United Airlines "Too Fat To Fly" Policy

[Slacker]

The only thing that sort of twigs my attention is the last 250 pound guy-we don't see his height mentioned, but that's not especially obese assuming he's of average height. I'm 260 and had no trouble fitting into the clown car seat on the Jet Blue plane we used for our honeymoon. The seats on an airplane now are comically undersized-significantly smaller than the nosebleed seats at the old Shea Stadium, actually-but I was still 'in my seat' and had no trouble buckling in. If they randomly decide I'd be subject to the policy, then that'd be an issue.

I don't have a problem at all with 350-400+ pound people having to pay-there's a legitimate issue there.

[SCRawl]

As for the numbers, I don't think that it will have a huge effect. On the one hand, they'll be able to sell a few more seats on some flights. On the other hand, thousands will turn away from this airline because they disagree with this policy. Margins are really thin for airlines these days; perhaps gaining back a few seats each flight will make a big difference to the bottom line.

Thousands will turn away... to whom? According to the article:

Eight other U.S. airlines - including Delta and Southwest - have similar seating policies requiring extra-large passengers to "purchase a second seat" if they can't fit into one, Urbanski Janikowski said.

That's nine US airlines with a policy resembling this one, at least three of them (including the most recent) major and each making it a smaller PR hit for the next. It seems likely that the vast majority of airlines will soon follow suit as the number of obese people attempting to righteously boycott their oppressors begin to clog the planes of the stragglers like arteries and give them a reputation as "the airline that will always put a fatty up in your grill."

This is a reasonable point. For now, there are still airlines which do not have this policy, and one would expect that the "thousands" I mentioned would turn to these. Many international carriers will not have this policy, for example, though of course that would only matter for those who travel to other countries (or take a convoluted trip involving a foreign stopover).

The trend may well end up leading to all carriers worldwide adopting a similar policy, at which point the choice will become (a) shut up and pay for two seats, or (b) surface travel. Option (c) involves losing a lot of weight, and of course that's a longer-term proposition.

[Simon_Jester]

The only thing that sort of twigs my attention is the last 250 pound guy-we don't see his height mentioned, but that's not especially obese assuming he's of average height...

I don't have a problem at all with 350-400+ pound people having to pay-there's a legitimate issue there.

Someone else pointed out that the guy may have simply been lying about his weight. For people who are massively obese*, just admitting to weighing that much could be very difficult, especially on national news media.

*I don't know if there's a specific formal word for people who are so fat it greatly distorts their basic shape and height/width ratio, the way it does on people who weigh double or more what a fit adult of their height would; Wikipedia uses "super obese" at one point but I don't know what the literature would say.

[Lagmonster]

Here's a thought; what do they do about people who are handicapped, and have to travel while connected to bulky medical systems? Say, in the worst case, a classic iron lung? Do these people pay for a whole row because their equipment takes up extra room?

[Broomstick]

Someone in an iron lung would not be allowed on a commercial airline. They would have to hire a medical transport plane. I once researched that option for someone needing to move a disabled relative and the price tag started in the $8,000-$12,000 price range and went up from there.

Wheelchair users are, if I recall, obligated to transfer from their chair to the airline seat - if they can't do that I'm not sure they're allowed to fly on airlines. Sometimes they're not even permitted to use their own wheelchairs to get on the airplane, they are obligated to use the airline's equipment (often narrower and more stripped down to fit through the aisles) and have to check their own wheelchairs. There are message boards filled with bitching about lost chairs. This is serious stuff - for someone who uses a chair to get around it can become an extension of themselves. It's not just a chair, it can become more like a prosthetic limb - imagine having a prosthetic leg, being told you have to check it in baggage, then finding the airline lost it when you get to your destination (of course, people with prosthetic limbs don't have to check them in baggage, this is an analogy). Another thing that happens, apparently, is that airlines will produce a wheelchair at the destination end saying it's the one that was checked into baggage and the disabled person says no, this is not my chair. Hilarity ensues.

Traveling while disabled sucks even more than traveling while able-bodied.

[Lagmonster]

Someone in an iron lung would not be allowed on a commercial airline. They would have to hire a medical transport plane. I once researched that option for someone needing to move a disabled relative and the price tag started in the $8,000-$12,000 price range and went up from there.

So no claiming disability for fat people as a way to force accommodations. That's an interesting departure from what I'd expect, given what I took to be the undaunted powers of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Not that I would call fat people disabled in every context, mind, but it still raises questions about what airlines can and cannot do to customers.

[General Zod]

Someone in an iron lung would not be allowed on a commercial airline. They would have to hire a medical transport plane. I once researched that option for someone needing to move a disabled relative and the price tag started in the $8,000-$12,000 price range and went up from there.

