What exactly is the alleged story? Are they saying that the plane took off with two empty seats and a "person of size" using two seats? Otherwise, what's the issue?

One note is that according to the video, the flight was departing from Montego Bay, Jamaica, so Jamaican law might apply instead of (or in addition to?) US law.

I am trying to figure out how this question might be answered. I see several parts: (1) Does SouthWest have a policy of: If people too large for their small seats don't pay extra in advance, they try to accommodate them by putting them next to an empty seat, and this takes priority over stand-by passengers. (2) Did woman's daughter have a stand-by ticket? (3) Did this combination mean that the daughter was bumped (with no accommodation provided) forcing the other two passengers to bump themselves (hence no accommodation provided)?

I guess I am trying to separate the controversial: "Is it SouthWest's policy to provide seating space?" (perhaps in reaction to previous controversies?) and the prosaic "Did a particular traveller get stranded during the holiday rush, like happens every year in every major airport?"

@Oddthinking, according to the woman the free seat to accommodate the person of size took precedent over her payed ticket. The best would be an official Southwest response that clarifies what happens, but I didn't see one. Maybe a news article. Because it sounds strange to me, as well as the response of Southwest in the video that puts the blame on the person of size for not taking advantage of their policy, but still it's another person who missed their flight. This simply doesn't add up to me.

@SIMEL: The woman reports Southwest said she was on standby, and she denies it. That seems to be the crux of the issue. If she (or her daughter) was on standby - or even if SouthWest staff mistakenly thought she was on standby - Southwest's behaviour is far more understandable. Standby passengers being bumped for the needs of full-paying passengers without accommodation being provided is expected.

Note that "taking advantage of the policy" is corporate-speak for "not volunteering to pay double because the seats are too small for them".

@Oddthinking It should be noted that Southwest doesn't have assigned seating so putting someone next to an open seat is just a matter of how they board.

Is this just a matter of overbooking? I don't see why they would kick 3 people off the fight in order to free up a single seat. I would wager they didn't have enough seats for all 3 of them in the first place and the outrage is just being pointed at the person of size. Overbooking is pretty common on flights and when everyone shows up they just look for volunteers to take another flight or force people to take another flight if no one voluenteers.

"Overbooking is how airlines ensure that there are no available seats when a flight departs. So they sell more tickets in advance than there are seats on the plane. The point of all this is to ensure that the plane is full when it takes off, because empty seats are a financial burden for airlines." getgoing.com/blog/why-do-airlines-overbook

The question says that three people were refused boarding. Assuming that the 'person of size' already has one seat, my math tells me they ended up with four seats. Was that the real reason, or was it just overbooking? With a stock answer as with "sorry they are in a meeting".

@WeatherVane, they were traveling together, so if there are only 2 free places on the plane it figures that they all would not board, especially when dealing with minors accompanied by an adult.

@JoeW: Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

@Oddthinking, wouldn't it be the same for a tall person who doesn't volunteer (or can't) pay more for a seat with extra leg room because the seats are too small for them too?

@Oddthinking, I just want to get the full story of this case, as it's presented currently doesn't make sense to me either way.

@SIMEL Why does none of the blame go on the airlines for making seats the size that they are? One of the common complaints in flying is people reclining the seats and causing problems for people sitting behind them. Problems like that could easily be solved by providing more room between seats or removing the ability to recline yet all the blame goes on people who use the recline feature not the airlines who create the situation to begin with.

@JoeW It's not the airlines' fault. There's numerous competing airlines, with internally competing spaces for business and economy class. People have voted with their dollars to get no space at the cheapest price, instead of paying more for more space. If the government mandated more space, there would be fewer people per plane and prices would have to go up.

@prosfilaes how is it not the fault of the companies that make seats smaller in order to get more people on a flight?

@JoeW As opposed to what? If a flight costs X dollars, then the airline needs to get X divided by the number of people on the plane for each ticket. Customers have voted with their feet in saying that they want that ticket cost to be as low as possible, even at the cost of small seats. If you want a larger seat, you can pay for business class or hire your own jet. But there's no way to get all the amenities people want at the price people are willing to pay, so most seats on most airlines are going to try and cram as many people in as possible so they can sell the tickets cheaply.

@prosfilaes again it is the airlines that are making seat sizes so small that some people require multiple seats when they would just need a single seat in most other places.

@prosfilaes - is it actually the "cost of the flight" driving this, or the desired profit margin? I'll freely admit that I have no idea what it costs to operate an aircraft, but I always wonder how much of the cost could be reduced if the airlines (or its stock holders) had slightly less financial gain. And I can't imagine airlines working on a break-even basis as charitable institutions.

@tink It's a capitalist system, and it certainly looks like it has enough players to provide competition. If one company was taking a bunch of profit, other companies would provide cheaper flights or more comfortable flights at the same cost. Right now, people seem to put a lot of emphasis on the cheapest flight.

@prosfilaes none of that changes the fact that the airlines are responsible for the ever shrinking seat size which forces some people to need multiple seats when a bigger seat from the past wouldn’t.

@SIMEL I disagree, it is all about shrinking the seat size in order to get more passengers on a flight regardless of what that means for passenger comfort. People tend to blame other passengers for it rather then the airlines who create the situation in the first place with ever shrinking seat sizes.

@JoeW Do you complain about McDonald's slacking on customer comfort, by not providing waiters? Here thriftytraveler.com/guides/airlines-with-the-best-legroom tells you that Spirit and Frontier are generally the worst, while JetBlue and Southwest are generally the best, and you can use various listed tools to get more details about your specific flight. Or you can pay for Economy Plus on United, Main Cabin Extra on American, or Comfort Plus on Delta.

If you want something, pay for it. If you can't get what you want at the price you want, look for alternatives (try Amtrak, or driving) or accept that what you want costs more than you're willing to pay.