The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:04 AM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Southwest Airlines "Customer of Size" Policy - Is it fair?

Seems fair to me. What do you think?

Customer of Size Q&A
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:13 AM
Airman Doors, USAF Airman Doors, USAF is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,851
I've always thought that it was a good policy.

If I recall correctly, this topic turned into one hell of a fight a while back. Unfortunately, I can't remember the thread. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. Needless to say, this has been a bone of contention for some time now.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:16 AM
Neptunian Slug Neptunian Slug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
Seems fair to me. What do you think?

Customer of Size Q&A
Why not? If you need to take up a second seat, you should pay for it.

Of course, I would still rather sit next to the Bride of Jabba than someone's screaming kids. But you can't have it all.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:17 AM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Fair. I spent a terrible flight being *sat on* by encroaching fat from someone's thighs/ass. Sadly, it was also a hot day and they were quite sweaty.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:44 AM
Misnomer Misnomer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,460
Totally fair (and I'm fat -- though I only take up one seat).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:36 AM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I'm morbidly obese, and it seems fair to me.
Coincidentally, I've never had a problem with "putting the armrests down", but I am profoundly uncomfortable on airplanes.
It strikes me that people who can't pass the armrest test must be not only morbidly obese but in the "very morbidly obese" category. 500 lbs, not 300.
All planes I've ever been on had fixed armrests in the section I was in, so I'm rather puzzled.
This policy makes it sound like you can pay for a second seat and then put the armrest up to use two seats worth of space. Am I misremembering my last couple of plane flights?
In any case, I have chosen to discontinue my usage of commercial aviation. I am nearly phobic about lines and waiting, and airports and planes are not my scene. I don't like being cramped in my seat, and lack the money for multiple seats or first class.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:53 AM
TellMeI'mNotCrazy TellMeI'mNotCrazy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
To Mr. Slant's question, a vast majority of planes I've been on have had the inside armrests adjustable. The ones on the aisle usually are not.

I think it's completely fair. Especially considering that they'll refund your money if the extra seat wouldn't have sold anyway. One person taking up two seats means there's one less passenger that can ride a fully booked plane, and represents a loss to the carrier. Only reasonable that the customer causing the situation should have to pay the extra - and discounted - fare.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-08-2006, 03:00 AM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Yes -- especially since there's a refund forthcoming if the extra seat isn't actually required by another person.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-08-2006, 03:07 AM
TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,111
I had no idea about the refund policy until I read this FAQ. I previously thought it was a fair policy, but now I don't see how anybody can claim that it's unfair on any grounds.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-08-2006, 03:51 AM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
VCO3,
I would imagine that persons disagreeing with this policy feel that society should socialize the cost of added tickets due to obesity rather than require individuals to foot their own bills.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-08-2006, 04:45 AM
FisherQueen FisherQueen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
The question is, when you buy a plane ticket, what are you buying?

If you're buying a seat, then it's perfectly reasonable to pay for the seats you'll use.

If you're buying transportation from point A to point B, then it's an unreasonable policy.

So, has the nature of transportation sale been codified anywhere? Are travellers paying for the seat, or paying for the transport? Are accomodations and adaptations made for other travellers who require a little extra space (like, for example, wheelchair users who need to park a way-larger-than-carryon wheelchair) for no additional cost, or are those travellers also expected to pay for their extra space?

If everyone who needs accomodations made in their travel is expected to pay for those accomodations, then it's a fair policy.

If only the obese are charged extra to accomodate their needs, then the policy is discrimination.

Right?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-08-2006, 05:21 AM
TellMeI'mNotCrazy TellMeI'mNotCrazy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
I think it's mainly in terms of seats. You pay for your seat on the plane. Accounted for with that seat are the expenses of fuel, storage, weight, etc. Toddlers get a substantially discounted fare if they sit on their parent's lap because they're not taking up a seat on the plane. As they say in the link, people who want a seat for their guitar have to pay a price for it. If you want a seat for your 2 year old, you have to pay a price for that as well. If you want to bring more luggage than the allowance, you have to pay for it.

