Over the years, airline seats have gotten smaller, while airline passengers have gotten larger. As you’d expect, this creates some challenging situations for passengers of size, and airlines have varying policies.
Continue reading: Southwest Airlines’ Humane Customer Of Size Policy
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Thank you for this post. My problem with Matthew’s post was that he seemed to infer causation that Southwest’s policy will lead to more obesity. Just like a less generous policy would not lead to less obesity. If anything, it’s a financially motivated policy decision.
I love how compassionate and sympathetic you are, Ben. Yet I cannot say that I don’t lean towards Matthew in this matter. If anything, this policy is positive for non-fat people that would otherwise be forced to squeeze themselves into middle seats next to obese people. But in the bigger picture, this is indeed an nonsense policy. To me, people that are clinically, morbidly obese should not be allowed to fly at all! They cannot help themselves in an emergency and might even hinder other passengers. Therefore, I view fat people as a direct threat to my well-being in the air. I am lucky to be in Europe where being fat is not as widespread, but in the US I would be seriously concerned about flying with >150 kg passengers.
And let’s be real, Matthew is right, in at least 90% of cases obesity is a matter of insufficient self-control. And I despise this. I cannot be as compassionate with these people as you are, Ben.
I'm buying 2 extra seats then because I identify as extremely large. What's that you say, I'm actually skinny with a BMI less than Kate Moss? How dare you discriminate against me! I demand a refund of the 2 extra seats plus my actual seat!
How on earth does this policy ever work in practice? Ripe for abuse, and practically unenforceable.
@ Super -- The policy has been in place for 5+ years, with those not impacted by it not even noticing. So doesn't that suggest that it's working?
@ Tim -- If obese people shouldn't be allowed to fly, would you also agree that those with mobility issues and seniors shouldn't be allowed to fly?
Matt is such an a**hole sometimes. You'd think with the amount he brings up his evangelism he would exercise more compassion and empathy.
Oh I think it works for its intended purpose - didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just think it's also ripe for abuse because how does one really negotiate the fine terms of being "large". Something tells me they don't literally measure the widest part of your body and compare to seat width (plus could you imagine the humiliation of doing that at the gate?!). I also don't understand how they could enforce it in the plane? Does a FA stand at the row and head off passengers?
And this is why I've remained a loyal reader of this blog and stopped reading L&LF years ago. The viciousness and vindictiveness of so many of L&LF's posts (while boasting about being a good christian, of course) were just too much to take in an already poisonous world.
I don't have a problem with them allowing an extra seat to be bought and refunded at time of booking, but they also allow you to make the declaration at the gate. From what I have read, that can and has resulted in an oversold situation with others being bumped due to how Southwest does boarding. That now makes it unfair to everyone else.
Just because it's been in place and YOU have never been impacted by it directly (because when was the last time you, Ben, flew WN?) doesn't mean that it's fair. It may not happen with much frequency in general, but I can assure you that those passengers who were adversely impacted because an obese passenger was given preference are very not happy and would very much disagree with you, someone who likely has little to no experience with this specific policy.
SWA FA here. Customers of Size are provided with a “seat reserved” slip to place on the adjacent seat.
@ DCAWABN -- I'm a little confused. In which way are you suggesting that other passengers are adversely impacted by a passenger of size booking two seats in advance, compared to the published policies of other airlines?
It is worth noting that Oprah, who has been a large person for most of her life, finally admitted to taking one of the diabetic injectables for weight loss - and it worked.
While there are no doubt some people like Oprah that have worked hard to limit their intake and exercise hard, this new class of medications will do far more to save people's lives - and reduce the stigma of obesity than anything else.
And the "unfairness" of the whole situation is that we all want to have an extra seat next to us. I could strap on a couple pillows and approach the WN gate counter and accomplish the same thing. It is one thing to be able to buy an extra seat and have it refunded if every seat is not sold. It is quite another to be given an extra seat at no charge and also for others to potentially be oversold.
