Air hostesses sacked for being overweight heffers

Xavi6

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24880639-23349,00.html

Indian airline hostesses fired for being too fat

CALL it a heavy defeat: 10 air hostesses employed by Air India have been dismissed for being too fat to fly.

The state-owned carrier handed the staff their papers over Christmas after they failed to slim down to meet company weight restrictions, which are calculated according to height and age. The cabin crew members had been grounded for months after losing a landmark legal battle in June.

Sheila Joshi, 51, an Air India hostess with 27 years' service who lodged an unsuccessful petition with the Indian High Court to declare the weight policy unconstitutional, said: "It is incredibly upsetting that working women are being targeted. This is not a modelling job; we are not working a catwalk."

Ms Joshi, who at 1.6m can weigh a maximum of 63.5kg under Air India's rules, went on a diet and managed to survive the cut by shedding 2.25kg when the airline tightened its rules two years ago.

But for those who lost the battle of the bulge, there was no leniency. "Now, if you are just 10 grams over, it's goodbye," Ms Joshi said. "It's ridiculous: weight is not an infectious disease."

The airline's stance is likely to surprise many in India, a country with a rich history of voluptuous Bollywood sirens, and labour laws that make dismissing public sector staff all but impossible.

In October, after suffering massive losses in a dire market, Jet Airways, India's largest private-sector airline, shocked the nation by dismissing 1900 hostesses. The next day, after protests, a public outcry and a threat from an extremist political party to ban its aircraft from Mumbai, it took them all back.

In June, the High Court deemed that flabby air crew made for bad business and that employees' physiques might be deemed an integral art of their "personality".

It also dismissed claims that chubby-but-fit staff were as able to carry out their duties as their skinny peers.

Spelling out the limits of the law, judges AK Sikri and JRMidha added: "There has been much debate about skinny bodies vis-a-vis healthy bodies, but there is no scope for any debate on overweight people."

The ruling gave a boost to a new breed of Indian airline that aims to entice travellers with promises of svelte cabin crew members but is struggling to survive as passenger numbers plummet in India amid an economic downturn.

The tactic has been embraced most fervently by Vijay Mallya, the flamboyant liquor tycoon who owns the upmarket airline Kingfisher and regularly speaks about how he, personally, vets each member of staff.

Ms Joshi, who believes a hostess should be able to bank on a job for life, is deeply unimpressed by what she sees as a short-sighted strategy.

"Kingfisher was founded four years ago," she said. "That means its cabin crew are all in their 20s. Let's see how much they weigh in 20 years."

I've highlighted some important bits.

1.6m is 5ft 2 and a half inches and 63.5kgs is 10 stone. Hardly 'fat' is it?

Also, I can't believe a High Court ruled that this policy is acceptable, especially given how stringent India's work place laws generally are.


Should people's jobs be at risk if they are dealing directly with the public and are deemed too heavy by their employer?

Lord Nikon

Proper order

monkeyfudge

I think BMI standards are different for Asians. So she would technically be overweight.

seanybiker

Well we all know they want tall skinny ones so no suprise.

monosharp

Thats tame in comparison to here (korea).

The airlines here (well at least the main one, korea air) holds beauty competitions every year to choose air hostesses .. and ... well it works.

My Australian mate put it into terms anyone can understood. He said "mate, I fell in love 10 different times on the flight over".

I on the other hand flew with Lufthansa and ..... well lets just say that the view was not as agreeable.

Of course its fair. Sorry girls, either meet the requirements for the job or bugger off.

Craft25

Well thats hardly fat alright.. i thought she was clogging up the aisles and addind a few grand extra to the fuel bill :eek:.. but if its just cos she's not hot any more its a bit tough... they should have to pay them off if they wanna retire them.. can i change my vote??

pickarooney

Now all we need is someone to take the plunge and fire air hostesses for being mouthy cows.

i71jskz5xu42pb

I thought cows were sacred in India?

ronbyrne2005

Fat Irish Cows, Wouldnt get that in Eastern Europe, Bla Bla Bla.:pac:

monkeyfudge

Koa Rich Tomcat wrote: »

I thought cows were sacred in India?

Sacred is a Christian concept.

Feelgood

Mmmmm fat Indian chicks make me wanna eat naan bread..

Overheal

Airplanes = tight spaces. Who wants to try and get past a heffer serving tea on their way to the gents?'

Next thing you know NASA will be getting blamed for its high standards of admittance

the point is shes in a job where her weight becomes a factor not just for space, but for weight and fuel economy. if youre carrying around an extra stone for X number of air miles the difference in cost starts to show up on paper.

Berty

Who wants to be served by a fat ass on a flight trying to tell you there are non panini's left(aer lingus usual story).

I know why there are none left "You ate them fat ar*e!!!!"

Highsider

can't see the problem myself. Fatties out

i71jskz5xu42pb

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Sacred is a Christian concept.

That's really interesting. No, really.

Abi

monosharp wrote: »

Thats tame in comparison to here (korea).