If they weighed people and charged accordingly, then it would be discriminatory. If they said "You can only take a total of 200 pounds onto the plane, including your body weight, then that could be discriminatory. But saying "If you take up more than one seat, we can't sell that seat to someone else," that's not discriminatory, it's fair.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-08-2006, 06:03 AM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Actually, if they decided to charge on a per pound basis, I couldn't bitch about that either.
If I tried to say I should be able to ship a package containing 400 pounds worth of widgets via Fedex for the same price you can ship 200 pounds for, everyone would consider that reasonable.
Given the way their business model operates, though, if they wanted to stop charging per seat, the best way to do it would be to charge per butt inch and then stick everyone on benches. But that would suck even worse, so the per seat thing seems like our option.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-08-2006, 09:53 AM
Hakuna Matata Hakuna Matata is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: here below that poster
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherQueen
The question is, when you buy a plane ticket, what are you buying?

If you're buying a seat, then it's perfectly reasonable to pay for the seats you'll use.

If you're buying transportation from point A to point B, then it's an unreasonable policy.

From the Q&A page quoted above:

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) preceded the ADA, and Congress excluded air carriers and other air transportation services from the scope of ADA. As regulated under 14 CFR 382.38 Seating accommodations (i) "Carriers are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased."

So I would say you are buying the seat.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-08-2006, 10:08 AM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 10,962
What if 2 unrelated people bought an extra seat, and the plane was not sold out.....by one seat.

First come, first get refund?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-08-2006, 10:17 AM
Brainiac4 Brainiac4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla
What if 2 unrelated people bought an extra seat, and the plane was not sold out.....by one seat.

First come, first get refund?
From the wording of the policy, both would get refunds. Bear in mind that the plane in that circumstance actually had 3 fewer passengers on it than the number of seats, as both of the "large" passengers purchased second seats.

300 seats, 297 passengers purchasing 299 seats... refunds all around.

The same would apply if all of the passengers were "large," I think. 300 seats, 149 passengers purchase 298 seats, everybody gets a refund.

I think it's a good policy.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-08-2006, 10:34 AM
hajario hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 14,758
I have several hundred thousand air miles under my belt and I can only remember one time where I was inconvenienced by a large person. I don't think that the issue comes up very often. That said, it's a fair policy.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-08-2006, 11:03 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 14,125
Fisher Queen -- Special-needs passengers who pose a requirement for additional equipment/space beyond that normally aboard DO get charged differently (e.g. people requiring O2 on demand need to rent an airline-approved rig). It depends on the airline and often on the aircraft as well. A person's own wheelchair will normally be checked, sometimes at the gate, sometimes with the rest of the luggage; the passenger will be boarded/deplaned on the airline's wheelchair, which stays at the airport.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-08-2006, 12:16 PM
UntouchedTakeaway UntouchedTakeaway is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
Seems fair to me. What do you think?

Customer of Size Q&A

As a former person of (greater) size (than I am now), I have no problem with this policy.

What I *do* have a problem with is how it's administered - I've read first-hand accounts of people being hustled off of planes after being seated; people being loudly and aggressively being informed they have to buy a second seat, etc. Things like this should be done with a minimal amount of fanfare and BEFORE someone is on the plane.

I don't see how the majority of people are EVER comfortable on a flight - and that includes tall people I'm 5'10" myself and even without the added weight, I find airplane travel an annoyance at best.

VCNJ~
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:15 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veuve_ClicquotNJ
I don't see how the majority of people are EVER comfortable on a flight
The majority of first-class passengers are probably comfortable (though the pocketbooks of those who paid for the tickets may be less so).

My view is that coach-class air travel is still an amazing bargain and astonishingly safe. Expecting it also to be elegant and comfortable is unrealistic.

But being denied full use of the (already rather minimal) seat you paid for isn't right. So I support Southwest's policy.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:26 PM
GorillaMan GorillaMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Allowing obese people to encroach onto other passengers is more than about customer service - the airline can be liable for injuries sustained, and at least one has been taken to court in such a situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2346319.stm
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:34 PM
Millit the Frail Millit the Frail is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
I support it. If you don't like it, don't fly. Or better yet, book your flight at a date and time when the plane will be les full so that you'll get your refund.

