Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Heavier Passengers 'Should Pay More' (and not michael o'leary btw!)
Options
Comments
-
I know, I said you seemed to be inferring it.No I never mentioned it being okay to charge obese people more,
Once again you appear to be inferring it, by saying "nothing they did" it reads to me like you think it is fair to charge more if they did "do something", e.g. being obese or wearing heavy clothes.I simply made a point of some people being tall or short out of nothing they did.
That would certainly be discrimination alright. Tall people already often have to pay more for clothes, or bigger cars.I was saying you can't charge people more for being genetically tall or for being fit.
Do think restaurants & food supermarkets should be allowed discriminate against men in a similar way? i.e. on average men require a greater calorie intake, usually quoted as 2500kcal vs 2000kcal for women. Should mcdonalds give bigger portions to men, or just discounts?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.
Further discounts on big macs in Samoa & the US?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.
They have to factor in worst case scenarios and so carry more fuel to be safe. Any "ecofriendly" people should encourage this suggestion.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.
http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2004/031204_Trans/031204_AirlineWeight.htmlWASHINGTON, D.C. – Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says.
Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least periodically make passengers step on a scale.
"Seems fair", and then you discriminate... People are saying women will moan about being weighed, and are you suggesting pregnancy tests, or having to get doctors notes? And would you agree with the allowance for men for food too?Chemical Burn wrote: »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.
To get a rough idea you could look up air freight costs.shedweller wrote: »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.
this weighing suggestion is nothing new, other airlines had suggested a combined weight or passenger & luggage.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??
Come on, do you honestly think if fuel dropped 80% in price overnight that airlines would not be more competitive? (I am not saying weighing people will cause this drop of 80% by the way, its the principle I am questioning)end of the road wrote: »most likely wrong, the airlines most likely won't pass those savings to the customer.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,889 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89129
When I win the lottery I'm going to buy me 200Kg of comfort. :pac:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0403/379548-samoa-passengers-weight/According to Samoa Air's latest schedule, the airline charges up to WS$1.32/kg (€0.44) for domestic flights and WS$2.40/kg for its only international flight to American Samoa, around 402km.
...
Any overweight baggage is calculated at the same rate as the passenger's personal weight.
...
"When the initial shock has worn off, there's been nothing but support," said Mr Langton.
"People who are up around 200kg recognise ... they're paying [for] 200kg, so they deserve to get 200kg of comfort," he added.0 -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/us-usa-airlines-overweight-idUSBRE92R11S20130328
I was suggesting something similar to the 3rd one before, with discounts. This seems to appease some people in other marketing areas, like pizza places with "free" delivery and "walk in" discounts. I was saying it should be a very high max fare, e.g. what it would be for a 250kg fully clothed person, so you can pay this and not be weighed.(Reuters) - Airlines should charge obese passengers more, a Norwegian economist has suggested, arguing that "pay as you weigh" pricing would bring health, financial and environmental dividends.
Bharat Bhatta, an associate professor at Sogn og Fjordane University College, said that airlines should follow other transport sectors and charge by space and weight.
"To the degree that passengers lose weight and therefore reduce fares, the savings that result are net benefits to the passengers," Bhatta wrote this week in the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management.
"As a plane of a given make and model can accommodate more lightweight passengers, it may also reward airlines" and reduce the use of environmentally costly fuel.
Bhatta put together three models for what he called "pay as you weigh airline pricing."
The first would charge passengers according to how much they and their baggage weighed. It would set a rate for pounds (kg) per passenger so that someone weighing 130 pounds (59 kg) would pay half the fare of 260-pound (118-kg) person.
A second model would use a fixed base rate, with an extra charge for heavier passengers to cover the extra costs. Under this option, every passenger would have a different fare.
Bhatta's preferred option was the third, where the same fare would be charged if a passenger was of average weight. A discount or extra charge would be used if the passenger was above or below a certain limit.
That would lead to three kinds of fares - high, average and low, Bhatta said.
Airlines have grappled for years with how to deal with larger passengers as waistlines have steadily expanded. Such carriers as Air France and Southwest Airlines allow overweight passengers to buy extra seats and get a refund on them.
Asked about charging heavier passengers extra, Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz said: "We have our own policies in place and don't anticipate changing those."
