This was in the Free Press yesterday:

Southwest's size policy draws complaints

Southwest Airlines is under fire for its policy of charging overweight
passengers for two tickets if they spill over into their neighbor's
seat. The airline says it is trying to provide a comfortable flight for
travelers seated next to large passengers. "We sell seats, and if you
consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said
Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman. Advocates for obese people are
outraged. "It's just discriminatory and it's mean-spirited," said Morgan
Downey, executive director of the American Obesity Association. "This is
singling out a group that's been very heavily stigmatized rather than
making some accommodations in their cabins." 


I can see the airline's perspective on this, but I suspect if they
persist they'll get sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and lose.

62 responses total.

Here's a can of worms...

How are they going to determine this, though?  My friend and I wear the same
size pants, but I'm 40 pounds heavier due to muscle and such.  Not everyone
is identically shaped, even if they're the same height and weight.

I don't really have to worry about this, as I've never "spilled over" into
the next seat, but I'm curious about the policy.

Can they charge extra for screaming kids who interrupt sleep?  How about a
surcharge for excessive perfume that causes an asthma attack?  Those affect
MY comfort.

(Yes, that was sarcasm...don't jump all over me yet...)

I think the airlines have a fine idea hear.  If someone is really taking
up most of a second seat so that someone else can't comfortably sit there,
then they need to block that unusable seat out.  On full aircraft,
charging for the use of that seat sounds reasonable. 

I don't see this as unfair or rude.

It wouldn't be a problem if they made the seats a reasonable size rather than
trying to fit as many as possible for as much profit as possible.

exactly.

i'm not overweight and i find them uncomfortably small. i can't imagine being
larger and having to endure it. (and don't get me started on the bump opn the
head rest that makes my head tilt forward, or the lack of room for people
taller than 5'1") i don't think they should design the seatd for the largest
person, but i do think it should be a little roomier than an average sized
person wedged in like a sardine.

i hope i get bumped up.

please please let me get bumped up...

And Southwest Airlines is colloquially known in these parts as "Southwest
Cattle Haulers" since they try to pack as many as possible into their planes.

This story really disturbs me, but I'm not sure why.

It's a can of worms, all right.  

To start with, what is being sold?  Passage for one person, or passage of an
amount of material?  

Well, most airlines do offer an accomodation for people who can't stand to
be in standard airline seats.  My dad wasn't fat but he was a 6 foot male and
as he got older he could no longer stand to sit in a fixed position for
several hours.  He needed room to be able to shift around.  So he had to fly
first class.

I don't think Southwest's planes are any more crowded than other airlines
planes (barring American and Midway Airlines, which both claim larger seats..
and I've flown Midway - they are bigger).

re 8 - affordability is a factor there.

The government has got to step in and stop forcing fat people to 
fly Southwest.

I still don't understand how they're going to determine who to charge, though.
If you order tickets online, there's no way of knowing how the seat will feel.
Are they going to ask for hip and waist measurements?

WEll, since my wife and I are both overwaight, we just need to sit beside each
other so we spill into each others space.  Also, if you sit on an exit window,
you get more space.

But mostly, the problem is, since 50% of the us popuklation is now overweight,
they will be discriminating against 50% of the population.

This response has been erased.

50% of the population is not sufficiently overweight to spill into the
neighboring seat.

Only in rare cases are people overweight for medical or pathological
psychology reasons. Mostly they just eat too much. I agree with Jamie.

Next thing you know the airlines are gonna charge for people that smell
bad or have a cultural proclivity for taking over the pilot seat and
flying into buildings.  I would think that given the current times 
when over half the US population indicates they are going to drive
to their vacation destination this summer the airlines would be glad
for the fare in the first place.  On the other hand, anyone who has
flown next to a fat body even in a wide body knows that although they
can usually wedge themselves into a single seat it ain't exactly
pleasant to sit next to them. It ain't a safety issue either, fat body
just probably burn longer.

I also don't think the airlines are targeting people who
are simply overweight here, but rather a very small 
percentage of the population who really are so large 
they don't fit in the seat.  And they aren't refusing to
fly them, just to charge for the space they require.

These passengers know who are and will catch on pretty quickly
to the fact they need to tell the res agents up-front of
their special needs.  And I suspect, except for a militant
few, most 400 pounders will understand and agree with 
this policy. 

The question that will come up, I'm sure, is whether
weighting 400 pounds qualifies as a disability under the
ADA.  If so, maybe charging for the additional
needed space won't be allowed, under law.

But I also agree with those who say coach is too cramped, 
especially when it's a looooong flight.

When do we get to talk about how to handle men who stake
claim on joint arm rests? ;-)

I would think that being overweight would count as an ADA diability if it's
because you have a medical problem or a mental pathology that's diagnosable.
"I eat too much" wouldn't qualify, I would think.
 
My sister in law is profoundly overweight, and as far as I know, she doesn't
claim any disabilities or complain that she's treated differently because of
her weight.

Re #9: Maybe so, but if they made the seats bigger then ticket prices would
go up for *everyone*.  You can't have it both ways.

Re #17: There have already been cases that decided that being significantly
overweight qualifies as a disability.  The case will revolve around what's a
"reasonable accommodation", probably.

This response has been erased.

(this is a policy that Southwest has had for over 20 years; the recent
publicity is because the company has decided to enforce it.  essentially,
if the flight is full, a seat belt extension is needed, and the arm rests
won't go down, Southwest will charge you for a second seat...  at the 
14-day discount rate.  if the flight isn't full, there's no charge.)

(it's an 18.75" cushion, which is about the size of the seat in which
I'm sitting now.  I consider it roomy, but I don't exactly have one of
the world's larger asses.  that said, the 18.75" size seems to be 
standard for all of the chairs in this room, so an airline seat of that
size, while perhaps "small" for some, doesn't seem unreasonable from
a standardization standpoint.)

(a simple geometry exercise suggests that a 54" waist would fit fine.)

(it would be interesting to know what accommodations Southwest makes
for other passengers, such as pregnant women or people in wheelchairs.)

54" waist?  Okay.  Good.  I'm way in the clear on that one.  :)  I thought
the seats were going to be ridiculously small (like, made for a 36" waist),
but if you're over 54"...well...  <shrug>  Sorry.

Hey, 54" isn't THAT big. I'm 42" and I'm usually called "pudgy."
 
#20> Some people are fat because of biological problems, not because they're
selfish self-centered pricks who can't put the doughnut down at the right
time. I'm one of those pricks. =}

Re #23: True, but while nearly everyone who's overweight *claims* it's a
metabolism problem, when people are actually tested only a small percentage
actually have a slower than average metabolism.

If someone has a 52 inch waist what do you think his or her upper arms
looks like?  Where does that go? 

This response has been erased.

re #25:  (in their lap, unless they buy a second seat...  or decide to
          hog the armrests.)  ;)

What about people who are just big?  I happen to be somewhat overweight, but
I could lose a hundred pounds and still not "fit" in an airline seat; my
shoulders are just too broad.  

#26> Fatso. Lose some weight, you pig.

This response has been erased.

It seems to me that there arent that many people who are so fat that 
they will require 2 seats. I mean I am really fat and when I fly, I 
dont require 2 seats. I am probably fat enough to make Mary Remmers 
miserable on a flight but then, she is no 'skinny minny' either. But, I 
am offended by Southwest's policy anyway so as long as they still have 
this policy, I will not fly on their airline. I hope others do the 
same. I hope Southwest loses money due to the bad publicity they get 
over this. It would serve them right for trying to save a few hundred 
bucks on those rare times someone would need two seats. I also hope 
that airlines that provide larger seats in coach (like Midwest Express) 
enjoy greater success than the discount airlines. 

The policy is going to be enforced on subjective grounds.
If you can't get your seatbelt fastened using but one
seatbelt extender then the rule applies to you.

I think this sounds fair, to all involved.

How is "if you can't get your seatbelt fastened using but one seatbelt
extender" a subjective rule? That sounds fairly objective, actually... the
only subjective element is how much people are willing to "suck it in" in
order to not have the rule apply, but that's not really subjective so much
as personal choice (i.e., comfortable vs. economical).

(a person can only "suck it in" so far, too...  and then there's the
armrest test.)  ;)

(sure, my point was, two people could have the same waist size, and because
one is willing to put up with a tight seatbelt and the other isn't, the first
one might qualify and the second one wouldn't)

I meant objective but misspoke.

Re #21:  So, if your girth makes Southwest fly with you occupying
a second seat that they could have sold (because the flight was
full), you have to pay for the seat.  Sounds fair to me.

Sure, it is fair. It is also fair for people to boycott the airline 
because of this policy. I mean come on, how much money were they really 
losing because of this? How many people per year do you suppose this 
policy will apply to? Hardly anyone. I am more fat than most people. I 
am probably in the 90% percentile for fatness and this policy doesnt 
even come close to effecting me. They suck for enforcing it and they 
deserve any bad press they get for this. 

Up until I heard about this, Southwest had a good reputation in my 
mind. I have flown Southwest and would have flown them again because 
their fares are so low. I think I'll skip them from now on though. And 
you know what, when I brought this subject up at a party the other 
night, a lot of other folks said the same thing. Plus it sparked a 
discussion about what people really want on a plane which is more room. 
If they made the seats bigger or didnt charge 4x as much for first 
class seats, people would be happier. I know I would be happy to pay 
1.5 times as much for a seat that was a little bit larger. My fingers 
are totally crossed that Midwest Express will do better and will start 
flying from Detroit Metro Airport. 

(Their fares are so low because they don't give away seats, in part...)
 
I rarely have a choice of what to fly. Domestically, it's Northworst. So I
really don't care...

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss