Obese have the right to two seats: court

[oz_mark]

What proportion of the population is considered "obese" or more importantly, can't fit their waist between the arm rests on a B737?

The second part is probably more relevant. Technically, I am obese but I fit reasonably comfortably into a 737 seat.

 

[comint]

Hmm, thinking about it, there would have to be penalties for declaring "obesity" during booking and turning up at the airport not actually being "obese"... (i.e. trying to get an empty seat by "stretching the truth").

 

[NM]

I think Southwest have a very sensible policy about obese people who cannot fit in a single seat with the armrests down - Southwest only make the passenger pay for the extra seat if the flight is full (that is if the airline would have otherwise sold the seat).

If the flight is full, does that mean that someone has to be bumped in order for the POS to occupy two seats? If so, there could be additional costs to the airline for IDB compensation? Could get messy determining who gets bumped - the POS onto a potentially not full flight so no additional charge, or the last person to check-in??? I am not trying to be difficult. The policy just raised some questions in my mind.

 

[JohnK]

What proportion of the population is considered "obese" or more importantly, can't fit their waist between the arm rests on a B737?

I am well over 100kgs and I am considered obese. I can fit my waist between the armrests on a 737 easily, in fact I can sit comfortably in exit rows with the restricted room due to tray tables built into the armrest, and as I always sit in an aisle seat I am always leaning into the aisle to ensure the person next to me has enough shoulder and elbow room....

 

[comint]

The policy just raised some questions in my mind.

Another concern with the Southwest policy, is two fold; one, like the US our population seems to be "expanding" and two, airline seats are contracting (first in pitch, and now width e.g. D7's A330s @ 3-3-3 & EK's B777s @ 3-4-3).

So as airlines attempt to jam more of us onboard, more of us won’t fit in the seats they supply. For example, I think it is completely reasonable, that if an airline installs seats that 25% of the general population can’t fit into, it is their responsibility to accommodate the same proportionality with “empty middle seats” on every flight.

And if we are declaring personal sizes, I am big, but still widest at the shoulders/chest (just) and sometimes feel uncomfortable on B737s. (Plus, I would envisage that in-flight, some people who are more pear shaped, may feel most discomfort around the thighs.)

 

[crazydave98]

Another concern with the Southwest policy, is two fold; one, like the US our population seems to be "expanding" and two, airline seats are contracting (first in pitch, and now width e.g. D7's A330s @ 3-3-3 & EK's B777s @ 3-4-3).

So as airlines attempt to jam more of us onboard, more of us won’t fit in the seats they supply. For example, I think it is completely reasonable, that if an airline installs seats that 25% of the general population can’t fit into, it is their responsibility to accommodate the same proportionality with “empty middle seats” on every flight.

I agree that if 25% of population won't fit between the armrests it is completely unreasonable, but suspect it is more like 0.25%-2.5%. Where do you draw the line of reasonableness?

Another issue is choice - different airlines have different configurations of pitch/width (e.g. JQ has wider seats on A320 but less pitch than DJ B737) and individual airlines also offer different classes (e.g. Premium Economy), so the obese person is hardly being forced into any one seat.

Also, if the airline has to pay to accommodate obese people, then that cost is being passed on to all consumers - that is everyone else is paying for it. There have already been plenty of "letters to the editor" and posts in this forum about weight-based charging and people of lighter builds complaining about being charged for excess baggage when the combined weight of themselves and their baggage is less than the body mass of some individuals.

In answer to NM's point I believe Southwest ask "customers of size" to purchase 2 seats and then they refund if less than 100% load to avoid the bumping problem.

 

[NM]

In answer to NM's point I believe Southwest ask "customers of size" to purchase 2 seats and then they refund if less than 100% load to avoid the bumping problem.

Ahh, that would work. Thanks.

 

[comint]

This is a most interesting thread.

if the airline has to pay to accommodate obese people, then that cost is being passed on to all consumers - that is everyone else is paying for it. There have already been plenty of "letters to the editor" and posts in this forum about weight-based charging and people of lighter builds complaining.. .

Tabloid news & prejudices aside, I like to hope that we are all trying to live in a society where people are people, and we can celebrate & appreciate (or at least acknowledge & accept) the differences, and keep an eye out not to disadvantage those who aren’t “average”. I like living in a country where our traffic lights “click” and ramps complement stairs at the entrances to our buildings. (And I accept that it costs me more to live in a society like this, especially since I don’t need the clicks or ramps to help me get around.)

Where do you draw the line of reasonableness?

I see the issue from two perspectives, one from the passenger(s) seated next to the “POS” and secondly from the perspective of the “POS”. So, the first thing we need is - a definition of what constitutes a “POS” in relation to an aircraft seat. Obviously, from previous posters, “obese” is too broad.

So, where do we measure this “POS” issue; the hips, the waist, the chest, the shoulders…? (And then we need to know what proportion of the population fits this profile.) While the “arm rests down” concept is easy and somewhat interesting at first, it doesn’t address different seat sizes (as I mentioned previously).

The answer to who pays, IMO, & as you point out, is much simpler – all of us do! (Airlines, like Southwest, should not be able to make any additional profit (revenue or cost saving) from a discriminatory policy (and this policy seems border line in that respect). Unfortunately in the US, it is my understanding, that airlines are exempt from antidiscrimination legislation in this area.)

 

[bambbbam2]

I am well over 100kgs and I am considered obese. I can fit my waist between the armrests on a 737 easily, in fact I can sit comfortably in exit rows with the restricted room due to tray tables built into the armrest, and as I always sit in an aisle seat I am always leaning into the aisle to ensure the person next to me has enough shoulder and elbow room....

Exactly my procedure too.. That's why I prefer a row down the back with an empty middle than a crowded row up front..

 

[moa999]

No anti-discrimination laws apply, often however there is an out for cost of implenmentation.

eg. many old buildings do not have ramps etc and don't have to comply with antidiscrim laws due to cost of implementation / heritage protections.

I also disagree with the concept that an airline is a carriage service from A to B and not a fixed seat.
When I buy an economy seat I am buying a seat that has a 31/32" pitch, a width of 18/19" etc.... I know that unless the airline has not sold the seat next to me, that someone else will have paid to sit in a square space the same size.
If I want to ensure that I sit in a seat with additional width / legroom, then I purchase a Business or First class seat, and would have an expectation of larger width/pitch

 

[crazydave98]

Airlines, like Southwest, should not be able to make any additional profit (revenue or cost saving) from a discriminatory policy (and this policy seems border line in that respect. Unfortunately in the US, it is my understanding, that airlines are exempt from antidiscrimination legislation in this area.)

I don't think Southwest are making any "additional" profit or that their policy is discrimatory. The policy is plainly aimed only at ensuring that they don't lose money on the most profitable (full) flights by otherwise refunding the 2nd seat. If it was additional profit they were seeking they would just make grossly obese people who could not fit between the armrests pay for a 2nd seat all the time. As to discriminatory, it could be argued that Southwest make flying more affordable for low income people and given the positive correlation between obesity and income that Southwest would be carrying an undue financial burden if they had to give more free seats for obese people than their higher priced competitors. That is, they could argue that any law entitling grossly obese people a free extra seat systematically discriminates against them because of the profile of their clientele.

I hadn't heard that airlines in the US are exempt from anti-discrimination legislation in this area and would be curious as to why you believe this is so.

 

[comint]

I don't think Southwest are making any "additional" profit or that their policy is discrimatory.

We obviously have different ethical antennae. Mine points to discrimination - as one person is being asked to pay more than another, based solely on their physical attributes.

In terms of discriminatory behaviour, I rate Southwest as having a poor culture for ethical management decision making. (They seem to merely react to legislation, and tend to do so only when confronted - lawsuit by lawsuit.)

While I accept there are many grounds for a business to claim hardship. In the Southwest case, they have built an extremely successful business targeting their specific market segment. If there is a correlation between income and obesity in the US, Southwest would (& should*) have factored this into their business model. (They appear very slick at playing the numbers game! *I would also argue that this policy itself was a proactive attempt by Southwest to draw a line in the sand that it thought it would be able to get away with, enhancing its profitability by discriminating against its “customers of size".)

In terms of data, I would be interested to know what number of flights per day go out 100% loaded, and the average number of “POS” on these services. And finally, the number of “empty middle seats” that represent the opportunity lost if a dual charge had not been applied. I think we about talking peanuts, in which case, I start to question if Southwest is run by bigots?

 

[crazydave98]

In terms of discriminatory behaviour, I rate Southwest as having a poor culture for ethical management decision making. (They seem to merely react to legislation, and tend to do so only when confronted - lawsuit by lawsuit.)

In terms of data, I would be interested to know what number of flights per day go out 100% loaded, and the average number of “POS” on these services. And finally, the number of “empty middle seats” that represent the opportunity lost if a dual charge had not been applied.

As far as I know Southwest is the only US airline to actually have a policy to deal with POS. Other so-called "full service" airlines do things like measure passengers in public and simply deny them boarding if the flight is full and the POS cannot fit into a seat. I would like to understand how many instances of "merely reacting to legislation" that you can cite and how Southwest differed from any other airline, other than being pro-active about the obesity problem?

I don't get the comment about empty middle seats representing the opportunity lost if a dual charge had not been applied? By definition POS only pay for two seats if every other seat on the aircraft is full.

 

[comint]

how many instances of "merely reacting to legislation" that you can cite and how Southwest differed from any other airline, other than being pro-active about the obesity problem?