United Air Lines Inc requires passengers who cannot fit comfortably into a single seat to buy another one. A spokeswoman said the carrier would not discuss "future pricing."
About two-thirds of U.S. adults are obese or overweight.
In a 2010 online survey for the travel website Skyscanner (www.skyscanner.net), 76 percent of travelers said airlines should charge overweight passengers more if they needed an extra seat.
I do not think a 20kg passenger should pay 1/4th of an 80kg one though, as it is ignoring fixed admin costs associated with it. Just as I do not think a double espresso should cost twice that of a single.0 -
And you avoided my post about the weight of individual passengers making no difference, how convenient.I know, I said you seemed to be inferring it.
I never inferred anything, it simply wasn't my argument.Once again you appear to be inferring it, by saying "nothing they did" it reads to me like you think it is fair to charge more if they did "do something", e.g. being obese or wearing heavy clothes.
And then I said it makes no difference, which you rather conveniently avoided in your reply. Quit reading too much into my posts.That would certainly be discrimination alright. Tall people already often have to pay more for clothes, or bigger cars.
Do think restaurants & food supermarkets should be allowed discriminate against men in a similar way? i.e. on average men require a greater calorie intake, usually quoted as 2500kcal vs 2000kcal for women. Should mcdonalds give bigger portions to men, or just discounts?
That's a life necessity, people who are bigger or heavier have to eat more and needs more space. People who are heavier doesn't make any difference in a large commercial airline and therefore we shouldn't charge them for it just cos the craic of it.They have to factor in worst case scenarios and so carry more fuel to be safe. Any "ecofriendly" people should encourage this suggestion.
And? You're saying if some people pay more and others pay less, the weight of passengers will change? It doesn't change anything. Unless you are suggesting discouraging heavier people from air travel and making planes lighter by allowing only skinny or small people onboard??
Yes I know about Air Midwest 5481, it was a small commuter aircraft. I'm talking about large commercial airlines. I never said pilots should be ignorant towards their passenger's weight and their luggage on small aircraft, obviously they should factor it in. They were too heavy for take off but the plane travelled the previous leg of that journey fine. A mechanical fault compromised their pitch control when they took off from CLT and that together with the overloaded aircraft caused the crash.
80%? :rolleyes: The actual aircraft with required fuel actually weighs 10 times more than all the passengers put together. And like I said why the hell would they use less fuel? Making heavier people pay more isn't decreasing load.Come on, do you honestly think if fuel dropped 80% in price overnight that airlines would not be more competitive? (I am not saying weighing people will cause this drop of 80% by the way, its the principle I am questioning)0 -
It's still a really harsh situation on the guy who is 6ft 5in and a lean 90kgs. There is nothing this guy can do to change his circumstances so he is just paying more due to genetics.0
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,889 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89129
Compare the fare for animals.
On trains/ships a dog can be the price of a child fare
on planes a dog is excess baggage0 -
Not sure which post you are referring to, but I would say the weight of individual passengers certainly appears to make a difference, going by what the guys like that norwegian guy and the airline CEO, and almost every international courier company who have no doubt studied it a bit more than me or you.And you avoided my post about the weight of individual passengers making no difference, how convenient.
Then I am confused why you set out to give specific examples and say they are not fair, which I took to mean you might think it might possibly be fair to charge more in other cases.I never inferred anything, it simply wasn't my argument.
Quit writing so much in your posts so. Why do you specifically call out tall & fit people. If you simply said I do not think it is fair to charge a passenger more regardless of why they weight more at the gate, then I would say fine. Loads here seem to think this is a "sin tax", and I am trying to see if you can confirm if you do, and if it is YOU reading too much into stuff. It is NOT a "sin tax".And then I said it makes no difference, which you rather conveniently avoided in your reply. Quit reading too much into my posts.
