Hacker News Reader

Comment by plg | Hacker News Reader

I'm 6'4" and I can assure you that for me at least it's not a "marginal" increase in comfort. For me, 10 yrs ago, a standard economy seat on a major airline was OK. My knees grazed the seat in front, but whatever. Now, today, on several major airlines, in standard Econo, my knees not only touch but my upper legs cannot, geometrically, sit straight. My legs have to be splayed apart, because the fwd/back distance is literally too little for my femur bone. With my hips jammed into the seat back, my legs cannot fit, sitting straight ahead. This is insane for me.

Yes I can pay more for one of the Econo-plus seats ... but I should not have to. 6'4" is not average, yes, I realize, but so what---it's a genetic tax then? If I want to fly I have to pay more? If I were too "wide" you might say (though you shouldn't), my fault, I should lose weight. But what am I supposed to do? Saw my ankles off?

If I were the worlds tallest person, sure, you could claim exceptional circumstances. But 6'4" is not that exceptional, I submit to you.

PS I'm not criticizing you of course... only making the point that for many of us, this has become an exceptionally frustrating (and costly) experience.

View on HN

This IS a genetic tax, but I propose to you that even if you are treated unfairly on airlines, that doesn't make up for all the advantages of height over the course of your lifetime.

As someone who is 5 foot 5 inches tall, I receive many benefits, like being able to buy my suits from children's clothing section. But if I was given the opportunity to trade my height for yours, I would pay more for my air travel every day.

Cuts both ways - I'd much rather be shorter. People may take me more seriously in professional environments but they are intimidated by me in social ones.

On the internet, nobody can see how tall you are!

Except for online dating.

I was going to short the stock of big and tall, but felt it was a stretch as the idea didn't suit me.

I had a couple of friends try a number of online dating sites/apps over the past few years and whenever they would show me profiles I was pretty surprised to see so many women with a hard cutoff of not dating anyone under six foot. I never really realized how short I am at 5'9" prior to this.

Also largely (heh) an American thing. In Europe I've rarely if ever seen 'must be at least 180cm tall' (I know 6ft is 182, but 180 is similarly rounded). Could be we care less due to Old World tallness.. we are decently tall compared to Americans. See Scandinavia, West Europe, Balkans, etc.

> Also largely (heh) an American thing. In Europe I've rarely if ever seen 'must be at least 180cm tall'

As someone who has actually run the numbers for an online dating service, I can assure you it's not "largely an American thing".

Data, please? Sounds interesting.

Grass is greener syndrome?

At 6'6", I like my height - but it took some work. I've learned quite a few tricks for matching eye-lines with the people I'm talking to in social settings.

This generally includes leaning slightly at a bar, or sitting in / leaning on a stool while people are standing, or spreading my legs a bit while standing, or standing further back. I also still end up with a bit of a slouch on rare occasion - something that was hard to shake from my teenage years.

These things are all pretty habitual for me now, where I don't even realize I'm doing them.

Even if that meant you couldn't afford that travel?

What are those numerous advantages? Apart from picking apples.

Probably not hitting low doors/beams.

Probably not breaking one's back each time one does the dishes or anything like that (or cleaning or picking low garden stuff), and the result of that after years and decades.

Probably not having one's knees already fucked at 40 (or before).

Probably not falling from higher.

Probably not being embarrassed with where to put one's long members. Probably not being uncomfortable in most means of transport. (Probably not offering a larger wind surface when cycling either.)

And probably not being nicked by the cops each time they have no idea whom to chose amongst 20 people, but they don't want to return empty handed :-D

Shorter people live longer :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/short-men-live-long...

Height is positively correlated with career advancement and earnings.

The average height of US presidents is 5'11". The shortest president, James Madison, was 5'4' and that was in the early 19th century. Since the beginning of the 20th century average height is 6' even. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_pr...

In short, tall = rich and powerful.

Being tall is attractive to women.

I know it's not polite to ask about downvotes here, but why is this comment being downvoted? I thought it was pretty well established that height plays a role in attractiveness.

I'm 6'2, every now and again I see a really tall person and feel a little small, and then realise, that's what everyone else feels about me.

