Air India has suspended 130 'too fat to fly' flight attendants. The FAs exceeded the airline's BMI guidelines. They should be reinstated once they meet the quidelines.

Thoughts?

Sorry I could not link a story from my phone.

Good for them. Health is important, this is not only good for the airline's reputation but also for those being suspended. It is a wakeup call and a chance to live a healthier, longer life.

United could learn a thing or two from AI.

G'day

This is yesterdays news so it has been copied/pasted by numerous news outlets, I have copied one below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...ght-attendants-too-fat-to-fly.html

Grounding overweight flight attendants makes sense for numerous reasons, aesthetics being just one of them, higher fuel bills, them blocking aisles and potentially unable to perform in emergencies are others. The folks concerned have been warned, so they cannot complain about their grounding.

I am always amazed about the number of fat or even obese people in some countries, always the first thing I notice when entering the US. That was also clearly broadcasted in the opening ceremony of the Airbus Mobile facilities yesterday with lots of XXL T-shirts on display.  

Well, what is the saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder   


Cheers

Peter

Quoting pek777 (Reply 1):

Wow really. I knew FA's in the 80's that were nice and thin & meet the weight guidelines.

They also ate and threw up in the lavs so they would not get fired. To bad some of them died early from Bulimia, but at least they were thin and sexy for you as opposed to truly healthy.

I can't believe you would say they should loose weight to be healthy. Some people are larger & unhealthy, but I've yet to see unhealthy FA's on any airline. Not every person thats thin or buff is healthy.

What are the airlines guidelines? Are they realistic weights or super skinny model weights?

Having excess fat is NEVER healthy. There is no such thing as "healthy at every size".

Unfortunately AI has a ulterior motive regarding this and isn't actually interested in their employees health. I wouldn't be surprised if certain Asian airlines have the same policies.

Ps. How often do you see FAs over 30 on KE, OZ etc...

How barbaric. Whilst people in safety critical roles should absolutely be of good health etc, there are ways and means and this strikes me as an extremely backwards way of approaching the issue.

Surely a more constructive way of dealing with it is to set an expectation, review on a regular basis and above all, give an opportunity to comply before taking such drastic action?

Or maybe I'm just not from a backwards part of the world.

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 6): Surely a more constructive way of dealing with it is to set an expectation, review on a regular basis and above all, give an opportunity to comply before taking such drastic action?

I've heard in EK they have "fat camp" for pilots with a BMI over 35. Which is quite high.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 4): Ps. How often do you see FAs over 30 on KE, OZ etc..

You do, many times. They look amazing but many times are over 30, especially the senior crew. Same goes for the ME3. Can't really say the same for SQ though the ratio of male:female in that age bracket at the airline is grossly tilted towards the former which I do think is very sexist. And SQ is one airline where they really do force their female crew to be excessively thin and overly groomed which I totally disagree with. I'm all for good grooming but not when there is a massive double standard between men and women. Some of the SQ guys (especially the senior ones) I've seen have looked really unkempt but seem to get a pass.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 4): Unfortunately AI has a ulterior motive regarding this and isn't actually interested in their employees health.

They've been warned before so they should have known this might be coming. I too don't believe its about their employees' health but rather their ability to perform their duties in an emergency evacuation, etc. or perhaps to get some of their excess crew off their books since they are so grossly overstaffed.

If you look at most of AI's long haul crew you'd see that they are not one of the Asian airlines that places a huge amount of importance on the "appearance" of their crew.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 7): I've heard in EK they have "fat camp" for pilots with a BMI over 35.

Given that the American Heart Association says you should aim for an ideal BMI at around what, 18-22 and really should max out at 25-26, 35 is really pushing it.

Incidentally does the governing aviation body of India have a BMI maximum/minimum for crew re: the ability to safely work on an aircraft? Does any country actually?

And a quick sidebar as am I'm not familiar with wearing a sari, but on first glance it seems like it wouldn't be an ideal uniform to be wearing if you're evacuating a burning aircraft given how intricate it looks, or something to be wearing in the middle of a ULH from India to the US? Doesn't it get chilly!? Its an amazingly beautiful dress just wondering about the practicality of it as a uniform for an airline.

