Fat folks pay more.....

[bezerk Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close bezerk]

I am short (can stand straight under the overheads on a domestic flight) and don't take up the entire seat, but I resent when I am squeezed between two larger people. Oftentimes they will even have the nerve to ask if I mind them putting the armrest up. I want to sream "Yes, I do!" but also don't want to make a commotion. I think this is an excellent idea and only fair to those that fit in one seat.

Joy

100% agreement

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Gosh, that's almost as bad as people accosting you in the street and shaking you down for handouts.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

The answer seems obvious, right in line with those who say to buy where you want to stay.

Buy your own plane.

I hear there's some available in Detroit.

[katiemack Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close katiemack]

I think these policies are hard hearted and driven with no real common sense.

Why not have a couple of rows of oversized seats ... instead of 3 seats across put in 2, designed for the oversized person...and just charge a surcharge on the seat in order to reserve it (of course, only oversized folks can reserve it, not skinny ones wanting more room)....

It has to be really difficult, embarrassing .... for oversized folks to try to cram themselves into a typical airline seat....I have seen some women and men who desperately shove that armrest over themselves, and it is humiliating to watch, so I can imagine how humiliating it must feel. And then they try to force the seatbelt over an extended belly.....if they can't do it, then they are forced to ask for the seatbelt extender....how awful! Dehumanizing!

Give folks a break....if they could, don't you think they would rather reserve a seat more friendly to their person, than be treated like luggage!

It seems to me they could easily reconfigure planes to offer this as a feature....and the first airline that does this will win some very happy and loyal customers, JMHO.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

It seems to me they could easily reconfigure planes to offer this as a feature....and the first airline that does this will win some very happy and loyal customers, JMHO.

Every airline that has attempted something such as that has been thoroughly trumped in the marketplace. The flying public has made it abundantly clear that given a choice between treated like cattle and paying $25 more for a seat, they will always choose to be treated like cattle, then complain about how they are treated like cattle. The number of people who are willing to pay a bit more for a bit more service is not large enough to make that a practical option for an airline.

*****

Getting to your suggestion of a wide seating row ...

First, how are you going to ensure that only large passengers reserve that seat? Are you going to require that large passengers register with the airline and be approved as large passengers in order to reserve those seats? If not that, how do you intend to police the restriction? Do you want to have scales at the gates and all customers who are reserved in those seats will be be weighed and measured to ensure they meet the criteria?

More practically, if you remove seats from an airplane you reduce the profitability of that airplane. If that results in the plane accommodating fewer passengers, that is less revenue for the carrier.

If that is the case, it makes perfect sense to me to pass that economic cost to those passengers that create the lost revenue. And that leads me back to the Southwest strategy. If a person thinks they need extra room, they buy the extra room. They don't need to register, they don't need to be weighed and inspected at the gate. At the privacy of their own computer screen they make their own decision.

Then, if the plane turns out to not be full - meaning that their need for extra space has not cost the airline any revenue, they get their money back for the extra seat.

Really, I can't conceive of any practical policy that could possibly be fairer or less embarrassing than the policy Southwest has put in place.

[katiemack Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close katiemack]

Every airline that has attempted something such as that has been thoroughly trumped in the marketplace. The flying public has made it abundantly clear that given a choice between treated like cattle and paying $25 more for a seat, they will always choose to be treated like cattle, then complain about how they are treated like cattle. The number of people who are willing to pay a bit more for a bit more service is not large enough to make that a practical option for an airline.

I wasn't aware of an airline trying this...which one/s did it and was it just the fare that defeated the attempt?

*****

Getting to your suggestion of a wide seating row ...

First, how are you going to ensure that only large passengers reserve that seat? Are you going to require that large passengers register with the airline and be approved as large passengers in order to reserve those seats? If not that, how do you intend to police the restriction? Do you want to have scales at the gates and all customers who are reserved in those seats will be be weighed and measured to ensure they meet the criteria?

Well, while I don't proclaim to have all those answers, it seems that there would be some alternatives to the ones you pose...but then I am just positing a possible different way to approach the problem. Sorry if I cannot counter all your points here, but then, given the situations that do humiliate, of course, I wouldn't be proposing these...I would rather some more compassionate approach, which believe it or not, just might be out there, given some imagination and feeling.

