As for smoking, why not make a smoking lavatory, especially designed to filter and handle the smoke. <BR><BR>The seats could be made more comfortable for all. A few more inches longer and wider. Make the plane wider, set the seats at the widest poing, do whatever it takes to make the ride more comfortable. Geeze, I've been on more comfortable seats on a Greyhound!<BR><BR>As for the cost, the airlines have enough screwey pricing strategies, why not build the cost of the seat accomodation into it. I'm just on the border of "seatbelt extension" and I can say, it is a most unpleasent experience to be packed into a small seat. The airlines just aren't customer focused in this situation. Yes, price dictates my purchase. I will spend $350 but not $650 for a trip from Detroit to LA.

"Bottom" line: <BR>Our overeating and sedentary lifestyles are no fault but our own. We choose to be the way we are. I praise SW Airlines for their balls - they shouldn't have to give up a paying seat to an ameba. <BR>Now, will any airlines EVER start enforcing the carryon rule? Everytime I fly, there are people with as much as four carryons and others with carryons about the size of a Hyndai Elantra.

So, ronda - - will you lobby just as vigorously, for two 40 pound 4-year-old twins to get to sit in one seat for the same price as an 80 pound 8-year-old?<BR><BR>And just how much would you like to see the 80 pound 8-year-old pay, relative to 160 pound adults?<BR><BR>Let proportional pricing be the rule. Give families with small children a break.<BR>

Can anyone declare themselves too large and get an empty seat beside them for the price of a discounted child's fare?<BR><BR>If not, then the airlines are sure to be looking at discrimination lawsuits.<BR><BR>With some of the low fares that Southwest offers, I think this might be worth paying for, even for those with a "normal" girth.<BR><BR>Hope RyanAir follows suit!<BR>

Wow...the way people rationalize is just nuts!! Why should you NOT pay for the space you consume. ? Our culture nowday thinks that someone else must be at fault for every social in in our country. Get real.

My wife is 5'2", 115 pounds. She fits in her seat well. She can cross her legs, stretch-out, even pull her knees up to her chest and sleep. <BR><BR>SHE FITS IN THE SEAT. Anyone with greater dimensions than her can sit in the seat...they just can't move very well.<BR><BR>A couple more inches in width and leg room would benefit all of us. I'd gladly pay a few bucks more to make up the difference for the increased comfort.<BR><BR>Folks that are 300 to 400 pounds are certainly not the norm. But many men weigh in at 220-250 and are close to, or over, 6 feet tall. They are not comfortable in an 18 inch (Southwest's dimensions) seat.

Dear "I love Kids", I love them too and I have two. As I recall this was not a discussion about the price of children's seats and I have no idea what they cost. All I know is that today on my United Flight the attendant walked around and asked parents with car seats with children in them in a separate seat if the children were ticketed. All were. Those parents holding infants on their laps had not purchased tickets. <BR><BR>I believe all children should be placed in car seats on a plane. If car seats are required in a car, why not an airplane? If they take up a seat, then they should pay for it. Price structure? Sounds like another topic.

Please keep the rats....<BR><BR>Please leave the rug-rats at home. Parents, teach your kids to be quiet and well-behaved on planes or leave them at home. There are plenty of young adults who would be happy to babysit. Don't be so self indulgent....

Ronda,<BR><BR>This thread is very MUCH about the price of a discounted child's fare. Go back and re-read the policy as described in writing by Southwest. It's quoted above. A discounted child's fare is supposedly the basis for the extra seat charge. But what is that discount?<BR><BR>And there still doesn't seem to be any definition of who MUST pay this extra fare, and who IS ALLOWED to pay it. Why won't everyone ask for it? Once again, re-read what their policy says. If the flight is not full, you get the surcharge refunded. Why wouldn't a lot of people ask to get a second seat if they are only slightly large?<BR><BR>If this is all about the WIDTH of the passenger, then it needs to be about size of shoulders as much as waist size. If it is about the WEIGHT of the passenger, then make proportional pricing meaningful and establish one price for travelers of 100-200 pounds, a lower price for those under 100 pounds and a higher price for those over 200 pounds.<BR>

