nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

davet82

http://news.sky.com/story/1069283/airfares-heavier-passengers-should-pay-more

Airlines should make heavier passengers pay more for their plane tickets and lighter ones less, it has been suggested.

The controversial pay-as-you-weigh pricing scheme has been mooted by a Norwegian professor who argues that weight and space should be taken into account by airlines pricing their tickets.

Writing in this month's Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Dr Bharat P Bhatta has put forward three proposals.

The first would see fares directly linked to the weight of a person and their belongings, with a fixed rate for kilograms per passenger.

Under this method, a person weighing 60kg (132lb or 9st 6lb) would pay half the airfare of a 120kg (264lb or 18st 12lb) person.

Dr Bhatta's second proposal involves charging a fixed base rate, with an additional charge for heavier passengers to cover the extra costs.

Every passenger could have a different fare according to this option.

The professor's final suggestion is for passengers to have the same fare if they have an average weight, but this could be discounted for weights below a certain limit or added to for excess weight above it.

This option would result in three types of fares: high, average and low.

Bit controversial to say the least, could this be classed as 'sizeism' ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gorilla Rising

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

No. I realised it and pointed it out. You just felt the need to argue about wording.

I could go on arguing about it, but I'm really not that bothered making enemies on boards.

Dravokivich

Fúck, I wish I was a midget!

BizzyC

logistics of that idea is unworkable.

You'd have no idea what price you're paying for a flight until you check in.
Further more it's a persons size, not weight, that is the most intrusive of other passengers space.

I'm 6'2" and 16st.
I can get into a ryanair seat and not bother the people sitting next to me.

Put a 5'8" guy next to me, 15st but doesn't work out at all, and he'll be spilling over into my seat.

Why should he get a cheaper seat for taking up more room in the cabin and making the journey of the people around him less comfortable?

osarusan

The idea is that it costs more money for fuel to transport more weight - it's about weight, not bulk and discomfort to other passengers.

Dravokivich

BizzyC wrote: »

logistics of that idea is unworkable.

You'd have no idea what price you're paying for a flight until you check in.
Further more it's a persons size, not weight, that is the most intrusive of other passengers space.

I'm 6'2" and 16st.
I can get into a ryanair seat and not bother the people sitting next to me.

Put a 5'8" guy next to me, 15st but doesn't work out at all, and he'll be spilling over into my seat.

Why should he get a cheaper seat for taking up more room in the cabin and making the journey of the people around him less comfortable?

If we are talking about ass to seat ratio, surely it can be based on waist size?

Malari

I don't think it would be that much more time-consuming for check-in luggage. Presumably you would pay the regular charge for your bag and yourself at a certain limit, and can charged more within certain weight bands. Your bag and yourself are weighed at check-in. If you are overweight you are surcharged.

Whether I agree with it ethically is another thing! :pac:

Marcin_diy

MC Donalds at Dublin airport would be bankrupt quickly. Nobody would eat there before the flight.
Thats bad idea. The only situation for extra charge should be when passenger is so overweight that he/she needs two seats for their a**e.

On the other side airlines change their price tickets so quickly that only few passengers pay the same money on one flight, so how to introduce fair system? and why slim small fit woman should pay less than athletic tall but not overweight man?
Maybe BMI is an option? people with BMI over 29 pay more, below21 pay less?

biko

Just put the very slim next to the very fat.
Sorted.

COYVB

smash wrote: »

Sizeism? Seriously, is this a thing now?

If I have to pay extra for my slightly overweight suitcase, then they can pay extra for their seriously overweight bodies.

You're missing something... you don't need to be overweight to be heavier than the average. What if you're taller? By default, the majority of people of 6'4+ are going to be a stone or two heavier than the majority of people of 5'10-6', so taller people will pay more while shorter people won't

COYVB

osarusan wrote: »

The idea is that it costs more money for fuel to transport more weight - it's about weight, not bulk and discomfort to other passengers.

The difference in cost between flying a flight with someone 20 stone in a seat, and someone of 12 stone instead, would be literally unnoticeable

jester77

They'll have to have extra toilets at the checkweigh-in.

Donnielighto

COYVB wrote: »

The difference in cost between flying a flight with someone 20 stone in a seat, and someone of 12 stone instead, would be literally unnoticeable

Whats your reasoning for this? Serious question btw, saw an article earlier today that said boeing recuding rivets,welds some extra panels etc was massively increasing fuel effieceny

csallmighty

books4sale wrote: »

If you weigh more than you pay more.....makes sense!

Back in the day, nature's way culled the herd, if you couldn't run then you were picked off by a wolf or something.

The Earth doesn't have limitless resources. Hit them in the pocket I say!

Also back in the day if you couldn't run due to injury or disability you would get "picked off".

So by your logic they should hike up the prices for the disabled too.

BlatentCheek

Interesting idea floated in a scholarly journal that has no chance of being implemented anytime soon gets picked up on by media and given disproportionate attention because everyone can get worked up about it: Fat people can get worried, skinny people can vent their frustrations at fat people, large but athletic people can get irate at potential discrimination against them.

If Airlines have to redesign their check in desks and procedures to weigh all passengers along with their luggage the expense, extra time wasted and resentment at the policy losing them custom to competitors would cumulatively outweigh any savings.

Already I've heard of very fat people who can't fit in one seat, I think this happened to Kevin Smith, being forced to pay for a second one that they will certainly spill over into, this seems like a more workable and reasonable solution to the problem (insofar as there is a problem important enough to require changes in Airlines policies) and yet probably attracts so much opposition that I bet many Airlines don't do it for fear of controversy

IM0

Shenshen wrote: »

So say I weigh 15 kg more than another passenger, but while they check in 20 kg in luggage, I my luggage weighs only 5 kg...

With the current luggage system, I would pay more than them with this proposal, even though the airline will transport exactly the same weight in both cases.

Do we really want to make airline fees so complex, just so some people will not feel offended any more?

no one of the cases is 20kg the other is 5kg what are you on

smash

COYVB wrote: »

The difference in cost between flying a flight with someone 20 stone in a seat, and someone of 12 stone instead, would be literally unnoticeable

I'd much rather sit beside someone of 12 stone! In fact, I'd ask to be moved if someone of 20 stone sat beside me and spilled onto my seat.

COYVB

Donnielighto wrote: »

Whats your reasoning for this? Serious question btw, saw an article earlier today that said boeing recuding rivets,welds some extra panels etc was massively increasing fuel effieceny

Speaking to people who work in the industry, the baggage regulations started all this off, and they're not there and limited at 20kg or whatever the arbitrary number is because of the weight and fuel consumption, they're set to a limit above which you have to pay because people turned out to be happy enough to pay it when they thought there was a reason. Now obviously these people could be wrong, but they maintain it makes very little difference overall, given the weight of the plane to begin with, what weight the passengers are, or what weight their luggage is

IM0

what is the cost price to an airline to transport an extra 1 kilo of weight.

currently excess is about 6€ x 1 kg?

but how much of that is profit for them and how much as I say is their cost price

Im guessing their cost price is 1/4 of **** all, **** all being 0.0001 cents

bastards :mad:

Peanut2011

davet82 wrote: »

Bit controversial to say the least, could this be classed as 'sizeism' ?

He just wanted his name in the papers to feel like he earned his doctorate!! Lets face it, you don't have to be doctor to put that forward. Michael O'Leary has been putting ideas like that out there for years now and he is no doctor.

COYVB

IM0 wrote: »

what is the cost price to an airline to transport an extra 1 kilo of weight.

currently excess is about 6€ x 1 kg?

but how much of that is profit for them and how much as I say is their cost price

To cite the people I've spoken with again who work in the industry, the cost is close to nil and the profit is pretty much total

Seachmall

IM0 wrote: »

what is the cost price to an airline to transport an extra 1 kilo of weight.

currently excess is about 6€ x 1 kg?

but how much of that is profit for them and how much as I say is their cost price

I'd guess there's a large difference between what weights they allow without extra charge and what weights would begin to require additional fuel.

