United To Charge Heavier Passengers Twice To Fly (Airline Says Overweight Travelers Will Need To Buy Extra Seats...)

Airline Says Overweight Travelers Will Need To Buy Extra Seats Or Be Denied Entry To Planes

CHICAGO (CBS) Apr 15, 2009

If "beefy" or "curvy" describes you, here is a word of warning: United Airlines will begin aggressively enforcing a new policy that allows it to charge heavier passengers twice to fly

WBBM Newsradio 780 has learned that Chicago-based United has instructed its customer service representatives at O'Hare International Airport ticket counters and gates to be extra vigilant beginning Wednesday for passengers they deem to be overweight. Those unable to comfortably fasten a safety belt with one extension or sit comfortably with armrests down will be denied boarding unless they purchase an extra seat, even if they can be placed elsewhere in the aircraft next to an empty seat.

If no empty seat exists, the passenger will be forced to take a later flight.

Couples flying together who can fit in adjoining seats are exempted "unless one of them complains," a United spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said it is responding to complaints from passengers...

...The United spokesperson said it intends to impose the charge even when empty seats exist and passengers can be re-seated next to one. The spokesperson said United quietly adopted the policy earlier this year...

Complete article is here:

As a frequent flyer, I applaud and encourage such policies. If nothing else, it will shame obese people in to taking some action.

Go United!

Are they going to charge pregnant women too?

hmm....

It is about time. I fly almost every week and absolutely hate it when I get stuck next to someone who pushes up the armrests b/c they can't fit and infringe upon my space. I hope all airlines follow suit.

SimpleCypher said: It is about time. I fly almost every week and absolutely hate it when I get stuck next to someone who pushes up the armrests b/c they can't fit and infringe upon my space. I hope all airlines follow suit.
Totally agreed! We don't force rental car companies to rent out full-sized cars at the economy rate if the driver is too fat, do we?
If they are obese due to medical reasons, then they should be accomodated for free as per the ADA.

Otherwise, why should the rest of us subsidize these fat-zos?

And just like how handicapped people can't occupy the exit rows for safety reasons, fat people should be obligated to seat themselves "appropriately" for everybody's safety.

JamesTKirk said: Not that I need to worry about this but how fat is fat?
Just like how they determine if your carry-ons are too big: if one can't fit safely into a single seat, then she needs to consider "alternatives".

JamesTKirk said: Not that I need to worry about this but how fat is fat? Will there be a weigh-in? Who decides who is too fat? Do they tell the person discreetly to buy another ticket or do they yell "look fatso, you need to buy two tickets"?

Might as well weigh everyone and charge based on weight since heavy people use more fuel.
Those unable to comfortably fasten a safety belt with one extension or sit comfortably with armrests down

WHOLE LOT, REALLY WHOLE~~~ LOT OF LAWSUITS & CLASS ACTION SUITS ARE COMING.

Fatsos & all those "human" rights activists will ask, "Why don't they make the seats larger???"

Now, I am a normal (???) person, 6ft tall, 165 lbs, and I could never "sit comfortably with armrests down".

So who's the fat & greedy here?

It only seems fair. My wife is 100lb and she has to pay a fee for every checked baggage weighing no more than 50 lb each; and some 300lb hogzilla pays the same price? not fair.

I had to sit next to a heavyset dude on a United flight once. He sat in the middle seat between me and someone else. The armrests were up but he looked more uncomfortable than I was. During the entire flight, he sat leaning slightly forward with his arms in front and his hands on his lap. For 1.5 hours, he never moved until we arrived at the gate. I like to think that he was being considerate and did us a favor that day by not leaning back.

I think United is justified in this practice because United is forced to expend more resources to accommodate an obese person. More weight = more jet fuel used. This is a simple matter of physics. I hate it when I have to sit next to an obese person who bulges out of their seat and into mine especially given the small amount of space we are each given. If that person had purchased two seats, there would be no bulging and perhaps that would be a sign to them that they should seek medical guidance to reduce their weight. Everything in life has limits and this should be no different.

