amarinth wrote:
But as we all know, all screen actors are ridiculously petite – so much so that they build all their sets to 7/8 scale to make them look bigger. And besides, I only saw Pretty Woman on TV, and TV adds 10 pounds to your weight.
With regards to pregnant women, its a moot point. For starters, pregnancy tends to make you bigger at the front, not at the sides. You may need the seatbelt extenders, but you shouldn’t need to leave the armrests up, so you would thus be exempt from the double payment.
Secondly, its very rare that a woman is allowed to fly after her seventh month (on international flights anyway; I can’t speak for US domestic ones). So you aren’t going to have HUGELY pregnant women on the flight anyway.
As for kids, I’ve found that the regular kid’s fares are more expensive than discount adult fares. So my kids have always paid the same amount as hubby and I.
The only problems I see with the implementation of these rules are:
- what about people who are simply big? I’m talking about guys who are around 6’5" and have pro-footballer type shoulders. Sure, their stomach and legs might not encroach onto your seat, but their shoulders may. So should they be penalised for something they REALLY can’t change?
- what about people with BO? Are they going to start being penalised? After all, their scent is encroaching on your personal space. And what about crying babies? Will their parents have to pay extra for disturbing your peace and quiet? Where will it end?
I don’t understand the “if the flight isn’t full, there will be a refund” rule. If the flight is full, how are they going to buy another ticket? Will someone get bumped?
That box has been open for a long time. Insurance companies charge young drivers more, and that’s even less under people’s control. And as bad as it is to be treating people differently, I think it’s even worse to criticize people for exercising their rights (including the right to charge more for overweight passengers).
Y’know, that’s an awfully good point. And now that you mention it, it does make me more likely to want to fly Southwest.
Binarydrone: As monstro already pointed out, you can’t compare city buses with planes. On city buses, subways, and many commuter trains, your fare pays for your ride. If you’re lucky, you get a seat. If not, you stand. It’s too bad that your overweight wheelchair lady takes up five seats, but it’s not like she is taking away something that you paid for. You still get your ride. (Plus, if the person sitting next to you is bugging you in any way, you can move. You can’t do that in a plane.) On a plane, you are guaranteed a seat, so it’s not okay if you only get 3/4 of a seat.
The Ryan: The way I understand it is that the large person buys two tickets at the outset. If the plane is underbooked, then they can get a refund. If the flight is full, then they can’t get a refund–they have to pay for both seats that they used. IMHO, this refund policy is very generous.
I am going to eat another bag of M & Ms and plan on buying two seats next time I fly SWA. I’ll just strap a seatbelt across each thigh.
I just read the linked article. Brings up a question:
Do guide dogs travel in the cabin with the blind person or in cargo? If they travel in the cabin, where do they sit/lay? Guide dogs are usually big dogs.
And the article says that the obese person won’t get his/her frequent flier miles for the second seat. Now that seems not right to me. If a person has to buy two seats, then they should at least get the perks–double miles and double peanuts. Hell, they’ll need to buy 2 seats for the trip that they spend their miles on, so they really aren’t getting any net benefit!
OK, lets get off of the mono focus of the city bus. What about train rides (not public transportation BTW, Amtrak type things) or taking a Bus (Greyhound for example). Do we apply these new standards there?
Or what about the apartment example that I mentioned earlier? Do we get to apply these standards there?
I guess my point here is that this new enforcement of the 22 year old regulation, while 100% fair is not really worth what it will lead to.
I guess that what I would like to have cleared up on this whole debate is this: What are fat people being charged for? Is it specifically space, or is it some sort of an impact fee (both views seem to be represented here). In either case, is this something just for fat people, or do we get to apply it to any analogous situation?
I’d say that it would be fair to enforce the same regulation on a long-distance Amtrak train or a Greyhound bus. I say that the person has to pay for the space, not the “impact.” So, you wouldn’t charge the person more for the apartment. (Unless the person is so big that they need 2 apartments…)
What situation would be analagous to a fat person?
Tsubaki asks about linebacker types. I’d say that anyone who is too wide for a seat, for any reason, should buy 2 seats. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the spillover to adjacent seats. A very short obese person may fit just fine in the seat, while an equally obese tall person overlaps. So the short person could get away with buying only the one seat.
Fat chick here. I agree that people who take up more than one seat should pay for it. This includes people with babies, pets, or oxygen tanks as well as extremely fat people.
A couple of general beefs:
-
To the “stop with the cheeseburgers crowd” while I absolutely agree that healthful eating and exercise ( I have done both for years ) are beneficial for health, they are not going to make anyone lose a significant amount of weight over time. If you can show me a scientific study by a reputable source that says 50% of overweight people who diet and exercise to lose weight can lose it all successfully and keep it all off for 5 years I’ll write you a check for $100 right now. Actually, I’ll be really generous and say 15%. I’m serious. I’m researching a book on the subject, and I can’t find a damn thing, especially when you get into the morbid obesity range that we’re discussing here.
-
I am 5’8, 300 pounds. I fly Delta, United, Continental, and Alaska regularly - counting the various legs of my trips I believe I come in at 22 flights in the last 12 months. I have no problem with the general theory that taking-up-more-space = pay-for-extra-seat. I fit into a seat. Barely, in some cases, but I do. My problem is the seatbelt length. I have required a seatbelt extender exactly once, when a seatbelt on the second leg of my trip was clearly 3 inches too short. The seatbelt on the first leg, in the same model of plane, was just fine. I have found a variation of at least 6 inches in length on airplane seatbelts. **In using seatbelt length as a determination Southwest is using an arbitrary standard. They need to set a static seatbelt length and use that as a permanent, publishable measure. **
I never fly southwest because I hate arriving to the airport 2 hours early for the first leg of the flight and getting a good seat, but gettinig screwed when I have to transfer in Phoenix and I don’t get seating priority because I was on another plane instead of waiting at the gate.
** Green Bean**, What I am talking about is not a situation analogous to a fat person as such, rather I am asking if we can adopt this bold new paradigm of charging people that take up more space more money.
It has been already stated that this can only apply to private type business, so we exclude wider SUV’s that basically run me off of narrow streets, or people taking up more than one seat on a bus. That said, let up apply this logic to the private sector.
[ul]
[li]It is a busy Saturday night, and I want to take my lovely wife out to dinner, but look! There is a fat person sitting at the booth alone where both of us could fit! Does the restaurant charge the fat person for taking up that space?[/li][li]See above for bars.[/li][li]What about the movies?[/li][li]Or hell, here is Seattle there are a whole lot of those privately owned parking lots. Can they charge a SUV or other big car premium (I do see a lot of these taking up more than one stall)?[/li][/ul]
My overall point is this: I think that this whole issue is overly focused on some kind of a law and order, follow the rules sort of mentality. I am suggesting that we look at the issue through the filter of conscience.
I am a little rusty on this, so forgive me if I only get the gist here (I have been out of college a while now). There was a philosopher named Lawrence Kohlberg (at least I learned of him in a philosophy class) that proposed 6 stages of moral development ranging from fear of punishment (level one) to universal ethical principals (level 6).
I suggest that this debate is mired somewhere around level four, which was called the law and order stage. Pretty ok, but I think that we can do better.
Persons of size-Persons of behavior-Persons of environment… It’s a business, they can serve whomever they choose. The PC approach has gone too far. Rights!! Where are my rights!! I’m a small/tall, light/heavy, rich/poor, pretty/ugly, bluecollar/professional, religious/athiest, pro-life/pro-choice, red wine/white wine, chunky peanut butter/smooth, AFC/NFC, VHS/Beta individual/group. I/WE are entitled to something/everything/yours/mine/ours…
BIANARYDRONE –
Restaurants do not sell “seats” the way planes, theaters, and some other places do. Therefore there is no incentive to double charge overweight people for taking up more than one seat. “Seats” are not usually the marketed commodity in restaurants. When they are (as when a restaurant is very busy), sometimes they *do[/] take action to maximize the number of “seats” they can sell – by kicking people out who stay too long (forcibly “turning” the table).
Movies, like planes, do sell “seats.” So, yes, an overweight person who took up two seats in a theater could by the same rationale cited by Southwest be required to purchase two seats there as well.
As a matter of fact, they can. They too sell spaces (the equivalent of “seats”) and if you take up more than one, that is one less car they can shoehorn in there. So, yes, if you take up two spaces they can ask you to pay for them both. Why should they not be able to?
