Southwest Airlines policy

[DWRolfe]

Read about this hateful policy online this morning....

Southwest Airlines will start charging larger passengers for two seats on its 2,800 daily flights starting June 26. The airline, which operates out of 58 U.S. cities and is the largest carrier at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, will begin charging "persons of size" for two seats if they think they may not fit comfortably in one.
Ticket agents will not have weight and height requirements to follow when determining who can comfortably fit into one seat or who needs to purchase another ticket, said Southwest spokeswoman Christine Turneabe-Connelly.
"It is, unfortunately, a judgment call," she said.
Miriam Berg, president of the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, questioned agents' ability to make the correct assessment.
"Do they have scales to weigh people? Do they have tape measures to measure a person's girth?" she asked.
Southwest has always asked large passengers to purchase two tickets if they would have difficulty fitting into one seat, and ticket agents used to have some flexibility when accommodating these passengers, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
But as of June 26, the airline will ask large passengers "whether the flight is full or not, to purchase an additional seat," she said.
If the flight isn't full, the passenger may request a refund after the flight, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
"For an airline to charge people double based on the person's size is pure discrimination," Miss Berg said. "Do they discriminate the same way against basketball players who are 6 foot 5 inches and don't fit in their seats?"
All people who are too large to fit in one seat, not just the obese, are included in the Southwest policy, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
The industry does not have a general policy on airlines' accommodation of large passengers, said Diana Cronan, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the major carriers. However, some carriers charge large passengers extra.
Chicago-based United Airlines, for example, charges larger passengers double if they cannot comfortably fit in one seat, said United spokesman Joe Hopkins.
Miss Berg said she has had more complaints from large travelers about Southwest, which is the fourth-largest domestic airline based on passenger numbers, than any other airline.
"They think they can get away with it because they think discriminating against people on the basis of weight will be acceptable to most of the population," she said.
She blames the airlines for making seats too small to accommodate larger Americans.
"The fact is that Americans are getting larger," she said. "This is what the population looks like, and an airline has an obligation to make its seat fit the population."
The actual trend in size is hard to pin down. In 1998, the government's body-mass index was changed, resulting in 30 million Americans going from government-approved to overweight or obese overnight.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that, under the new standards, 61 percent of Americans were overweight or obese in 1999. The percentage of obese Americans nearly doubled from about 15 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 1999.
The policy change at Southwest was prompted by studies of its service, the company says. The airline found that many large passengers did not purchase two tickets and that other customers often complained when their space was encroached upon.
"We learned some important lessons from that," Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
Advocacy organizations such as Miss Berg's have long opposed airlines charging large passengers extra.
The National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance offers large passengers tips on its Web site for dealing with airlines but acknowledges that passengers often encounter stumbling blocks.
"Your needs deserve to be met, but it may be up to you to remind them of this simple fact," the site reads. "Remember that you have a right to accessible transportation."
Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said Southwest ticket agents are trained not only to make good judgment calls on who needs to pay for an extra seat but also to be discreet when confronting passengers.
"We don't want the customer to be embarrassed or offended in any way," she said.
But it's important that all passengers be comfortable on Southwest flights, she said. "If we have a full flight and there's somebody sitting next to [a larger passenger], the other customer becomes upset."

Donald :mad:

[Lessara]

I guess that means 61% of Americans aren't using Southwest Airlines...

That or we can throw away our scales because to find out if we are "thin enough" all we do is ask Southwest, "Am I one ticket or two?" :D

[lngirl]

I just want to blow off a little steam. Last night I heard on the news that Southwest airlines will be charging double for people of size. So what I want to know is what is the break point. And if you're of a "small size" do you get a discount. I fly with them a lot and many time the plane has been full and they've never had to not fill every seat because I'm too big. And now that I'm losing weight, at what point would I be ok? Some folks are big at 200 lbs and some people aren't. And, I buy tickets on line, are they going to ask my weight when I order the tickets, or will they wait till I'm in line to load and then want a full fare when my original ticket was a discount. If it's a problem with fuel then everyone should be weigh as we board and when you reach the load limit that's it. I don't like that a ticket agent arbitrarily picks and chooses. Sorry but this just fries my buns :mad:

[Cinderella]

I have clicked on this post three times....I keep reading it...and reading it...

Can a company really do this without being sued? I wonder who came up with this sick idea, does he still have a job?

Well..I guess this will be the next airline to go bankrupt. Others are pulling seats out...putting them farther apart, making more leg room..etc..whatever they can do to accomidate everyone more comfortably...they must be rolling on the floor over this one..or laughing..all the way to the bank.

cin

[VictoriaT]

I will never fly southwest airlines again--even after I lose my weight....
I cant see how they get away with that....it is pure discrimination. That is such an embarrassment. :thdown:

[Natrushka]

We had a case like this in Canada last year. You might find the outcome interesting :)

http://cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/travel/fairflying/index.html

Nat

[OKwoer]

I'm sitting here with my bottom jaw resting on the floor as I type. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME?!?!?! Don, I read your full account and I am shocked. I just can't believe that an airline would come to the conclusion that this would be in the best interest of the business. I also can't believe that they would risk a suit under the ADA. To me this is no different than if someone were to charge extra for wheelchair bound individuals to use an elevator. I would suspect that if someone were to sue and win on this issue, the airlines would be required to create special seating in planes to provide "equal access" for those of us with large frames.

I myself avoid flying if at all possible because I AM so sensitive about infringing on other peoples space. I always accomodate others and feel bad that I do require special treatment. But to suggest that I must pay double...I just can't fathom that standing up to a legal challenge.

Well...I've got to tell you, I've just lost my cherub like demeanor for the day.

[tamarian]

I merged both thread into one, hope not much confusion would result :)

Some thoughts:

1. Would they charge bodybuilder with huge shoulders more?

2. Tall people who need to sit at the front for more leg room, would they be charged double?

3. Would petite women get a 50% discount?

4. Would they start charging by area, rather than by the seat. Otherwise, they can make the seats so tiny, and charge everyone double the price, excpet for children.....

Wa'il

[Talon]

Too Big, Two Seats (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/sh/travelgetaways/stories/travel-headlines-151939020020619-060608.html)

[agonycat]

I think this is totally insane.

Let's play the what if game shall we?

WHAT IF, there were only 3 seats left on a plane and none of those seats were together. Would the "over sized" person still be charged for two seats and everyone on the plane be asked to move to make room?

God how embarrassing would that be!

Good way to go bankrupt for sure.

[OKwoer]

Well, I did a little research on the subject and it seems that there is both good and bad news for us big folk.

The good news is that while SW Airlines does in fact reserve the right to enforce this policy, in practice it has rarely been done.

The bad news is that it has already held up to a legal challenge. A judge ruled that SWA was acting within legal standards and that the burden of proof necessary for a discrimination claim had not been met. Of interest to me was that the case was not argued as a violation of ADA. I was under the assumption that obesity was treated as a disability and therefore equal access rules applied. Anyone know anything about ADA and the obese?

[lngirl]

Thanks for combining the threads, I hadn't seen this one. I'm feeling very insecure right now. I am flying from Calif to Winnipeg next week, and am wondering if Canada Airlines will want more money once they see me. I know it's not comfortable to sit next to a large person, but it's also not comfortable to sit next to someone holding a crying child for hours. Or someone who goes to the bathroom every 5 minutes and has to climb all over everyone. Most people are very gracious and I've never had a problem in the past flying so it is really bugging me. It's always hard wondering if you're going to fit in the seats, chairs, in whatever venue be it a concert, restaurant, movie etc. I hate feeling insecure about this crap. :mad:

[Tari]

Having flown Southwest before, I would suggest that NOBODY could possibly be comfortable in their seats--no matter what their weight.

Seriously, though, this is just awful. I'll never fly them again and am writing them to tell them so. I'm also talking to our the people who make the travel decisions for our company and will encourge them to boycott Southwest.

[tamarian]

Airlines Slammed on Large Passengers
Wed Jun 19, 8:11 PM ET

By DAVID KOENIG, AP Business Writer

DALLAS (AP) - Southwest Airlines ( news - web sites) is under fire for its policy of charging overweight passengers for two tickets if they spill over into their neighbor's seat.

The airline says it is trying to provide a comfortable flight for travelers seated next to large passengers.

"We sell seats, and if you consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman.

Advocates for the obese are outraged.

"It's just discriminatory and it's mean-spirited," said Morgan Downey, executive director of the American Obesity Association. "This is singling out a group that's been very heavily stigmatized rather than making some accommodations in their cabins."

Downey, whose group has not received specific complaints about the airline's policy, says Southwest and other carriers should make wider seats because Americans are getting larger; the Centers for Disease Control estimates that more than one-fourth of Americans are obese.

Southwest, whose seats are 18 inches wide, does not weigh or measure passengers. Ticket agents can "make a judgment call" and ask an obese person whether he or she usually takes up more than one seat, Harbin said. If the answer is yes, the person is asked to buy two seats.

The second seat costs the same as the original fare, unless the passenger is a walkup customer paying the highest price. In that case, the second ticket is discounted, Harbin said. The passenger can get a refund later if the flight is not sold out, the airline spokeswoman said.

Southwest said there is nothing new in its handling of obese passengers. Harbin said the carrier has followed the same policy since 1980, although employees were reminded of the policy as the carrier began switching this week to a new automated boarding pass instead of its old, familiar plastic passes.

Several other carriers have similar policies, including Houston-based Continental and Fort Worth-based American, which requires purchase of a second seat for customers who "protrude extensively into an adjacent seat." Northwest Airlines ( news - web sites) allows the passenger to buy the second seat at the same price paid for the first seat rather than a more expensive last-minute rate.

"That's a compromise, and we're coming quite a ways with that. It's a very difficult issue," said Northwest spokesman Kurt Ebenhoch.

Delta does not require obese passengers to buy a second ticket and tries to handle complaints by moving passengers to empty seats or other flights, a spokeswoman said. United also does not require purchase of a second ticket, a spokesman said.

Southwest said its double-ticket policy on obese passengers was prompted by complaints from other travelers. Harbin, the airline spokeswoman, said nine out of 10 letters to customer service come from passengers who were crowded by large neighbors.

The airlines said they don't know how many times an obese passenger is required to buy two tickets, but they consider it rare.

