Ryanair to introduce 'Fat Tax'

J-Fit

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=65609445.blog

Ok not directly a fitness issue but certainly I think this proposal would impact on people here. I'm not fat but I am 16 stone so I would be penalised because I train regularly. What do people think? Are Ryanair justified in proposing this or has the public gone AWOL in terms of their eating habits?

Mr E

Not an issue, J-Fit. Apart from the fact that its an obvious PR stunt, and pretty ridiculous to set up ("put your bag on the scales, sir.... now step up yourself..."), I'd expect its aimed at very obese people (2 seats obese).

Khannie

Not even sure where to move this....

onemorechance

I think it's more to do with mid-section width. In theory that should only effect people who are overweight. Am I wrong? It seems that if a person cannot fit in a seat with the armrest folded, then then must either move to where there are two seats free, or leave the plane and pay for an extra seat on a subsequent flight. This should not effect a well built person, I think!

Hanley

onemorechance wrote: »

I think it's more to do with mid-section width. In theory that should only effect people who are overweight. Am I wrong? It seems that if a person cannot fit in a seat with the armrest folded, then then must either move to where there are two seats free, or leave the plane and pay for an extra seat on a subsequent flight. This should not effect a well built person, I think!

You'd be surprised how difficult it is fitting comfortably into normal size airline seats with broad shoulders.

is_that_so

Mr E wrote: »

... "put your bag on the scales, sir.... now step up yourself...")

Actually had to do this once in a former Soviet block country. They had all of us weighed with our bags so they could work out how much fuel they needed for the flight.

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

You'd be surprised how difficult it is fitting comfortably into normal size airline seats with broad shoulders.

I know what you mean I don’t have huge muscular shoulders but they are wide , have you ever seen that clip of Markus Ruhl on the plane you ?? He barely firs in , I could see their point if some one cant fit inside a seat with out over flowing into other peoples seats , but to do it by weight is ridiculous , can you imagine the new thread’s “Need to lose a stone in a week to make flight weigh in”:rolleyes:

Hanley

In fairness like, this is all coming from a Poll on the Ryanair website replied to by the public IIRC.

There's legal implications with charging a fat tax as far as I'm aware. I've heard rumblings that obesity is considered a disability and tbh if it is, Ryanair can't do it.

MagicMarker

I was on a ryanair flight to london a few years back, I was probably smaller at the time than I am now. After such a short flight I was left with a bruise on my hip that lasted (and hurt) for days.

Ergo, I hate ryanair.

WolfForager

Hanley wrote: »

In fairness like, this is all coming from a Poll on the Ryanair website replied to by the public IIRC.

There's legal implications with charging a fat tax as far as I'm aware. I've heard rumblings that obesity is considered a disability and tbh if it is, Ryanair can't do it.

How can obesity be considered as a disability? In 90% of the cases it's because the person is lazy as hell. If your gonna call obesity a disability then you have to call laziness a disability too.

EileenG

Aer Arran already weight people on the smaller planes. Too many heavy people on one side of the plane and it won't take off.

Frank Bullitt

Isn't this going on in America with American Airlines, and the Fat Council* are saying its discrimination?


*probably not the right name!!

TheInquisitor

J-Fit wrote: »

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=65609445.blog

Ok not directly a fitness issue but certainly I think this proposal would impact on people here. I'm not fat but I am 16 stone so I would be penalised because I train regularly. What do people think? Are Ryanair justified in proposing this or has the public gone AWOL in terms of their eating habits?

No i think it would to try to stop stuff like this happening....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article815167.ece

Im for this though. There is too much lee way given to fat people now saying its a disease and all this. Regular exercise and healthy meals would soon correct any weight imbalance. People are just using their "Disease" as an excuse not to loose weight. Its like giving up smoking. Its not easy but a bit of willpower and you can do anything.

p.s. I do not exercise at all i just dont go crazy with the eating. 13.5 stone and 6 foot 4' so in the normal according to my last testing. (Got a dexoscan done)

Mr. Presentable

The simple solution for them is to have planes built with less accommodating doors. If you can't get in, you can't get on.