Other airlines need to be clear that, if your hips do not remain within the armrests of your own seat, you can be denied boarding if you are seated next to someone. If you want to buy an extra seat on other airlines, you can at least reserve it.
It's also not like two small children who can easily fit into one seat are allowed to do that and only pay a half fare each.
If you need more than one seat you should be required to buy more than one seat. Period. And this like pre boarding will soon become abused.
There are nuances in all situations like this unfortunately.
I have had to make decisions at airline policy level regarding persons of size and persons with mobility issues. There is no scenario here which totally eliminates inconvenience from either the person seeking the accomodation, or alternatively some or all other passengers on board. The goal needs to be to minimise inconvenience, without compromising safety.
The latter drove some of the decisions we made. If a person is unable to fit through the emergency exit doors, they cannot be safely transported. No if, and or but involved.
If a person is unable to manage basic safety processes themselves (eg. fasten seatbelt, find emergency exit, etc..) they must be accompanied by an able bodied adult. We cannot ask other passengers to volunteer to put themselves at risk to assist in case of an evacuation, and crew have responsibilities that may preclude them from assisting.
If a person requires special accomodation of any sort (ie. beyond basic accomodation covered by policy), they can only be guaranteed these services with prior arrangement. As much as we would love to have equipment, policies and training to handle every possible scenario it just isn't possible. In that scenario, a frontline agent should assist as much as they can within policy.
Would we make additional seats available to passengers with advance arrangement? Yes. Would be do it at check-in time? Subject to availability. Would we deny boarding to someone else to accomodate this at the last moment? No. YMMV.
You seem like a selfish person, and a threat to me when I fly. I can imagine you in an emergency pushing down and elbowing older and/or disabled pssengers plus anyone not moving fast enougn ahead of you just to get off the plane.
The first sentence of this article sums up the situation nicely, and though Southwest has a compassionate policy, it’s to circumvent criticism of the problem they (and other airlines) caused by chasing revenue over the comfort of the self-loading cargo. Too bad the true solution will never be implemented. Make seats bigger.
and, if you order a full meal at a restaurant, you don't get to pay for just the part you eat. You might be able to ask for a to-go box but there is a minimum payment for basic service.
The issue is not the minimum but going over the maximum.
by the same analogy, if you order a regular full meal and eat it all, you don't get to go back to the kitchen and eat whatever you see including seconds of what you just ate.
and my point is that the diabetic injectables are changing people's lives wrt obesity more than anything that has ever happened in America. If someone is obese, there are good chances that they have other health issues which certainly triggers insurance to pay.
There should be similar policies for passengers who are very tall. Yet they have to pay extra to get extra legroom on most airlines. In the case of Southwest, they will likely need pay for early boarding, to secure a extra legroom seat.
If we are going to be this accommodating of fat passengers, then those who are very tall should have some grace too.
Thank you for calling out vindictive click bait writing. That's why your blog is the best of all the travel blogs. You have humanity.
I think the FAA should require several of the morbidly obese people to be in the test group of passengers when the do the timed emergency evacuation tests. Include some wheel chair boarding people too if that makes you feel better about it.
The way they test for evacuation times now is a joke.
As some of the other bloggers have proven - the self-proclaimed Christian right is neither
I believe Matthew is wrong and Southwest will not allow people to self identify as oversized as a scam for more space. My experience has been, that Southwest will not allow the purchase of two seats if you can fit in a seat between the armrests. I have been willing to pay for a seat to have extra space to work on a flight and Southwest would not permit that. I don’t think the customer of size policy allows you to self identify, you must not fit between the armrests.
This is a major reason I don’t fly Southwest, as United and American both allow you to purchase an extra seat.
I have claustrophobia and I need my own row. Surely Southwest would accommodate me. In fact, as I have enochlophobia (Fear of Crowds), I gonna need to be put in the large seat in the first row.
The WN policy for obese passengers isn’t a problem IMO. The bigger problem is passengers with limited mobility in the event of an emergency evacuation. My last flight into Rome in October had 19 wheelchairs waiting at the jetway for a 788 aircraft.
If you're that threatened by someone who expresses a legit safety concern about mobility limited folks impeding an emergency evacuation, then I think the issue stares back at you whenever you look in the mirror.
Not without someone to take care of them, no. Flying is a risk, we tend to forget that due to all of the comfort that is offered. So everyone who is unable to help themselves in an emergency should be required to bring an assistant or caretaker.
provide documentation proving as much and they will. Goodluck at the airport with your enochlophibia.
Really appreciate your thoughtfulness and humanity in talking about this topic - one where reasonable people can disagree but everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. LLF is cruel for his post and one reason why this blog is so much better in both content and tone.
@SB
"provide documentation proving as much and they will."
I can get a physician to write anything for about $500. As to the airport, will need Southwest to provide the Private Suite and tarmac transfer.
"Is gluttony not a sin?"
What does gluttony have to do with obesity?
Real question.
Re: LLF's post I can't say I'm surprised considering it's coming from a Bushite right winger. Cruelty is the name of the game for them, doubly so if it makes money.
Yeah, I gave up on L&LF years ago too. A combination of Matthew's hypocrisy and occasional nastiness, the clickbait articles, and how vile the comments section became.
I'm threatened by his callousness and lack of empathy, something you two seem to share in common. Also the insinuation that I have to have some mobility limitation, even though, like Lucky, I can express sympathy for those different from me.
don't break a leg making that leap of logic.
Please provide evidence where any of the posters - including the cited article - had anything to do with faith of any kind.
The ridiculous thing is that the people upset about this policy would be the first to complain if someone was intruding on their seat.
Personally, I didn't dislike Southwest's previous policy, where a POS could either pre-purchase the extra seat and if the flight wasn't full they get a refund or they could just take their chances and show up, but if an extra seat was needed, they would need to wait for the next flight with an available seat. To me, this seems like a policy that any airline could adopt without losing out financially. But yeah, the current policy is even more generous and I don't really see why anybody would complain about it. It doesn't affect them and it ensures that they will not have to share their seat with a neighbour who can't quite fit.
@Lucky probably the way Southwest will bump passengers at the gate in favor of passengers of size who don't book an extra seat in advance
"If someone is obese, there are good chances that they have other health issues which certainly triggers insurance to pay." Spoken like someone with minimal experience with the US health insurance system.
Offering resources to drug abusers doesn’t glorify substance abuse. Offering resources to undocumented does t glorify illegal immigration. We can’t just ignore our societal issues, we should be acknowledging they exist and help ways to remediate and offering humanity.
Saying something is wrong/bad won’t make it go away.
Google the definition of gluttony. It's the excess of eating. Eating more than you need leads to obesity.
The problem with this policy is where do you draw the line? I'm 6'7" with very broad shoulders, making economy travel far from comfortable. Should I get free upgrades to seats that are more comfortable or get free seats next to me? And trust me, it's not comfortable for people sitting next to me either and there is nothing I can do about it. It may not be as 'gross', but I still intrude on the seat next to me if I sit upright.
While clearly an unpopular opinion these days, my guess is 90% of obese travelers have made the choice to be obese. If you choose to speed and get lots of speeding tickets the cost of your car insurance premium goes up - meaning it costs you more to do the same thing (drive) that it costs others who are more responsible. No different here - if you make choices that increase the cost of you flying, that is called consequences, not discrimination.
I'm not sure if Southwest really had a choice here. The public backlash would be monumental if they required obese passengers to pay for an extra seat. Rather than deal with the negative publicity, it's much easier to lose a few bucks on a free seat.
Don't worry, they always evacuate the able-bodied first, and you must be able to work the latch in order to sit at an exit door. You'll have no trouble skipping right past us and out the door to safety.
