Man has to stand for 7 hour flight due to fatty next to him.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

I can't even begin to imagine how embarrassing and humiliating it would be to be told you have to buy two because you are so big.

That's why I like Air France's policy. In effect, they're saying, "If you want to delude yourself about your weight, go ahead, but be aware you might get kicked off the flight."

[ree-Xi]

I'm rather small - 5'1 - and a size 6ish, and I find airline seats to be very uncomfortable. Because I'm short, I'm usually the one relegated to the seat in the row that has a hump on the floor. Because of my history of DVT, I have to try to move around as much as possible. When hubby and I travel together, we take the arm rest down between us, so I can kind of cuddle up against him and/or put my legs up on his lap for a while (helps my circulation), but there are airlines where the armrest does NOT go down.

Since a half-full plane wastes money (for the airline), and they have since consolidated the number and frequency of flights per path, it's in their best interest to cram in as many seats as possible. I would gladly pay a nominal fee - say $25-50 - for a seat on a plane that had wider seats and more legroom (and obviously, fewer seats, which is why I would expect a higher charge per seat).

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

I'm rather small - 5'1 - and a size 6ish, and I find airline seats to be very uncomfortable. Because I'm short, I'm usually the one relegated to the seat in the row that has a hump on the floor. Because of my history of DVT, I have to try to move around as much as possible. When hubby and I travel together, we take the arm rest down between us, so I can kind of cuddle up against him and/or put my legs up on his lap for a while (helps my circulation), but there are airlines where the armrest does NOT go down.

Since a half-full plane wastes money (for the airline), and they have since consolidated the number and frequency of flights per path, it's in their best interest to cram in as many seats as possible. I would gladly pay a nominal fee - say $25-50 - for a seat on a plane that had wider seats and more legroom (and obviously, fewer seats, which is why I would expect a higher charge per seat).

I'm 4'9 and am now a size 4 (was a size 12 back in April). I've never had a problem fitting in an airline seat and have always preferred the window seat (even before my weight loss). However, I've had issues with tall, broad shouldered, & overweight people invading my personal space including the person in front of me reclining their seat so far back I couldn't use my table/tray.

I loved flying with my parents in the 80's and first part of the 90's. We all dressed nice for the trip and for the most part it was a pleasure for passengers & crew. Now it's a complete pain in the ass on multiple levels. However, I hate long car trips even more, so it's a pain I put up with when I have to.

I have flown first class only a couple times before when my husband was given an upgrade due to his mileage, I got the upgrade too. It's a bummer, I cant afford it for every trip. It's truly the last bastion of pleasurable flying.

[AOII Angel]

I can honestly say that unless a person is over the size limit for EVERY plane, it would be hard to know if you might need the extra seat. Also, airlines may have policies, but they are not publicizing or enforcing them uniformly. I fly 2-4 times a month. On the same airline I have had widely varying seat styles that significantly change the dimensions of the seat. The smaller seats are actually on older planes and tend to have fixed armrests that can't be raised.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I adore you. Having been on both sides of the situation (being encroached upon as well as having a hard time fitting in the seat) at different times in my life, I'd rather do away with bucket style seats in favor of bench style seats. The armrests take up very valuable space.

ETA: With the decreasing seat space, can we please do away with reclining coach seats. It's a hazard when someone is sitting in your lap. God forbid there should actually be an emergency! A person in a window seat whose forward neighbor has his/her seat back down is as good as dead. I have yet to be on a flight where the attendants actually force people to put their seat backs up, which makes it even more challenging to actually move once the flight has landed.

Amen on getting rid of the reclining coach seats. Nothing better than having someone's stinky head in your face. Also, amen on the seats and the pitch being ridiculously tiny and continuing to shrink. I'm pretty sure my 32 pound three year old would find it challenging to be comfortable in an airline seat. (OK, so maybe that's an exaggeration, but still).

[VandalSquirrel]

I've thankfully never flown USAirways, but I have done many a run from Fairbanks or Anchorage to the Lower 48 and even in peak tourist season many flights have some stop over in between Alaska and the east coast (Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, etc.). Not being able to buckle his seat belt and sitting on the aisle is also quite suspect, why didn't he alert a flight attendant or did a flight attendant notice his belt wasn't buckled?

The guy is allegedly a "frequent flier" but if one is they would know how to handle this and if it happened in July why is it now making news four months later? He claims to be worried about the safety issue but perhaps he should have done something about safety at the time and had it handled before takeoff?