Businesses are not generally motivated by conscience; they’re motivated by money. When they propose to do something to plump their bottom line, but that is perceived as being unfair to certain segments of the population, it is reasonable to then ask “can they do that?”
Jodi, I hope that the use of all caps in addressing me is not an indication of yelling (I am not trying to piss anyone off here).
I think that the overall point that I am making is being missed here. I know that from a business/law and order perspective that it there is great precedent for this action being ok. I am not arguing that this action is illegal or even unfair.
What I am suggesting is that there is a whole other level through which this debate can be viewed. I am specifically addressing the folks in this thread who, in my perception, are in favor of this action on the grounds that it is legal to do, or that it is somehow fair (i.e. for the most part, people have chosen to be fat and now they should have some logical consequence for that choice).
In the rich and long tapestry that is my life, if spending a couple of uncomfortable hours cramped in a seat next to a large person saves that person from being uncomfortable or suffering humiliation then my net cost to me is very low, and I just may gain valuable empathy.
If the consensus is that this issue is not worth talking about on that level, so be it. I will be sort of disappointed, but understand.
Not at all. I see it as a simple matter of “you require 2 seats so you pay for 2 seats.” There is no moral judgement there.
Again, you’re obscuring the issue. While a movie ticket is expensive nowadays, it pales in comparison with the hundreds of dollars a plane ticket cost. And how long do you spend in a typical movie? A couple of hours? How long is a typical flight? How long should someone be forced into such a small uncomfortable space after forking out 100+ dollars.
In addition, most movies don’t sell out like flights do. So if a fat man takes up two, three seats, big rubber deal.
Finally, the size of a typical movie seat is much larger than the size of a regular seat on an airplane. They are made to accomodate larger folk. Why? Because space isn’t at as high a premium in a movie theater as it is on a plane.
(One could also argue that movie theaters don’t have a problemo servicing larger people because of the perception that larger people will buy more candy and popcorn. If airplanes sold concessions, we might not be having this conversation).
That’s very noble, but why do you think there’s a one-sidedness to the comfort level? If I’m squished next to a large person, I will be uncomfortable and they will be uncomfortable. If they get an extra seat, there is a net gain in comfort. The money they have to shell out may counteract that comfort for them, but I don’t think it’s selfish for me to still want that comfort for myself. After all, I’m not the one that’s causing the discomfort.
I think having a row or two of extra wide seats is a good idea. Charge people $25 more for them. Those who are livin’ large may purchase them as well as people who just like extra space.
i, as a light person have the same baggage allowance as everyone else, should i be able to refuse to pay it because i, plus my bags, will be lighter than the person of size beside me?
of course not.
so if you need two seats you should pay for them.
you have to pay for the extra seat when a child flies, even if they spend the entire flight on your lap.
Question- why should an airline have to minimize profit by adding an additional row of larger seats?- If I run an airline, and you require two seats, then you will be charged for two seats.
As the business owner, I don’t care two figs about you, or your size- all I want to do is maximize my profit. If I add additional seats, and don’t charge a sufficient premium to make it equal in revenue (e.g. 4 seats at 100$ vs 2 seats at 200$), then I am being an idiot. I am not going to only charge you $150 for the larger seat, because that would be a mistake.
This has nothing to do with discrimination, or unfairness, or anything else of that sort.
Now, considering I’m about to get on a plane, if some SOB has more than their allotted amount of carryon baggage, I’m going to see if I can stuff a human being in the overhead compartment.
[childbirth educator hijack]
During pregnancy, the lap portion of your seatbelt should be placed under your belly, so the force of any impact is taken by your hipbones, not by the soft tissues of your abdomen.
[/cbe hijack]
I do not understand why some folks keep bringing the “it’s not his fault if he’s fat” and “it’s not fair” arguments. They are 100% irrelevant. It is not my fault i need eyeglasses and you don’t and yet I do not expect to get free eyeglasses paid by you. It is not your fault you need viagra and I don’t but I am not going to pay for your viagra. My girlfriend weighs about half what I weigh and she eats about half what I eat. Should I get twice the amount of groceries for the same price?
The airline is free to sell their seats on any terms they see fit and they are free to discriminate on whatever grounds they want (except on race, national origin etc). They can decide to charge double to fat guys or half to blondes and they are within their rights. The only question left is whether it is a good business decision.