RacoonQueen

Gintonious wrote: »

Isn't this going on in America with American Airlines, and the Fat Council* are saying its discrimination?


*probably not the right name!!

Fat Council :pac:

I don't really see how it can be enforced. They want to do it by BMI but it's since been explained to them what a rubbish measure of health BMI actually is.

Hanley

WolfForager wrote: »

How can obesity be considered as a disability? In 90% of the cases it's because the person is lazy as hell. If your gonna call obesity a disability then you have to call laziness a disability too.

I agree with you!!

But everyone wants to be special....

Random

Maybe these people have just got themselves like this and it's a long road back? Disability though is a bit strong I guess.

It can only provide motivation anyway!

Keith186

WolfForager wrote: »

How can obesity be considered as a disability? In 90% of the cases it's because the person is lazy as hell. If your gonna call obesity a disability then you have to call laziness a disability too.

I agree with you but there was that story on the news a couple weeks ago about the life assurance case where the company charged the obese woman 100% extra because she was obese. She won the right in court to get the 100% loading off her policy as she was disabled as opposed to being a fat person.

Random

Keith186 wrote: »

I agree with you but there was that story on the news a couple weeks ago about the life assurance case where the company charged the obese woman 100% extra because she was obese. She won the right in court to get the 100% loading off her policy as she was disabled as opposed to being a fat person.

What country was this court in?

Frank Bullitt

This is typically American as well, "its a disability!!!", If your disabled then how can you eat so much food you muppet???

crotalus667

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I don't really see how it can be enforced.

Simple they have a something like the heave for hand luggage at the check in , if you cant fit in it you have to buy another seat :P

crotalus667

Gintonious wrote: »

This is typically American as well, "its a disability!!!", If your disabled then how can you eat so much food you muppet???

In a lot of cases it’s an addiction :rolleyes:

southofnowhere

WolfForager wrote: »

How can obesity be considered as a disability? In 90% of the cases it's because the person is lazy as hell. If your gonna call obesity a disability then you have to call laziness a disability too.

No bother. I'm very lazy and would love to be able claim disability benefit for it

MagicMarker

WolfForager wrote: »

How can obesity be considered as a disability? In 90% of the cases it's because the person is lazy as hell. If your gonna call obesity a disability then you have to call laziness a disability too.

Some people might want to learn what the meaning of 'disability' is.

amacachi

crotalus667 wrote: »

In a lot of cases it’s an addiction :rolleyes:

Shush, there's also no such thing as mental illness, people just need a kick up the arse.:rolleyes:

Really sick of people posting stuff about Ryanair all over the place, nothing will come of the vast, vast majority of things they come out with.

Thoie

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I don't really see how it can be enforced. They want to do it by BMI but it's since been explained to them what a rubbish measure of health BMI actually is.

Hello, dumpy here popping into your discussion, hope you don't mind

I don't think Ryanair are too concerned with your health However people can have a higher than normal BMI without being fat. I do suspect this policy is just a PR stunt, but if they were to go ahead, I can see a few issues.

1. While BMI is just dumb, it's currently perceived as a "health" thing. Ryanair staff are not health workers, therefore they don't get to do health checks on me. I will not allow the captain, the ground staff or the cabin crew to check my cholesterol, LFTs or do any other health checks on me either.
2. If they do decide to start doing "health" checks, they better get some good solicitors. IIRC the data protection around medical info is greater than that around credit cards. Given that Ryanair also sell insurance, I see some awkward moments for them
3. I think hip size would be a better measurement for them to go by if they really want to go down this route. While my hips do fit in a Ryanair seat, they're pretty broad, and if their handluggage rules are anything to go by, I'd probably fail. There's no way I'd fit into that little metal cage, and they'll be too cheap to buy new ones to "size" the passengers - they will get around this by making everyone stick their bottom into the cage, and if anything overflows you're in trouble.
4. If I fail, and am charged extra, they'd better damned well guarantee me a second seat adjacent to the one I'm sitting in. If Ryanair insist that I buy a second seat, and then tell me the other seat is at the opposite end of the plane to me, I'm going to spend the entire journey wandering between the two to ensure I get my money's worth. Alternatively I'm going to yell "Kept!" if people try to sit near me, while flinging myself across both seats. I also want to bring on a second bag, as the cost of your hand luggage is included in your ticket price.
5. They'll have to reintroduce armrests that lift. I don't want to pay for a second seat just to put my book on it, I want to be able to wiggle around in my 30-odd inches of seat.

