Southwest Customer of Size

[FlyerTalker]

I finally got fed up last December when I flew SW again, and purchased my own seat belt extenders, both type A and B (only Southwest requires a B).

 

I never know if I'm going to end up with lots of extra seatbelt room, or one of those "suck it in" belts. I'm guessing that there will be a lot more passengers requesting extenders in the future, so I just got my own.

Given that I'm probably ignored, this is for the rest of you reading this.

 

What is being recommended is basically against both FAA and Southwest policy. From Southwest's own website:

only seatbelt extensions provided by Southwest Airlines are approved for use onboard our aircraft.

And from the FAA comes THS.

 

But hey...."it's my vacation, my rules...let's do as we please 'cause we know better".

 

In other words, DON'T buy them....DON'T use them.

[slidergirl]

Not all seatbelt straps are the same length. I have noticed this in my years of flying. I've been on flights the same day on the same airline where my "slack" is different. You may be just unlucky and hitting the short ones lately...

[pcur]

Not all seatbelt straps are the same length. I have noticed this in my years of flying. I've been on flights the same day on the same airline where my "slack" is different. You may be just unlucky and hitting the short ones lately...

 

Not any more!! Got both my extenders in my travel stuff now!

[Globaliser]

I finally got fed up last December when I flew SW again, and purchased my own seat belt extenders, both type A and B (only Southwest requires a B).

 

I never know if I'm going to end up with lots of extra seatbelt room, or one of those "suck it in" belts. I'm guessing that there will be a lot more passengers requesting extenders in the future, so I just got my own.

What is being recommended is basically against both FAA and Southwest policy. From Southwest's own website:

only seatbelt extensions provided by Southwest Airlines are approved for use onboard our aircraft.

And from the FAA comes THS.

 

But hey...."it's my vacation, my rules...let's do as we please 'cause we know better".

 

In other words, DON'T buy them....DON'T use them.

I agree: It's a bad idea to buy and use equipment that both the airline and the FAA say that you shouldn't.

[FlyerTalker]

Not any more!! Got both my extenders in my travel stuff now!

 

I agree: It's a bad idea to buy and use equipment that both the airline and the FAA say that you shouldn't.

I wonder what Peggy will do if a FA catches her using non-WN equipment. Maybe someone else who isn't blocked should let her know.

[qqwer123]

I fly a lot by myself to see my kids. Last couple flights I had husky gents right beside me. I offered to pull up the arm rest when we got in the air because the poor guy looked so uncomfortable. They make plane seats small and I feel sorry for anybody who is built more ample.

The worst person I sat beside was a skinny woman who had a real bad attitude right from the start. She actually threw her carryon at landing on her seat, creaming me in the face! This was after a very uncomfortable flight where she threw stuff here and there and did not say a peep! I ignored her all the way, figured she was off her meds or something...I do not like confrontation so I waited till she was long gone before I even got out of my seat. Too bad, I have met some super nice folks on planes! I am one of the people who would move for someone to be comfortable on a plane...no problem! Good luck and relax and have a good flight!

[Twickenham]

I wonder what Peggy will do if a FA catches her using non-WN equipment. Maybe someone else who isn't blocked should let her know.

 

I'm going to assume I'm white as snow :D and repost what you wrote, without your quotes in case that blocks as well:

 

What is being recommended is basically against both FAA and Southwest policy. From Southwest's own website:

 

And from the FAA comes THS.

 

But hey...."it's my vacation, my rules...let's do as we please 'cause we know better".

 

In other words, DON'T buy them....DON'T use them.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Given that I'm probably ignored, this is for the rest of you reading this.

 

What is being recommended is basically against both FAA and Southwest policy. From Southwest's own website:

 

And from the FAA comes THS.

 

But hey...."it's my vacation, my rules...let's do as we please 'cause we know better".

 

In other words, DON'T buy them....DON'T use them.

 

I think that's probably an insurance rule rather than a safety rule. If you're in one of those crashes where a seat belt is some use, and yours fails because it was non-official equipment, don't come running to them for compensation. (If you can still run, that is... ;))

[FlyerTalker]

I think that's probably an insurance rule rather than a safety rule. If you're in one of those crashes where a seat belt is some use, and yours fails because it was non-official equipment, don't come running to them for compensation. (If you can still run, that is... ;))

If there's a crash, there are a LOT more issues at play regarding insurance than your extender.

 

If you would read the FAA link provided, it talks about how parts must not only be originally certified, but they must be maintained under proper standards. Extenders in the possession of the passenger can't be maintained by the carrier, and are thus outside the realm of allowed equipment.

[pcur]

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their concern over my health and welfare while flying. :D

 

Some interesting reading on this subject, but it's all from 2.5 years ago:

 

Some find the rules to be a bit ridiculous.