A related question: do you think something like this is an incentive for very obese people to lose weight? I don't mean to trivialize the difficulty of losing weight--trust me, I know it's one of the hardest things a person can do. But is there anyone who puts in the hard work and time and willpower to drop down to a healthy weight so that they can fit into things built for an average-sized adult? Airplane seats, movie theater seats, amusement park rides, etc. are things I wouldn't want to miss out on. If Southwest's policy encourages some people to reclaim their right to those things (and regain their health and self-confidence too), then I'm all the more in support.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:06 PM
Padeye Padeye is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ, US
Posts: 7,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veuve_ClicquotNJ
What I *do* have a problem with is how it's administered - I've read first-hand accounts of people being hustled off of planes after being seated; people being loudly and aggressively being informed they have to buy a second seat, etc. Things like this should be done with a minimal amount of fanfare and BEFORE someone is on the plane.
That hasn't been my experience. I fly for business virtually every week and from last September to the end of the year virtually al lof it was on Southwest. FWIW I am not a person of size. I'm a huge fat bastard. I recently tipped the scales at 400lb. That has to change but is an entirely separate topic.

I can lower a coach seat armrest around my ass but in most cases the person next to me has said I can raise it if I want. I need to use a seatbelt extender and in all cases the crew has been discreet and courteous.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:08 PM
jasonh300 jasonh300 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Why don't the airlines charge just like UPS and FedEx charge? Your fare should be based on your weight and the weight of your luggage. And if the package is oversized (be it luggage or passenger), you pay an extra fee.

Hell, I'm 140 lbs. soaking wet...I could travel the world with no luggage for next to nothing!

There are wider seats available, usually in 1st class. If you're going to make the over-sized person pay extra, why not just give them discounted first class seating where they'll still fit into one seat, but compensate them by letting them have the first class extras? Most of the flights I"ve been on are underbooked in first class anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-08-2006, 03:45 PM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF
I've always thought that it was a good policy.

If I recall correctly, this topic turned into one hell of a fight a while back. Unfortunately, I can't remember the thread. Or maybe I'm just imagining it.
Definitely not imagining it.

Airlines charging extra for "large" fliers (2002)

Your fat is spilling into my seat (2003)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-08-2006, 04:04 PM
levdrakon levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
I think it's more or less fair and legal, but I'm not yet sure it's moral, or ethical, or polite.

Personally I'd rather be squished between two large people than be on the same plane with even one screaming infant. Large people make nice headrests when I've had too many Bloody Marys and pass out because I hate long flights.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-08-2006, 04:44 PM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Well, I'm all for charging extra for screaming infants as well. Sadly, it's a little harder to justify as a simple business expense.

Seriously, though, when you buy a plane ticket, you're clearly paying for a seat, as opposed to simple transportation. Airlines don't sell standing room. They won't let you fly cargo. And if you take up more than one seat, that's a seat they can't sell to someone else, ergo, you should pay for it, if the plane is sold out.

Personally, I'd like to see this policy extended further into the world. You wanna park your Expedition? You pay for the two spots it occupies. You wanna walk busy city streets with a golf umbrella? Well... okay, I can't see an easy way to charge for it. So people should just be allowed to kick you, once you fold it up and they can get close enough.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-08-2006, 04:46 PM
Corrvin Corrvin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonh300
There are wider seats available, usually in 1st class. If you're going to make the over-sized person pay extra, why not just give them discounted first class seating where they'll still fit into one seat, but compensate them by letting them have the first class extras? Most of the flights I"ve been on are underbooked in first class anyway.
Southwest doesn't have first class seats, though.

However, I'm 6' tall and about 225-230; I flew Southwest twice last autumn, on one occasion with my 6'4" boyfriend who is about the same proportionate size I am. Neither one of us had any problems fitting into their seats; legroom was much more comfortable on the exit row, but no problems even when we didn't sit there.

I could probably weigh another 50 or so pounds and still fit COMFORTABLY into their seats (at least, assuming I had pants that fit. Tight pants are my nemesis since I've put on some weight).

