Fat people banned from Airline Exit rows

[TheLQ offline]

Visited aol.com for the first time in forever to test something and found this to add to our weekly controversy topic:

Can overweight people sit in an airplane's exit row? Not if they're flying on Southwest, (LUV) Alaska Airlines (ALK) or AirTran (AAI) and also need a seat belt extender.

But on American (AA), United (UAUA), Delta (DAL) and Continental Airlines (CAL), you can have as many seat belt extenders as you want and still sit in the exit row.

I found out about the seat belt extender policy on a recent Southwest flight when the attendant told me that I was disqualified from sitting in the exit row if I couldn't close the standard seat belt.

As someone who is tall and overweight, I like sitting in the exit row because it offers the most room in coach. I'm sure plenty of skinny and short people feel the same way. After all, in terms of comfort, the exit row is as good as it gets flying in coach.

The Federal Aviation Administration set minimal standards for sitting in an exit row back in 1990: One has to be at least 15 years old, be able to follow the airline crew's directions, and be capable of opening the exit door, which equates to pushing around 50 pounds of weight. But the agency left it up to the airlines to develop their own exact exit row seating rules. In my case, I fell victim to Southwest's enhanced rules, which equate wearing a seat belt extender with not being able to open an emergency door.

Extenders Described as a Tripping Hazard
Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Brandy King e-mailed me this statement without going into any detail: "The reason behind the policy is safety,'' she said. "It supports our ability to assist passengers in exiting the aircraft in an expeditious manner in the event of an emergency."

But Alaska Airlines, which has the same rule, gave me more detailed explanation. Spokeswoman Bobbi Egan says that the seat belt extender creates a "potential safety hazard." "With an extender, a seat belt can stretch across the floor and could become a tripping hazard for people exiting through the emergency exits."

I guess that makes sense, but then shouldn't laptop cords be banned in the exit row as well?

I'm also wondering if seat belt extenders are such a potential exit row hazard, then how come American, United, Delta and US Airways (LCC) don't have the same policy?

Of course, any relatively frequent flyer has seen passengers sitting in an exit row who just might not meet the minimum FAA regulations to open an exit door. Then there is the issue of hidden disabilities: How do we know that the passengers sitting in the exit rows are mentally and physically capable of performing their duties in the case of an emergency?

Airline consultant Scott Nason, a former top operations official with American Airlines, said he doesn't understand the seat belt extender rule. "That seems a bit capricious. It is easy to imagine a wide variety of circumstances in which the flight attendant might be at least mildly suspicious of the passenger's capabilities, but we don't (generally) put them in the position of confronting most passengers who claim to be able.''

Fat People Aside, Exit Row Standards Are Too Lax

Of course, if airlines were really serious about having only qualified passengers sitting in the exit row, they would take the steps to make sure that those passengers could open the exit door. For example, exit row passengers could go through a strength screening after their security screening. Each potential exit row passenger could be asked to push a 50-pound boulder or open a mock emergency exit door. The test could even add some amusement to the airport experience. After clearing security, passengers could watch the exit row volunteers complete the strength test.

You might think I'm joking, but in a 2009 research paper, the Society of Aerospace Engineers concluded that airline exit row standards are too lax. The paper, written by aviation safety experts, and based in part on National Transportation Safety Board airline accident reports, found that exit row seating standards need to be tightened. Citing prior aviation accidents, it noted that a delay of only a few seconds in opening an exit door may have fatal effects.

"Airlines need to improve their standards for evaluating who sits in an exit row as well as ensuring that passengers understand the responsibilities," the report said. It noted that many passengers are like me: They request exit row seating because it offers more legroom, not because they want to bear the safety burden of their fellow travelers.
The Society of Aerospace Engineers also criticized exit row briefing presentations as "cursory" and "minimal in nature," saying they consisted only of asking passengers if they are aware of being seated in an exit row and are comfortable with their potential safety duties." The SAE recommends that the presentation for exit row passengers be more extensive to ensure that exit row passengers understand what is required of them in the event of an emergency.
While the SAE does not embrace my idea for a strength test in the airport, it does actually offer some sensible ideas that could be implemented. It says an airline's frequent flyer members who want an exit row seat could be prescreened on the airline web site by requiring them to complete a survey about visual and aural capacity, dexterity, strength, mobility, primary and secondary languages. Another suggestion: Passengers physically demonstrating the ability to meet the selection criteria to a designated air carrier representative, for example, by providing a doctor's statement that the passenger can lift 50 pounds.

For the last several weeks, I have been trying to get the Federal Aviation Administration's view on the matter. Finally, last week FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette emailed me this brief explanation. "The FAA believes that the current rules adequately protect the public," she said.

It's good to know we have someone looking out for our safety in the skies.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/c1Jhqm

I give one week before someone sue's. Because in America, we sue to pass the time.