"The maintenance issue is kind of silly," says Tim Barry, a former pilot who describes himself as fat, according to AZ Central. "What do you maintain on a seat belt?"

 

and, this one (highlighting is my own):

 

The FAA didn't explain the reason for this week's announcement, but industry mavens

speculate that the number of people requiring seat belt extenders is increasing, to the extent that, on some flights, airlines now run out of their own approved extenders

.

 

This latest salvo from the FAA demonstrates again that the airline industry has been unable to come up with a solution to the person-of-size problem that satisfies all the players. The root cause of the problem is that since the advent of high-density coach seating in the 1950s, Americans have gotten much wider and most coach seats haven't. According to anthropometric research, typical coach seats these days are at least two inches too narrow to accommodate Americans.

 

I haven't been able to find anything on "getting caught", except one review of the product where a Southwest attendant asked the person to not use it, because of insurance reasons.

 

So, I'll at least have the option of being comfortable if they don't have one available to me.

 

By the way, I've never been an "it's my vacation, my rules...let's do as we please 'cause we know better" type of person.

 

I'm curious, though, that after 2.5 years no one has come up with any solution to the problem. My guess is the airlines don't WANT to do anything about the problem.

[grandma*knows*best]

.....

I'm curious, though, that after 2.5 years no one has come up with any solution to the problem. My guess is the airlines don't WANT to do anything about the problem.

 

There is a very simple solution! Reduce calorie intake and increase exercise (unless one has a medical condition causing obesity). I don't know how an airline can be responsible for someone's obesity.

Edited February 20, 2015 by grandma*knows*best

[pcur]

There is a very simple solution! Reduce calorie intake and increase exercise (unless one has a medical condition causing obesity). I don't know how an airline can be responsible for someone's obesity.

 

Hahahahahahaha....... I was waiting for this one. :D

 

 

I'm talking 1/4 inch difference in the seatbelt length here, and only on sporadic flights. I never know if I'm going to get one of the shorter belts or not. I usually have at least 4 inches of length left over, except for these pesky one.

 

Grandma doesn't know best in this case. Some people are just plain rude.

Edited February 20, 2015 by pcur

[greatam]

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their concern over my health and welfare while flying. :D

 

Some interesting reading on this subject, but it's all from 2.5 years ago:

 

Some find the rules to be a bit ridiculous.

"The maintenance issue is kind of silly," says Tim Barry, a former pilot who describes himself as fat, according to AZ Central. "What do you maintain on a seat belt?"

 

 

Guess GM and Ford must have found something to maintain on a seat belt. GM has recalled about 250,000 Acadia and Traverse for seat belts. 16,000 Ford vans are being recalled because the seat belts come loose in accidents. This is all info from NHTSA.

 

And did you know most Japanese from Japan don't want to rent or ride in US cars because there is so much crud down in the buckle part of the seat belt that sometimes they sound like they latched but they can come open very, very easily. Too many people driving around eating their big Macs which makes a mess if crumbs fall in the buckle portion. Of course, if a lot of people weren't driving around eating, we might not be having this discussion about seat belt extenders.

[dsrdsrdsr]

If there's a crash, there are a LOT more issues at play regarding insurance than your extender.

 

If you would read the FAA link provided, it talks about how parts must not only be originally certified, but they must be maintained under proper standards. Extenders in the possession of the passenger can't be maintained by the carrier, and are thus outside the realm of allowed equipment.

 

Yes, but having an unapproved seat belt doesn't in any way affect the safety of the plane. It only affects your own safety, and that only to a tiny degree.

 

There are rules about using unauthorised electronic equipment, and there are rules about bringing your own seat belt. One is serious and dangerous if you break it, the other isn't. IMO treating all rules as equally important is at least as dangerous, in a different way, as ignoring the ones which are obviously trivial.

[kenish]

Yes, but having an unapproved seat belt doesn't in any way affect the safety of the plane. It only affects your own safety, and that only to a tiny degree.

 

I used to be involved in the aircraft seating industry. If a seatbelt fails it affects the safety of everyone around you. You could go flying forward or get tossed around the cabin in a crash, essentially becoming a lethal missile to others (just as unbelted passengers, pets, and items in a car accident often injure or kill others in the car).

 

Seat belts on a plane are regularly tested and replaced as necessary; they're considered a critical safety item. Certain repairs are allowed...after a repair the belt will be a few inches shorter.

 

Next time you're on a plane, look for a fabric label on the belt with all sorts of part numbers and "FAA-PMA" (parts manufacturer approval). If a belt extender does not show a PMA number, it violates FAA regs to use it. There are also counterfeit and falsely labeled aircraft parts...if your belt extender claims to have PMA you can double-check here: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/pma/pma_parts/

 

Many of the car seat belt recalls were due to crud fouling the latch. That's why aircraft seat buckles are "lift to release" instead of pressing a button.

