United Airlines and the upside of anger
So I was asked to give a comment yesterday on United Airlines' new policy to charge fat people double to fly on their planes. When the article came out the thing that struck me the most was how my response, which I had thought of as calm and rational, was being portrayed as "anger" and that I was "hitting out" against United. My first thought was "But wait...I'm not angry!" The more I thought about it though, the more I realized maybe I should be.
What United is doing here (and what the rest of the airlines have already done) is basically scapegoating fat people for the fact that there's no room in their tiny airplane seats. Air travel for most people is not a very comfortable or cheap way to go and if they can get us all focused on the specter of a fat person's fat encroaching on the armrest then we won't even think about how seventeen inches isn't really enough personal space for us to be comfortable sitting next to any stranger, even a thin one. Not to mention that by making the seats so small, the airlines are guaranteeing that a higher percentage of their passengers will not be able to fit into them and will then have to pay for two seats. It's like the BMI effect when a bajillion people became overweight overnight. These terrible fat people wouldn't be such a problem if the seats were at least made to fit average-sized adults.
An aside:
So okay, maybe it's not realistic to expect airlines to rip out all of the tiny seats and put in a bunch of average-sized seats. But would it be too much to ask them to put in a couple of rows of larger seats for larger folks? Sure, maybe they could even charge a little more for them, but there should be coach fare seats that fat people can fit into, no? Not everyone can afford two seats or first class seats. By putting in a row or two of plus sized seats, they can not only ensure that fat people are accomodated comfortably, they could also make sure no thin people ever have to put up with sitting next to them (egads!).
End aside.
Anyway, back to the scapegoating. Is it really logical and/or possible that fat people on planes are that much of a problem for United? According to their own press release, they got 700 complaints last year about fat people encroaching on thin peoples' space. 700...that sounds like quite a few complaints until you look at the other number in the article: 3000 flights a day. A DAY. Even if we take a seriously conservative estimate and say there are only 50 people on each flight, that means that 150,000 folks fly United every day. That's 54,750,000 people a year. So 700 of those people, or 0.00001% of the people who flew last year, had a complaint about fat people. I wonder how many people complained about delays or ticket prices. I wonder how many had something to say about lack of leg room or the terrible airline food. I'm willing to bet that any one of these things scored more than 700 complaints from United's customers, but to change them would cost the company money. Announcing a fat people policy, on the other hand, gets them free publicity, goodwill from the fat-hating public, and some extra fares paid by fat folks who now have no choice.
Another aside:
And United, don't give me that crap about how your industry is struggling and these evil fat people are putting such a strain on your resources by taking up two seats and not paying extra for them. First of all, didn't you just get a giant government bailout? What exactly did you do with that money? I know you didn't improve your planes because they're just as uncomfortable as they have always been. I know you didn't lower ticket prices because it still costs an arm and a leg to fly anywhere. I know you didn't use it to continue to pay your valuable employees because you're still laying people off. So what the hell? Isn't it time to examine why you keep running out of cash instead of blaming and double-charging your passengers?
End aside.
So yes, I'm a little angry. I'm tired of the airline industry and the fashion industry and the media telling me that the problem is me and my body and that I should just change and everything will be okay. My body is not the problem! Your complete denial that there is any body type other than model-thin is the problem. Your focus on doing things more and more cheaply so you can make more money is the problem. I am not an anomaly. I am not "other". I am a valid member of the human race and I don't deserve to be excluded or asked to pay more for the same goods and services as thin people. I and the millions like me deserve to be considered when you're building a new airplane or designing a new clothing line for the masses. We are the masses! Stop acting like we don't or shouldn't exist. We're here, baby. One way or another, you're going to have to deal with us.
That is all.
What United is doing here (and what the rest of the airlines have already done) is basically scapegoating fat people for the fact that there's no room in their tiny airplane seats. Air travel for most people is not a very comfortable or cheap way to go and if they can get us all focused on the specter of a fat person's fat encroaching on the armrest then we won't even think about how seventeen inches isn't really enough personal space for us to be comfortable sitting next to any stranger, even a thin one. Not to mention that by making the seats so small, the airlines are guaranteeing that a higher percentage of their passengers will not be able to fit into them and will then have to pay for two seats. It's like the BMI effect when a bajillion people became overweight overnight. These terrible fat people wouldn't be such a problem if the seats were at least made to fit average-sized adults.
