Unless the man gained an awful lot of weight in Las Vegas, it seems that SWA should have been able to figure out that if he could fly one way, he could fly the other. Their planes are all the same.

Maybe it's an issue of giving these "Leaders" a little bit of discretion and a chance to apply some common sense instead of blindly following written rules.

Gahhh, Southwest. Those proportions are larger than in the previous article, so I tend to believe that the seat would have been too small. MAYBE. But continue reading before you jump all over me...

HOWEVER. And this is a big however. With two parts:

(1) Southwest needs to let him sit in a seat to see whether he can fit. Very simple.
(2) They need to be consistent. They shouldn't have let him fly on any leg of his trip if he didn't qualify.

I'd love to see this be a rational discussion of Southwest's and other airlines' policies regarding "persons of size". But just like every other story on Consumerist that mentions the overweight/obese/whatever, it'll just devolve into people telling others to lose weight, how they can't believe some people could ever be fat, how dare people be overweight, how much they hate fatties, etc.

To contribute, I think that if you are trying to make someone spend extra money for a seat, or are trying to keep them off the flight because of their size, then the onus should be on the company to prove that the passenger can't reasonably fit in said seat.

@katstermonster: Correction - the previous article said "a few extra pounds." I THINK Chip weighed less than 350 lbs., but I could be totally wrong.

@squinko: Bingo. I don't think the discussion should devolve too much, given the first three threads. I'm a little biased, though...hahaha.

I'm surprised they didn't say he couldn't demonstrate that he could fit in a seat because it's illegal to board a plane if there's the possibility you might not be allowed to fly/prove a desk pilot wrong.

Let me show you!

No.

Why not?

9/11

What does that mean?

9/11

Fine, I'll pay for the extra seat. Can I board now?

No. You can't fly now.

WHY?!?1

9/11

I can't help but wonder if these were the same agents that caused the trouble last time. Maybe they were never "re-trained" like Southwest said they would be.

I would imagine that before you tell someone they can't go on their flight for this reason, you should let them try and fit in the seat. How hard is that?

@katstermonster: I agree with you for the first part. Inconsistency is SW's issue here. Pretty shitty to let a guy travel one way on a trip and then deny him the trip back.

However, I also wonder about the word "fit". By that do they mean that a person can sit in a seat without a significant portion of the person's body spilling into the next seat?

@squinko: He shouldn't have gone to Southwest, he should have made his own airplane at home.

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: Maybe the Vegas trainer just hates persons of size and/or doesn't know the company line on this? Would sort of explain their consistent failures.

@GitEmSteveDave_NowW/PantsOfMeat: You know, for years now they've had those little kiosks where you could see if your bag would fit in the overhead compartment - if your bag fits in the space given, you're fine. This is an ongoing issue, so why don't they just invest in one seat, with plexiglass around it, at the gate to determine if you'll fit in the seat? Or, hell, you know those "you must be this tall to ride this ride" signs? Why can't they have a "your circumference must be less than this to board this plane" measuring tape? That way it's not a judgement call on the part of some idiotic gate attendant.

I'm not trying to be unsympathetic or nasty - it just seems there has to be some way to standardize the process.

@Hil-fish: Wow, not with plexiglass around it - I don't know where that came from. With a curtain, so people can check in privacy. Big oops on my part.

@HiPwr: I believe the definition is, "You must be able to sit in the seat with the armrests down."

@Hil-fish: That's an awesome idea. Especially the privacy bit. Right on.

Simple solution - get a row of seats, have at airport terminal, if the question arises if the passenger can't fit get the seats and test it.

@squinko: As long as the person doesn't take up more than his seat -- his arms do not extend beyond the arm rest into my space (or if they do and I ask him to move them, he can) -- then I don't care. But if a person starts encroaching into other people's seats, even the slightest, and he cannot unburden them, then it becomes an issue. There is always the first class option for those who cannot fit in a coach seat.

I imagine a 350lb guy would encroach on the space of others. Please correct me if I am wrong.

He's too big to fit in a seat without imposing on the person next to him. He's obviously flown before, so it should not have been a surprise to him.

I've flown next to people his size; it's an absolutely miserable experience.

Irregardless of the airlines rules, he needs to start taking responsibility for himself. His expectations are unreasonable, and his anger is childish.

@HFC: Or he could fly his own plane. (Trust me, that actually was a serious reply.)

[consumerist.com]

It is the comment by CurtBabarong at 3:16 PM, in case the jump does not work correctly. Someone needs to repair Consumerist's FTL drives.

I can understand the too fat thing. I'm a big guy and I can barely fit in those airline seats. If you ever had to sit next to a disgusting fatbody like me or someone bigger, you would want us to buy a first class ticket or buy two tickets

@Vandelay Import Export: they do the exact same thing at Cedar Point - there's a prototype of the ride seat at the gate entrance for that ride so you don't have to wait in line for 2 hours before realizing that you don't fit in the seat.

Although none of the staff ever "eyeball" people there. They basically only turn people away if they can't get the seat to latch closed, which is rather necessary to keep them from flying off the ride.

@katstermonster: +1 for adding privacy. This is ridiculous... 9/11? really? Did fat people hijack planes on 9/11?

@Hil-fish: Awkward!

@Hil-fish: That being the case, I bet there is someone that was seated next to this man that was very grateful that he received such poor treatment.

One issue I see, both with the consistency argument and the idea of having a 'sample chair', is of different equipment. Southwest is more consistent than most -- their fleet is, AFAIK, entirely 737s -- but even they fly a few different seating configuations. The actual seats themselves vary less than the configurations thereof, but, if we were to talk about a carrier like United with a more varied fleet, it wouldn't surprise me to learn there are girth variations between the seats on, say, a CRJ and a 757.

@Hil-fish: I've sat next to many a person who satisfied this definition, but they were definitely taking up more than one seat with "spill-over." I don't mind minor cases on short flights, but I had a JFK-SFO flight where I was quite-literally smashed against the window/fuselage because of spillover and his cutoff t-shirt arms couldn't fit. I'm comfortable with my sexuality, but he should have bought me a drink for being mashed up against him for so long. I'm sure its not a picnic for him either, but I imagine he's more used to it.

There's no way a 350 pound man can fit into one airline seat. The problem is that some Southwest employees fail to enforce the policy... The headline should be Southwest Suddenly Decides to Enforce Its Fat-Flyers Policy.

@redfox1: And you determined this man's size in relation to the seat.... how? You're correct that he's flown before, just recently from Chicago to Las Vegas, actually, without incident.

I flew yesterday on Southwest. There was a *really* fat guy in the row behind me. It was a full flight, and someone tried to take the seat next to him. He had apparently purchased both seats, as he had a special slip saying the seat was reserved. First time I'd ever seen it, though I know this is supposed to be the policy. Why couldn't they do that here?

@Ayarkay: Well, I've flown next to skinny people before, and it annoys me when they get up 10 times to practice their bulimia, come back smelling like vomit.

As a frequent flier, let me just say that if you're really big, you should expect to either pay for first class (where the seats are bigger) or pay for 2 seats in coach.

I'm honestly not make any kind of judgement pro or con about being really big. It's just a simply matter of physics.

...that being said, I think SW really handled this badly. Again. They need to figure their shit out.

@hi: I can absolutely envision them refusing to let someone get on an aircraft early on those grounds. The rationale would be something like: "If we let you on the plane to see if you fit in the seat, if you didn't fit you'd have to leave the plane, but you could leave something on board and it could be a bomb and we'd never know it was you." I mean, this is the industry that, in August 2006, refused to allow my sister and me to board until we had thrown away the beverages that we had clearly purchased INSIDE THE AIRPORT on the grounds that they could be liquid explosives or something.

@Mr_Human: Oi vey, no kidding. I clearly need more coffee.

@Franklin Comes Alive!: I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that they asked him to buy an extra seat, and he became combative. FTA: "Southwest said the Chicago flyer was ultimately denied boarding because he was angry about being denied boarding and that other passengers were uncomfortable flying with him."

Also, the flight may have been full. But I'm making all this up. So yeah.

@Franklin Comes Alive!:

Because though he could have purchased an additional seat, the fact that he became angry at Southwest trying to extort extra money out of him on his return trip, when the outgoing leg of his trip was just fine, made him a terrorist.

As far as I'm concerned, something like this should be in a passengers' bill of rights. If you buy a round trip ticket somewhere, and you fit in the seat just fine for your outgoing flight, they should not be able to deny you any other leg of your trip or force you to pay extra for it. It's one thing to say you can't leave your home. It's quite another to strand you away from it and demand payment to get back there.

@JGKojak: +1 for witty response to rude comment.

@squinko: There are certainly a lot of reasons why people are overweight: genetics, disease, injury, environment, wealth, education, personaly responsibility, etc. So, it does no use to complain about that. However, an appropriate discussion is what should an OOP's (Overweight OP) obligations in these situations, or what can a company reasonably require? Buy two seats, require B-class or some other premium seat? Discount for seat-mates?

