How Fat Is Too Fat To Fly?

  • Bookmark this on Hatena Bookmark
  • Hatena Bookmark - How Fat Is Too Fat To Fly?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Post to Google Buzz
  • Bookmark this on Yahoo Bookmark
  • Bookmark this on Livedoor Clip
  • Share on FriendFeed

Guess what? No one is too fat to fly. But airlines don’t care. They have asked a badly designed question that presumes, in its premise, that the business model they follow of maximizing souls on planes is the one that will keep them in the black. Maybe they’re correct. That doesn’t mean they’re right.

When I say “no one is too fat to fly” I don’t mean that every person of any size can travel by any plane and sit in any seat. But the phrasing of the question “How fat is too fat to fly?” implies that the only thing of importance is the size of the person…not the size of the seat.

Bigger seats are possible. I have one. I have a big comfy chair in my living room. I have a couch in my living room. I’ve seen many places to sit that are bigger than modern airline seats. So the issue surely isn’t that the people are of the wrong type or kind to be able to travel by air. The issue is rather that the seats are the wrong type or kind to transport anyone outside of a certain body type.

But blaming the seats also isn’t fair. I mean, the seats didn’t do anything. They were just sitting there, waiting to accommodate a nice, slim ass. Why are they the only seats on the plane? I think they’re lonely. I think they want to be around seats of all stripes, creeds, and colours. They tire of homogeneity.

Someone has decided that airplanes shouldn’t carry seats that are large enough to accommodate passengers above an arbitrary size limit. Someone made that choice. They may not have been thinking “Screw you, fatties!” when they did it, and in fact they probably just thought “More customers!!” But we are allowed to ask if the airlines are doing the right thing in addition to asking if they are doing the profitable thing.

The airlines might feel that so long as the chosen path is the profitable one there is nothing left to discuss: if some people are not, therefore, customers then so what? Who said a business has a responsibility to make it possible for every single person to patronize their business? Is it a problem if a business says “We do not offer a service that suits your needs?” Bars don’t cater to babies, but we don’t cry “foul” over that. The grocery store generally doesn’t sell cars. How ridiculous is it to imagine that the grocery store is saying, venomously and contemptuously,“If you are looking for a car, take your business elsewhere, driver.” Why is there outrage over the business decision to not install larger seats on airplanes? It’s capitalism: be an innovator and start a business that caters to larger people; make your millions! See, the airlines have no responsibility here.

But…many people kinda, sorta, somewhat feel like the airlines do have a responsibility to accommodate larger passengers. Why? Isn’t the argument-from-capitalism enough to show these Apologists for Obesity that they haven’t a chubby leg to stand on?

Well….look. Bars don’t cater to babies because there’s an overwhelming public interest involved in keeping babies sober. They have no off-switch, and if you let them drink in public places they’ll definitely be the ones hitting on your girlfriend and throwing up in the peanut bowl. So, although in a way bars have to say that babies are somehow “less than”, we choke back our moral outrage for the sake of the public weal. We do not, except in very extreme and douchey cases, think that the airlines are doing some kind of public service by not installing bigger seats: we don’t think that by kicking Kevin Smith off the plane Southwest has contributed positively, importantly, and most of all intentionally to a conversation about public health.  (Note that this is different from the view that the airline is doing a public service by not permitting passengers of a certain size from sitting in the seats that are already installed. That can arguably be considered a safety concern. But the decision not to install larger seats, have wider aisles, etc… is not a safety concern. It is a profit concern.)

In the case of the grocery store, the businesses aren’t actually saying to people who want to buy cars “You are a different kind of human being, and it wouldn’t be profitable to cater to your needs, driver.” They are instead saying “Cars are a different product than the ones we’d like to sell.” Do you see? In the airline case it really isn’t the product that varies, and has determined the attitude of the airlines toward a group of people, it is the people, something about them as persons, that has determined the attitude of the airlines: customers are people of a certain size, because catering only to those people maximizes souls on the plane. But we can, should, and have said to businesses in the past that they need to consider people the same as far as their money goes: a Black woman’s money is as good at the lunch counter as a white man’s, we say, and we don’t care what accepting her money along with his does to your bottom line (if, for instance, the rest of the customers stop coming because, *gasp*, the place is integrated.) We have familiarity at least with a principle that permits us to vote with more than our wallets when it comes to discriminatory policies that, we think, unfairly select a portion of the population as non-customers. We can, have, and should compel businesses to place dignity before profit.

The real question (the one that needs to be asked of the airlines) is “What is it about your profit-policy that makes it different enough from the lunch-counter case (or other cases of unacceptable discrimination-for-profit) that you can consider dollars ahead of dignity and exclude the overweight segment of the population from your customer base by not equipping airliners with some bigger seats?”

This question puts the responsibility for justifying discrimination squarely where it belongs: with the airlines. The other question, “How fat is too fat to fly?” places the responsibility for excepting oneself from a policy on the shoulders of the larger-sized consuming public.

Maybe the answer to the question won’t be one that most people will like. Maybe there is more than an arbitrary or feckless reason to not install larger seats on airliners or design the seating layout so that aisles are wide enough to safely accommodate larger passengers. But at least we’ll be asking the right question, and one that respects the dignity of all, even if we don’t like the answer.

Asking “How fat is too fat to fly?” is the wrong question. We need to be better than that, and we need to demand that the businesses that serve our practical needs are doing so in a way that also reflects our considered, genuine, ethical standards.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Very interesting discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking post, Sean.
  • @vegas710
    I acknowledge that being fat is almost always the symptom of another problem. It is a disease. It is one of the leading causes of death in the US. It needs to be treated, just like any other disease. Not treating it would be like someone getting skin cancer (because they didn't know to wear sunscreen, they're genetically predisposed to getting it, because their body chemistry changed, or any number of other reasons) and instead of taking the necessary steps to get rid of it makes excuses for it because it wasn't their fault they got skin cancer in the first place. The point isn't HOW someone became fat, it's what they do NOW. The choices they make every day either fights the obesity or ignores it. People would call someone a fool for not treating cancer even though it wasn't their fault for getting it. I'm saying it's the same type of situation. Those who enable people to be obese by telling them it's not their fault and there's nothing they can do are hurting not helping.

    And for your information, I feel just as strongly about all the other harmful things you mentioned. I support anti-smoking legislation and education. Several people close to me have struggled with anorexia and bulimia. I know people who have won the battle and people who are still struggling. I have friends who struggle with their weight. I would never HURT those people by enabling them to keep hurting themselves. This blog wasn't about that and so I didn't mention it. I'd need a whole lot more room to list all the things I feel strongly about but that would be incredibly boring. The simple fact that you compare obesity to all those harmful things shows me you on some level agree with me.

    I would never belittle someone or try and make them feel like less than a person. I have never approached a random obese person and tried to make them feel guilty for how they are. Just like I would never approach an extremely thin person or smoker. If someone asks my opinion though that's a different story and I will be honest. If my honesty somehow made you feel bad about yourself that was not my intention.

    You said that it's none of my business if someone is happy being fat or not and you're right. If someone wants to continue living in a way that hurts them self that doesn't affect me at all. That's their choice. The blog post (and the reason I stated my opinion in the first place) was about something that WOULD affect me though and that's why I got in on the discussion. If airlines installed bigger seats, someone has to pay for the loss of revenue. Once someone's obesity starts costing me and all Americans money it becomes my business. You may be ok with paying vastly more for airfare every time you fly so that someone with a preventable/treatable disease doesn't have to feel bad about themselves. I however am not.

    p.s. I'm not sure what question you're referring to. I haven't directly responded to every reply so I may have missed something of course. If there's a question you'd like me to address I can do that if I haven't already in other replies.
  • It sounds like we do agree on the causes of obesity. Where we part ways is on the question of how we respond to people who struggle with their weight.
    The question I'm referring to is the question of dignity, the question originally asked in the post. "The argument-from-capitalism isn’t good enough, on its own, unless we’ve also settled the ethical questions." I think that you avoid the ethical question or have decided that fat people aren't trying hard enough so the discrimination is okay. Does the bottom line (the money question) always outweigh the dignity question?
    You say that once a person is overweight, they need to address that problem but in the meantime they should pay twice what everyone else pays? They should be publicly shamed and humiliated so that the rest of us can save a few dollars?
    You are clear about the causes of obesity but when someone points out those same causes, you accuse them of excusing "bad" behavior. Understanding the causes of obesity, I think you would have more sympathy. Do you believe we should shame those with lung cancer because (we assume) they smoked? Should we shame the person with skin cancer because (we assume) they didn't use sunscreen? Or would we only do that if it were about money? Would it be okay to publicly humiliate those people if they were (and of course, we know they are) costing the rest of us money?
  • Kelly
    I meant I'm the LAST to blame my Mom for my issues.
  • Kelly
    Hey Shawn have you ever been to Costco? They sell "groceries" and cars (granted you have to go to a dealership to get the membership rates on the cars displayed at the store but still). Just sayin'! Is this post a record for the number of comments?

    It seems nobody has mentioned that Kevin Smith said something hilarious (in my opinion) that SWA "(messed) with the wrong sedentary processed-foods eater". I to eat more processed food that I'd like and I'm way more sedentary that I want to be (don't we all?) and I "inherited" alot of bad habits from my mom but she is the LAST to blame her for my issues since I am a grown adult. It's not something most heavy people are proud of but we HATE it when "skinnies" go and preach at us about what we are doing wrong and what we should change and how we should do better. Trust me, I know what I'm doing or not doing that is preventing me from being a "skinny." It boils down to being a food addict and unlike an alcoholic or a drug addict or a sex addict (here's to you Tiger) you can't live without food. Getting over a food addiction is harder than you think.

    AND if any of you have paid attention, more mainstream stores like Wal-mart and Target are carrying more plus size clothing than they used to. Seems they are changing their supplies to address the change in demand. Maybe, as Shawn has I think tried to suggest, airlines should get on board (haha that's punny!) and change their "supply" to address a changing "demand." Simple economics folks!
  • @Kelly - interesting you mention Costco and "groceries" because probably some portion of the people @skywaitress is saying are unhealthy and or consistently make bad choices do, and perhaps *have* to do, a lot of shopping there, and at WalMart grocery stores, and other discount places where they buy what their budget allows - highly processed, less-nutritious, high-stable-shelf-life, foods.

    Oh, and someone mentioned the corn subsidies - notice how many breads and other grain products now contain high fructose corn syrup, now suspect in obesity and other health issues (interesting link here: http://bit.ly/a46Ldo).

    Those items are cheaper than healthier alternatives, and lots of people aren't even aware of potential health issues with it.

    @skywaitress really pushed my buttons with that "overweight is a choice" comment, I guess.

    Oh, and? Kelly - I've noticed just the opposite, oddly, at the local WalMart where I am (eastern MA) - the plus size section has nearly disappeared! Weird, huh?
  • Actually, I don't know about other Costcos but ours has a huge produce section.
    You have a valid point but I think it refers more to the urban areas where people don't have access to fresh foods because of limited grocery options. It's also an issue of the food producers pushing the "convenience" foods that most of us fall prey to in our new American habit of over-scheduling ourselves and our children. We are working more hours than ever before and simply don't have the time to cook balanced meals from scratch. I think there are many societal ills that are leading to the symptom of obesity and I'm sick to death of these "it's a choice" types who want to believe it's a moral failing on the part of the heavier person.
  • "Being fat is easier" is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard someone say. For many, many people being fat is the symptom of other problems, it is an eating disorder, just like anorexia or bulimia. For many others, it is a change in their physical responses that they don't understand. For some it is a lack of education, do you know what passes as "healthy food" in public education?? Have you seen the state of school lunches?? Has it occurred to you that people have bigger problems than coming up with healthy meals?
    Saying that you want to encourage people reeks of "concern troll". People do not want your help, you lack the empathy required to give an overweight person whatever help it is you think they need.
    If a person is happy at their weight it should be no concern of yours. If a stranger on the street, on the internet or God-forbid, next to you on a flight is NOT happy at their weight? Also none of your business. Do you also go around pronouncing cures for smokers? For extreme dieting? For those unhealthy skinny people who get even less exercise than their overweight counterparts? You use health as an excuse for bigotry. It is clear by your refusal to even entertain Sean's question here. You cannot bring yourself to entertain the idea that fat people deserve dignity.
  • I'm really shocked that there are actually those that believe that people have no choice whether to be healthy or not. Being poor isn't an excuse. I wasn't rich growing up, in fact there were times when my family lived off food stamps. My mother still managed to provide healthy options for her six children and none of us ended up obese. We're not all skinny but we're all a healthy weight. I know it's more work to be healthy. I understand being fat is easier. That doesn't mean it's not a choice! I can't imagine there's any doctor out there who would say that being obese is healthy. I would also be shocked to find one that said losing weight was impossible. I never said easy, because if it was everyone would be healthy. When I say healthy I don't mean a size zero because frankly I don't think that's healthy (for most people) either. A healthy weight is actually quite a big range for most people. I'm talking about those that don't fit in between the armrests of an airplane seat. Because being that big cannot be healthy.

    With all the resources out there someone would have to have no access to internet, tv, magazines or radio to not know that there are ways to lose weight. It doesn't take an advanced degree or even a lot of money. There are scholarships for YMCAs, people can get books and internet access from the library, they can join one of many FREE weight loss websites, they can go for a walk outside... etc. Even now I am far from wealthy, but I manage to buy healthy foods most of the time. And the times I don't are MY choice because I would rather have fast food or a brownie. I don't blame anyone else when I pull through a drive through.

    Perhaps it's just the American mentality of "the world owes me." Or the same mentality that causes the need for warning labels on every. little. thing. because otherwise the company would get sued. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. It's sad and it's frustrating because it ends up costing everyone.

