Southwest will charge large fliers extra fare

Wash Times ^ | 19 jun 02 | Mary Beaudette

[white trash redneck]

Southwest Airlines will start charging larger passengers for two seats on its 2,800 daily flights starting June 26.

The airline, which operates out of 58 U.S. cities and is the largest carrier at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, will begin charging "persons of size" for two seats if they think they may not fit comfortably in one.

[Paulus Invictus]

The worst thing about standing in line at Southwest to get a good seat is the security people that can and do pull you out of line for a "spot" check. Happened to me twice on the same trip and I look like your own dad or granddad. You lose your SW good seat and those govt jerks never find anyone suspicious. What an absolute waste of money and time it is to have all of those drones pulling federal salaries and bennies and making life impossible for anyone they feel like molesting, including old ladies, nuns and old decrepit men. It was the RATs that pushed through the law that the security had to be done by Feds. Idiots all!

[skateman]

According to the law, not the "disabled" person. And SOME people are fat through no fault of their own, although I'd say they were in the distinct minority. But the bottom line is this: an obese person has a disability IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, and that's all that matters. Slam-dunk and the first to file will likely be in the money. So. . .I happen to be flying SW out of Baltimore on the 26th. . .excuse me while I head for the nearest Krispy Kreme (g)

It perhaps will be an interesting Supreme Court case.

Where does an individual's right to take up two seats due to the overly large size of (his or her)'s butt, conflict with the airline's right to make the most efficent use of their available seats. Or of the other passenger's, namely the person in the next seat to the overly obese individual, right to have a full seat of his own to sit in.

As one of the other posters has been postulating today, the airline agrees to deliver you to a certain destination for a certain price, it does not matter according to this man if it takes two or more seats to do the agreed upon delivery. Does it matter (price wise) if you take up two seats or just one?

I would argue that it does.

I see your point as well. The law as is currently on the books, would say that to "profile" someone in this manner is illegal.

I say that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

[Republic of Texas]

Great, take a Zepplin next time. Vote with your pocketbook. I'm going to Vegas soon, and I'm flying Southwest regardless of the cost, because I am tired of flying next to obese people who now want to be a protected class so they can stay obese. I'm not referring to you in particular, but we see these people everyday, it's obvious what their problem is, and it ain't the airlines.

[Quilla]

That's a tough one. You don't want to come right out and tell her for fear of hurting her feelings. Your post was written very delicately and oozes kindness - I'd recommend leaving it up on your screen for her to "find" accidently. Don't be around at the time. When she wants to join you on your next trip to the gym, you'll know she saw it. Good luck.

[Republic of Texas]

Why wait for that event? Eat less and exercise more NOW. Avoid the rush.

[skateman]

A note to myself. In the future I plan to "trim down" my postings on this subject.

[cinFLA]

Perhaps they could just add some seats that are 33% larger in an area on the plane. Hopefully on both sides for balance :) And then just charge 33% more for the larger seat.

SW said they were selling the 2nd seat at a reduced fare so in effect this is what is happing.

[Sloth]

Actually, I'm not convinced it's worthwhile.

[valkyrieanne]

I remember hearing recently that what makes it so difficult to loose weight is that it doesn't take many calories to maintain weight. Many "people of size" have to seriously restrict themselves and work out ridiculously until they reach a point where thier muscle quantity starts helping them burn.

This is exactly right. The more a person "diets," the more the body acts as if it's being starved. The more "hunger hormone" (ghrelin) gets produced in the stomach, and the lower the metabolic rate drops. If you needed 2000 calories to maintain your weight before, after a spate of dieting you may need 1700. There are women out there (it's always worse w/ women because they have so much less muscle mass than men) who are maintaining their body weight on 900-1100 calories a day.

As you said, sometimes that means *3-4 hours of exercise* a day to just burn off 3500-4500 calories (1-1 and a half pounds) a week.

This doesn't even take into account the emotional factors. Many women (again, it tends to be more of a woman problem) are depressed, and they self-medicate with food, especially carbohydrates and sweets. (Curiously, one side effect of anti-depressants is often weight gain, which is pretty counterproductive.)

The basic point is that retaining weight *is* a genetic trait. We are designed to very efficiently store calories. Yes, if fat people are dumped in the Sudan they will lose weight - anyone will if the food isn't there. What many fat people *cannot* do easily is stop eating *when food is available.* When they go through binges interspersed with dieting it just gets worse.

[Salgak]

I agree completely, BUT we are a nation of LAWS, not a nation of MEN. . .even of Excessively-Large-Butted Men. (g)

The ADA needs to be severely reined in, but this lawsuit will win on the merits of the current law. The Contract that is a ticket is to contract you and your luggage from point a to point b, with a specified level of service. Mind you, the Warsaw Convention on Passenger Aviation might get some play here, but likely it's irrelevant. Somebody's going to sue, and win. . .and THEN someone will start agitating to change the law. And likely fail THERE, too. . .

[Republic of Texas]

SWA could have a few larger seats, and charge more for them. It would be called "First Class", and their business plan doesn't have "First Class". So far, it seems to be working for them. If you're obese, just fly an airline that caters to fat people. They should have special smoking and fat flights for people who just don't care.

[usconservative]

Sir, your argument is ONLY valid if a fat person displaces another passenger and they were not allowed to fly.

Wrong. My argument is 100% valid all the time. People should pay for what they use. If they use 2 seats, they ought to pay for it, period.

Your argument is wrong 100% of the time. Using YOUR logic, if there's an empty seat on a plane, I should be able to fly free since "no one else is going to use it." That's the entire crux of the fat person's argument in this case.

Case closed.

[skateman]

As I said, it perhaps will make an intersting Supreme Court case.

[skateman]

As I said, it perhaps will make an intersting Supreme Court case.

[skateman]

Sorry for the double post.

I wonder if Free Republic will charge me twice for posting twice?

[NittanyLion]

Using YOUR logic, if there's an empty seat on a plane, I should be able to fly free since "no one else is going to use it." That's the entire crux of the fat person's argument in this case.

Game. Set. Match.

[skateman]

Or better said: Will they charge me double for taking up two posts with one post?

[stands2reason]

Many people would be surprised at the medications that can cause weight gain. I'm on two of them now.

[Republic of Texas]

It's not MY fault someone else is fat, so I shouldn't have to move. Don't take this so personally, if you think about it logically, when you do will be the first time, if you occupy two seats, you pay for two seats. period.