Fatties bad for airline business in India

South African cabin crew who overindulged over the festive season have no reason to worry that their expanded girths may cost them their jobs — unlike their Indian counterparts.
London’s The Times News Service reported last week that state-owned Air India sacked 10 cabin crew staff over Christmas for putting on too much weight.
But local cabin crew carrying a few extra kilograms are unlikely to face a similar fate unless their weight interferes with their ability to work.
Air India’s decision followed a June high court ruling in that country which agreed with airline bosses that fat was bad for business and confirmed their right to fire overweight cabin crew.
The court accepted that cabin crew members’ looks could be considered an integral part of their personalities. It also rejected arguments that cabin crew, who were overweight but still fit, could perform as well as their thinner counterparts.
In comparison, South African airlines do not condemn their employees to a lifetime of lettuce leaves but do require them to be tall enough to easily reach the overhead compartments.
Local airlines Kulula.com and South African Airways require their cabin crew members to be at least 1.58m tall. British Airways and Kulula.com also impose a maximum height restriction.
“They can’t be taller than 1.83m as they would have to stoop in some parts of the plane, making it very uncomfortable for them for long hours at a time,” said Glenda Zvenyika, communications manager for Comair, operator of British Airways and Kulula.com.
But there is no need for taller and shorter hopefuls, with their hearts set on a career in the air, to despair.
They can apply to Mango, which takes staff from 1.5m, or 1Time Airline, which does not “have any specific physical requirements” according to chief executive officer Rodney James.
Chubbier South African air crew also have the protection of the constitution.
South African labour attorney Reynaud Daniels said although “bodily appearance” was not a listed ground for discrimination in the constitution, it could still be the basis for unfair discrimination.
11/01/09 Kim Hawkey/The Times, South Africa