The Weight of Reality and How Fat Positivity Meets the Economics of Airplane Seats

Southwest Airlines made some changes to its airline policy that went into effect today. It might sound relatively uneventful at first glance, but one of its policy changes re-ignited a culture war. No, it was not announcing assigned seating, although Southwest distinguished itself by not having assigned seating. It was its decision to charge obese customers (or what Southwest calls "customers of size") for an extra seat if they take up two seats' worth of space on an airplane. 

Not Just a Tight Fit: The U.S. Versus the World

On the one hand, airline seats have been shrinking since the 1980s. On the other hand, economy seats across the world have a seat width of 16 to 18 inches and a seat pitch of 30 to 32 inches. Yet it is only in the United States that this amounts to a battlefield in the culture wars. Why? The United States is made up of a lot of fat people. I wish that were hyperbole. According to a 2024 study from The Lancet, about three quarters of Americans are either overweight or obese. A 2024 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that the United States is the most obese country in the developed world. 

Fat Acceptance v. Economic Reality

The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), which apparently is a thing, took issue with Southwest's decision and framed it as an accessibility issue. The fact that there is a NAAFA or that the word "fatphobia" made its way into the English language is part of the problem. As I pointed out in my 2022 piece entitled We Should Not Shame the Obese, But We Should Not Glorify Obesity Either, obesity should not be normalized or glorified because obesity comes with serious health and economic consequences. 

While there are genetic and environmental factors that influence weight, too often people treat it like someone else's fault, whether it is the food industry, sedentary jobs, or society writ large. As I wrote last Rosh Hashanah, it is easy to blame circumstances for outcomes, but taking ownership of one's life means accepting the consequences of one's actions. Is it easy to maintain a good diet, sleep hygiene, and exercise regimen? It is not easy, but it is necessary for living a healthy life. As the saying goes, "if you do not make time for your wellness, you will be forced to make time for your illness." Treating being obese as a harmless identity or glorifying it undermines personal responsibility and a public understanding of those consequences.

Whether or not the people at NAAFA want to hear it, one of those consequences and downstream effects of obesity has to do with fitting in airline seats. There is an economic reality that the fat acceptance crowd does not want to hear. The number of seats on an airplane is limited, and this economic scarcity creates constraints. This is complicated by the fact that in spite of high revenue, airlines make about a 3-4 percent profit margin. According to the data from the NYU Stern School of Business (as of January 2026), this is actually a low profit margin compared to the overall average of 9.7 percent. It is especially low compared to pharmaceuticals at 18.5 percent, financial services at 22 percent, or insurance at 12.4 percent.

It's Economics, Not Oppression of Fat People

Rhetoric about discrimination against fat people collapses when it runs into economic reality. Airline margins are thin and airline seats are revenue generators. Because of these economic limits, the choice is not whether to charge, but rather who pays the cost. If the airline absorbs the cost, seats will become more expensive for everyone. If the non-plus-size customers pay for it, it creates crowding and resentment. If it is the plus-size customer, then that is cost-based differential pricing because a passenger who requires more physical space imposes higher capacity costs on the carrier. 

Competition Could Fix This....If the FAA Would Let It

There is another factor that the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) details in its analysis on this issue: a lack of market competition in the airline industry. CEI points out that airline consolidation and a lack of true competition reduce carriers' incentives to innovate or offer differentiated seating options, which incentivizes airlines to rely on blunt, uniform policies like charging for extra seats. Since competition is constrained, customers are left with few options when it comes to pricing or such customer quality measures as seat sizes. As a result of this market structure, airlines are left to allocate that scarce space in socially awkward and tense ways. CEI identifies such barriers as airline slot controls, exclusive-use gate leases, and barring foreign competitors from competing on domestic U.S. routes as culprits. I personally think it would be great if the Federal Aviation Administration removed those barriers, but whether they get around to it is a whole different story. 

Airline Economics > Culture War Outrage

When all is said and done, this is not about the moral failing of airlines or whether fat people are "oppressed." Blaming Southwest will not alter physics and tweeting about discrimination against fat people does not change such realities as airlines operating on wafer-thin margins, the finite number of seats, the lack of market competition, or that Americans take up more space than they used to. The truth is that this poorly functioning market cannot allocate seats as efficiently as it ought to. This is not personal or a moral condemnation of obese people. Planes cannot defy physics and passengers cannot contort themselves to fit into seats. Until the U.S. airline market faces real competition or until waistlines shrink, airline seating will remain as uncomfortable as the culture war arguments over it.