According to an article, the BMI for normal range defined by Air India is 18-22. That is very low. In the United States normal BMI is considred 18.5 - 25. They are calling people overweight at a BMI of 22 and obese and threatening to suspend them for a BMI of 27. That is ridiculous. There are plenty of perfectly healthy women that have BMIs in the 22-27 range. Suspending people based on BMI is absolutely atrocious and is symbolic of discrimination. The percent of women over 50 with a BMI under 22 is very low. Obviously Air India wants flight attendants to be young and slim.

Quoting pek777 (Reply 1): United could learn a thing or two from AI.

Not only would the unions fight it, but that is against the law. You cannot fire somebody in the United States because they are overweight. A company has to make reasonable accommodations. A BMI of 27 is not unreasonable. There are laws to protect people from what essentially is discrimination.

What is legal is that an airline can have a fitness requirement. An airline can require that a flight attendant must be able to perform specific physical functions related to their job (lift a certain weight, open an exit door, move quickly through a plane, swim a distance, etc).

[Edited 2015-09-15 05:54:48]

[Edited 2015-09-15 05:56:24]

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 2): potentially unable to perform in emergencies are others

This is the real issue here

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 3): Wow really. I knew FA's in the 80's that were nice and thin & meet the weight guidelines. They also ate and threw up in the lavs so they would not get fired. To bad some of them died early from Bulimia, but at least they were thin and sexy for you as opposed to truly healthy.

Oh please - as if you need to resort to bulimia to maintain a healthy weight. If you do? best look to your eating habits as the true source of the issue, which are, as reluctant as people are to admit it these days, relatively easy to correct.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 3): I can't believe you would say they should loose weight to be healthy.

There's more correlation between the two than I'm guessing you'd like to admit. Excessive fat is never a good thing. Period.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 3): I've yet to see unhealthy FA's on any airline.

... have you flown any US based airline in the past decade? I fly US carriers maybe four times a week, and I very, very frequently see FAs who are overweight to the point of being obviously unhealthy if not questionably able to perform in the nimble manner necessary to handle an emergency situation.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 4): Having excess fat is NEVER healthy. There is no such thing as "healthy at every size"

  

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 4): Unfortunately AI has a ulterior motive regarding this and isn't actually interested in their employees health. I wouldn't be surprised if certain Asian airlines have the same policies.

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 6): How barbaric. Whilst people in safety critical roles should absolutely be of good health etc, there are ways and means and this strikes me as an extremely backwards way of approaching the issue

Make no mistake, nearly every carrier had similar restrictions up until in some cases the 1970s. Lest we forget that the introduction of flight attendants to commercial aviation had nothing to do with safety.

Quoting winginit (Reply 9): There's more correlation between the two than I'm guessing you'd like to admit. Excessive fat is never a good thing. Period.

True, but then what is your definition of 'excessive fat'?

We don't know how 'excessively fat' these F/As were. They might have been dangerously obese, or they might have been slightly over what some execs at AI consider to be 'attractive'. There is a very fine line between valid safety and health concerns and downright physical discrimination.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 6): I've heard in EK they have "fat camp" for pilots with a BMI over 35.

I have no idea if that's true either, but if it is, it has likely more to do with health worries than aesthetics.

Airlines invest a lot of money in training their pilots, many even self-insure their loss of license coverage. It would be a waste of money to lose a perfectly capable pilot because of a heart disease or diabetes (I don't believe for a second an airline would do it out of genuine concern for a human being... especially EK).
As you said, 35 is quite high and puts you squarely in the 'danger zone'. (cue Kenny Loggins)

As a related side note, this is by no means a new issue. The exact same thing happened (also with Air India) back in 2008. A lawsuit followed, and the courts sided with Air India:

Being overweight won't fly, not on Air India (CNN, 2008)

So long as these dismissals don't violate Indian legislation Air India is well within their right to take these actions, even if it wouldn't fly (sorry, couldn't resist) in other countries. How quick we are to criticize when the exact same actions were taken in the US and EU industries only a few decades ago. Having said that, I do hope India finds itself more in line with the times in the near future. I won't hold my breath.

