Heavier Passengers 'Should Pay More' (and not michael o'leary btw!)

ScumLord

rubadub wrote: »

or attracting light people to the airline where they know it is likely they will not be uncomfortable because of less likelihood of an oversized person being beside them encroaching in their space.

Like this guy http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/f/4/f4d2c_ORIG-flight_sep06_1_1_.jpg

Fat people are going to spend more on food on the plane though.

snubbleste

Now that one airline has started it, watch the others follow!
It will be the norm in a few years.

D1stant

opinion guy wrote: »

Why would you get a refund ? Your humungous dump travelled too.
:

Which raises an interesting philosophical question. Are you responsible for your poo?

Is your poo part of you so to speak?

Peregrine

snubbleste wrote: »

Now that one airline has started it, watch the others follow!
It will be the norm in a few years.

No it won't.

Someone on the verge of anorexia could weigh say 45kg and then someone who plays a lot of sport, excercises and stays fit could weigh 80kg. How can you charge them twice the price for staying fit compared to someone starving themselves?

Same with tall people, people with health problems that eat a lot, women and man's weight difference. This will never happen in a state like Ireland.

And they're barely an airline, it's a company that ferries people across islands in small light aircraft. I can see weight being a huge factor for them but the likes of A320s and 737s that are most common in Ireland, it won't make a difference at all. The overweight people, healthy and the underweight people together makes it even.

Manic Moran

kjl wrote: »

OK lets be honest, it's never going to happen. There would be outrage if it did.

Air Samoa already charges by total weight.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/travel/samoa-air-fare-by-weight/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Granted, they are smaller aircraft and weight is a significant issue, but they're getting an Airbus A320 for longer routes. If it works for them...

"What makes airplanes work is weight. We are not selling seats, we are selling weight."

He is technically correct. Volume is rarely the problem for aircraft. In fairness, they also gives wider (and longer) people more room.

NTM

robinph

Had my seat on the plane determined by weight when flying out to the Arran Islands before and they asked us all to hop on the scales after our luggage.

ScumLord

snubbleste wrote: »

Now that one airline has started it, watch the others follow!
It will be the norm in a few years.

If it becomes the norm it opens the door for airlines to not make this charge. It's something the budget airlines may try but I don't see the more upmarket airlines every trying this.

My name is URL

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

No it won't.

Someone on the verge of anorexia could weigh say 45kg and then someone who plays a lot of sport, excercises and stays fit could weigh 80kg. How can you charge them twice the price for staying fit compared to someone starving themselves?

lol... What does that have to do with anything?

If airlines were to introduce such a thing, it would be purely economical. Why would they care about the fitness or lifestyles of their passengers?

shedweller

Jaysus, theres no recession in this thread! (Sarcasm!)

Seriously though, how much is this likely to cost us? I personally havent been on a plane since last august. I wont be on one this year and might be on one next year. This whole debacle means less to me than the property tax, which is small compared to say health insurance, prsi (and how little i get for it)

Storm in a teacup.

TheGoldenAges

I remember coming back from New York absolutely jaded one night and got put next to a rather large gentleman who took up all of his seat and half of mine.

I'm all for introducing this levy if it can be fair to everyone and not punish taller people with larger builds. After all aren't obese people charged more for Health Insurance?

ScumLord

TheGoldenAges wrote: »

I'm all for introducing this levy if it can be fair to everyone and not punish taller people with larger builds. After all aren't obese people charged more for Health Insurance?

It shouldn't make any difference if your tall, small, fat or buff. If you're over the limit, your over the limit. It's a weight limit not a health initiative.

Peregrine

My name is URL wrote: »

lol... What does that have to do with anything?

If airlines were to introduce such a thing, it would be purely economical. Why would they care about the fitness or lifestyles of their passengers?

Because it's not fair to make people possibly pay more cos they're fit? Or just tall.

It was purely economical to make men pay more for car insurance but look where that ended, it was discrimination and it wasn't allowed.

It doesn't even make much difference when it comes to larger aircraft, it makes a difference in light commuter 5-10 seater planes and helicopters but when you have a large number of randomly selected passengers, there will be people who are underweight, healthy and overweight which essentially cancel each other out. Large airlines won't make any profit either from this because what extra money they make from people who are overweight they will lose on people who are underweight and most women.

So in the end, people who weigh more loses out and people who weigh less pays less, why? Their weight makes no difference in an average flight so why are some people paying more and others paying less? That's discrimination

Vito Corleone

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

So in the end, people who weigh more loses out and people who weigh less pays less, why?

Because it costs more to transport heavier people, it's as simple as that.

rubadub

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Because it's not fair to make people possibly pay more cos they're fit? Or just tall.

