Anyone who needs multiple seats due to their size should be required to purchase multiple seats. Why? Let’s conduct a thought experiment where the large passenger sits in a seat located by the aisle. In order for the large passenger not to bother the passenger next to him, he would have to sit in such a way that a portion of his body is protruding into the aisle. This is unacceptable because the aisle needs to be clear. Passengers need to use the aisle to access the restrooms, and stewardesses need to use the aisle to provide service to passengers.

What if the large passenger sits in a way to clear the aisle? This would imply that a portion of the large passenger’s body would obtrude into the passenger next to him. That passenger would be forced into an uncomfortable position for a prolonged period of time. Besides the physical discomfort, there are serious health issues that are associated with this for both parties. For example, blood flow could be blocked, which could lead to other health issues. The only way to mediate this situation is for a large passenger to sit in multiple seats.

How do airlines determine whether a passenger requires multiple seats? According to Southwest Airlines, “the armrest is the definitive gauge for a Customer of size. It serves as the boundary between seats and measures 17 inches in width.” Is this policy ethical? Yes. Each passenger pays for one seat (space on the plane) and they should be entitled to all the space that they purchased. The armrest serves as an indicator of the boundaries of the purchased space. The armrest for airplane seats is analogous of the fence for houses. A landowner does not have the right to break down their neighbor’s fence and utilize their neighbor’s property.

Even if the adjacent passenger consents, the airline has the right to demand that the large passenger purchase multiple seats. Given that there are health risks associated with a passenger being confined into a tight location for a prolonged period of time, the airline has the right to demand that the passenger follow the safety precautions established by the airline. As a private enterprise, the airline not only has the right to look out for its own interests but the obligation to look out for the well-being of its customers, even if its customers may not. A parallel scenario would be a bar that turns down an intoxicated patron. The bar maintains and enforces its safety precautions to protect itself and its customers.

Given that large passengers must take up multiple seats, the fundamental issue is whether a passenger of size should pay for the additional space. The current policy is one-seat-per-ticket. When passengers purchase an airline ticket, they are allotted a space on the plane. Although one could upgrade to first class if one wishes to purchase additional space, passengers cannot purchase one ticket and occupy more space than they were allotted. The alternative is a one-ticket-per-passenger policy where the airline charges passengers for the flight regardless of the amount of space the passengers take up. The former standardizes the cost per space whereas the latter standardizes the cost per travel.

The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy. Although the primary reason for flying is to travel from one destination to another, passengers are also paying for comfort. The latter policy fails to address the issue of comfort for passengers traveling on an airplane. Although passengers have the right to relinquish comfort to save money, it cannot be at a cost to the other passengers. On the other hand, the one-seat-per-ticket policy charges a flat rate for a plot of space. It enables every passenger to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, so that they could travel without encroaching on another’s space. Secondly, the former policy addresses the issues concerning the health hazards. By requiring passengers to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, the policy effectively deals with the threat of decreased blood circulation and other health problems. Conversely, the latter policy increases the chances of health issues arising from cramming passengers together.

The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy.