This seems unfair, but if I got on a flight where there were plenty of empty seats, do you think they would let my brother tag along for free? I mean, those seats are going to waste anyway. Airlines make money by selling seats to people. The rational behind this policy is that people who cannot fit into a single seat are costing them money. Double seems rather excessive, perhaps they could put in a row of extra wide coach seats that cost 33% more, or whateever is necessary to make up the revenue lost by not putting in regular sized seats.
Wow! What an elegant solution to this problem! Really, what percent of the flying public is problematic because of size? I’m going to guess that it’s one or two percent. You don’t need to retrofit the entire plane to deal with this problem, just a handful of seats. These could be sold at a premium to those who require or prefer larger seats, and those passengers could board along with the elderly, handicapped and parents with children. Any of these special seats that are unsold can then be available on a first-come-first-served basis.
Who knows, maybe regular sized people will find that they prefer these seats and will be willing to pay the premium and SWA can just put the costs and benefits into their spreadsheets and decide how many of these seats to incorporate into their planes.
And, brutus this is not the same thing as first class seats. You don’t get the leather upholstery, the wet, warm towells, or any of the special treatment. With SWA these seats would get served peanuts jut like all the others.
With respect to determining who would be required to purchase these special seats, the guideline could be that it applies to anyone requiring seatbelt extenders. This policy could be made public by SWA any the other airlines, thus anyone who needs a special seat could aviod the embarassment of being measured just by stating upfront that they need the extenders.
There will still be some awkward moments, but I believe this would be the best approach overall.
Hey, Brutus, I would advise you to be extra-fuckin’-tippy-toes-special careful here, buddy. Just a word of warning. My wife is a size 22, eat neither Twinkies nor cheesebugers – is in fact a vegetarian, and not a “I eat Fritos and Ding Dongs” vegetarian – and works out whenever she can. She has a very difficult time keeping losing weight or keeping it off; Bog knows she’s tried She managed to lose 14 pounds in April, but has gained about half back. Call her a “wide-ass” in front of me and . . . well, I hope you have really good dental coverage. Now, can we assume this is the last time we’re gonna see this particular epithet thrown around?
Well, I don’t think they should do that. IMO, the charges should apply if and only if the person cannot sit safely in one seat.
I can fit in one seat without leaning on my fellow passsengers, but I doubt some gate agents would believe that. There have been numerous times when my size has been misinterprted by others. People routingly thing I am too large to fit somewhere or too large to do something. Men who are as big around as I am but taller and weigh much more than I do are sometimes seen as not as big aas me. They have test racks for luggage, why not for people? At least that would be more objective. I would not be as bothered if it were the flight attendants, however even then I think they would be unjustly arbitrary.
Turn this around, there have been cases where large individuals bought 2 seats and were given non adjacent seats THey had to make do with one seat but were charged with 2…
Pregnant women will also be charged two seats because most of them will require seat extenders, if they follow their policy to the letter.
Hands up! Who thinks this will happen?
pld, as evidently vocal representative of “tubbos” on this board, thanks for sticking up for us.
You have to realize that SWA, because it doesn’t have seat assignments, can’t book a person an uncrowded row as a courtesy.
Anyway, I’d be happy with this: charge a larger person an extra $50, and give me the $50 if I have to sit beside them. Same with passengers who are taking kids as a carryon instead of as a passenger. Hell, we might be FIGHTING over who gets to sit with the bigger people and the babies.
I realize the logistics of awarding an “inconvenience premium” are nightmarish, but this is the theoretical solution I’m fond of.
A) Threats on the internet strike me as pathetic.
B)
- From Dictionary.com:
Wide
-Having a specified extent from side to side.
Ass
-The buttocks.
She can lose the weight if she works out regularly (not ‘when she can’) and ditches that vegetarian crap and has a balanced diet. Don’t take it out on me.
pldennison, it’s unfortunate that your wife is in a small minority that actually seems to have real medical problems that cause them to be overweight. The majority of fatties (you see, I’m fat, so I’m allowed to make fun of fat people) need to get off their ass and put down the doritos.