Corr
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-08-2006, 07:01 PM
Misnomer Misnomer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millit the Frail
A related question: do you think something like this is an incentive for very obese people to lose weight?
Frankly, no. I don't think that the hugely obese need an airline policy to remind them of their size and the limitations it imposes: if the ability to fit in airline seats, movie theatre seats, and amusement park rides were enough of a concern to prompt someone to lose weight, they wouldn't have gotten that large to begin with. Not to say that it isn't a benefit of losing weight, and therefore could very well be part of the goal, but in and of itself it's no incentive. IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon
Personally I'd rather be squished between two large people than be on the same plane with even one screaming infant. Large people make nice headrests when I've had too many Bloody Marys and pass out because I hate long flights.
I think that the large people would rather pay for a second seat than be used as your drunken headrest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
Personally, I'd like to see this policy extended further into the world. You wanna park your Expedition? You pay for the two spots it occupies. You wanna walk busy city streets with a golf umbrella? Well... okay, I can't see an easy way to charge for it. So people should just be allowed to kick you, once you fold it up and they can get close enough.
Nothing to add, really, I just want to say that I've admired and agreed with every post I've seen of yours. I hope that you decide to stick around at the end of your trial membership.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-08-2006, 07:09 PM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
You wanna walk busy city streets with a golf umbrella? Well... okay, I can't see an easy way to charge for it. So people should just be allowed to kick you, once you fold it up and they can get close enough.
Single biggest pet peeve of mine.

I live in Vancouver, where it's a serious issue. The faintest little shower and suddenly the sidewalks downtown are unnavigable. Argh! All that's missing from some of these buffoons' brollies is microbrewery logos.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-08-2006, 07:14 PM
delphica delphica is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
These policies always make me wonder if you could buy two seats just for the heck of it. Southwest makes a point of saying that two of their seats are less money than a first class seat on another airline, so if you had money to burn, would Southwest let you buy two seats just to spread out and enjoy the extra room?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-08-2006, 07:44 PM
SnakesCatLady SnakesCatLady is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
I think it's a fair policy, and I'm not a small person. I fit in my seat at hockey games, but there isn't room for anyone else! There's a woman who often buys the seat next to mine and it squicks me out to have her thighs rubbing against mine.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:09 PM
vivalostwages vivalostwages is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lower half of CA
Posts: 13,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by delphica
These policies always make me wonder if you could buy two seats just for the heck of it. Southwest makes a point of saying that two of their seats are less money than a first class seat on another airline, so if you had money to burn, would Southwest let you buy two seats just to spread out and enjoy the extra room?
Hey, that's not a bad idea! I'm not obese, but I get restless legs, so whenever I'm at the movies in a newer theater, I make sure to flip up the armrest so I can sprawl and wiggle and move around with two seats' leeway.
__________________
"This isn't Wall Street; this is Hell! We have a little something called integrity." --Crowley, Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-09-2006, 05:42 AM
UntouchedTakeaway UntouchedTakeaway is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padeye
That hasn't been my experience. I fly for business virtually every week and from last September to the end of the year virtually al lof it was on Southwest. FWIW I am not a person of size. I'm a huge fat bastard. I recently tipped the scales at 400lb. That has to change but is an entirely separate topic.

I can lower a coach seat armrest around my ass but in most cases the person next to me has said I can raise it if I want. I need to use a seatbelt extender and in all cases the crew has been discreet and courteous.
Your experience has been my personal experience as well. I'm also the type of person that when I was 334 pounds, I would have inquired before boarding as to whether or not I'd be required to purchase a 2nd seat.

I actually *own* a seatbelt extender given to me by a flight attendant. She quietly gave it to me when I asked for it, and when I attempted to give it back at the end of the flight insisted I keep it.

VCNJ~
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-09-2006, 06:40 AM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
I weigh less than 100lbs, and my baggage allowance is the same as the next guy, who weighs 400lbs.

Should I get to bring more luggage because I'm thinner? Nope.
Should he have to buy 2 seats if he can't fit in one? Yes.

It's not discrimination, just like it's not discrimation that the luggage allowance is the same for everyone.

Of course, I know of flights in Papua New Guinea where the plane is so small, and with only so much fuel onboard, that the passengers and their luggage are weighed together and you pay by the lb...anyone over the limit can't fly unless the plane as a whole weighs less than a certain amount.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-09-2006, 07:39 AM
Chanteuse Chanteuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veuve_ClicquotNJ
As a former person of (greater) size (than I am now), I have no problem with this policy.

