|
TM
The Travel Critic
Size Does Matter
Southwest Airlines is forcing big
passengers to pay for an extra seat. But it's not the first time the carrier
has persecuted the plump.
By Christopher Elliott
Oversize airline passengers, meet your dietician. Its
name is Southwest Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing
a rule that compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they
can't fit in the standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats.
As you might expect, every advocacy group from the International Size
Acceptance Association to the National Association for the Advancement of
Fat Acceptance is piling on the criticism. They say Southwest is
discriminating against portly passengers and are threatening to take the
carrier to court.
Is Southwest guilty as charged? Yes, but in ways the defenders of the obese
never imagined. Southwest has always been obsessed with size. Ever since the
beginning. Persecuting the plump is a favorite corporate pastime - and not
just travelers. The airline also puts bloated competitors on its hit list,
the kind that fail to make money under the crushing weight of high operating
expenses.
Southwest flies only one kind of aircraft, the diminutive Boeing 737. It's a
small plane, with a capacity of about 140 passengers. Its seats are small,
offering only 32 inches of legroom. So is the plane's price - about $40
million, or half the cost of a Boeing 757. While Southwest's rivals amassed
a fleet of planes from multiple manufacturers, the Dallas airline stuck with
just one plane made by one company. Cheaper to maintain, cheaper to fix, it
figured. The all-737 fleet is widely credited with increasing Southwest's
efficiency, which helped it make money.
Then there are the meals. Southwest doesn't serve real food on its planes.
Its flight attendants fling packages of peanuts at starving passengers
before offering them a beverage. Is the airline sending us a message? Maybe
it already knew that travelers would be better off eating a McDonald's Big
Mac, French fries and washing it all down with a strawberry milkshake, since
it's healthier than the average airline meal (a study by the Web site
eFit.com came to that conclusion). We should thank Southwest for sparing us
from such excess. Of course, its lack of in-flight cuisine directly affects
the airline's bottom line, which is good for business too.
But the outraged travelers who must now pay extra for their tickets should
be grateful they're not one of Southwest's competitors. The airline wastes
no opportunity to pummel its pudgy rivals which are overburdened by the
weight of an inefficient route system, an
impractical fare structure or irrational labor costs. "When they zig," quips
Southwest spokesman Ed Stewart, "we zag." That's a nice way of saying it.
During the reign of Herb Kelleher, who is now the airline's chairman, the
corporate brass delighted in insulting its enormous competitors, hurtling
epithets at the airlines that were, for the most part, unprintable.
It's worth wondering if Southwest's fixation on size is a good thing.
Certainly the airline was taken aback by the public reaction to its decision
to begin enforcing its long-standing rule on large passengers. Two years ago
Continental Airlines contemplated a similar move. A manager leaked the
proposed decision to me and I published a story that said the airline was
thinking of charging big travelers more money for tickets. No sooner had the
article seen the light of print did Continental not only back down; it also
denied it had even considered such a policy change. Seems the obese
travelers carry a lot of weight.
But when it comes to operating a smaller, more nimble, competent airline,
Southwest might be on to something. The proof is in the profits - the
airline has made money for three consecutive decades, including last year,
when the industry lost an astounding $7 billion.
It might not be the politically correct thing to say, but apparently size
does matter.
Christopher Elliott is a travel writer in Key Largo, Fla. E-mail him at
chris@elliott.org
Back to
TravelLady Magazine |
|