I've read the linked Telegraph article, as mentioned earlier by Roseflyer, AI seem to have made up their own definitions of healthy, overqweight and obese BMI's which are all conveniently lower than the accepted norms. They are then suspending staff for being in both the overweight and obese categories.
Firstly some in the overweight category are by anyone else's norms in the healthy category, but are being denied work by AI, that cannot be right.
Secondly I would have thought that if they have decided that weight is an issue, it should have been just the obese category that are suspended, as that is the area who are most at risk.

I would far rather have a flight attendant with a BMI of 26 in an emergency than one with a BMI so low that they have insufficient strength/weight to carry out their duties.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12): I would far rather have a flight attendant with a BMI of 26 in an emergency than one with a BMI so low that they have insufficient strength/weight to carry out their duties.

This is a good point, and is certainly telling as to the perception some carriers have with regard to the true purpose of flight attendants.

Whenever I fly the ME3 and in some cases the Asian carriers as well there's typically at least one or two FAs working that lead me to think 'really? could you even open the emergency exit door if need be?' Granted, some might argue those carriers see the duties of a flight attendant as being a bit more traditional as opposed to the more modern 'flight attendants are here for your safety' mantra.

As a fun fact, in 1936 the New York Times described the qualifications for a flight attendant at the time:

Quote: The girls who qualify for hostesses must be petite; weight 100 to 118 pounds; height 5 feet to 5 feet 4 inches; age 20 to 26 years. Add to that the rigid physical examination each must undergo four times every year, and you are assured of the bloom that goes with perfect health.

and again in 1966:

Quote: A high school graduate, single (widows and divorcees with no children considered), 20 years of age (girls 19 1/2 may apply for future consideration). 5'2" but no more than 5'9", weight 105 to 135 in proportion to height and have at least 20/40 vision without glasses.

Highest Permitted BMI in 1936: 20.3
Highest Permitted BMI in 1966: 24.7

[Edited 2015-09-15 08:34:44]

Quoting winginit (Reply 13): Whenever I fly the ME3 and in some cases the Asian carriers as well there's typically at least one or two FAs working that lead me to think 'really? could you even open the emergency exit door if need be?'

Yes, they absolutely can. They would not be flying otherwise. And unless you are crew yourself they have most definitely done it more times than you.

You might have looked at some of those Asiana flight attendants in SFO in the same light, yet I think its unanimously agreed that they did an amazing job that day. The lead cabin crew was carrying a girl off the plane despite sustaining a broken tailbone when the 777 impacted the runway.

Or maybe the 19 year old cabin crew on SQ 006 in TPE that continued to pull people out of her burning section despite being on fire and sustaining third degree burns to a significant portion of her body.

It works both ways - whilst we shouldn't judge a book by its cover regarding overweight crew the same applies for petite/smaller framed crew that work for Asian airlines and the ME3.

The stereotype that oh she's crew with an Asian airline or oh she's an ME3 cabin crew so she must be vapid or she only knows service and not safety is massively unfair given how hard they all train to be there for your safety and how there is a track record of these seemingly petite polite girls saving lives when shit truly hits the fan.

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 14):

Goodness me point taken - no need to get all emotional and the like. Simply stating observations. While not fair to throw out blanket stereotypes it's certainly not unreasonable to make assumptions about someone's strength given their stature. I'm personally aware of both the training required and the track record.

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 5): Surely a more constructive way of dealing with it is to set an expectation, review on a regular basis and above all, give an opportunity to comply before taking such drastic action?

They were given an opportunity to comply

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8): According to an article, the BMI for normal range defined by Air India is 18-22. That is very low. In the United States normal BMI is considred 18.5 - 25.

Actually, it's the WHO that sets the guidelines, the WHO that changed the number bands down so that more people were instantly overweight. It's not based on much science either, just an agenda. The US policy just coincides with the new world order.

Further, BMI is a false standard because it is a function of mass and height^2, but volume increases at L^3. While volumetric relationships aren't perfect when scaling a human as not everything scales up equally, actual research has shown that BMI should be related to height^2.7.

The upshot is that the taller you are, the skinnier the currently used BMI scale claims you need to be. This is why most top athletes have high BMI despite low body fat. They are generally on the higher end of the tallness curve and have muscle. They aren't rail thin giants. But short people have little problem being declared "healthy weight" despite looking fat.

