**Controversy Surrounds Southwest Airlines’ ‘Customer of Size’ Policy Following Passengers’ Experiences**
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/erika-deboer-grace-simpson-030526-1a-564eaa4312b34ce0bdb8d8d1ab65a0d9.jpg)
The recent update to Southwest Airlines’ “Customer of Size” policy has ignited a heated debate among travellers, particularly following the experiences of two passengers who took to social media to share their grievances. The policy, which came into effect on January 27, 2026, mandates that travellers who may not comfortably fit into a single seat are required to purchase an additional seat proactively. The airline reserves the right to determine, at its discretion, when a second seat is necessary for safety, without clear guidelines on what constitutes needing more space.
Erika DeBoer, one of the passengers affected by this policy, shared her experience on TikTok after encountering issues while travelling from Omaha, Nebraska, to Las Vegas. DeBoer, 38, expressed her frustration after being informed by a Southwest employee during check-in that she needed to purchase an extra seat. The employee cited the “safety and comfort” of other passengers as the rationale behind this request, which left DeBoer feeling demeaned and frustrated.
“This policy makes me feel powerless,” she stated. DeBoer opted to pay for an additional upgraded seat for her journey but was later not flagged when returning home to Omaha. While she received a refund from the airline and a $150 voucher as an apology, she is still awaiting further clarification regarding the policy specifics.
Following DeBoer’s viral video, another passenger, Grace Simpson, recounted a similar ordeal during her travels. Simpson had already successfully completed her journey from Norfolk to Baltimore when she was pulled aside at the gate for her connecting flight to San Diego. A Southwest supervisor indicated that a gate agent had identified her as a “customer of size,” leading to her needing to purchase an extra seat.
“I had already travelled without issue, so I wasn’t inclined to buy another ticket,” Simpson recounted. The interaction with the supervisor left her feeling both uncomfortable and singled out, raising concerns about how body size evaluations are made on-site. Despite eventually being accommodated into an empty seat at the back of the plane without any additional charge, Simpson highlighted the inconsistency of the enforcement of such policies.
Both DeBoer and Simpson lamented the lack of clear and consistent guidelines surrounding the policy implementation. They argued that without defined parameters, decisions appear to be based solely on the judgement of individual employees, which could lead to inconsistencies and potential biases. DeBoer articulated her dissatisfaction, stating that it felt unfair to be told she needed to purchase an extra seat without any objective criteria in place.
“I totally understand the need for a policy,” DeBoer noted, “but it should not hinge solely on an employee’s subjective assessment of my appearance.” The passengers expressed their belief that current regulations put both customers and airline staff in uncomfortable positions. Simpson echoed this sentiment, remarking, “It’s alarming that someone could be deplaned based on one person’s discretion after passing through security and boarding without any issues.”
The implications of such policies extend beyond individual discomfort. Both women discussed the potential mental health repercussions for travellers who might already grapple with body image issues. DeBoer highlighted that this policy could adversely affect individuals with travel anxiety or personal struggles related to their body size.
Simpson shared her own struggles, reflecting on her recent weight loss journey. Having achieved significant milestones in her health, she described the experience as disheartening. “It felt like a setback after a week where I should have been celebrating my achievements,” she said.
As frequent travellers with Southwest, both DeBoer and Simpson indicated their disappointment lies more in the potential for detrimental enforcement rather than the existence of the policy itself. They called for greater transparency and communication from the airline, particularly at the point of ticket purchase. Simpson suggested that customers should be forewarned of the policy to avoid distress at the airport.
Both women also raised questions about the implications of the policy on all passengers, reflecting on how it may disproportionately target larger individuals. DeBoer noted, “If we’re scrutinising size, what about taller or more muscular passengers? Shouldn’t the policy apply equally to all bodies that might encroach on space?”
In response to the backlash, Southwest Airlines stated that its policy is clearly outlined on its website and reiterated that customers should book additional seats as necessary. The airline maintains its policies align with industry standards, insisting that effective communication regarding the policy was previously communicated to passengers who had previously used it.
As discussions surrounding the “Customer of Size” policy continue, DeBoer and Simpson reiterate their shared belief that dignity and respect should be afforded to all passengers. They advocate for clearer criteria for passenger sizing standards and emphasise the need for compassion and understanding in travel. Both passengers hope that their experiences will prompt airlines to reconsider how these policies are enforced, ultimately ensuring a fairer travel experience for everyone.