---

It doesn't make sense to me though that fat = weak, since if you look at a high school football team most of the people there are big but still strong. in fact, most fat people I know are very strong. And the argument for a "tripping hazard"? Thats just bullshit.

[Mewberries151]

I...what? I didn't think any passengers were allowed to operate exit doors unless there was dire emergency and there was no stewardess or crew member to do it for them, so I'm not sure why that's an issue.

Also, and this may only be because of the way it's written and not the information contained within but uh...this sounds waaaaay...um...well, I don't want to say "suspect" but it kinda sounds like it was written by someone with a serious ego. So you don't want heavy people, or disabled people (either mentally or physically) sitting in those rows because they may not be able to follow procedure and/or operate the doors? What about children? Or parents with small children on their laps?

I mean...is this an honest safety concern? What are the precedents for where an overweight or disabled person prevented safe use of the exit rows and doors?

[. offline]

http://smodcast.com/smods/smodcast106.html

[Taelia offline]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h70Ghba7Y3U

[JesusFreak offline]

Oh dear.

[jym1 offline]

if someone has to open the emergency exit, than it's most likely because there was an emergency or crash landing.
If that was the case, than it's possible that whoever was sitting in the exit row was injured, in which case he can't open the door. When that happens, it falls upon some unfortunate 115 pound flight attendant to move him out of the way and open the door before the airplane blows up in a huge fireball

[Mewberries151]

if someone has to open the emergency exit, than it's most likely because there was an emergency or crash landing.
If that was the case, than it's possible that whoever was sitting in the exit row was injured, in which case he can't open the door. When that happens, it falls upon some unfortunate 115 pound flight attendant to move him out of the way and open the door before the airplane blows up in a huge fireball

That's a worst case scenario. And besides, a person of <i>any</i> weight is going to be difficult to move by <i>anyone</i> if they are unconscious or injured, or have some form of debris on top of them. You're also assuming the flight attendant would not recognise that he or she is unable to lift the person alone and be unable to call for assistance. I see no reason why teamwork couldn't be used to move a person away from the door regardless of their weight.

[matsumo itsu offline]

It's America, lazy people most likely, least work and the quickest results (Before any of y'all yell at me I am American.)

[xiaozanghou offline]

As someone who is tall and overweight, I like sitting in the exit row because it offers the most room in coach. I'm sure plenty of skinny and short people feel the same way. After all, in terms of comfort, the exit row is as good as it gets flying in coach. [...] many passengers are like me: They request exit row seating because it offers more legroom, not because they want to bear the safety burden of their fellow travelers.

The problem I have with this guy is that exit row seats don't have that extra legroom for purposes of comfort. They have it so people can flee though it. Yeah I'd prefer to sit in an exit row and happily switch whenever someone doesn't feel confident they can do it or the seat was accidentally booked to a child etc., etc. But that's because I know that if something happens I am fully prepared to do what's required. And seriously--this is gonna sound bad--some people are just so huge that there's no way they can pull it off.

As someone who travels by plane quite frequently, I have been wedged between, stuck behind, and leaned upon by many people who are frankly too huge to fit comfortably in their seats. Whether because they're too tall or too fat, most of these people, when they get up, take forever. As the article says:

Citing prior aviation accidents, [the Society of Aerospace Engineers] noted that a delay of only a few seconds in opening an exit door may have fatal effects.

I see no reason why teamwork couldn't be used to move a person away from the door regardless of their weight.

Then you've never seen some of the people I've flown with.

Serious answer: In a situation where the plane is thrown around enough for someone in the exit row to get hurt, the rest of the passengers are going to be shaken up and/or panicking, and to remove the person without hurting them any further takes a very cohesive effort. Flight attendants also have weight restrictions and a hectic schedule that may not be conducive for them to work out in their spare time, so they may not be strong enough, even together, to move a sufficiently large enough person to safety without harming them. Add to that all the usual obstacle in any airplane row(armrest, bags, seatbelts, maybe debris) and it's pretty obvious this rule is for the benefit of everyone.

[jym1 offline]

it's pretty obvious this rule is for the benefit of everyone.

except for the fat-tall person who is now unfortunately wedged in a middle seat right behind the bathroom (so everyone is passing by him)....and for the poor people behind him who can't see the gosh darned TV because of his huge head.
But I'm just being argumentative there. I pretty much agree with everything you said.
The only reason such thing as an exit row exits, is because those three seats are worth too much to sacrifice for safety.

my advice to all large people (either vertically or horizontally) is to use the online check in and try to get yourself a seat on the isle, in a row that looks like it might not fill up.
This has been my strategy, and so far, so good.

[Mewberries151]

I see no reason why teamwork couldn't be used to move a person away from the door regardless of their weight.

