I'm not bothered if they buy 2 coach seats either - just so long as I don't have to pay extra for it.

As I said, I'm all for paying slightly more to increase the leg-room in coach, which is always brutal - esp. on a long flight - but I draw the line at paying more for my ticket just to accommodate a few 'extreme' passengers.

It would seem that every solution except asking people to buy two seats forces the airline to give up some profit. I don't think the current model can last very long considering how big most of us are getting. A wide-hipped woman or large-framed man does not have to be that overweight to not fit in a plane seat.

Hard to say. The airlines are already immune from prosecution if a passenger develops a DVT during a long-haul flight - and its pretty well-known that the formation of DVT is related to cramped conditions. Seats should be a little wider - generally speaking; but where exactly is the line drawn?

Then I'd have to start wondering how long until the 1st class section consists of a single very large, chesterfield couch

:yawn: That sounds fabulous.

I'm not sure where you'd draw the line in making seats more comfortable. I have to wonder if Americans can really get that much bigger. But you never know...

I have noticed however that US travellers (especially the middle-age ones) tend to be larger in general than equivalent Europeans. Back in Britain there are plenty of overweight people - but very few that I remember being upwards of 300lbs. The US really sticks out in that regard - that this sort of thing seems to be more common than not.

Here's how:

Like pets. People over 250 pounds will have to travel in the cargo hold in airline-approved crates.

Might actually reduce the costs to some extent for the rest of us. IMO there should be a base charge for the seat and anything over an optimum weight should be charged by the lb. Of course as Alex pointed that doesn’t do much of anything to address people of normal weight who are broad-hipped/shouldered.



I wouldn't go that far - but I do wonder to what extent we should pander to a person's sensitivities rather than address the practical issue of the cost:fuel:weight ratio... It is essentially a practical issue.

More like cattle.

Sometimes I think the hold would be preferable to coach - generally...

That's true. But the weight issue is still different from the space issue. If they started weighing people there would be an outraged American public. They will just keep restricting luggage, I think, which is too bad. I do think you have to treat customers with respect and people already feel enough like cattle when flying anyway. I think if companies thought they could make more money by ignoring people's personal sensitivities, they would be doing it.

Generally I think there is a general correlation between a person's size and their weight, though admittedly airline seats - like those in movie theatres are one-size-fits-all.

Southwest's solution doesn't sound bad. If you can't get the armrest down, you pay for a second seat unless the flight isn't full. If it's not full, they're not losing money. But the only problem with that it's the sort of thing sprung on the heavyset person at the last minute.


Plus, is anyone comfortable in a coach seat? I don't see how anyone who isn't shorter than 5'8'' and less than 150 lbs. fits.

They're hardly luxurious at the best of times...

Or equivalent Asians, for that matter.

For those of you who voted "NO" would you also approve of two extra-small passengers (i.e. my wife and I) paying for only ONE ticket for the both of them if they both fit in one seat?

Curious as if they would have to pay more for this:

Canada unveils heavyweight ambulance

Jun 25 01:15 PM US/Eastern
Healthcare officials in Calgary have unveiled a new ambulance designed for treating and transporting obese patients in an emergency, believed to be the first of its kind in this country.

The rest here:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

To be honest... I'd be surprised to see two normal sized human beings who can fit in one airline seat. Even two little kids would have a tight fit. And I think this wouldn't be allowed simply for safety reasons. One seat = one set of safety/lifesaving equipment, which means in the case of an accident, only one of the two people would have a life-vest, breathing apparatus, etc.

Being somewhat large myself, it isn't as if we are trying to inconvience others when we travel. I do my best to stay out of other people's way and I don't take up more than one seat. I don't want someone taking one look at me and judging that I'm too 'large' and therefore must by a second seat when I don't need one and fit just fine in the existing seats.

Weighing by the pound doesn't necessarily work either. I have a friend who is quite tall and weighs well over 300+lbs, but he isn't wide by any means, just tall and muscular. As long as he fits in the seat, he shouldn't have to pay extra for it. However, I've seen short women who have hips that look like hoola-hoops. They probably weigh less than I do, but their 'build' makes it more difficult to fit into those sorts of seats. I've even seen non-obese people who just have the 'pear' bodytype and happen to be wider in the bottom have trouble that has nothing to do with being fat.

Perhaps there isn't an easy answer to this, but I don't think people should have be forced, at the airport, after making their plans and possibly spending quite a bit of money, to pay an additional fee for a seat that they were not expecting. It could ruin a person's entire vacation and it simply isn't a feasible idea

Why shouldn't he pay extra for it, if the airline is using extra fuel to transport him?

As erekose pointed out, it's a practical issue of the fuel cost vs weight (passengers + luggage).

Wait until airlines start doing 'edge of atmosphere' flights...

He isn't using "extra" fuel. Just as a 25 lb. child doesn't get a fuel discount. It's based on averages, and he's above it. Many seats are occupied by those below it.