Honestly, apart from air planes, being tall absolutely and utterly rocks.

Advantages? Such as not being able to purchase clothes or shoes anywhere except online? Seriously try to find a pair of 34x36 pants or 16 shoes. You can't anymore. In the 90s a store might have carried a pair of shoes, today they carry none because you can order online. Size Large shirts are too short and XL are too fat. So I need large tall which no one carries in stock. Literally every purchase I make is sight unseen.

Then there's the not really fitting in half the cars out there. Or amusement park rides. Or bowling shoes. Or safety equipment. Or saddles for horses.

You might complain that you can't reach things on the top shelf, try having to bend over for everything. Even to use countertops or bathrooms.

How about furniture always being short and forcing your knees to be elevated above your hips when you sit all of the time.

And beds... always too short. Want to stretch out? Only if it's a king and you lay diagonally.

Being tall is perpetual discomfort because this world is made for people of average height.

>Only if it's a king and you lay diagonally. Try a California King

This. I love my California King. Wouldn't trade it for anything.

I can only imagine what it's like to try and move one of those. Getting a king up a flight of stairs in a standard height hallway with a landing and 90 degree pivot was a nightmare.

I'm 5' 9" and I notice that, in a group in which I'm the shortest person, I am less likely to be addressed or listened to than in one in which I'm average or the tallest.

Lift weights.

I'm 5'8" and I have the same issue, mostly at work. Also I have to have all my shirts altered because I have long arms and broad shoulders, so even extreme slim fitted stuff is a tent below my chest.

Just want to say I can complete commiserate with you - I'm 6'10", wear size 16 shoes, 2 or 3 XLT for shirts and am 36x36 for pants. Shoes are a total PITA. Do you play basketball? :)

Hey, how's the weather up there? :)

(Spits). Raining.

(J. K., I've never actually done that...)

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-fin...

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679675?seq=1#page_scan_t...

They don't seem to be taking into account the added expenses that come with height.

Clothing options are limited and much more expensive, particularly if you're of above average height and weight. More often then not my clothing purchases are at full retail price because otherwise you have no choice. Sales are for stock items and, because of the limited supply, most big and tall items rarely last long enough to go on sale.

Height doesn't come for free, it requires additional mass and volume. That equates to higher stresses. Shoes and clothes wear out faster. I have to purchase a couple pairs of jeans a year because the knees are constantly tearing out when I kneel or squat which I have to do a lot because I'm tall and our world wasn't designed for tall people.

Medically speaking our bodies are under higher stress which results in more injuries and joint problems. We require higher dosages of medicine. Any special medical prosthesis will cost more. Anesthesia is charged by amount used. Etc...

Lets talk about cars. Immediately discount any econo class car because they don't fit. So regardless of what I want to spend or can afford, my minimum price is set higher.

I'm not sure an extra $800 a year covers all that.

I'm much closer to the fat part of the bell curve than you, so you might not be aware that you are likely being denied half sizes in your shoes.

I used to call myself a size 13, but after I started running, either my feet shrank or I became more aware of the fit of my shoes, and I happened to find a size 12.5, which fit so much better.

Then I discovered that most shoes don't come in a 12.5 - they usually only do half sizes up to 12. And when a shoe is made in a 12.5, most stores don't carry it. So now I get to spend a lot of time trying to decide between a 12 that sometimes pinches (whee numb toes) or a 13 that sometimes is too loose (whee blisters) or looking for shoes that run big or small that might not be the style I want/need.

And most stores at least have size 12 and 13 I can try on; I can imagine the hell of finding not just size 16 but size 16 that fit right.

> it's a genetic tax then? If I want to fly I have to pay more?

I mean, maybe? The simple truth is that if you want to fly someone needs to pay more, because you weigh more and occupy more space in the vehicle. Is air travel something that should be subsidized in some way or not? I'm not sure that I see a clear answer here.

Alternatively: There are many financial inequalities that stem from genetics or circumstance. Is this the one we want to be fighting for?

Or you could see it the other way. Just because you are genetically luckier, should you pay less?

If I'm paying the same for both seats, I might as well get a larger one, and then taller people can't even choose to pay more, they're just screwed.