This sounds like you are inferring that it actually would be OK to charge more for being obese, but its not OK if they are fit & cost more to transport. Are you inferring that? I would certainly view that as negative discrimination.

The article made no mention of fat, people are jumping to conclusions that this is some punishment for being unhealthy, like a "sin tax" or some sort of other deterrent.

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

It was purely economical to make men pay more for car insurance but look where that ended, it was discrimination and it wasn't allowed.

They are not allowed under gender discrimination law, they still discriminate under a host of other criteria. Discrimination is not a dirty word, an post do it, there are loads of instances of perfectly acceptable discrimination, over the years it has just become seen as negative. This proposed airline weighing is an advantage for women in this case. Since they weigh less then men on average, they have been forced to subsidise transporting heavier people on their flights, men. I am male and would still welcome it as I like fairness & paying my way, I would weigh more than the average man too.

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

there will be people who are underweight, healthy and overweight which essentially cancel each other out.

Yes, the lighter people currently subsidise the heavier ones and so cancel it out. Just like if they charged a fixed fee in the post office it a person sending light things would be paying over the odds.

In the UK royal mail charge a fixed postage charge to mainland UK as to NI, so people in the UK are in effect usually subsidising people in NI getting post. A company here parcel motel, actually takes advantage of this, you get stuff sent to NI by cheap subsidised post, and they forward it on down here.

Peregrine

rubadub wrote: »

This sounds like you are inferring that it actually would be OK to charge more for being obese, but its not OK if they are fit & cost more to transport. Are you inferring that? I would certainly view that as negative discrimination.

No I never mentioned it being okay to charge obese people more, I simply made a point of some people being tall or short out of nothing they did. I was saying you can't charge people more for being genetically tall or for being fit. Some people gain weight easily compared to others so the best thing to do is charge for it isn't it? and others like myself eat junk meals 4 times a day and are still underweight..why the hell should I be rewarded?

rubadub wrote: »

They are not allowed under gender discrimination law, they still discriminate under a host of other criteria. Discrimination is not a dirty word, an post do it, there are loads of instances of perfectly acceptable discrimination, over the years it has just become seen as negative. This proposed airline weighing is an advantage for women in this case. Since they weigh less then men on average, they have been forced to subsidise transporting heavier people on their flights, men. I am male and would still welcome it as I like fairness & paying my way, I would weigh more than the average man too.

Grand so they have been subsidising most men but being a male with a bmi of 16.1, I'd say I've been subsiding most women to be honest and I think this is a stupid idea for medium to large carriers operating airliners. This will be gender discrimination, it's not men's fault how they're born and how they developed and I sure as hell don't see why women should be rewarded for being women. It wasn't a choice for anybody and it shouldn't be the reason people pay more or less. Furthermore average weight also depends on the culture people grew into, you're going to start discriminating people of different countries too. People should pay the same and it will even out.

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Because it costs more to transport heavier people, it's as simple as that.

Like I said, when you have 340 passengers on a plane, it doesn't matter if some of them are over this certain "limit" cos others will be under it and it ends up even. Airline pilots have to take their weight into account when taking off and you know yourself when I say that the captain doesn't stand at the door and add all the passengers weight together for takeoff, they have an average. They know the number of souls on board, they multiply amount of females by roughly 58kg and males by 79kg and children by whatever, they're rough estimates. This is how every aircraft has taken off for decades cos it works.

I admit it's easier to justify it for light commuter trim sensitive aircraft.


So basically what yous are all saying is, in large commercial aircraft: screw the 140 tonne operating weight, screw the 135 tonnes of fuel and the cargo paid per kilogram, passenger baggage which most passengers tend to use up or not pay for in short haul routes, it's the variation in a few kilograms in the remaining 16 tonnes of passengers that's going to make all the difference?

ScumLord

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Because it costs more to transport heavier people, it's as simple as that.

I'm yet to be convinced this is genuinely the case. The difference a few fat people will make to such a powerful machine designed to carry over a hundred tones would be negligible.

Chemical Burn

Seems fair to me, although pregnant women should be given some sort of allowance and men should have a slight allowance over women too, as they are naturally heavier and can't help it. Other than that, let them pay.

mikemac1

There is an airport in Galway, might be Inverin that weighs all passengers before the flight. Inverin might be closed down these days, I'm not sure

Before you get on you all line up and get on the scales for all to see.

It's not to do with cost but so they can spread the weight and help with balance as the planes are very small.

Not for the self conscious, it's not between you and the staff as every passenger will see your weight on the scales!

PhlegmyMoses

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm yet to be convinced this is genuinely the case. The difference a few fat people will make to such a powerful machine designed to carry over a hundred tones would be negligible.

This is my thinking. It's also why the baggage weights being lower with budget airlines is a money making scheme rather than something to offset potential fuel costs.

shedweller

I'd like to see the figures on how much extra fuel a fully loaded (passengers+luggage) plane uses versus an unloaded one. A poster earlier provided some figures so it's a start.

dupeters

i know this is off topic but it is related. how about the airlines (especially low cost budget ones) which give you a baggage allowance for carry on of say 10kg refund you for every kg ur luggage is under 10 kg? surely we are saving them money by not stuffing our bags to the brim??

shedweller

dupeters wrote: »

i know this is off topic but it is related. how about the airlines (especially low cost budget ones) which give you a baggage allowance for carry on of say 10kg refund you for every kg ur luggage is under 10 kg? surely we are saving them money by not stuffing our bags to the brim??

Ah but that won't make the airline more money!

dupeters

Ah but that won't make the airline more money!

true shed i shud have thunk that through haha

jester77

I don't see why this is an issue. It would allow airlines to better plan fuel allowance for flights instead of estimating. In the end it is better for the airline, no excess fuel and better for the passengers as flights overall will cost less.

A simple €x per kg (person + luggage) is all they need to do. No discrimination there.

shedweller

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSPORT/Resources/336291-1227561426235/5611053-1229359963828/5680661-1253555418746/tp-26-Air_Cargo_Ch4.pdf

It is estimated that a 1 percent reduction in the gross
weight of an empty aircraft can reduce fuel consumption between 0.25–0.75 percent

Still looking...

shedweller

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/835557-full-plane-versus-empty-plane-how-much-less-fuel-burned.html

I asked this question to 3 groups of pilots this week - one Jet Blue, on Delta and one UA when on hotel shuttle buses.

I asked them what a 747 would burn SYD-LAX totally empty of freight and pax, versus one loaded up to max.

Each of them thought about it, and all said they'd need to run some real time figures to be accurate, but all agreed that BALL PARK a full load only would be around ~15% more fuel burn

An average 747 carries about 450 people. Total average weight of them would be 31.5 tonnes. If each of them were 10 kg overweight it would be an extra 4.5 tonnes or 14.3% more fuel than if they were all average weight.

My maths may be way off. I'm tired now.:o

end of the road

jester77 wrote: »

it is better for the airline, no excess fuel

absolutely, would be a way to cut costs

jester77 wrote: »

better for the passengers as flights overall will cost less.

most likely wrong, the airlines most likely won't pass those savings to the customer.

Peregrine

shedweller wrote: »

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/835557-full-plane-versus-empty-plane-how-much-less-fuel-burned.html



An average 747 carries about 450 people. Total average weight of them would be 31.5 tonnes. If each of them were 10 kg overweight it would be an extra 4.5 tonnes or 14.3% more fuel than if they were all average weight.

My maths may be way off. I'm tired now.:o

A 747 on that journey with fuel would weigh 350-380 tonnes, so if EVERY passenger was 10kg overweight somehow, the plane would be...1 to 1.1% heavier?

My maths isn't too great right now either to be honest..

I'm not sure how that translates to fuel burn either. But like I said, what are the chances that every single person on a plane is 10kg overweight? The way I see it roughly a third will be over, a third will be under and the other third be on the average which actually evens it out. And when I say 10kg over or under the average, I'm talking about men who are 89kg or 69kg and women who are 68kg or 48kg.

jester77 wrote: »

In the end it is better for the airline, no excess fuel

There is never a case of excess fuel though? When was the last time you got on a plane where everybody including you were obese or had a huge build? Or everybody was severely underweight? There are people of all weights on an airplane and the average weight calculated usually represent the actual weight near to the tons.
Even if they knew there plane was say a ton less than what the average told them, so that's like 401 tons instead of 402 yeah? :rolleyes: How much less fuel can they take on board?

Gyalist

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe they'd do it on Body Mass Index

Ridiculous proposal, and horrible to see so many people agree with it. We shouldn't let it ever get to the stage where people are being flippin weighed boarding a plane:rolleyes:

Not as unusual as you may think. Years ago I flew between Martinique and St. Lucia in the Caribbean on an Air Martinique flight and on the tarmac, just before boarding, was a large scale that every passenger had to step on. The co-pilot and a ground crew worker then instructed the passengers where they were to sit on the plane. The plane was a small commuter prop. plane and they were trying to balance the weight of the passengers evenly on it.

Peregrine

Gyalist wrote: »

Not as unusual as you may think. Years ago I flew between Martinique and St. Lucia in the Caribbean on an Air Martinique flight and on the tarmac, just before boarding, was a large scale that every passenger had to step on. The co-pilot and a ground crew worker then instructed the passengers where they were to sit on the plane. The plane was a small commuter prop. plane and they were trying to balance the weight of the passengers evenly on it.

That makes sense because it's a small commuter aircraft and c of g is important but it will never be brought in for commercial airlines.