The airlines here (well at least the main one, korea air) holds beauty competitions every year to choose air hostesses .. and ... well it works.

My Australian mate put it into terms anyone can understood. He said "mate, I fell in love 10 different times on the flight over".

I on the other hand flew with Lufthansa and ..... well lets just say that the view was not as agreeable.

Of course its fair. Sorry girls, either meet the requirements for the job or bugger off.

That is ridiculous. Its one thing to have a weight restriction, but beauty competions?

I agree with the weight matter from the practical angle, not because Id be put off my sandwich.

No employer should be allowed to recruit women by looks. Where does that end?

CreepingDeath

Abigayle wrote: »

No employer should be allowed to recruit women by looks. Where does that end?

Well it would ruin the modelling industry for a start.

Beauty is valued and having beautiful women around is a status symbol.
How many directors choose PA's who look like bulldogs ?
People react better to pretty people, so receptionists and the like benefit from looks. It gives a company a better public image.

So, you can't be too naive about the value of looks and employer preference.

thebman

Abigayle wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Its one thing to have a weight restriction, but beauty competions?

I agree with the weight matter from the practical angle, not because Id be put off my sandwich.

No employer should be allowed to recruit women by looks. Where does that end?

giggity, giggity, goo

Abi

CreepingDeath wrote: »

People react better to pretty people

Where will that one end? Women getting face and tit surgery to have the edge over other candidates for a job? No wonder women have looks issues. Then men get to tell them that they are mentalists for it.

I dont know.. :-/

Monkey61

Sure most airlines have weight limits for air hostesses, so it's not exactly surprising. Extra weight = extra fuel and so forth. It's just a condition of the job. And 10st for 5'2" is heavy! It would definitely impact one's ability to do one's job.

What I would find more offensive is the ridiculous uniforms (that always call to mind an image of an organ grinder's monkey) and the fact that women are forced to wear make up. Antiquated to say the least. At least the weight thing is a health, productivity and financial concern.

Tipsy Mac

I don't think this is an extra fuel cost or appearance issue, it's simply a practical and safety one, somebody well overweight is not suited to working in a confined space like the aisle of a plane, if they like serving food from a trolley they should get a job on the ground in a restaurant or else lose a few pounds.

CreepingDeath

Abigayle wrote: »

Where will that one end? Women getting face and tit surgery to have the edge over other candidates for a job?
No wonder women have looks issues. Then men get to tell them that they are mentalists for it.

I dont know.. :-/

Where will it end ? Sounds like you're implying that it is esculating out of control, it isn't. Asia has a huge labour market, so job competition is much higher.

You can't go blaming "the system" for Irish womens looks issues.
In fact, because women compete against each other for men, most of it is driven by female competition.
Next time you go for a night out, you are completely free to dress down, not wear make-up etc to avoid perpetuating the problem.

Fizman

Xavi6 wrote: »

Should people's jobs be at risk if they are dealing directly with the public and are deemed too heavy by their employer?

Jail time tbh.

That would de-gland her. :pac:

stovelid

Overheal wrote: »

the point is shes in a job where her weight becomes a factor not just for space, but for weight and fuel economy. if youre carrying around an extra stone for X number of air miles the difference in cost starts to show up on paper.

Really?

So you reckon they'd have an equal problem with male pilots being fat?

Abi

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Sounds like you're implying that it is esculating out of control

No. An exaggeration on your part, not mine.

I wasnt clear about the divide in attitudes, and was speaking hypothetically. I was also curious as to how far would those women go to get the job?

And with regards to Irish women, they bring it on themselves line- just doesnt wash.

Seeing as you brought make up into it, I couldnt care less if I went without. Dont think its fair to say they do wear it to impress men, but given the nature of this thread alone- women know all too well that men pass judgement.

Rovi

<farmer mode>
Heifer
</farmer mode>


Carry on...

Kintarō Hattori

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Fat Irish Cows, Wouldnt get that in Eastern Europe, Bla Bla Bla.:pac:

Where ya going with this? It's about an indian airline. Did you read the first post?

humanji

stovelid wrote: »

Really?

So you reckon they'd have an equal problem with male pilots being fat?

They do, don't they? I'm pretty sure weight and height restrictions go across the board for all flight crew.

CreepingDeath

Abigayle wrote: »

women know all too well that men pass judgement.

Women pass as much judgement, you can't take the moral high ground for that. It's called sexual selection. Attract the best mate you can. Both genders do it.

Only difference is that women take other factors into consideration, not just looks, but all the other factors that make them good husband material.

If you're just restricting this debate to interview selection, then please tell me whereabouts in Ireland this happens ?
Work experience, qualifications and character play a much bigger part in the interview process.

doolox

The figures give a BMI of 24.8. Anything over 25 is regarded as overweight by the medical community, anything over 30 is obese.
This is another example of how employers power needs a counter balancing power of strong government, public opinion and trade union activism to keep jobs reasonably secure.
In other words if people can dump on you with impunity, some will.

