Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
boacvc10
Topic Author
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:11 pm

Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the incident being reported at https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303332 "Thai Airways deny Auckland women business class seats on flight because of weight", or why accommodations could not have been made.

My question is why were the passengers not compensated (by TG) for the business class tickets, more than what was offered? They wanted to travel business, and paid for that privilege. They were also wanting a comfortable ride (who wouldn't want comfy chairs, large foot area) and they were paying for a one-way upper class ticket. And they were coming back from medical treatment/consultation. Also, Y class seats are smaller by definition. If anything, they should be accomodated due to their large size, and more so if they paid for that right.

I don't think the pax did anything wrong - There are studies that it could be related to a bigger problem for NZers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_New_Zealand and is not going to go away soon. Perhaps it's an opportunity for Air New Zealand or other local carriers to make hay with this in a twitter marketing campagin. It would serve TG right.


BOACVC10
Up, up and Away!
 
Jetty
Posts: 1286
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:20 pm

boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the inciden

The technical reason is mentioned in the article.

seatbelts in the high-end section of the aircraft would not reach to fit around them

My question is why were the passengers not compensated (by TG) for the business class tickets, more than what was offered? They wanted to travel business, and paid for that privilege.

And they got refunded for not having that privilege by refunding the difference with economy class.

I don't think the pax did anything wrong - There are studies that it could be related to a bigger problem for NZers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_New_Zealand and is not going to go away soon. Perhaps it's an opportunity for Air New Zealand or other local carriers to make hay with this in a twitter marketing campagin. It would serve TG right.

I don't think that drawing attention to NZ's obesity epidemic is a smart marketing move.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:34 pm

Jetty wrote:
boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the inciden

The technical reason is mentioned in the article.[/quite]

seatbelts in the high-end section of the aircraft would not reach to fit around them

Seems odd that they have seatbelt extenders in Y but not in J. Aren't the seatbelts the same anyway? Couldn't they just grab the extenders from Y and use them in J? Something doesn't add-up here.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1286
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:37 pm

airbazar wrote:
Jetty wrote:
boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the inciden

The technical reason is mentioned in the article.[/quite]

seatbelts in the high-end section of the aircraft would not reach to fit around them

Seems odd that they have seatbelt extenders in Y but not in J. Aren't the seatbelts the same anyway? Couldn't they just grab the extenders from Y and use them in J? Something doesn't add-up here.

Apparently not, otherwise this incident wouldn't have happened. Having such overweight passengers in business might be so rare that they didn't have the right extenders at hand (these woman were truly huge so the normal extenders might not even be enough of an extension).
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15195
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:41 pm

airbazar wrote:
Jetty wrote:
boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the inciden

The technical reason is mentioned in the article.[/quite]

seatbelts in the high-end section of the aircraft would not reach to fit around them

Seems odd that they have seatbelt extenders in Y but not in J. Aren't the seatbelts the same anyway? Couldn't they just grab the extenders from Y and use them in J? Something doesn't add-up here.

Perhaps the extenders were not approved by the airline regulation authority the airline operates under or the maker of the seat didn't get approval for the same extender in coach to be used in the biz class seats or the airline didn't have an approved extender. Using the wrong or an unapproved extended could put the passenger or others at physical risk unless specifically designed for it.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:48 pm

airbazar wrote:
Jetty wrote:
boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the inciden

The technical reason is mentioned in the article.[/quite]

seatbelts in the high-end section of the aircraft would not reach to fit around them

Seems odd that they have seatbelt extenders in Y but not in J. Aren't the seatbelts the same anyway? Couldn't they just grab the extenders from Y and use them in J? Something doesn't add-up here.


Is it one of those airbag seatbelts? Extenders wouldn't work with those. I also tried some where they were more like 3 point car seatbelts. Obviously an ordinary extenders wouldn't work there.
 