More practically, if you remove seats from an airplane you reduce the profitability of that airplane. If that results in the plane accommodating fewer passengers, that is less revenue for the carrier.

This seems unlikely if there is a ratio that makes up that difference. I am not willing to crunch numbers, but again, given some thought and careful cost analysis, I think it could be possible. And if it worked, attracting more passengers, then profit is built in by return customers.

If that is the case, it makes perfect sense to me to pass that economic cost to those passengers that create the lost revenue. And that leads me back to the Southwest strategy. If a person thinks they need extra room, they buy the extra room. They don't need to register, they don't need to be weighed and inspected at the gate. At the privacy of their own computer screen they make their own decision.

Then, if the plane turns out to not be full - meaning that their need for extra space has not cost the airline any revenue, they get their money back for the extra seat.

Really, I can't conceive of any practical policy that could possibly be fairer or less embarrassing than the policy Southwest has put in place.

Well, while the economics seem to be all that is of concern, except to me, it seems, then it would appear that your final case is the best one.

Alone as I am in this, I prefer some balance between economics and customer service....but that is a lost cause if I follow your argument.

In the marketplace, there is no room for compassion or customer service, and this I learn from your analysis....it is a lost cause....

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

I wasn't aware of an airline trying this...which one/s did it and was it just the fare that defeated the attempt?

There have been numerous examples over the years of airline companies which have tried to provide a bit more amenity while charging a corresponding higher price. All have failed.

One of the best examples I can think of is Alaska Arilines, which attempted to hold the line on in-flight food service and seat size and leg room.

Alone as I am in this, I prefer some balance between economics and customer service....but that is a lost cause if I follow your argument.

In the marketplace, there is no room for compassion or customer service, and this I learn from your analysis....it is a lost cause....

Perhaps you have an idea, but I think you need to extend your logic further.

If I follow you logic, restaurants should have certain items on their menu set aside for larger people; same menu item at the same price, but in larger portions to meet the larger caloric needs that are associated with larger bodies.

Grocery stores should offer a standard bonus pricing for their larger customers - something on the order of buy four items and get the fifth one for free, available only for our larger proportioned customers. Again this reflects the reality that larger people have greater caloric needs.

If your family is a family of all larger people who can't all seat comfortably in an economy size car, shouldn't you be able to buy a larger sized car for the same price as that compact car? When that family needs to rent a car, shouldn't they get a free upgrade to a larger size car?

[Keitht Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Keitht]

Well, while the economics seem to be all that is of concern, except to me, it seems, then it would appear that your final case is the best one.

Alone as I am in this, I prefer some balance between economics and customer service....but that is a lost cause if I follow your argument.

There is little value in a company providing superb customer service if that can only be achieved by higher costs and therefore lower numbers and profit disappearing. The only end result is yet another company going to the wall.
Whilst I certainly don't disagree with the idea of larger seats (wouldn't we all love them) they do come at a cost, and that cost needs to be covered. There is also the issue of varying customer size. For example if you have 12 supersize seats and only 6 supersize customers does the airline fly with 6 empty seats or do they permit standard size customers to use them? If standard size customers use them are they also charged extra, despite not requesting such seats?
I think most of us have some sympathy for at least that percentage of the supersized who have genuine medical problems, but not for those whose only problems is too much eating and too little moving! That said, sympathetic or not, I still want all my seat to myself.

[Pstreet1 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Pstreet1]

I, too, agree that Southwest has done the best that can be done with a policy that is fair. It is unfortunate that there are people who will be embarrased, but, realistically, if it happens, it happens. It is true that airlines that have attempted to remove seats and allow more room have been forced to change the policy: people want to pay the lowest ticket price possible. Solutions that propose larger seats simply don't give the return they should. Every airline is struggling to remain profitable enough to continue as a business; anything that affects their bottom line affects all of us and the future of the airlines. Southwest's policy is certainly more compasionate than making the arm rests fixed and leaving them permanently down, which would also be a solution--albeit a solution that provided no options.

[Hoc Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Hoc]

I personally think that a surcharge should be imposed for screaming kids. They impair my ability to ride through the flight in comfort, and therefore the same logic applies as to someone who takes up part of my seat. Yet, children are often allowed for free or half price.

[bigfrank Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close bigfrank]

I personally think that a surcharge should be imposed for screaming kids. They impair my ability to ride through the flight in comfort, and therefore the same logic applies as to someone who takes up part of my seat. Yet, children are often allowed for free or half price.