So, I point out again a woman lighter than me with a different body build who is 'wider'. If she takes up two seats and I take up one, yet she weighs less than me, then I should still pay more? I don't know, it just doesn't totally make sense to me.

Anyways, I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

He is using extra fuel and a 25lb child does get a discount -- most airlines offer special children's fares.
Children under the age of 2 are allowed to travel free of charge.

Nope, not always true. My SIL is coming over in Aug with her 6 month old baby, she was charged 55 quid for the baby, even tho it will be sitting on her lap.

I know it's true for American, Continental and United..... still, 55 quid is a big discount.

And anyway the point was that a 90-pound 28-year-old woman is not getting a discount either.

Alex - at the moment, a 300lb guy is also paying the same fare as everyone else.

If airlines start charging people by weight, a 90lb woman will get a discount - that's the point.

I think the current system of averages seems to be working. As the average body size increases, prices will increase I suppose. And it's not all on the overweight. Thin people aren't as thin as they used to be either. Deal with the tragic unfairness.

I agree - I'd just prefer explicit weight limits instead of the "averages".

Say, 250lb for men and 200lb for women (including luggage.)

Anyone above the limit would have to pay extra.

No airline would be stupid enough to take people's dignity like that and expect to stay in business.

Surely the problem is payment-per-butt-in-the-seat, not weight. The reason the airline wants to make the fat person buy two seats is not due to the extra weight, but that they lose the ability to sell the seat next to the person and hence would have to run the flight 'empty.'

200lb including luggage. Interesting. I just booked a flight from PWM to JFK on JetBlue - a low cost provider, no less. Even they allow me two items of carry-on plus two hold items of 50lb a piece. Now for your plan to be feasible, assuming I was fully "luggaged-up", I'd have to weigh about 80lb. Granted I'm only 5'2, but even so....

Let's be a little reasonable here!

(Edit for typos)

Ok - let's be reasonable.

300lb for women, 350lb for men -- luggage included.

What do you think?

I'd be OK if I had only hold luggage. And I'm not even particularly large, even if I am about 70lb overweight.

I think it's very difficult, because one can't fairly just tack it onto a weight. I have a friend who is a similar weight to me, but she carries it differently. She is short with a small waist, but she has broad hips - to the point where she is often required to purchase more than one plane seat.

i guess extra tall people should pay more to when they are taking up my leg room which is already cramped to start with and im freaking one 5 foot tall.

anyway.. no they should not be charged for 2 seats. ive flown when i was 130 pounds and ive flown when i was 200 lbs. both of them were miserable. i feel like a can of sardens either way.

Its not really that complicated - space is a $ premium on an aircraft, and so is weight.

If someone is small and thin and only use up 1/2 a seat, can they get a discount?

If weight limits are imposed, I see no reason for them to be sex specific.

It used to be the case that men were bigger and stronger (and therefore heavier) than women.
Is the stereotype no longer true?

Moving 1 lb of female over 1 mile has the same energy cost as moving 1 lb of male over 1 mile.

Why do they lose the ability to sell the seat next to the person? When I buy a ticket and select my seat it doesn't tell me if the person next to me is fat or not so I don't exactly have the option of saying, oh no.....I don't wanna buy that seat.

There is a very fat, very sweaty man who gets my bus to NYC every morning. The bus is always full - with at least 1 or 2 people standing. There's always one empty seat. Guess which one...

Granted, the seat will be sold since a potential passenger will not know ahead of time that they will have a large seatmate. But if the fat person is taking up part of a seat that someone else paid for, then the airline will likely have an irrate passenger on their hands. Personally, I do not want to be in intimate contact with a stranger throughout my flight. The only person I want pressed against me is Lai

You do have the option of making a fuss and being refunded part or all of your money. If that happens enough, anyone who doesn't fit in the seat is basically costing the airline money.

Has nowt to do with the stereotype.

If the argument is for 'fuel consumption' then I can't put it any better than G Dawg...

Yes the fuel consumption issue is really secondary and not really the point of the thread. Airlines haven't yet made an issue of it.

But it does factor into the cost of a plane ticket - in much the same way that removing or enlarging seats would also raise ticket prices.

Found this, bit old, 2004:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/...ain653942.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov17.html

Woman won a suit for getting "crushed":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2346319.stm

you people gotta be kidding. you're sitting here justifying bashing over weight people with the front of it's costing the airlines money. no i'm not a "fat, sweaty, hanging over into your seat & all the other hateful crap"person you're insulting. & all of you doing it are pathetic. if it bothers you that much find a small person, find out where they are sitting & go to the ticket counter to get your seat changed. and concentrate your hate on other elitist moroons.

I don't feel like there is bashing going on, but I do feel like people are being kind of callous. Talking about weighing people is ridiculous and would give your average woman a panic attack.