamount to saying that the overweight individual is responsible for enduring dehumanization just because the organization wants to dehumanize people to save a few dollars. How much is humanity worth, again?

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

The flip side of the coin is: why should companies be penalized because of people's weight?

The company isn't penalized because of people's weight. By keeping a practice of non-discrimination the company benefits because, in the process, the company is humane, which is far better than being inhumane no matter the influence on the bottom line.

[BlueChicken]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Why do these companies have the right to discriminate based on weight?

You say the overweight person is responsible for meeting the requirements set out by the organization - but this is tantamount to saying that the overweight individual is responsible for enduring dehumanization just because the organization wants to dehumanize people to save a few dollars. How much is humanity worth, again?

The overweight individual is reponsable for their weight, the 'dehumanization' that occurs because of that is incidental. The company is under no obligation to serve everyone, but they do offer it to all who meet the criteria they set. The individual is under no obligation to be dehumanized by the company, they choose to partake in the services provided and in doing so accept the conditions by which they are offered. They are not forced to purchase a ticket for a seat on the plane, nor are they forced to use it: in choosing to do so they come under the requirements airlines set, which the airlines set based on their own reasoning. The individual is responsible for meeting the requirements that come with their choice to purchase the ticket; if they choose to purchase it then they are responsable for any of the applicable conditions, whether or not they are considered 'dehumanizing' or not.

And these companies have the right to refuse service ('discriminate') to anyone of a weight due to their right to provide the service. Unless it is a nationalized service, which the government guarantees to all, then there is no onus to allow anyone to partake in it. Why can they refuse service to the overweight justly? Because of their own technical and economic requirements which make their service profitable, which allows them to continue to offer the service.

The company isn't penalized because of people's weight. By keeping a practice of non-discrimination the company benefits because, in the process, the company is humane, which is far better than being inhumane no matter the influence on the bottom line.

The company IS penalized in some fashion, otherwise there would be no necessary debate. The extra weight uses extra fuel, a cost they recover by charging more who do not meet a certain weight restriction. Further, those who require two seats (which in Canada they receive for the cost of one) penalize the airline in a fairly obvious fashion: the airline loses an entire seat because an individual who uses two seats but pays for one.

The company's interests are not to remain humane, and if they are that exists alongside their bottom line rather than exceeding it.

[Khethil]

Yea, I'm not sure this is a question of morality here. It's fee-for-service; plain and simple. Space and weight make up "what is being sold" when one flies. If they take up two spaces, they should pay for two spaces. If they weigh more, they should pay more. It all comes down to paying for what you get. A couple of silly examples, if that's ok, to illustrate this point:

• If I crash my car 10 times this month, why should I be discriminated against with having to pay more?

• If I decide I need four pizzas instead of one, why should I be made to pay for more?

• My wife's hair is long. So when she got a perm the other day, they used 2 bottles of treatment; thus, we were discriminated against by being made to pay more.

If I weigh twice as much as anyone else (or your average person) flying on a plane and they charge me more because of this to compensate for fuel, it's simply paying more because more is being carried. Unless there's something else to the equation I'm missing here...

Thanks

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

The overweight individual is reponsable for their weight,

Already I have to stop you. This is only partially true. Some people eat too much and have unhealthy lifestyles, others suffer from medical conditions

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

The company is under no obligation to serve everyone, but they do offer it to all who meet the criteria they set.

So companies should be able to discriminate on race, or gender, or anything else they please? If a company has no obligation to serve everyone, this is the result - a justification for segregation based on race or any other factor.

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

The individual is under no obligation to be dehumanized by the company, they choose to partake in the services provided and in doing so accept the conditions by which they are offered. They are not forced to purchase a ticket for a seat on the plane, nor are they forced to use it: in choosing to do so they come under the requirements airlines set, which the airlines set based on their own reasoning.

All fine and well, but far short of justifying the dehumanization of certain individuals.

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

The company IS penalized in some fashion, otherwise there would be no necessary debate. The extra weight uses extra fuel, a cost they recover by charging more who do not meet a certain weight restriction. Further, those who require two seats (which in Canada they receive for the cost of one) penalize the airline in a fairly obvious fashion: the airline loses an entire seat because an individual who uses two seats but pays for one.

So a few extra dollars is more important than humanity. Brilliant idea

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

The company's interests are not to remain humane, and if they are that exists alongside their bottom line rather than exceeding it.

The company's financial interests are opposed to being humane, that's true, but isn't that just a moral indictment of the company in question? Doesn't seem like a justification to say 'oh, but the company shouldn't be moral'.

If the company does have a responsibility to be humane, but also should be allowed to discriminate based on weight, then the bottom line has trumped humanity. That's a shame.

Yea, I'm not sure this is a question of morality here. It's fee-for-service; plain and simple. Space and weight make up "what is being sold" when one flies. If they take up two spaces, they should pay for two spaces. If they weigh more, they should pay more. It all comes down to paying for what you get.

And the problem here is that the bottom line is taken to be more important than humanity. If it all comes down to money, then compassion is out the window. Personally, I think compassion is more valuable than 'one dollar more'. Maybe I'm crazy.

If I crash my car 10 times this month, why should I be discriminated against with having to pay more?

Depends - did you cause the wreck? If so, then this is your fault. Discriminating against someone based on weight, and "discriminating" someone based on their actions are two very different situations.

If I decide I need four pizzas instead of one, why should I be made to pay for more?

Because you can choose not to eat those extra pizzas.

My wife's hair is long. So when she got a perm the other day, they used 2 bottles of treatment; thus, we were discriminated against by being made to pay more.

If she has a problem with this, she should cut her hair. But cutting some hair is vastly different than losing weight, especially when we consider the morbidly obese, people who are obese due to some medical condition over which they have little or no control.

Sheesh, Khetil, I know you are a deeper thinker than this.

If I weigh twice as much as anyone else (or your average person) flying on a plane and they charge me more because of this to compensate for fuel, it's simply paying more because more is being carried. Unless there's something else to the equation I'm missing here...

Yeah, human emotion. Happiness, compassion - morality.

I know in today's world we tend to think that economics has no use for morality, and considering the way economics is usually studied, there isn't much use for morality. But this seems to be a problem. Morality should not be tossed out the window just because profit margins are at stake - if we do toss out morality in favor of profit margins, we've made morality useless, obsolete.