But it does make a difference according to the CEO, so it is a "life necessity" that they should pay more for fuel and/or space on planes. Just like they pay more for bigger cars, or squeeze into a small car but still pay more for petrol to carry the extra load.That's a life necessity, people who are bigger or heavier have to eat more and needs more space. People who are heavier doesn't make any difference in a large commercial airline and therefore we shouldn't charge them for it just cos the craic of it
I am saying if they are certain about the weight of the entire plane, then they do not have to carry excess fuel to cover a worst case scenario, which in itself leads to the plane weighing even more as it carries more fuel and so in turn needs more fuel again. Pretty much like food possibly going to waste at a wedding where they take a guess at how much they need for different choices. And similar to restaurants giving oversized portions rather than see people have too little. This guessing is quite wasteful.And? You're saying if some people pay more and others pay less, the weight of passengers will change?
yeah roll your eyes, FFS, try opening your eyes for a change. You even quoted it80%? :rolleyes:
I could have said 0.5%, I used 80% to make the guy see how ridiculous it was to claim fuel costs have ZERO impact on costs charged to passengers.I am not saying weighing people will cause this drop of 80% by the way, its the principle I am questioning
Do you feel the same about obese people? is it the exact same level of harshness on them? By calling out specifics it yet again appears people are implying it might be fairer to charge more for obese people, but not people heavy for other reasons. -otherwise why are you mentioning it?PhlegmyMoses wrote: »It's still a really harsh situation on the guy who is 6ft 5in and a lean 90kgs. There is nothing this guy can do to change his circumstances so he is just paying more due to genetics.
I also notice Nimrod 7 thanked this.
+1 and I was saying how ridiculous it would be to call insist on a blanket charge for all pets, as other wise it would discriminate against species. So transporting a horse should be the same as a hamster to appease those against speciesism.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Compare the fare for animals.
On trains/ships a dog can be the price of a child fare
on planes a dog is excess baggage
http://www.ryanair.com/ie/news/one-in-three-ryanair-passengers-vote-for-fat-taxRyanair, Europe’s largest low fares airline, today (22 Apr 2009) announced that it will now consider how to charge a ‘fat tax’ after more than 30,000 passengers voted in favour of charging excess weight fees for very large passengers in an online vote over the past two weeks.0 -
PhlegmyMoses wrote: »It's still a really harsh situation on the guy who is 6ft 5in and a lean 90kgs. There is nothing this guy can do to change his circumstances so he is just paying more due to genetics.
You've just described the height and weight of my OH, and he thinks this is a great idea. So do I, for the record, though my agreement is more obvious as I am small and slim.0 -
Ffs for the last time yes it makes it a difference in small commuter planes and no it doesn't make a difference when you have 400 passengers off all sizes.But it does make a difference according to the CEO, so it is a "life necessity" that they should pay more for fuel and/or space on planes. Just like they pay more for bigger cars, or squeeze into a small car but still pay more for petrol to carry the extra load.
Here's the aircraft Samoa Air operate: BN-2A and Cessna 172 and here's a jetliner DLH 747 that weighs 6 times more than it's passengers when empty.I am saying if they are certain about the weight of the entire plane, then they do not have to carry excess fuel to cover a worst case scenario, which in itself leads to the plane weighing even more as it carries more fuel and so in turn needs more fuel again. Pretty much like food possibly going to waste at a wedding where they take a guess at how much they need for different choices. And similar to restaurants giving oversized portions rather than see people have too little. This guessing is quite wasteful.
I'm sure you know more than EASA, FAA and all other regulatory bodies that has average weight guidelines set out for it's airlines which tend to amount to the actual weight of all their passengers. Every airline carries considerably more than the safe fuel minimums so why would they suddenly change it?
I hate to break it to you but 95% of passengers don't know **** about aviation. Even Mick O leary, CEO of Ryanair whose "survey" you linked me to thinks stupid passengers deserves fees..0 -
don't all planes carry extra fuel regardless? They need some sort of fall back should they get delayed. Ryanair has been caught short at least once though and had to do an emergency landing, so maybe they don't. Either way I don't think airlines should be encouraged to take just enough fuel to get them to their destination.In the end it is better for the airline, no excess fuel and better for the passengers as flights overall will cost less.
They said it's 15% difference if the plane is empty or full. Just because every seat in the plane if filled doesn't mean the plane is at maximum capacity. These are also used as cargo planes, packed to the rafters with heavy cargo. They are designed to carry much more weight than they carry on passenger flights.shedweller wrote: »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.0 -
Advertisement
-
This really shouldn't be restricted to air transport. Lets dig out the weighing scales for the busses / trains also. I'd trial it in Germany first tho0
-
Do you feel the same about obese people? is it the exact same level of harshness on them? By calling out specifics it yet again appears people are implying it might be fairer to charge more for obese people, but not people heavy for other reasons. -otherwise why are you mentioning it?