Downey said his group was considering legal action or asking Congress to prohibit the two-ticket policy.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020620/ap_on_bi_ge/airlines_big_passengers_2

[szar]

I am absolutely beside myself (would I need to buy an extra seat for that?). It seems that the overweight are the last vestage of those who it is alright to discriminate against. I hope that one of the advocacy groups pushes the issue....

Mark

[lissdawn]

This is the 4th time I have read this thread now. I am just SICKENED by this! I am from Canada, so fortunately, I don't have the amazing privilege of being in the presence of this bureaucratic airline on a regular basis, but I'd like to send them a letter nonetheless. As a matter of fact, if someone would be so kind as to get the contact info and post it here, I think we should all send them a letter. Maybe even a petition boycotting the airline. I, for one, will be glad to be the first one to sign it. This is as a result of their complaints? PLEASE. What about the other complaints they get? What about the screaming children? What's about the drunks who get rowdy and out of control? I'd be interested to know the statistics (since they obviously keep track of them) on the number of complaints on these! And yet why do those issues continue? Because of PROFIT, BABY. It's all about the benjamins. Oh, I am FIRED UP. I really don’t know what makes me angrier…the airline that did this, or the ignorant judge that gave them PERMISSION to do this! This has absolutely nothing to do with pleasing their customers and handling complaints. This is about a group of suits sitting in a boardroom, going over their last quarter profit/loss statements, seeing the numbers dropping more and more, and brainstorming on ways that they can make their outdated, archaic, stone-age ideas useful to bring in the money. Coincidence that this so-called “policy” that has been around since 1983, and it is only now being reiterated to employees that such a policy exists? The least they could do is be honest about their reasons for the decision. Let’s just say what it really is. “Let’s exploit the fact that so many Americans are obese, and our profits are tanking at unbelievable rates, so let’s up the ante shall we? Let’s get that extra X number of seats a day in profit”…I can see the drool on their faces…Taking X number of passengers a day, multiplied by the national “average” of obese people…even if they only did it to 1 passenger every 5 flights, I’d be interested to know what kind of profit that would bring in. Are they going to start some sort of incentive for their employees? Up-selling to us larger people? “Ok kids, at every airport, whoever sells the MOST double seating this month gets a $50 bonus!” WHOO HOOOO!

[Mae West]

Hi all,

Boy, it's been a long time since I posted here, although I've been lurking occasionally. But this subject has me fired up. I just finished writing my letter to Southwest Airlines and I feel a little better, but not much.
I copied and pasted the following information from the Southwest.com website:

To Contact Us by Mail:
Southwest Airlines
Customer Relations
P.O. Box 36647 - 1CR
Dallas, Texas 75235-1647

Why Southwest Doesn't Accept E-Mail:

"Call us traditional, but we elect to steer clear of the chat-style, respond-on-demand, quick, casual format and focus on meaningful customer dialogue."

"This is not because we don't care. It's because that style counters our 30 plus year commitment to Customer Service."

"Our Customers deserve accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers, and it takes time to research, investigate, and compose a real business letter. We answer every letter we receive in the order it arrives, and we streamline in order to keep our costs low, our People productive, our operating efficiency high, and our responses warm and personal."

HA! I hope Southwest continues to keep it's responses warm and personal as it composes "real business letter" replies to 171,654,000 offended Americans!

I think, since over 61% of all Americans are right now secretly worrying about whether they will be humiliated, embarrassed, and charged an unfair fee of hundreds of dollars if they attempt to board a Southwest plane, "overcrowding" will definitely not be Southwest's problem in the future!

Mae West

"He's so crooked he uses a cork screw for a ruler." The Other Mae West
"I never diet. The only carrots I'm interested in are the number of carots in a diamond." Also by The Other Mae West.

[fiona]

Over the years I've seen things starting in America and slowwwwwly making their way to Britain. For some years now I've been chaffing against a new trend of hard-line inhuman employer. But this just takes the biscuit.

Any complaints we have against our airlines pale into insignificance at this latest form of Prejudice.

I have no doubt Southwest is doing it for profit. Customers have a choice too : If I had my way I would lobby for the "thin people" to join forces with the Persons of Size" and put them out of business.

{....focus on meaningful customer dialogue.....} I expect their idea of meaningful customer dialogue is pay up or shut up.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

:rheart: :angel: to all Persons of Size :rheart: :angel:
Take care,

[Shark01]

I wrote them a letter this morning, and inquired about a particular situation when our family flies:

"My wife is also a large person, and we fly with our two year old to Grandmother’s house once a year. We fit very comfortably in a row of 3 seats. Now if we are charged for 5 seats, where are our two other seats located? Are they on the other side of the aisle? In front, or behind us? Are they 15 rows toward the front? Do I have the right to tell someone else to not sit in the window or aisle seat in the next row because we paid for them? It seems I do since I bought the seats. How are you going to enforce my right to protect my seats?"

No way this policy stands up in court and I hope they are hurt SEVERELY by this stupid action.

I mean, where does this stop? People on other forums are advocating fat people buy additional seating in movie theaters, concerts, and sporting events :daze:

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Shark01
My wife is also a large person, and we fly with our two year old to Grandmother?s house once a year. We fit very comfortably in a row of 3 seats. Now if we are charged for 5 seats, where are our two other seats located?

Good one :)

Wa'il

[nopie]

"They think they can get away with it because they think
discriminating against people on the basis of weight will be
acceptable to most of the population,"

Unfortunately, I think this policy will be acceptable to most people. The hate of fat people that I have heard the last two days is incredible. People who would not speak this way about terrorists or criminals feel completely free to say the most hateful things about us.
I believe that the same very negative attitude that was slowly promoted by the government and others against smoking and then smokers, is now in play here.
Yes, smoking is bad for you and people said second hand smoking was dangerous, that smoke was invading their space. We all know that being fat is not healthy and the last two days, I have heard people say that fat people invaded their space.
I used to smoke and thoroughly enjoyed it - until "they" made me feel like some terrible criminal for smoking. There was no place left to smoke. It was socially unacceptable. I felt like a pariah. I quit four years ago and I'm glad I did - but I will never be critical of people who do smoke.
There has been more criticism of smokers than there has been of people who drink and drive.
Now it is open season on fat people.
Just as "they" made people feel free to be hateful and complain about smokers, out law smoking, people will now feel free to complain and openly despise us and maybe ultimately limit where we are allowed to go and what we are allowed to eat.
This is an agenda. Demonize and make it acceptable to criticise a group. Soon you can make life so intolerable for people in that group, that they will change. If they will not change, it will be perfectly acceptable to defile them and make laws against them.
To very loosely paraphrase the old saying: I didn't complain when they came after smokers, or when they came after this group or that group, and pretty soon they came after me.

[Shark01]

I don't think comparing this action by SWA to smoking is prudent. Second hand smoke kills innocent people. Cigarette butts flying out of cars degrades our environment. And the smell of cigarette smoke is horrible. Unless I jumped off a building, I don't think my weight causes anyone else harm. But this has brought out the worst in people. Even "friends" around the office are applauding this policy (taking special note to exclude me however :rolleyes: ). It's time the obese became a protected legislative class :thup:

[LC_Dave]

What hasn't been brought up, especially not by the media is - Why don't they make the seats bigger ?

The seats in airlines are absolutely ridiculous. Even if I lost a tonne of weight I still could not fit in them!

I have broad shoulders and when they park me in an aisle seat - I get banged by the staff walking up and down. :(

The last time I was in air I thought I might go to the toilet. Bugger me! I would have to be 5 foot tall to sit down!

This brings up another issue. Chairs with arms! They are a big no-no for me at the moment. There are so many cafe's that have them! The funny thing is that they loose business. When I'm out with people I say, 'Nah chairs are too small' and we move to the next cafe and spend our money. They don't just loose this big man's business, but the loose the business of the people I'm with!

Dave

[OKwoer]

Yep Dave...I here exactly what you're saying. I think for many a resturaunt, it is not so much an act of discrimination, but just ignorance. When the owner orders chairs, I don't think he/she thinks about people not being able to fit in them...rather I believe that he/she's probably thinking "what's the nicest looking chair that I can afford to purchase?" Still, as you say, that ignorance does cost them customers.

I do hope that someone sues Southwest under the American's with Disabilities Act. If the court were to rule in our favor, all airlines would be required to make provisions giving us equal access without paying more. Wider seats for everyone!!!!!!

[bellabubba]

Ok..no one jump down my throat here..BUT..if you need two seats..you are taking up the space of a seat that someone else could be paying for..unfortunately it IS a business..and they are in it for money and nothing else..not saying I agree..just trying to be realistic..

Also this has been a policy for years and years with all airlines if you look into it..and it has been inforced before..southwest obviously had an icident which brought this forward...

I do disagree that is up to the discretion of the tellers though..that's just plain stupid..if they are going to do it they should do it by weight/height and so on..period.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by bellabubba
Ok..no one jump down my throat here..BUT..if you need two seats..you are taking up the space of a seat that someone else could be paying for..unfortunately it IS a business..and they are in it for money and nothing else..not saying I agree..just trying to be realistic..

The problem is, what is a reasonable size for a seat? And who get's to decide the reasonable size for others.

Let's say you can fit in seat that's 15" wide, would you be willing to pay for two seats when their next design has seats that are 14" wide? I don't think so....

Wa'il

[OKwoer]

I did a little more research. In California, they actually have a law that states that airlines must allow persons who have seeing eye dogs to have their dogs accompany them on the plane. It also states that they can not be charged an additional fare.

I also found the statements for special accomodations on several air carriers' websites (Interestingly, SWA does not have ANY information about accomodating special needs travelers on its website) that offer additional seating at no charge for persons traveling with a seeing eye dog.

You know...I guess if Airlines can do this, then theatres would have the same right. I guess if another person would be uncomfortable sitting next to me in a theatre, then the theatre can charge me for that empty seat. I wonder if buildings with elevators might start charging fat people because they can't fit as many people on at a time? Of course Disney World will have to charge me double because I take up two spaces on the monorail. And resturaunts...they'll have to charge me double for my meal because after all, if I wasn't so fat I could have invited another person to share the booth. I mean it IS a business...they have the right....RIGHT!?!?!?!?

[bellabubba]

I guess i'm the only one with this opinion..but I make a point to get the emergency seats..two side by side..so i am not bothering anyone but my hubby by squishing over into his seat..