Alternatively, the airline could reserve them for tall people, but that risks leaving with them empty, which increases the costs for everyone.

Only if your planes are fully booked on all trips. Otherwise you may losing revenues because of clients like me who have their own blacklist of airlines they don't want to fly with because of this sort of things. For instance I will not consider going to a destination which forces me to fly Ryanair.

If you're bigger and thus need more food, you have to pay more at grocery stores and restaurants. I don't see how this is any different, nothing wrong with paying for how much you actually use.

But perhaps because you're bigger you get to eat more and then spend less on weight-loss products.

Life has tradeoffs, you can't start correcting to make everything "fair". It's an impossible task, and not really worth anything in the end.

The main cost factor for airlines is the price of fuel - which is mostly affected by weight of cargo. How about they charge heavier people more - that's usually not genetics, so seem mor fair.

Oh, and I'm not suggesting this because I'm 6' 5" but fit and weigh less than most chunky medium height people I know... not at all.

Sure, cost is a function of weight, but revenue is a function of number of passengers, so giving you extra space means reducing revenue overall.

How about they charge heavier people more - that's usually not genetics

How so? Taller people are also often heavier, simply due to the fact that they're bigger. And if the past they tended to be slimmer relative to their height, that's no longer true for male Americans: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/445.full

So taller people would still pay more than shorter, on average.

Yes, but not me. Hence the last sentence of my 'suggestion'.

> How about they charge heavier people more - that's usually not genetics, so seem mor fair.

Someone's gender is genetic and men would pay more under your scheme as would taller people.

Then charge by weight. Just because someone is taller doesn't necessarily mean they weigh more or that I occupy more space. How about making seats narrower instead making me put my knees in the back of seat in front of me?

Size is an issue not just weight. You're carrying the airframe around no matter what, and the fewer seats per flight the more shared weight per passenger.

>Then charge by weight. Just because someone is taller doesn't necessarily mean they weigh more or that I occupy more space.

You may not weigh more than a very muscular or overweight person but by being longer you by definition take up more linear space.

A big problem here is that there isn't a smooth curve, as is the case with most other things. There'a a clear dividing line where the seat is just too small for you, and to upgrade to the next tier is considerably more expensive. It doesn't really matter where that line is - the net effect is that it's unfair to those who are on it. Although the smaller seats become, the more people are likely to fall onto that line.

As a 6'8" guy (with long thigh bones) you are making a minor problem out to be a major one. Yes, we have to splay our legs a little bit but I have no problem doing long haul flights in economy.

What exactly is causing you this great discomfort? Personally the act of sitting down for so long is far more painful than anything my height causes.

Either your thigh bones are not long for your height (people have different proportions), or you have lucked out with airlines that still have decent legroom.

I'm 1.97 (I think 6'6" according to some random website) and long-haul flights are torturous to me, I always end up with knee and leg pain, and definitely don't feel identified with "the act of sitting down for so long is far more painful than anything my height causes". It's more comfortable for me to sit on a train (good legroom) for 4X hours than on a plane for X hours (whether I can afford the extra time is another story).

are you sure you are buying aisle seats? i can't imagine sitting at window being 196cm, but in aisle i can stretch at least one leg (though i got used to being occasionally hit by flight attendants) and the other one must go to space between seats in front of me since i can't sit straight, it's physically impossible

i would propose except paying for seat apparently paying for weight, your already have to pay for heavier baggage anyway, why not pay more for weight, you can at least influence that unlike height

I'm 6'3" and have many of the same issues. I recognise that things in life are not always going to be fair and that many of these things ultimately even out (we probably save money walking where other take cabs or performing household maintenance shorter people find difficulty).

My bigger concern is the issue for traveling for work, which I do quite frequently. It does seem unfair that in order to not be in miserable pain for hours, taller people must shell out of pocket for doing something that is just part of their job. In fact, I wish airlines actually forced taller people to upgrade. That would make it so that my employer and people inviting me to give talks would be forced to pay for the upgrade to economy plus or business class.