GeorgiaBulldawg said:

Couples flying together who can fit in adjoining seats are exempted "unless one of them complains," a United spokesperson said.


Complete article is here:

Now that is funny... I can just see some husband getting beat to death on the plane when he says "My fat wife won't let me use the armrests, and her fat is rolling into my seat".

LOL!

Its about time.

One seatbelt extension allowance?
That is very generous as you would already have to be huge at that point.

mom2boys said: I agree this is a good thing. We each pay for our own space on a flight. We are already cramped in a small space and having a plus size person infringe on my personal space is not fair. There is a right way to do this without offending the plus size person --quietly and not in front of others.

Hope others will follow.

On this same front something needs to be done when there is a body odor issue and/or excessive perfume. It can cause issues to so many and when some people don't wear deoderant or where an entire bottle of perfume it can be offensive too.

Interesting article OP...thanks!!

Guess we can tell who the PLUS SIZED people are on the board who are redding all those of us who support this!

I gave you red for assuming I'm fat.

Southwest has been doing this for several years. Interesting to see United copying Southwest.

tedmales said: This hits home for me. I am not what you would call small. I stand 6'6" tall and weigh in at 380 lbs. Size 15 shoe. I hate flying. There is no room for me. Its not the width, but the leg room. I can buckle in without the extension, so I guess I will not get charged extra. But what's next. I know to most it's ok attack fat people, smokers, etc. But what comes next. The airlines need to take a hard look at their business plan. I don’t think this will work out for them in the end.
If width is not the problem, then you do fit into the seat, right?

I'm sorry if there isn't enough legroom for you--you can ask the GA for bulk head seat, or even make a request at the time of booking (Special Needs-Others). Economy Plus or FC also works.

You don't force shoe retailers to sell you plus-sized clothes at regular-sized prices, do you?

GeorgiaBulldawg said:

Couples flying together who can fit in adjoining seats are exempted "unless one of them complains," a United spokesperson said.

....don't tempt me.

Yeah, and while they're at it, they shouldn't let poor people sit near the rich people! They should make people with discounted tickets sit together in the back! And people with funny accents, and strange hair cuts! People chose that sort of thing, they should have to live with those choices! Mullets in the back of the plane! Mullets in the back!

so do the folks stuck with this charge get 2x mileage for their 2x fare?

United unfortunately made poor word choices. Just because you're "fat" doesn't mean that you'll get charged more. Their definition makes sense - if you need more than one seat belts extender, you're going to take more than the single seat you purchased. I'm six foot and even when I weighed 300 pounds (now much less), I didn't need a seat belt extender. Too bad the ticket counter people have to make a guess as to how many seat belt extenders you'll need.

This policy seems to have been working for Southwest for years. If you've ever watched the TV show where they follow Southwest employees around, you know that this causes some embarassing situations for the employees and passengers.

I'm definitely not a fan of United, but I can't fault them on this decision. I just feel sorry for the employees who have to enforce the rule.

I also don't see how the ADA laws will conflict with this. United isn't saying you can't fly - you just need to buy the number of seats you'll use. Helicopter tours have charged a surcharge for years to passengers over 250 pounds. At my old weight, I couldn't use some of the rides at a carnival (especially the one were they harness you in a bungee contraption and allow you to bounce around). Plus size clothing is often more expensive than regular clothing. I've not seen successful ADA cases against these practices. Is there really a difference?

Grunn said: They should have a cage like they do for hand baggage and if you don't fit in it then you can pay for an extra seat or if none are available you can wait for the next flight that isn't full.

Sorry to quote you again, but you have a great idea. I would add this and the pay-by-weight option together. I think all travelers would have a better experience this way.

Heck I might even consider allowing the severely obese to fly in a modified cargo hold at a reduced rate if they couldn't fit their cellulite in a seat.