The issue would be if all passengers over packed by a couple of KG that would translate to hundreds of KG of additional weight. How much that would cost in additional fuel would depend on the plane and the distance of the flight (although I'd guess not much when compared to what they charge passengers who overpack).

csallmighty

Marcin_diy wrote: »

and why slim small fit woman should pay less than athletic tall but not overweight man?
Maybe BMI is an option? people with BMI over 29 pay more, below21 pay less?

I think the idea "flew" over your head and you missed it.

It isn't a fat tax so bmi doesn't apply. It's about being efficient with fuel so only your weight truly matters.

More weight = more fuel, therefore a pay what you weigh system.

Rochelle

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I'd like to see a system where you and your luggage are weighed together and charged accordingly.

I overpack and I accept I should pay more than those who only carry on but I resent paying through the nose when me and my oversized case combined weigh less than many other passengers.

It would be difficult to implement for advanced payment though and even though I think it's unfair I wouldn't like to see people being made a show of in public.

I shouldn't worry about that, lardarses are already making a show of themselves and for the most part don't seem to mind.

COYVB

A Boeing 737 passenger jet weighs 38,147kg
3 hours' worth of fuel for a full plane weighs 7,257kg
3 hours' worth of fuel for an empty plane weighs 6,350kg
Say 150 seats in the plane, times the average adult weight of 70kg = 10,500kg
Weight of fuel needed to transport 150 people for 3 hours = 907kg
1L of fuel weighs 700g, so 907kg of fuel = 1295.72l
1295.72l divided by 150 people = 8.64l per 70kg person to fly for 3 hours, or 2.88l per hour

Though I'm not very good at maths

southsiderosie

This may make sense numbers-wise, but the logistics would be a nightmare. I'd guess that at least half of people who fly these days, especially on non-budget airlines, don't even check luggage and just walk straight to the security line at the airport. It's already a pain in the hole to get there early, go through a full body scanner, etc (in the US), and this proposal would force people to get to the airport even earlier for 'weigh-in'.

My bigger problem with this though (no pun intended!) is that even with all the weigh-in crap, the airlines would still stuff us into tiny seats with no legroom.

What I'd like to see the airlines do is offer something like a 'row buy-out': for the planes with three seats in a row, if you are traveling with a friend, you can buy all three seats (at a discount) so the middle seat stays empty. Vueling does this - if traveling with someone else, you can pay a little extra to get an 'excellence seat'. That way, an obese couple can buy themselves more room, or anyone who wants to be able to spread out can do so.

As an aside, the comments on that article are so hateful - while being squished on a plane may be an annoyance, the level of vitriol directed at obese people is sickening.

squod

whomitconcerns wrote: »

...statistically women are lighter..

Never gonna get women to admit their weight.

Duckjob

kylith wrote: »

While I have no problem with a price per kilo it would be impossible to enforce. You'd either have to input your weight, plus the weight of your clothes etc when you book the ticket online, or you'd have to wait until you got to the airport to be weighed for payment, which would be time consuming and inconvenient.

Instead of just one of those luggage checker frames from now on Ryanair are going to have two of them - one for the carry-on bag and one for the passengers arse. If you can't fit your arse into the frame you pay an extra seat.

BizzyC

osarusan wrote: »

The idea is that it costs more money for fuel to transport more weight - it's about weight, not bulk and discomfort to other passengers.

As a passenger, would you prefer to be sat next to a 16st person who doesn't spill into your space, or a 15st person who does?

Bulk does come into play. In order to keep the weight down on the plane, they are built with as little unused space as possible.
Having passengers who are bulkier allows for less space on your flight, which causes different issues, particularly in terms of safety standards.

Hoop66

Basically, if you are fat or poor, I don't want you on my plane.

That job is taken.

kjl

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

But consider this,

I am 6f5 and weigh about 205lb, I was born generically tall and as such I am not over weight, so why should I have to pay extra? In fact I already do because there is never enough leg room from me so I normally have to get the emergency exit seats.