N467RX
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:30 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:52 pm

airbazar wrote:
Jetty wrote:
boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the inciden

The technical reason is mentioned in the article.[/quite]

seatbelts in the high-end section of the aircraft would not reach to fit around them

Seems odd that they have seatbelt extenders in Y but not in J. Aren't the seatbelts the same anyway? Couldn't they just grab the extenders from Y and use them in J? Something doesn't add-up here.


Are those seatbelts equipped with airbags? Spirit makes it clear that passengers who require extenders may not occupy seats with airbag seatbelts and they list which ones they are. Notable are all of the Big Front Seats® and a few exit seats. Apparently other carriers have also deployed inflatable/airbag seatbelts in first class seats.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13113
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:06 pm

I was also thinking of airbags being the issue.

Airlines might want to do something about that, because booking a bigger seat when you're bigger is exactly what the airline, and fellow passengers, want large people to do !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2494
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:27 pm

They are due more than just the fare difference in my opinion. They expected to be comfortable during their flight.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:29 pm

I’ve had to downgrade a customer on other airline before. Customer was too wide for a business seat, and obviously in this day and age the arms rest and seat fixtures didn’t move. Where as in economy we raised two arms rest for the customer. Was very uncomfortable situation for everyone involved as we did our best to manage it sensitively. We did our best to look after the customer and make sure they weren’t embarrassed in front of other pax. Compensation beyond a refund is a tricky one however, as I’m not sure as an airline we did anything wrong? US DOT rules however would be different.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2530
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:34 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
They are due more than just the fare difference in my opinion. They expected to be comfortable during their flight.


So, safety should have been compromised in the name of comfort then? I sure hope you are not involved with any safety related jobs!
How much would they been entitled to then if, under your decision making, they were allowed to fly in their booked seats without properly fitting belts and in a moment of turbulence were thrown from their seats and injured? The airline would be liable. So, how much? In your opinion.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:42 pm

If everyone read the story, the problem lied with the travel agent who booked the tickets for the ladies in the first place. They should've noted that due to their size, the aircraft type operating and the fact that the business class seats have airbags and extenders therefore could not be used, meant that business class wasn't going to be an option. If the agent had done their job properly in the first place, the ladies would've been spared the embarrassment of what happened in Bangkok. Neither the ladies or airlines fault.

The travel agent involved has noted their error and refunded the ladies the cost of the tickets.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2494
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:51 pm

garpd wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
They are due more than just the fare difference in my opinion. They expected to be comfortable during their flight.


So, safety should have been compromised in the name of comfort then? I sure hope you are not involved with any safety related jobs!
How much would they been entitled to then if, under your decision making, they were allowed to fly in their booked seats without properly fitting belts and in a moment of turbulence were thrown from their seats and injured? The airline would be liable. So, how much? In your opinion.


Oh don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they should be left in their original seat without a seatbelt. I said they should have been compensated for the extreme downgrade in comfort. They should have either rebooked them on an airline with a premium class capable of accommodating them or completely refund their ticket and maybe a $1000 credit. They sold them a product they couldn't deliver on and put no disclaimers on their website. That's fraud.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1286
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:18 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
garpd wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
They are due more than just the fare difference in my opinion. They expected to be comfortable during their flight.


So, safety should have been compromised in the name of comfort then? I sure hope you are not involved with any safety related jobs!
How much would they been entitled to then if, under your decision making, they were allowed to fly in their booked seats without properly fitting belts and in a moment of turbulence were thrown from their seats and injured? The airline would be liable. So, how much? In your opinion.


Oh don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they should be left in their original seat without a seatbelt. I said they should have been compensated for the extreme downgrade in comfort. They should have either rebooked them on an airline with a premium class capable of accommodating them or completely refund their ticket and maybe a $1000 credit. They sold them a product they couldn't deliver on and put no disclaimers on their website. That's fraud.

How is it fraud? This policy was publicized and even got a lot of attention back then.

Slim down or sit down at the back of the plane: that is the message from Thai Airways International. The Thai airline has banned passengers with waists bigger than 56 inches from the business class cabin of its Boeing 787-9 “Dreamliner” fleet.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 82916.html

These passengers didn’t slim down that’s why they had to get to the back of the plane.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:03 am

smi0006 wrote:
I’ve had to downgrade a customer on other airline before. Customer was too wide for a business seat, and obviously in this day and age the arms rest and seat fixtures didn’t move. Where as in economy we raised two arms rest for the customer. Was very uncomfortable situation for everyone involved as we did our best to manage it sensitively. We did our best to look after the customer and make sure they weren’t embarrassed in front of other pax. Compensation beyond a refund is a tricky one however, as I’m not sure as an airline we did anything wrong? US DOT rules however would be different.


Off on a tangent, I know, but at my first regional/commuter airline, we had a regular customer who was 6'6" and 600 pounds. He always bought two seats and never made an issue of it. He was known as a gentle giant and was well liked by the staff.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:08 am

There is just no winning with some of you airline folks. When there are stories about large people flying in economy, some of you state they should buy two seats or fly business or first. Here are two large people flying business and some of you are now stating they should fly economy so that the . Do some of you ever listen to yourselves?
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ~Harlan Ellison~
 
art
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:31 am

An Auckland woman and her two daughters were left traumatised after staff from Thai Airways said they were "too big" to sit in business class.

Errr... were they too big or not?

The daughters has been in Thailand for weight loss surgery...

Sounds like they were aware they were much fatter than they wanted to be. Pleased for them that they had embarked on one route to losing weight if they did not want to be so fat...

Iripa said the experience was "horrific" and feels she and her family have been discriminated against because of their body shapes...

Sort of see that. I would be horrified to be as fat as the people concerned and not be able to fit a seat, but whereas those concerned felt the seat size discriminated against them, I would think it was my own lack of control over my body shape - whereby my body would not fit a large seat - that was the problem. Which was why I went abroad for surgery. Because of my body shape.

But then I'm a bit of a jerk. Tend to blame myself for problems for which I am responsible. Not very PC, I know. Sorry to all for that.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12303332
 
Antarius
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:31 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
garpd wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
They are due more than just the fare difference in my opinion. They expected to be comfortable during their flight.


So, safety should have been compromised in the name of comfort then? I sure hope you are not involved with any safety related jobs!
How much would they been entitled to then if, under your decision making, they were allowed to fly in their booked seats without properly fitting belts and in a moment of turbulence were thrown from their seats and injured? The airline would be liable. So, how much? In your opinion.


Oh don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they should be left in their original seat without a seatbelt. I said they should have been compensated for the extreme downgrade in comfort. They should have either rebooked them on an airline with a premium class capable of accommodating them or completely refund their ticket and maybe a $1000 credit. They sold them a product they couldn't deliver on and put no disclaimers on their website. That's fraud.


Nope. It's clearly been publicized and present here
https://www.thaiairways.com/en_TH/exper ... t/789.page

Right there. On their website.

It's like an exit seat. I can book it and be physically impaired. The airline is not going to let me sit there
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 2169
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:02 am

Interesting because most airbag seat belts do have extensions, they actually disable the air bag due to the change in angle of deployment. I'm guessing they didn't have the proper extension?
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
 
S0Y
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:10 am

I believe that TG have the airbag seatbelts in biz class on the aircraft that fly to AKL
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15091
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:23 am

B6JFKH81 wrote:
Interesting because most airbag seat belts do have extensions, they actually disable the air bag due to the change in angle of deployment. I'm guessing they didn't have the proper extension?


The issue is for the airbag to work, it needs to be on the front side of the passenger. Using an extension moves the seatbelt to the side making it ineffective.

All airlines that have this seat installed have the same issue.

From https://onemileatatime.com/thai-airways ... lass-seat/

“ Those with waists bigger than 56″ aren’t allowed to fly Thai Airways’ new 787-9 business class seat. Why? Because the seats have safety belts with airbags in them. The seatbelts can’t accommodate waists bigger than 56″, and you can’t add a seatbelt extender to these seats for safety reasons, given that the built-in airbag has to be front-and-center.”

“I find this noteworthy for a couple of reasons. First of all, these seatbelts are the FAA standard ones for the type of seat, and lots of airlines have these seats. So I would guess that the same restriction applies to the other airlines with these seats, though this is the first media report I’ve heard about this. I’m also curious how this would be handled by the airline. Presumably they’re not measuring people at check-in, so will they just let people board and if someone needs an extender they kick them off, or…?“
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:56 am

I guess first and business class is safer than economy since their seat belts have air bags.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3599
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:37 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I didn't say they should be left in their original seat without a seatbelt. I said they should have been compensated for the extreme downgrade in comfort. They should have either rebooked them on an airline with a premium class capable of accommodating them or completely refund their ticket and maybe a $1000 credit. They sold them a product they couldn't deliver on and put no disclaimers on their website. That's fraud.


Read, please. Thai Airways didn't sell them the ticket; their travel agency did, and the agency has already admitted its mistake (and refunded monies to them). While there may be further compensation, none should be required; the rules were published, and either overlooked or ignored. That's not fraud - unless you consider a passenger booking a seat he or she knows (or should have known, with proper diligence) that he or she was not eligible to use - to be fraudulent.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
sixfootscream
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:20 am

boacvc10 wrote:
Perhaps it's an opportunity for Air New Zealand or other local carriers to make hay with this in a twitter marketing campagin. It would serve TG right.BOACVC10


Oh great. Cancel culture and petty twitter vendettas have reched aviation.
 
tomcat
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:33 pm

In which situation are these airbags showing any benefit?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15091
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:39 pm

tomcat wrote:
In which situation are these airbags showing any benefit?


I understand the modelling suggests they will help prevent head injuries under deceleration with the solid partitions between seats.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13113
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:21 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
I guess first and business class is safer than economy since their seat belts have air bags.


I fear it's kinda the opposite, the new fancy seats are less safe, so they add an airbag to compensate. Ergo, you can't ride them legally without the airbag.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
airbazar
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:39 pm

Well, well, well, a.net is good for something after all :) I had never heard about or seen airbag seatbelts. When I read the first mention of it in this thread I thought it was a joke so I had to google it. Interesting concept to say the least.
 
Oilman
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:55 pm

For those who want to see a test of airbag seatbelts, go look at this:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight ... 391930001/
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:17 pm

Does this also mean children under 12 cannot be in first or business class? Like in a vehicle, they warn that the air bag can kill little children.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:24 pm

Aesma wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
I guess first and business class is safer than economy since their seat belts have air bags.


I fear it's kinda the opposite, the new fancy seats are less safe, so they add an airbag to compensate. Ergo, you can't ride them legally without the airbag.


Front row Economy, or seats without another row directly in front (like some exit row seats) also often are equipped with airbag seat belts.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Heinkel
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:40 pm

Isn't there a legal limit of the passenger's weight for the seat and the restraint system?

I work for the automotive industry and the seats and restraint systems were designed for a maximum passenger weight of 125 kg (287 lbs).

In several countries this is borderlined now. Same with stretchers for ambulances. Old standard was for max. 150 kg person. Many organizations now order the heavy duty stretchers for people up to 250 kg (574 lbs).

So the question, what is the maximum permissible seat load of a modern business class seat and its restraint system? The Lady looked like far beyond 125 kg.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:49 pm

Sancho99504 wrote:
AEROFAN wrote:
There is just no winning with some of you airline folks. When there are stories about large people flying in economy, some of you state they should buy two seats or fly business or first. Here are two large people flying business and some of you are now stating they should fly economy so that the . Do some of you ever listen to yourselves?


It's just more degradation of the quality that this site used to have and the growing level of hypocrisy on this forum. For almost 15 years, I have seen thousands of comments like "fatty should have bought two seats", "customers of size need to book business or first", "if you can't fit an economy seat, buy first"...... then someone does exactly as Anet wisdom implies and several people lose it because the customer is not happy about being downgraded after buying a supposedly bigger and more comfortable seat.........


The seat is not rated for a seatbelt extender. This is published on their website. The travel agent messed up, and any issues the downgraded pax have are with them, not the airline.

The soapbox outrage is unnecessary in this case.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19976
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:23 pm

zeke wrote:
B6JFKH81 wrote:
Interesting because most airbag seat belts do have extensions, they actually disable the air bag due to the change in angle of deployment. I'm guessing they didn't have the proper extension?


The issue is for the airbag to work, it needs to be on the front side of the passenger. Using an extension moves the seatbelt to the side making it ineffective.

All airlines that have this seat installed have the same issue.

From https://onemileatatime.com/thai-airways ... lass-seat/

“ Those with waists bigger than 56″ aren’t allowed to fly Thai Airways’ new 787-9 business class seat. Why? Because the seats have safety belts with airbags in them. The seatbelts can’t accommodate waists bigger than 56″, and you can’t add a seatbelt extender to these seats for safety reasons, given that the built-in airbag has to be front-and-center.”

“I find this noteworthy for a couple of reasons. First of all, these seatbelts are the FAA standard ones for the type of seat, and lots of airlines have these seats. So I would guess that the same restriction applies to the other airlines with these seats, though this is the first media report I’ve heard about this. I’m also curious how this would be handled by the airline. Presumably they’re not measuring people at check-in, so will they just let people board and if someone needs an extender they kick them off, or…?“

56" maximum? That is beyond generous.

I think people should get what they pay for, but the physics of safety limits the weight and size range a seat can protect. The air bag increases the range to the upside.

As noted above, car seats have a limited range yhey can protect. Mandatory child seats/booster seats allow the bottom range to be ignored and thus to he top range increased. Airbags increase the top range.

Seats take a long time to design and certify. A bummer these passengers were outside of the primary market when the seats were designed.

But as the airline made it clear, so a little press will educate people.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15091
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:07 pm

Heinkel wrote:
I work for the automotive industry and the seats and restraint systems were designed for a maximum passenger weight of 125 kg (287 lbs).


Aircraft seats are designed to a nominal load of 170 lb under the FARs.

Heinkel wrote:
So the question, what is the maximum permissible seat load of a modern business class seat and its restraint system?.


No seat load limit, people in excess of 170 lb just are not guaranteed to survive a crash, then again no one is guaranteed to survive.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19976
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:26 pm

zeke wrote:
Heinkel wrote:
I work for the automotive industry and the seats and restraint systems were designed for a maximum passenger weight of 125 kg (287 lbs).


Aircraft seats are designed to a nominal load of 170 lb under the FARs.

Heinkel wrote:
So the question, what is the maximum permissible seat load of a modern business class seat and its restraint system?.


No seat load limit, people in excess of 170 lb just are not guaranteed to survive a crash, then again no one is guaranteed to survive.

No one is guaranteed, but seat designers are required to design for a 9G crash load for the standard weight that gives a far better chance of survival to 75lb to 225 lb people.

Lighter people will have less cushion as the spring of the seat is too stiff for them. Heavier people will yield the material in the seat resulting in higher experienced crash loads. The air bags help reduce whiplash and provide, theoretically, far better protection for overweight people. The design of venting gas out of the airbag is also better for lighter people than trying to design a harness for everyone.

If a seat only accomodates to 56" girth, that is that.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15091
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:35 pm

lightsaber wrote:
No one is guaranteed, but seat designers are required to design for a 9G crash load for the standard weight that gives a far better chance of survival to 75lb to 225 lb people.


16G these days, and the new rules also have head impact assessments which were not in place for the much older 6G and older 9G standards.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:55 am

boacvc10 wrote:
Well, I don't quite know if this is true, or understand the technical reason was for the incident being reported at https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303332 "Thai Airways deny Auckland women business class seats on flight because of weight", or why accommodations could not have been made.

My question is why were the passengers not compensated (by TG) for the business class tickets, more than what was offered? They wanted to travel business, and paid for that privilege. They were also wanting a comfortable ride (who wouldn't want comfy chairs, large foot area) and they were paying for a one-way upper class ticket. And they were coming back from medical treatment/consultation. Also, Y class seats are smaller by definition. If anything, they should be accomodated due to their large size, and more so if they paid for that right.

I don't think the pax did anything wrong - There are studies that it could be related to a bigger problem for NZers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_New_Zealand and is not going to go away soon. Perhaps it's an opportunity for Air New Zealand or other local carriers to make hay with this in a twitter marketing campagin. It would serve TG right.


BOACVC10


It's fair to say you didn't read the article that you posted, all your questions were answered right there.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
dtremit
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:08 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:00 pm

zeke wrote:
B6JFKH81 wrote:
Interesting because most airbag seat belts do have extensions, they actually disable the air bag due to the change in angle of deployment. I'm guessing they didn't have the proper extension?


The issue is for the airbag to work, it needs to be on the front side of the passenger. Using an extension moves the seatbelt to the side making it ineffective.

All airlines that have this seat installed have the same issue.

From https://onemileatatime.com/thai-airways ... lass-seat/

“ Those with waists bigger than 56″ aren’t allowed to fly Thai Airways’ new 787-9 business class seat. Why? Because the seats have safety belts with airbags in them. The seatbelts can’t accommodate waists bigger than 56″, and you can’t add a seatbelt extender to these seats for safety reasons, given that the built-in airbag has to be front-and-center.”

“I find this noteworthy for a couple of reasons. First of all, these seatbelts are the FAA standard ones for the type of seat, and lots of airlines have these seats. So I would guess that the same restriction applies to the other airlines with these seats, though this is the first media report I’ve heard about this. I’m also curious how this would be handled by the airline. Presumably they’re not measuring people at check-in, so will they just let people board and if someone needs an extender they kick them off, or…?“


At least some of the airbag seat belts have a special double buckle -- there is a standard buckle coupled with a longer one that slots in behind it. I believe that second buckle controls whether the airbag is powered. If an extension is used, the airbag is deactivated.

I found this excerpt from old US documentation in a Flyertalk thread from when bulkhead airbags were introduced on their aircraft:

10. When I use a universal seat belt extension does that deactivate the airbag
for that particular seat?
Yes. Universal seat belt extensions deactivate the airbag for that particular seat.
Remember, a universal seat belt extension may only be used for a passenger of size
utilizing one of these seats.

11. Can I use a seat belt extension with these seats?
Seat belt extensions may only be used for passengers of size. Per the
manufacturer, if a passenger requires a seat belt extension in these seats, they are
not within the regulatory criteria for certification and are legally outside of the
requirement to require an airbag seatbelt.


So it appears that the FAA does not require the airbags to be active for passengers outside the operating parameters. Thai's rules are different.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15091
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:25 pm

dtremit wrote:
So it appears that the FAA does not require the airbags to be active for passengers outside the operating parameters. Thai's rules are different.


The FAA is not the Thai regulator, Thai have to abide by what the Thai CAA say. Using an extension to deactivate an airbag voids the special condition that is used to approve that restraint system.

Personally I cannot follow the FAA logic on this, they are saying that children below 2 and those with disabilities that require an extension to disable an airbag can have a reduced level of protection, whilst at the same time the NTSB is saying this needs to be addressed.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:41 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
I guess first and business class is safer than economy since their seat belts have air bags.


I don't think you can safely extrapolate that conclusion from the presence of airbags on some business and first class seats. My understanding is that when seats are angled away from the front-rear orientation of the aircraft, the seat needs either a shoulder strap added or an airbag added to it - in other words to make the seatbelt as effective as a lap belt on a normal, forward-facing seat.

But there are some angled F/J seats that do not have shoulder straps or airbags, like, for example, BA's First, so I am not sure exactly what the difference is here. Perhaps it is something that only applies to more recently-approved angled F/J seats.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: Pax downgrade due to personal weight by Thai Airways

Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:08 pm

zeke wrote:

The issue is for the airbag to work, it needs to be on the front side of the passenger. Using an extension moves the seatbelt to the side making it ineffective. ...



I'd go further: an improperly deployed airbag can injure or kill.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos