http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/...GJkNhQ56WISbYF

Interesting ruling! I'm looking forward to reading what our chickies here think!

So, should obese flyers be entitled to 2 seats because of their size?

While I don't necessarily agree with some of the people who settle in to 300+ pounds and call it a lifestyle choice, I also don't believe that everyone who has obesity issues is one of those people, or deserves to be treated as such. Many of us have (or have had) very serious problems and deserve accommodation for this.

I can definitely see why some would call this outright discrimination because some folks have medical problems that contribute to obesity, but airlines base their fares on how many people they can fit on a plane. If someone can't fit into a seat and takes up two, the airline loses the revenue of the other seat. That's just how it works. I don't think asking the person to pay more is outrageous.

It's hard for me to say without seeming biased. I've never actually been "overweight".

I guess I see both sides of it! I mean, if I were to gain 150lbs during my next pregnancy (please God don't throw this in my face later) and had to use two seats....it would seem kind of unfair to me to have to pay double....on the other hand, it IS a business and I do see the logic in it. You use two seats, you pay for two seats.

When I first started hearing that airlines were doing this, twenty years or more ago, I thought - well, while it "makes sense," I wondered what would stop airlines from reducing the size of seats so they could charge more people double. Would only the thinnest of travelers eventually be paying the lowest standard fare? Well, obviously they couldn't get away with it, if the majority of passengers had to pay double fares - but how many before it would be unacceptable 10%, 20% 50%? How much of this is excepted BECAUSE we're talking about fat people and not tall people (would people accept being charged extra for more head room or more leg room - how much height and leg length should be expected versus considered "extra."


Well, I've heard from several people who travel frequently, that some airlines are reducing the size of their seats. I'm not saying their primary motive is to charge more people double, just to fit more people per square inch (to maximize profits).

How far should airlines be allowed to go, in this regard? Should they be required to make seats that fix X % of flyers - and what % should that be 50% - 90%? Or should they be required to have a portion of seating that fits unusually proportioned passengers (fat, tall, in wheelchairs, or folks with the inability to bend a joint leg for example and might need extra leg room or a person who might need extra space in the seat width or floor room...)

When does it become outrageous or unreasonable? When anyone over a woman's size 12 has to pay extra? Or anyone over a size 20? When the airline charges passengers by the pound or square inch?

It isn't as black and white an issue as it appears.

And hey if two super skinny people could safely fit in one seat, why can't they just buy one ticket and share the seat?

There isn't a children's rate that I know of.

I agree with most of the posters saying that if you take up two seats, you should have to pay for two. Sure, it's unfair....but being obese really isn't a lifestyle choice for most people.

I recently took a short flight for a meeting where the person sitting next to me really should have had two seats. I was 6 mos. pregnant at the time and the man took up his entire seat and about 1/3 of mine. Should I have been charged 1/3 less for my ticket because I couldn't use my entire seat?

As far as I know, they don't charge the disabled extra for assistance on and off the plane or for storage of wheelchairs.

And just as you can say many people are obese due to choices, so too are many in wheelchairs there due to choices: drunk driving, extreme sports, and so on.

Now the above sounds absolutely horrible. Think on this: it sounds horrible to consider charging the wheelchair-bound a premium for the extra services and space they require in air travel … why doesn't it sound just as horrible to consider charging the obese?

If they make a rule that says obese people can get 2 seats for the price of 1, then who will make the determination on who is "obese". Sounds like everyone will be claiming they are obese so they can get some extra room for free. I mean, when I weighed 210 pounds I was considered obese by the medical definition, but I had no problem fitting in a airline seat. Who will regulate who is obese and can get a free seat?

The thing about charging the disabled more: First, it's illegal and second, they aren't taking up more space in the cabin of the plane. There are people who are specifically employed by the airports to assist handicapped passengers - whether you are handicapped due to old age or due to a reckless motorcycle accident. If a disabled person was obese as well, they would be required to purchase a second ticket.

The airplane has room for gate checked things like wheelchairs and strollers - when that room is gone, they cannot take any more and the things need to be checked as baggage (and if you've exceeded your limit for baggage, you will be charged extra).

The airplanes do not however allow extra space for obese passengers - how would they allot that space? Only let two obese passengers have an extra seat for free and the rest have to pay? How fair is that? How would one decide? Think of the discrimination lawsuits that would erupt from that. Keep an extra 10 or so seats open at all times *just in case* they might have multiple obese passengers on board? If you choose the latter, remember that because that of that luxury, we will all pay more for our tickets to accommodate the possibility of an obese passenger being on board. Regardless of how many passengers are on the flight, it still costs the same amount to fly the plane.

Air travel is not a human right. It is a luxury that has to be paid for. Personally, I would rather drive than pay the exorbitant airline prices for my family.

A cheaper option for obese passengers would be flying first class. Bigger seats to accommodate bigger butts.

I believe (at least in the U.S.), the determination is made if you cannot fit your entire person within the confines of one seat.

Oh what fun: "Please step over here, ma'am, and we'll measure how wide you are."

You know, some people get obese in a much more ... forward ... direction, and some of us much more lateral.

I do not think you should be entitled to a second seat for free if you are obese. In my opinion, if an airline chooses out of goodwill to let an obese person get a second seat for nothing, then that's down to them to make that gesture. It isn't the obese person's right, and nor should it be expected.

For me, this is a fallacious argument. Firstly, I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that "many" people in wheelchairs are there as a result of a dangerous lifestyle choice. Whilst there will be a section of the wheelchair-using population for which this is the case, it will certainly not account for all. Without knowing the figures, I don't really think we can fairly pass comment on this.

Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think that comparison of the two types of choice - the choice to overeat and the choice to participate in a potentially dangerous activity - is a fair one to make. If you choose to repeatedly consume more calories than you burn, you will almost certainly become obese if this is done to extremes and over a significant period of time. There is undeniably a certain inevitability about this choice. To contrast, if you make the choice to take up a dangerous hobby, it is certainly not inevitable that you will injure yourself and become wheelchair bound as a result of that choice. Therefore, the two things are not the same. One involves an inevitable consequence and therefore a far more direct acceptance and responsibility for that consequence. The other involves a potential consequence and thereby an unintentional "choice" to receive that consequence. To take your line of thinking to the extreme, you could almost argue that anybody that takes any sort of risk (crossing the street, eating food from a restaurant, plugging something in to the mains) essentially "chooses" their fate if they end up ill or injured as a result - this clearly isn't fair.

It's a really tricky issue though, and not immediately obvious to me what I think about it.

To add to this, if a disabled person requires a travelling companion, that companion is not given their seat for free either. The travelling companion is required to pay full price for his or her ticket.

Also did you know that a lot of musicians who travel with expensive instruments that they dont' want to check and risk losing, have to buy a seat for their instruments? My aunt used to be a concert cellist and always had to buy a seat for her cello as well.

Yup. I agree with this.

.

even when I needed 2 seats I did not think obese people should get a second space for free.
choosing to do extreme sports and choosing to overeat are two completely opposite "dangers".

I know it's a sensitive issue for some but I really think obese people should pay two fairs. I have traveled OODLES. On occasion, I am in "coach" squished between two very large people--most recently two men. If I have to pay $$$ for an extra five pounds of luggage, surely something should be said about a person that can't fit into one single seat. Honestly, the last time I traveled, I couldn't put down an armrest on either side and two great big men squeezed me from either side the entire journey. JUST NOT RIGHT!@