[hatboat]

This is a disingenuous take. There's a big difference between a shorter person wanting extra leg room because it's nice to have, and someone being in actual physical pain because they couldn't afford / weren't quick enough to get one of the few seats they can actually fit in.

[samatman]

It's not.

There's no such thing as fair allocation of a scarce resource. Offering it at a surcharge is, in my not-disingenuous opinion, the least unfair option for this particular one.

Outright reserving it for tall people is discrimination against the short. There are other reasons someone might want the emergency row which are just as legitimate, knee surgery leaps to mind. Should we make a comprehensive list? How do we determine if someone is just lying to get the premium leg room?

I'm open to the argument that the federal government should mandate a larger minimum seat distance. But then, I'm not poor.

As I said, there's no fair way to allocate a scare resource, only degrees of unfairness.

[Dylan16807]

A surcharge would be appropriate if it was proportional to the space used.

But you're completely wrong on the "discrimination against the short" front. Imagine if everyone that can easily walk demanded a wheelchair and cried discrimination if they didn't get one.

[avani]

This actually happens. Ask your flight attendant friends about “miracle cures” walking off their flights after using wheelchairs to board.

[Dylan16807]

They don't openly admit to not needing one at all, while still demanding one, do they? And if they did, they'd be obviously wrong to cry discrimination, right?

[bluntfang]

>the least unfair option for this particular one.

Nah dude, the least unfair option is to make sure everyone isn't in pain. After that, charge money, do whatever...but your option to literally hurt people for the way they were born sucks and breeds contempt.