Just think, all that stands between your situation and mine is a severe respiratory infection or an accident out of nowhere. Happy flying.
Fully agree with this take. This seems like a win/win for all passengers. Passengers who need the extra space can get it without worrying about extra costs or public shaming and the passengers who would otherwise be squeezed into the space next to them get more space and comfort too. On the few times I have flown WN and seen a passenger with the extra seat sign next to them, I immediately grab the other seat because it’s a guaranteed empty middle.
The only real losers seem to be WN shareholders due to the lost revenue for the extra seat and potential additional costs in bumping someone. As far as bumping goes, I know it happens (as David Dao can attest) but I have never seen a flight that needed volunteers not get them. I guess if they really were in an IDB situation, the most fair thing to do would be to IDB those requiring extra seats first or to limit gate requests for extra seats when the flight is extremely overbooked. Even then, however, if the person in question booked two seats in advance, then any IDB situation is ultimate WN revenue management’s fault, not the fault of the person who notified WN they would need two seats in accordance with its stated policies.
Also, while I mostly don’t mind Matthew, he does often make extremely judgmental posts like this (also see him using over the top language like “cretin” to refer to people who commit relatively minor offenses in the grand scheme). It’s not a great look when people think their religious beliefs and lifestyle give them the moral authority to pass judgment on others. Especially since even a cursory reading of the Bible clearly shows Jesus was very against that behavior.
I work in the eating disorder field and know many larger people that proactively choose WN because of their policies. It certainly draws some extra business to WN from this group.
I commend you on this post, Ben. To the many commenters about size being a choice, unfortunately it isn’t always as simple as calories in vs energy expended. Some people have endocrine and other issues that prevent them from losing weight even when they starve themselves or use weight loss medications.
As a professional in this field for 19 years I can say that I’ve only seen a handful of people die very young as a DIRECT result of being overweight. I’ve unfortunately witnessed many dozens of people die under the age of 30 as a direct result of being severely underweight with anorexia. The short term risks of being underweight can be incredibly deadly in terms of critical lab abnormalities. Guess how many of those people were once heavier and suffered abuse and jokes about their weight? Quite a lot.
Get fat through choice, get an extra seat.
Have broad shoulders and long legs which you have no control over, hard luck.
As an obese person myself, I just hope this policy also applies to tall people and not only obese people, otherwise this new policy wouldn´t make any sense at all.
The policy applies to any part of any passenger’s body that may encroach in the territory of another passenger (as bounded by the armrests of the seat). So it should apply to those who are naturally too broad shouldered to fit as much as “made the choice” to be obese (or even those who “made the choice” to build a muscular physique). If you intrude on the seat next to you, you are just as entitled to take advantage of this policy next time you fly WN as an obese person.
Some might say, why don’t very tall passengers get free upgrades to extra leg room seats, but I think the reason is somewhat obvious. A wide passenger encroaches into the space of another passenger so it’s not just an issue for the passenger of size, but also their seatmate. It’s not just about comfort, but also due to the fact that Southwest advertises minimum seat dimensions. If a person of width encroaches into the space of another passenger, that passenger isn’t getting what they paid for. Setting the acrimonious recline discourse aside, lack of legroom is pretty much only an issue for the tall person. They are still getting the legroom Southwest promised, which is all they are owed. Economy seats aren’t very comfortable for most people regardless of if everyone fits and that’s why airlines monetize things like extra legroom seats or first class (or priority boarding on WN). Airlines aren’t going to give something away for free unless it poses a potential problem for them like not providing passengers the (still cramped) space they were promised when purchasing a ticket.
I think it's sad that WN has decided to give free seats to people for what amounts to their lifestyle choices. I'm not saying losing weight is easy, but this whole "muh thyroid, muh endocrine issues..." etc. is garbage. You lose weight by consistently maintaining a caloric deficit via diet and exercise. You gain weight by consuming more calories than you expend. Having endocrine disease does not magically create excess calories.
It may not be glamorizing obesity, but it sure is incentivizing it. A free seat because you are fat??? C'mon....
Hi Justin - your height doesn’t qualify as being a victim or oppressed. Currently in our culture that is the most important thing when making decisions, and in this case your sound logic, or logic in general doesn’t apply. Only performative, narcissistic compassion (aka putting humane in the title of this article) is what matters.
Valid question: how does Southwest determine a passenger is a “person of size” to be eligible for the second seat refund?
As a fat person with a BMI of 33 I call this policy stupid from a revenue.
On revenue: let’s assume 180 seats, all taken by normally sized people paying 200 bucks each. The revenue is 36000.
Let’s assume 90 overweight people reserving an extra seat each, and still paying 200 bucks each after getting their refund. The Revenue is 18000.
If you are too big to fit in your seat you pay for an extra seat or business class. It’s as simple as that.
@tda1986
So some people can generate more energy than what is they take in? If someone can consume 2,000 calories and the body can generate 3,000, we better bring such an individual to a scientist so we can end world hunger.
not to be hard-hearted but there is a big difference between a disability or accident which prevents someone from being able to walk down an aircraft aisle and a choice that is made over time.
If you smoke long enough, the chances are very high that you will harm your body. Similar for excessive alcohol consumption.
It is mind-boggling that western societies have yet to connect food consumption w/ negative health outcomes and impose higher insurance premiums or other financially punitive measures for worsening obesity just as happens for smokers.
And the diabetic injectables such as Ozempic and Mounjaro have revolutionized weight loss. both drugs have now been approved for non-diabetic weight loss.
Something is not a disability if there is a treatment; the same applies to smoking cessation.
if you look at any piece of data through a narrow enough time period, you will see the outcomes you want.
Obesity is proven to reduce lifespan and cause a host of preventable health problems over a lifetime.
You cannot legitimately call yourself a professional involving weight issues and not know that more Americans die from obesity-related diseases than being underweight. That is simply a fact.
As for WN, WN crew members say what you have seen - which is that overweight people prefer WN.
The real question from a business standpoint is if that is the best group of people to pursue from a profit maximization standpoint.
As of right now, WN trails AA, DL and UA in profits and a number of revenue metrics.
Alaska has a great Policy about passengers too big to fit inyo a regular seat. The policy is now being made very apparent at customer service desks etc. Buy an extra seat if you don’t fit, and get a refund if there is an empty seat on the flight. Love if!
Really appreciate this post! I fit easily into the smallest seat but have no qualms about larger passengers having an extra seat. Whatever the reason someone is in a larger body deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
It’s in the policy. If any part of their body crosses into another person’s seat (the border is defined by the armrests) they qualify. So if a well-built person with broad shoulders stretches into another passengers seat area they would qualify for a refund too.
What about a gym rat with a broad chest and shoulders? If they cross into another person’s seat they are also eligible for an extra seat in the WN policy. No one naturally has a muscular body like that, people have to choose to go to the gym regularly and manage their nutrition to look that way. Should they be punished for their “lifestyle choices” as well?
Maybe read my post correctly. Nowhere did I say anything that you responded to. My comments were about the short term effects of being underweight versus overweight. Only car accidents kill more young people than anorexia. It kills 12 times as many young women as all other causes of death combined! The fatal health impacts of being overweight are almost exclusively long term.
Maybe get back to licking Ed Bastian’s boots.
If you show me your M.D. or D.O. I will show you mine. Clearly you've not spent any time in Medical School, or maybe did not even take a science class, but that is not the way it works for people with issues like Thyroid or their endocrine system.
PS. The Thyroid is part of the endocrine system along with 6 others.
People these days are just offended by everything, and take it all out of context.
I am by no means for glamorizing obesity, and hate that society is too positive on this as it leads to a giant list of issues.
But this is a very nice thing WN does, and if the seat is not sold, it is not hurting their bottom line. If it was sold, then I agree pay more, or if you fly a carrier with a domestic F or Spirit, then just pay for the bigger seat.
As ultimately it affects the bottomline for the airline and they have to make revenue elsewhere? Space is at a premium on an aircraft; why should tickets not be based on how much space you need/want? So if you need extra space pay for it...
Nobody is licking anybody's anything.
The point still remains that when you look at a specific point in time, you are certain to find what you are looking for.
The fact is that obesity kills far more people than anorexia or being underweight in the western world. In impoverished nations, I am sure the reverse is true.
Obesity is NOT without hope or treatment just like smoking or alcohol overuse - both of which kill more Americans (Southwest IS a US airline) than anorexia OVER A LIFETIME.
Many people are more than happy to provide help to pregnant women, people will disabilities that cannot be corrected or reversed. But you kid yourself if you think that people view being overweight as the same as other disabilities.
I’m 6’4” 292lbs with a bmi of 8. I have not fit into an economy airline seat since 7th grade. I’m Not obese at all, just a big dude. I always encroach on other people’s space. am I considered a passenger of size? I have learned to fly FC when I can, but often I’m stuck in economy. sWA has no FC. What about us “just big” people? Where do we sits
Lol Matt obviously wrote that as clickbait and it worked cos even Lucky who rarely comments on such social/cultural issues had to write about it.
"I guess" means you should stop guessing and come back when you have actual valid expertise.
True, and yet you still have aircraft that FAIL it.
Most notably the 748i... tested multiple times, failed all the above, and eventually lobbied to be included under the previous 747's evac, despite having a different fuselage size and capacity.
Let me just start by saying that when see an article that uses the phrase "passengers of size," you pretty much already know what the point of view is going to be. Be that as it may, I don't disagree that compassion is a good thing, and Southwest certainly has the right to adopt any policy it wishes. However, there is an inherent unfairness here. When I purchase a Southwest ticket, that buys me one seat, so many inches. When a larger purchase person purchases the same ticket, they get two or three times what I'm receiving. They don't want to pay for it, which I understand, since no one really wants to pay if they can make someone else cover the cost. But let's not kid ourselves that this is somehow fair. Adding to the irritation of passengers who get less space for the same money are the "influencers" online who speak of getting multiple seats as an entitlement, not an act of compassion. It's the opposite of gratitude. Not all of them, of course, but enough to give POS travelers a bad name. Finally, and I haven't seen this verified, the word is that this policy holds even on fully booked flights. This suggests someone gets bumped when a POS traveler takes, say, three seats on a full flight.
All in all, it doesn't make me want to fly Southwest more.
I think under Southwest's policy, the answer is pretty clear - you can pre-book a second seat and be refunded for it. The operative language is that it applies to anyone "who encroaches upon any part of the neighboring seat(s)."
"Hello Dr. may I please have a note saying I am claustrophobic and scared of crowds? I'll pay you $500. Yes, the reason is I am angry that people of size are being accommodated, and I feel this somehow slights me and I cannot stand for it."
I get that this is an intentionally extreme example, but if the airline were to routinely run into the situation where many passengers require two seats, it becomes an optimization problem for the airline to solve. For example, does every passenger really need two seats or can the airline refit the plane with slightly wider seats such that the majority of people formerly requiring two seats can now get by with one? Say, instead of 180 seats, the plane now has 150, with 145 passengers. Maybe the wider seats allow the airline to up its prices.
Examples aside, southwest has clearly figured out that this policy is to its benefit.
We need to start punishing people harshly for their bad choices in this country.
By you being fat, you are taking up more than one seat. Sure the airline profits either way but your fat ways of life is making one customer have less choices. If the seat was not being sold and that was certain, I have no problem with that except for the eyesore. If fat is bad, then bad is to blame. Make them think twice about being obese. There are no exceptions. A good way to make them retract this stupid policy is to abuse it, like Matt said.