I caused myself to be this size..no one else did..it's my problem not anyone elses...and i do what i can to accomodate to other people..

I barely fit in a normal seat..if i was any bigger and needed two seats..i would pay for two or i wouldnt' fly...even at this point i would not just buy a normal ticket..how embaressing to have to plunk my fat body down between two normal sized people who are crammed already..now I'm jammed between them..i would never..that wouldnt be fair to them..and it would be humiliating to me...

Sorry..i know everyone is going to freak..but that's my opinion

[tamarian]

Originally posted by bellabubba

Sorry..i know everyone is going to freak..but that's my opinion

That's allright, and we're glad you shared it with us.

However, it isn't that simple, nor should it be judged on purely personal situations. For example, if you really think it's your "fault" that yoiu need extra room, what if you lose a lot of weight, but you still need more space? Some of us, predominantly women, who fit the "pear shape" would still need more hip room, even at their ideal weight. Some of us, predominantly men, have broad shoulder that will protrude into the next seat.

Notice the policy didn't target men with broad shoulders, nor tall people, it is explicitly for wide-hipped fat individuals. There are many obese people, "apple-shaped", who would be comfortable in regular seats, but will be charged nonetheless, because they are obese in the eyes of some airline employees, but not in the eyes of others. You will be at the mercy of who over looks you up and down to check how they should treat you.

So, even if you think it's your "fault" -- which is beside the point, and may need another thread to discuss -- many will be wider than the 15" or 16" yard-stick due to no fault of their own.

In addition, many are obese due to prescribed hormon and other medications, would you support charging them extra? If other disabilities aren't charged for the same?

Wa'il

[tamarian]

Originally posted by OKwoer
I also found the statements for special accomodations on several air carriers' websites (Interestingly, SWA does not have ANY information about accomodating special needs travelers on its website) that offer additional seating at no charge for persons traveling with a seeing eye dog.


The news release mentioned Delta and United as the ones who don't charge, nore have a policy to charge based on discretion.


And resturaunts...they'll have to charge me double for my meal because after all, if I wasn't so fat I could have invited another person to share the booth. I mean it IS a business...they have the right....RIGHT!?!?!?!?

I agree, it's the same logic.

Wa'il

[lngirl]

I understand the point about business is business. I guess the part of this whole thing that really gets me going is that it is up to the agent to decide. If they had a published rule like some helicopter businesses do that anyone over a certain weight must pay a premium that would make more sense. But they don't so its an arbitary decision based on someones look and to me that is discrimination. Right?

[Mae West]

I've decided this SWA policy will never affect me, because I've decided never to fly SWA again. There are other travel options, and to my knowledge, train and bus companies don't have this kind of policy... nor do car rental agencies.
I am simply too shy and sensitive about my size (even when I am close to my goal) to even think about discussing it with a stranger in the middle of a public airport... especially a stranger who may suddenly decide to insist that I have to pay hundreds of dollars more than everyone else because he/she happens to think I am too fat.
I would hitchhike before I would put myself in that situation.
SWA posted this new information on their website. I thought you might be interested:

"A Message From Southwest Airlines"

"In the past 48 hours, Southwest Airlines has heard from many people regarding ongoing "news" stories about our policy that requires Customers who occupy two seats to purchase both seats. We have been truly disheartened by the inaccurate reports and the hurt and disappointment this issue has caused so many of you. We are further saddened that the sensationalism of this issue has encouraged many Americans to "take sides" or "poke fun" over a subject that we realize is very real and often uncomfortable to many people. Unfortunately, our attempt to "set the record straight" has continued to be incorrectly reported. As a result, we want to take the opportunity to respond to your questions and concerns regarding what has turned into one of the "hottest" topics during the past couple of days in a forum that hopefully will reach the most people. We value, want, and need your business, and we consider it a privilege each time you call upon our Company to serve you."

Q: "Is this a new policy?"

A: "No. Southwest has had a policy in place since 1980 that requires a Customer to purchase the number of seats he/she occupies. This is a policy that most other airlines also have."

Q: "If the policy is not new, why does it go into effect on June 26 as stated in the news?"

A: "This policy doesn’t go into effect on June 26 (it has been in effect since 1980). The only significance to the June 26 date is that is the date we expect to be fully operational systemwide with our new checkin and boarding process. As you may have heard, Southwest is doing away with our plastic boarding passes and implementing a new checkin and boarding process that involves an electronically issued paper boarding pass. We recently began training our Employees on this new process, which allows us the capability to note on the boarding pass itself that a Customer has purchased an additional seat (whether that additional seat is needed for a large Customer, an infant traveling in a child restraint device, a musical instrument, or other items). During that training, we issued an internal document reminding our Agents of our longtime existing policy of requiring a Customer to purchase a second seat if that Customer needed a second seat for his/her safety and comfort on the aircraft. We didn’t issue a press release—someone in the media obtained a copy of the memo from one of our Employees. In fact, the only "new" procedure involving this "old" policy is that our Agents will give the Customer a document that advises of our refund policy and lists a phone number and address the Customer can contact to apply for a refund."

Q: "Why are you asking your Employees to request that a large Customer purchase an additional seat?"

A: "Our entire reason for sending our Employees the reminder is because we are expecting fuller flights this summer. When our aircraft are booked to capacity, and one Customer is occupying more than one seat, another Customer is left without the seat he/she purchased. This ultimately costs us money in denied boarding compensation and inconveniences the Customer who has been "left behind." It is certainly not safe, comfortable, or fair for a person who has purchased a ticket to be left with only a portion of a seat or no seat), nor should anyone be expected to occupy less than an entire seat. Further, it’s not safe, comfortable, or fair for the Customer who is occupying more than one seat to be placed in the situation of having someone crowded in a portion of a seat."

Q: "How much will one have to pay for the additional seat?"

A: "If the Customer is holding an advance purchase, discounted fare, the second seat will be sold at the same discounted fare. If the Customer has purchased one of our low, unrestricted full fares, the second seat will be sold at the discounted Child’s Fare."

Q: "When do I qualify to receive a refund for the additional seat purchase?"

A: "As long as the flight does not oversell (having more Customers waiting to board an aircraft than seats on the aircraft), we will refund the additional seat purchase. All Customers who have purchased an additional seat will receive a document that advises them to contact our Customer Relations Department after travel to request a refund for the additional seat purchased. In addition, if there is a possibility that the flight will oversell, the Customer will be given the option to purchase a second seat and travel on a less full flight to his/her destination without paying a penalty-fee, regardless of the fare paid. And, unlike Customers who must purchase an additional seat to place a musical item, a child restraint device for an infant, etc. and who have other "options" such as holding the infant, placing the item in an onboard stowage space or in the cargo hold, we are sensitive to fact that a large Customer has no choice but to occupy more than one seat. For that reason, this is the one instance where we will offer a refund of the additional seat purchased as long as the flight does not oversell."

Q: "Won’t this be embarrassing to the large Customer and the Employee?"

A: "Because this is not a new policy, our Employees have held this sensitive discussion with some Customers in the past. Many Customers who are of a larger size and who travel often by air purchase two seats when making their reservations because (1) the Customer knows he/she occupies more than one aircraft seat and is more comfortable in two seats and (2) the Customer wants to avoid the discussion with Employees at the airport. In fact, by making arrangements in advance, the Customer has allowed us to deplete the inventory of the second seat so that we don’t sell it to someone else. And by the Customer having purchased the seat in advance, we are less likely to oversell the flight."

Q: "What will happen if a large Customer has only purchased one seat?"

A: "We also realize that sometimes a Customer doesn’t know he/she can purchase a seat in advance and arrives at the airport holding only one ticket. In those cases, we have asked our Agents to kindly and discreetly advise the Customer of the need to purchase an additional seat for everyone’s safety and comfort onboard and to give the Customer the document advising how to obtain a refund. By taking the opportunity to educate the Customer for the next time he/she travels, we have managed the Customer’s expectations by providing consistency."

Q: "I am a large person and use a seatbelt extension, but I fit in one aircraft seat, why should I have to purchase two seats?"

A: "Our policy isn’t about a person’s weight or shape. We have no intentions of having scales, sizing templates, measuring tape, etc. That certainly isn’t a way to treat people, and we have never considered any such thing. Many Customers may use a seatbelt extension but occupy only one seat. Those Customers would not be asked to pay for a second seat. We are simply asking a Customer who must lift the armrest in order to sit in the aircraft seat and who, at that point, is obviously occupying a portion (or all) of the seat next to him/her, to pay for the additional seat being occupied. Again, we will offer a refund if the flight does not oversell."

Q: "Why not make your seats wider or add a few wide seats on your aircraft?"

A: "It’s important to point out that all airlines sell seats to provide transportation between point A and point B. For 2001, on average only six seats per aircraft accounted for Southwest Airlines’ profit. Our goal has always been to make air travel affordable so that everyone could fly. The cities we serve have seen a substantial decrease in generally available air fares, a marked increase in passenger traffic, and more frequent offerings of service; a phenomenon often referred to as "The Southwest Effect." If we were to replace just three rows of three seats with two seats, each being one and a half times wider, we would have to double our fares to maintain our profit margin. Southwest provides all coach class seating; we do not have first class seats on our aircraft. Think of what the other airlines charge for "first class" seating. Let’s take, for example, the Los Angeles-Baltimore/Washington market. Our highest one-way fare is currently $299.00. The equivalent fare for a "coach" seat (same "size" as all of our seats) on our competitors is, give or take a few dollars, $1,100.00 one-way; and a first-class, wider seat is, on average, is $1,650.00 one-way. Purchasing two seats on Southwest Airlines is significantly less expensive than purchasing one first class seat on another airline. And remember, we also offer significantly discounted advance purchase fares. Our goal is and has always been to make air travel affordable, and by asking a person to pay upfront for the "product" being used, this guarantees that everyone has a safe and comfortable experience. Plus, we will refund the additional purchase as long as the flight does not oversell."

Q: "If a flight is "open," why are you charging for an additional seat?"