As someone who is fairly but not very tall and who admittedly travels enough to get Economy Plus anyway most of the time, it's hard for me to be too sympathetic beyond a "Yeah, it sucks" kind of way. Airlines do force people who are too wide to upgrade in some way (like buy an extra seat)--though I've had bad experiences when they haven't.

But people want cheaper tickets and companies have their rules. I'm not sure there are good solutions other than negotiate something with your company or shell out the extra cash.

re: "Genetic tax"-

Yes, it is a genetic penalty in the sense that tons of things in life are genetic penalties / rewards. Happy with your IQ? Sad about your attractiveness? Have to spend money on acne cream? Have to buy feminine hygiene products? Not seen as attractive by the opposite gender? Sad about your lack of ability to be a professional baseball pitcher?

It's life, get over it.

Not to mention, I'm going to guess that you wouldn't trade your position with someone who's 5'4", even though you'd save a few bucks on flights.

And in a plane crash, you are almost guaranteed to have your knees broken and be unable to evacuate a burning plane. This is not just discomfort.

This argument is probably your #1 hope if you want to go about changing this. Nearly everything about aircraft design is predicated on airframe safety

I'm 6'2", and I can cope with the legroom issue (though it makes using a laptop pretty much impossible).

But I have a problem with the 18" and smaller widths, and not due to abdominal or hip fat. My shoulders are just too wide -- on some planes, an aisle seat is the only thing that's comfortable unless the person next to me is small or someone I can occasionally take some space from without seeming like a jerk.

Now that I'm in my late-30s and often have occasional stiff shoulders or neck for other reasons, I've started to pay this "genetic tax" of premium seats more and more often.

Look up the research on how height effects wages. You're still coming out way ahead.

That's really awful logic.

Those are averages, you have no clue what the poster's salary is.

When you're broke and have to decide whether to shell out an extra 100 bucks for a cross-country flight for a funeral, or sit in pain, I don't think statistics will make you feel better.

> But what am I supposed to do? Saw my ankles off?

I don't see how that would help your femur-length problem.

Do you also feel cheated when you pay more for larger clothing? Being big costs more for them, why should they absorb the cost?

Uh, they usually do cost more. Click the "Tall" sizes.

That's what he's saying.

except height is not really related to airline expenses, since there will be many much shorter people paying same with lot of spare space

they should really have cabin with different layouts and assign seats according height, taller person would get more space, shorter less, but both would have same level of comfort and there would be same capacity of seats, current layout with all seats and gaps between them same is very archaic.

they should really charge people per kg, there can be short and heavy person while tall and skinny, and as i pointed above you can have same level of comfort for passengers without losing capacity assigning seats depending on size, your can do nothing about weight, this will cost airline always more so heavier people should pay more because it's directly related to fuel expenses. we already do it with baggage so why not with bodies?

I've formed the impression that I pay more for average sized clothing. I'm average in nearly everything, and when I try to find stuff on sale, my size is always gone.

Also 6’4” - back in the day (10 years ago) when I was checking in more often than not I’d be offered an exit row seat... no chance of that happening now.

yeah, i always used to ask about it considering i was usually one of the tallest people on board and check-in workers usually understood it, but nowadays emergency seats are paid so no such luck anymore

There are tons of benefits to being 6-4 so why should society subsidize you for the downsides?

You act like this is uncommon for you. Taller people have to pay more for cloths, buy larger cars, and consume more food. You pay more in gas to transport the extra weight. There are probably many more this isn't some weird thing.

I honestly am normal size and I suffer greatly, I have no idea how you cope.

Southwest will let you pre-board if you are 6'3"+. I did that for several years until they banned pre-boards from sitting in the exit rows. It's only usefull now for getting the bulkhead seats.

Seriously? Still, with all the Early Bird Checkin and stuff?

I have not done it recently, but yes. It is considered a handicap. A flight attendant told me about it, and lo and behold, it worked every time. No fuss.

As I said though, mostly useless now due to non-exit rows.

I'm 6'3" but have not flown since probably 2002. I have no desire since the whole TSA thing. I couldn't imagine the hell a 5 hour flight would be on me, much less longer.

I too am 6'4", but this guy makes a good point. Should shorter people be subsidizing our travel?