WTF? Yes it does. It shows them it is okay to be doing that. If someone told me after shoplifting, I just attend a seminar as a resource to help with my shoplift tendencies , then I would think it is okay to do it again. Instead, if I was arrested or shot, then maybe I won't do it again. Holy hell, there are backwards people. INCENTIVIZE or PROSECUTE. That's how to move the country forward.
If they don't treat themselves with dignity, why are we expected to treat them that way?
Why must we continue to accommodate for shit lifestyle behaviors? It's like we want them to stay fat.
Yet you were obviously looking at L&LF and have complained many times about Matthew's take on this situation.
Ben, I completely agree with you and think the world would be a better place if everyone had the same sense of decency and compassion.
"Customer of size" is the phrase Southwest uses. Why would you expect an article on that policy to call it something different?
What a joy you must be around if you think American society is "too positive" about people being overweight...
So that’s the threshold? Choice?
I guess people born without legs are SOL in your world. They didn’t have a choice either.
It's not a humane policy. It indirectly encourages obesity which is by and large a problem caused by laziness, the lack of exercise and a poor diet. What's next, bring back the smoking section, free fentanyl for addicts, and free booze for alcoholics?
If you need another seat pay for it. if you're unusually big I feel bad for you but you should know what airlines are like and, sadly, they're not cutting you any breaks at all. You need to be fat- not big.
IMO, Matthew has a much better take on this on you do and some of the comments reek of hypocrisy.
I am sorry but you seem to suggest being gay and being obese are in any way comparable. Did you choose to be gray (and can you stop being gay). Nope. Can you diet, exercise and live a healthy life? Heck yes. Obesity is for the most part and addition, just like alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling. Yes, there are medical exceptions, very very few. The vast majority of people are obese are so because of their own choice. And in general, that's their problem. But where the fun ends is when it affects others- which in this case it does.
Although I’ve lost 120 lb., at 250 I’m still considered a “person of size”. Even at my heaviest, I was never asked to purchase a second seat on Delta, United or South African Airways. I can empathize with those who have been required to, though, as I have experienced significant fat-shaming in other situations. Kudos to Southwest for tackling a problem that no other airline is interested in dealing with!!
Well, Matthew and his website are notorious for being quite full of xenophobic, discriminatory. Their comment section’s always full of racist or generally insulting posts while he prances of being a good christian and a good american. Either he lacks the ability, funding, or will to moderate his comment section, I do not know. Stopped reading his website years ago. I will go from time to time just to remind me how messed up humanity is.
It is just as uncomfortable flying next to a kid than it is flying next to an obese person 🙂
I think it is good that SW policy is clear. And hell if you need to buy more than one seat, buy more than one seat.
SW has never been afraid to be different. SW Annual Meetings always feature Shareholders mumbling that it's losing Billions in revenue by not charging baggage fees. I was on a SW flight recently, several 'very large' people. Flying is difficult enough without having 170 other people shaking their heads at you, mad 'cause you dare share their space. #1, it's SW's decision, if you don't like it fly Spirit. #2, in an industry that squeezes every spare cent, it's simply kind and decent. Let's see who's the next Airline to adopt that policy.
Some thoughts on this policy:
1) An overweight/oversized passenger affects other passengers' comfort. An extra seat in between would be most welcome. Maybe this is part of the decision by SWA to offer this? Have they received too many complaints from other passengers about encroachment?
2) Speaking of encroachment, I was on an SWA flight with an entire college football team. I sat in the aisle seat, while 2 players sat in the window and middle seat. I sat with my shoulders folded in front of me and my hands on my lap or between my knees the entire flight. These players weren't obese, just... big football players. Should this policy only apply to obese passengers?