Key issues for me relate to - 1/ in the past; age & gender discrimination in employment, and 2/ today; discrimination based on physical attributes. I also tend to sense fire where there is smoke, so (for me) unsuccessful actions may indicate a problematic corporate culture. What is ethical & what is legal are obviously two different things, some companies set high standards and visions for themselves in this area, and some scrape the bottom – and try to get away with “things” merely to increase their profitability. On this continuum, I rate Southwest low. (But then, other than at Jetstar, I think this is part of many LCC’s business models.)

I don't get the comment about empty middle seats representing the opportunity lost if a dual charge had not been applied? By definition POS only pay for two seats if every other seat on the aircraft is full.

Some implications in my comment – 1/ It may be possible to accommodate 2 POS across 3 seats on some aircraft, meaning only half a seat is lost from revenue generation per POS. 2/The opportunity lost, is the amount an airline could have got from selling carriage to another customer, which they may have forgone by accommodating a POS across two seats. We are observing the same thing from “glass half full” / “glass half empty” perspectives. I clearly believe the airline should miss any additional revenue generated from charging a passenger twice.

The full effects of discrimination permeate throughout a society, making life easier for some and unpleasant for others. I think I have generally got my particular perspective across in previous posts, but consider a hypothetical.

You run a successful small business wholesaling widgets across Australia & New Zealand. You employ just one sales manager to cover your whole business; this person generally spends the last half of every week flying around bits of their territory. Due to internal promotion, the position has now become vacant, and you have just finished interviewing two fine candidates for replacement. Both have a great background in widget retailing, plus “a gift of the gab” that you think would be perfect for making the transition to account based wholesaling. You are about to choose applicant 1, when you remember that some airlines charge POS twice. You simply don’t have that kind of leeway in your travel budget… what do you do?

 

[SeaWolf]

I think a lot of this debate comes back to a fundamental question. Is this a disability which they have no control over or is it a lifestyle choice? If the person is born with it and has no control over their obesity, then it's discrimination. If they're obese simply because they choose to eat excessive amounts of junk food and lead a sedentary lifestyle (which is far more often the case these days) then they may need to accept that things are going to be more awkward for them.

Unfortunately I don't think this health habit is going to go away. The prevalence of obesity in Australia has more than doubled in the past 20 years; the prevalence is 2.5 times higher now than in 1980. Obesity is becoming the new smoking.

 

[crazydave98]

What is ethical & what is legal are obviously two different things, some companies set high standards and visions for themselves in this area, and some scrape the bottom – and try to get away with “things” merely to increase their profitability. On this continuum, I rate Southwest low. (But then, other than at Jetstar, I think this is part of many LCC’s business models.)

I agree that what is legal and what is ethical are different. However you haven't shown a shred of evidence (or even smoke) that Southwest has behaved any different to any other airline in either its standards or vision or legal or ethical standards. For that matter I don't see why you rate Jetstar as being any better or worse than any other LCC - except maybe using an obese person (aka Jetstar Julie) in their advertisements. You mention age & gender discrimination in employment as a key issue for you - I am certain that Jetstar has a cabin crew that is on average younger than and has a higher proportion of females than Virgin Blue and is therefore exercising a degree of discrimination (even if not deliberate). Since my office is next to the JQ crew room at T2 and I travel several times every week on Virgin Blue I think I'm in a good position to judge (but am not going to be offended if you don't take my word for it ).

 

[Evan]

I used to work in a company that had an office in a city, of almost 30 staff there was 3 doing technical stuff behind scenes and a male manager and 2 other men. All the rest were women, and of those about 20 were young and attractive
We had a policy of non discrimination, but you know it was our choice who to hire. Just happens we hired mostly women because they were the best for the job.

What i am saying is i guess younger women may happen to like the idea of working for Jet* it may have nothing to do with any discrimination.

Back on topic... i feel that it should be the person who pays for the seat, in most cases as is said its a lifestyle choice and being a larger lad i wont tell you its easy but i cant see why a business (any business not just airlines) should have to pay for a persons choice.

E

 

[drron]

Is it ethical for a person of size,knowing they will not fit in an airline seat,subject another person to their overflow?

 

[Evan]

Is it ethical for a person of size,knowing they will not fit in an airline seat,subject another person to their overflow?

Not very nice is it.
But maybe they are hoping for this special treatment, Attempting not just buy a larger seat, eg PE or J.
I guess its no different from a tall person expecting an exit row (Yes i know one you can do nothing about and the other you can) but it is still a case of somebody expecting something that they did not pay for.

All depends on your point of view and in your own mind your thinking about yourself and justifying to yourself why you should be treated differently.

E

 

[JohnK]

Is it ethical for a person of size,knowing they will not fit in an airline seat,subject another person to their overflow?

I can see how being obese may cause minor issues on some flights but this does not happen all the time and the situation is manageable.

How about further discussion on issues that exist on every flight and other than total segregation one would have to show a lot of restraint throughout the flight. Would you want to sit next to someone who has not washed for 5 days, or does not brush their teeth or use mouthwash, or someone who has been eating garlic everyday of their lives (the smell is so overpowering it almost knocks me out) etc etc....