So no claiming disability for fat people as a way to force accommodations. That's an interesting departure from what I'd expect, given what I took to be the undaunted powers of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Not that I would call fat people disabled in every context, mind, but it still raises questions about what airlines can and cannot do to customers.

I'd be more interested in seeing exactly how much discretion they have when determining who's too fat and seeing what happens if someone decides to apply the policy to a pregnant woman.

[SCRawl]

I'd be more interested in seeing exactly how much discretion they have when determining who's too fat and seeing what happens if someone decides to apply the policy to a pregnant woman.

I believe that the determining factor is whether or not the customer can fit into the 17.2" wide airline seat they've purchased, while still being able to do up their seat belt. If you can't do that, then you can't fly safely in the standard seat, and something else has to give.

[Isolder74]

I'd be more interested in seeing exactly how much discretion they have when determining who's too fat and seeing what happens if someone decides to apply the policy to a pregnant woman.

I believe that the determining factor is whether or not the customer can fit into the 17.2" wide airline seat they've purchased, while still being able to do up their seat belt. If you can't do that, then you can't fly safely in the standard seat, and something else has to give.

Well there is other concerns involving a pregnant woman then just the size of her tummy. While there is no medical reason for a mom-to-be to have problems from flying, there are concerns about the health of the woman herself. Usually a woman that is pregnant isn't usually any wider then a normal person would be and the biggest major concern may be space between the rows rather then the size of the seats.

As far as restrains go they do have extenders for the seat-belts. Something to keep in mind, however is I've flown on a flight with a large man and there was a pregnant woman(who looked to be around 7 months) on the plane too and she didn't need the seat-belt extender but he did. Also it was impossible for anyone to sit next to him but there was no problem sitting next to her.

[Rye]

The real question is are they still selling the adjacent seats? Because if they are then it is wrong to charge fatties extra.

I don't know; me and my luggage are not going to weigh 300lbs +whatever fatty's luggage is. It's going to cost more in fuel to shift that person and his luggage than me and my luggage. Hambeast overspill is gross for adjacent passengers, but it's going to cost everyone on the plane to get him airborne.

[Broomstick]

Someone in an iron lung would not be allowed on a commercial airline. They would have to hire a medical transport plane. I once researched that option for someone needing to move a disabled relative and the price tag started in the $8,000-$12,000 price range and went up from there.

So no claiming disability for fat people as a way to force accommodations. That's an interesting departure from what I'd expect, given what I took to be the undaunted powers of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Not that I would call fat people disabled in every context, mind, but it still raises questions about what airlines can and cannot do to customers.

Airlines constantly battle with the disabled. The criteria for either restricting seating or denying boarding is supposed to be safety considerations - for example, if you wouldn't be able to open the door or assist other passengers in fleeing you aren't supposed to sit next to the emergency exits. Someone in an iron lung can't evacuate himself, much less anything else, therefore, is considered to be a safety hazard in an emergency. Then there is the concern of a medical emergency en route - the ability to deal with such emergencies is limited while aboard, and even an emergency landing might take half an hour to accomplish (or more, if you're over an ocean). So iron lung guy can't fly on an airline even if you could fit his iron lung aboard (which, frankly, wouldn't be possible, even in first class). The blind have done a constant battle in regards to their right to fly, from whether or not their seeing eye dogs are permitted to stay with them, to not being permitted to fly at all, to not being permitted to sit in emergency exit rows, to being forced to sit on pillows under the assumption they wouldn't be able to locate the toilet and would thus piss on the seats. Ridiculous, really - in most fiery accidents you can't see where the fuck you're going anyway due to smoke. Under such circumstances I'm betting the person used to navigating without sight is the only most likely to find the exit and escape but what do I know, right?

Basically, the airlines don't want anyone but healthy, able-bodied skinny people with minimal luggage. How annoying they are obligated to carry other categories.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Under such circumstances I'm betting the person used to navigating without sight is the only most likely to find the exit and escape but what do I know, right?

It's a bit off topic but related to this: I can say from personal experiences that such a person would be more useful.

We did this test in my uni class. We all went through an indoor assault course with eyes open, and I did fairly well. We then all got blindfolded and sent round again. Myself, as a severely-visually-impaired person, did far better than the others did.

[Kyler]

While this topic is new on the national scope, the aviation industry has had discussions of this subject for a long time. My freshman year (2001) in Aviation Science, we all had to take a course on the aviation industry. When aviation economics and safety came up the topic of obese, disabled, and other unusual types of passengers came, up my professor was quite vocal about the topic being a 6ft +400lb man. When he traveled by air for the university, the university always paid for a second seat. Which he admitted was very kind and that they were not required to do so, they did it for his comfort. Though when flying on his own dime, he always tried to buy two seats as not interfere with another passenger. Only in rare occurrences did he fly in a single seat most often it was caused by the airline trying to cram as many people into aircraft as possible. In those instance he was often upgraded to business class to accommodate the seating of two passengers in economy. He said in only in a emergency would fly with paying for only one seat. If he did fly economy in one seat, he always made it a point to apologize to the unlucky person sitting next to him.


He firmly believed that if an obese person like himself can not safely fit in a single seat that you must pay for an additional seat. He did stress like that other members have posted the current average male size has not been updated for a considerable amount of time. The stereotypical 5'10" 170lb male is no longer true. He believed that airlines should increase the size of their seats to better fit the actual average of the general population. Though that leads to less seats in each aircraft thus driving up cost tickets or failing airlines. So airlines faces problem either put larger seats in (mind you that will still not fit everyone) or charge people who can not safely sit in a single seat an additional charge.

My professor obviously being an insider of the industry was more familiar with the reasoning of the airlines and understood not only the cost issues but the safety concerns to help formulate his opinion.

I do not see a problem with the additional charge.

While I am not by no means obese, I am taller than the average person being 6'5". Depending of the age and type of aircraft I can fit in most aircraft. Unfortunately in most cases not very comfortably, though I do not complain unless I am actually feeling genuine discomfort. In most cases it is because some asshole sitting in front of me feels it necessary to recline his/her seat leaving my knees hitting the back of their seat. My personal opinion they airlines should do away with reclining seats in economy, they cause more trouble than they are worth. When I have flown I have often tried to switch to emergency or bulkhead allowing a few more inches of leg room. In every case when a seat in one of those areas has not been available I have asked to be switched and even pay an additional charge to change seats. Often American air carriers won't do that, while every time I flown on a airline in Europe they have done their best to change my seat to a emergency or bulkhead row free of charge due to my height. American air carriers definitely lack as good as customer service skills as their competitors overseas from my experience.

Recently things even got crazy when Spirit Airlines had a man stand for an entire flight because he was too tall for his economy seat. The aircrew refused to move another passenger from an emergency or bulkhead seat. While standing for during a flight is not against FAA regulations, I believe that it is major safety hazard since in cases of clear air turbulence you could have a very large human projectile flying around the cabin. When I fly, I stay buckled in my seat at all times unless to stretch, get something, or go to the bathroom. The passenger made mistakes by not booking a proper seat to fit his height, in my opinion the Spirit should have moved another passenger to his seat for safety reasons or at least let him put his feet in the aisle. I have been allowed to rest my feet in the aisle on a lot of different aircraft. The crew just reminds me to move them when people are moving about the cabin.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/01/ano ... gh-flight/

[Broomstick]

While standing for during a flight is not against FAA regulations, I believe that it is major safety hazard since in cases of clear air turbulence you could have a very large human projectile flying around the cabin.

Yeah, actually it IS a violation of regulations. Passengers are required to be "restrained" during all taxi operations as well as take off and landing. I'm surprised no one got nailed by that, or what excuse they used to avoid penalty.

[Alyeska]

While standing for during a flight is not against FAA regulations, I believe that it is major safety hazard since in cases of clear air turbulence you could have a very large human projectile flying around the cabin.

Yeah, actually it IS a violation of regulations. Passengers are required to be "restrained" during all taxi operations as well as take off and landing. I'm surprised no one got nailed by that, or what excuse they used to avoid penalty.

He was "sitting" at those points. He stood during the flight itself.

[JME2]

"It's discrimination," said Jack Gillotto, a 300-pounder from Danbury, Conn., as he waited for a flight at LaGuardia Airport.

"I understand if a person takes space from another, they should pay extra," said Gillotto, 48. "But not an entire second seat."

Maria Garcia, flying home to California from LaGuardia, said United is picking on full-figured fliers like herself.

"They are taking money away from us," said Garcia, 31. "It's bad as it is for the economy."

You know, these eerily remind me of smokers when they whined and hemmed and hawed that smoking bans were discrimation, taxes are extortion etc.

How does Mr. Gilotto figure that a guy taking 1.5 seat shouldn't pay a double price? Should the airline be obliged to find half a passenger to fill up the remaining half a seat? If he was fat enough to require a crane and a team of 50 experts just to move, would it be unlawful discrimination if the airline demanded he charter a cargo plane?

Coming in late to the game, but I agree; it is reasonable and not discriminatory, you fat fuck.

[Isolder74]

One thought I've had is this was the same tripe that smokers were crying 20 years ago when airlines opted to go non-smoking because of no longer wanting to have to deal with the problems of filtering the crud out of the air recycling and pressurizing systems on the aircraft.

[eion]

One thought I've had is this was the same tripe that smokers were crying 20 years ago when airlines opted to go non-smoking because of no longer wanting to have to deal with the problems of filtering the crud out of the air recycling and pressurizing systems on the aircraft.