Back in the day, when BMI was first introduced, it was used as one factor. But another was body type. There were 3 tables per sex. Slender build, average build, broad stature. You would measure the shoulder and hip spread to determine the stature. People with small frames wouldn't magically be healthier than those with broad shoulders. These factors were used by insurance actuaries, the one industry that is in the business of "getting it right."

But when the government decided to get involved with your health, to simplify things so idiots could figure it out, it was decided to glom everyone together by stature, then again later to stop looking at men and women differently, and then to lower the standards about 20 years back to magically declare most people overweight to support an agenda.

It's worse with children because the US uses a formula based on BMI and percentile, but that computerized formula was not implemented correctly and didn't coincide with the charts that they used. So rather than correct the formula, they "fixed" the charts, and many children were declared overweight overnight due to bureaucracy.

Which is not to say there aren't fat people, and that certain regions and groups in the USA don't have issues. But attending my nieces high school graduation a few months back, the kids looked pretty much the same as when I was growing up, other than being much less white.

Quoting winginit (Reply 15): Goodness me point taken - no need to get all emotional and the like.

I'm ex EK cabin crew, probably considered petite and that might be why I took it a bit personally even when I know logically speaking that that was not your intended effect nor where you insulting or anything.

Just get peeved when people say just because a crew is overweight they can't do their job and same goes for those who think just because crew work for a particular airline they aren't up to standards with their safety training.

Didn't mean to single you out either, it was more of a general comment  

BMI is ridiculous. It makes no allowances for different builds, and makes it nearly impossible for taller people (including many men) to meet the standard unless their build is rail-thin.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12): Firstly some in the overweight category are by anyone else's norms in the healthy category

This is me. I'm 178 cm tall and of muscular build. When I was at the very fittest I've ever been in my life -- a time when I was working out 90 minutes per day, 6 days per week, and was in extremely good shape by any standard anywhere -- I weighed 84 kg. That's a BMI of 26.4, considered "overweight" by the Americans and "obese" by the Indians.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18): This is me. I'm 178 cm tall and of muscular build. When I was at the very fittest I've ever been in my life -- a time when I was working out 90 minutes per day, 6 days per week, and was in extremely good shape by any standard anywhere -- I weighed 84 kg. That's a BMI of 26.4, considered "overweight" by the Americans and "obese" by the Indians.

Yep, I was in same boat. I was incredibly fit, doing P90X until I dropped, looked great, eating healthy, but the BMI said I needed to lose 25 more pounds to be just on the edge of overweight. I would have to be as skinny as I was in 8th grade, when I looked like a starving refugee, to be just on the border of underweight. I also couldn't sustain that lifestyle and also have a job and a family without neglected both...

Due to EASA rules at the airline I work, crew at recurrent will have to fit into a certain size space, (currently dubbed the fat box by crew) with no parts of their body hanging out over marked lines. Its all to do with work capability and not impending/blocking an exit.

[Edited 2015-09-15 11:13:25]

I'm OK with this as long as *management* are held to the same BMI. I'm serious.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 3): I've yet to see unhealthy FA's on any airline.

How? On DL and UA I've seen F/As who didn't have the energy to stand a full 3 hours.

And please limit the red dress to a traditional dress size of say 10. Please...

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 4): Having excess fat is NEVER healthy. There is no such thing as "healthy at every size".

Agreed, but let us make the standards fair. Say no pay above a certain level until BMI is reached. Hold for *all* of the workforce.   

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 6): I've heard in EK they have "fat camp" for pilots with a BMI over 35. Which is quite high.

That is reasonable. It also makes sense. Open up that "fat camp" to all employees over a BMI of 35 IMHO. Heck, make it a BMI of 30 unless body fat is under 10%.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19): Yep, I was in same boat. I was incredibly fit,

Once upon a time that was me. I was only a few pounds from Overweight, but there was no fat on me. Now... I can't claim no fat.  

Quoting winginit (Reply 13): Highest Permitted BMI in 1936: 20.3 Highest Permitted BMI in 1966: 24.7

I'm ok with either, just apply to management (exclude pregnant employees).

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 16): These factors were used by insurance actuaries, the one industry that is in the business of "getting it right."