A previous poster said that if one took up two seats one should pay for the extra seat. "Pay for the space..." but the seats and space are too small for even the "normal" sized (esp men) and it has been this way for quite a while. This problem is long overdue for correction.It is NOT corrected as it would not be as profitable to the airlines.The fat and the tall and the arthritic are just supposed to take it.Can you imagine them charging extra for wheelchairs? That would be too too politically incorrect(rightly so) but being fat or tall (you really aren't trying to stop growing are you?) and arthritic are fair game. After all fat prople are just supposed to feel shame and stop trying to have a life.

Re: '...but the seats and space are too small for even the "normal" sized (esp men)'<BR><BR>Hmmmm...I have to admit that I don't know what the dimensions of a "normal"-sized man are. At 5'10" and about 165, I feel fairly "normal"-sized and while I'd certainly love more room on second-class airline seats, they're also not "too small" for me. <BR><BR>I think airlines have the size of the seats they do because, by voting with their dollars and putting price above probably anything else, that's what consumers want. I mean, if airlines could increase the size of their seats without any negative impact, why *wouldn't* they? And how much bigger should they make them? 5% 10% 20% 30% ...

In discussing this question, is it necessary for most (not all) people to assign blame to overweight people for their size?<BR><BR> It seems to me the only way to address this problem is from a viewpoint that says we do not presume to know why the person has a body this size, but a body that's bigger than the seat causes a problem. Etc.<BR><BR> I seems to me Southwest is trying to be fair both to the person crowded out of his/her own seat by the large person, and to the large person too. It doesn't seem like a terrible solution to me. It gives the large person the option of finding a less-crowded flight and paying a single fare.

It's the same amenity-versus-price debate that every industry on Earth faces. Some people will trade amenity for price, others will pay a premium for more of it. <BR><BR>Unfortunately the airline industry is so competitive that they have failed to notice how plural the marketplace has become, although some, like British Airways, United, and most noticeably Midwest Express in the US, are catching on. The airlines can make a profit on every seat they sell, whether it be a 17 inch coach seat on Southwest or a 21 inch coach seat on Midwest; it just takes a bit more fiddling with the fare structure and a bit more complicated marketing plan. <BR><BR>Think about it - in the case of Southwest (or any of the rest of the carriers with similar, if not so foolishly publicised policies) they are prepared to sell you 34 inches of bum space for 150% to 200% of the economy fare. Together, the two seats will cost you something like 15% of the first class fare being paid by the VIPs up front. Is the wine that good up there? (Not that SWA has 1st class, but their fares are comparable to carriers that do.) <BR><BR>When SWA sells two seats to a big person, that's a third of a row, or 34 inches. If they reduced the 6-abreast seats to 5-abreast, they'd increase their seat width from 17 to 21 inches, the same as Midwest and as business class in most 3-class long-haul flights. There would be 20% fewer passengers flying in those rows, so the revenue per seat-inch per mile would need to go up to equal that being paid by the proles.<BR><BR>Will people pay 20% more for a comfortable seat? Well, some will, and if financial reports mean anything, many, many will. Midwest is making money with that configuration (actually, 4-abreast on DC-9s and MD-80s) operating many of the same routes as SWA.<BR><BR>You can buy anything from a Rolls Royce to a Twingo, and there's a market for every car - a mass market for some models, an "exclusive" market for the Roller, and a big, differentiated, discriminating market that buys Fords and Jags and Fiats and Volvos, according to each buyer's balance of amenity v. cost. In the airlines, its Twingos and Rollers, and SFA between. But maybe all this publicity, and the "big one" coming down the track, "economy class syndrome," will make some airlines look at their product and decide if they can't sell some more comfortable seats at a 20% uptick, rather than endure the negative publicity poor SWA is receiving. The gits.