Lee Randall: Fat chance of understanding

Published on Tuesday 2 March 2010 18:03

A FEW weeks ago filmmaker Kevin Smith was humiliated on a Southwest Airlines flight. He was deemed too fat to fly safely, and ejected from his bought-and-paid-for seat. It reminded me just how far we haven't come in erasing fatism – the last acceptable prejudice.

In a world that no longer condones mother-in-law jokes and where we're discouraged to acknowledge that ethnic stereotypes contain a degree of truth, we are still allowed to mock and despise fat people.

Don't believe me? In a recent interview, Kelly Osbourne revealed: "I took more hell for being fat than I did for being an absolutely raging drug addict. I will never understand that."

Skyscanner.net is the most recent travel outlet to poll its users about a possible Fat Tax. Of the 550 respondents, 76 per cent voted in favour of levying charges against those who cannot fit into an economy class seat, by forcing them to buy a second seat to accommodate the overspill.

A few questions spring to my perveted little brain. First, what's that going to solve, since some planes have fixed armrests? Next, will these travellers gain double the luggage allowance, too, or face additional pecuniary penalties because larger clothes presumably contain more fabric and therefore weigh more? And finally, if they buy twice as many seats, do they get twice as many unpalatable airline meals?

The Fat Tax debate isn't new. Last April stories abounded that Ryanair – the guys who once suggested we should pay for the "privilege" of high altitude peeing – contemplated following the example of America's United Airlines, which began charging larger customers for second seats or enforced business upgrades.

Did they do so because obese travellers complained that they felt too squashed, or expressed fears that they wouldn't be able to wrench free of their seats in an emergency? No. They instituted this new policy after receiving more than 700 complaints from thinner passengers complaining that these larger fliers had "infringed" on their seats.

Cheers to Skyscanner's co-founder and director, Barry Smith, for commenting: "There's a fine line here between discrimination against any body type outside of a narrowing norm, and simple economic viability. The danger is that airlines will continue to squeeze us into ever shrinking seats, and charge all but the shortest, thinnest passengers a premium for extra room.

"(This] is a sensitive issue. On one hand, it's not unreasonable for airlines to charge passengers extra if they occupy more than one seat. On the other, many would argue that it should be the responsibility of airlines to adjust their standard seat size, enabling them to comfortably accommodate all passengers."

Emotionally-speaking, I like to think I'm on the side of the weightier flier. I fit into airline seats, but like everyone else, find them uncomfortable because I'm not five years old. That looks to be about the size of passenger they're modelled on, since everyone knows what gadabouts small children are.

Yet I shamed myself on a recent train journey from London. On finding my pre-booked seat, I noticed that the other spots around the shared table were filled by a large mum, dad, and their overweight nipper.

Readers, I did it. I thought: "Oh heck, will we fit?" And, "Are they going all the way to Edinburgh?"

I was in full chastise mode before I'd even sat down. "A few more bad choices and that could be you, sweetheart. Lose the shirty attitude," I chided myself.

Of course we fit – it was a train. If anything, the problem is what to do with your legs when seated at those tables – and by that I refer to leg length, not width!

It surely speaks to the self-hatred I still wrestle with, and my ongoing quandary about how much space I "should" take up, that I had such a vile flash of antipathy towards a perfectly ordinary, perfectly pleasant family.

It also speaks to the tacit agreement we've reached about what constitutes an "acceptable" size for the human form – even when it's not our own size.