Make Accommodations More Accommodating

Since I’m still a little stunned – and, I’ll admit, slightly miffed – about the new health care reform bill, I decided that airing my concerns about that topic could wait at least a week – if I’m able to stop fuming by then. While I realize that I’ve picked on airlines once before regarding the overwhelming amount of security measures, following director Kevin Smith’s experience, I simply couldn’t resist venturing onto the topic of “oversized” seating requirements. Seeing as how I never really knew airlines maintained policies regarding passenger size, I did some research and found that at least three major air travel providers have such stipulations in place. According to their guidelines, these airlines require passengers who “don’t safely and comfortably fit” in a single seat to buy a second seat.

Upon reading through the “rules” on Continental’s Web site, I couldn’t help but wonder how this practice hasn’t been declared discriminatory. As it turns out, Continental has three stipulations (which are very similar to those of Southwest and American Airlines): all passengers “must be able to properly attach, buckle and wear the seat belt, with one extension if necessary, whenever the seat belt sign is illuminated or as instructed by a crew member; they “must be able to remain seated with the seat armrest(s) down for the entirety of the flight” and they cannot “significantly encroach upon the adjacent seating space.”
While these sound like reasonable demands, I started to put the whole scenario into perspective.

First of all, the average seat width on Boeing 737s and 757s, armrest to armrest is 17.2 inches. On 767s, it’s 17.9 inches. If you’re doing the math, that’s not quite a foot and a half of personal space. So even if you’re not overweight, you’re going to be a bit cramped ... and thankful if you’re not claustrophobic. With that in mind while perusing the March 13 edition of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, I couldn’t help but take notice of an article in the At Home section. “Expanded sizes,” was the title with the subhead, “Furniture makers are responding to the needs of ever-larger Americans.” Continuing to read the article, I found some staggering statistics: “Of all American adults ages 20 to 74, about 46 percent were overweight or obese in 1960, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. By 2005, that number had risen to about 73 percent for Americans 20 and older.”

Considering such a significant portion of the population has weight issues, the fact that manufacturers are catering to the majority makes perfect sense. And if furniture makers are doing it, why can’t airlines? It just doesn’t make sense to punish and alienate the majority of the population by forcing them off the plane or requiring them to buy two seats. Wouldn’t it just be easier to concede the fact that catering to the majority is the most reasonable solution and offer larger seats (at a higher price, of course)? I’m not saying jet builders should start using larger seats in the entire plane – that would be ludicrous, not to mention not very profitable. When all is said and done, I’m sure including a row or two of roomier seats to accommodate those who need or want more space wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen in air travel history.

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader