Anonymous
08/26/2025 16:53
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Well that's never going to happen so here we are.
It might some day. When people die because they can't exit the aircraft during a crash or other emergency event because there isn't enough room to extricate themselves and it's determined the cramped conditions were a reason for it.
You really live in your own little world. This is never going to happen. The airlines make too much money and have too much political influence. Keep dreaming.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 16:51
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
They’re not going to force anyone to buy a second seat unless it’s a truly egregious situation. It’s just a difference in the previous policy where they could just request a free extra seat at the gate. Now they have to pay for it and may or may not get money back.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 16:26
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Well that's never going to happen so here we are.
It might some day. When people die because they can't exit the aircraft during a crash or other emergency event because there isn't enough room to extricate themselves and it's determined the cramped conditions were a reason for it.
Lady, we can’t restrict military rifles in this country that keep being used to shoot up schools. But keep dreaming.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 16:24
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Well that's never going to happen so here we are.
It might some day. When people die because they can't exit the aircraft during a crash or other emergency event because there isn't enough room to extricate themselves and it's determined the cramped conditions were a reason for it.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 15:57
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
It's petite women sucking up all this crap and little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Well that's never going to happen so here we are.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 15:56
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Southwest already had a more generous policy than other airlines. Not sure why we are picking on them. My DH is extremely tall - it’s not like he gets extra legroom for free. He has to pay, or scrunch in a regular seat.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 13:49
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
"...this isn't Southwest being a jerk. There is no other way to accommodate passengers who need two seats when there is assigned seating."
Wrong. Southwest is not just being jerks - it is being greedy and unrealistic. And they are going to create havoc at airports when they try to enforce this.
They are going to have their gate agents become de facto gestapo and be giving passengers the stink eye if they don't look like they will fit within the armrests of a single seat. What are they going to do - pull them out of the boarding line and measure them?
Or will they wait until they are inside and sitting down? What if someone's thigh is an inch over the seat crack? Are they going to demand they deplane and buy two seats on a later flight? What is the criteria here?
What about the person who has to sit next to a small child on a parent's lap, and is being kicked? Should they be made to deplane and take a later flight?
While having to sit with someone's body close to you may not be pleasant, it isn't anywhere near the concern that a kicking kid is.
FWIW the majority of American women will NOT fit within the 17.5 inches allotted for the seat on Southwest. They will "spread" underneath the armrest, which is technically exceeding their space and they could get the boot.
Wrong. Southwest is not just being jerks - it is being greedy and unrealistic. And they are going to create havoc at airports when they try to enforce this.
They are going to have their gate agents become de facto gestapo and be giving passengers the stink eye if they don't look like they will fit within the armrests of a single seat. What are they going to do - pull them out of the boarding line and measure them?
Or will they wait until they are inside and sitting down? What if someone's thigh is an inch over the seat crack? Are they going to demand they deplane and buy two seats on a later flight? What is the criteria here?
What about the person who has to sit next to a small child on a parent's lap, and is being kicked? Should they be made to deplane and take a later flight?
While having to sit with someone's body close to you may not be pleasant, it isn't anywhere near the concern that a kicking kid is.
FWIW the majority of American women will NOT fit within the 17.5 inches allotted for the seat on Southwest. They will "spread" underneath the armrest, which is technically exceeding their space and they could get the boot.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 13:35
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
It isn't just fat people this will impact. My husband is definitely not fat but has very broad shoulders. He typically spills over.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 13:32
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:I don't get the negativity towards Southwest on this thread. They are consistently the nicest airline I fly, with the best customer service.
This change is being driven by them getting rid of unassigned seating, which they did because when they surveyed people about Southwest, they found it was the #1 reason that people would decide not to fly Southwest. I personally like the unassigned seating (and liked when it was truly unassigned without even preferred seating available) because it is more efficient and is why Southwest consistently had one of the best on-time records for years. It was also one of the reasons the adopted the "checked bags fly free" policy when other airlines started charging, because allowing free checked bags encourages more people to check bags, which means fewer carry ons, which means faster boarding and de-planing.
Anyway, the lack of assigned seating is why Southwest was able to offer this benefit to larger passengers, which would allow them to sometimes fly without pay for an additional seat. So Southwest kind of became the preferred airline of larger passengers, which creates issues of it's own -- if you have a full flight with an above average number of obese passengers, that's going to be a problem for everyone including the obese passengers.
So now they have assigned seating and a policy on obese passengers that's similar to other airlines. I get why it's a bummer if you've been enjoying the benefit of not having to pay for an extra seat if you need it every time you fly, but this isn't Southwest being a jerk. There is no other way to accommodate passengers who need two seats when there is assigned seating. It is what it is.