Then you've never seen some of the people I've flown with.

Serious answer: In a situation where the plane is thrown around enough for someone in the exit row to get hurt, the rest of the passengers are going to be shaken up and/or panicking, and to remove the person without hurting them any further takes a very cohesive effort. Flight attendants also have weight restrictions and a hectic schedule that may not be conducive for them to work out in their spare time, so they may not be strong enough, even together, to move a sufficiently large enough person to safety without harming them. Add to that all the usual obstacle in any airplane row(armrest, bags, seatbelts, maybe debris) and it's pretty obvious this rule is for the benefit of everyone.

So...what? A rule that would be for the benefit of everyone would be to NOT sell those seats at all. Better yet, remove them completely so that there is minimized chance of anything, seat, passenger or otherwise to block the exit door. Of course, this won't happen because the benefit of everyone is not greater than the desire for a higher profit.

I do not see how a person's weight factors into it. Yes, a heavier person will be harder to move if they are in the way of the door but I still hold that a person of ANY weight will be diifficult to move if they have been disabled in some way by the crash itself. There is no reason to single out someone purely because of their weight.

And I still see no reason why teamwork is not an option even in a panicked situation. I don't get what you're saying with the flight attendants thing because if teamwork in moving a person away from a door is not something they are already trained in, then it should be made part of their training. Avoiding harming the person blocking the door by moving them is not the aim here as you are allowed to move a person out of a dangerous situation regardless of whether movement will injure them further or not. The aim is only to un-block the door be it barricaded by persons, items, or otherwise.

[xiaozanghou offline]

So...what? A rule that would be for the benefit of everyone would be to NOT sell those seats at all. Better yet, remove them completely so that there is minimized chance of anything, seat, passenger or otherwise to block the exit door. Of course, this won't happen because the benefit of everyone is not greater than the desire for a higher profit.

Jym touched on that as well, and it's a good point. However, taking your last sentence into consideration, this rule is the next best thing for the benefit of everyone because it reduces the size of obstacles already present in the row.

I do not see how a person's weight factors into it. Yes, a heavier person will be harder to move if they are in the way of the door but I still hold that a person of ANY weight will be diifficult to move if they have been disabled in some way by the crash itself. There is no reason to single out someone purely because of their weight

Larger(by larger I mean heavier OR taller) people on average already have a tough time in tiny airplane seats. The narrow width and the low height of the seats make getting up from them more of a chore the larger the person is. Like the article said before:

Citing prior aviation accidents, [the Society of Aerospace Engineers] noted that a delay of only a few seconds in opening an exit door may have fatal effects.

And I still see no reason why teamwork is not an option even in a panicked situation. I don't get what you're saying with the flight attendants thing because if teamwork in moving a person away from a door is not something they are already trained in, then it should be made part of their training.

Nobody said teamwork wasn't an option. In fact, it is the best option. But it is very likely after a plane hits the ground, many passengers and even trained flight attendants will be disoriented, panicked, injured, or otherwise unable to gather the level-headedness that moving a person requires in the short amount of time needed. Remember that despite being trained, airplane attendants rarely ever get the chance to put that training to use in real-world situations. They are just as likely to be shaken up by an accident as regular passengers.

Avoiding harming the person blocking the door by moving them is not the aim here as you are allowed to move a person out of a dangerous situation regardless of whether movement will injure them further or not. The aim is only to un-block the door be it barricaded by persons, items, or otherwise.

If the aim is only to unblock the door without regard for the person's well-being, moving a larger person would take more time because a larger group of people needs to be gathered to move them. See quote from article above.

Outside of the argument, I'm of the belief that nobody should ever move person without regard to their injury if they are still actively conscious. While it may be impossible to completely avoid making someone's injury worse while moving them, extra stress, along with shock, can greatly decrease their chance of survival. Every person is worth saving, no matter how large they are.

[Mewberries151]

So...what? A rule that would be for the benefit of everyone would be to NOT sell those seats at all. Better yet, remove them completely so that there is minimized chance of anything, seat, passenger or otherwise to block the exit door. Of course, this won't happen because the benefit of everyone is not greater than the desire for a higher profit.

Jym touched on that as well, and it's a good point. However, taking your last sentence into consideration, this rule is the next best thing for the benefit of everyone because it reduces the size of obstacles already present in the row.

No. No, it's not. It discriminates against larger people, specifically those who are heavier (nowhere in that article do I see them make note of tall people posing a problem) and that is wrong. It is assuming that a heavy person will automatically either a) block the door or exit way completely or b) be unable to open the door. Many heavy people are perfectly capable of opening that door with no problem and a tall person or even someone who is simply an overall large person (but not overweight as this article seems to be getting at), could block the door in the same way someone who is disabled could or unconscious.