The issue is that the cost increase is not proportional.

If you go from an Economy Basic seat to a Economy Plus seat I'll pay 125% more. Meaning a $39 seat now costs $90. Does it cost over 100% more to fly an over six foot person than a five foot eight person? No...

no, there would be different seats for different people, smaller for shorter people, bigger for taller, capacity would stay same and everyone would have same level of comfort

currently i pay same price as my 36cm shorter wife, so she has luxurious leg space and i suffer. it could be easily resolved if her seat would moved closer to seat in front of her and they could seat someone tall behind her. now i would be fine paying more becausei am heavier than she and there is nothing we can do about it but that would be at least rational, pay for each kg same as with luggage, but current system giving short people lot of space while they pay same as me and i suffer is not fair and i am subsidizing them with my leg space, while they get extra inches they don't need because airlines are not flexible

6'4" is absolutely exceptional. You're asking for airliners to cater to what, less than 5% of the population?

Do I get special accomomodations in society for being short? Where's my dating rights lawsuit?

Exceptional where? Netherlands would probably disagree with you.

Exception on planet Earth, obviously.

In the Netherlands a 6'4" male is in the 94.6 percentile.

https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/

US: Tall: 98.9 Percentile

Netherlands: Kinda Tall: 94.6 Percentile

Kinda Tall is probably not something you'd call necessarily rare.

And if you check 6' 2'' (which is my height),

US: Kinda Tall: 94.6 Percentile

Netherlands: Above Average: 82.2 Percentile

So i think my point stands :)

>You're asking for airliners to cater to what, less than 5% of the population?

Yes I do expect them to care about tens of millions of passengers being able to fit.

They do care. They've shown that it is more economical for private companies to not make special allocations for one subset of the population, especially when customers are free to upgrade. This isn't about airlines being evil, its about your entitlement.

Correction, at 6'4" you're in the 98.9th percentile for the U.S. What you're asking for is simply not reasonable or fair to the overwhelming majority.

Many people have left interesting replies to your post but consider this:

Perhaps airlines can squeeze more passengers on and reduce fares enough that it covers the cost of having to upgrade your ticket.

Oh man, this would make an awesome class action suit!

I once complained to a flight attendant and she simply said, you're free to pay more to sit up front where there is more space. And then she looked me right in the eye and said "after all, flying is not some kind of guaranteed human right, is it"

And she was absolutely right.

Operating a discriminatory business is not a human right either.

Discrimination? If you really want to go down that absurd road, I want special accommodations for being short. I want free seat pillows in movie theatres. I demand that bars implement rules that require tall people to crouch or bend their knees while on the primeses. Roller coaster minimum height to ride rules are discriminatory; let's make those illegal too. Because ME ME ME ME. Now let's talk about catering to my extreme and the GP's extreme; oh wait, thats how you get averages, you say? Thats that the market is doing, you say?

Operating a "discriminatory business" is absolutely a human right, because I dont owe you any more than what I agreed to before payment. All businesses are by nature in some was discriminatory, because of the laws of physics at the very least.

We have already had this discussion politically, and businesses must make reasonable accommodations for those people that require them. Furthermore, businesses must serve black customers and white customers as equals. And if they bake cakes for straights, they can't refuse to do so for gays. If you want to discriminate, you have to operate as a private club business, and serve only members. That's our "out" for those kinds of businesses. If you want to do business with anyone who walks in off the street, you have to do business with everyone who walks in off the street.

And yes, amusement park rides are discriminatory, but sometimes no reasonable accommodations are possible. The design constraints mean the passenger dimensions have to fall within a certain range, or the physics math doesn't work out. It would certainly be possible to have multiple types of passenger vehicles and restraints, but it also complicates the operations, because you then have to sort passengers by size before seating them. The scope of reasonableness is subjective.

In the case of airline seating, the reasonable accommodation for ranges in height would be to reserve some seats with more legroom for tall people, and some seats with less legroom and lower seat height for short people. Height is normally distributed, so the tradeoff would tend to work out on average. But that would interfere with airlines' fare categories and gratuitous seat upgrade fees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com