You're too fat to fly, court tells hostesses fired by Air India

[JI7]

Source: scotsman

THE fleshier air hostesses of India's state airline are too fat to fly, according to a ruling by the country's High Court.

In yesterday's 29-page judgment, the High Court said air hostesses' duties were "strenuous" and so they needed to be physically fit.

"Air crew have to be athletic to deal with any emergency and for that have to be in good shape. That is the reason that not only maximum but minimum weight limits are prescribed," the court said.

In comparison to Air India's demure, sari-clad attendants, Kingfisher Airlines, run by beer baron Vijay Mallya, boasts young, mini-skirted hostesses in scarlet stilettos. Mr Mallya prides himself on personally selecting his air hostesses and refers to them as "walking models in the air".




Read more: http://news.scotsman.com/world/You39re-too-fat-to-fly.4159039.jp

---

and how are they able to deal with the strenuous job with stilettos on ?

even worse is that air india is a state owned airline so it's the state discriminating. i don't know how this can be allowed.

[gateley]

1. When I was a flight attendant (mid 80's),

there was still a weight restriction. A friend of mine was a stew for Pan Am several years before, when they had to wear dorky little hats, and it was required that they wear a girdle!

I'm in agreement that the cabin crew has to be physically fit, but this doesn't sound like that was really the reason for this action. :grr:

[JI7]

2. yes, the weight limits they give seem much lower than one would need

to be healthy .

"For an 18-year-old with a height of 152cm (5ft) the maximum weight is 50kg (almost 8st); at the same height but in the 26-30 age group the weight limit is 56kg (almost 9st)."

i think 1kg=2.2lbs so someone 5ft can't be more than between 110-123 lbs. and it does increase by height. but that seems like a very low restriction.

and yeah, i'm sure this has nothing to do with health but just wanting people as "ideal" as they can get.

[silverojo]

3. They want ho's in stilettos n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Don't we all?

:)

[Skittles]

41. NO n/t

[Rage for Order]

46. Not all, but 50% of us do n/t

[Scout]

60. don't be too sure of that, either n/t

[Ms. Toad]

58. I'm not agreeing with their actions

I'm not agreeing with their actions, but for a 5' adult, 128 lbs is classified as overweight on the BMI scale - so the restrictions are closer to health based than might initially appear.

[remember2000forever]

21. Ex-Pan Am Here. Many Of My Fellow Flight Attendants Were On "Weight Check"

They had to weigh in monthly and yes, could be fired. When we were originally hired we had to be at least 5'5 and conform to "their " ideal weight. Well, after they finally allowed us to get married, then have babies, and God Forbid, get older, those guidelines were rather hard to maintain. National was the first to have a discrimination suit filled against them by an overweight Flt. Att.

[Bluebear]

35. I used to do that too.

We would have made a fun crew :)

[NCDem60]

4. I don't see the problem here. All jobs

have requirements whether educational or physical. Either meet them or find yourself another job.

[Eric J in MN]

5. They could test their ability to respond to a simulated emergency...

...instead of just assuming that the heavier stewardesses couldn't respond.

[pnwmom]

6. It is discrimination when the physical requirement doesn't relate to the

job involved. Flight attendants do need to be fit, but they don't need to be thin.

[Hekate]

8. Think of what you are saying. This is a country that still has a caste system.

India may be a fantastic country, but it's not the USA.

Hekate

[JI7]

9. the caste system is unconstitutional in India

yes, it's still practiced by many but it is illegal by law.

[pnwmom]

11. Unh-unh. That ended a LONG time ago. n/t

[Lasher]

18. India's "Untouchables" Face Violence, Discrimination

I remember reading this when it was published 5 years ago.

More than 160 million people in India are considered "Untouchable"—people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human.

Human rights abuses against these people, known as Dalits, are legion. A random sampling of headlines in mainstream Indian newspapers tells their story: "Dalit boy beaten to death for plucking flowers"; "Dalit tortured by cops for three days"; "Dalit 'witch' paraded naked in Bihar"; "Dalit killed in lock-up at Kurnool"; "7 Dalits burnt alive in caste clash"; "5 Dalits lynched in Haryana"; "Dalit woman gang-raped, paraded naked"; "Police egged on mob to lynch Dalits".

Dalits are not allowed to drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, wear shoes in the presence of an upper caste, or drink from the same cups in tea stalls," said Smita Narula, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, and author of Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's "Untouchables." Human Rights Watch is a worldwide activist organization based in New York.

India's Untouchables are relegated to the lowest jobs, and live in constant fear of being publicly humiliated, paraded naked, beaten, and raped with impunity by upper-caste Hindus seeking to keep them in their place. Merely walking through an upper-caste neighborhood is a life-threatening offense.

<snip>

Despite the fact that untouchability was officially banned when India adopted its constitution in 1950, discrimination against Dalits remained so pervasive that in 1989 the government passed legislation known as The Prevention of Atrocities Act. The act specifically made it illegal to parade people naked through the streets, force them to eat feces, take away their land, foul their water, interfere with their right to vote, and burn down their homes.

Since then, the violence has escalated, largely as a result of the emergence of a grassroots human rights movement among Dalits to demand their rights and resist the dictates of untouchability, said Narula.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html

[pnwmom]

44. There is a difference between state sponsored discrimination -- which

has been banned in India -- and individual racism and discrimination.

It is incorrect to say that the caste "system" is still in place. But personal discrimination still exists.

[Lasher]

49. If you define a system as something that must be condoned by the government then you are correct.

I am saddened by the realization that we will never eradicate bigotry, ever. We can and should do our best to eliminate it but it will always be among us no matter what we do.

[pnwmom]

52. A system would be organized, cohesive, and enforced.

What is left in India are remnants of the system -- remnants that still cause real suffering, but are no longer part of a system that makes change almost impossible.

[deadmessengers]

32. You're kidding yourself.

The caste system is alive and well in India, despite whatever legal proscriptions may exist against it. It may be somewhat diminished in the larger cities, but in the more rural areas, the caste system is very, very much in effect.

Here's an article from this year about a group of women Dalit (untouchables) who are trying to do something about it: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=993&option=com_content&task=view

[smitra]

38. FYI...

Incidentally, the state that is mentioned in the article pointed to by the link in your post currently has a Dalit woman as its chief minister (equivalent to a Governor in a US state).

Refer to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_%28outcaste%29. Scroll down to the subsections on 'Reform Movements' and 'Dalits in contemporary Indian politics'. You will note that India has its own equivalent of the KKK in the form of the organization 'Ranvir Sena'.

The caste system is certainly 'alive' but to call it 'well' is an overstatement. To say that 'in the more rural areas, the caste system is very, very much in effect' is the same as saying that in the more rural areas of the US, racism is very, very much in effect.

[deadmessengers]

39. It is.

To say that 'in the more rural areas, the caste system is very, very much in effect' is the same as saying that in the more rural areas of the US, racism is very, very much in effect.

Yes.

[pnwmom]

45. The "system" is no more, because it has been broken up by the state.

What remains -- and is more or less significant depending on the area of the country -- is INDIVIDUAL, not state-supported discrimination.

[smitra]

50. Exactly. n/t

[-..__...]

54. Assign them to jumbo jets.

There's big... and there's BIG.

I haven't flown in ages, but as I recall, the aisles aren't exactly spacious.

I can understand the policy if their weight hinders movement or maneuverability in tight quarters.

[Tunkamerica]

17. well, physical doesn't necessarily mean weight

muscle weighs more than fat so measuring a person's fitness by their weight is a fallacy from the jump.

[aimee]

33. Good point, Tunkamerica...

Muscle does weigh more... Whoopi Goldberg on The View was measured and weighed recently after diet and exercise... She had lost inches but her weight stayed pretty much the same...
Aimee

[Blaq Dem]

42. Stillettos and mini-skirts? How will that prepare them for emergencies?

[Sanity Claws]

20. The question is whether the requirement is truly related to the

job's duties. For example, you need a certain educational background to become an attorney. But the educational background is related to doing the work of an attorney. Also, the bar exam is supposed to measure knowledge that an attorney needs.
It would not make any sense for admission to the bar be based on one's appearance.
Similarly, it really does not make sense for flight attendants to be judged by appearance. Flight attendants should be physically fit but thinness does not equal fitness.