    Being obese, while disabling, is NOT a disability like losing a limbs or being paralyzed because it can be reversed. Millions of people every day take steps to reverse it and succeed. Millions of people USED to be overweight. I say these things not out of judgment or to make anyone feel guilty. I know that if I'm not careful I can end up overweight just as easily as anyone else. I say these things because I want to encourage people that being healthy is possible. I feel way better, both physically and mentally, when I make healthy choices than when I make unhealthy ones. I know it's possible for everyone to be a healthy weight. The first step, just like in any addiction, is to acknowledge there is a problem and that can't happen if people keep making excuses and saying that being fat isn't a choice.
  • Great post. Chalk up another one here who thinks it's a human rights issue. I wrote a letter to airlines on my blog.
  • I think that the reason we can't agree about this issue is because you see it as a human rights issue and I do not. I really enjoyed the conversation. I summed up my side of things on my own blog. http://bit.ly/cabtf0
  • phdinparenting
    In case anyone is interested, in Canada the airlines have to provide extra space to an obese person who cannot fit into one seat and have to do so at no extra cost.

    http://accessible-transportation.suite101.com/a...

    Interestingly though in this article on the decision/issue, they cite Southwest as an example of an airline that has a policy similar to what Canadian airlines were being required to implement. Hmmm....
  • Actually, they cite Southwest as having a standard for "needing extra room" that works as a standard for "disabled due to obesity" for airlines to use. If the person can't lower their arm-rests, that seems to be a good indication that they need extra room, which in the Canadian ruling would mean more space at no charge to the passenger. On Southwest it means "buy another ticket" or "get off the plane".
  • myaCalliope
    Not offended by you calling me thin. Please call me thin all day.
  • myaCalliope
    I would like to point out that Kevin Smith is brilliant for this! Everyone is talking about him AND he has a new movie coming out. When I read the facts of the story again, it makes me wonder if he didn't spot a perfect opportunity for maximum exposure with minimum dollars spent.
  • @myaCalliope Only someone who has never felt the humiliation of being fat or who has the imagination to put themselves in a fat person's shoes could possibly think that.
  • Who doesn't have the imagination, rather.
  • In blogs and on podcasts, Kevin has said that there's no way he'd expose himself like this for publicity. In his words, "that's something only a thin person would say".
  • Hopefully no offense was taken by that, cause none was meant.
  • So, as I said in the original post, "We do not, except in very extreme and douchey cases, think that the airlines are doing some kind of public service by not installing bigger seats: we don’t think that by kicking Kevin Smith off the plane Southwest has contributed positively, importantly, and most of all intentionally to a conversation about public health."

    Now, Skywaitress has offered the "it's their choice to be unhealthy" argument. This argument, if accepted, says two things: 1) the difference in discrimination between obesity cases and racism cases is that obesity is a choice so discrimination isn't prima facie wrong; 2) it is wrong (unhealthy) to choose to be the way larger people have chosen to be, so airlines are justified in discrimination because they are refusing to endorse something they think is wrong.

    However, NO AIRLINE GIVES EITHER OF THESE REASONS FOR POLICIES THAT RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION (read: assaults on dignity). The reasons given or tacitly accepted are all profit reasons. That is, they begin and end with the argument from capitalism.

    The point of this post is to say that we have to decide if they get to start the conversation as though the ethical issues have been settled already. Skywaitress has offered an ethical position to take (that is, a position on the ethical spectrum; I'm not saying she's right) and that, at least, is the conversation that needs to happen.

    As I said above, we may not like the answer we get even if we ask the right question, but the point is to not ask the wrong question. The wrong question PRESUMES the burden is on the overweight to justify their exception; the right question presumes that we settle right and wrong first before we approve bottom-line policies.

    I would love it if an airline said "We will not expend the capital to accommodate lifestyle choices that we believe are wrong." At least it would be honest, and it would make the discussion an ethical one rather than a calculation. Even if people disagree with the premise of the opinion on public and private health that is offered in that statement, at least they're disagreeing in the right discussion.

    But it is not a settled issue, the ethical debate about obesity. At least, I don't think there's some kind of consensus that we've reached that says "fat people make bad choices so it's okay to discriminate against them in ways X, Y, and Z". The airlines' choice to operate with small, cramped seats to maximize souls on the plane is a choice that either presumes that discussion has been settled (wrong) or that it doesn't matter (worse than wrong).

    So, carry on disputing facts about obesity, causes of it, and whether differential treatment is okay and what form it might take. And I appreciate the, so far, civil nature of the conversation going on here.
  • But isn't the problem not so much that they're being treated differently but that they're being treated the same. Is the airline wrong because they don't change all of their product to fit a specialized group of people?

    Most clothing store don't sell clothes that will fit every single body type. A very large person isn't going to be able to shop at the same place an average or very small sized person can shop at and vice versa. I don't wear the "average" size. I generally can't wear clothes sold at discount places like Wal Mart or Target because if they carry my size at all they only stock one or two pieces so they sell out quickly. If I go clothes shopping I generally have to visit more expensive stores to buy my clothes because they stock more of my size. I don't think Wal Mart discriminates against people my size or expect them to change the products that they carry to accommodate me. I try to shop there and if I can't find something that fits I go elsewhere and I usually have to pay more. If I can't afford it then I simply make do with what I have.

    It's very difficult to find a destination where there isn't an airline that has seats to accommodate a very large person. Those seats just cost a lot more. That isn't wrong and it isn't discriminatory.
  • @Skywaitress Flying first class is like buying an entirely different dress. Getting an economy seat that actually fits you is like varying the dress size. If you buy a bigger size dress, it costs the same as a smaller size dress.
  • So, you've mentioned before the first class option, and I didn't say anything about it at the time, but first class is designed to be exclusionary and prohibitive: most consumers, regardless of body size, aren't SUPPOSED to be able to afford those seats.

    I just looked at a morning flight from SFO to JFK on United. The economy seats (the 3-across design) are $408 per seat. The first class seats, on THE SAME flight, are $5344 per seat.

    And those first class seats are two-across. So while the space in an economy row is $1200 to buy up, the space in a first class row is closer to $11000 to buy up.

    So here are the options: buy two seats in economy for around $800, or one seat, 50% smaller in total space but designed as a single seat at least, for almost seven times the price. Surely they aren't taking up seven times the space, not if we're supposed to believe that giving them TWO seats in economy settles the issue. The first class seat would be less humiliating than taking up two seats in a 3-seat row, so not an assault on dignity in that way; but the airlines don't WANT obese people in first class seats unless they are, you know, rich. Saying that big people have the first class option is saying they have no option at all that doesn't assault their dignity.

    We need to settle the issue about whether that is okay, for whatever reasons we want to include (their choice, genetics, addiction, laziness, disorders, public health, public safety etc...) It isn't settled yet. Not even in the comment thread of this post.

    As for the clothing store bit:

    Suppose there were no clothing stores that catered to your size, but we were in the culture we are now, which usually requires that one go clothed to conduct business, visit family, etc. Suppose walmart carried clothing in your size, for ten times the cost of that clothing in different sizes (and suppose all clothing stores do likewise). But, they give you an option: you can buy the clothing at ten times the cost, or you can buy a regularly-sized item, charge you only twice as much, and cut it into roughly the shape and size you would require in order to wear it while at the same time parading every other customer in the store past the place you were having your rough-cut clothes made while you stood naked waiting for them to be ready. Would you wonder, at least a bit, if something had gone wrong? Would you wonder if you were being discriminated against (even before wondering if that discrimination was fair because you chose to starve yourself and so you brought on all of this special humiliation on yourself)?

    That's the point here. To wonder if there is discrimination going on. Because the airline policy, and the options you've mentioned over and over, presume there ISN'T AT ALL, not that it's justified discrimination, but that there isn't any. I think there IS discrimination going on and we need to settle the issue about whether it's justified before we say to the airlines: "Proceed with your two-seat or first-class policy because we accept, as a society, that the fatties bring this on themselves."
  • The point is that companies HAVE changed. They have changed to make seats SMALLER.
  • I thought this post was going to be about turkeys.
  • LOL!
  • I say it's fine if an airlines wants to cram a lot of small seats into a plane and if those seats aren't going to fit bigger people. But I believe they have a right to tell passengers about the limits of the seats on their aircraft BEFORE a passenger buys a ticket. Certainly not when they're on the plane already. Give customers a choice when they are able to make a choice. Not when they are stranded in the middle of an airport trying to get home.

    It's like if you buy a sandwich and after you pay, you learn it only comes with one slice of bread. You ask for another, but you're told you have to buy another sandwich in order to get the bread. You've already paid and you're stuck with the sandwich.

    I also feel like the issue of "choice" or "not choice" to be fat is irrelevant. People come in different shapes and sizes. Some people can help the shape they are in, some cannot. Some people choose to be bigger. But all of this vitriol against fat people astounds me. Why do people feel that it's okay to be horrible to people because they carry some extra pounds?
  • I agree that airlines should publish what measurements fit in a seat just like they publish carry on luggage size requirements or checked luggage weight requirements. Someone who expects to fit in a seat shouldn't be blindsided when they get to the airport.

    I have no animosity towards overweight people. The idea that it's the company's fault that they don't fit in a seat rather than their own is the problem. I don't expect everyone to look the same. Curvy people are as beautiful as thin people. However those that choose to be extremely overweight are hurting themselves. It doesn't mean they're not wonderful people, it means they've made bad choices about their health.

    Airlines simply shouldn't have to change to accommodate someone of an unhealthy size. Obese people who don't fit in one seat have several options: lose weight, buy a first class seat, buy two economy class seats or find a different way to get where they'd like to go.
  • "Airlines simply shouldn’t have to change to accommodate someone of an unhealthy size."

    Why not? What business of theirs is it whether the size is "unhealthy" or not? Didn't the airline make a choice to be in the passenger airline business rather than the freight airline business? Doesn't that entail an obligation to carry passengers?
  • In almost every case being overweight is a choice. Yes, mommy and daddy may have fed someone poorly growing up. My heart breaks for overweight kids because it wasn't their choice. However, once someone is an adult it becomes a choice. Don't tell me that most overweight people exercise daily and eat the recommended amount of lean protein, fruit, vegetables and whole grains. I understand that food is an addiction. I understand how difficult it is to change eating and exercise habits. But changing IS possible. Everyone doesn't have to be super thin, but everyone can be a normal, healthy weight.

    Airlines cater to the average, healthy person. It may not be "fair" but changing a configuration to accommodate an unhealthy lifestyle would raise prices. That wouldn't be fair for the millions who make healthier choices and can fit into a normal seat.
  • I think we make a lot of assumptions about people's exercise and dietary habits based on the way they look and those assumptions may or may not be true. I also don't think it matters - the health aspect is a matter for individuals (and public policy makers who could do things like end corn subsidies). It's not a matter for airlines who should deal with the customer base as it is, not as it "should be".
  • Clearly, you are someone who has never struggled with her weight. Perhaps when you say "being overweight is a choice" you actually mean "you choose to eat badly, or too much, or whatever"? Because I'm pretty sure NO ONE wakes up one day and says "I WANT to be overweight." And? for some people, "normal, healthy weight" might be bigger than you are, and bigger than the airline seats are, too. See: football players, basketball players, normally tall and/or big-boned people, etc etc etc.
  • I read that the space between the arm rests measures 15-17"
  • phdinparenting
    Maybe there should be a tax on fast food/processed food that is then used to give a subsidy to the other industries that have to accommodate the problems that they create.
  • I think that would be a great idea. Fast food hurts Americans. If there were fast, inexpensive, healthy options this country would be a much better place. I believe if the fast food industry had to pay a tax when they included dangerous, fattening ingredients then they would find ways to make their food healthier.
  • Although I don't think the money should be used for a subsidy to accommodate problems created by fast food. I would use the money to create other food options. Then the problem would lessen or go away entirely.
  • Kristen McD
    Well if airlines install larger seats and ask their larger passengers to pay a "slightly increased" fare for those seats - then I'm going to expect them to install tiny seats, with "slightly decreased" fares for when I fly with my kids. They only use half a seat, so why should I pay the full fare? Maybe we should split fares. We could go by what we weigh, and the percentage of the plane's maximum cargo load. Should it really cost as much to fly my 100 lb sister to California as it does my 300 lb brother in law?
  • phdinparenting
    I don't know, are your sister and brother-in-law both human beings?
  • Kristen McD
    Ha! I sometimes wonder...
  • The difference is, airlines are not telling fat people they cannot fly on their planes because they are fat. They give them the option of purchasing two seats or a first class seat. Being black is not a choice, being fat is something that can be changed. Being black or young is not a health risk, obesity is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It's a disease. I'm not saying everyone should be a size zero. You have to be unhealthily large not to fit in an airplane seat.

    Saying airlines should change their configuration (and not charge more) to accommodate obese people is like saying they should reinstate smoking sections because it's uncomfortable for smokers to go long periods of time without a smoke. Both kill and both, while difficult to change, are a choice.
  • What does being unhealthy have to do with not getting a seat? Oh, it doesn't have anything to do with it, it just makes it easier for you to excuse the discrimination.
  • phdinparenting
    Being obese is not always a choice. It is heavily linked to a person's genes and exacerbated by the horrific practices of the processed food and fast food industry. It can also be linked to decisions made far before you had any influence - e.g. a new study today said that the earlier your parents introduced solid food, the greater chance you will be overweight as an adult.
  • I don't think SW airlines purposely waits in order to humiliate passengers, I think it's an unfortunate side effect of their policy. And I don't think Kevin Smith intended for this story to get as big as it did. But since it did get big, it does open up a discussion.

    Southwest has made a decision that there are some people who cannot fly in their planes and instead of fixing the planes, make a policy. Disneyland learns that big people are causing the boats on one of their rides to not float, they shut down the ride and change the boats to accommodate their patrons. Which company do you like better at the end of the day?
  • So I'm not allowed to speculate? Sorry... there are too many people out there that turn a very real issue into a publicity stunt.

    I'm not a fan of Kevin Smith's, so I don't have any emotional attachment to having an opposing opinion. Quite frankly, until all this came about, I didn't know who the guy was. Sorry. Not a Teenage Mutant Ninja Fan. But I don't hate the guy. I don't hate anyone. Too kumbaya for that shit.