I do not see how a person's weight factors into it. Yes, a heavier person will be harder to move if they are in the way of the door but I still hold that a person of ANY weight will be diifficult to move if they have been disabled in some way by the crash itself. There is no reason to single out someone purely because of their weight

Larger(by larger I mean heavier OR taller) people on average already have a tough time in tiny airplane seats. The narrow width and the low height of the seats make getting up from them more of a chore the larger the person is. Like the article said before:

Citing prior aviation accidents, [the Society of Aerospace Engineers] noted that a delay of only a few seconds in opening an exit door may have fatal effects.

Except that the article (and these rules by extension) seems specifically targeted at heavy people rather than taller people. And it is only speaking in worst case scenarios. Noting already that air travel is arguably the safest mode of travel with the smallest accident record, how many of the few accidents that do happen have been affected in someway by a large person blocking the exit door? I have seen no unbiased statistics nor examples to support this article's claim.

And I still see no reason why teamwork is not an option even in a panicked situation. I don't get what you're saying with the flight attendants thing because if teamwork in moving a person away from a door is not something they are already trained in, then it should be made part of their training.

Nobody said teamwork wasn't an option. In fact, it is the best option. But it is very likely after a plane hits the ground, many passengers and even trained flight attendants will be disoriented, panicked, injured, or otherwise unable to gather the level-headedness that moving a person requires in the short amount of time needed. Remember that despite being trained, airplane attendants rarely ever get the chance to put that training to use in real-world situations. They are just as likely to be shaken up by an accident as regular passengers.

It is understood that any person could be shaken up in an accident, even the staff onboard however it is the flight attendants' job to keep calm in an emergency situation. In the event they are too shaken up to perform their duties, however, the blame does not automatically fall on someone who had the misfortune of blocking the door or taking "too long" to remove themselves, especially considering they are obviously not going to be doing it intentionally. I don't see why all this blame is being placed on larger people, specifically people who are heavy, and it's all based on what seem to be entirely hypothetical situations.

Avoiding harming the person blocking the door by moving them is not the aim here as you are allowed to move a person out of a dangerous situation regardless of whether movement will injure them further or not. The aim is only to un-block the door be it barricaded by persons, items, or otherwise.

If the aim is only to unblock the door without regard for the person's well-being, moving a larger person would take more time because a larger group of people needs to be gathered to move them. See quote from article above.

Outside of the argument, I'm of the belief that nobody should ever move person without regard to their injury if they are still actively conscious. While it may be impossible to completely avoid making someone's injury worse while moving them, extra stress, along with shock, can greatly decrease their chance of survival. Every person is worth saving, no matter how large they are.

That is not what I'm saying, however, in an emergency situation, tough choices and sacrifices will occasionally need to be made. Would you tell a good samaritan or a medic not to move someone lying in the middle of a potentially dangerous road or a burning house purely because moving them might hurt the person more? A sensible person is not going to tell you, "No, please leave me here, I'd rather not risk being injured by you moving me and instead will take my chances with the road/fire."

And again, I do not like that this article is implicating that a heavy person is going to automatically cause a delay in an emergency exit purely because they are large. It is not going to be there fault for causing an accidental delay because obviously they are not going to be sitting there trying to cause one. They are absolutely going to be moving as fast as they possibly can if they are able, and I honestly think one would be surprised at how fast a person of any weight or height can move in an emergency situation when the adrenaline has kicked in.

[xiaozanghou offline]

I don't see why all this blame is being placed on larger people, specifically people who are heavy, and it's all based on what seem to be entirely hypothetical situations.

Nobody said anything about blame. However, given the fact that planes are less readily accessible to aid if it goes down, the airline must account for worst-case scenarios. If there is even a slight chance that this rule would reduce the time to get out of the plane, it should be enforced. Like you said, "in an emergency situation, tough choices and sacrifices will occasionally need to be made."

Under federal aviation policy, those under 15 and those who cannot orally impart information to the majority on the plane are also banned from exit rows. Yet there are definitely 14 year olds and people who don't speak English/Spanish who are fully capable of doing the necessary procedures should an emergency occur. There are also definitely larger people who are capable as well. But each of these groups faces situations on a plane that may impair their ability to help(under 15: strength, judgment; non-common-language speakers: communication; large people: mobility). Yeah, these impairments don't hold true for every single person in the group, and most likely not even the majority, but instead of taking the time to quiz everybody at the gate, the airline, like federal policy, just institutes a blanket ban. It's quicker and easier, and it's not like there aren't other seats on the plane.

And again, I do not like that this article is implicating that a heavy person is going to automatically cause a delay in an emergency exit purely because they are large.

I don't really understand what you mean by the article's implication. It's written by a heavy dude who's been bitten by the new rule, but still presents facts to support both sides of the argument. In fact, the author's tone is subtly sarcastic toward the new rule.