[iamjoy]

25. Then Give Them Physicals

Yes, there are physical demands to the job. So, if that is the case, why not test them on that rather than something arbitrary and aesthetic like weight? Can they lift 50 pounds? A lot of skinny girls may look good, but if they can't lift 50 pounds, they can't do their job in an emergency. How flexible are they and how good is their balance since they may also be needed. I've seen some chunky people in yoga class show more agility than sticks.

If they want flying models, they should just admit it and not use safety as a nonsense excuse. I do however, think heels should be banned. You can't wear them on the escape slides. The few seconds it takes to kick them off could make all the difference in an emergency. Plus, if there is a crash site, there's likely to be some debris and I don't want a barefoot flight attendant.

[petronius]

31. Agreed - their claim seems totally transparent

There's no way that the upper limit they've set has any measurable relationship to the work of a flight attendant (regular duties or emergency). On the other hand, I think it would be a very good idea to test whether flight crew can perform essential ctions in emergencies (opening doors, moving passengers, giving first aid, etc.)

Perhaps they'd have a stronger case if they claimed crew weight limits were related to controlling fuel consumption. Even then, I'd expect them to show a measurable relationship between the two factors.

I wonder if India's laws would allow an employer to use physical attractiveness as a criteria (it sounds as if the other airline is openly doing so). Perhaps a state-owned airline is required to be fair, and therefore they're using this deceptive work-around...

[Bluebear]

34. And let me guess, you think you have the right to see "hot women" when you fly.

[Divine Discontent]

48. oh, I'm sure that's pretty spot on! :( eom

[Divine Discontent]

47. you're serious, aren't you?

oblivious to the obvious. there's no requirement that they need to be THIN, fit, yes, and they should pass a test if they are TRULY needed to so fit to have a standard in the first place, but to approve of their sexist, practices of ageism & body-ism - is sad.

[Hekate]

7. This is very much like the requirements for American stewardesses until at least the late 70s...

Nothing new in this at all -- it's just very old-fashioned.

When my cousin became a stewardess in the 1960s there were requirements for gender, height, weight, age, marital status, and I don't know what all else. Any deviation meant automatic dismissal. By the time my cousin retired that was all over. She was much older, married, and had male colleagues. She still could have kept flying, but all the fun had gone out of it, much as it had for the passengers.

There was a cute book written about 1967 called "Coffee, Tea, or Me? The Uninhibited Memoirs of Two Airline Stewardesses" that will give you a flavor of the times.

Hekate

[pnwmom]

12. That's true. But the Indians who fly on jets aren't the rubes you may think

they are.

They expect women employees to be treated fairly, just as we do.

[Hekate]

30. Not saying they're rubes, just saying their country is not the US. We are not the world.

Our laws are not everyone else's laws.

H

[remember2000forever]

19. That Was Written By TWA Flight Attendants,

Boy, those days are over. Now Flight Attendants Are Nothing But Policemen.

[skepticscott]

28. And baggage handlers

and beverage servers. A tough, unglamorous (any more) thankless job that I don't envy them.

[Lasher]

10. Then and now.

National Airlines, 1970s



Pacific Southwes Airlines, 1970s



Hooters Air, 2006

Hooters Air went belly up in 2006.

[pnwmom]

13. I'm not sure they went belly up, exactly.

Looking at that picture, something else appears to be up -- at least to me.

:shrug:

[Lasher]

14. To be honest those are not actual flight attendants in the third picture.

There were 'regular' flight attendants on board. The Hooters ladies in the picture helped with serving and entertainment but were required to be seated below 10,000 feet.

[pnwmom]

15. I'm not sad that that silly concept didn't fly. n/t

[VP505]

40. Were they the ones responsible

for initiating new members into the mile high club?