Roper

This would be simply solved without litigation by simultaneously boarding flights alongside announcements saying "The free buffet is now open in the arrivals hall". Whoever shows for the flight clearly doesn't have a disease or an addiction since they can resist a free ffer of their drug, so they should be charged the fat tax.

Also the biggest LOLs on topics like this that mention BMI are reserved for people who use it as an excuse to say how gaddamn HOOOGE they are. "grrr I'm as big as a house cos I do some liftin and I'm huge and once a doctor measured my BMI and thought I was a shaved bear". Get over yourselves. BMI is a rough and ready and pretty accurate rule of thumb designed to be easy to understand.

Also, this will never... ahem... fly. What about pregnant women? Do they get charged extra? and if they don't, what's to stop a large woman from saying she's pregnant? Pee test? Ultrasound?

mikemac

Mr E wrote: »

("put your bag on the scales, sir.... now step up yourself..."),

If you fly from Conemara Airport to Aran Islands they do this.
It to see who sits where for balance.

Well, they did last time I was there and the plane was very small

rubadub

I love this idea, it has come up before on boards. I like all of ryanair charges being separate. I have the rational that nothing is free, all costs are included and distributed equally though many people benefit more than others which is not fair IMO. I rarely bring anything other than hand luggage, so it always pissed me off that I had to "chip in" and pay for all the extra admin and overheads associated with people who did bring luggage. I had to queue longer to checkin due to the extra time to process all this luggage. Now you see far less people putting on luggage due to the charges, it has all speeded up and people pay their way more fairly.

J-Fit wrote: »

I'm not fat but I am 16 stone so I would be penalised because I train regularly.

You should pay according to your weight. It should not be called a "fat tax" but a "weight fee". The 2 seats thing is one thing, but people should pay for how much weight they are moving from A to B. They already do this with your luggage, and nobody thinks that is strange. You are not being penalised you would pay for the service, just like in the postoffice, it would be stupid to charge the same price for all packages regardless of weight & size. XXL clothes can cost a lot more, there is more material in them, is that "discrimination against the disabled"?

is_that_so wrote: »

They had all of us weighed with our bags so they could work out how much fuel they needed for the flight.

Exactly, fuel costs increase. At ~13 stone I am the one being penalised if the guy next to me is 14stone and paid the same price as me. They have added up all the fuel costs and split it. It would be like going to a restaurant with a load of big eaters and then them wanting to split the bill evenly.

Mr E wrote: »

pretty ridiculous to set up ("put your bag on the scales, sir.... now step up yourself..."),

They should work it differently. Like pizza places pull the trick "free delivery" "walk in discount". They should increase the standard ticket price and then OFFER a "low weight discount" or something. So nobody is being forced to be weighed. You can pay €150 straight off and stroll through checkin, OR you can queue to be weighed and get a ticket for €100 or whatever, depending on your weight. Many would pass on it due to delays and inconvenience, and of course because many would know they would get no saving. Dunno if babies & small kids still get discounts even though they might get a dedicated seat.

Thoie wrote: »

I don't think Ryanair are too concerned with your health However people can have a higher than normal BMI without being fat.
5. They'll have to reintroduce armrests that lift. I don't want to pay for a second seat just to put my book on it, I want to be able to wiggle around in my 30-odd inches of seat.

It is nothing to do with health or BMI, a "BMI obese" dwarf could weigh very little. They should introduce premium size seats, this should be available for anybody. I expect many people would gladly pay 1.5times the price for a bigger seat. Plane fares are already very low and people are already willing to pay ridiculous premiums for business and first class. The normal seats are 3 across, if you just put 2 in that same place you could charge 1.5 times, actually it should be lower due to less admin costs being just a single customer. A big guy in my work flies business when he goes on holidays, just for the bigger seats. I think they would stand to make a fortune with reasonably priced larger seats.

Roper

Took my boy (18kgs) to France last year. He had to pay for a full seat, and when I say he, he paid nothing because he's 3, but I paid for a full seat. We were charged for overweight bags on the way back (2kgs, mostly booze and cheese) and I was pretty irate at the check in desk as this was AFTER we had been told we hadn't paid for baggage on our return flight (we had). To add insult to injury, a pretty obese man behind us started to get irritated at the delay I was causing and said something along the lines of "just pay the extra and get on the flight". I said something in return that I'll only disclose by pm as I'm sure I'd get banned.

It actually does irritate me. I know it sounds fascist but if you're going to charge by weight, why not charge by personal weight? I'm not being fattist here I would obviously pay less than a 100kg guy but by the same token I'd pay more than a 65kg guy and I would accept that. By the same token, my son wouldn't have to pay the same as a man who is the cause of more fuel consumed. That being said, since we're a pandering society afraid of insulting anyone and getting sued for it, we'll never do that.

Also as an add on to my previous point re: pregnant women, if they were penalised, less of them will travel and hence there'd be one less stalwart in any aeronautically based disaster movie.

Thoie

rubadub wrote: »

At ~13 stone I am the one being penalised if the guy next to me is 14stone and paid the same price as me. They have added up all the fuel costs and split it.


I think they would stand to make a fortune with reasonably priced larger seats.

The problem with paying by weight is that automatically means that most women get their fares for less than most men. If we put a woman at around 9 stone, and a man around 12 stone, the man, though not fat, and not taking up any more space, will automatically pay a third more than the woman.

A premium for larger seats would be great.

rubadub

Thoie wrote: »

The problem with paying by weight is that automatically means that most women get their fares for less than most men. If we put a woman at around 9 stone, and a man around 12 stone, the man, though not fat, and not taking up any more space, will automatically pay a third more than the woman.

I am male and would have no problem at all with women or any lighter person paying less than me. Women on average also eat less so have lower food bills, I see no problem with this either, I do not think my bigger meal in burger king should cost the same as a smaller one, it costs less for the product/service to be provided. If I was a 7 stone woman i would be well pissed off having to subsidise bigger peoples fuel bills (be it airline fuel or food). Women drivers are shown to have less claims per year than men, so car insurance is less, and so it should be.

People get too emotive about the issue, it is not about BMI, or being sexist, or ageist, you are paying to transport a load from A to B, if it costs more to do so you should pay more accordingly.

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

I am male and would have no problem at all with women or any lighter person paying less than me. Women on average also eat less so have lower food bills, I see no problem with this either, I do not think my bigger meal in burger king should cost the same as a smaller one, it costs less for the product/service to be provided. If I was a 7 stone woman i would be well pissed off having to subsidise bigger peoples fuel bills (be it airline fuel or food). Women drivers are shown to have less claims per year than men, so car insurance is less, and so it should be.

People get too emotive about the issue, it is not about BMI, or being sexist, or ageist, you are paying to transport a load from A to B, if it costs more to do so you should pay more accordingly.

'Transporting a load'?!! Think you'll find passengers a better term - it's people after all, not cargo. It's sad really, this is more of the same reducing people to numbers, totally demeaning.

Put it this way - if you find yourself agreeing with Ryanair then you've probably headed down a wrong path.

mikemac

celestial wrote: »

'Transporting a load'?!! Think you'll find passengers a better term - it's people after all, not cargo.

Best you stay away from aviation forum.
Where passengers are referred to as "self loading freight".