I also notice Nimrod 7 thanked this.
I'm not sure why this has been invalidated as an argument on this thread. The fundamental difference between obese people and tall people, for the most part, is that one can change their situation. Obese person A can slim down and make sure that they are not paying extra, if that is their prerogative. Obviously, this is a simplification of the reasons why some people are obese, but it's not an unfair statement. Tall person A is literally stuck with paying extra forever. He can't get smaller. There is a distinction between the two, with regards to circumstances, and to pretend there isn't is weird.
That was just a case of me pointing out one injustice, though. My overall opinion on the matter is that I'm never for people having to pay more in any situation that is not necessary. You can guarantee that if this were to be brought in as a 3 tier system, the lowest tier would make small gains on what they previously paid and the higher tier would lose out big time. The only time I would be for a system like this, or any system designed to bleed more money from people, would be if the airline has no other option in order to stay afloat. If it's just another way of making a profit for a company, I can't see why anyone would be for a system like this, unless they are the ones making the gains.0 -
and while we are at it, what about these crying babies - I mean how uncomfortable is that having a baby crying in your ear for the duration of the flight. I think they should be charged extra for causing such a raucous and annoying passengers and making them feel uncomfortable, and once we get this sorted we can get onto the ugly people - I mean how DARE they board a flight - don't they know people will have to look at them.
:rolleyes:0 -
I made this argument earlier saying that people from northern European countries are in general bigger than the southern Europeans. We'd basically be subsidising spanish and Italian people to fly cheaply.PhlegmyMoses wrote: »I'm not sure why this has been invalidated as an argument on this thread. The fundamental difference between obese people and tall people, for the most part, is that one can change their situation.
What about body builders? It's their prerogative to be heavy are they exempt because they're no fat.Obese person A can slim down and make sure that they are not paying extra, if that is their prerogative.
But the bottom line is, if it's a weight limit it shouldn't matter how you are the size you are, it just matters that you are that size and therefore must pay a surcharge.
But then, I still don't see how they've any grounds to make a charge like this other than they want more money.0 -
What about body builders? It's their prerogative to be heavy are they exempt because they're no fat.
But the bottom line is, if it's a weight limit it shouldn't matter how you are the size you are, it just matters that you are that size and therefore must pay a surcharge.
But then, I still don't see how they've any grounds to make a charge like this other than they want more money.
Body builders would fall into the life-choice category. My uncle is a 5th Dan black belt in judo and his training weight is around 14-15 stone. That is a choice by him and he has been down around 12 stone to run marathons.
But I don't really want to get bogged down in all of that. The fundamental idea here is profit-based discrimination. It's weird that so many would be for something like this when the biggest gains wouldn't be made by consumer, but by the company's directors.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59265
Well it would be ranges, so I doubt there would be much subsidization going on between different peoples. I agree that it shouldn't matter how you are that weight. No problem with a combined bag and person weight!0 -
to be honest its 50 50, the airlines will want to compete, but will also want to make a large proffit, it is a good question though.Come on, do you honestly think if fuel dropped 80% in price overnight that airlines would not be more competitive?
i don't think anyones suggesting you said otherwise, i'm certainly not anywayI am not saying weighing people will cause this drop of 80% by the way, its the principle I am questioning)ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
The airlines are pointing at the fat people laughing and everyone is joining in. While they're distracted the airlines is robbing us all.PhlegmyMoses wrote: »But I don't really want to get bogged down in all of that. The fundamental idea here is profit-based discrimination. It's weird that so many would be for something like this when the biggest gains wouldn't be made by consumer, but by the company's directors.0 -
Consumers aren't necessarily interested in making the biggest gains, just gains. So if people see that this kind of initiative as potentially being beneficial for them personally, they will support it, even though it screws over other passengers.PhlegmyMoses wrote: »But I don't really want to get bogged down in all of that. The fundamental idea here is profit-based discrimination. It's weird that so many would be for something like this when the biggest gains wouldn't be made by consumer, but by the company's directors.
In western countries at least, consumer groups are often toothless because consumers aren't that interested in banding together for the greater good when individually they may stand to save money. So calling for a boycott of an airline who introduced such a scheme would have very little impact.0
Advertisement