Back to the point…
It’s simple economics. Southwest has determined that a flight cost X dollars because of fuel, crew, maintenance, etc, and that with the amount of seats they have, Y amount has to be charged to make a profit. If someone requires special treatment (and a free seat IS special treatment), and refuses to pay for it, southwest has to recalculate their pricing scheme to charge the rest of us - or change their policy.
[Fat Bashing]
I, personally, am sick of fat people demanding special treatment as if they had a legitimate disability - and I discount the perhaps 2% that have real body weight regulation problems but really try to be healthy. If you’ve become so massive that you need special accomodations, you damn well better pay for them. You’re not simply entitled because you can win a pie eating contest. [/Fat Bashing].
In any case, I’ve flown Southwest and I’m pretty chunky - I didn’t have all the room in the world, but there was plenty to sit without disturbing those next to me. The only people affected, it would seem, would be really obese (400+ men, 300+ women) people.
OH MY! Will they have to buy the second ticket at gate prices??? Gate prices can be several hundred more dollars than the original ticket usually at least a thousand dollars. So I fit last time, I go buy my ticket months in advance and got it for $175. I get to the gate, traveling with my hubby and gf so I wouldn’t be leaning on strangers if i wanted to lean. A bigot says I am too fat and have to cough up another $1500 ? Or better yet, the flight overbooked and kicking me off means that they can let 2 people not just one have a seat and if my traveling companions don’t go, 4 seats are available and they don’t have to refund anything to me or my companions or give vouchers to anyone else because of overbooking.
Should be intersting the first time they refuse to carry as pregnant woman because she is woo wide.
Where lies the cause of the extra weight is irrelevant and none of the airline’s concern. You need more, you pay more; makes sense to me. You can pay for two seats if that is what you prefer or go first class.
And the argument that the adjoining seat might go empty is just silly. Along that reasoning they should let me fly for free if there are any empty seats on the plane. And restaurants should let me eat for free if the food was going to waste anyway. And amusement parks should not charge me unless they are full to capacity.
Also, note that the airline said they charge for the extra space whether it is because you are carrying lard or a viola. They are not charging anyone for being fat, they are charging for the extra space.
Whoa. Are you calling the person whose job it is to determine if a passenger is too wide for one seat a bigot?
Please tell me this was just an unfortunate choice of a word.
As to the OP, I’m all for having a person who takes up more than one seat pay extra. I do not like, however, not having a specific set of criteria. Maybe a discreet room with airline seats where the person could sit and the airline employee can then determine if he/she spills into the next seat would be an idea.
A) 'Taint a threat, son. It’s a fact. We ever meet at a DoperFest, feel free to test it out.
B) Please post your CV as a nutritionist, endocrinologist or gastroenterologist. That way we’ll all know whether to simply ignore your opinions on weight loss or make fun of you. Thanks.
I understand Southwest’s point, but I wonder if they haven’t made a really stupid decision. It seems to me that the P.R. nightmare they have created is going to far outweigh the advantage of any increased revenue they will get from the policy. The whole thing just smacks of insensitivity.
Well, I don’t want to align myself with those who say overweight people are just lazy, because I don’t think it’s that simple. BUT, don’t you think you’re going a little overboard by using the words “extremely fit”? Everything I have ever heard indicates that obesity is an unhealthy condition. Even common sense tells us this - people I know who are extremely obese have trouble doing something as simple as climbing a flight of stairs. I can even hear them laboring just to breathe. (Note I’m not talking about only slightly overweight people). Lazy? No. Extremely fit? Also no.
[BTW, did you mean to say “eminently arguable”? Wouldn’t that mean that there is support for that position? I’m thinking you meant “not arguable”.]
That’s not my reading of the quote. I think they are just using that as a demarkation point. After all, they have to draw the line somewhere. They can’t just say “charge fat people for 2 seats” - that would make it totally arbitrary. They probably came up with the extender thing so as to have some sort of spelled-out policy. Besides, didn’t they say seatbelt extender AND “leaves both armrests in an upright position”? If you have to leave the armrest up, you ARE spilling into the next seat.
Hmmm… I heard that the policy was to give a refund if the flight was not fully booked. [Oh, I see Darwin’s already pointed that out].
[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?
I have been thinking about this issue a lot recently (although from the point of view of accommodating folks with disabilities) and have decided that I am morally opposed to charging People of Girth extra. To that, let me add that I am not equating obesity with a disability; rather I am drawing this analogy because, in some cases, accommodations are made in public transport/access scenarios.
Allow me to explain, with a personal experience thrown in. For the most part, I bus to work. On the trip home, there is a woman that uses a wheel chair that rides the same route as I. This person is also quite heavy. The end result is that as she is boarding, we are all forced to wait as she is brought up in the lift, and then between her and the wheelchair 5 seats are taken up (3 to stow the chair and another 2 where she sits).
I think that this analogy holds (to a lesser extent) for heavy people and airplane seats.
My point is this: I am defiantly inconvenienced in my everyday life by a heavy disabled person (specifically I get to where I am going more slowly, and I have to stand). I have been inconvenienced in the past by being stuck next to a person that is using more room on an airplane, or by people with strollers and screaming babies.
For all of that, it is nothing more than an inconvenience. I think that what we gain as a society by valuing everyone as equally as we can, and placing an importance on their mobility far outweighs the momentary (and passing) discomfort of a perfectly able bodied person.
The alternative here is a pretty slippery slope. If we get to charge people essentially for taking up more room than some arbitrary manufacturer of seats feel that they should, can we stop there? SUVs take up more room on the road, mothers with strollers take up more room on the sidewalk (and bus for that matter), the list can go on.
Seems like reasonable policy to me (as pointed out, it’s a similar policy amongst all the carriers and been around for a while).
It’s not much different that charging SUV’s a parking garage surcharge, trucks a larger fee at toll booths, larger plots higher property taxes, $1.25 for a super big gulp, etc.
It’s dollars and cents. If a flight costs X and it’s divided by a smaller quantity of passengers (due to providing wider seating) the airlines would have to either charge a higher per person fee or cut costs.
Without singling out SWA, how about this solution:
According to United, their 777 used in domestic flights has 31 rows of 5 seats in the middle row 155 person capacity.
Let’s say the redesigned the coach section interior and made it 31 rows of 4 seats.
That would each seat in the middle row 4 5/8" wider (more accomodating for American tushes).
The only problem for the airlines is making up for the 31 passengers worth of lost revenue (and possibly a need for more flights).
The [ul][]Progressives amongst us would say work it into the 1st class price[]Conservatives amongst us would say don’t change a thing, leave the pay for 2-seats policy as it is[]Communists amongst us would say let the airlines absorb the cost of the new layout[]Corporate types amongst us would say take it out of the employee wages[]Moderates amongst us would say work it into the price of all the other passengers[]Entrepreneurs amongst us would say raise the price of all tickets and then give a discount the passengers in the narrow seats[/ul]
Just a theory I have with regards to apparel.
What if clothing / footwear manufacturers started charging more money for larger sized items?
Bad PR? yes.
But my assumption is larger apparel items have a (slightly) higher cost. More materials / fabric / stitching are used and they take more time to manufacture. On top of the fact their larger size means they take up more shelf room and are more expensive to ship.
If that higher cost was worked into the price of larger sized items (which on a spreadsheet sounds fair…I’m not being an insensitive smartass here), my feeling is you’d hear the majority of gripes coming from the plus sized lobby. The people who require taller sizes and the people with bigger feet wouldn’t make such a stink about it.
Silly examples. The SUV does not take up more than it’s assigned lane space (at least on most public roads I’m aware of)…the only possible issue related to SUVs might be parking spaces…and most parking spaces seem equipped to handle them.
Mothers with strollers and other sidewalk users are not paying a per use fee to use that sidewalk…certainly you wouldn’t compare the “inconvience” of walking around a stroller with being sandwiched between two large people on an overseas flight would you?
I don’t know how seat widths are calculated by airlines…I suspect they make them as narrow (in coach) as possible. Even if the seats were another 3-4 inches wider…won’t there be a subset of people somewhere for whom that seat is still not wide enough? Would you think that that subset of people were being discriminated against?
(and of course, wider seats equal smaller number of seats per jet space…which could lead to higher ticket prices for all passengers, regardless of girth. So now you have cost shifted the accomodation to everyone who buys a ticket)
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.