Wow. You know how to find the controversial articles, don't you?

As someone who's pretty thin and has been seated next to someone taking up most of her seat, I think that's pretty unfair. It was a really uncomfortable flight for me, all three times it happened

But delve into charging them more and we then must discuss the other flight issues like the guy who is average size but needs to spread his legs (or computer equipment...wtf, disconnect for 4 hours dude), the person who thinks all armrests belong to them, the person with the baby that WILL NOT SHUT UP (poor kid...but stupid parent) and my real favorite the person who will put nothing into the baggage container so he brings a f**king steamer trunk on as carry-on.

Ok, sorry...I'm back

I don't know, I want to say yes but it opens a Pandora's box.

Yeah, a little bit of controversy not so bad :-)

It is a difficult topic for the points you made. How much are they truly costing the airline in extra expenses? What other passengers cost more/less?

Should the person afraid of flying who will need more attention from the flight crew to help calm them be charged more?

Should kids flying alone that require extra attention cost more?

Should a group of college students headed to spring break who you just know are going to be a problem cost more?


Then you have the same idea in other businesses.

Should your stereotypical woman who shops more and longer and is more choosy be charged more for clothing due to extra expense on salesclerks than the woman who knows what she wants and just gets it?

Same thing goes for any indecisive customer, should they be charged more?

Should a customer who exceeds 'x' number of returns have to pay a surcharge to cover the added expense.

I guess one difference is the weight of the passengers greatly effects the airline's expenses. However, I think it isn't the extra weight of any single passenger, but an over all trend which causes airlines to start removing seats to accommodate wider butt displacement and what not.

The extra charge for luggage isn't just due to weight but also bulkiness and to push people to bring less luggage over all.

I'm with dolly here.

I really want to say YES!!, I really do. But my brother, who is 6'3" and has muscles that have muscles, weighs MUCH more than the average male, even though he can sit quite comfortably in any airplane seat. I'd hate to see him pay extra for being heavy when he isn't laterally expansive. After his last flight to Houston, though, he said he'd be content to pay more if it meant he wouldn't have to spend hours with someone else's thighs and waist oozing on to his lap.

I've spent my share of flights next to extremely oversize people (as in - two seatbelt extenders barely cut it), and as a slim person I am almost offended when someone says to me 'well it's not like you need to use your whole seat!'. Well, I paid for that whole seat, so if you need to take up half of mine, please refund me for half of my ticket.

However, after being involved in a few airplane accidents (little planes, not jetliners), I just really feel unsafe sitting next to someone who spent three minutes wiggling and squeezing into their seat. If we crash, and people need to get OUT, NOW, how many people will be stuck either in their seats or jammed in the aisle behind the man or woman who can't really walk down the aisle?

Hate me for saying this if you want, but in my opinion extremely obese people are incredible safety hazards on jets. For this reason alone, I'd support a 'fat tax' on seats.

What of the person who is very muscular and has a hard time fitting into a seat? Do we define that person as "overweight" even though they aren't and charge them? I am a big guy (6'2" tall and "big boned") but easily fit into a seat and don't even come close to needing a seat belt extender. Many airlines have reconfigured to fit more seats, thus more people and more revenue and at the expense of passenger comfort. Seats in first class are much more expansive. If you double the seat charge for economy then put them in a first class seat. If I am going to pay more for a seat, that is where I would want to be. Oh, by the way, there must be more PC ways of saying "fat tax".

You have to deal with difficult people at some point in your life, whether it's on the clock or not. For that reason, I'd say 'no' to having to pay extra for being a difficult passenger.

However, more weight (luggage or otherwise) = more resources needed to fly = more costly to fly = need to make more profit.

I was just wondering if they were going to charge me a leg tax.

This article is misleading, because this issue is all about the cost of fuel. Airlines had to pay an extra $275 million by 2000 as compared to what they paid in 1990, just because of the extra weight in passengers that is being carried. I think this tax is fine. If it'll cost more to fly you somewhere, it makes sense that your ticket should reflect that.

Hey eljay...would you be willing to pay more for extra leg room? I just might. Problem being the tickey cost is already very high.

One should only pay for the space they rent. If that space is to small, then pay for a bigger space at a bigger price. If you are large enough to need two seats, then pay for two seats.

A cost based on the amount of space you occupy does seem just a tad impersonal, we are not cargo! And would they give a discount for someone who is under the average weight? Can you imagine if they did and people were stripping off / going to the rest rooms just before weigh in to shed a little extra 'baggage'! Brings a whole new meaning to "I wan't to lose a few pounds for when I go on holiday"

ALSO, it would have to be on a per flight basis as I always put on a load of weight when I stay in America :)

Other fun ways they could enforce this farce:
1. Put people in a vat of water to see how much they displace.
2. Have a set of hoops and see which is the smallest one you can pass over someone from head to toe without it getting snagged.
3. A 2nd gate you walk through after the metal detector that beeps if you are over a certain dimension, maybe they could equip the check in people with hand held scanners that they wave over you and beep when they detect fat :)

The parent is probably more mortified than anyone else on the plane, what with the crying baby and the death stares from other passengers.

"It's not fair to single out those people who have a problem, which is already impacting greatly on their life, and make them feel like pariahs.''
"It's hard enough that they carry that extra weight, physically and emotionally,'' he said.

Personally, I hate how censored everything has become. They know they have a problem, we shouldn't ahve to go that far out of our way and have money come out of our pockets to cover other passengers expenses. If they can afford all the food to get "fat" then they can afford a lil extra tax. Maybe it'll convince some of them that maybe they shouldn't be flying for the saftey hazards or maybe they should lose some weight. We're already considered the "fat" overweight country here in the U.S. because of them. I say crack down. Make the overweight frequent fliers sign up at a gym or something and then give them a discount on their tickets if they start losing weight- or just skip their in-flight meal..