What I *do* have a problem with is how it's administered - I've read first-hand accounts of people being hustled off of planes after being seated; people being loudly and aggressively being informed they have to buy a second seat, etc. Things like this should be done with a minimal amount of fanfare and BEFORE someone is on the plane.

I don't see how the majority of people are EVER comfortable on a flight - and that includes tall people I'm 5'10" myself and even without the added weight, I find airplane travel an annoyance at best.

VCNJ~
This would be a crappy way to handle the situation, I agree. I'm sure that's why SW encourages people who may encounter this need to preboard. That way, if a second seat is needed, it'll be available (it would be mortifying to have to ask someone to move so I could purchase a second seat), and it'll be a less public way to deal with it.

It's a sad fact that nothing will keep the situation from being embarrassing or painful to a degree, even if handled appropriately (I'm morbidly obese, so this I understand all too well.). Still, it simply isn't fair to ask a planeload of people to suck it up and be cramped and uncomfortable just so that I can avoid the emotional consequences of my own actions.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:19 AM
PookahMacPhellimey PookahMacPhellimey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
I'm actually undecided.

A friend of mine once saw an airline charging someone excess bagage because they needed a heavy oxygen tank and breathing apparatus because they were very ill. She thought this was rude and unfair and I would agree. Most airlines (though not this one) will charge a small bit extra to other passengers to accomodate for this kind of thing and I'm happy to pay this charge. The same goes for passengers in wheelchairs.

Now with obesity the trouble is that it is hard to define whether or not someone's weight is "their fault". I think there's a whole spectrum ranging from medical reasons completely beyond someone's control to someone who just chooses to eat lots and not exercise with all kinds of shades of grey in between.

I would actually tend to say that other passengers share the costs, even if many people who made their beds and should lie in them get lucky too, so that genuinely blameless people aren't made to suffer. Then again, I can see why airlines and/or the general population aren't willing to do this.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:28 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Slant
I'm morbidly obese, and it seems fair to me.
Coincidentally, I've never had a problem with "putting the armrests down", but I am profoundly uncomfortable on airplanes.
It strikes me that people who can't pass the armrest test must be not only morbidly obese but in the "very morbidly obese" category. 500 lbs, not 300.
It's not even 300. I came real close to crossing the line when my weight ballooned up to 275. I had to work to get my butt into one of those torture devices they call an airline seat. Even then, I was oozing around the armrests.

Losing 40+ pounds helped. The 40 more pounds I'm going to lose this year will help even more.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:35 AM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I don't think it's about fault, though. It's about pragmatism. It's not as though when you go to get on the plane, they ask you whether you have a thyroid disorder, or you just really, really like your cheesecake.

I agree that charging someone extra baggage for an oxygen tank is wrong, but it's a different situation. An oxygen tank is a medically necessary device. There's also a significant difference in the amount of inconvenience to other passengers. If I have to check my carry-on so that someone can have their oxygen tank, I'm pretty much okay with that. But I prefer to not have someone sitting on my lap for a three hour flight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misnomer
Nothing to add, really, I just want to say that I've admired and agreed with every post I've seen of yours. I hope that you decide to stick around at the end of your trial membership.
Aw... I'm getting the warm fuzzies! Free seats for everyone!
Thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:49 AM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 10,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishgirl
I weigh less than 100lbs, and my baggage allowance is the same as the next guy, who weighs 400lbs.

Should I get to bring more luggage because I'm thinner? Nope.
Should he have to buy 2 seats if he can't fit in one? Yes.