As a frequent flyer for business, I can tell you Southwest offers and offered me nothing. I was not in their business model. If I were a Kettle flyer I kind of get the appeal of old Southwest. Today, I don't get it at all for anyone. Unassigned seating was always insane IMO. But they aren't that cheap, and they don't offer the benefits of the legacy carriers. This is why they're having to become one, but I think they're too late.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 13:22
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
I don't get the negativity towards Southwest on this thread. They are consistently the nicest airline I fly, with the best customer service.
This change is being driven by them getting rid of unassigned seating, which they did because when they surveyed people about Southwest, they found it was the #1 reason that people would decide not to fly Southwest. I personally like the unassigned seating (and liked when it was truly unassigned without even preferred seating available) because it is more efficient and is why Southwest consistently had one of the best on-time records for years. It was also one of the reasons the adopted the "checked bags fly free" policy when other airlines started charging, because allowing free checked bags encourages more people to check bags, which means fewer carry ons, which means faster boarding and de-planing.
Anyway, the lack of assigned seating is why Southwest was able to offer this benefit to larger passengers, which would allow them to sometimes fly without pay for an additional seat. So Southwest kind of became the preferred airline of larger passengers, which creates issues of it's own -- if you have a full flight with an above average number of obese passengers, that's going to be a problem for everyone including the obese passengers.
So now they have assigned seating and a policy on obese passengers that's similar to other airlines. I get why it's a bummer if you've been enjoying the benefit of not having to pay for an extra seat if you need it every time you fly, but this isn't Southwest being a jerk. There is no other way to accommodate passengers who need two seats when there is assigned seating. It is what it is.
This change is being driven by them getting rid of unassigned seating, which they did because when they surveyed people about Southwest, they found it was the #1 reason that people would decide not to fly Southwest. I personally like the unassigned seating (and liked when it was truly unassigned without even preferred seating available) because it is more efficient and is why Southwest consistently had one of the best on-time records for years. It was also one of the reasons the adopted the "checked bags fly free" policy when other airlines started charging, because allowing free checked bags encourages more people to check bags, which means fewer carry ons, which means faster boarding and de-planing.
Anyway, the lack of assigned seating is why Southwest was able to offer this benefit to larger passengers, which would allow them to sometimes fly without pay for an additional seat. So Southwest kind of became the preferred airline of larger passengers, which creates issues of it's own -- if you have a full flight with an above average number of obese passengers, that's going to be a problem for everyone including the obese passengers.
So now they have assigned seating and a policy on obese passengers that's similar to other airlines. I get why it's a bummer if you've been enjoying the benefit of not having to pay for an extra seat if you need it every time you fly, but this isn't Southwest being a jerk. There is no other way to accommodate passengers who need two seats when there is assigned seating. It is what it is.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 11:51
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
It's petite women sucking up all this crap and little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Agree with this.
Yup. Instead of turning on each other, and losing our humanity, we should focus our attention on the corporate greed that drives this. Start by boycotting. Doesn't have to be a big pronouncement - just don't give them your hard-earned money anymore.
I have refused to get gas at a BP station since 2010. Millions of gallons of their sludge still lies on the bottom of the Gulf permanently destroying the ecosystem and will never go away. It may be completely irrelevant to them but I'll be damned if I give them a penny of my money. F'em.
Same with Southwest. They try to cram human beings into an unrealistic cage, watch gleefully for the backbiting to begin, and then use that as an excuse to line their pockets even more. F'em, too.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 11:11
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
It's petite women sucking up all this crap and little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Agree with this.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 11:05
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:I often scooch over in my seat so those needing the room can have it. No one wants to be obese. Sit by me. I got your extra.
As someone who is obese (and trying to change it) thank you for this.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 10:53
Subject: Re:"Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
I think instead of turning on each other, the answer should be airlines stop with the sardine seats. It really can't be a situation where only people under 5-10 who are thin and not large framed at all can fit in the damn seats. I guess it can be (and is), but it shouldn't be.
It's petite women sucking up all this crap and little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
It's petite women sucking up all this crap and little dudes, who already have enough trouble in life.
Anonymous
08/26/2025 10:53
Subject: "Baby got back"? Beware of new Southwest policy
Anonymous wrote:I was on a flight recently in the window seat. The woman in the aisle seat was overweight and had purchased the middle and aisle seat. They told her they needed the seat. She said she had paid for both and they told her too bad and she'd be reimbursed. I think that's crap. She paid for two seats, she should have had two seats.
That's awful. IMO if you pay for two seats (or three for a full row), you own those seats for those few hours. How dare they force you to pay for the seats and comfort of other passengers, and then rip it away, probably for more profit to the airline, and uncomfort of all three pax.