the man should pay the extra damn £20. Quit thinking everyone else should pay your way.

Comparing it to wheelchair works provided that they will ship multiple wheelchairs for free.

They probably only ship one for free. He should pay the damn money instead of whining and crying to the media.

Or perhaps don't fly with a budget airline where things are less likely to be given for free.

As usual, I agree with 2.

Uhhhh... no.

There are two key factors of air travel that affect the cost to the airline: weight and space. The airline demonstrated that it's willing to eat the extra cost of transporting one wheelchair. If his prosthetics weigh less than one wheelchair and take up less space, then charging more for them is discriminatory and arbitrary.

Of course, if the airline wasn't stupid enough to make the wheelchair allowance to begin with, there wouldn't be an issue.

um, yes. The wheelchair is a necessary item for the owner to get around.

The spare, extra, superfluous, pair of legs is not strictly necessary. Therefor the man should pay the few bucks.

Of course, you're assuming the prosthetics really are superfluous.

This man's argument that he wants to bring a spare pair in case one pair gets damaged is perfectly legitimate. Repairing a wheelchair is typically a matter of getting your hands on a wrench and a screwdriver. Prosthetic repair is considerably more involved, and it's not always easy to find a friendly neighborhood prosthetician when you're away from home.

And while I admit there's no indication this is the case here, there ARE amputees who do need two or three different prosthetics just to get through the day. An amputee's stump volume can change considerably over the course of a day, and the prosthetic that fits fine in the morning may be unbearably tight in the evening, so different prosthetics with different socket sizes are needed.

So how many sets of prosthetics should others pay for him to ship? 1, 2, 20? How many is "fair".

Will they give a man who needs multiple wheelchairs for different uses free space as well. If a wheelchair person needs a standard wheelchair, a racing wheelchair, a heavy-duty for outdoors use wheelchair, and a number of other special use wheelchairs which are required should all of them be given for free? Same with prosthetics. If he needed a pair for walking, a pair for running, a pair for hiking, a pair for rock-climbing, etc, etc should others pay for all of the sets he may need.

Obviously not. Just as obvious is the fact that comparing a 2nd set of prosthetics with a single wheelchair is not a accurate analogy.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

"Fair" would be the equivalent weight and/or space taken up by one wheelchair, which the airline has already said they'd allow for free.

The airline made no such claim to that effect. They said they allow one wheelchair for free. If they can fly one wheelchair for free, then they can fly two sets of artificial limbs, which in total weigh less and take up less space than one wheelchair. This is really the main focus of my argument, which you keep glossing over.

Put it this way: If the airline said "We allow disability aids up to x pounds or x cubic feet for free" then that is a fair standard that can be applied regardless of the nature of the disability or the equipment. But saying "You can have a wheelchair, but not an extra set of prosthetics"... that's arbitrary.

Fair 'nuff, but I'm right. ;)