Compak

doolox wrote: »

The figures give a BMI of 24.8. Anything over 25 is regarded as overweight by the medical community, anything over 30 is obese.
This is another example of how employers power needs a counter balancing power of strong government, public opinion and trade union activism to keep jobs reasonably secure.
In other words if people can dump on you with impunity, some will.

For Asians medical community use a BMI of 23 for overweight so the airline is actually quite generous and those fired approaching obesity.
Disgraceful for a job with such confined areas and the danger it brings

Terry

monkeyfudge wrote: »

I think BMI standards are different for Asians. So she would technically be overweight.

Isn't that due to Asians being more prone to adult diabetes?

I remember a documentary once which had something about Asians not being as used to sugar as the rest of the world and this leads to more cases of adult or type 2 diabetes. I wasn't paying too much attention though.

Sheila Joshi, 51, an Air India hostess with 27 years' service who lodged an unsuccessful petition with the Indian High Court to declare the weight policy unconstitutional, said: "It is incredibly upsetting that working women are being targeted. This is not a modelling job; we are not working a catwalk."

Is there anywhere in the world that the Irish haven't had an impact?

5' 2" and 10 stone?
That's not too heavy.

short circuit

So none of the air hostesses had an issue when they signed a contract which stipulated that you had to maintain a certain weight for your height ... and no one is still questioning the presence of that statement in the contract.

So the issue is, should employers be allowed to have what could potentially be considered discriminatory in a contract ....

But if you have already signed said contract ... I can't see how you can dispute it in court when you get fired for breaking the contract

Dudess

Xavi6 wrote: »

1.6m is 5ft 2 and a half inches and 63.5kgs is 10 stone. Hardly 'fat' is it?

It is actually overweight for a woman of that height - considerably so in some cases, as nine stone, or even less, would be a healthy weight for someone of that height. Of course it depends on body composition too. BMI is a load of arse (hur hur) frankly. A woman could be 5ft 5 and 10 and a half stone and generally slim but with a lardy stomach on her, which is very high-risk in terms of diabetes. Another woman could be 5ft 5 and 12 stone, which is considerably overweight, yet all her weight could be on her ass, hips and thighs and she might have a flat stomach/small waist, putting her less at risk healthwise than the first woman.
And a male weightlifter of 18 stone - well all that weight is muscle, not fat, yet the BMI would put him in the overweight category.
Hip to waist ratio is a better gauge.

Berty wrote: »

Who wants to be served by a fat ass on a flight trying to tell you there are non panini's left(aer lingus usual story).

I know why there are none left "You ate them fat ar*e!!!!"

You often poke fun at overweight females... and you've often mentioned you're overweight yourself. Does it help make you feel better?

As for the case in question - image (of females especially) is important in some industries. It's sh1tty that one gender is assessed so much on the basis of their looks but it makes commercial sense.

towel401

I wonder if ryanair have a similar policy to save fuel

Zangetsu

And here's me thinkin turbulence was down to air pressure...

chickenhawk

short circuit wrote: »

So the issue is, should employers be allowed to have what could potentially be considered discriminatory in a contract ....

Yes as long as they can prove it will affect customer service, health and safety and costs. Overweight people are more likely to develop deep vein thrombosis, less able to react in an accident and having their hips bump against your shoulder on their way down the aisle is bad for customer service.

Also it takes more fuel to carry more weight.

Also pilots want to shag hot air hostesses.

Gummy Panda

where is the pics?

Compak

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

Isn't that due to Asians being more prone to adult diabetes?



5' 2" and 10 stone?
That's not too heavy.

I believe its due to their genetics with a smaller frame and they hold less muscle mass, therfore for the average sedentary person they would have more fat than a european and so need a lower bmi.

5'2 for 10 stone is pretty heavy indeed

javaboy

As long as they enforce a similar policy for passengers who weigh more than me and my luggage combined, I have no issue with this. That's if it's a fuel thing.

If it's an image thing, I know it sounds harsh but why shouldn't the airline be allowed implement rules like this? If looking a certain way or being a certain weight is part of the job requirements and clearly stated in the contract, then I don't see what's wrong with it.

Biggins

Firstly. its India (that not to say, it couldn't happen elsewhere) where replacments are much cheaper to get. Heck, I seen a tv news report somewhere that some airport porters actually pay the management of the airport to work in some areas, hoping to make a living from bigger customer tips... but back to topic...

Secondly, Its is a bit unfair as body glands work at different consumption and effectiveness rates. So to simply apply a broad brush and sack anyone that is over weight slightly might be easly construed as a tad too much of an over reaction.

If they had the shape of Mary Harney (who also has medical body problems by the way) many could understand the airlines concern for a number of reasons including health but to treat what is probably some lovely looking girls a tad too harsh, is unfortunate.

00112984

Feelgood wrote: »

Mmmmm fat Indian chicks make me wanna eat naan bread..

YORE NAAN?