I'm a window seat girl myself and never ever get up to get into the overhead compartment or to use the bathroom. As unpredictable and annoying as some small children can be sometimes I will swap seats to help out a family which ends up with a kid in the middle seat and my space is not encroached upon. I have been on some crazy full flights in and out of Alaska and maybe I am fabulously lucky but someone will always volunteer to switch seats around to increase the comfort of others or make the flight safe and legal.

I also just cruised www.seatguru.com and realized Alaska Airlines has some narrow seats at 17 inches. Much like christiangirl I can't be trusted with this caboose and a smile, but I can fit my Joan Holloway into their smaller seats. Maybe airlines should have some seats at the gate or the ticket counter for people to sit in, of course that has never worked with the carry on luggage examples so perhaps it would be the same situation. Carry on luggage is the bane of my travel life, I wish that policy was enforced.

[ProudandTrue]

I agree with many of the previous posters -- get rid of the reclining seats! I flew last week and was seated by the window. Between the person sitting next to me who was of average size but had his elbow sprawling all over the armrest, and the person in front of me who felt it necessary to lean his seat all the way back, I was absolutely miserable the entire flight. I couldn't even read because the seat was so far back and I couldn't see the book print at such a short distance. I had also thought it was kind of an unspoken understanding that nobody actually use the armrest, but rather keep your elbow in your own lap. Miserable.

[southbymidwest]

I am 5'10", with a 35/36" inseam, which is not unusual for a woman of my height. I'll be the one behind you apologizing because my knees are digging into the back of your seat. I will also be the one the attendants will be fussing at because my legs are out in the aisle because I don't want to be digging my knees into the back of your seat. My husband, who is 6'2", has a long torso, and only 32"inseam legs. He is more comfortable in an airplane seat than I am, at least as comfortable as one can be, given the circumstances...believe me, I would gladly pay more if that even gave me a measly 3-4" more of legroom.

[AOII Angel]

I love US Airways. There very easy to deal with. I get the option to upgrade to first on most my flights for a reasonable price which is huge for a tall person who usually has her knees shoved firmly into the seat in front of her. The other option is SW with early bird and hope for an exit row.

[Tulip86]

If possible, I fly British Airways. Great airline, clear policies on luggage and upgrading and good deals. Also, comfy seats (as comfy as coach gets) and nice food.

Have to add, I usually fly intercontinental though and they planes they use on long distances tend to be more comfortable.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I'm "Gold" status with Alaska Airlines and Delta, which means I've flown more than 50K miles (all domestic) in each of the past two years. Here's what I've observed, as a not-so-tiny-person who fits into the seats but finds them uncomfortable anyway:

- Older planes (737-400, 757) have slightly wider seats (I mean, maybe a half inch or so).
- If you don't like your seat, blame the airline. They choose their own seats as part of the airplane ordering process, and they have a lot of options to choose from. That said, there is very little difference from airline to airline in the width and pitch (legroom) of the seats. Standard is 17'' on U.S. carriers, and you might find one that offers 18'', but it's a rarity. The difference is basically nil from one carrier to another in terms of seat width and legroom.
- We don't have a true First Class on our domestic flights in the U.S. Our FC is like European Business Class. I have yet to fly on a U.S. domestic flight that had three class cabins. That said, "Business Class" is not really an option in the U.S. If you pay to upgrade, you pay dearly for what is basically just wider seats and a little bit more legroom. Most people cannot afford to pay for FC seats. The people in FC in most cases are frequent flier complimentary upgrades.
- Of the airlines I've flown more recently, Continental had the narrowest seats and least legroom.
- The new 787 airplanes have seat bottoms that move forward rather than seat backs that recline. So if the customer wants to recline, they do so using their own space, not the space of the customer in back of them. Of course, not sure that's good for those of you with really long legs.
- My favorite plane to fly on is the 767, but don't get that opportunity in the U.S. (except for a random redeye SEA-JFK flight recently). Still haven't been on the 777.

[preciousjeni]

My apologies if this has been posted already.

http://www.xojane.com/relationships/...nes-fat-people

I almost fell out when I read this because it's EXACTLY how I feel as a larger person whenever I have to fly. I particularly liked the different take on the situation that prompted this thread in the first place.

Some key passages for me:

Flying is not always about jet-setting off to some glamorous vacation. Sometimes people have to fly for not-fun reasons, like for work. And sometimes people have to fly to get to their sick mom’s bedside before she dies.