A: "In the past, when we have allowed some flexibility on "open" flights, we ended up inconveniencing our Customers who need two seats by not providing a consistent expectation. As you may know, the nature of our flights is to combine two or more short, nonstop flights to make a medium to longer haul journey. This means, to get from point A to point B, a Customer may make one or more stops along the way. While the first segment of a flight was "open," oftentimes the remaining segment(s) to a Customer’s destination were full. If a large Customer occupied two seats, but only paid for one, we often found ourselves in the dilemma of having to pay another downline Customer denied boarding compensation because we could not accommodate the downline Customer. Additionally, a Customer’s outbound flight might be open, but the return was full. The inconsistent application of charging for the extra seat on the outbound but not on the return often left the Customer not knowing what to expect and not having a full understanding of our policy. Consistent application of our policy allows a Customer to know what to expect always."

Q: "Isn’t this policy discriminatory toward large Customers?"

A: "Southwest Airlines does not condone discrimination in any form. We have Employees and Customers of all races, ethnicity, religions, shapes, and sizes. Our Mission has always been and will always be to provide safe, reliable, and affordable air transportation for America."


Personally, I think Southwest Airlines should change their slogan from "Just Plane Smart" to "We Only Like Small People-- All Others Pay Extra."

Mae West

"I've been in more laps than a napkin." The other Mae West

[wbahn]

As a rule, I support SWA's right to make such a policy. I don't think it's a good policy and I don't think it's a smart policy - as I think they are discovering. But they have the right to make it and the subsequent obligation to live with the consequences.

I don't go to amusement parks because, the last time I went, I couldn't comfortably ride anything much more daring than the merry go round. But I don't feel I have the right to demand that they make their rides accommodate me.

But it is still important for companies such as amusement parks and stores and airlines and just about everyone else to remember one thing - no matter how little they think they need my business, the simple fact is that I need their goods and services even less. That simple fact dictates the tone of our relationship and whether there will even be one.

I think a better policy for SWA would be something along the lines of:

=====================
It is a common occurance that, for a variety of reasons, some people are denied the ability to board and take a flight that they have paid for. These customers are routinely compensated in some manner for this inconvenience and we always ask for volunteers first. But there are times when we must select which passengers will be denied service - and when we do the degree of compensation given increases accordingly.

If a situation arises where an aircraft is full and a larger passenger is encroaching on the seating space of another passenger to an unacceptable degree and other arrangements cannot be made, the larger passenger may be denied service and, with appropriate compensation, not be allowed to take the flight.
=====================

But I found one of the claims made in their statement to be really troubling:

From SWA's statement quoted in an earlier post:
For 2001, on average only six seats per aircraft accounted for Southwest Airlines’ profit. ... If we were to replace just three rows of three seats with two seats, each being one and a half times wider, we would have to double our fares to maintain our profit margin.

This statement is laughably assinine.

Before we even look at this ridiculous claim in any depth, we can rule it out as being absurd immediately. If I had, say, only sixty passengers on a plane and I dropped that by three because I elimated seats, then my number of passengers went down by 5%. In order to keep the same revenue, I would therefore need to increase the amount paid by each remaining passenger by roughly 5%. It is completely irrelevant whether my profit for the flight corresponded to six seats, forty seats or half a seat. We're talking middle school match. So the notion that they would have to double their fares shouldn't have survived the first glance and the person that suggested it should have been sent out to get coffee.

What does the first part mean? Assuming that it is an accurate statement in the first place, it means this: on average, the amount of profit from each flight is equal to the average fare of six seats.

So, just to put some numbers to it, this is data taken from SWA website:



Approximately 2800 flights a day

364 aircraft - 52 with 122 seats and 312 with 137 seats.

2001 Financial Statistics:
Net income: $511.1 million
Total passengers carried: 64.4 million
Total RPMs: 44.5 billion
Passenger load factor: 68.1 percent
Total operating revenue: $5.6 billion


If they average 2800 flights a day, then they make 1,022,000 flights a year.

If they carried 64.4 million passengers with a total revenue of $5.6 billion, then their average revenue per customer was $86.95, their average number of passengers per flight was 63, and their average revenue per flight was $5480.

Keep in mind that a person making a round trip flight is TWO passengers - one going out and one coming back. This assumes that there is no significant revenue from other sources such as cargo - which is almost certainly not true since cargo carrying is a significant part of most airlines' business. But let's assume that there is no cargo service.

That means that the average revenue from a round trip ticket is only about $174. I can probably believe this given the claim that their HIGHEST one-way ticket is under $300 and since taxes and fees chip away pretty thoroughly at the fare the customer pays before the remainder gets counted as "revenue" for the airline.

Their "Net Income" of $511.1 million dollars divided by the number of flights means that, on average, each flight contributed right at $500 (of the $5480) toward that bottom line. At $86.95 per seat, that's 5.75 seats. This is almost undoubtedly where the six seat figure comes from. It appears reasonable (subject to the cargo question) so we will accept it at face value.

So, let's assume that we remove the three seats from the airplane as suggested and let's make the wild assumption that, on every flight, this means three fewer passengers. So instead of 63 passengers to get that $500 toward the bottom line, it would have to be done with only 60. In order to generate the same revenue - the $5480 per flight - each person would now have to contribute $91.33. That's a difference of only $4.38 each way or less than an addition $9 for a roundtrip ticket. And this would actually result in slightly more Net Income since three fewer people means less weight, less fuel cost, less food and beverage cost, less labor to handle baggage, etc. But these factors are pretty minimal as it costs almost exactly as much to fly an empty airliner (with a full crew) as it does to fly a full airliner.

So we've just seen that, even if removing three seats from each airplane to make room for six larger seats meant that EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT had to have three fewer passengers, that the average ticket price would only have to go up by $10. If that constitutes a doubling of the price, I want to know how to get that fare in the first place!

But what percentage of flights would such a change actually reduce the number of passengers on the plane. The answer - very few. On average, their aircraft have 135 seats - and worst case they have 122. So with an average load of 63 passengers they have a LOT more than three empty seats on the VAST majority of flights. For those flights, what difference does it make if 15 seats are empty or 18 seats are empty?

Now, at this point there is a discrepancy in their data. They claim a Passenger Load Factor of 68.1%. This would appear to mean that, on average, their planes are 68.1% full. But that would mean an average of 92 people per flight. That can be correlated with the total number of passengers only if they are flying just 1920 flights per day and not the 2800 claimed. It would also mean that the profit per flight corresponds to 8.4 seats and not six. So I suspect that the 68.1% is referring to something other than what I interpretted it to be - or there claim of a profit corresponding to six seats is wrong. But, even with these alternate numbers, the $10 would cover the worst-case shortfall and that the vast majority of flights would still have more than three empty seats today.

I have no idea what percentage of flights are fully booked, but I would suspect it to be under 1%. Let's say that it's 10%. That means that the shortfall due to fewer seats would only be 10% of worst case. So by increasing every ticket by only $1 they would cover the shortfall.

But let's look at it the other way. Say they took the three rows of three and converted them to six oversize seats. They could then make these seats available to customers at a, say, $20 premium (or even a $50 premium). Their number of customers would INCREASE because people that currently fly other airlines in the cramped seats would CHOOSE to pay more to fly SWA. They could sell some of the seats and keep a couple of seats open until the very end in order to let a couple people upgrade on the almost full flights.

Now, please note that the above statement by SWA was made by Colleen Barrett. She is not just some media relations hack. She is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Southwest Airlines. So, either she is so math illiterate as to actually think that her statement makes sense, or she is knowingly lying to us by using blantantly bogus Fuzzy Math. In either case, is she someone who should be making key decisions for a multi-billion dollar company?

I think I will be writing SWA and ask them that question. It will be interesting to see if I get one of those "accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers" that they claim I deserve.

[wbahn]

I have sent a letter to SWA. Basically, I took my post above and did some minor edits to it and added some verbage at the beginning and at the end.

Here is what I added at the beginning:


Dear Southwest Airlines,

Since you do not accept e-mail correspondence, perhaps you would be kind enough to ensure that I receive one of those “accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers” your website proclaims that I deserve.
But first, let me ask you – the person reading this – if the following statement makes sense to you and if you agree with it:

A hypothetical airplane has 100 people on it. Each person paid $100 for a ticket. After subtracting out the operating expenses, the profit from that flight was $500 – or the equivalent of just five seats. The revenue from the other 95 went to pay the flight’s expenses. Now, on the same flight the next day there are only going to be 96 people – four less than before. Since we have lost four of the five “profit seats”, I must charge everyone five times as much – or $500 per ticket – in order to make the same profit.

Do you agree with this assertion? Or do you feel it to be a ridiculous claim? If you agree, please pass this letter to a person with a brain because you will only get increasingly confused from here on out. If you feel it to be a ridiculous claim, then perhaps you should be running Southwest Airlines as you have already demonstrated a far greater degree of math literacy and common sense than your President and Chief Operating Officer, Colleen Barrett.

If you are still reading this, I will assume that you can think and can follow along with the following discussion. While it does get quite involved, rest assured that there is nothing in it beyond middle school math.

This letter is prompted by the following answer by Ms. Barrett to a question on your website:



And this is what I added at the end:


Now, let’s get back to what I consider to be a very key point in all of this. Colleen Barrett made the above statement by SWA. She is not just some media relations hack. She is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Southwest Airlines. So, either she is so math illiterate as to actually think that her statement makes sense despite the glaring and obvious absurdity of it, or she is knowingly lying to us by using blatantly bogus “fuzzy math” (is that part of the “Southwest Effect, too?). In either case, is she someone who should be making key decisions for a multi-billion dollar company?

On a different item, Ms. Barrett makes the following answer at the bottom of this same web page:

Isn’t this policy discriminatory toward large Customers?
Southwest Airlines does not condone discrimination in any form. We have Employees and Customers of all races, ethnicity, religions, shapes, and sizes. Our Mission has always been and will always be to provide safe, reliable, and affordable air transportation for America.

Do you really consider this an answer to the question asked? Does merely having “Employees and Customers of all races, ethnicity, religions, shapes, and sizes.” somehow mean that your policies toward them are not discriminatory? What if you decided to charge all colored people a double fare and someone asked the above question? Would you give the same answer?

I certainly look forward to your "accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answer" that addresses all of these questions.



I'll be sure to let you know what, if any, response I get.

