LAX

Thank you, my point exactly!

LAX

John26

I'm sorry for your discomfort. I'm assuming there wasn't an empty seat between you and the person who was too big for the Y seat.

The best way to "not make a scene" is to excuse yourself from your row with your belongings, and find a FA who is behind your row. Ask them to be reseated in a similar seat or ask them to move the person who is taking up more than 1 seat.

If the FA balks, ask them to get a GA onboard because you do not want to take the flight, and that you will expect compensation for not getting a seat to yourself on the flight unless they can figure out a better solution (remember, they may be able to op-up someone to take care of this). Personally, I'd suggest saying, "maybe they can op-up someone else to help fix the problem." This helps avoid making you look selfish in the situation.

Be prepared that you could get moved to a middle seat in E-. I would try to hold my ground in that scenario. If my schedule allowed for taking another flight, then that's what I'd do, and ask for compensation equivalent to the delay it caused (just as they do with delays that are the airline's fault). If I had to be on that flight, I'd take the new seat but ask for a small amount of compensation.


WN has already been down this road. The bottom line is that they were (and still are) selling "real estate by the inch" on their planes. Fortunately, UA Mainline has C and F as options for the pax, too.

For discrimination allegations to hold weight, you'd have to demonstrate that UA was treating people some large pax differently than other large pax (i.e. make some pax pay for an extra seat on an empty plane, vs. charging other large pax).

This is what started the whole PR mess at WN: They wanted to clarify their policy to GAs so that they could make sure they were treating pax consistently.

Also I'm sure weero meant no harm by this, but I would like to kindly point out that the word "handicapped" is offensive to many people with disabilities. It refers to the days in London where people would have their "cap" in their "hand" to beg for money on the streets. People-first language works much better "i.e. people with disabilities."

warreng24

YES. They should most definately charge them for a 2nd seat.

I feel violated if the person next to me can't contain themself to the area between the armrests.

I have only had this issue with UA once. And, because the flight was overbooked, they let me off the plane and gave me vouchers. Basically they treated me as a VDB.

I'm a skinny person, and for some reason when I fly WN the very last person on the plane seems to a COS (Customer of Size) which seems to want to gravitate towards the seat next to me.

I can't count the number of times I've had to endure a flight with someone sitting next to me with their "size" intruding into my personal space.

FA's and GA's should be the ones to enforce this. I'm tired of complaining to them. They should be the ones to take care of this in a proactive way so that I don't have to be the one to say something about it.

yogi

Being slightly "gravitationally challenged" (formerly more so) I certainly try to make sure I don't encroach on other pasenger's space. However there are limits to what you can do. I am planning a trip with a much more "dimensionally challenged" father-in-law, I have been trying to figure out how to get the family+1.5 to florida for an event. I'd get a F seat for grandpa, but IAD-MCO is TED.

What's the official way to buy an extra seat on united.com for an award booking?
The fun part is he has no status, and I need to get him in E+, and get the middle between us....

boifromtroy

Since the Contract of Carriage allows United to deny boarding for being malodorous, I do not see why it couldn't establish weight and girth restrictions not unlike they do for baggage... Say 300 lbs and 18 inches hip-to-hip (since the Y seats are 17 across)...

Pat89339

If UAL forces the COS to purchase two seats, shouldn't they also get twice the EQM/EQS? If they do, then UAL would also have to not discriminate against non-COS persons who want to buy two seats for twice the EQM/EQS. It sure would make a great mileage run! Heck, you could buy the row and get triple EQM/EQS on narrow bodies and potentially quintuple EQM/EQS on wide bodies! ^

Richard4009

That would be awesome, I could hit 1K (almost) on a LAX to SIN run by buying 5 seats and laying down all the way!

Axey

Good lucking getting double EQM for extra seats.. Not gonna happen. People have tried and failed.

Back to the topic though.. I was thinking about this on a flight just the other day when I saw a fairly large passenger walking down the aisle on a (surprise!) full Ted flight. On one hand you really feel bad saying something, but on the other hand it can be a serious safety issue as well.

The excuse some WN flyers used that it's disriminatory that they need to purchase a second seat is, imho, baseless. Even though I realize that some people cannot help their weight or size, it should not become another person's problem for any amount of time. It's quite simply inconsiderate.

yogi

It's better on the A320 and 777, but the other 7X7 can be a challenge.
I find the problem starts with shoulder to shoulder, even with normal weight people. I am 6' tall and 21 inches at the shoulders no matter what weight I am. in E- or E+ three economy seats are 59" wide. Three of me don't fit. you try the "staggered recline" to get some space, but if you toss in someone whose legs and arms are substantial and it just gets bad.

