A Weighty Subject
Writes guest blogger Dr. Summer Johnson: 
As described in the Newsweek article, "Should the Obese Pay More for Airline Tickets?", one of the latest social disincentives created by the airline industry to penalize those obese persons choosing to fly the not-so-friendly skies is to charge a double fare to cover the extra fuel that it costs to fly overweight people who must sit in two seats.
However, it is hard to see how such policies invoked by airlines would do anything more but embarrass obese passengers, prevent economically disadvantaged passengers from flying in many cases, and focus attention on the harms of obesity in America rather than upon finding positive, constructive solutions to prevent or solve it. Such policies are clearly unethical and should be revoked by the airlines, even if they reduce the carbon footprint.
It is difficult to see how a bioethicist like Laurie Zoloth could justify such a policy on the grounds of "fairness to the person in the next seat" (Newsweek, July 7, 2008). What is the concern here? Physical discomfort in the air en route from JFK to O'Hare? If that were a concern, then no one would ever fly coach class ever again. That one person's carbon footprint is bigger than another's? If that were the argument, then everyone should be required to drive a Prius regardless of how much they weigh. Perhaps what Dr. Zoloth really means is her argument that she believes that obese persons should pay higher health insurance premiums than other persons of average weight. Yet, we know that weight does not always correlate to health and wellness and that persons of average weight can suffer from as severe coronary heart disease or diabetes just as much as an obese person can, often without showing any signs or symptoms of disease.
I think that the discrimination of obese persons as a distinct category of persons is unjustifiable and unwarranted and ought to be discouraged on every level and in every institution. While every effort should be made by companies to promote healthy weight and good nutrition, this differs significantly from overt discrimination via policies regarding booking double airline seats, job discrimination, and other cases that have been reported. Until we have a society that is structured in such a way to promote healthy lifestyles with physical activities and good nutrition that make obesity a significantly less likely problem, we must acknowledge that this health epidemic is largely one of our own making and not discriminate against those who suffer from the consequences of our own society.
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I think this is a tougher issue than this blog entry acknowledges. The rhetorical questions are off-base. This is a question of business ethics; it's about what a profit-seeking organization (an airline) can or cannot do. Whether anyone ought ever to fly coach is a question of personal choice (or lack thereof), and has nothing to do with business ethics. Similarly the comment about everyone being required to drive a Prius (acknowledging that that's a metaphor for enforced environmentalism) would be a matter of social choice and government regulation. It's an apples & oranges comparison.
Airlines do have obligations to "the person in the next seat," and it is at least *unclear* whether making bigger customers pay more is fair.
- by Chris MacDonald on Jul 9, 2008 at 7:13 PM | link
I think it's really quite easily justafiable. The airlines' justification is that they charge 1 ticket for each seat. If you take up two seats, you need two tickets.
I think maybe what you want to advocate is something akin to handicapped parking for air travelers. We've made a collective decision to require business to set aside closer, larger parking spaces for the handicapped so as not to discriminate against them. Likewise, we could require airlines to provide oversized seating for those unable to fit in a single coach seat.
- by James on Jul 9, 2008 at 7:49 PM | link
As a passenger on a recent flight on Southwest Airlines, I witnessed a rather uncomfortable situation in which an obese man (who was not required to purchase two seats - presumably because the airline staff didn't feel that his weight would merit invocation of this rule - or the flight was not oversold) - made it impossible for his seat-mate to sit comfortably for a rather long flight. When the passenger in the middle seat arrived to sit down (I was in the window, obese man in aisle) - he was unable to lower the arm-rest due to the other man's girth. The middle seat was occupied roughly 25% by the obese man's body - making the flight very uncomfortable for all three of us.
As a physician - I struggle with the principles here - and I don't quite understand what you are arguing in this post. Is the argument that an airline should accommodate an obese person and give them an extra seat gratis? Should the airline ignore the problem - thereby subjecting other passengers to discomfort such as what I describe above?
I agree wholeheartedly that as a society - and in the medical profession - we need to develop a better understanding of the etiology of obesity and do as much as we can to help the ~ 25% of the US population with a BMI over 30 - just as we need to do our best to help people with other medical conditions.
But let's say that the airline passenger had another disability that caused them to occupy additional physical space on the plane - perhaps blindness or anxiety - requiring the presence of an assistance dog - who would occupy a second seat (bear with me - let's say it's a big dog) ... would the airline be expected to accommodate the need for an additional seat for free? Would the airline require the neighbor passenger to bite their tongue and bear with it? I do think that there needs to be SOME method for us all to equitably manage this predicament.
So I'm not sure I understand what you propose as a solution. If Southwest (and other airlines) can't develop a process to manage passengers who need more than one 17.25" seat - what is the ethical answer?
- by Jacob Reider, MD on Jul 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM | link
On a similar note, the new luggage fees being imposed on second bags unfairly disadvantage those who have disabilities and the elderly -- many of whom also live on extraordinarly limited income. While an able-bodied person may be able to manage a large first bag and not have to take a second, others may need to carry two smaller bags.
- by Birgitta Sujdak Mackiewicz on Jul 14, 2008 at 12:02 PM | link