Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Flight attendant ruled too fat to fly
A 20-year legal battle between Philippine Airlines and flight steward Armanda Yrasuegi has finally ended with a Supreme Court ruling that grounds Yrasuegi for good. The airline dismissed Yrasuegi in 1989, because the 5'8 217-pound man had failed to lose weight, as required in his contract.Yrasuegi cried discrimination, stating that his weight was a "sickness and physical abnormality" beyond his control, but this argument carried little weight when the flight attendant refused repeated offers of medical weight loss assistance. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of the airline, stating that Yrasuegi's weight "indicates absence of willpower rather than an illness."
The ruling went on to say that Yrasuegi's weight would likely keep him from performing his job efficiently, especially in the case of an emergency. According to Gadling's own flight attendant, Heather Poole, flight attendants must be able to fit through the exit door and buckle up in the jump seat, which may be difficult for a man nearly 60 pounds overweight.
The airline industry is one of the few where weight requirements aren't discrimination, but rather simply necessary. We don't know what Yrasuegi's contract with Philippine Airlines specifically required in terms of weight, but it doesn't seem that any airlines are asking their employees to have unrealistic Hollywood bodies. It also sounds like Philippine Airlines was willing to pay for its employee's weight loss program -- how many other companies would do that?
Who Else is Causing Trouble in the Skies?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Craig Nov 2nd 2008 3:29PM
For those wondering, he's got a BMI of 33.1 -- obese, but not morbidly so (irrespective of whether BMI means much). Of course this ruling would never fly in the US, even if the man was 400 pounds.
rafaelc378 Nov 3rd 2008 6:53AM
Why wouldn't it fly in the US? The article states, "The airline industry is one of the few where weight requirements aren't discrimination, but rather simply necessary."
And considering it was in his contract and he repeatedly refused subsidized medical weight loss programs before he was terminated, I think PAL is legally on safe ground, whether it be in the local courts here in the RP, or back home there in the US.
Hans Nov 3rd 2008 9:17PM
Craig, without doing a dunk tank(accurate) or a skin Fold test(much less accurate) on this man, how could you possibly get an exact BMI on him??? its impossible to do an accurate BMI with not enough information. height and weight are not enough of the equation to accurately come to anything close to a BMI. it did say he's around 60 lbs overweight, so remove that and he's at 170, (average BMI is around 16 to 25 %) so if we take a mean average of 20%, in this case he'd be carrying 34lbs of fat at 170 lbs PLUS another 60 lbs OVER that which puts him at 95lbs(WAY approx) of total fat on his body. simple math cal puts him at around 60% BMI of fat! he is SEVERLY overweight. and anyone at 230 lbs and ONLY 5'7" I would see as having a VERY hard time doing his respected duties. again with ONLY "abouts" and "approximates".
p Nov 3rd 2008 11:44PM
I am a F.A. and we have weight rules as well. We have to be able to fit in the jump seat without anything "hanging" over the sides. There was a woman that was suspended because she was too big to fly and I live in Michigan thank you very much. So it does fly in the U.S. no pun intended.
Craig Nov 4th 2008 6:21PM
Touché, p.
Hans, I was referring to body mass index, which is (pounds * 703) / inches^2. And I did say that it probably doesn't mean much, since a large-framed short person would register as obese, a tall lean person as malnourished, and so on.
lorna Nov 2nd 2008 10:18PM
lol i wish they had some weight restrictions for some flight attendants here
josh Nov 3rd 2008 9:40PM
hans
you should prolly have some idea of what your talking about before telling someone else they are wrong.
A BMI does not need height or anyother irrevelant stats, it is based soley on height and weight. A bodyfat test is what you are refering to and has nothing to do with BMI
Willy Nov 5th 2008 10:15AM
Josh - did you REALLY say that?
According to you "A BMI does not need height or anyother irrevelant stats, it is based soley on height and weight". How can it not need height, if it is based on HEIGHT and weight? Hmmm... and by the way, "anyother" is not a real word, nor are "irrevelant" or "soley". Just thought you might want to know that, what with correcting others and all...
Lira Nov 3rd 2008 8:32PM
We returned from Europe once on TWA(long time ago). There was a female attendant who couldn't stand from side to side in the aisle; had to stand sideways. All I could think of was'How am I going to get by her in case of emergency?' Come on, I don't need one of the Olsen twins on my flight, but there has to be some accommodation here.
aaron Nov 3rd 2008 8:48PM
For the person that said this would never fly in the U.S. You are crazy this would definitely fly since his contract specifically stated he had to lose weight and never did it would be his own fault, and its to bad that U.S. airlines don't put these kind of restrictions in contracts anyway.
Julie Nov 4th 2008 5:29PM
You're right. It will "fly in the U.S." and probably has. If the airline can prove that a weight requirement is a BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) a person must meet it to work that job. Firefighters have a similar "must be able to lift" requirement.
Dave Miedema Nov 3rd 2008 8:56PM
Easy solution: Let him work, but keep him away from the galley and the service carts. :)
rosemary Nov 4th 2008 11:17AM
consider the TOTAL Weight of the passengers, employees, cargo, etc. It would be difficult to manuever in the narrow aisle & limited space inside the plane & what about emergency? The safety of the passengers is 'priority'. Yes, it was the right thing to do to dismiss the overweight Flight Attendant!
Heidi Nov 3rd 2008 9:14PM
I have to agree with Tira.
When I've flown in the US, I've encountered many attendants who would be considered "plump" or even a bit chubby, and they were manuvered around the plane without any problems. So I agree you don't need low or underweight people for attendants (aka, the Olsen twin reference).
On that note, I also agree that there is a matter of common sense. If an attendant is so wide that squeezing past them is completely impossible without literally climbing over them, then there is an obvious saftely concern at hand.
It is not a matter of discrimination, just unfortunate facts in a case like this. There are people who join the Air Force hoping to fly jet fighters, but find out they can't because of their eyesight or something else that can be a hazzard to their saftey and the saftey of others. They just need to either find a way to overcome whatever setbacks, or try moving on to something else they enjoy.
dan Nov 3rd 2008 9:27PM
eveyone is missing the point here,its not just a safty hazzard for passengers in an emergency,its a safty hazard for the whole plane,think about it,youve got alot of weight with luggege,the weight of the plane,air turbulence,wind sheer,and you add a bunch of fattys in the plane,it dosent take a rocket sciencest to know that the plane is going to be unstable because of all the weight,why do ya you think so many planes are crashing,the airline industery wont tell you that
JustMe Nov 3rd 2008 9:35PM
BMI = ( Weight in Pounds / ( Height in inches ) x ( Height in inches ) ) x 703
That's the formula for BMI. That's how he figured it out. Height and weight are all you need for it. Thought you might want to know. :)
Willy Nov 3rd 2008 10:06PM
Hmmm...don't think so. According to your formula, height in inches cancels out height in inches, and your formula ends up being weight in pounds x 703. So his BMI is 152,511? Try that one again...
Mr. Edaw Nov 3rd 2008 11:40PM
Actually, Willy, he does have the formula correct, you just didn't read it correctly (although it would help if one could put it in the proper form). The formula is BMI=(weight in pounds) divided by (height in inches squared) times 703, which does figure to 33.1
Puma Nov 4th 2008 3:54AM
To: Mr. Edaw, Willy, & JustMe.
Re: BMI formula
Willy did read JustMe's formula correctly. The problem is just that JM wrote it INcorrectly. Acc. to the "Law" of Order of Operations, the way JM wrote it, height in inches would cancel out the height in inches. What he should have written was BMI = [Weight in Pounds/ (Height in Inches x Height in Inches)] x 703; or [Weight in Pounds/ (Height in Inches)squared] x 703... which does, as you mentioned, figure to 33.1
mike Nov 3rd 2008 9:38PM
now if we can also apply this to the passengers that are soooo faaaaat and take 1/2 the seat that i paid for