It's not discrimination, just like it's not discrimation that the luggage allowance is the same for everyone.
Which raises the question: since he's paying for two seats, should he be allowed to bring on twice as much luggage?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:51 AM
Ferret Herder Ferret Herder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
FWIW, at least one airline - United - is also charging extra for overweight luggage. The last time I flew on their airline, an attendant was weighing bags as people approached the ticket counters, and bags over a certain weight (40 lb? 50?) had an extra, significant charge slapped on them. Between people bringing tons of stuff (literally), the expected average weight of a passenger increasing (I think it was calibrated at 150 lbs long ago?), and rising costs of fuel, I'm all for it. I would have happily paid for a heavy bag if I'd had one.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:55 AM
TellMeI'mNotCrazy TellMeI'mNotCrazy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Torque
Which raises the question: since he's paying for two seats, should he be allowed to bring on twice as much luggage?
Because they're discounted seats, possibly not. I know that most child-discounted seats limit the amount of luggage that can be brought along as part of the child's allowance, and carry ons for children are usually limited to just a diaper bag of supplies.

And I think overweight luggages are more the norm than the exception, though I will say there tends to be some leniency if you go a little bit over, especially if the flight isn't full. When I flew here on Iberia Air, I was a bag over my limit, and was fully expecting to have to pay the $100 overage charge. The guy at the ticket counter went so far as to lead me away from the counter towards the area where I had to pay for the overage before suddenly stopped, shrugged, and wished me a pleasant trip. But I have had to pay overages before, on various airlines.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-09-2006, 09:33 AM
Sal Ammoniac Sal Ammoniac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
I agree with the policy. I also want to commend Southwest Airlines for their FAQ, which is a model for how to communicate with customers clearly and honestly, without jargon or evasion. And while I agree that "Customer of Size" is a little cutesy, I can't think of anything better.

(Psst -- DianaG -- what Misnomer said.)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-09-2006, 09:48 AM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,324
I also think the policy is fair. I dislike airplane travel but it is seriously compounded by being stuffed against the bulkhead with an overflowing passenger in the middle seat.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-09-2006, 10:22 AM
norinew norinew is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wilds of WV
Posts: 10,652
As a "person of size" (yeah, a little cutesy, but while I don't mind calling myself a fatass, I don't want anyone else calling me one), I think the policy is fine. Personally, I'd much rather pay for an extra seat and know that I'm not crowding anyone/pissing anyone off, than to hope that I'm not.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-09-2006, 02:37 PM
butler1850 butler1850 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I used to fly a lot for work. I miss it.

I always got a window seat when available. I have an aviation fetish, so looking out the window is very soothing to me.

I attempt to turn to face the aisle, and put my shoulder/back against the bulkhead, as this provides me with the most room, and allows the person in the middle seat the same. I can also usually lean back and catch a few winks of sleep if it's a long flight. I tend not to move at all from my seat during the flight, nearly regardless of how long it is.

However, if I'm put next to Mr. (or Mrs.) Fatty McSeat-Spiller, I make sure that I have to go to the bathroom at least twice an hour. It's so much fun to inconvience them as much as they have by sharing my seat with me.

At 5'9", 235# (48 jacket for the shoulder room, 38 waist), I fit into my seat fine, but there are some that certainly should have to pay for that portion of the seat next to them that I've paid for! I've also found that the folks that take multiple seats tend to be the stinky ones that snore when they are awake!

SW has a wonderful policy IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-09-2006, 02:55 PM
Cervaise Cervaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Fair policy.

Irritating name.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-09-2006, 03:03 PM
Hostile Dialect Hostile Dialect is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervaise
Fair policy.

Irritating name.
Do you find it excessively PC?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-09-2006, 05:16 PM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Do they also charge extra for wide shoulders? How about long legs? Huge carry on bags that take up to much bin space or don't really fit under the seat? The guy sleeping next to me who is drooling on my shoulder?

I just don't see how this policy can be used for 1 specific form of incursion into personal space. On an airplane, there are just so many of them.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-09-2006, 05:30 PM
Hostile Dialect Hostile Dialect is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate
Do they also charge extra for wide shoulders? How about long legs? Huge carry on bags that take up to much bin space or don't really fit under the seat? The guy sleeping next to me who is drooling on my shoulder?

I just don't see how this policy can be used for 1 specific form of incursion into personal space. On an airplane, there are just so many of them.
Some of these problems can be immediately remedied--honestly, not many from the list you provided, but you can certainly slap the guy drooling on your shouler. I know I would.

Anyway, you can kind of sihft a bag or hold it a different way. Fat tends to go where it wants to, with limited (although some) mobility.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.