Sneezy

I once had to sit next to a 6'4", 350+ lb guy - on an RJ. Nice guy, and really apologetic. But none of that changed the fact that he was up 1 1/2 seats wide.

Should UA charge such a person for two seats? Having been in that situation - yes they doggone well should. If you disagree, I want to see your hand go up as a volunteer to sit next to such a large person on a 5 or 6 hour flight.

It's very simple - if someone takes up more than one seat, they're going to wind up taking that space from the person sitting next to them. And that person paid for a whole seat, not just the half they're left with.

Luckily for me, it was only IAD-PIT, so I just "sat" pushed into the aisle for about 40 minutes - it would have been more trouble to get a different flight. But there's no way I would have sat through anything much longer than that.

warrenstephens

Seat sizes aside - but on a related subject, what bugs me with UA is their 'excess baggage' rules.

Returning from BNA to LHR (via IAD), this week I witnessed a couple of average proportions being charged at checkin because their baggage exceeded their allowance by 7.5kg. But at the same time, checking in right next to them were another, somewhat larger, couple - who I would estimate were getting on for twice the weight of the first couple - and who had baggage that barely fitted within the allowance.

Now you can probably see where I'm going with this but, considering that UA excess charges are by weight and not volume (the aircraft volume remains the same, only the weight varies), surely there should be a combined luggage + passenger weighing at check in!

Or perhaps a little more common sense by the checkin assistant when dealing with excess baggage...

SFO2AMS

One of the factors of Southwest's COS policy that I think is important is that they try to accomodate the COS, and therefore everyone else, and they are flexible if the passanger wants to take a different flight, and,

If the flight goes out with a single unsold seat they refund the second-seat charge.

This is going to continue to be a problem as the average American continues to get larger. The 17-inch seat width, 31-inch pitch, dates back to the 1960's. In a 1992 study of ergonomics, the minimum healthy specification for most Americans would be a 19-inch seat width, a 5-inch armrest, and about a 37-inch seat pitch (hmm, sounds like a typical domestic first seat).

In my observation, all but the very largest of passangers can be accomodated by just having the airline employees discretely put them in an aisle seat, and try to put someone small, or preferably an empty seat next to them, but on most airlines they're afraid to even broach the subject.

I'm certain that this must be embarassing to the passanger of size, and that while it must be uncomfortable for them to squeeze into a seat that is too small for them, they too must feel bad that other people are inconvenienced by the airline's inaction.

JettaTurbo

Here are some random thoughts on this (from both sides):

Would the passenger in question receive two meals on onboard meal flights if purchasing the second seat? -If so, wouldn't that compound the problem? -If not, shouldn't they pay cheaper fare for the predetermined and mandated lack in service? (as opposed to just not wanting one)

Do we expect to pay more for XL clothes than S clothes? It's a big difference. (awful argument, but what I was thinking of while reading)

Are they purchasing additional seats for their comfort or yours (if you're the smaller neighbor?)

I agree that making a hard and fast rule would be pretty improbable based on the variety of human density and sizes in every dimension. There are no right answers.

cepheid

While nowhere near as frequent a traveler as most of you FTers, I've taken my share of long-haul flights next to overly-large pax. It's decidedly uncomfortable, both physically and socially. I'm not skinny by any means, and I do find airline seats horrendously uncomfortable... but that's because they were designed for 7-foot-tall aliens with no legs. Width-wise, I can definitely fit in my seat without any issue, and if someone intrudes upon my seat space, I feel almost like something was stolen from me.

Some people are oversized due to medical reasons, sure, but as long as the charge policies are uniform and consistent, I don't see the issue. Disabled people who have to buy specially-equipped cars in order to drive will generally pay much more than people who don't have to buy such cars, but they don't demand to get that equipment for free. Similarly, oversized people should be expected to pay for an extra seat, when such payment is warranted (i.e. there are no empty seats so one has to be "made" empty) and whether or not their size is due to a medical condition. As long as everyone is charged by the same policy and that policy is applied uniformly, I see no problems.

I don't know about "expecting" to pay more, but many companies will charge more for XL clothes - Old Navy is one of them. Of course, clothing is one of those commodities where most of your money goes to pay for the fashion, not the material... so the price difference between S and XL isn't double or triple, despite the fact that double or triple the material is actually used. Shoes are the ultimate example, where you pay the same for a size 5 as you would for a size 12 (usually). And baby shoes are horrendously expensive given the amount of material used! But anyway, yes, I would expect to pay more (slightly more, anyway) for XL vs. S clothing.

Baze

One big difference. They get to deduct the cost of the special equipment from their taxes (if they qualify). I would like to see someone deduct the cost of the second seat from their taxes for medical reasons if they were forced to buy it.