   But they've set a weight for my height (all else ignored) that even 1 ounce above they charge a 25% surcharge. So unfortunately, while it might not be BMI, there is a weight were there is a health limit. BMI might work as taller people have more heart trouble... I'm 6' (even), so I'm in the risk group.


Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):

Is there a particular overweight high level executive at a major carrier that I'm missing? I guess I'm just not following your focus on applying a regulation to management, which was delivered as though they're some hypocritical overweight monarchy.

Just running through the rolodex of executive teams of the major carriers in my mind and am essentially only coming up with a lot of very fit people.

I knew airlines had guidelines (and rightly so), but I never really expected them to actually use the body mass index as the way of measurement. Suspending flight attendants by using a system that isn't 100% flawless and doesn't always give you the real story sounds a bit harsh to me. Also I'd expect AI to have bigger issues to worry about.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19):

Spot on. Heck, even Usain Bolt, who is only the fastest man on the freaking planet, is 0.1% short of being overweight according the BMI. Same thing with Serena Williams. She could dropkick a jammed door open in case of an emergency, drag my ass to safety and still look lovely in the process. 

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 2): Grounding overweight flight attendants makes sense for numerous reasons, aesthetics being just one of them,

If you want to improve the "aesthetics" in the cabin then ban overweight passengers.

I will bet my next paycheck that all of these f/a's were women. I cannot believe that in 2015 people still hold to that horny teen-age idea of flight attendants as sex images. Notice no one comments on a chubby pilot and there are more than a few of those out there.

All this discussion about them being able perform their duties is pure bunk. They prove it every year in recurrent training. Take a look at some of the lard butts sitting at the emergency exits the net time you fly. To get them out in an emergency you would have to throw a Twinkie out on the wing.

It is time for the world to move on with this issue--people are people. Some gain weight--some do not. Their health is between them, their families and their physician.

BMI is a horrible metric to use, regardless of the end goal. I'm fine with fitness guidelines as a means for establishing "fit-for-duty". Opposition based upon size or aesthetic alone is pathetic and a disgrace.

BMI is pretty horrible at identifying issues.

Clearly the Rock has wieght issues.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/stre...on-is-technically-obese/ar-AAb6ihn

Suggest that AI and some of the contributors to this thread assess the BMI of the squad members plaing in the Rugby World Cup starting on Saturday. Would you prefer a bulimia, anorexic or a fit person with a high BMI to be getting you off the wreck?

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 24): I will bet my next paycheck that all of these f/a's were women. I cannot believe that in 2015 people still hold to that horny teen-age idea of flight attendants as sex images. Notice no one comments on a chubby pilot and there are more than a few of those out there.

In this crazy case it might actually be the exact opposite. As I read in the Telegraph article posted in reply 2: "In 2013, Air India said that deploying female flight attendants rather than male could save them about £329,000 per year in full costs because they weight on average 33 to 44 pounds lighter."

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 24): All this discussion about them being able perform their duties is pure bunk. They prove it every year in recurrent training. Take a look at some of the lard butts sitting at the emergency exits the net time you fly. To get them out in an emergency you would have to throw a Twinkie out on the wing.

LOL! Another article says: "The airline insisted to the BBC that the rules are a matter of safety, not appearances. The regulations, the airline claims, were put in place to ensure that cabin crew could function well in emergency situations." Indeed it makes you wonder about the recurrent training.

Ah well, guess we can say it's AI at it's best...

I suppose the first criteria is to be able to get out the emergency exit, so size does matter.

The real issue is how do you assess too big.

Quoting pek777 (Reply 1): Good for them. Health is important, this is not only good for the airline's reputation but also for those being suspended. It is a wakeup call and a chance to live a healthier, longer life.

Oh please.

Quoting pek777 (Reply 1): United could learn a thing or two from AI.

I've seen all of 2 truly overweight FAs at United or Continental. Both men.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 2): Grounding overweight flight attendants makes sense for numerous reasons, aesthetics being just one of them, higher fuel bills, them blocking aisles and potentially unable to perform in emergencies are others.

Are you serious with this? I mean, seriously?

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7): Given that the American Heart Association says you should aim for an ideal BMI at around what, 18-22 and really should max out at 25-26, 35 is really pushing it.