It's not a sleight on that forum, just an unoffical industry term

rubadub

celestial wrote: »

'Transporting a load'?!! Think you'll find passengers a better term - it's people after all, not cargo.

It is funadmentally a load, and if you look at the vast majority of products and services revolving around people then they are often charge in accordance with the cost of the service itself. So if it upsets people less I would again say you are paying to transport a person from A to B, if it costs more to do so you should pay more accordingly. And as I suggested earlier they would not have to weigh everybody, you have the choice to avail of a discount if you so wish.

Don't see the big problem really. I expect transporting a horse would cost more than transporting a fish even though someone might say "it is not cargo, its a pet, they should all cost the same".

if you find yourself agreeing with Ryanair then you've probably headed down a wrong path.

As I said before I like all of their individual charges, I think people should pay their way, I am sick of paying for "free" services that I do not want or use. I find their anti-PC attitudes quite amusing sometimes.

miss no stars

RE the original point, I think it's right.

I've been stuck between huge people on a flight before. I'm fairly small. My Shoulders are only 40cm across. When seated, my lap is 38cm across. I always have plenty of room left in the seat when I sit down. Quite lean, but big, people have sat beside me. I've been crushed because their shoulders, arms and chests are so big that they can't stay out of my seat.

Look at it this way, if I pay for a seat, and end up wth other people spilling into my seat, I'm not getting what I paid for. I'm getting a portion of what I paid for (not to mention the obvious safety issue - I could be injured by them not being confined to their own space).

People go on about the rights of larger people to not have to pay extra blah blah blah. What about my right to simply get what I have paid for?! A SEAT ALL TO MYSELF!

Btw, I disagree that it should be done by waist/hips measurement. A pregnant woman is large, protruding out the front, but can quite comfortably fit into a normal seat if they're healthy and a reasonable weight for their stage of pregnancy and initial weight. They won't spill over onto someone else. However, a body builder with huge shoulders and chest might have very slim hips, but you can be damned sure they'll spill over into someone else's space!

A simple test is just to have an economy seat at check in with perspex sheets bolted to the sides of it. That way it becomes immediately appartent if someone won't fit. They may be able to squeeze in, sure, but you'll see if they're squashed up the sides. Then simply say "You need to purchase an extra ticket as you are a safety risk to the person seated next to you". Frankly, passanger safety should come above passanger hurt feelings.

rubadub

miss no stars wrote: »

However, a body builder with huge shoulders and chest might have very slim hips, but you can be damned sure they'll spill over into someone else's space!

The Markus Ruhl pic mentioned earlier


If they had many varying sizes of seats then small people could further benefit, just like a small person can save by guying a smaller car which they can comfortably sit in.

Thoie

Is his face always like that? Was my granny right? Did the wind change?

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

It is funadmentally a load, and if you look at the vast majority of products and services revolving around people then they are often charge in accordance with the cost of the service itself. So if it upsets people less I would again say you are paying to transport a person from A to B, if it costs more to do so you should pay more accordingly. And as I suggested earlier they would not have to weigh everybody, you have the choice to avail of a discount if you so wish.

Don't see the big problem really. I expect transporting a horse would cost more than transporting a fish even though someone might say "it is not cargo, its a pet, they should all cost the same".

You're illustrating my very point perfectly. We are talking about people here not animals, or freight. Animals aren't people and they aren't treated in the same way - and my point is that they shouldn't be.

rubadub wrote: »

As I said before I like all of their individual charges, I think people should pay their way, I am sick of paying for "free" services that I do not want or use. I find their anti-PC attitudes quite amusing sometimes.

I actually find the stuff they come out with pretty funny too - that doesn't mean I agree with them though.

miss no stars

celestial wrote: »

You're illustrating my very point perfectly. We are talking about people here not animals, or freight. Animals aren't people and they aren't treated in the same way - and my point is that they shouldn't be.