In my view, the end result of simply fitting in the seat isn't really enough, due to spill-over. The problem is how to quantify it. There's a small amount which I can tolerate for a short flight and there's heavy duty skin on skin action for a trans-oceanic/continental.

I know people Chip's size. And assuming he's not a linebacker, he will very likely have significant spill-over

Living in Canada does have its benefits, sometimes.

@Rusty-Shackleford: I would rather sit next to a fat person that might end up with some part of their body touching me than a smoker.

Just wanted to weigh in and offer a little more background to this story. We would have allowed the Customer to board the aircraft to assess his ability to fit comfortably and safely in one seat if we were able to get him to calm down enough to have the conversation. The Customer immediately began screaming and acting irrationally when approached by our Employees. We attempted to calm the Customer down on several occasions but we were unsuccessful. The Customer was denied boarding based on his behavior - not based on his size. There is a point where the safety of other passengers onboard the aircraft must be protected. Of course, the consistency of the policy is something we do our best to maintain. Hope that helps clarify the story a bit.

-Christi Day
Southwest Airlines

@NightSteel:

I believe the policy is that if the flight is not full, the fat passenger doesn't have to pay for the extra seat. However, if it is full, then they do need to pay. This could potentially explain the discrepancy, though we obviously don't know all the details here.

@jackbishop: Then how about a measuring tape? Diferent ones for CRJs and 757s. "This tape must be able to fit around your waist or you will not be allowed to fly." Measuring tapes are cheap.

Or, you do it for the most restrictive aircraft in the fleet, and make that your requirement. after all, Passenger A may fit easily into a seat on a 757, but on the next leg he'll be on a CRJ, and he won't fit in one of their seats.

There are ways to make it less of a judgement call.

@Hil-fish: I agree its a good idea. However, but I could only imagine the outrage from the "borderline" cases being pulled aside and asked to sit in the fatty chair.

Also, given the current stats on our nation's health, they'd have to start the boarding process much longer in advance to test the 25%+ of people that may fit in this definition.

@statgrad: "There is always the first class option for those who cannot fit in a coach seat."

I was looking at first-class seats as a treat for my hubby and I for our anniversary this year, and the tickets went from $300/person for economy to $1000/person for first-class. I would hardly call that an option, at least an option that's viable for most people.

"I imagine a 350lb guy would encroach on the space of others. Please correct me if I am wrong."

It all depends on how you are built, I guess. I have a few friends that just got back from the Gamestop managers' conference that are all varying sizes and shapes and some of them had trouble fitting in the seats comfortably (like my friend who is 5' 10" and is only slightly chubby but has huge hips). My sis-in-law's fiancee is almost the OP's proportions (I think he's an inch or two shorter but is basically the same weight) and when they flew out to Vegas for my wedding last year, he fit just fine.

@redfox1: -1 for fake word. I think it should both their responsibilities. SW needs to establish a clear rule and stick to it, even if the OOP may not like the result. OOP needs to be mindful of his size and see if there are alternate options available (e.g. two seats, window seat, b-class, etc.) when he flies.

There's two sides to every story. Maybe he WAS unruly. It doesn't pay to get angry at airline staff anymore though. They can all too easily play the "unruly passenger" card. It always pays to remain calm and polite when arguing your case to customer service and with the airlines doubly so.

@Franklin Comes Alive!:

I'd heard that airlines aren't doing that anymore, they are making people pay for extra seats regardless of whether or not a flight is full.

I don't think it makes sense *not* to charge for extra seats. If you say, "you can't fit in one seat, so you will have to purchase two for the duration", then you avoid this problem entirely; either they will not pay for the tickets and therefore never leave home, or they will pay for both seats and have a guaranteed trip back and forth. Either way, you don't end up with people stranded away from home and ticket agents demanding more money.

Of course, you could lighten the blow of such a thing by adding: "However, if one of your flights is not full, then we will refund you for the extra seat on that flight."

@Franklin Comes Alive!: Because it annoys the passenger that they have to pay double and it denies the airline the ability to fill every single seat. Even if he bought two seats, there might be another passenger who paid full fare. I don't agree with it, but that seems to be the reality.

@ARP: Hahaha good catch. I missed that one, usually I'm all over the use of irregardless (the word with a built-in double negative!!!).

@JGKojak: Hey, I was eatin' here.