If less than all the seats are sold and they give up one per plane, it's even worse. No, I don't know the exact number, but it's clear that it could be a material issue.

But since ADA does not apply and obesity is not considered a disability under ADA, anyway, it's a non-issue.

But ADA doesn't apply nor is obesity consdiered a disability under ADA, so that's irrelevant.

AA has a program called TraavelPerks which costs about $150 per year and gets you one free Y ticket with each one you buy. The second ticket isn't eligible for miles. IIRC, it applies for any coach ticket over $200.

I wonder if a COS could use TraavelPerks to buy the second seat for themselves? That would eliminate the extra cost issue and would solve all the problems.

Not necessarily true. Women's underwear is a good example of this. Same style but cross the size threshold and suddenly the price increases $2 to $10! Personally, I'd rather be comforatble and pay a little extra than the alternative.

That being said, it's a small incremental increase, not double to price. Maybe that's the solution to the seat situation as well? Since a ticket is really the sum of all the travel costs and the seat itself is only a portion of that, would a larger passenger be willing to pay an additional percentage of their ticket price for an empty neighboring seat? One of my co-workers is a big man and he compared his experience on an RJ to my sitting in a car seat. If a reasonable option were available, it may be a popular choice.

That doesn't really address the issue. If the airline can sell that seat, then they'd be losing the full revenue from that seat. Asking the person to only pay part of it still penalizes the airline (and the paying passengers).

And your analogy isn't really fair. With ladies' underwear, the supply is essentially unlimited, so selling or not selling you an extra pair doesn't interfere with the ability to sell a pair to someone else. With an airline seat, giving away a seat free or at a reduced price DOES prevent the airline from selling that seat to someone else.

How about this one: if a person with a small appetite and a person with a large appetite walk into a high end steakhouse and order dinner. The first person is satisfied, but the second person wants the steakhouse to bring him a second dinner. Should it be free (assuming that there are no 'all you can eat' deals in place)?

In reality, it my be too small of a discount to really be a viable option. However, with the extra person in the seat, the airline also taking on the additional expenses allocated in the resources and care that extra person adds. I'm talking out paying for just the space, not all the fringe like baggage, meals, etc. If a person is required to buy two seats, I'd expect to that passanger bring double the bags, eat double the meals, double drinks, double miles, etc. If that doesn't happen in reality, why should people pay for it? Isn't that Ryanair's justification for making passengers pay for each checked bag?

I think you may have misunderstood my analogy. Victoria's Secret makes me pay for extra fabric because I'm larger. This is a fact. Why isn't that fair? They're basically telling me that my D-cup uses so much fabric that I prevent them from selling additional smaller sizes and, therefore, have to make up for their lost revenue. If they are going to nickel and dime their customers like that, why isn't there a price difference between A, B and C cups as well? It's really just their way of letting me know that they think I'm big. Don't get me wrong, I choose to shop there. I was just laying it out there that sometimes larger people do pay more for clothes and the only justification is size.

In your analogy, I don't think it should be free, but I think you're assuming that a larger person would not pay extra to have the seat next to them empty. Using your terms, if small appetite orders an 8-oz filet, ideally, large appetite would be able to order a 12-oz, without having to buy two 8-oz dinners. Buying the complete extra seat without all the perks is not only having to buy both dinners, but not being able to get a doogy bag! :)

Will you feel better if you say it again?

Once you're done, though, you should still be aware that the DOT is not a court and doesn't rule on the applicability of laws. Courts have ruled those two things, not the DOT.

Just a tiny bit of slightly OT nit-picking here re: clothing size and price. Spent many years sewing my own clothes (preteens on). There is a direct cost associated with size - both the amount of materials and the time so assemble.
Sometimes it has to do with the size of the bolt of fabric - you can get a range of sizes from a yard, then suddenly you have to move up to 1.25 yards of fabric. Not necessarily true that incremental changes in size create incremental increases in material costs.

Not at all. If not all the seats are sold, there are empty seats. There is zero revenue loss in putting one of them next to the person in question.

Which is why Southwest will refund the extra ticket for a COS if the flight is not sold out. :)

I am all for paying-by-the-inch seating - we could have benches with moveable armrests (slide back and forth) and if one person is comfortable with 17", they pay for it. If someone else needs 25", they pay for that, without having to pay double (34" worth).

This wouldn't be the incredible increase in cost business or first class is - no extra services, such as more luggage allowance or champagne, just wider seats. It would also give children a discount as well - they don't need nearly as much, and their parents can choose to either give them a full 17" seat, or pay for a smaller seat to accomodate them and save some cash.

I'm a "large" person, and I have the arm rest up, but only for one reason - to snuggle up to my husband:D. I can buckle up very easily and not spill over into the seats next to me.

Anyway, if a person has to pay for an extra seat just for, say, 1 or 2 inches more, then yeah, they should still get the extra frequent flier miles and meals; only because they're still being paid full fare and fees for those 1 or 2 inches.

Slightly OT: What I don't get is how morbidly obese people manage to fit through the plane door, and the bathroom, yet manage to "hang over" into the other person's seating area. Those lavs and entrance/exit doors don't seem as wide as the seats, somehow. That just may be another topic...

i just wanted to say that both my husband and i are COSs. i am 5'7" and 315 i wear size 26-28 and only have trouble in the seats on the small flight i take every year from wichita to dallas. and then even my tothpick thin 10 year old thinks the seats are too small...
even though i fit i still will not sit next to any one other then my husband or my children on our yearly flights to germany. if at any time i come close to spilling over onto any one( while sleeping perchance) i wouldnt want it to be some poor person who isnt expecting it.

before i flew for the first time 3 years ago i went to the museum in wichita and found out which of their seats were like the ones on the planes i woudl be boarding adn tried them out for fit.. then my husband called to see if there was anyay for us to get an ok to go to the airport a few days in advanced to try things out and found that some airlines do actualy have seats where you can try them.. you just have to ask so they can have them out for you...

not necssary so. i have been told rather bluntly before that i can only ahve one armrest or that i have to choose whetehr i want the top or bottom part of teh armrest which to me sounds ridiculous sometimes but i cannot be bothered to waste my breath fighting pax.

You know, with just a little change in seat configuration, we could get 'seating by the inch' -- make the armrests moveable back and forth. When someone wants to pay for (or needs) more than 17" seat width, they pay for it. $170 ticket becomes $200 ticket for 20" of width. They can shuffle around seating until everyone is snug. Reasonable discounts for those that take up less room, reasonable increases for those that take up more. Kids are of course discounted even more, unless they WANT to pay for that extra space (which they can, of course).

This will appeal to both the cheaps and the COS, I think. And it will allow airlines to play tetris with the seating plan :)

You'd think that airlines would just have the seats (and overhead bins and exit doors) there in the checkin and gate areas (perhaps in place of some of the usual waiting area seats), so that passengers can easily test fit both themselves and their carryon baggage, and test their ability to open the exit door. They could use old seats that were removed when they redo the interiors of their planes, so it shouldn't cost much.