Good point


Yesterday I was on a long bus ride and guess what we had plenty of room in our seats we were not cramped at all and were very comfortable. IMO this is the airlines problem there packing all of us in to tight trying to get as many seats on a plane. If they would space it out with maybe a row less there would be plenty of room. There engineers should just follow the plans that the bus company uses.

[katiemack Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close katiemack]

There have been numerous examples over the years of airline companies which have tried to provide a bit more amenity while charging a corresponding higher price. All have failed.

But nothing that attempted to address seat size, correct?

....

Perhaps you have an idea, but I think you need to extend your logic further.

If I follow you logic, restaurants should have certain items on their menu set aside for larger people; same menu item at the same price, but in larger portions to meet the larger caloric needs that are associated with larger bodies.

Actually, I don't see that you are following "my" logic, nor any to go this far....mixing apples and seats if you ask me...and there is nothing to compare...menus are ala carte, have variety, and range in pricing...airline seats do not. And as far as the idea of larger people having larger caloric needs, totally off the mark as this discussion goes...again, not relevant to seats.

Grocery stores should offer a standard bonus pricing for their larger customers - something on the order of buy four items and get the fifth one for free, available only for our larger proportioned customers. Again this reflects the reality that larger people have greater caloric needs.

You seem to have the belief that larger people need more calories....in any event, again, mixing apples and seats....

[quote[If your family is a family of all larger people who can't all seat comfortably in an economy size car, shouldn't you be able to buy a larger sized car for the same price as that compact car? When that family needs to rent a car, shouldn't they get a free upgrade to a larger size car?[/QUOTE]

I never said that a larger sized person should get anything for free....the spillover of a large person on another person's seat is as free as it gets...and while I know that the airlines are trying to address the issue, it seems counterproductive in some ways. As for the car comparison, please refer to menus, as cars come in choices, airline seats do not....so the idea of having a larger sized car at the same price is not a viable comparison...and I never said that the larger sized seat should not come with a premium added.

There is little value in a company providing superb customer service if that can only be achieved by higher costs and therefore lower numbers and profit disappearing. The only end result is yet another company going to the wall.

Yes, profit over people....we know the argument well. RCI comes to mind.

Whilst I certainly don't disagree with the idea of larger seats (wouldn't we all love them) they do come at a cost, and that cost needs to be covered.

Yes, I agree that the cost would have to be covered...and that is just what they do in charging for 2 seats when needed, but I am positing an idea that seems to have never been considered. Instead, the profit mindset seems to never look at a more inventive way to address a real need, rather they just come up with a bandaid answer (charge for 2 seats)l.

There is also the issue of varying customer size. For example if you have 12 supersize seats and only 6 supersize customers does the airline fly with 6 empty seats or do they permit standard size customers to use them? If standard size customers use them are they also charged extra, despite not requesting such seats?

Here is the obvious dilemma....I can see your point well here....and yet, with all the clever inventions by man, I would dream for, hope for some way to accommodate the oversized traveler....it would be a challenge, but then again, many challenges are opportunities. I still think that many people who do not fly now because of the restrictions of seat size might be very interested in an airline who was more inviting to them, even if there is a higher price associated with it. But again, I am dreaming, not being practical.

I think most of us have some sympathy for at least that percentage of the supersized who have genuine medical problems, but not for those whose only problems is too much eating and too little moving! That said, sympathetic or not, I still want all my seat to myself.

I agree, no one should have to sit scrunched up, pushed aside or trying to be polite as someone is encroaching on his/her seat. That said, I find it really irritating to be with a newspaper reader sitting next to me...one who thinks that opening the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times to its full capacity, stretching his arms in front of my face to be just as foul an experience.

As for judging oversized folks, I think that is part of this society's problem...who is to say why a person is oversized....many folks struggle, and get judged as overeaters, when it is more complex than that....I find this sad. Oversize happens for many reasons, not just overeating, although it can be a major source, but not always.

I personally think that a surcharge should be imposed for screaming kids. They impair my ability to ride through the flight in comfort, and therefore the same logic applies as to someone who takes up part of my seat. Yet, children are often allowed for free or half price.

I love this idea of a surcharge, and how many flights I have been on when a parent has let their child kick my seat, crawl on my seat back or keep drooling over the seat back onto my side....