# Airlines charging extra for "large" fliers. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2002, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073 "2002-06-20T15:25:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/41 "2002-06-20T19:30:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lee \* > Should be intersting the first time they refuse to carry as pregnant woman because she is woo wide. Wouldn’t surprise me if that same woman who went to court claiming that her fetus counted as a person for the carpool lane, having gotten pregnant again, took Southwest to court, this time claiming the fetus DOESN’T count as a person. ---
**Author:** ![UrbanChic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9dc877/32.png) [@UrbanChic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UrbanChic)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/42 "2002-06-20T19:35:14Z")
Ok, I found one. Go to [www.chadwicks.com](http://www.chadwicks.com). If they offer an item of clothing in both ‘regular’ and ‘women’s’ sizes, the women’s size will cost more. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/43 "2002-06-20T19:36:52Z")
It’s a sticky, sticky question. It goes right back to the question of whether obesity is a disability, since as a society we do make accommodations for the disabled but we generally do not for the non-disabled. So are the obese disabled? This in turn begs a host of other questions, such as whether one may intentionally disable oneself and, if so, whether such a person is entitled to the same deference (accommodation) as a person who is not intentionally disabled. (And, yes, I realize that obese people do not intend to disable themselves, but the intent I’m referring to is the intent to do the act that causes the condition, not the intent to have the condition. And, yes, I realize that some overweight people have legitimate medical reasons for their condition, such as a gladular problem, but I think if we are honest we can all agree that the _majority_ of the overweight in America are overweight because of lifestyle choices and not medical conditions. I say this without any negative judgment of the overweight; I’m not a size six myself, or a size twelve for that matter.) Generally, obesity is _not_ considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, though it may qualify as one in rare cases, depending on how disabling it actually is. I have noticed a tendency among some of the overweight to believe that society should be required to do certain things to accommodate them, regardless of whether their condition is disabling. I generally disagree with this. I think that if your physical condition creates difficulties in how you interact with the rest of society, the responsibility for changing that is on you, not society – assuming, once again, you have the ability to change it if you choose. If overweight people are _not_ disabled – and most of them are not – I think the burden of the difficulty caused by their size must be borne by them, not by the business that fails to (or chooses not to) tailor itself to their increased size. In short, if you take up more than one seat, you should have to pay for a second one. And a whole second one, at that; it’s not as if, if you only take up an extra 1/3 seat, they can then sell the 2/3 seat left over. And it seems to me that seeing if the seatbelt extenders are used and the arm rests kept up is a reasonable way to evaluate whether you are, in fact, using more than one seat. I would hope the airline woud limit itself to that, and not attempt the crassness of measuring its passengers’ asses. I am not in the seat-belt extenders class, but if I were, I would certainly boycott Southwest. I would not be at all interested in giving my money to a business that at best is not interested in accommodating my needs (if it reasonably can, like when there’s empty seats available), and at worse would deeply embarrass me by marching me on board to see how (or if) I fit. But then, I can see Southwest’s point as well: Why should I demand double their resources but not pay for them? And I think that remains true regardless of whether or not the plane is full; just because they’re not using the space doesn’t mean I’m entitled to do so without paying for it. So I think I come down on Southwest’s side in terms of whether they _can_ do what they are proposing to do. But I don’t think it is a very politic thing to do, and it certainly makes them seem more concerned with the bottom line (har!) than with taking care of their customers. I’ll be interested to see if the additional money they bring in makes up for all the customers they’re going to alienate and piss off. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/44 "2002-06-20T19:41:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JuanitaTech \* > \*\*John, some clothing manufacturers do, indeed, charge more for plus sized clothing. I can’t recall the catalog of which I’m specifically referring, but I’ll research it. > > Hopefully, though, a doper in the know will come along and beat me to it. \*\* I don’t have any proof, but I’m sure I recall Target stores charging more for XL and XXL shirts. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/45 "2002-06-20T19:57:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JohnBckWLD \* > \*\*Just a theory I have with regards to apparel. > > What if clothing / footwear manufacturers started charging more money for larger sized items? > > \*\* They already do. The very tall and the very fat already pay a lot for clothes. If you’re 6’6" and 240 pounds you don’t generally find the pants you need at Wal-Mart. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/46 "2002-06-20T19:58:51Z")
**beagledave** Sorry that my examples were not palatable to you. Allow me to clarify. Excluding the highways, when I am driving around the narrow streets of my city a SUV (or fat) vehicle does, indeed, take up more room than my sub-compact (skinny) car. While not a per use fee on a sidewalk (although I did mention bussing which is (a fact that you conveniently ignored)) a parent with a stroller is using more space resource that a person just walking (or riding a bus). While an overseas fight would, indeed, be rather a nuicence if trapped between tow heavy people, I suspect that you were using that extreme example in an effort to make some dramatic point. The fact is that Southwest Airlines (whom I believe that we are talking about) only has domestic flights. Now than **beagledave** , as you have nit picked some of the smaller points and examples that I have made, I call on you to answer a direct question. Are you saying that it is not valuable for a society (and for an individual as an extension of society) to make accommodations for those that are disabled or otherwise physically challenged? If so, please state the extent to which society should shoulder the burden? If not, please explain why. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/47 "2002-06-20T20:04:48Z")
**Binarydrone** , I think your analogy is useful only up to a point. On buses, people pay for a ride not a seat. Thus, nothing guarantees you a seat when you pay the fare. But you have to have a seat in order to ride on a plane. Also, since you’re paying considerably more in air fare than you would bus fare, you expect a certain level of service. You expect the plane to be on time. And you expect to be comfortable. Personally, I’m on the fence. Theoretically it seems like a good idea, but we’re talking about charging people a lot of money. It seems to me that a person would have to be unusually heavy not to be able to fit in those seats, not just pleasantly plump. So I guess I’m wondering how many air passengers will be adversely affected by this change in policy? One percent? Ten percent? Does it say in the article? (I’m too lazy to look) ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/48 "2002-06-20T20:05:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JuanitaTech \* > \*\*John, some clothing manufacturers do, indeed, charge more for plus sized clothing. I can’t recall the catalog of which I’m specifically referring, but I’ll research it. > > Hopefully, though, a doper in the know will come along and beat me to it. \*\* Haband, for one. I regularly order from them, and pay an extra $3-5 per pair (depending on the style) for my size 48 pants; they also charge extra for the larger shirt sizes and wide-width shoes. Every so often, I get a mailing offering large sizes without the premium, which is when I stock up on pants. On the OP topic, I have been flying SWA for years and have always liked their service. I’ve mentioned in at least one other thread how accomodating thet are with regard to the fact that my wife travels with a motorized scooter, letting her drive it up to the door of the plane and delivering it there when we get off. I just barely fit in their standard seat and do not need a seatbelt extender, but when travelling with my wife I usually lift the armrest between us so that if I do overlap it’s on her side. OTOH, I also regularly travel with a friend who is larger than I am. He needs a seatbelt extender, but has never been charged for a second seat. When we fly together, we usually take the window and aisle seat of a three-seat row, and hope the flight isn’t fully booked so no one has to sit between us. I don’t remember this ever being a problem in the past, which may be because we usually fly at off-peak times (midweek and Saturday). ---
**Author:** ![ResIpsaLoquitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@ResIpsaLoquitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ResIpsaLoquitor)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/49 "2002-06-20T20:18:38Z")
OK, I flipped open the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq., (IANA Lawyer, btw…) and found the following: > [@](#): > > § 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations > > (a) General rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. > > (b) Construction. > (1) General prohibition. > (A) Activities. > (i) Denial of participation. It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. > (ii) Participation in unequal benefit. It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. > (iii) Separate benefit. It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others. > (iv) Individual or class of individuals. For purposes of clauses (i) through (iii) of this subparagraph, the term “individual or class of individuals” refers to the clients or customers of the covered public accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing or other arrangement. > (B) Integrated settings. Goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual. > © Opportunity to participate. Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different. > (D) Administrative methods. An individual or entity shall not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize standards or criteria or methods of administration– > (i) that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability; or > (ii) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control. > (E) Association. It shall be discriminatory to exclude or otherwise deny equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to an individual or entity because of the known disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a relationship or association. > (2) Specific prohibitions. > (A) Discrimination. For purposes of subsection (a), discrimination includes– > (i) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered; > (ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations; > (iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden; > (iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation barriers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such removal is readily achievable; and > (v) where an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a barrier under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative methods if such methods are readily achievable. > (B) Fixed route system. > (i) Accessibility. It shall be considered discrimination for a private entity which operates a fixed route system and which is not subject to section 304 [42 USCS § 12184] to purchase or lease a vehicle with a seating capacity in excess of 16 passengers (including the driver) for use on such system, for which a solicitation is made after the 30th day following the effective date of this subparagraph, that is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. > (ii) Equivalent service. If a private entity which operates a fixed route system and which is not subject to section 304 [42 USCS § 12184] purchases or leases a vehicle with a seating capacity of 16 passengers or less (including the driver) for use on such system after the effective date of this subparagraph that is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities, it shall be considered discrimination for such entity to fail to operate such system so that, when viewed in its entirety, such system ensures a level of service to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, equivalent to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities. > © Demand responsive system. For purposes of subsection (a), discrimination includes– > (i) a failure of a private entity which operates a demand responsive system and which is not subject to section 304 [42 USCS § 12184] to operate such system so that, when viewed in its entirety, such system ensures a level of service to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, equivalent to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities; and > (ii) the purchase or lease by such entity for use on such system of a vehicle with a seating capacity in excess of 16 passengers (including the driver), for which solicitations are made after the 30th day following the effective date of this subparagraph, that is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities (including individuals who use wheelchairs) unless such entity can demonstrate that such system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service to individuals with disabilities equivalent to that provided to individuals without disabilities. > (D) Over-the-road buses. > (i) Limitation on applicability. Subparagraphs (B) and © do not apply to over-the-road buses. > (ii) Accessibility requirements. For purposes of subsection (a), discrimination includes (I) the purchase or lease of an over-the-road bus which does not comply with the regulations issued under section 306(a)(2) [42 USCS § 12186(a)(2)] by a private entity which provides transportation of individuals and which is not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, and (II) any other failure of such entity to comply with such regulations. > (3) Specific construction. Nothing in this title [42 USCS §§ 12181 et seq.] shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The term “direct threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services. The only problem is that the ADA, if I’m reading it correctly, excludes airplanes. Looking in section 12181 (“definitions”), it says > [@](#): > > The term “specified public transportation” means transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis. Anyway, that’s an incredibly cursory glance on my part. As I see it, if a lawsuit happened (and you know SW consulted with their lawyers on this), it’d probably be brought under this part of the ADA. But SW’s best defense, I’m guessing, would be the latter definition I quoted above. ---
**Author:** ![ResIpsaLoquitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@ResIpsaLoquitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ResIpsaLoquitor)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/50 "2002-06-20T20:21:30Z")
Holy cow, that was long. Serves me right for not paying attention during a copy and paste. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/51 "2002-06-20T20:36:48Z")
**pldennison** : > [@](#): > > A) 'Taint a threat, son. It’s a fact. We ever meet at a DoperFest, feel free to test it out. [Moderator Hat ON] **Don’t** threaten your fellow dopers with physical harm. I WILL NOT tolerate this. Period. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/52 "2002-06-20T20:40:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SisterCoyote \* > \*\*Would Southwest (or any other airline) allow two very skinny people to buy one seat to share between them? I don’t think so. \*\* I think that’s an unreasonable analogy. First off, these people would have to be _pathologically_ thin in order to occupy the same seat. Second, they would require separate meals and snacks. And third, placing two passengers in the same seat might conceivably infringe on some safety requirements. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/53 "2002-06-20T20:43:06Z")
Fine. Can we also get a ruling on referring to large people as “wideasses” and “tubbos”? Sounds like personal attacks to me. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/54 "2002-06-20T21:01:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Binarydrone \* > \*\* Are you saying that it is not valuable for a society (and for an individual as an extension of society) to make accommodations for those that are disabled or otherwise physically challenged? If so, please state the extent to which society should shoulder the burden? If not, please explain why. \*\* Nope. I think I find myself agreeing with Jodi on this one. In general, I think it’s good for society to make **reasonable** accomodations for disability (wheelchair space in new movie theaters etc). Weight issues are a different kettle of fish…a more complicated kettle of fish. I think Jodi did a nice job of outlining the difference between weight issues and other issues, so I’m not going to rehash her reasons. In the specific case of airline flight, I don’t think that airlines should be **compelled** to make all of their seats wider because “Americans are getting fatter”…maybe Cranky’s idea of a surcharge for extra wide seats might be possible, but I’m failry ignorant of airline economics and retrofitting planes. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could clue me in. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/55 "2002-06-20T21:07:28Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jodi_ > It goes right back to the question of whether obesity is a disability, since as a society we do make accommodations for the disabled but we generally do not for the non-disabled. So are the obese disabled? [This](http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-06-20-southwest-money-cover.htm) article addresses many of the points you brought up. Several suits in California claiming discrimination based on weight have failed. One advocate did bring up the issue of weight as a symptom of a disability, but apparently the government does not consider an extra seat as a reasonable accomodation. It would be interesting to see if a court would buy the government’s position. I’d be interested to see if this policy hurt’s Southwest’s bottom line. Some posters and people in the article said they wouldn’t fly SWA any more, but SWA’s main selling point is price. In some instances it might still be cheaper to buy two seats on SWA than fly on another carrier. And the article also provides us with the first overblown rhetoric on the issue: > [@](#): > > “This is not too much different than the Nazis.” ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/56 "2002-06-20T21:11:50Z")
**pldennison** : [Moderator Hat ON] Brutus referred to fat people as wide-asses (at least one other person, also overweight, also referred to his/her group in unflattering terms in this very thread). Slurring an entire group does not come under the umbrella of direct personal insult, and I do not feel I should warn posters for using unflattering terms about whole groups of people, even if someone I care about happens to be a member of the insulted group. Given that _everyone_ on this board either is or is married/related to every single group that has ever been referred to in a less-than-flattering term, I would have to crack down on all but the most scrupulous language–which I do not feel inclined to do. Nor do I wish to deal with exchanges like this: Poster A: I think anyone who doesn’t allow abortion in the case of rape is an asshole. Poster B: Hey, my wife/cousin/neighbor/dog thinks that! You just called my wife/cousin/neighbor/dog an asshole! Mods!!! MODSSSS!!! People are going to say disparaging things about certain groups. You will know someone who is a member of these groups. You are free to request politer language or correct misconceptions, but I am not about to make sure no one ever says anything not-nice about some unspecific group. And NEVER, EVER sincerely threaten to physically harm any poster in my forum. Since as you know this is not the place to discuss moderation decisons, please confine any further commentary to a Pit thread or email. Thank you. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/57 "2002-06-20T21:33:46Z")
> [@](#): > > {Shameless hijack:} > Speaking of Southwest, what’s with everybody rushing the gate to get the best seats? Here’s a clue: If you are holding boarding pass #104, and they announce they are now boarding 1 though 30, don’t run up and stand right next to the gate, m’kay? To hijack your hijack, the whole reason this is getting brought up now is that Southwest changed their boarding pass policy (they did not change their policy regarding uh…“girthfully endowed” passengers). The boarding passes are no longer plastic but are paper and you can get one at the curb, front gate, or departure gate. Because they can now issue them anywhere, they had to re-educate a lot of their employees as to what the proper procedures are for accomodating/charging certain customers. As for the OP, I’ve seen talk about how some organizations (was it NAAFA?) were talking about boycotting Southwest airlines because of this “new” policy. I’m wondering if it won’t have the opposite of the intended effect of disrupting business- some business travelers might say “you mean its the cheapest flight **and** I won’t have to sit next to someone spilling into my seat?” ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/58 "2002-06-20T21:50:50Z")
**beagledave** the points that you make are well made, but in the long run I am really afraid that this is not a road that we want to go down. I understand, and agree with, the fact that as a society we should be generally more responsible for our actions. There is far to little of this in the world. However, with issues like this I think that we are opening a Pandora’s box that we may not wish to open. Consider this issue being logically extrapolated. We know that this will, eventually, go to court. It may well be the case that the airlines will prevail. At this point, we have legal precedent set. So, how far can we take this? What if I am a landlord, do I get to charge overweigh folks more rent? (after all, they are arguably inducing more wear and tear on my floor support). If no, then is this only about space? Or is it even more specific (space on airplanes). Or can I apply it to busses? Citing my personal example with overweight folk and their impact on me (in my public transportation experience) should that person have to pay for the 5 seats that she and her wheelchair take up, or just the two that she takes up by being fat? In general, I think that I agree that what the Airline is proposing is probably fair but (with the exception of a long (cross country or international) flight) the payoff for enforcing this is pretty negligible. ---
**Author:** ![Paididiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba8739/32.png) [@Paididiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paididiot)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/59 "2002-06-20T21:51:36Z")
I am not amazed in anyway by this descion. Since the airplane industry is a private industry it makes sense for them to charge extra when someone takes up more room than they paid for. And it is possible this obese person to get a refund on the extra amount they had to pay if the flight was unbooked. The whole idea of widening seats, while a great idea, is one of those damm economic infeasability. Unless the amount of people wanting to fly dropped dramaticly that is, so maybe after the whole terrorist ramming planes into building this it is possible, but lets ignore that right now. Say you have 400 people wanting to fly, but you just made it so your jet only held 300 people. To get these other people to where they want you would have to commision another Jet, which then incurs its own fueling costs, repair cost, upkeep… etc. Shit on ticket prices then. About buses comparing to airplanes, its kinda of a bust comparision. There is usually only one form of mass public transportation in a given area, and if you pay taxes then you are entilted to a ride on the bus, as long as you pay the surcharge (stupid 50 cents… ). As with SUVs, those evil bastardus vehicles of doom, the same taxes are used to pay for roads, as as long as the SUVs are under at maxuim legal width… then so be it… And I do understand the narrow roads concept… its just one of those inconvinces that we all have to go through… Feel free to point out my general ineptatude and lack of grammar… The only reason I see Phallic imagery everywhere is that so many people are dicks… -Duncan ---
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073/60 "2002-06-20T23:48:37Z")
I stated this in the MPSIMS thread on the same subject but I’ll restate it here: If you go out to eat with a group and it comes time to pay for the meal(s), it is really unfair to require those who ate the most or most expensive items to pay a portion in line with the consumption? If I take up room you pay for, or use fuel you contribute to paying for that is above a regular proportion why should I not expect to pay proportionally more? I do think that there should be no more “kids fares” on air travel as they do take up a seat and often infringe on my space as well. And I suppose that if someone very very dense wanted to book a flight they should apy by mass as well, just due to added fuel costs. I’m not anti-fat, I rather like plump women in fact. But it just seems common sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airlines-charging-extra-for-large-fliers/115073.md?page=4)