--“[Brian is addicted to cocaine]

Meg: Brian, you look like you lost weight! How did you do it?

Brian: Here’s a tip. PUT DOWN THE FORK!”
gotta love family guy

Take another form of transportation as an example since some people seem to be having trouble realizing that physics itself cannot be defied.

Take a typical automobile here in the U.S. that is 4cyl and does an average 30mpg on the highway. Place 30 something male who weaighs 200lbs in the vehicle and he will happily travel in this vehicle for many years. Doing routine maintenance the vehicle failure rate will stay within acceptable limits for the 5 to 7 years the man drives the car.

Now take the same vehicle, and add 100 to 200lbs to the man. (This is based on the idea the man will even fit COMFORTABLY in the vehicle) The brakes will have to be replaced sooner, the transmission will fail earlier and he will be paying a bit more at the gas pump.

I live in Houston TX. This is one of the fattest cities in the U.S. I see alot of very large people here. I also see the majority of large people driving SUV's and trucks. Very rarely is the 4 door sedan purchased for $12,000. The huge gas guzzling SUV that costs $35,000 for comfort. Not only does this afford comfort, but it also provides a much more powerful transmission, shocks/struts, brakes, etc. The simple physics of it all, the greater the weight, the more power is required to move said weight. Power in the engines, strength in the seats, the floor, etc.

In the grand scheme of it all, larger people are already paying a premium for certain privledges afforded to them. Flying is a privledge, and the business has reason. Unfortunately the majority of people in todays society seem to have a problem with calling a spade a spade, without hurting someones feelings.

I can't help but think that this idea might backfire. They want to make some more money off overweight people who are flying... but chances are a lot of people will not want to fly if it means being humiliated to do so.

I'm sure some people will, but I think a lot of people will just stay home, and they'll lose ticket sales, totally negating the purpose.

Okay, I can't stand when I need to share my seat with 1/3 of a person 3 times the size of me, but a fat tax just isn't necessary. If it was, I would support it, but it isn't needed.

Airlines spent $275 million more than last year on catering to bigger people - but how many people fly every year? $275 million is chump change at the bottom of an airline's annual cost report. If they raised each ticket price by $1, they would probably more than cover it (I've been looking for the statistics for about 15 minutes now to calculate precisely, but can't find them).

Anyway, if there was a fat tax, it wouldn't be to cover costs, it would be to make extra profit.

The last time I flew, I discovered, much to my horror, that I was to be crammed into the window seat with an obese man on the isle. He couldn't fit into his seat and had to raise the dividing arm rest so that he could spill over onto my seat as well. I spent three hours smeared against the window of the plane, feeling every cough, every fart, every wiggle the man made. As if this wasn't obnoxious enough, he also started drinking as soon as the plane was off the ground. When we landed, the plane had to sit on the tarmac for a few minutes, and he loquaciously complained to me that, "No matter what the flight, there's always something to make it unpleasant." He then threw back his drink and burped a period at the end of his sentence, totally oblivious to the cruel irony of his statement.

If I'm going to pay $500-$600 for a seat, I expect to get the whole thing to myself. To cram a lot of people into a small enclosed space like tuna packed in a tin is sheer greed and nothing more. In my mind, overweight people should have the common decency to purchase both of the seats they take up, but airline companies should be less worried about packing people in and more concerned with making them comfortable.

I fear that if this "fat tax" were imposed, the airline companies will simply charge extra for fat people and then cram them back into the normal-sized seats. Then they'll laugh all the way to the bank.

That is exactly what will happen. The problem with flights isn't just larger people, it's smaller seating. I'm a big guy..I'm overweight but not obese..and I'm 6'2". I CANNOT sleep on flight becuase there just isn't enough room..I'm either crammed against a window (head cocked), getting bumped in the aisle or elbowed from both sides.

The fat tax is wrong..unless you want to start charging me less for taking my 40lb child you better not charge me more for my extra 100lbs.

I WOULD however be willing to pay a LITTLE more for wider seating, but not the "luxury" of first class.

Let me tell you something from experience...Fat people hate to fly just as much as you hate them being next to you. I didn't choose this large frame and even if I lost my gut it wouldn't affect my huge shoulders, wide hips and long legs. ...But the cost of "first class" is outrageous so there really are no other options.

As Fizz said. I'm 5'9" and weight 175 pounds, so I'm not overweight, but this is BS.

Instead of getting pissed at the overweight person next to you, get pissed at the airline for packing people like sardines.

Americans, as a whole, are getting larger. Airlines, and other companies, need to address this. Charging more for more pounds is not going to make anyone more comfortable. It's not going to do anything but increase their profit margins.

Make a few rows plus size, and people can pay a little more to sit in them. If you are extremely overweight, than yes, you will need to purchase a seat you can fit in.

How about instead of having the red-eye flight(i think it's called) how about they have the rib-eye flight.. where it's strictly for overweight people..have a smaller jet for the less number of passengers but wider seats for space.. actually nvrmnd.. this is starting to sound like the short-bus.. I'm gonna burn for that one.. like a calorie on a treadmill.. damnit brain stop making my fingers type..

Alton has a good idea. Make rows with varying seat widths. You can pay a little extra to get into a row with wider seats. If you are in a seat that is too small for your butt a loud buzzer goes off and the attendant comes and orders you to move to a 'fatty row'.

The tax wouldn't make the flight any more comfortable... it would just charge certain people more. The only solution to very large people taking up two seats is to have them buy two seats. I don't care if it sounds unfair, if you take up two seats you should pay for two seats.


or as many suggested create a some plus size seats. Call them king/queen seats and now gets offended