Some feel fiercely entitled to the arbitrary amount of space the airline has decided we deserve; some think it’s unfair for space to be distributed according to need, as why should a fat guy get to be as comfortable on a plane as a smaller person? Some think the fat guy should be punished with discomfort: see, this is what you get, for being so fat.

and

There is no easy solution; if one existed, airlines would have implemented it by now. But I do think it’s reasonable to expect airlines to provide reasonable accomodations to all bodies, without surcharging the people who require slightly more space than others. I also think it’s reasonable to ask that we all remember that the fat people on that plane with you are also people, and they are not always edging into your seat out of a callous disregard for your comfort. As unhappy as you may be with their companionship, I can assure you they probably feel even more self-conscious and miserable than you do.

[Low C Sharp]

I had also thought it was kind of an unspoken understanding that nobody actually use the armrest, but rather keep your elbow in your own lap.

Hm, I choose window seats, and I never begrudge the armrest to the person in the middle. IMHO, the shared armrests ought to belong to the middle seater -- though this doesn't work on widebody planes with a row of 5 in the middle.

I'm interested by the article, though I question the author's request that airlines need to make accommodations "without surcharging the people who require slightly more space than others." If you need more baggage space, they surcharge you for it. That's true even if you are carrying the extra bag for an important reason that outside your control -- even if it contains your samples for a sales trip or mementos your dying mother requested at her bedside. More space and weight, more money. Why shouldn't we all be able to pay for more seat space, regardless of whether we are big or small? There are lots of short people who are happy to pay more for the extra legroom United offers on Economy Plus. (As far as I know, that's the only major domestic carrier that has this option.) How can the author know that a given smaller person is necessarily less comfortable in a small seat than a given big person? Some small people have claustrophobia, back pain, etc. that might make their flight far more miserable in a tiny seat than it would be for a big person without those problems.

Also, it's not about the amount space the airline has arbitrarily decided we "deserve" -- it's about the amount of space that they offered for sale and that we agreed to purchase. If you want more than what is on offer, pay more. No other consumer product is discounted on the basis of need.* I just don't agree that any customer has the right to fly at the very cheap prices we've gotten used to in the 2000s. 30 years ago, we transacted plenty of business and people got to their mother's deathbeds just fine even though flights were far more expensive. In real dollars, two seats on Southwest today is cheaper than one seat on TWA in 1980. We all got by.

*If you live in a snowy rural area and you need 4WD on your truck, the dealer doesn't give you that upgrade for free because you need it, while it would just be a luxury for city dwellers. Sometimes our needs just cost more, and we can't expect merchants to eat that extra cost for us.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Also, it's not about the amount space the airline has arbitrarily decided we "deserve" -- it's about the amount of space that they offered for sale and that we agreed to purchase. If you want more than what is on offer, pay more. No other consumer product is discounted on the basis of need.* I just don't agree that any customer has the right to fly at the very cheap prices we've gotten used to in the 2000s. 30 years ago, we transacted plenty of business and people got to their mother's deathbeds just fine even though flights were far more expensive. In real dollars, two seats on Southwest today is cheaper than one seat on TWA in 1980. We all got by.

*If you live in a snowy rural area and you need 4WD on your truck, the dealer doesn't give you that upgrade for free because you need it, while it would just be a luxury for city dwellers. Sometimes our needs just cost more, and we can't expect merchants to eat that extra cost for us.

I believe this issue goes along with my suggestion to use (modified) bench seats instead of bucket seats on planes. Several times in this thread, people have mentioned that we're paying for a seat when we purchase a ticket. However, that's not entirely true.

What we're paying for is transportation from point a to point b. If we were really paying for the space we use, people with larger carry-ons would pay more than people carrying, say, a purse only. People in business/first class aren't paying directly for space either. They're paying for comfort and convenience.

The seating space on the plane happens to be divided by bucket style seats, but there are other ways to arrange the space to provide a greater comfort level for all passengers, small and large.

[Low C Sharp]

If we were really paying for the space we use, people with larger carry-ons would pay more than people carrying, say, a purse only.

I don't agree. That just means that both a purse and a rollaboard fit within the airline's first weight/space category. On my airline, extra baggage is priced in 20-pound increments, so 50- and 69-pound bags pay the same surcharge, and 70-pound bags pay a larger surcharge. Grouping usage into categories rather than measuring it by the milligram is still charging by space/weight.

"What we're paying for is transportation from point a to point b."

No, we're paying for the transportation under agreed terms and conditions. Irrespective of FAA rules, an airline would be breaking their contract with you if they made you stand during the flight instead of giving you your own seat. Imagine that your neighbor put his feet in your lap and told you that it's fine because you both paid to get from point A to point B, and you'll both get there. Would that be OK? Heck no -- not with the airline, and I'm sure not with you. He agreed to certain terms when he bought the ticket. He's entitled to X, not Y, during the course of the transportation, and you can find out just what X is if you read the fine print.