[Lasher]

53. I wish I could confirm that from personal experience.

But alas, the airline is no more and I can only rely on rumor.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. At least they have

built in flotation devices

[pnwmom]

43. LOL. n/t

[skepticscott]

26. I'm surprised you didn't say

T*ts up

[wake.up.america]

29. Sagging profits for an airline with a once forward looking future.

[DUlover2909]

16. YAY hot chicks rock! hehe woohoo

Get me some peanuts honey. =P

[NJmaverick]

24. You will see this stuff coming to our Country, if McSame is some how elected

remember he abandoned his first wife for putting on weight after an auto accident

[iamjoy]

27. Yes, But That's Not Why

his reasons for abandoning his first wife may be more complicated than we realize. I think the story may imply it was her weight (and the gain was significant), but I just think it was a matter of two people dealing with these traumas they'd experienced and not having the fortitude to hold their marriage together through it. Of course, then he marries this trophy wife where the only thing fat she had was a bank account and it does make you wonder.

But, back to the original point. The reason we will see more of this here if McSame is elected is twofold. First, lax enforcement of EEOC. With little or no enforcement, companies will soon realize they can get away with discrimination and harassment. Also, because of what he will do to the Supreme Court. He has already promised to appoint more justices like Scalia. These so called "strict constructionists" do not believe it is the government's job to tell businesses who they can and can't hire and why. So, a lot of the progress we have made since the 1960's will be unraveled and reversed.

[treestar]

36. Skinny doesn't mean strong and athletic

I wouldn't think the anorexics I see at the gym I work out at would be much use in any strength-requiring endeavor.

[distantearlywarning]

57. I wouldn't qualify as a stewardess under these guidelines, because I'm too heavy.

But I once had to lift a bag into an overhead bin for a girl who undoubtably would have. She was too out of shape to do it herself.

:evilgrin:

[Buns_of_Fire]

37. Okay, so scratch "Flight Attendant" from the list of Dennis Hastert's future careers.

[rpannier]

56. I think the only career hastert has ahead of him is

Hot dog eating contestant

[Carnea]

51. What if one of the job requirements is attractiveness?

There are plenty of jobs in America that require attractiveness. (Television News Reader, salesperson at a high end boutique, tour guide. ect)

But of course we don't often like to admit this. We also don't like to admit that weight reduces attractiveness in many people’s eyes.

Stewardess used to be one of those jobs here in the states. When airlines dropped the attractiveness requirement (and the average age started to crawl into the forties and average temperament went from Playboy Bunny to Jail Warden.) many a male business flier cried fowl. (Sometimes on the editorial pages of USA Today).

I've traveled on overseas airlines and the attractive air hostess model is still in full force. American flights (With the exception of Jet Blue) are such torture now that honestly what the flight staff looks like is the least anyone’s complaints.

I think the airline has the right to hire the hostesses they feel improve the flying experience. It is a bit presumptuous of ourselves to impose our own cultural bugaboos on another culture especially when they simply emulate us from thirty years ago.

[XemaSab]

65. I think attractiveness is still a requirement

but it's just not subject to the same narrow metrics that it was 30 years ago.

In order to be a stewardess, you have to be "normal" or thin, you have to have neat and attractive hair, you have to have all your front teeth and they have to be fairly nice-looking, you can't have any scars or disfigurements, you can't be too old... in short, you can't make any passengers go "eew." :P

Whether these standards are official or unofficial, they're there.

[rpannier]

55. It's not the only state run airline that discriminates.

Korean Air won't hire any stewardesses who are over the age of 32.

Many government run airlines have restrictions on age, weight, etc

Governments around the world regularly discriminate in many facets of how they do business.

Here in Korea mandatory retirement is still 63 and that is unlikely to change in my lifetime.

[Nihil]

59. If only they'd say the same to some of the passengers ... (n/t)

:hide:

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Southwest Airlines charges large passengers if they take up more than one seat

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html

[Missy Vixen]

63. Wow, what a neat comment

I'll bet it made you feel good, didn't it?

Maybe they'll start testing for bigotry next.

Julie

[Nihil]

64. Never mind

If that's "bigotry" then you've been fortunate enough to
lead a pretty sheltered life. Congratulations - and I'm
genuinely sorry for having put a pebble in your path
yesterday with my comment.
:pals:

[TheProphet5]

62. wow, just wow