Precisely. That's why airlines should ensure that all passangers are charged a fair price and are given enough space. (ie, nobody spilling onto them!!!)

crotalus667

rubadub wrote: »

The Markus Ruhl pic mentioned earlier
.

Watch this about 50 sec's in

LightningBolt

Rubadub, I think you're taking calculating costs way too seriously at this stage!

Look, the likes of Ryanair are providing a service. This service is costed in a certain way, in Ryanairs case it's low cost at all costs. Do you really think Ryanair are going to introduce a weigh in option so that people can avail of cheaper options? It's not as simple as saying we'll weigh every person upon checkin (which from October is online check in only).

• At what point do you weigh people? Is it upon check in or upon boarding after they've done some airport shopping?
• A plane is fitted out to only include 50 "fat" seats at 1.5 times the regular fare and 60 regular seats at normal prices. The plane is overbooked, two "fat" seats can be refitted into three regular seats. There's two large people and three regular sized people, either combo earns the company the same amount of money. Who gets refused, the large people because there's only two of them and there'd be less hassle with complaints.

Originally Posted by rubadub
As I said before I like all of their individual charges, I think people should pay their way, I am sick of paying for "free" services that I do not want or use. I find their anti-PC attitudes quite amusing sometimes.

You're paying for a service that encompasses a number of things, whether or not you want them it's part of the expected service level and the cost of providing this expected level of service will be included in your ticket.

rubadub

celestial wrote: »

You're illustrating my very point perfectly. We are talking about people here not animals, or freight. Animals aren't people and they aren't treated in the same way - and my point is that they shouldn't be.

And my point was that another person might be an animal lover and simiarly insist they should not be treated the same way as "freight". You say the animals should be treated as cargo, and I say people should be too. Are there any other services you think people should "chip in for", all equally, just for the sake of "dignity" and political correctness. e.g. should all restaurants should be forced to provide a buffet service, heaven forfend a hungry person has to suffer the indignity of paying for extra food if they are still hungry, when that food would have satisfied most of their customers. Now if they charge a one off price the smaller eaters have to subsidise the others.

miss no stars wrote: »

Precisely. That's why airlines should ensure that all passangers are charged a fair price and are given enough space. (ie, nobody spilling onto them!!!)

But that is a sort of contradictory idea. If everybody is given enough space, e.g. all seats increased in size to accomodate 25stone people, then it will not be a fair price. Small people will be paying over the odds for the larger seats. This would be like a restaurant giving everybody ridiculously sized portions and most people only eating 1/4 of the plate. Everybody gets charged the same and everybody gets enough food, but it could have been made available at a much fairer price.

There has to be a limit at some time. I have heard of blind people bringing "guide donkeys" on planes.

LightningBolt wrote: »

Rubadub, I think you're taking calculating costs way too seriously at this stage!

Airlines put the same calculation on luggage, what is the big deal?

LightningBolt wrote: »

a service. This service is costed in a certain way, in Ryanairs case it's low cost at all costs. Do you really think Ryanair are going to introduce a weigh in option so that people can avail of cheaper options?

If they think it will be more profitable, then yes. I would like to avail of cheaper flights since I am lighter than the average person. I like to avail of what I view as a discount when I do not put luggage in the hold. If a airline is not separating this charge then I am paying for it, nothing is free.

LightningBolt wrote: »

It's not as simple as saying we'll weigh every person upon checkin (which from October is online check in only).

I think it is that simple, you still have the choice. If you checkin online you still have to get your luggage weighed if you have any. You would have the option when booking for the "weight discount" and weigh in at the same time.

LightningBolt wrote: »

At what point do you weigh people? Is it upon check in or upon boarding after they've done some airport shopping?

Checkin is probably best, but it is already happening!

EileenG wrote: »

Aer Arran already weight people on the smaller planes. Too many heavy people on one side of the plane and it won't take off.

mikemac wrote: »

If you fly from Conemara Airport to Aran Islands they do this.

Maybe they could tell you...

LightningBolt wrote: »

A plane is fitted out to only include 50 "fat" seats at 1.5 times the regular fare and 60 regular seats at normal prices. The plane is overbooked, two "fat" seats can be refitted into three regular seats. There's two large people and three regular sized people, either combo earns the company the same amount of money. Who gets refused, the large people because there's only two of them and there'd be less hassle with complaints.

Once again this is already happening! They would do the same as what they would do in business and first class. These are the exact same idea, it is nothing new, larger seats for a premium price. I am saying people might just want a similar larger seat with similar service, i.e. they do not want to pay for full first class "perks", just the larger seat. Some already value aer lingus's service over ryanair and are willing to pay a little more for it.

LightningBolt wrote: »

You're paying for a service that encompasses a number of things, whether or not you want them it's part of the expected service level and the cost of providing this expected level of service will be included in your ticket.

But in many airlines cases it is now NOT included in your ticket. They are realising many people do NOT expect that level of service and do not want to pay for it, so they give them the option.

LightningBolt

rubadub wrote: »

Once again this is already happening! They would do the same as what they would do in business and first class. These are the exact same idea, it is nothing new, larger seats for a premium price. I am saying people might just want a similar larger seat with similar service, i.e. they do not want to pay for full first class "perks", just the larger seat. Some already value aer lingus's service over ryanair and are willing to pay a little more for it.

I may be slightly selective with what I'm quoting but there's a big difference between forcing heavier people to pay extra and giving them the option to pay.

Spin this around, people who are smaller than average are taking up too much space on planes by not fully utilising the said space. Ryanair propose that if you are of a certain height or size you will have to sit in far smaller seats with less legroom for a lower price. Would that make you happy seeing as you'd be paying less?

rubadub

LightningBolt wrote: »

I may be slightly selective with what I'm quoting but there's a big difference between forcing heavier people to pay extra and giving them the option to pay.

Thats what I was saying eariler, I think they would have to do it in some more subtle way, not call it "fat tax" but small seat discount or something.

LightningBolt wrote: »

Spin this around, people who are smaller than average are taking up too much space on planes by not fully utilising the said space. Ryanair propose that if you are of a certain height or size you will have to sit in far smaller seats with less legroom for a lower price. Would that make you happy seeing as you'd be paying less?

Yes I would be happy paying less, this is what I was getting at all along. I already do have the cheaper option for smaller seats on some flights, they have already done this in a subtle way, but even do blatantly call it "economy", while the 6'4'' lad in my work just accepts he is big and pays for the dearer big seats.

But I would still like to have the option to buy a bigger seat if I so wish, just like on the flights where I have the choice to buy business. I never understand why people moan so much about small seats on a plane for 60mins yet will stand crammed to bits and being flung all over the place on buses and trains for the same duration.

The OP said he was being penalised for being 16 stone. I said I am being penalised for subsidising bigger peoples fuel. To flip it around again, people are squished up due to people spilling into their seats, so these people are being "penalised". This is the problem, somebody else is suffering, if they were not there would be no real problem (except fuel costs). A big guy can choose to buy cheaper clothes which are too small for him and just suffer the discomfort and it affects nobody else. Given the chance I think most big guys would pay for the extra material for more comfortable clothes. Also given the choice most would willingly pay for a bigger seat without the need to force them to. The thing at the moment is the huge price difference between business and economy (and of course lack of business class completely), the price difference is a lot to do with the extra service provided which many could happily do without.

WolfForager

Hmm, if the ideas in this thread were to become a reality, Boeing & Airbus really have alot of designing and remodelling to do in the future.

tlev

I agree with this. Can't fit in the seat then pay extra.
Society has become far too pandering in the interest of not making anyone feel 'hurt' while the masses suffer for it.

3greenrizla's

I'm a skinny bloke, only 8 stone, I do get annoyed at being charged €15* per kilo for my bag's being overweight and often look at other people on the plane and think that my total weight (myself + my baggage) should be taken into account.


*I get annoyed at the extra baggage charge, but I accept it because I have been told my allowances, but just have not packed properly.