[Victoria]

I have read what SWA had on it's website. And read this thread thoroughly. I copied the address to SWA and plan to send them a letter. I think if we all send them a letter, it might make a sufficient impact. My first reaction to hearing this issue on the news was, "well, I'll never use Southwest Airlines." I will let them know that. I know that I do not want to be embarrassed at the airport when I get there. And I haven't that kind of extra money to have to buy two seats. I flew a few years ago, at this weight or bigger and didn't have a problem. I was sitting with my children tho, and didn't have to sit next to strangers. But I know that just as in movie theatres...their are some theatres with bigger seats than others. Infact, the older theatres had bigger and more comfortable seats than now a days. I wonder if they've made the seats smaller for added profit. Or if they've always been extremely narrow?

Thank you Bill for doing the math. I wondered myself why they thought they'd have to double the price of the ticket if they added a few bigger seats. I also wondered where they got their figures on how much other airlines charge for their fares. I have never paid $ 1,000 for a flight. Apparently they are not aware that we can buy tickets at good prices on other airlines that treat fat people better. :mad: Victoria

[Shark01]

Our big fear shouldn't be that SWA is doing this (because we WOULD have other choices) but that ALL airlines would adopt this policy :thdown: :mad:

I can envision situations where a business traveler who is fat would be fired because it costs his company twice as much to travel as the next guy :eek:

If you don't send them a letter, you might just be laying down in front of the anti-fat steamroller............CRUNCH :exclm:

[Meadow]

The overweight are not protected by the ADA. Being overweight is not considered a disability, although I feel it sure qualifies. It seems that most of the general population feel that obesity is totally avoidable and therefore not considered "disability". Although I weighed 325 pounds at my heaviest, I have never taken up more than my own seat. I even leave the arm down. However, that has not stopped other passengers from making nasty comments. I even had one flight attendent delibretly(sp) and repeatedly knock into my shoulder because it was protruding slightly into the isle. I've also had passengers make comments like "just don't get between me and the emergency exit, lady". Discrimination is alive and well out there folks. It's not only acceptable to discriminate against the obese... in some cases it's promoted. That is exactly what the airline is doing now... promoting discrimination. Purely disqusting behavior if you ask me.

[wbahn]

To give the devil his due, Southwest (in my experience) does generally have significantly better fares than their competitors (they are a very no frills airline) and the few times I have flown them I have been treated just as well as on any other airline. They also have one of the best safety records in the industry - and that counts for a lot in my book.

But I cannot stand when ANY company or organization uses bogus fuzzy math in order to defend any position - even if it's one I support.

As for the $1000 fares. My guess is that they looked for worst one-way fare purchased at the gate on the busiest day of the year. Another case of bogus number-twisting if true.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Meadow
I have never taken up more than my own seat. I even leave the arm down. However, that has not stopped other passengers from making nasty comments. I even had one flight attendent ....

This is so true. I personally haven't experienced it, since my size (or look) tends to intimade those who don't know me :) but I hear those comments quite often directed towards us fat people.

I think if we buy tickets for two seats, the problem will even get worst, since it advertises to the whole flight, during the entire flight, look at me, I'm so big they had to assign me two seats!!! It will mainly make us a spectacle for all to watch.

Wa'il

[Mae West]

I just read this little article on MSNBC.com. It's nice to know that someone else thinks SWA's policy is as crazy as we think it is:

"MSNBC"

"June 26 — Complete this sentence: Calista Flockhart is, a) an extreme and unhealthy example of Hollywood’s mania for thinness, or,
b) the perfect Southwest Airlines customer.

"If Southwest wants a real problem to tackle, any airline passenger could give them a dozen."

"THERE WERE more important travel stories last week — Amtrak’s fate, for one. But no travel story of recent days drew as much conversation, and as many differing opinions, as Southwest Airlines’ announcement that the airline would begin to enforce a decades-old policy requiring passengers who spill over into a second seat to buy two tickets."

"The policy’s not new. And according to a well-written June 21 column by David Greising of the Chicago Tribune, the issue isn’t even a big
problem."

"Says Greising: “Southwest flew 64 million passengers last year. Of those, 500 were deemed so large they had to buy an extra seat. That’s 0.0000078 percent of Southwest’s customer base who couldn’t fit into the 18 3/4-inch seats.”

"Was this really the most important issue facing Southwest in this troubled time for travel? If Southwest wants a real problem to tackle, any airline passenger could give them a dozen. How about more leg room, for one? How about adjusting the reclining seatbacks so we don’t have to sit with other passengers’ heads in our laps? How about marking off the carry-on bins so that those seated below them have first shot at the space, only opening it up to others after the plane is full?"

"Oh, don’t get me started, Southwest. Don’t get me started."

It was nice to read that other people are on our side.

But I think Shark01 is right-- EVERYONE needs to write to Southwest, and let the airline know that they will be losing customers by enforcing this policy... Otherwise, other airlines (and bus companies, and train companies) may start developing and enforcing the same kind of policy.
Hmmm... maybe we could all get together and have a demonstration march to Southwest's Headquarters in Texas. Wouldn't that be terrific exercise?!?
;)

Mae West
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful." The other Mae West

[Mae West]

Sorry for taking up so much room... (I'm glad you lowcarbers aren't charging me double for the room I'm taking up in this thread!) But I thought this was funny. It's from the Chicago Times.

"Published June 26, 2002"

"Last week, Southwest Airlines announced it will require "customers of size" who are too large to squeeze between the armrests to buy a second ticket. To counterbalance that heartless decision, the Tempo Subcommittee on Public Relations Damage Control advises that Southwest offer these specials:"

"- Half-price fares for any emaciated supermodel who can share a single seat with another emaciated supermodel."

"- A tall person can bring a short person as carry-on luggage, if they stay put, and keep quiet, in the overhead compartment."

"- 75 percent off for anyone willing to fly the plane."

"- A free bag of peanuts for passengers with enormous bladders who don't use the facilities."

"- A 6 percent discount for all anorexics."

"- Anxious people who deplane within 30 seconds of when the exits open, without hurting anyone, get a free blood pressure gauge."

"- Fear Factor contestants and other "X-treme" passengers can ride on the wing for $10."

"- Mimes can ride for free in specially priced imaginary seats. (Obese mimes pay full fare for two imaginary seats.)"

"- Kids under 30 pounds, contortionists and "customers of height" who can squeeze under the seat get a free DVD of the pre-flight safety lecture."

"- Specially selected coach passengers who ask no questions of and make no demands on airline personnel receive the book "A Culture of Commitment," the leadership secrets of Southwest's founder Herb Kelleher."

Mae West

[tamarian]

That's too funny, Mae! Thanks for sharing it. :)

Wa'il

[Meadow]

Reading your post really did my heart good, Mae. That is one article deserving of being forwarded through email. Brought a little humor to a sad subject. Thanks. :)

[TRiggs]

Think for just one minute about the person who is sitting next to a large person on that plane. Should they just ignore the fact that thier nieghbors girth is taking up part of what little space they are given on a flight? While I agree the airlines should make larger seats to accomodate big people, its also not fair to the slimmer community that nothing was being done to resolve the problem they face when a person of size is seated beside them on the plane.

[Meadow]

Businesses all over the US are required to make changes to accomadate people with disabilities. They remodel bathrooms, widen doors, lower counters, build ramps, redo parking, etc. Airlines are not excempt from this. However... being overweight is not considered a "legal" disability...soooooo the overweight can be discrimated against. Think for a minute of the large community. How do they feel about being squished into a small seat, not being able to pull down the food tray, having the thinner person next to them complain about your gurth? IF this was about fairness or comfort... then the airline would be required to accomadate people of ALL sizes and shapes. No... in my opinion, this is strictly about money!

Ok... I feel better now. Thanks for listening. :)

[Shark01]

Originally posted by TRiggs
Think for just one minute about the person who is sitting next to a large person on that plane. Should they just ignore the fact that thier nieghbors girth is taking up part of what little space they are given on a flight? While I agree the airlines should make larger seats to accomodate big people, its also not fair to the slimmer community that nothing was being done to resolve the problem they face when a person of size is seated beside them on the plane.

What about sitting next to others I don't like? I don't want to sit next to yelling kids, next to annoying old people who want to talk your ear off, smelly smokers, drunk flyers, etc. They are invading my personal space, why not charge them double :rolleyes:

[TRiggs]

I can't believe this! You have to keep an open mind when discussing this kind of stuff and not get angry at the first person that steps in and has a different opinion. Lighten up shark01.

[Meadow]

I think when a person feels passionate about a subject, whether it be for or against, they have the right to express that passion as long as they don't make personal attacks on another. I defend sharks right to express his opinion and didn't feel he was personally attacking anyone. I also understand what triggs was saying and defend their right to say it. We need to be aware that some of us may have personally experienced discrimination and rudeness due to our size and as a result feel passionate and yes defensive about this issue.

[Shark01]

Originally posted by TRiggs
I can't believe this! You have to keep an open mind when discussing this kind of stuff and not get angry at the first person that steps in and has a different opinion. Lighten up shark01.

The point is that air travel reduces everyone's personal space. It isn't your living room. I have to sit next to bodybuilders with wide shoulders and tall people whose legs invade my foot area. It's just part of economical air travel. I shouldn't be charged double for the same seating, simple as that :thup:

A piece of advice, if you don't have a thick skin, avoid posting obviously conflicting opinions and expecting not to be called on it :wave:

[TRiggs]

You should do the same :D

[Victoria]

Okay boys, let's play nice. ;)

I think you both have understandable points of view. But my question is...why are the seats only 18 inches wide? How long have they been this narrow? Is that pretty standard, or have they reduced the size of seats to make more money? The idea of converting a few seats to accomodate larger people sounds reasonable to me. They may have to after the suit being filed against them. It was just on the news the other day. Two women are suing SWA for their policy on buying two tickets because of their size. They were embarrassed by it and have filed suit. Something to keep an eye on. I knew it wouldn't be long before someone sued them.

I know as a LARGE person, I would not want to squish the person next to me. I am left handed as well, and have always been conscious of not elbowing people and taking up other's space. Any left handers would understand the contortion we have to go thru when eating next to others. Most FAT people are aware of their surroundings and are not trying to be rude to other's around them. But I definitely don't want to have to buy two tickets. :rolleyes: Victoria

[Shark01]

Originally posted by TRiggs
You should do the same :D

As should you :D

[Mae West]

I can envision situations where a business traveler who is fat would be fired because it costs his company twice as much to travel as the next guy.

This is what worries me. If the US courts decide that airlines have the right to charge a passenger any amount they wish-- based solely on the passenger's size (not color, handicapping condition, religion, ethnic background, or annoying habits)-- how long will it be before trains, bus companies realize they can also charge double for taking one passenger of size?