Edited February 21, 2015 by kenish

[dsrdsrdsr]

I used to be involved in the aircraft seating industry. If a seatbelt fails it affects the safety of everyone around you. You could go flying forward or get tossed around the cabin in a crash, essentially becoming a lethal missile to others (just as unbelted passengers, pets, and items in a car accident often injure or kill others in the car).

 

Maybe. But if that was considered more than a wildly remote chance, then surely they would insist you wear seatbelts all through the flight, rather than just advising you to; and they'd physically test that you had fastened them properly rather than have a quick glance.

 

Are there any stats on the number of people injured by loose passengers flying round the cabin, sorted by failed official seatbelts, failed unofficial seatbelts, and unbelted? I reckon I'm far more likely to be killed or injured by a passenger dropping a case from an overhead rack than by a passenger who's brought his own seatbelt. And I live with the greater risk, so I live with the lesser.

[ducklite]

Frankly I don't care if others die due to their blatant disregard for rules. I do care if their carcass somehow impedes my egress in an emergency.

[kenish]

Are there any stats on the number of people injured by loose passengers flying round the cabin, sorted by failed official seatbelts, failed unofficial seatbelts, and unbelted?

 

Yes, after a crash or when severe inflight turbulence causes injuries or fatalities, seat belt failures, who was belted and who wasn't, etc. is a routine part of the investigation. Read any NTSB or equivalent accident report.

 

I reckon I'm far more likely to be killed or injured by a passenger dropping a case from an overhead rack than by a passenger who's brought his own seatbelt. And I live with the greater risk, so I live with the lesser.

 

Totally correct on the dropped case. That said, you have every right to assume whatever personal risk level you choose. And you have zero right to impose it on others.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Yes, after a crash or when severe inflight turbulence causes injuries or fatalities, seat belt failures, who was belted and who wasn't, etc. is a routine part of the investigation. Read any NTSB or equivalent accident report.

 

 

 

Totally correct on the dropped case. That said, you have every right to assume whatever personal risk level you choose. And you have zero right to impose it on others.

 

I'm not really interested enough to read every accident report and collate the data myself. I wondered if it had been tabulated by anyone else? Or if anyone has any links to an accident where a seatbelt failure was a relevant factor? (And whose seatbelt it was?)

[OzKiwiJJ]

There is a very simple solution! Reduce calorie intake and increase exercise (unless one has a medical condition causing obesity). I don't know how an airline can be responsible for someone's obesity.

 

So when airlines reduce the size of their seats and seatbelts even more, you'd expect people to lose weight to adjust to the seat size. Then the seats get reduced again until the only people who could fit into them are midgets with eating disorders. :rolleyes:

[ducklite]

So when airlines reduce the size of their seats and seatbelts even more, you'd expect people to lose weight to adjust to the seat size. Then the seats get reduced again until the only people who could fit into them are midgets with eating disorders. :rolleyes:

 

 

Actually other than a few super budget carriers, seat sizes haven't been reduced. Legroom has, but seat width has not. People have gotten fetter. Period.

[FlyerTalker]

Actually other than a few super budget carriers, seat sizes haven't been reduced. Legroom has, but seat width has not. People have gotten fetter. Period.

The fuselage width of the 737 is the same as the 757, which is the same as both the 727 and 707. Same after all these years.

 

Now, the Airbus 319/320/321 is a bit wider, but nothing hugely different.

[Globaliser]

Now, the Airbus 319/320/321 is a bit wider, but nothing hugely different.

It's about an inch per seat, which is significant in this context. That's one of the reasons why, if all other things are equal, the A320 family scores a little higher for comfort than the B737 family.

[ducklite]

It's about an inch per seat, which is significant in this context. That's one of the reasons why, if all other things are equal, the A320 family scores a little higher for comfort than the B737 family.

 

 

Except one or two of the super budget carriers who have taken away from seat width in order to add one more per row. That of course is very much the exception to the rule, and the seats in the 737's haven't changed in width since the plane went into service 30+ years ago. It's actually comical when people gripe that their seat on SW is smaller than it was the last time they flew them.

[navybankerteacher]

Except one or two of the super budget carriers who have taken away from seat width in order to add one more per row. That of course is very much the exception to the rule, and the seats in the 737's haven't changed in width since the plane went into service 30+ years ago. It's actually comical when people gripe that their seat on SW is smaller than it was the last time they flew them.

 

Of course they gripe, it is similar to the fact that cruise ship ventilation is so poor that clothes actually shrink while hanging in the closet.