An aside:
So okay, maybe it's not realistic to expect airlines to rip out all of the tiny seats and put in a bunch of average-sized seats. But would it be too much to ask them to put in a couple of rows of larger seats for larger folks? Sure, maybe they could even charge a little more for them, but there should be coach fare seats that fat people can fit into, no? Not everyone can afford two seats or first class seats. By putting in a row or two of plus sized seats, they can not only ensure that fat people are accomodated comfortably, they could also make sure no thin people ever have to put up with sitting next to them (egads!).
End aside.
Anyway, back to the scapegoating. Is it really logical and/or possible that fat people on planes are that much of a problem for United? According to their own press release, they got 700 complaints last year about fat people encroaching on thin peoples' space. 700...that sounds like quite a few complaints until you look at the other number in the article: 3000 flights a day. A DAY. Even if we take a seriously conservative estimate and say there are only 50 people on each flight, that means that 150,000 folks fly United every day. That's 54,750,000 people a year. So 700 of those people, or 0.00001% of the people who flew last year, had a complaint about fat people. I wonder how many people complained about delays or ticket prices. I wonder how many had something to say about lack of leg room or the terrible airline food. I'm willing to bet that any one of these things scored more than 700 complaints from United's customers, but to change them would cost the company money. Announcing a fat people policy, on the other hand, gets them free publicity, goodwill from the fat-hating public, and some extra fares paid by fat folks who now have no choice.
Another aside:
And United, don't give me that crap about how your industry is struggling and these evil fat people are putting such a strain on your resources by taking up two seats and not paying extra for them. First of all, didn't you just get a giant government bailout? What exactly did you do with that money? I know you didn't improve your planes because they're just as uncomfortable as they have always been. I know you didn't lower ticket prices because it still costs an arm and a leg to fly anywhere. I know you didn't use it to continue to pay your valuable employees because you're still laying people off. So what the hell? Isn't it time to examine why you keep running out of cash instead of blaming and double-charging your passengers?
End aside.
So yes, I'm a little angry. I'm tired of the airline industry and the fashion industry and the media telling me that the problem is me and my body and that I should just change and everything will be okay. My body is not the problem! Your complete denial that there is any body type other than model-thin is the problem. Your focus on doing things more and more cheaply so you can make more money is the problem. I am not an anomaly. I am not "other". I am a valid member of the human race and I don't deserve to be excluded or asked to pay more for the same goods and services as thin people. I and the millions like me deserve to be considered when you're building a new airplane or designing a new clothing line for the masses. We are the masses! Stop acting like we don't or shouldn't exist. We're here, baby. One way or another, you're going to have to deal with us.
That is all.
Wait...what? | Fat and global warming
Posted by CarrieP on April 17, 2009
Even when I was thinner, flying was something to be endured, and the same goes for public transport, overcrowded stadia / restaurants / nightclubs etc or any other place where you're crammed into an inadequate space in close proximity to others. Space is generally expensive and the first thing to go when funds are tight. Human beings may be ultimately gregarious creatures (some of us more so than others!) but that doesn't mean we don't want social contact to take place on our own terms and at our own pace, which isn't possible when cooped up in a pressurised metal container doing 600mph at 35,000ft.
Fat people might make a particularly convenient scapegoat because we intrude further into that 'bubble' than thin ones, and because we're an easy and already stigmatised target, but it's more a matter of degree - ultimately flying is an uncomfortable experience most of us only subject ourselves to through lack of an alternative and for the promise of something good such as a vacation or family reunion at the other end.
Other than agreeing with the entire contents of this post, and querying how they're actually going to ENFORCE this (having failed to lower the armrest or fasten the belt, will the traveler be frogmarched off the flight or forced to get their credit card out in front of a packed plane?) I've little new to add about 'customer of size' policies that hasn't already been discussed ad infinitum in various fatosphere threads. The apparent increasing popularity of these policies does however seem to demonstrate how fat people are being scapegoated for the effects of belt-tightening and general corporate stinginess which are themselves directly attributable to a global economic meltdown in which we played no greater part than any other group.
Finally I would like to point out how thoroughly awesome it is to see a fat acceptance viewpoint being represented in articles of this nature. Normally the British media present these stories from the POV of those supporting whatever anti-fat measure is under consideration, with back-up soundbite from Tam Fry or some other representative of the hate industry, as if it's both universal and beyond challenge. The Mirror piece OTOH focused more on the FRC objection to UA's move than it did the policy itself. That's a huge win in itself, to be taken seriously by the mass media, and presented not just as a curiosity but a legitimate and rational counter-position.
