Southwest Customer of Size

[ducklite]

I've said it before and I will say it again. Airlines should treat people like they treat cargo. There should be a base fare, and then additional fare based on weight of the passenger and their luggage. It's absurd that a 60 pound child pays the same fare as a 350 pound adult. The biggest operating expense an airline has is fuel, and weight is the single largest factor in fuel consumption. It would be by far the fairest way of determining fares.

[pcur]

Exactly!

 

I'm not sure how stating diet and exercise is the solution to weight loss and that people are responsible for themselves, not the airlines, is rude. :confused:

 

Some people are just plain too sensitive.

 

I guess when someone directly quotes me just before they make a statement like that, I seem to think they are referring to me; hence the illusion of being rude.

 

If I want to make sure no one takes offense to my statements, I don't quote.

[6rugrats]

I guess when someone directly quotes me just before they make a statement like that, I seem to think they are referring to me; hence the illusion of being rude.

 

If I want to make sure no one takes offense to my statements, I don't quote.

 

Doesn't matter what anyone writes; someone is often offended. Again, this poster is not calling you fat or saying you have no willpower. She simply is pointing out the true fact that we gain weight when we consume more calories than we burn. This is not any airline's fault, and I'm sure any reasonable person would not expect an airline to take responsibility for our individual choices.

[OzKiwiJJ]

You are being ridiculous.

 

Precisely! I'm glad someone finally figured that out :D

 

However it is a fact that in the past 25 years or so, at least down here in Australasia, economy class airline seats have become more cramped as airlines try to make a profit.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Same difference. They didn't reduce the seats by 3.5 inches to add another one per row. WN has always had a 3x3 seating arrangement. ALWAYS.

 

WN may have but other airlines around the world haven't. I clearly recall travelling in planes in New Zealand that were a 2-3 configuration because it was always an advantage to get a seat on the 2 side of the plane, the left side facing forward. These planes had relatively roomy seats and and large centre aisle - you could squeeze past the trolley when it was locked down in the aisle. But these days they are all 3-3 with much narrower aisles. That's progress for you. :D But, as someone else pointed out, airline travel was expensive in those days. Still, it would be wonderful if an airline could figure out a way to allow economy class travellers to travel in some degree of comfort, especially on flights longer than one hour. Can't see it happening though. :(

[FlyerTalker]

Still, it would be wonderful if an airline could figure out a way to allow economy class travellers to travel in some degree of comfort, especially on flights longer than one hour. Can't see it happening though. :(

As long as the consumer public continues to nickel and dime the airlines (jumping to a carrier for a miniscule savings with no consideration of the quality of product), the airlines will continue to nickel and dime the public.

 

The experience of AA and MRTC is illuminating - AA took out seats to provide an improved quality of their overall coach product. They had hoped that the public would reward them with purchases, even though AA hoped to sell the seats for a bit more than competitors. The public didn't care, AA was at a competitive disadvantage, and the seats went back in after several years.

 

The rise of "ala carte" options has been the response to those who want "something more". UA's E+, DL's EC (or whatever they are calling it these days), AA's MCE are a way to provide that "better" experience while still providing plenty of "cheap seats" for the mass of the public that only buys on price.

 

Just read the many threads that keep asking -- how/where can I get the "best" airline ticket. With "best" almost always meaning "cheapest".

[slidergirl]

FTer - this was the exact example I was thinking about, the AA More Room Throughout Coach (aka "MRTC") experiment. People were bitching and moaning about how cramped Cattle class was, so AA went and took out a couple of rows to give everyone a few more inches in every Coach seat. But, people would stay away from those less-crowded seats to save $5 by flying another airline… Real-life proof that people don't really care how cramped and crowded the plane is - as long as it is the cheapest flight available...

[Globaliser]

Impossible except on a wide body, and we aren't really talking about those on this thread.

 

Unless they have gone to a single class of service and the 2x2 seats from the pointy end were removed and replaced with 3x3, there is no way to add a seat on a narrow body jet. Do the math.

WN may have but other airlines around the world haven't. I clearly recall travelling in planes in New Zealand that were a 2-3 configuration because it was always an advantage to get a seat on the 2 side of the plane, the left side facing forward. These planes had relatively roomy seats and and large centre aisle - you could squeeze past the trolley when it was locked down in the aisle. But these days they are all 3-3 with much narrower aisles.

Off the top of my head, the only aircraft in common use which I think could have changed from 2-3 to 3-3 is the BAe146 aka Avro RJ. It's quite comfortable in 2-3, but rather miserable in 3-3. But that's a pretty specialist aircraft, relatively rarely encountered compared to the ones you'd normally think about. I don't know whether any AU airlines have changed like this.

 

There are other aircraft which are 2-3, including the Boeing 717s used in Australia (which are a derivative of the DC-9, like MD-80 and MD-90 series aircraft). But I don't think that there's any chance of these being operated in 3-3.

