It appears my recent blog titled “Excess Baggage” (February 18, 2010) concerning the airlines relentless determination to penalize passengers who happen to be outside an industry-imposed physical norm was prophetic. One line in my posting specifically referred to the plight of tall passengers: “Fortunately, the lofty have yet to be demonized by irritable airline staff, most probably by suffering in silence, but in light of recent events I fear we too are in jeopardy”. How quickly things change in the airline industry! Could they have read my blog?
The other day Continental airlines announced that on March 17 they will begin charging a premium of up to $59 per flight segment for “exit row” seats, with other carriers such as Northwest and U.S. Airways currently implementing similar programs. According to Jim Compton, Continental’s chief marketing officer, “Seats with additional legroom are higher-value seats, and we want to offer them to customers who recognize that value”. Translation: Penalize tall people who can’t fit into the debilitating legroom that has gradually become industry standard.
I can remember the whines and grumbles that theme-park ride limitations elicited from my kids when they couldn’t quite measure up to Mickey’s outstretched arm, but the safety implications were clear and the discipline uniform. Theme parks wouldn’t surcharge kids who didn’t meet the requirements or allow them to ride for an extra few bucks. Height restrictions have been a strictly enforced practice that made sense and parents complied, often coupling the event with a teachable moment about personal safety and appropriate conduct. But what are the airlines teaching us? They’re teaching us that personal safety and comfort aren’t for everyone.
Gradually, airlines are creating new revenue sources by deciding “ideal” physical characteristics and discriminating against passengers who don’t meet them. Since there is no inherent safety issue involved, airlines are creating new revenue streams on the backs, legs and bottoms of passengers who can’t manage a 3 hour flight in a fetal position. Carefully positioned as an “offer”, insinuating passengers have a “choice”, airlines carefully deflect potential lawsuits from passengers developing DVT from sitting too long in cramped positions. In fact their purported “choice” is actually a penalty in disguise; an additional fee for the same range of movement as other passengers the airlines have defined as “normal” are permitted.
I fail to see why airlines are free to implement these “back of the bus” discriminatory tactics based on physical stature, particularly since it is the airlines themselves that have subjectively, arbitrarily and consistently reduced seat and legroom on aircraft over many years. It is doubtful that any other transportation industry such as railroads, rapid transit, busses, ferries or taxicabs would get away with surcharges based on stature. Why are airlines exempt?
On the other hand, perhaps the airlines are demonstrating ground breaking vision and initiative by taking the physically “challenged” to task. Maybe they embody the “one size fits all” culture America has labored so long to achieve, and their exclusionary practices will be trend-setting for a host of other industries that will eventually “right-size” America.
The airlines have made one point perfectly clear: size does matter.
