'reasonable' is the keyword here. I do not expect an airline to provide medical care on a flight but I do expect some level of accommodation for people with med

'reasonable' is the keyword here. I do not expect an airline to provide medical care on a flight but I do expect some level of accommodation for people with medical issues. We have crosswalks that acknowledge the blind but streets that are still far from perfectly accommodating for them. There is no 'perfect' but there is reasonable accommodation and there is a discussion what 'reasonable' is and what a 'reasonable' accommodation for extreme bodies are. I personally don't find it objectionable to require two seats to be purchased for someone that is that far away from average, but there is a discussion to be had for sure. For instance, how common is it? If it is pretty uncommon then just providing two seats, without extra cost, is probably the easiest thing for all parties involved since special cases are expensive. But now we are, again, playing the airline's games. 'blame the outlier', 'blame a passenger', 'blame security theater'. In the end they want us to blame everyone but them for the terrible service they provide. I have been stranded twice out of the last 5 times I flew because they didn't make their schedule. One of those times I had to sleep on the airport floor and had no compensation or even an 'I'm sorry' from the airline. Their bad, unprofessional and unacceptable level of service needs to end and the core of the problem is the airlines. Not the passengers.