BMI is a very ineffective, blunt object.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8): According to an article, the BMI for normal range defined by Air India is 18-22. That is very low.

That is insanely low. Put any muscle on those folks at all and they are screwed.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18): This is me. I'm 178 cm tall and of muscular build. When I was at the very fittest I've ever been in my life -- a time when I was working out 90 minutes per day, 6 days per week, and was in extremely good shape by any standard anywhere -- I weighed 84 kg. That's a BMI of 26.4, considered "overweight" by the Americans and "obese" by the Indians.

Exactly.

Quoting nbmike (Reply 20): Due to EASA rules at the airline I work, crew at recurrent will have to fit into a certain size space, (currently dubbed the fat box by crew) with no parts of their body hanging out over marked lines. Its all to do with work capability and not impending/blocking an exit.

This actually makes more sense.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 26): BMI is pretty horrible at identifying issues. Clearly the Rock has wieght issues.

Yup, exactly. The Rock is 6'4", 260 pounds, and probably 6% body fat. Yet BMI calls him obese. Stupid.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 29): I suppose the first criteria is to be able to get out the emergency exit, so size does matter.

Those are built to get out very fat passengers, so hardly an issue.

I find it somewhat amusing that a company that does not hold its executives accountable when they miss their business goals suspends line employees when they fail to meet an arbitrary standard that means nothing to the bottom line.

DLP

Quoting winginit (Reply 22): Is there a particular overweight high level executive at a major carrier that I'm missing? I guess I'm just not following your focus on applying a regulation to management, which was delivered as though they're some hypocritical overweight monarchy.

No one specific. I'm against a sexist rule. I'm against the old school "I'm the boss, so I'll just create rules on a whim."
I just know a lot of fat managers who would be the first to apply this rule to someone else but never themselves. Then again, I know a few hyper-athletic managers who would do it too!    I just think we need to move beyond certain rules and apply rules that actually impact the economics of the airline.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 29): I suppose the first criteria is to be able to get out the emergency exit, so size does matter.

I worked a prototype where instrumentation reduced isle width to 18". We had some workers who couldn't get into the plane. I do wonder about the overwing exits. I can still get through, but I'd say a good percentage of Americans couldn't. That will be a concern...


Lightsaber

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 5): Surely a more constructive way of dealing with it is to set an expectation, review on a regular basis and above all, give an opportunity to comply before taking such drastic action?

You don't seem to have read the actual story itself, you don't know the background of events that led up to this suspension action, and yet you think you're qualified to comment on the action taken by AI.....?

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 5): Or maybe I'm just not from a backwards part of the world.

That's the most "backward" comment I've read on a.net since I joined this forum over 10 years ago.....please explain how India is backward due to this move by AI.....


"Suggest that AI and some of the contributors to this thread assess the BMI of the squad members plaing in the Rugby World Cup starting on Saturday. Would you prefer a bulimia, anorexic or a fit person with a high BMI to be getting you off the wreck?"



You're serious, right? Comparing rugby players with flight attendants......two different worlds, two completely different set of fitness requirements.....

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 33): You're serious, right? Comparing rugby players with flight attendants......two different worlds, two completely different set of fitness requirements.....

Quite frankly, a rugby player would make a great FA.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 3): Wow really. I knew FA's in the 80's that were nice and thin & meet the weight guidelines. They also ate and threw up in the lavs so they would not get fired. To bad some of them died early from Bulimia, but at least they were thin and sexy for you as opposed to truly healthy.

This is a totally absurd statement. Staying physically fit does not require bulimia. All it requires is regular exercise and some self control when it comes to eating. AI warned 600 FA's last year and offered them diet & exercise help. Most of them (470) succeeded. The remaining 130 fatties have no one to blame but themselves.

According to BMI, I'm morbidly obese. I'm a 22 year old male, 6'2" and 258lbs, with about 22% fat. I was a star athlete so I know I have a lot of muscle, and there are people that weigh less than me that appear larger than me (guys and girls!).

I don't believe in discrimination, only on physical ability. The crews have to be able to perform their duties safely and successfully and they do have to be in somewhat shape and good health, but as long as they can perform, I'm good.

Seriously, if you'd rather have a flaming dumb ass hottie who doesn't even know what aircraft she is flying on as your FA versus a thick girl or even a dude with 15+ years of experience and has stayed on top of their training, travel with a hooker.

BMI is only a way of measuring the main group of humans, obviously there will be persons who, because of its genetics will be on the lower sides of the curve. People who no matter what they eat they will keep a low weight and people who will grow muscle and fat deposits with the same diet.

I am not very tall I am 5´7 and I weight 72 kilos and I have a lot of muscles and heavy bones, I have always been like that so my body mass is 25.7 so I am officially overweight, I can run 10K everyday and my top speed is 4.26 minutes a kilometer for a 52 year old fart, that is not bad, but IF I followed my diet and ended in the original target of 21 to 23 BMI I would eat all my muscles and good knows what else, looked like a corpse and possibly made some damage to my health in the long run.

I am happy now and I know that being fit is better than being at some predetermined weight, in the case of Air India I think is stupid to assign a BMI target, they should put all those affected through a dietary nutritionist and see exactly where they are healthy, in their correct weight according to their lifestyle and physical abilities. I have seen people who would qualify as fat and they are robust, strong and fast, and I have seen thin people who cannot change a flat...so I think AI is reacting in a bad way, lumping all those persons together.... but hey! is AI, where surprises are a monthly occurrence.

TRB

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 29): The real issue is how do you assess too big.

I see what you did there....

Seriously - by BMI I'm obese. Yet I am 5'10 1/2, 225, have a 32" waist, 46" jacket, just hiked up Vernal Falls at Yosemite and do an hour of cardio and an hour of heavy weight lifting 4-5 days a week. I guarantee you'd want me throwing around doors and picking up passengers over someone who fits this AI "ideal."

Quoting winginit (Reply 9): Oh please - as if you need to resort to bulimia to maintain a healthy weight. If you do? best look to your eating habits as the true source of the issue, which are, as reluctant as people are to admit it these days, relatively easy to correct.

Really.
1st are you aware there is still a huge problem with bulimia due to everywhere they look you hear the "oh your to fat, look at all the models crowd" There are still large numbers of women and men that deal with this by starting to throw up, once they start down this road their brain begins to function like a drug addict.

2nd: It is not easy to fix. If you believe that you have never worked in the health field, known some one dealing with bulimia or lost someone to it.

3rd: National association of Anorexia Nervosa and associated disorders.
• Up to 30 million people of all ages and genders suffer from an eating disorder (anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorder) in the U.S.

• An estimated 1.1 to 4.2 percent of women have bulimia nervosa in their lifetime.

• An estimated 2 to 5 percent of Americans experience binge-eating disorder in a 6-month period.
The National Institute of Mental Health: “Eating Disorders: Facts About Eating Disorders and the Search for Solutions.” Pub No. 01-4901.

• The body type portrayed in advertising as the ideal is possessed naturally by only 5% of American females.
Wade, T. D., Keski-Rahkonen A., & Hudson J. Epidemiology of eating disorders. In M. Tsuang and M. Tohen (Eds.), Textbook in Psychiatric Epidemiology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 2011. p. 343-360.

• 47% of girls in 5th-12th grade reported wanting to lose weight because of magazine pictures.
Prevention of Eating Problems with Elementary Children, Michael Levine, USA Today, July 1998.

• 69% of girls in 5th-12th grade reported that magazine pictures influenced their idea of a perfect body shape.
Ibid.

• About 50 percent of people who have had anorexia develop bulimia or bulimic patterns.
Anorexia Nervosa and Related Eating Disorders, Inc. website.

So this relatively easy to fix. Really.

[Edited 2015-09-15 20:01:43]

Quoting winginit (Reply 9): Make no mistake, nearly every carrier had similar restrictions up until in some cases the 1970s. Lest we forget that the introduction of flight attendants to commercial aviation had nothing to do with safety.

Ellen Church proposed that registered nurses would make an ideal addition to the flight crew, as they could take care of any passengers that got sick. This was what a flight attendant was early on and then they removed the nurse requirement and the rest is history.

So it nothing to safety and taking care of the passengers?

Quoting pek777 (Reply 1): United could learn a thing or two from AI.