"if you think fat people have no self-discipline, consider the fact that they haven’t killed you yet." - Miss Conduct, Boston Globe
I have flown United and other airlines for many years for both business and pleasure, and at least in the U.S. the seat width and leg room have been shrinking for years on most major airlines, long before the current economic recession. For years, I have tolerated passengers with shoulders broader than the 17” seat encroaching in my space. For years, I have dealt with taller people (predominantly men) spreading their legs into my space so that their leg was against mine the entire flight. If I moved my leg to avoid this unwelcome contact, the usual result was that the passenger spread his legs even further into my space. So if United is so worried about passengers encroaching on one another’s space, why aren’t they requiring passengers with shoulders wider than the seat or passengers above a certain height purchase a second seat or upgrade to a larger, more expensive seat? United knows there would be an outcry if they charged tall or broad-shouldered passengers more. Targeting fat people as a group to pay more is a convenient target given the level of fat-hating in the U.S.
It is all about greed on the part of United. I suggest fighting fire with fire. Given United’s logic, does this mean that if 700 people complain about this new policy, they will change it? Let’s test their “responsiveness” to complaints. I suggest everyone reading this post complain to United regarding this new policy and indicate that they will not fly United and that they will advise their friends, family, and coworkers to boycott United as well. If you are a “Mileage Plus” member, be sure to mention it.
According to United’s web site (united.com), “feedback” can be sent via a letter to: United Airlines, Customer Relations, PO Box 66100, Chicago, IL 60666. There is also an online “form,” but it takes several clicks to get to it. Here are the directions: (1) Go to united.com; (2) click on “customer service”; (3) click on “How can I contact customer relations?”; and (4) click on “Submit an online customer relations form.”
Carrie, I like your idea of airlines offering some rows of larger seats. How fair is that? Anyone could ask for these seats, not just fat people, but anyone who wants more room.
Instead of a row of six seats across, for example, there would be some with five (a formerly common configuration -- three on one side of the aisle and two on the other), and the passengers would pay a little more to make up the airline's loss of one seat, but not to the tune of first-class fare. For example, on a six-across row you might pay $200 for your seat, and on a five-across you'd pay $240. On a six-across row you'd get 17 inches of butt room; on a five-across it would be just over 20 inches.
The policy wouldn't be about scapegoating fat people anymore; it would be about rewarding those people who accept the discomfort of the small seats. If the airline wanted to require fat people to buy the larger seats, that would be fairer than charging them double after booting them off a flight.
We know about this. We've seen it before, we'll probably see more of it as other airlines watch and wait.
What I notice about this particular iterance is the press coverage. It seems the Majors (CNN, Faux, CBS, NBC) seem to have their teeth firmly locked into this 'breaking news' (Must be slow news week). I've also noticed that the coverage so far has been decidedly non-biased. It's almost as if some of Big Media is feeling out the public to see what the general consensus is going to be before committing to putting a positive or negative spin on the story. Progress? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking it might have more to do with the News Media's increased awareness of what they probably consider 'fringe' blogs. That would be Us and others in the, decidedly fringy, 'Sphere.
Unfortunately this can only be expected to hold the Media's attention for about as long as it takes for exotic matter to cease existing.
Learning How to Logic- Lesson #1
Q: How come there weren't any fat people in Concentration Camps?
A: There were. They were the ones who's metabolisms allowed them to survive starvation.
I loved your quote
"Buying a plane ticket should guarantee a person carriage from one place to another, not just 17in of personal space. The problem is not that fat people are too big to fit into airline seats, it is that airline seats are too small to fit a large segment of the population comfortably."
So straightforward, rational, perfect. This is an accessibility issue, plain and simple. If you don't make your shit accessible to the public you're serving, then you fucking suck as a business. And that's basically what it comes down to.
"We are the masses! Stop acting like we don't or shouldn't exist. "
Exactly. We are the masses. And this isn't just about airline seats, it's about everything that's designed with an inherent size constraint. It's ironic how I pass for normal-large in daily life, and yet how many things cause me accessibility issues. These limitations affect a far larger segment of the population than people are imagining. Things are supposed to be made to fit PEOPLE, not to act as a physical arbiter of who is acceptably sized or abled.
This isn't a fucking velvet rope into a private club. It's accessibility for basic, necessary services.
I avoid flying whenever possible because of the discomfort. Have they not considered that this may be costing them some money, too?
