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?

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

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:



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:



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.

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:



And this is what I added at the end:



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

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. Victoria

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Wa'il

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.

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.

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.