Which has actually led to the air inside airliners to be less healthy since there are far fewer air exchanges now, perhaps bigger passengers will lead to a return of much needed legroom and personal space on niche airlines.

[Kyler]

Some quick google searching I found this website http://www.seatguru.com that lists seat sizes for nearly every airline in the world.

The smallest seat I could find on domestic or international economy was 16.5 inches, and the largest being 20.5 inches.

Most of the airlines use a seat of either 17 or 18 inches.

[erik_t]

One thought I've had is this was the same tripe that smokers were crying 20 years ago when airlines opted to go non-smoking because of no longer wanting to have to deal with the problems of filtering the crud out of the air recycling and pressurizing systems on the aircraft.

Which has actually led to the air inside airliners to be less healthy since there are far fewer air exchanges now, perhaps bigger passengers will lead to a return of much needed legroom and personal space on niche airlines.

I would dearly love to see some data supporting this suggestion. I'm not aware of a reduction in size in air cycle machines over the last few decades.

[Niz1]

Having flown at least twice a year for the last 20 yrs or so, most flights of 10hrs or more I can attest as a 6', 13 stone chap that airline seats are not particularly comfortable or easy to fit into for someone of even my hardly oversized build.
However I am in total agreement that it is no way discriminatory to charge people for the room they take up on the plane. What annoys me most is when people of the ilk mentioned in the article think they deserve privilige over other passengers purely due to their size.
For example my mother is a semi disabled stroke victim who walks with the aid of a cane or support from a family member. When she flies with us the vast majority of airlines try to seat her in the front rows of a compartment where there is more legroom or near the emergency exits ,where the same applies, to make it easier for my father,myself or brother to assist her in getting into and out of her seat and to the toilet , etc. On a flight last year she wasnt able to get one of these seats due to a family of whales who made a huge stink at the check in desk because they wanted those seats (I know because I was in the same line as them and overheard the entire conversation.) , and in the end the ground staff caved in and gave them to them. This is despite the fact that they had allready promised those seats to more disadvantaged customers including my mother. We ended up getting the row immediately behind the whales . Cue 11hrs of being entirely unable to move, eat or do anything due to having a reclined seatback crushed into our faces. Poor mum was unable to even go to the toilet for most of the flight as anytime we tried to get her out of the seats the whales grunted and stubbornly refused to let the seat backs up to give us the room to help her ( she got up once when luckily two of the whales decided to go to the bar at the same time, hooray for small victories ^^). By the time we arrived at our destination all of us where damn sore ,tired, hungry and in need of the loo purely cos the airline put the fatties above everyone else in consideration.
Anyway rant over , thats my two pennath.

[Dendrobius]

Sort of a side issue: I'm a 174cm, 58kg Asian, so obviously I fit into even economy airline seats like they're lounge chaises. What pisses me off to no end is that my baggage limit is the same as random Mr. Fatty McFatster, who buck naked (yes I know terrible mental images) probably outweights me + my luggage by a good portion. He doesn't have to pay more for his ticket, but I have to cough up for being overweight on the luggage!

If I have to pay for the privilege of lugging back loot obtained from overseas, why the heck can't Mr. Fatty McFatster pay up for using more seats than me or just plain weighing more?

Maybe airlines should start getting us to pay by volume and weight. That would cut the discrimination calls right down to zero. "Sorry sir, your ticket entitles you for up to 150kg of passenger + luggage, and you also get 5m^3 of space to go with it. I'm afraid if you can't fit, you'll need to buy the upgrade..."

[SCRawl]

Sort of a side issue: I'm a 174cm, 58kg Asian, so obviously I fit into even economy airline seats like they're lounge chaises. What pisses me off to no end is that my baggage limit is the same as random Mr. Fatty McFatster, who buck naked (yes I know terrible mental images) probably outweights me + my luggage by a good portion. He doesn't have to pay more for his ticket, but I have to cough up for being overweight on the luggage!

There's also a finite amount of volume available in the cargo area. Obviously, if a good portion of the passengers are on the smaller side, but bring a third or fourth suitcase, there wouldn't be room for all of their stuff. But yes, selling a certain mass and volume allowance would make everything fair (if done a little differently than you suggest).

[PeZook]

Which has actually led to the air inside airliners to be less healthy since there are far fewer air exchanges now, perhaps bigger passengers will lead to a return of much needed legroom and personal space on niche airlines.

I would dearly love to see some data supporting this suggestion. I'm not aware of a reduction in size in air cycle machines over the last few decades.

That's an excellent point: I don't see how less air exchangers means the air is less healthy when previously it was being actively filled with poison.

Unless there's something I'm not seeing but which is clearly documented?