And referring to Shark's quote above, if a large person is applying for a job, and a small person is applying for the same job, who would the employer be likely to hire? The fat one who would cost the company twice as much to travel? Or the small economy sized person? And who would blame an employer for legally discriminating against fat people?

If the US Supreme court decides that charging double based on size is all right,
discrimination against fat people will not be discrimination at all.

It will simply be good business sense.

Mae West
"A guy in the cadillac is worth six guys in the phone book." The other Mae West

[Mae West]

I was surfing the web-- trying to find information about the two women suing SWA that Victoria wrote about, and came across this interesting article on the subject:

"2 tickets, please: Fat man flying"

"By Jeffrey A. Leon. Jeffrey A. Leon is a Chicago attorney"

"Published June 30, 2002"

"The other day I found myself walking into a major airport worried that I was about to commit a "crime": As a portly individual, I was about to try to fly on an airplane despite the fact that I had purchased only one seat. Imagine my brazen audacity!"

"Let's get one thing out of the way immediately. I am a large man. Fat. Obese. A whale. Unambiguously large. I am not 20 or 30 pounds overweight (I wish!). I can stand to lose multiples of that weight. Yet anyone looking at me would be fairly certain I have a problem that overeating alone cannot explain."

"Thanks to Southwest Airlines, I now have to contend with people staring at me, wondering if I am "stealing" an extra seat, as well as the prospect of a subjective appraisal by a gate agent that I have to purchase an extra ticket to accommodate myself, while some other person who shops at my Big and Tall store does not. Exactly who is fat enough to be forced to purchase an extra seat?"

"Does the tall guy whose knees are digging into the back of my seat have to pay extra? What about the people who have brought shopping bags from half the stores on Michigan Avenue onto the plane, taking up all the overhead space?"

"Perhaps the gate agents should force a person with bad body odor to purchase two seats as a buffer zone because sitting next to a smelly passenger is unpleasant."

"I have experienced all these discomforts of flying and more. The bottom line is that we are all subjected to numerous indignities every time we fly on an airplane, and sitting next to the fat guys should rank fairly low on the list. Worse, being singled out amongst all the inconveniencers for punitive treatment simply because I am fat is itself an indignity."

"The implications of this policy go far beyond offending my delicate sensibilities. I am a partner at a large Chicago law firm, and travel is a regular part of my job. Will my clients now wonder if they should hire me to handle their cases because they might have to pay twice as much to fly me around as compared to the skinnier guy who also is under consideration? Let us be clear, this is discrimination, pure and simple. And what is worse is that Southwest has chosen discrimination when reasonable accommodations can easily be made."

"For starters, I am considerate. I try to avoid planes that are fully packed, and will fly only when I have an aisle seat, as the armrest on the aisle lifts up and allows me to give anyone sitting next to me additional space. I will not fly in a middle seat, as it is unfair to the others in the row and extremely uncomfortable for me. I have let planes go and caught the next one if an aisle seat is unavailable."

"In short, Southwest has chosen a path that was unnecessary and will inflict economic and pyschic injury on a group of people who already, as a general rule, suffer from low esteem. Let us not pretend that the extremely obese do not have a handicap. One does not get this way without a strong helping hand from genetics. But Southwest suggests I should go on a diet, as if I have not thought of that or tried a million of them."

"I will not fly Southwest any longer, and I hope the rest of the industry does not come to share its callous notion of customer service."

Amen.

In my travels on the web, I couldn't find anything about the two women suing SWA though. Do you happen to know where that happened, Victoria? Maybe their local newspapers would have more information.

Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken so long before we heard of any suits. I thought there would be news on suits starting to be filed on June 27th---

I'm flying to Hollywood on Delta Airlines this Saturday. (I really am! It's not just my Mae West imaginary personality!) I haven't heard that Delta has this kind of policy, but boy am I nervous about it. I have budgeted just enough extra money to be able to afford a taxi, and maybe a hamburger (sans the bun of course.) If they tell me I have to pay double I'll just have to leave the airport before my torrent of tears ground all the planes.

Mae West
"I never diet. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond." The other Mae West

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Mae West
I couldn't find anything about the two women suing SWA though. Do you happen to know where that happened, Victoria?

I saw them on CNN a couple of days ago, and they are about to suit Southwest. What struck me about their case, is that they (two big black women) offered to purchase 3 seats for the two of them, and Southwest refused, insisting on 4 seats for the two of them!!!!!

This in itself should win the case for them. Imagine, refusing to sell 3 seats to be accupied by two passengers flying together.

Wa'il

[Mae West]

Imagine, refusing to sell 3 seats to be accupied by two passengers flying together.

WOW! The more I hear about SWA policies, the more my jaw scrapes on the floor! I'm speechless! :eek:

Mae West
"Don't ever make the same mistake twice... unless it pays." The Other Mae West

[Victoria]

They were flying from California to Las Vegas. I'm thinking it was Oakland, CA. but my memory isn't clear where their starting point was.

I can't believe they wouldn't let them take three seats for the two of them. That sounded like a great solution. I'm sure we'll hear more soon. ;) Victoria

[Talon]

http://www.itv.com/news/Front217744.html

'People of size' to sue airline
8.43AM BST, 30 Jun 2002

Two overweight women are set to sue a US airline that made them buy two tickets each, because of their size.

Trina Oliver and Felicia Crawford are outraged that Southwest Airlines forced them to pay for extra seats on a flight from Oakland, California to Las Vegas.

Trina and Felicia tried to negotiate with the airline agent to purchase only one extra seat, so they could sit together and share the space between them.

But the agent refused, so the two women had to stump up $170 (£110) for another set of round-trip tickets.

"I was angry. I was hurt. I was frustrated. I was like, you know, why is this happening to me? It's not right," said Felicia Crawford.

In a statement, Southwest Airlines confirmed that any customer needing to lift the armrest would be required to pay for the additional seat.

The company pointed out that it was only enforcing US policy, which states that larger passengers must buy an extra seat on the plane.

"We sell seats, and if you consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said a Southwest spokeswoman.

However, advocates for the obese are outraged.

"It's just discriminatory and it's mean-spirited," said Morgan Downey, executive director of the American Obesity Association. "This is singling out a group that's been very heavily stigmatised rather than making some accommodations in their cabins."

Campaigners acting on behalf of "people of size" believe airlines should introduce wider seats to accommodate the fact that Americans are getting larger - according to some estimates, more than one fourth of Americans are obese.

[Shark01]

Good for them.......those idiots need to be sued :thup:

[michenry]

I am amused by the outrage expressed here. To me it's very simple, if you substantially flow into the next seat why shouldn't you pay for it? Put another way . . .if I am sitting within my seat's constraints, and have paid for that space, why should I have to tolerate your legs, thighs, arms and waist contiually pressing into me? This doesn't necessarily happen when a average sized person sits next to me. I think it IS discrimination . . . against ME.

Why do you people think you have a right to impose yourself physically upon me?

These thoughts are from a Continental Gold Elite member (50k miles a year)

Buy two seats or fly first class but don't infringe upon me and don't claim discrimination when I complain.

[michenry]

By the way . . .is it discriminatory that clothing manufacturers charge more for 3x sized clothing?

Should the airlines be forced to increase seat size (capital expense and reduced revenue) and keep prices stable? Should all people be forced to bear the costs of increasing space (which of course means less revenue) because, as someone mentioned, 25% of the US is overweight?

Again . . .why should the airlines be penalized because you can't fit in your seat? A seat in which the clear majority of customers do fit. Why should a paying customer have to endure to slow pressing of your flesh against them for hours at a time?

Mean spirited . . .give me a break.

Again . . fit into one seat or buy two (or first class).

[wbahn]

As I have said before, I believe that the airlines have every right to impose such a policy - and live with the consequences. As far as I am concerned this policy is perfectly legitimate - it's just also perfectly stupid. Stupid from a business standpoint and stupid from a public relations standpoint. I have already shown that their math is atrocious. Their claim that to provide just six seats that are 50% wider would require them to double their prices is assinine in the extreme and if they are making business decisions based upon such a laughable financial analysis then they deserve everything they get.

Consider this - if the profit derived from each flight, on average, equals the fare of just six seats (per their claim and also reasonable based on their financial data), then if they drive away, on average, just one person from every flight because of this policy then their profit will go down nearly 20% and will have to raise fares for everyone else. So, unless they expect people to flock to SWA because of their two-seat policy - more people than are driven away by it - the irony is that the thin people will end up paying more for their seats as a result. But, this is exactly as it should be. If a thin person wants to fly on an airline that guarantees that their "space" won't be encroached upon, then that airline has increased the value of that seat and the person purchasing it should pay more.

The sad part is that there is a simple win-win situation here. Modify a certain number of rows to accommodate larger people. On the vast majority of flights this will result in NO loss of revenue because the vast majority of flights are far from being full. They can even charge a reasonable surcharge for the wider seats - a surcharge that wouldn't need to be refunded if the flight isn't full. That will attract MORE people to SWA - more large people because of the availability of larger seats and more thin people because of the decreased likelihood of having a large person encroach on their "space". Then SWA could lower their fares and still make more profit than at present. Gee, what a concept.

[michenry]

One question?

How do the extra large seats get assigned? First come first served? (which is the SWA way of doing business). Or, if I reserve an extra large seat and someone else decides I am not deserving of it (or as deserving as they), who moderates?

When such a reservation is requested is the agent required to inquire as to my physical dimensions? I can just hear the moral outrage to the question "how broad is your behind?"

I think SWA has articulated a rational reiteration of a policy that has been in place since 1980.
No where do I read into it any reference to weight. I will acknowledge, however, that weight will be the most obvious "target", but the policy does not preclude the overly tall.

You can rest assured that if market demands are significant, SWA will create a product that allows them to increase profitability. SWA sells one product - a safe seat to a destination. If you consume more then the one seat - pay for it. Very Simple.

[wbahn]

How are first class seats assigned on other airlines? By people that are willing to pay for them. If you want a larger seat, then pay the surcharge. What's so complicated about that?

When such a reservation is requested is the agent required to inquire as to my physical dimensions? I can just hear the moral outrage to the question "how broad is your behind?"

Think about this for a moment. You see no problem at all when an agent gets to decide who has to pay double (and how are they going to make this determination - are they going to inquire about my physical dimensions?) yet you can just hear the moral outrage if they asked it of people wanting to pay extra for a wider seat (which they wouldn't have to be asking in the first place)?

I think SWA has articulated a rational reiteration of a policy that has been in place since 1980.

If you call the math that they used in that "rational reiteration" to try to make people believe that losing just three seats overall in order to provide six wide seats would require them to double their fares, then I have a whole bunch of bridges that I'd like to talk to you about.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by michenry
why should I have to tolerate your legs, thighs, arms and waist contiually pressing into me?

Actually, you do tolerate long legs and arms. That is part of the problem. An important distiction you have missed.

The problem is when some think being tall is a great thing, worth making exceptions for and not charging for it. While those who need an extra inch of width, must be punished for their wrong doing by being "big fat pigs", by paying a double fair for it.

Read some posts above, two big ladies aren't allowed to purchase 3 seat tickets, which is more than enough for them. They were forced to purchase 4 seats, whre they can't use the 4th seat , it's across the isle.

So, yes, it can be made into simplistic argument, you take more space, pay double. But this is hiding you head in the sand regarding the punitive nature of this discrimination.

Had they decided to charge per weight, not looks, I would not call it discrimination.

Wa'il

[michenry]

It's apparent that you have no experience with SWA (and living in Colorado that's not surprising - SWA doesn't service DEN or COS) but anyway SWA doesn't pre-assign seats. First Come First Served. Which incidentally is the very reason I don't fly SWA - nothing worse then to have had a reservation for 3 weeks or more and run through an airport to catch a connecting flight only to arrive as the plane is boarding and be seated in a middle seat. But that's another story.

The "moral outrage" comment was sarcasm.

SWA will have to design and implement a new reservations system, and train CC reps to now make seat assignments over the phone. All a gate agent has to do now is take a look at the reality of the situation. The key word here is "reality" - either you fit or you don't. SWA will have to incur the capital expense of new seats and the labor to install and certify the new seats. There are currently 366 planes in SWA fleet.

That SWA chose to use questionable math to justify their position is of no concern to me as I am neither a shreholder, customer or an auditor for the SEC.

Your suggestion that modifying airplanes is a very simple action is naive. This modification has serious logistical impacts, which are contrary to SWA's business model - which has been wildly successful in the open marketplace.

I am retiring from this tedious discussion.

[Meadow]

Perhaps the person who is so very offended by a person of size sitting near them should be the one to purchase a second seat. That would not be discrimination then... that would be choice. Will SWA now have a seat at the ticket counter and require everyone to have a seat before purchasing a ticket so that they might see if the arm rest goes down? I don't believe the issue is crowded space at all. I belive the issue is that people are disguested with fat. Notice how the discriptions all refer to "rolling over" or "spilling over" into someones space. Would these same people be so offended if a handsome linebacker with enormous shoulders sat next to them. I think they would rather enjoy a little shoulder rubbing in that case. But God forbid if a "fat" person takes up 1 inch more space than the general public belives they are allowed.

[wbahn]

It's apparent that you have no experience with SWA

If you will look earlier in the thread, you will see my comments regarding my overall view of and experience with SWA - they are generally positive.

SWA will have to incur the capital expense of new seats and the labor to install and certify the new seats.

The costs are marginal. The seats and rails already exist and are already certified. Many inspection operations require the removal of all seats so it is a trivial cost to replace them after such an inspection with the two-seat groups. The capital outlay is actually more than offset since they can sell the three-seat group for more than the two-seat group.

SWA will have to design and implement a new reservations system, and train CC reps to now make seat assignments over the phone.

The modification is trivial - they only have to print a one letter or character code some place on the ticket. The training of reps is pretty simple as well. "Would you care for an extra wide seat at a premium charge of $29?" Don't you think that would be just a tad bit easier than training gate agents to accurately size passengers and then confront them and deal with the issue of someone showing up for a flight that they purchased in good faith for $200 and then get told, at the point of delivery, that it is now $400 for the same service - transportation from point A to point B. Can we say "bait and switch"?

SWA can say whatever they want about them being in the business of selling SEATS. It's simply not true. How many people call up an airline and say, "I want to buy a seat on a flight - doesn't matter to me where the flight is going since I'm only in the market for a seat." Instead, people call up and ask for a transportation from one airport to another airport and almost never get into details about the seat. How many times do flyers ask reservations for a seat that has raisable arm rests? How may times to flyers ask reservations for a seat that actually reclines back? If people are buying SEATS and not TRANSPORTATION, then these would be upfront questions. Instead, people sometimes ask about window or aisle and that's about the extent of it.

That SWA chose to use questionable math to justify their position is of no concern to me as I am neither a shreholder, customer or an auditor for the SEC.

It's of concern to me because I feel that it should not be acceptable to use bogus analysis and number twisting to create an illusion of propriety - I don't feel it shows ethical behavior on the part of those that practice it. Perhaps if we help corporate managers to a higher level of ethics we wouldn't have Enron and Worldcom and a host of others right now. If nothing else, it should be of concern to you because the fact that you used it as a "rational reiteration of a policy" reflects on you. I'm not saying that as a flame - though I know it sounds like it and for that I apologize up front. Certainly we can all be suckered into buying bogus arguments if they are presented in a sufficiently slick matter. I'm making a general point here and that's all.

[Wendye]

OK - Question:
If you have to buy an extra seat 'cos I'm so huge - do I get an extra meal and do I get 2 eye masks or socoks ???? :lol: Maybe this budget ariline doesn;t have all those frills :confused:

Seriously I do have had real problems fitting into some airline seats - not so much width but depth - I find the seat in front is nearly hitting me in the face - i guess my bum takes too much of the seat space - but have never been asked to buy an extra seat and - I can never get the tray down to use it - so do I get a refund for that!!!

My Dh is small so He get a bit extra of me! ONce I did see 3 very large friends taking up 3 seats in the 'exit' seat row and they looked very squishy but they were happy to be squishy and save the money of buying extra seats.

But it can be embarassing enough - I found on a trip a few years ago - some planes were configured more generously than others - and some seats are slightly larger.And with the 2 women who are sueing - that is just rediculous rule stickling not to allow them to pay for 3 seats between the 2 of them. I reckon they'll win!! I hope they do.

[Kerouac_64]

The late Andre The Giant, pro wrestler had this problem with airline seats his entire life. And, unfortunately his career had him logging many, many flights to get to his various public appearances. He fit in NO SEATS! He literally sat on an empty floor area at the front of the plane, just the side of the aisle so the flight attendant could get by!!! I imagine he had a hard time just walking on the plane, having to stoop so low to get thru the door.

FWIW, I live in mortal fear of flying due to the possible embarassing situations that may arise. And, don't forget the added complexity of health problems related to obesity. I have severe arthritus and use a wheelchair [32" across for my added girth] when going out in large public places where seating is unknown to me.

People who are disabled are often on fixed income with high medical prescription bills. My medications run over $350 a month. I would NEVER be able to afford the extra fees incurred by an extra seat charge. This smells of income-based discrimination as well as discrimination of the obese.

As for the ADA, I feel it is a weak joke. In my former job with a top three pc manufacturer, the ADA person was hired by the company and essentially towed the nonunion company line.

I'll never fly SWA -- I will only do business with airlines who try to work with me in good faith from now on.

:wave:

[Shark01]

Originally posted by michenry
Again . . .why should the airlines be penalized because you can't fit in your seat? A seat in which the clear majority of customers do fit. Why should a paying customer have to endure to slow pressing of your flesh against them for hours at a time?

Mean spirited . . .give me a break.

Again . . fit into one seat or buy two (or first class).

You gotta love people who jump in without a clue of what the point is :rolleyes: , like a wise man once said all doubt has been removed :cool:

The problem is HOW they are deciding to do this. At 350 lbs, I do fit into one seat. But SWA is letting this be decided on an individual basis by individual ticket agents. Now how can a ticket agent decide how many seats I fit into without seeing it :confused: There isn't a sample seat they could jam me into, like the little display they have for deciding if your carry-on will fit into the bin.

They will just make a guess. Now how can I make travel plans if I don't know how I will be charged until I get to the gate :mad: .

The bottom line is that SWA is discriminating against a class of people which is against American ideals and tradition.

Oh, and the clothes comparison is irrelavent anyway........It doesn't cost SWA a single dollar more for me to sit in one seat than anyone else :rolleyes:

[bluebonnet]

Um, okay, I'm going to get TOTALLY slammed for this opinion, I know but, just bear with me here ...

If you need two seats to be comfortable, or to not make someone else miserable for an entire flight, shouldn't you have to pay for the seat, since the airline would lose money on that seat? (I'm talking full flights here.) I'm not sure that falls under "discrimination." I think it's just business sense. Not necessarily from a customer-service point of view, of course, but from the money standpoint. I mean, we have to face it, they're in this for the money. And airlines have had a hard time since 9/11.

No, I DO NOT work for an airline. And I know what this is like -- I used to have to buy a seat for my son when he was an infant, or else put him on my lap for free -- which I never felt was safe. I thought they should have half-price fares for the under-2 set, but the airlines didn't agree with me.

I guess the bottom line is -- money makes Corporate America go 'round, not love (not even for Southwest.)

bluebonnet

[bluebonnet]

Okay, oops! I missed the fact (somehow) that there are 5 pages to this, and I guess other people have made my point? Anyway, a local columnist where I live (comedic columnist) said they should put an airline seat out in front (or behind) the ticket counter and make "questionable" people sit in it to see if they fit, like you do for carry-on luggage.

Now, of course, he was being "funny", but imagine the humiliation of being asked to do that!!

I d'know how they'd enforce it .

One comment I caught was about people who were "offended" by "fat" people should have to buy two seats so they wouldn't have to sit by one. Maybe it's an issue of "offence" for some people, but as most of us have pointed out, those seats are darned uncomfortable anyway, and if you're seated next to someone who is "overflowing" their seat, it's not a matter of being offended by their size, but being made horribly uncomfortable. And I can't even imagine how it must be to be a large person and having to sit in one. So two is the answer. And, as I said before, the airlines are NOT gonna just be nice and give it to anyone free!

So, maybe we're being a little quick to cry "discrimination!!" ???

blue

[Meadow]

I think that people mostly respond to issues based on past experience. I am 5 foot 9 inches and at my heaviest, I never invaded another persons space while flying. However, with out fail, it has been my experience that people are offended that I'm even on the plane. Yes, I use the word offended. I make a point of sitting in the aisle seat and normally my husband is the person sitting next to me. 99% of the time the plane is not full so no one really need sit in the third seat... if there is one.
But you see, people don't care that they don't have to sit next to me. They are offended by my simply being on that plane. How do I know this? Because I have very good ears and I can hear the comments. Comments that might be heard after one walks past, like "No...don't sit behind her." or "well if there is an emergency, we can forget getting out past her." These comments may go unnoticed by many, but I'm very in tune to my surroundings. So while for some, their personal experience leads them to the conclusion that the seating issue is a question of comfort.... for others, like myself, personal experience suggests that people are offended by the very fact that a fat person is on a plane. So what next?? Will the fat person be denied access to a plane because of safety concerns?? Then will they still say that it's not a case of discrimination but now one of safety?? Where does it end?? A group of people are being treated differently based solely on their appearance. Sure sounds like discrimination to me.
But, this is my personal experience and my personal conclusion, it may not be yours. I have compasion for the soul who feels squished by my size. However, there must be a better answer than to discrimiate against a particular group of people. I feel that some posters on this thread have come up with some very good options. IF it's truly a case of comfort, then the airlines can find a better answer. One that does not discriminate.

Here in California there is discussion of requiring children who are overweight to take special physical education classes (consisting of exercises and arobics and nutrition, NOT sports). Children who are of "normal" size may not be required to take physical education at all. Discrimination?? I say yes!

[Camby]

I fly Southwest very frequently and I really like their airline. If someone takes up two seats, they need to pay for it. Obese people shouldn't be treated special. Most obese people have made the choice to be that way......that is the cost of being obese.....among many others. Maybe next time they want to eat like crazy, they will ask themselves...."Is it worth it?" Go to Overeaters Anonymous and get your life under control.....or pay for two seats....The choice is YOURS.... (P.S. I have lost 60 lbs since Jan 4th on Atkins....40 more to go. ) Camby :wave:

[Talon]

Originally posted by Camby
Most obese people have made the choice to be that way......that is the cost of being obese.....among many others. Maybe next time they want to eat like crazy, they will ask themselves...."Is it worth it?"

ok *THIS* offended me, and I know it is not the topic of the thread... I did not choose to be overweight, I did not "eat like crazy". This may be how you feel about yourself, but please do not generalize all overweight people into one catergory.

[Shark01]

Originally posted by Camby
[B]If someone takes up two seats, they need to pay for it. Obese people shouldn't be treated special. Most obese people have made the choice to be that way......that is the cost of being obese.....among many others. Maybe next time they want to eat like crazy, they will ask themselves...."Is it worth it?" Go to Overeaters Anonymous and get your life under control

VERY rude post, you are obviously off to a great start here :thdown: :rolleyes:

Even at over 400, I never "took up" two seats. SWA is practicing a policy of discrimination, and I hope they get punished for it :cool:

[Meadow]

Thank you Talon and Shark! :thup:
I agree, that was a very rude and offensive post. Making assumptions about a group of people based on their size is just another example of discrimination. Even medical science is coming to reconize what the obese have known all along....that in many, many cases, eating is NOT the cause of one being obese. Talon is right, this is not the topic of this thread, so I will say no more.

[tamarian]

If you notice the post count, which is displayed under the username on the left, you will see that some have registered just to fish for fights on this thread :)

Some people would just register to to rouse people with such comments, they used to be called "trolls" on the 'ol USENET. So, try not to take it seriously. ;)

Wa'il

[Meadow]

I'm losing my skills here. I use to be a chat host. I should have reconized the pattern and not taken the bait. Thanks for the reminder Tamarian. :)

[DWRolfe]

Heard this morning that Southwest tried to make someone buy an extra seat on a return trip even though they did not askthem to on the orignial flight a few days earlier...

...must have done some heavy duty eating on that trip! :daze:

Seriously, sounds like there needs to be some clearer guidelines/standards...

Donald :wave:

[Victoria]

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1195091&fromEmail=true

Check out this article. Southwest is not doing very well at public relations lately. :rolleyes: People would rather take the bus than fly their airlines. It seems to me that if you have a child or a husband that doesn't mind being squished next to you...they shouldn't insist you buy another seat. And obviously their rules are so subjective, it really depends on WHO is looking at you and sizing you up. You may be deemed thin enough one way and then be required to buy another seat on your return trip. Victoria

[tamarian]

Yes, I saw the couple and their daughter on CNN. They didn't seem so obese to me, just the average overweight, and they would definitly fit in their seats. That's why they had no problem in the first trip, and the "judgement" at the counter had problems with them on their return.

That should illustrate the depth of the problem to those simplistic responses here, "if you don't fit, pay for another seat!"!

But the wife was really funny. She was telling her daughter that this is a conspiracy from another planet to fight fat, and went into a whole funny story to pass the time on the buss trip back home! ;) She was totally comfortable with her size and only an idiot would ask her to pay for two seats.

Southwest apologized to them afterward and refunded their tickets! But after all this humiliation, it's not enough.

Wa'il

[Camby]

Thanks to Victoria for posting article. It says, "OTHER airlines have similiar policy." Also, "Southwest DOES send a refund if the flight is not full." It is not a big deal.......obese people pay extra for 3X, 4X, etc. clothes. Obese people pay more for health related problems than one wouldn't have if you were not obese. Obese people pay more for larger chains if they want to wear a necklace around their neck, among MANY other things. Hopefully this will be an incentive to loose weight and get things under control, IT IS UP TO YOU (your two little hands can put the right things or the wrong things in your own little mouth).....and Low Carb is the way to do it right, FOR LIFE.....and I supplement with Overeaters Anonymous (no diet, no dues, no weigh-01ins - lots of emotional support).

Jan 4th, 2002, I was 289.....today I am 218....goal weight 180.....I eat great thanks to Atkins!!! I am a compulsive overeater and I am compulsive about getting my life back, and everytime I fly Southwest now I think, 'Thank God I don't have to pay for 2 seats since inches are coming off because of low-carbing!!!'

Camby :)

[Talon]

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/sh/news/ohio/stories/news-ohio-158849620020801-110831.html

ASHLAND, Ohio -- An Ashland man is suing Delta Airlines because he was seated next to an obese man during a two-hour flight last November.

Philip Shafer said that Delta breached its contract to provide him with a full seat and reasonable comfort. Shafer claims he suffered embarrassment, severe discomfort, mental anguish and severe emotional distress from the flight. "I think these large people have a responsibility to take control, either to get two seats, or talk to the airline," Shafer said. "The airline has a responsibility to take care of this problem. The last person who should be worried is the innocent passenger."

An attorney for Delta calls the suit trivial and said that it is not a legitimate issue. The case will go to court in mid-September.

[Shark01]

Originally posted by Talon
[url]Philip Shafer said An attorney for Delta calls the suit trivial and said that it is not a legitimate issue. The case will go to court in mid-September.

Philip Shafer - MORON :rolleyes: out for a quick buck. Hope he returns to safety under his rock sooner rather than later :thdown:

You know 8 years ago I sat next to that woman wearing a whole bottle of purfume who made my flight miserable.......where's Johnny Cochrane :rolleyes: "if the woman stinks of perfume you have to pay my client to leave the room" ;)

[Meadow]

mental anguish and severe emotional distress from the flight.

What? Was he afraid he was going to catch obesity or something?? Give me a break!!

[wbahn]

Just an update. It's now been about six weeks since I sent a letter to Southwest Airlines and I have yet to receive one of those “accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers” their website proclaims that I deserve.

[Shark01]

Yeah, I didn't get any response to mine either :rolleyes:

[RhaChaCha]

just found this thread today - very interesting. guess I missed all the controversy on the news. But I just had to add my two cents...

ok i definately think it is ridiculous for airline employees to make a judgment about a persons size...what a mess. But what amazes me, is that if youare large enough to encroach on another's personal space - why on earth would you want to buy only one ticket? Frankly, when I got too big for airline seats, I just stopped flying - and if I really needed to fly, I just ASSUMED I would have to buy 2 seats - because who wants to sit for several hours with some stranger squished against your hips? YUCK. I would want to have a second seat just for my OWN comfort.

Now, SWA policy is clumsy and embarrassing. However, if one plans on paying for 2 seats from the start (as I would have anyway, even before I hear about this story,) then I think it would be a great gesture for SWA to give me a refund if the flight still had empty seats. Sure, the other airlines don't charge fat people extra, but if I went to the trouble of purchasing 2 seats, I doubt they would give me a refund later. If I buy just once seat to begin with, its a gamble - if the flight has empty seats, Great! but if its sold out, then I will be horribly miserable. At least with SWA's refund policy, I don't have to worry about wasting my money if it turns out they flight was half empty.

It just seems silly that they would even need a "policy" - a truly large person would decide for themselves if they need extra room - wouldn't they?

OK - before everyone goes ballistic, I have a question: has anyone ever RESERVED 2 seats on another airline and only had to PAY for one? Do the other airlines provide this courtesy for fat people? Or does everyone just take their chances that the flight wont sell out? If you can do this let me know, and I'll gladly use that airline. Otherwise, I might consider flying SWA if I can possibly get a refund on the second seat. (up till now have only flown with delta....but haven't flown since I got TOO big -and right now, not enought $$ for 2 seats.)

Thanks for your attention on another long winded post......
RhaChaCha

[wbahn]

I finally heard back from SWA - back at the end of August but I was too busy with my dad's funeral to get it posted here and am just now getting around to it.

Remember how they said that they didn't take e-mail correspondence because they felt that their customers deserve "accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers"?

So I send them a letter (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?postid=414006#post414006) pointing out several specific glaring errors and ridiculous statements in the press release that was put out by their President and Chied Operating Officer. What do I get in return? A FORM LETTER telling me how the response has been so high that they can't give a personal response but that they want to assure me that my comments have been reviewed and taken into consideration. Then, in order to more fully explain their policy to me to answer any questions I might have, they sent me a hardcopy of the very same press release that I was writing to complain about!

I sure hope that their pilots and mechanics are more honest and professional than their public relations people!

[PJ in Miam]

When I was thin, I traveled for business on occasion.

When I was 'chunky', I traveled for business on occasion. But it wa