And open themselves (UA) up to a lawsuit? And, actually i would be curious to know what those BMI Guidelines are. I would say BMI is totally a ridiculous measure of whether flight & cabin crew could do their duty as opposed to going by other tests & parameters like cardio treadmill/stree test; vision test, Blood Pressure readings etc. The airlines are not running a fitness club, neither are the people being recruited into the military here!!

Maybe some of the too many corporate management and politicians involved with AI wanted to get their girlfriends, daughters or major campaign contributors daughters jobs.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 37): I have seen people who would qualify as fat

The problem is that fat is very relative....a 5'6" ht 32' waist 142lb man would be fat compared to a 5'6" 29" waist 142lb man but would be thin compared to a 160lb man with a 34" waist and the same height. So, it is very relative and if you pick 10 person at random all those 10 people will GUARANTEED have differing parameters when you consider BMI,height, weight, waist size, height, race (i am suspecting AI has a mix of foreign and domestic crew) etc. So, going by a BMI target is ridiculous as opposed to quantifiable & measureable parameters (ability to open a door in 10s for example OR some parameter as ridiculous as able to serve approxx number of meals per minute OR able to jump on & slide down a chute in x seconds).

Quoting IPFreely (Reply 35): This is a totally absurd statement. Staying physically fit does not require bulimia. All it requires is regular exercise and some self control when it comes to eating. AI warned 600 FA's last year and offered them diet & exercise help. Most of them (470) succeeded. The remaining 130 fatties have no one to blame but themselves.

Have you ever worked in the health field. I have I've been a nurse. I've worked with people dealing with weight issues. To say my statement is absurd and follow that up with "The remaining 130 fatties" shows where your mind sits concerning how people look if they are healthy, shows your view of women.

When I flew 5 days a week back in the 80's and knew more than one FA that starved themselves to death to meet the specs back then. They were stricter than you might know. One airline weighed you before every flight. Another every few flights. If you came back from a week off and you put on to many pounds by their view, they would suspend you. Ask a former PanAm FA from the 70's & 80's.

I have went on a modified diet myself, exercised, ate speced out meals & still only got down to a certain point. As you get older you gain more weight easier and cannot get rid of it with diet & exercise health. But then that goes back to the other comments that have been posted here such as FA's being to old.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 40): are you aware there is still a huge problem with bulimia due to everywhere they look you hear the "oh your to fat, look at all the models crowd" There

Completely false. If you don't believe me just look at this thread and get a load of all these tubs who think they're fit!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39): Seriously - by BMI I'm obese. Yet I am 5'10 1/2, 225, have a 32" waist, 46" jacket, just hiked up Vernal Falls at Yosemite and do an hour of cardio and an hour of heavy weight lifting 4-5 days a week

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 37): I am not very tall I am 5´7 and I weight 72 kilos and I have a lot of muscles and heavy bones, I have always been like that so my body mass is 25.7 so I am officially overweight,

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 36): According to BMI, I'm morbidly obese. I'm a 22 year old male, 6'2" and 258lbs, with about 22% fat. I was a star athlete so I know I have a lot of muscle, and there are people that weigh less than me that appear larger than me (guys and girls!).

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19): Yep, I was in same boat. I was incredibly fit, doing P90X until I dropped, looked great, eating healthy, but the BMI said I needed to lose 25 more pounds to be just on the edge of overweight

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21): I'm OK with this as long as *management* are held to the same BMI. I'm serious.

Agree and they need to go to fat camp too.

At a Q&A with an exec at North Korea's airline, someone asked, why are all your cabin crew young and female (they actually employ 0 men in the role). The exec looked like the questioner was mad (or gay). "Because they look pretty." No secret!

PS my BMI is 27. Back on the dreadmill for me.

Quoting dergay (Reply 27): In this crazy case it might actually be the exact opposite. As I read in the Telegraph article posted in reply 2: "In 2013, Air India said that deploying female flight attendants rather than male could save them about £329,000 per year in full costs because they weight on average 33 to 44 pounds lighter."

And this is the real reason.

I think it was Lufthansa in the late 80's that told pilots and FA's that if they lost 5 lb. they would get a bonus as it would save a large amount of money in fuel. Most did and took the money home.