Seems fair to me. What do you think?
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.
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.
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.
Totally fair (and I’m fat – though I only take up one seat).
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.
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.
Yes – especially since there’s a refund forthcoming if the extra seat isn’t actually required by another person.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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~
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.