PS I am a potty mouth.
There have been two petitions started that I have seen. I signed them both.
http://www.petitiononline.com/cgi-bin/petition_html.cgi?NoUNITED
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/BOYCOTTUnited-till-they-make-flying-comfortable-for-ALL-passengers
Signed! And I also sent a message to UA's complaints department - Marilyn Wann has posted a link to it on Harriet Brown's blog. UA will soon discover that thin people aren't the only ones able to fire off complaints en masse.
ETA: Here's the standard response United sent me shortly after I lodged my complaint. I believe others who complained to them have had exactly the same corporate-speak filled response from an automated address:
If they want to 'serve' me maybe they could start by directly responding to the points I raised in my email (which is way too long to paste here). Way to miss the point UA.
"if you think fat people have no self-discipline, consider the fact that they haven’t killed you yet." - Miss Conduct, Boston Globe
Carolyn Adams-Price
Associate Professor of Psychology
Mississippi State University
In July 2007, I endured United Airlines tiny seats (and I mean endured) to go on a work trip to Australia. (On the way back, I flew Air New Zealand, which had comfortable seats). The trip to Australia and a quick trip to DC gave me enough frequent flyer miles to fly to my college reunion THIS WEEKEND in Santa Cruz, CA. I have been looking forward to this trip for many months, and now I dread it. I haven't flown Southwest Airlines since they started targetting plus size people, and now I am going to fly United when they do that? It sounds like there's little chance I will be charged for an extra seat, since I can put down the arm rest, but it's the principle of the the thing.
Here's a verse of the song I wrote for Southwest Airlines and distributed around the web, which apparently really hit home for them. Should I pass it around again, this time changing it to United? The song is sung to the tune of Don't Cry for Me, Argentina.
Don't fly with me, large size people
Southwest Airlines doesn't want you.
We will harass you, measure your ass and
We'll charge you double to go the distance.
Carolyn
ha! I love the song Carolyn
Petition signed and sent to others in my friends and family circle who I know will care and sign up, too!!! Doesn't Southwest Airlines do this? There is a SW Airlines hub at MSP, but I won't ever fly them due to the possibility of being charged double for a coach fare seat.
You should see what this guy at the Denver Post wrote on Sunday.
http://www.denverpost.com/haley/ci_12213259
He swears United's policy isn't discriminatory, but spends the bulk of his column braying out his own bigotry, making it clear he dodged a bullet by not being seated next to the, and I quote, "oblate spheroid of a man, his belt sitting just above the equator and tighter than Joan River's face." (He earlier called this man, this total stranger, "trouble lumber(ing) onto the concourse.")
He devotes a lot of space to bagging on the fat lady whose misfortune it was to be seated next to him - her tacky sweater (because fat people are slobs), and then makes the weird leap that her husband must not have wanted to sit next to her, either, because the airline placed him in the row ahead. (I would have gladly switched if asked, he justifies, but leaves us wondering why he didn't simply then offer). He also whines about how he just didn't think he could say anything — but apparently, it's A-OK and totally professional to lambaste her with a passive-aggressive attack she can't fight back against.
Here's one of my "favorite" highlights:
"Our extra breadth is often accommodated these days, which may be part of the problem. The seats at Invesco Field, for example, are an inch wider than the seats at the old Mile High to fit our expanding backsides. Movie theater seats are about 3 inches wider than airline seats. Clothing sizes are larger. Jeans are relaxed fit. And furniture keeps getting plumper."
I don't even understand the comment about furniture getting "plumper." What does making something cushier, as opposed to wider, have to do with body weight? As to the rest, apparently the availability of anything other than gunny sacks as clothing is a dis-incentive for us to conform to his standards, while he conveniently overlooks wider seats in sports stadiums would be more comfortable for everyone, and so, benefit everyone. Besides, they'd also keep the dreaded fatty's dreaded flesh from spilling over to touch his holy, perfect thigh!
Since he seems confused as to why United's policy is discrimination, let me explain: Fat people would be bumped from full flights. Who is responsible for the flights being full? The airlines! And apparently, this would be done without any regard to the fact that, hey, they are paying customers, or how long they've had a reservation, or even if they fit in their seats! Unless I read something wrong, being "obese" on a full flight is reason enough to be grounded. Not discrimination? Really?
His piece is one of the most immature things I've seen. It can be distilled as: "Oh, Martha, it was terrible! I had to sit next to a fat woman! Help me to a chair before I faint!" The poor widdle baby.