3) Complimentary ticket issue aside, it makes no sense that SWA "encourages" the passengers-of-size to purchase an extra ticket ahead of time, for the convenience of other passengers (so they don't get kicked off their flight to accommodate said passenger-of-size,) then apply for a refund later. How many people are this considerate? Why not put a policy in place similar to Alaska Airlines? They also encourage or suggest buying the extra ticket ahead of time, but have a much more reasonable, common-sense policy of offering the option of requesting it at the gate IF THERE IS AN EXTRA SEAT AVAILABLE. This way, no one gets kicked off of their flight to accommodate an extra free ticket.
4) What is the policy on the priority (or lack thereof) regarding passengers being booted from a flight? I'm guessing this only happens once they've exhausted the volunteer-for-voucher system. Are the passengers-of-size completely exempt from the possibility of being booted, just because they got an extra free seat? Should it work on a more defined system (at first I wrote "fair," but that's too ambiguous,) like who bought their ticket first, who paid the most (therefore probably buying their ticket later,) who's going to a wedding or funeral...?
5) Every scenario (okay, most) has gray areas. Who judges whether the passenger actually encroaches on the next seat? Are they going to measure at the gate? Are the gate agents just going to eyeball it? Are they told not to question it if someone requests it? I mean, heaven forbid they offend anyone. Does it have to be fat/torso that encroaches? Do shoulders count? If so, the football player situation definitely would apply. Or would that only apply to a fat tackle and not a muscular tight end (like my favorite, George Kittle)? If I just had rotator cuff surgery and have that giant pillow-sling that would clearly extend into the next seat, do I get a free seat, have to purchase one, or just get to crowd the passenger next to me?
Just some thoughts, like I said. I don't have answers, but
Absolute ka-ka. And if you hate it so much why do you obviously read it? Probably everyday?
You're just a hypocrite.
Bingo. I have no problem with compassion and would encourage it in every situation. But lobbying for or expecting a free extra seat because you choose not to control your inhibitions is something else entirely,
This woman thinks she deserves. lobbies for, and literally expects a free extra seat.
BS. Pay for it. Like the rest of us do.
And God help you (much less your kids) if you're behind her when the plane needs to be evacuated in an emergency.
Because it's a politically correct, corporate, and dishonest term for obese or fat.
No that isn't clear by any means. Big people don't get cut any slack. But "passengers of size" (meaning fat) do. The woman who's been lobbying for this isn't big- she's incredibly obese.
Wrong. It's everyone's business. Incentivizing obesity or other poor health choices costs us all. You don't think you pay more for health insurance because no one smokes, drinks to excess, uses drugs or can't control their diet?
People love legislating for, or advising, other people and their choices. Whatever you want to do is fine until it negatively impacts my experience. This could be crowding over the armrest, smelling badly of body odor or perfume, screaming or crying kids, kicking or pulling on my seat, etc. As I write this right now someone on the beach is spraying sunscreen on his body and the surrounding folks. Someone else is sharing their music. As on the plane, this too shall pass. As long as there are people around me living first world lives there will be first world problems.
The consequence of overeating to the point of severe obesity is that you should have to pay for two airplane seats (and die by 40). End of story. This policy is the opposite of "compassionate."
It is not compassionate to pretend that people eating themselves to the point they can't fit in an airplane seat are exempt from the laws of physics, nature, and decency. It's why they're dying in the first place - nobody is willing to be honest with them.
Ben, thanks for your thoughtful, caring response. I'm not a target of that policy -- I'm the person that the large people are thankful to sit next to -- but I appreciate the compassion you have for everyone.
It should be noted that large isn't just fat. Economy seats are so small these days that many individuals who are of normal weight and just large end of with their shoulders in the seat next to them. Maybe this policy should do something for those folks and make it more comfortable for all of us.
Would it be reasonable just to increase the size of the seats for all the customers? I am not overweight person but I feel quite uncomfortable in a plane seat, especially on a long flight.
It feels to me that this policy is discriminating toward skinny people.
So many people seem to believe that being cruel is their “right.” I suggest they stay home. Alone.