Yesterday, United Airlines joined the majority of its peers and announced a new policy for passengers who can’t fit into a single seat. The irony of the fact that this news hit the wires on the same day I posted on the new “Slimline” seats is not lost on me. But in the end, the question remains: Why is this a controversy?

United’s policy doesn’t break any new ground for the industry. Southwest has had a policy like this for years: If you can’t fit into a single seat with the armrests down, you need to buy a second seat.

The only countervailing tendency is in Canada, where a one-person, one-fare rule was recently enforced by the courts.

These policies aren’t new at most other airlines, either. But they weren’t really well-publicized. SmarterTravel did the legwork a few months ago and ran a rundown. The still-active policies are reprinted below:

* American: Passengers over 250 pounds should recognize that there may be limitations to the service that the airline can provide. However, it does not require that you purchase an extra seat automatically.
* Midwest: Like Southwest, passengers are encouraged to know their needs in advance. If staff determine that two seats are required, the seat will be sold at the lowest possible fare, with a refund available if there is one or more open seats on the flight.
[...]
* Air France: Passengers with “high body mass” may receive a 25 percent discount on an extra seat, knowing that if they choose to not buy the seat, they may risk not being able to fly.
* JetBlue: You are required to buy a second seat, and there are no refunds.
* Delta: The airline “works to accommodate” passengers with special needs. Upon request and availability, it will try to make sure the next seat is unoccupied. However, if the plane is full, you will most likely be asked to leave the flight and buy a second seat on the next available flight. (You can actually count on this being a fairly typical practice on most airlines.)

United was doing three things when it announced the policy.
1) First, it got a policy, period. Previously, there was none.
2) Second, UA’s policy wisely follow’s Southwest’s standard: If the armrests don’t go all the way down, you’re infringing on your neighbor and need to buy another seat. This is far more sensible than simply calling an affected passenger “obese” or “overweight,” or applying an arbitrary or difficult to enforce cutoff like 250 lbs. or a “high body mass index.” Armrests are an easily-tested and functionally-relevant standard. Thumbs up.
3) Third, United made it a publicly-visible policy. The other airlines had policies (or at least consistent practices) in place, but didn’t have the courage to publish them on their websites or in their contract of carriage. Transparency is good.

The problem with transparency is that it opens the airline to criticism from those who find such policies objectionable. (As a passenger who fits between the armrests, and enjoys their use, I approve of the change. I realize that those whose bodies spill over the 17 or 18″ of seat width are not trying to impose on their neighbors. But face it, sometimes they do.)

Perhaps another airline will try a different tactic. Melissa Lafsky offers the following alternative:

…but what about the possibility of rewarding socially “good” behavior rather than punishing “bad”? There’s always offering skinny people ticket discounts, priority boarding, more preference on seat assignments—or even letting them sell part of their seat space to larger passengers.

I’m offering an inch of room for $100 per hour in-seat. Any takers? Cash only.