[kenish]

There are other aircraft which are 2-3, including the Boeing 717s used in Australia (which are a derivative of the DC-9, like MD-80 and MD-90 series aircraft). But I don't think that there's any chance of these being operated in 3-3.

 

Just FYI tidbit, DL (mainline) will start flying 717 shuttles between LAX and SFO starting June. I'm assuming the planes are coming from Airtran.

 

As you commented, it's nigh impossible to add an extra seat across the width of a narrowbody plane. Aisles are the absolute minimum width already and it's a little hard to push out the walls :) Also, aircraft are certified with a maximum allowable occupancy, just like theaters and stores. If an extra seat could somehow be added to each row of a 737 (ugh!!) the 25-30 added passengers would probably exceed the limit.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Off the top of my head, the only aircraft in common use which I think could have changed from 2-3 to 3-3 is the BAe146 aka Avro RJ. It's quite comfortable in 2-3, but rather miserable in 3-3. But that's a pretty specialist aircraft, relatively rarely encountered compared to the ones you'd normally think about. I don't know whether any AU airlines have changed like this.

 

There are other aircraft which are 2-3, including the Boeing 717s used in Australia (which are a derivative of the DC-9, like MD-80 and MD-90 series aircraft). But I don't think that there's any chance of these being operated in 3-3.

 

The 2-3 config that I recall was over 20 years ago, probably even longer. Air New Zealand, possibly Boeing 737s. Long gone into the mists of time. :(

[hospsafe]

I guess I am the exception to the rule. I don't mind spending a few extra dollars if the level of service is higher and everything else being equal.

[em-sk]

Since this thread is about Southwest, I checked seatguru, and their seats are 17" wide.

 

 

That is typical of a Boeing 737 operator. The Airbus A319/320/321 are wider and that is how you get 18" being an average. Since Southwest chose to operate Boeing aircraft there seats a little bit narrower.

[renroc13]

I panicked for years about being asked to get off or buy another seat...especially on SW. However we travel around the world and have never had a problem on any airline...even SW although they frightened me the most. My husband is 145 pounds and I would always book the window seat and squish towards the window. I was terrified though but the staff was always terrific. And I used the extender...dressed modestly...and smiled. So I understand your concerns but don't make yourself crazy.

 

Years ago United put a statement out that if a person of size was next to a partner and was not invading for lack of the word they used they would leave you alone.

 

Cultures are interesting too. Hawaiian which has many large size people offered us a 3 across for nothing as a convenience on a flight.

 

I am now 60 pounds less but still overweight....I certainly understand.

 

Enjoy your trip!

Karen

[renroc13]

I also do not shop for price but convenience....and have always purchased upgrades to economy when they have them and they are not outrageous. Just checked upgrades on Alitalia and it was almost 300pp. Too high for me. But 100-150 pp no problem.

Karen

[ducklite]

I also do not shop for price but convenience....and have always purchased upgrades to economy when they have them and they are not outrageous. Just checked upgrades on Alitalia and it was almost 300pp. Too high for me. But 100-150 pp no problem.

 

Karen

 

 

If that is 300 pp for a long haul, it would be well worth spending the money. My opinion.

[renroc13]

We might just do that.....

K

[fbgd]

I also do not shop for price but convenience....and have always purchased upgrades to economy when they have them

 

Just out of curiousity what's it like flying cargo? Or do you just put yourself in an envelope and do it that way?

[renroc13]

Just out of curiousity what's it like flying cargo? Or do you just put yourself in an envelope and do it that way?

 

Cute....that is economy plus on most us airlines.

[FlaGrl4Evr]

I completely agree! The customer of size can buy two seats for themselves to be sure that they will be accommodated, otherwise, they should be (and are) the ones who risk being removed (and IMHO humiliated) because they didn't have the common sense or were too cheap to plan ahead.

 

I do NOT put up with spillage kindly, absolutely refuse to allow the armrest to be up, and will not give up my seat in pretty much any situation, other than to offer my first class seat to someone in the military traveling on orders in uniform.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

 

 

Off topic but I wanted to say thank you for offering your first class seat to a military person in uniform. My daughter serves in the USCG and a few years back someone did this for her when she flew from San Jose, CA to Mississippi for her orders to the BP Oil Spill. She still remembers this kindness and as a mother, it brings tears to my eyes that someone was so kind to do this.

 

Thank you.

 

 

.

[6rugrats]

Cute....that is economy plus on most us airlines.

 

The only airline with economy plus is UA.

[ducklite]

Off topic but I wanted to say thank you for offering your first class seat to a military person in uniform. My daughter serves in the USCG and a few years back someone did this for her when she flew from San Jose, CA to Mississippi for her orders to the BP Oil Spill. She still remembers this kindness and as a mother, it brings tears to my eyes that someone was so kind to do this.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Why of course! Many frequent flyers do so. I won't on a paid first ticket, but when it's an op up/free upgrade, I am honored to do so.