Calliopeflyer

Sure.......no one wants to pay for two seats. Even those who know it's A solution wish there was another solution.

leungy18

Or just fork up for F/J. I know right?

Because no one wants to pay for a full seat to get half of it.

nmh1204

I'm not seriously overweight, but a few years ago, I flew Delta RIC to MIA via ATL and in F, the seats only just had enough room

leungy18

It's not entirely about the room, I suppose. In F, you don't have to physically touch your seatmate the way that you do in Y. Those few inches of personal space really matters.

mlbcard

Agreed! This is more of an issue these days because of the airlines trying to pack more people in so they could make more money. They shouldn't expect my charity when half their customers don't fit in those seats. If I lose half of what I paid for, I expect compensation.

Calliopeflyer

Exactly! Both sides of the armrest are unhappy.

OccasionalFlyerPerson

There is more here: http://www.ravishly.com/2015/09/17/t...ying-while-fat

Tips for what to say are:

Note: I'm not taking sides in this debate. I can see both sides. I'm just pointing out the strategies and motivations of people of size to balance the debate as a lot of the posts seem to be from the viewpoint of the skinnier person sitting next to a person of size.

Rebelyell

Most of us on this forum are programmed to assert our rights. We've read various scenarios and have thought over in advance what we will do if faced with the prospect of a seat poacher, a demand for seat swap, or a super-obese adjacent passenger. And so having mentally practiced our lines and considered the ethics of the situation, we don't feel bad about saying, "No, I won't move," or "No, I won't agree to raise the armrest." And we really don't care if the other passenger gets angry about it.

But a substantial percentage of flyers can't stand the thought of publicly "fat shaming" someone, so they will in many cases suffer mightily in silence. My wife is one of these, although I think she may have learned her lesson after being pressed up against a cabin wall for four hours by a gigantic woman on a Delta flight. The COS who knows they need two seats but refuses to buy them relies on people not wanting to hurt their feelings. The airlines who know of the problem but refuse to address it rely on this, too. And it's not right.

The flight attendants spend a great deal of time and effort making sure every seat back and tray table is upright during takeoff and landing, although I really don't think it makes much difference. Surely they are able as they walk up and down the aisles to look and make sure every armrest is in the "down" position, and if not, politely ask if the passengers are traveling together. If not, the airline rule should simply be that the armrest may not be raised between two passengers not traveling together.

I believe the government should mandate minimum seat sizes; doing so would increase fares only slightly. The purpose of government is to protect the citizenry, and if mandating a minimum seat width doesn't protect the public, I don't know what does. My personal opinion is that the airlines are intentionally making the coach product as miserable and stress-filled as possible to force people to pay a huge premium for upgraded seating that has far too much room and/or service than most people want, and I don't think they should be allowed to get away with it.

Calliopeflyer

Good! No one should be publicly "fat shaming" anyone. That is not just rude, it's also never appropriate. What would be appropriate would be "job shaming" someone who works for the airline to do their job properly. I also wouldn't allow an oversized person to spill into my seat, but I wouldn't be publicly "fat shaming" that person either.

Someone who knows they need two seats but doesn't buy them is relying on the staff (airport and airplane) not doing their jobs. It's not right, but it's not right regardless of whether they're fat or not - so "fat shaming" shouldn't enter the picture. The problem isn't fat, it's size & shape - I can't imagine FT posters would be wiling to "size shame" a basketball player or a nightclub bouncer who doesn't fit in a coach seat but didn't buy two. And they shouldn't "fat shame" someone either.


Oh, and I agree with you about airlines purposely making the coach seats as miserable in size and service as they can.

weero

Was flying LX' CS100 today and she lifted the armrest before we plopped into our seats on the 2 seat side. During take off inspection the FA insisted that it needed to be down, irrespective of our relationship .
This x1000. Not having your veins clogged is three orders of magnitude more important safety-wise than all safety dances, evacuation procedures, and flotation devices combined.

Loren Pechtel

The problem is that airplanes are engineered for a certain number of seats across. Making them any wider (and that's what fat people need) means omitting a seat. Tickets would be 20% more on a narrow body, 11% more on a widebody.

BiggAW

Interesting. You must be very differently proportioned than I am. I'm 6'3"- 280#, and it's a cozy fit into a seat on an airplane, but I'm not a COS. I fit snugly in the seat in basically every direction. My main issue is legroom, which is OK on WN, but painful on DL's A320s, which claim the same 31" as WN's 7H4 fleet. Flying on the 8H4 fleet, especially with the new seats, is a dream, as I have a whole extra inch (and a half with the new seats), and it makes all the difference. Same with AS, where they are at 32.

I'm not too broad shouldered, but not small either, so I generally try to get one of the empty middle seats when the LF is below 1 (I have gotten it on LF .99 flights). If it is going to be full, when there are a dozen or two empty seats left, I spot a normal-ish sized person and ask if they would like the middle seat, as it's OK for both of us, to try and avoid a large-ish person like myself, or someone with very broad shoulders, as then it's uncomfortable for both of us.

Part of the problem is that the B737 airframe was derived from the B727, which was designed around 1959. People were a tad bit skinnier in 1959 than they are today, and airlines doesn't really want a wider airframe, since it will just cost more to operate. The B737 is one of my favorite aircraft to fly on, I find them quite comfortable, but someone designing a new plane today probably wouldn't pick the 3-3 arrangement with that narrow of an airframe cross-section.

BiggAW

And higher CO2 emissions, less capacity at airports, etc, etc. I don't think the FAA should be involved with seat width. I do think that they should be involved in seat pitch. I kind of like the innovation that F9 and NK have brought to the market, but I'd like to see more research done on potential safety issues with those airlines. I think they should look at emergency evacuation with that small of a seat pitch, as well as health related issues due to lack of ability to move around and circulation problems, which vary a lot person to person, but may be more dangerous with a tighter seat pitch on average.

nkedel

...which in turn comes from the fuselage diameter of the 707 (designed mid-50s) itself widened from an early military design. The DC-8 set the current 6-across narrow-body pattern, even though (because it was already in progress) the 707 released first.

The A320 family at about 10 inches wider which translates to about an extra inch of shoulder room per seat; designed in the 1980s vs. the 1950s.

For shorter flights, I really miss the MD-80/DC-9 seating pattern. The seats were no wider than the Boeing 6-across pattern... but no middle seat on the two side with both people able to lean outward was hugely more comfortable than any 3-3 layout.

LarryJ

The interior width is 6.8" greater on the A320 vs. B737 based on the numbers published by the manufacturers. Not quite 10 inches but certainly enough to notice.