canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news
Wednesday » May 14 » 2008
Unfair to put cost of obesity on others
Rather than coerce airlines, why not raise money for free second seats
by donation?
Lorne Gunter
The Edmonton Journal
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Elsewhere this week, I wrote about the Canadian Trans****tation Agency
(CTA) decision to compel airlines to provide free second seats to
disabled passengers who require an attendant and, more controversially,
extra seats to clinically obese passengers who cannot fit into a single
seat.
The response my piece prompted was as speedy and vehement as any I have
recently provoked. Many flyers hate -- hate! -- sitting next to fat
passengers. Doing so makes them so angry they cannot debate the decision
rationally.
Most Canadians opposed to the so-called "one-passenger-one-fare"
decision would benefit from it in a selfish way. Yet so great is their
disdain for extra-large passengers, they cannot see that.
If Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet are compelled by government
edict to give exceptionally obese passengers a complimentary second
seat, then there will be less chance, not more, of hauling your carry-on
down the aisle, jacket over your forearm, boarding pass in hand, only to
reach your row and find part of your paid-in-full seat already occupied
by the expansive passenger in the next seat.
I oppose the decision, too, but not because it makes concessions to an
unpopular class of passengers. I object because it creates an artificial
disability, then commands third parties -- the airlines and other
passengers -- to pay for the entitlements that go along with the newly
minted infirmity.
It's true the CTA felt squeezed by recent court decisions to make its
ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the "accessible trans****tation"
provisions of the Canada Trans****tation Act amount to human rights
legislation that compels airlines, bus companies and railways to make
their services as
handi-accessible as possible. On top of that, the Federal Court ruled
that anyone too obese to fit into a single airline seat could be deemed
"disabled for the purposes of air travel."
The CTA put these two together to deem that anyone unable to lower the
armrest while sitting in their seat on a plane is "disabled." And since
courts have decreed airlines must make their services as
disabled-friendly as possible, airlines have to provide a second seat to
their obese passengers at no charge.
But despite its noble intentions, the CTA cannot make the cost of these
extra seats go away. It can argue (as it did) that the cost to the
airlines will not be exorbitant, but there is still a cost. And someone
will have to pay it. In this case, it will either be the airlines'
shareholders, through lower profits, or other passengers through overall
higher fares.
This amounts to the CTA coming up with a public policy idea, then
directing someone else to pay for its good intentions.
Too often these days this is the case. Someone -- a special interest
group or bureaucrat or politician -- divines a problem, then forces
someone else to underwrite the cost. Everyone looks to government for
solutions; few consider personal initiative or private charity. Rather
than relying on freewill offerings, the first instinct is to tax or
otherwise levy the public to fund every good idea that comes along.
For instance, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities was behind
several of the complaints to the CTA that lead to Thursday's ruling. But
why would the CCD favour a coercive solution over a charitable one? How
can they justify running to government and basically arguing, "Make
these people pay to correct the unfairness we see and that bothers us so
much." If the CCD and its member agencies feel so strongly that obese
passengers deserve second seats, let them raise the money from Canadians
who feel the same way rather than imposing the cost on other passengers.
The CTA decision carries with it several intractable problems, such as
who is clinically obese (obese through no fault of their own) and who is
obese through lifestyle? If the solution were based on freewill
donations, it would be unnecessary to make the distinction.
Also, if airfares go up as a result of this new policy, some passengers
who can barely scrape together the money to fly may have to forgo their
flights. Meanwhile, obese travellers who might not have flown before
because they could not fit into a single seat and could not afford a
second, will now find it easier and cheaper to go where they want.
For those celebrating the fairness of Thursday's ruling, that's
something to think about.
In my Friday column, I wrote about the need to build interchanges along
the western leg of the Anthony Henday. I suggested that until they were
built, city council should set aside arguably frivolous projects such as
urban beaches. While I did say the decision to fund the interchanges
ultimately rests with the provincial government, on rereading the column
I realize I may not have made it clear enough that designing, building
and maintaining the Henday is the province's responsibility. I hadn't
meant to imply the city had a direct obligation to construct the
interchanges, only that symbolically it should stop letting itself be
distracted by fluffy projects until it has a commitment from the
province to finish the much-needed interchanges.
lgunter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Edmonton Journal 2008
|