    But I do have opinions.

    While I agree with BPD that airlines are all about shoving as many people into a tin can to get them from Point A to Point B, I also believe that consumers have a choice. I don't know that it's an ethical issue, but it's definitely something to pause and consider.

    I don't know which airlines were available to Mr. Smith. I don't know if SWA purposely humiliates passengers by waiting to the end to tell them that they can't board because of their girth. I don't know how much discretionary income he has to fly. What I do know (and I stated this at the end of my comment) is that consumers have options.

    I'm a consumer with purchasing power. We ALL are. We can choose which airlines to fly and which movies to go watch. And just as movies like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles will continue being made, airlines that choose to pack 'em in will continue to fly.

    Those are my only real assertions. Not that either party was right or wrong or the teeniest of details of either sides arguments. Not that it was ethical or unethical. But hey... you're free to keep ripping on my opinions.

    It's a free country... isn't it?
  • I don't understand why you are so upset by this, no one's ripping you, just disagreeing with your opinions.
    As for "choices" we don't all have access to the funds it would require to buy a second seat. And while you may have the vacation time to drive across country, many people don't. I think it's disingenuous to say that we all have choices when some of us have our choices limited by the discriminatory practices of some companies.
  • Not upset... just clarifying. I have more pressing issues in life to be "upset" over, thanks.
  • You're entitled to your opinion, Sugar. No one is disputing that. They are just giving their opinion, which happens to differ from yours. I respect your right to have an opinion, it doesn't mean that I am obliged to respect the opinion itself.
  • This is a well-thought out and reasonable opinion on the subject.
    How about that?
    My response to people who get all over the overweight folks is- what about tall people who can't fit their legs in the seats? I am 5'2" and I can barely fit MY legs in there. Fact is, airlines have shrunk their seats & accomodations over the years at the cost to the public and this is the result. Time something was done about it.
  • I have to agree with Daddy Geek Boy -- the way SWA handled Kevin's situation was intentionally humiliating. As someone who used to be overweight, I cannot imagine a more horrific experience than having the entire plane's attention on you as you are forced to haul your stuff off the plane.

    When I flew at my heaviest weight, I was always nervous about who would sit next to me -- I couldn't afford to buy two seats, but I would check the seating charts online just before checking in and see if I could change my seat to one that had an empty seat next to it. I think the airlines' solution has been to ask overweight customers to buy two seats, and that's just not feasible for more people. However, I'm sure that any one of them would gladly pay an extra $100 or so for a "premium seat", which could be a larger seat IN COACH (without the amenities of first class and hopefully without the first class price) that would allow them to sit comfortably and not offend other passengers. So why don't the airlines fit in a few rows of larger seats at the back of the plane and charge a little more for them? Problem solved.
  • OMG, I have the biggest crush on you now. *swoon*
    Sugar Jones, your opinion assigns ugly motives to a guy who was just publicly humiliated so it's not really "just" an opinion. He's become a bit of a hero to the overweight, those of us terrified to fly, so you will likely run into "haters" if you make this assumption that he wanted thrown off his flight. I could see your point if he hadn't regularly flown this airline or if he knew he was too large based on their policy. We know now that with the arm rests down and no need for a seatbelt extender, he doesn't even "qualify" as a SW fatty.
    What I'm saying is, if you feel the need to hate on Smith, there is plenty of fodder available at IMDB (search: Jersey Girl) that won't attract any haters!
  • Wow. Interesting situation. I kinda got lost with all them big words and sentences... but it was my fault for reading it so early in the morning before coffee, for goodness sakes! That'll teach me! ;)
  • Deb
    This is really smart thinking. Another distinction between airlines and other businesses is that they tap into government subsidies on many DOT and FAA line items because they are seen as part of our nation's public transportation system. When we ask the questions, we are asking about a business model, and we're also asking about a huge area of public policy. Their entire failing business model is under consideration by a highly resourced DOT panel right now, and that is not because of fat people trying to squeeze into tiny seats.
  • Sugar Jones...Kevin has said in his podcasts that while he's got some bucks, he's not private plane rich.

    Backpacking Dad...really nice post and well said. While I agree with your points, the thing that I cling to most about what angered Kevin in this whole thing is that Southwest does not tell you about their policy ahead of time. They wait till you're on the plane to kick you off.

    The airlines have us all by the balls. Costs go up and service goes way, way, way down. But what are we going to do? Not fly? They know this.
  • That's a really interesting perspective. In a way I agree with you. The thing is, most major airlines DO have seats that accommodate big and tall people. It's called first class. If airlines were to install seats that big throughout the aircraft they would have to charge for them all like they were first class seats. Airlines barely break even as it is because fares are so low. In fact, most airlines haven't made a profit in years because of it. People can't/won't pay for the bigger seats and so airlines don't offer them. It's simple supply and demand. It stinks that it always seems to come down to money in the end but if airlines and other businesses didn't run that way they wouldn't stay in business for long.
  • phdinparenting
    I am tall (6'2") and find flying uncomfortable. Usually we request bulkhead or emergency exit seats, but since I'm usually traveling with kids these days we are not allowed to sit in the emergency exit seats. However, I did once purchase first class for my family and was sorely disappointed. I had less leg room there than I did in the bulkhead seats and spent the entire flight cramped up. Not worth it.
  • Southwest, the airline in the headlines now, does not have a first class grouping with larger seats.
  • Which begs the question: if bigger seats were available on another airline, why didn't he take his cash elsewhere?
  • That's true. They're also notoriously one of the cheapest airlines around. There are very few destinations that don't have an option to fly an airline that has first class though. If all airlines cut capacity to make room for bigger seats they would have to compensate by raising prices.

    It costs x to get from point a to b and make a profit. That cost is divided by the number of seats on the airplane. If the number of seats go down, the price of each seat must go up in order to make a profit. It's nothing personal against a big or tall person, it's just math.
  • It's not just math; that's the point of the post. There is an argument-from-capitalism and we can ask if the answer it provides is a GOOD ENOUGH reason to have the result we have. The segregated lunch counter owner can make an argument-from-capitalism too: his customers will all leave (because they are racist pricks) if he lets a black woman sit at the lunch counter. The point here is that the argument-from-capitalism needs to be evaluated against our OTHER interests. In the lunch counter case those other interests included equality and dignity of persons. Many people feel like there is similar discrimination going on with airlines and larger passengers. The "it's just math" opinion is only an argument if we accept that profit DOES matter over dignity.

    Here's another angle: Imagine a company can't make a profit unless it pays workers $.50/hour to build their widgets. We've decided as a society that that wage is unacceptable for the maintenance of adults, so we tell the company they have to pay a minimum wage. The minimum wage laws are expressions of the opinion that there's something unethical about paying $.50/hour for human labour. The child-labour laws are expressions of the opinion that there's something unethical about paying children to build widgets. We weight those ethical opinions against the argument-from-capitalism and we find the argument-from-capitalism wanting. Even if it means we don't get widgets.

    The argument-from-capitalism isn't good enough, on its own, unless we've also settled the ethical questions.
  • Don't hate, y'all... just an opinion.
  • I love it when you talk nerdy. LOL!!

    I agree with you wholeheartedly, btw.

    Also, Sugar Jones - Kevin Smith flies SWA because it's cheaper. People with money STAY people with money by being tight where they can. Or that's my feelings anyway. I think he stated on his podcast that he likes it because he can buy multiple seats for him and his wife and yada yada yada.
  • He chose to fly SOuthwest because despite his fame he is cool like that. He is normal. He also isn't exactly obese. He is a chunky big dude and he is definitely my kinda fat.... and the fact that he flew on a regular plane , like a regular person makes me swoon over Kevin just a bit more.. I also think he handled the situation well. Good for him. My ass is half the size of his and when I fly Southwest I feel like Im making out with the person in the seat next me. I almost feel like after the flight is over we should exchange phone numbers or perhaps I should be entitled to some cab fare on the night stand.
    Screw Southwest. They are douchebags and they need to seriously look at how poorly they handled this and make some changes. All the airlines do.
    ~RM1
  • I meant "it might"... as in "it might make a difference."

    oy
  • I'm curious as to why a Hollywood producer chose to fly on SWA. Why didn't he charter a private plane? Plenty of room to move around. But then... no controversy, no press. Sorry... I'm a cynic.

    Maybe the airlines could make things more comfortable, but then, we could travel differently. I choose to drive (sometimes as far as the other side of the country) not just because of costs, but because traveling on commercial flights with a family is just no fun. Too stressful. Does my choice make a difference to their bottom line? No. But if enough people used their purchasing power better, they might.
  • babybeatnik
    Kevin Smith flies SWA a lot of the time because he doesn't have to go to LAX to fly it. As well, the flight he was taking was only an hour and a half flight. He talks about all this on his SModcast detailing what happened. (It's actually kind of interesting.) It's at www.smodcast.com and it's number 106 I believe. It's still the most recent one.
  • He's done #107 and that has an interview with Natalli, the girl he sat next to (with a seat in the middle) on his second flight.

    I don't think he's as filthy rich as people imagine but that's his business. He flies Southwest all the time and hasn't had a problem before.
  • phdinparenting
    I wish more Hollywood producers (and other rich types) would make that decision. Too many fuel guzzling private planes with only a handful of people in them flying around in my opinion.
blog comments powered by Disqus