Good idea or discrimination?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Should CBf pay more for airfare?

Should overweight passengers be charged more? One economics professor says yes.

 

An economics scholar in Norway has recommended that air ticket costs be calculated according to a passenger’s weight.

 

Dr. Bharat P. Bhatta, associate professor of economics at Sogn og Fjordane University College, Norway, is proposing three models that he says, “may provide significant benefits to airlines, passengers and society at large.”

 

In his paper, published in the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Dr. Bhatta noted “a reduction of 1 kilo weight of a plane will result in fuel savings worth US$3,000 a year and a reduction of CO2 emissions by the same token.”

 

 

Weighing in.

He cited a move by Air Canada, which removed life vests from its planes to make each flight 25 kilos lighter, and other initiatives by low-cost carriers such as charging for excess luggage and making oversized passengers book two seats.

 

“Charging according to weight and space is a universally accepted principle, not only in transportation, but also in other services," Bhatta says. "As weight and space are far more important in aviation than other modes of transport, airlines should take this into account when pricing their tickets.”

 

His three “pay as you weigh” models are:

 

Total weight: A passenger’s luggage and body weight is calculated, with the fare comprising a per kilo cost. In this scenario a passenger weighing 100 kilos with 20 kilos of luggage (120 kilos total) would pay twice that of a passenger of 50 kilos with 10 kilos of luggage (60 kilos total).

 

Base fare +/- extra: A base fare is set, with a per-kilo discount applying for “underweight” passengers and a per-kilo surcharge applying to “overweight” passengers.

 

High/Average/Low: A base fare is set, with a predetermined discount applying for those below a certain weight threshold and a predetermined surcharge applying for those above a certain weight threshold.

 

Bhatta prefers the third of these options. He goes on to say that weight could be ascertained through passenger self-declaration, with one in five passengers randomly selected and weighed to dissuade cheats (with penalties for cheaters) or by weighing all passengers at check in.

 

This latter option however would “incur huge transaction costs” and “would require a passenger to arrive a couple of hours early to have time to get through weigh-in, security and passport control.”

 

What do you think? Is it fair to charge fliers based on their weight?

[drobeski 3,061]

Discrimination lots of fat people are born that way. No different than being gay

[penultimatestraw 473]

Discrimination lots of fat people are born that way. No different than being gay

The heaviest baby ever born was 23 pounds.

 

What if gays are weighed as well? Then it's fair, right? Yes, I'm inviting the inane "gays can participate in opposite gender marriage, too".

[drobeski 3,061]

The heaviest baby ever born was 23 pounds.

 

What if gays are weighed as well? Then it's fair, right? Yes, I'm inviting the inane "gays can participate in opposite gender marriage, too".

gays imo can do anythi ng they want, don't really care. Just don't get why civil unions isn't good enough, makes no logical sense it gives them the equal rights they supposedly desire.

[penultimatestraw 473]

gays imo can do anythi ng they want, don't really care. Just don't get why civil unions isn't good enough, makes no logical sense it gives them the equal rights they supposedly desire.

Yeah, I kinda agree, though if a church wants to "marry" them I don't have a problem with that either. But I think that is a part of it - they want equal, not rebranded marriage.

 

And I do think we should charge airline passengers by the pound, as we already do for their luggage.

[drobeski 3,061]

Yeah, I kinda agree, though if a church wants to "marry" them I don't have a problem with that either. But I think that is a part of it - they want equal, not rebranded marriage.

 

And I do think we should charge airline passengers by the pound, as we already do for their luggage.

In all seriousness i don't care if they call it whatever they want....doesn't matter to me, not religious at all.

It just appears those demanding the word see the respect thing as a one way street.

[penultimatestraw 473]

In all seriousness i don't care if they call it whatever they want....doesn't matter to me, not religious at all.

It just appears those demanding the word see the respect thing as a one way street.

Fair enough, though its pretty easy to make that argument both ways (pun intended).

[frank 2,345]

Good idea. It is not discrimination because it does cost more to transport heavier people.

[nikki2200 4]

No. But it's retarded. Not to mention near logistically impossible to implement.

[MDC 7,887]

Yeah, I kinda agree, though if a church wants to "marry" them I don't have a problem with that either. But I think that is a part of it - they want equal, not rebranded marriage.

 

And I do think we should charge airline passengers by the pound, as we already do for their luggage.

 

We don't really charge for luggage by weight since I think airlines generally charge one flat rate per bag within a reasonable limit.

 

I'd lean toward no on charging passengers by weight but I do think CBFs who can't fit into a human sized seat should either have to pay for an upgrade to a bigger seat if its available or be outright declined with a refund at the gate.

 

When I buy a ticket I am paying for a unit of space on that flight. If the CBF's blubber rolls are spilling over into my space he's essentially stealing what I paid for in addition to making me put up with an uncomfortable flight.

 

Yes I've been there.

[shotsup 835]

Discrimination itself is a good idea

[jerryskids 7,085]

No. But it's retarded. Not to mention near logistically impossible to implement.

 

I think it is a good idea in principle, but as you pointed out it is fraught with logistical challenges.

 

Also I have a mental image of people in line at the airport wearing garbage bags, running in place, and spitting into cups to "make weight."

 

Also also, exchanges like:

Dad: Well, we're at the airport with plenty of time, what should we do?

Kid: Can we get some ice cream, Dad?

Dad: Sure, if you puke it up right afterward.

[penultimatestraw 473]

No. But it's retarded. Not to mention near logistically impossible to implement.

Seems easy. Set baseline combined passenger + baggage weight/number limits. Weigh both. Charge extra per pound over maximal allowance.

 

This is exactly what was done when I flew on a tiny prop plane to Denali.

[penultimatestraw 473]

We don't really charge for luggage by weight since I think airlines generally charge one flat rate per bag within a reasonable limit.

 

I'd lean toward no on charging passengers by weight but I do think CBFs who can't fit into a human sized seat should either have to pay for an upgrade to a bigger seat if its available or be outright declined with a refund at the gate.

 

When I buy a ticket I am paying for a unit of space on that flight. If the CBF's blubber rolls are spilling over into my space he's essentially stealing what I paid for in addition to making me put up with an uncomfortable flight.

 

Yes I've been there.

It's a lot easier to weigh people than measure their dimensions for seat charges. You could base the weight tolerance on recommended healthy weight for height and gender. As a bonus people would be reminded what constitutes a healthy weight.

[nikki2200 4]

Seems easy. Set baseline combined passenger + baggage weight/number limits. Weigh both. Charge extra per pound over maximal allowance.

 

This is exactly what was done when I flew on a tiny prop plane to Denali.

 

I'm assuming this was a really small airport without 1000s of people on line waiting to check in to get on their flights, right?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm assuming this was a really small airport without 1000s of people on line waiting to check in to get on their flights, right?

No line.

 

But individuals already are singled out with security inspection. How hard would it be to add a scale to the security scanners? Or just expand the luggage scales and step on with your baggage?

 

You could add height to the information you provide when your ticket is purchased, confirmed when they check your ID.

[shotsup 835]

Seems easy.

 

Maybe it easy for someone named penisstraw.

 

[MDC 7,887]

It's a lot easier to weigh people than measure their dimensions for seat charges.

 

I'm not suggesting we measure people. I'm saying if they literally can't fit into the seat without spilling over onto an adjoining seat. Any stewardess could eyeball that in 1 second.

[nikki2200 4]

No line.

 

But individuals already are singled out with security inspection. How hard would it be to add a scale to the security scanners? Or just expand the luggage scales and step on with your baggage?

 

You could add height to the information you provide when your ticket is purchased, confirmed when they check your ID.

 

Nevermind. Piece of cake.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Maybe it easy for someone named penisstraw.

 

Cirrhosis is good for weight loss.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Nevermind. Piece of cake.

Seriously, seems really quick/easy to implement, though I'm sure there would be a sh!tstorm of backlash. Discrimination, invasion of privacy, etc.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm not suggesting we measure people. I'm saying if they literally can't fit into the seat without spilling over onto an adjoining seat. Any stewardess could eyeball that in 1 second.

But that requires them to be on the plane, and to have the extra seats to accommodate them once they are already on board. Unless you want to watch a bunch of CBF forcibly extracted from your flights when there is no two-seat section available.

[nikki2200 4]

Seriously, seems really quick/easy to implement, though I'm sure there would be a sh!tstorm of backlash. Discrimination, invasion of privacy, etc.

 

No. It's not. Trust me. When was the last time you were in the airport of even a semi-major city on a Monday morning?

 

They all have kiosks now to check in specifically to avoid having to interact with a person whilst getting your ticket. If those self check-in kiosks didn't exist, you would have to camp out at the airport the night before to get on your flight on time. Now we are suggesting a weigh in and whipping out credit cards for additional charges for the 10s of 1000s of people going through an airport on an individual day. It is completely ludicrous from a logistical perspective.

[MDC 7,887]

But that requires them to be on the plane, and to have the extra seats to accommodate them once they are already on board. Unless you want to watch a bunch of CBF forcibly extracted from your flights when there is no two-seat section available.

 

Yes. I would like to see that.

 

Some airlines are already leaving open a larger fat chair for fattest who are forced to move their for an increased cost if they can't fit in a human sized seat. I think that's a great idea. They should label it "fat chair" and make the fatty face all the other passengers throughout the flight.

[penultimatestraw 473]

No. It's not. Trust me. When was the last time you were in the airport of even a semi-major city on a Monday morning?

 

They all have kiosks now to check in specifically to avoid having to interact with a person whilst getting your ticket. If those self check-in kiosks didn't exist, you would have to camp out at the airport the night before to get on your flight on time. Now we are suggesting a weigh in and whipping out credit cards for additional charges for the 10s of 1000s of people going through an airport on an individual day. It is completely ludicrous from a logistical perspective.

Last month at LAX?

 

You already weigh your bags and pay for baggage fees for most airlines. Bigger scales add no additional steps to this process. Alternatively you could place a scale in the security scanners, and pay as you exit the security lines. One extra step.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

Since when is flying on a plane a right? It's a focking privilege.

If an airline wants to charge extra for fatties, who cares? The market will decide whether it's worth it or not.

 

Also, I haven't read much responses in this thread, so if it has already been said, fock off.

[nikki2200 4]

Last month at LAX?

 

You already weigh your bags and pay for baggage fees for most airlines. Bigger scales add no additional steps to this process. Alternatively you could place a scale in the security scanners, and pay as you exit the security lines. One extra step.

 

itsatip: The vast overwhelming majority of business travelers do not check bags and never have to talk to the lady behind the counter nor do they encounter a scale while checking in. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of travelers during the busiest times at airports in metropolitan areas are business travelers, at least that's how it appears while looking around at who is on line with you.

 

As for your security line proposal, on a typical Monday morning the security line starts at the entrance to the terminal, and extends all the way over the overpass that crosses the street and ends at the entrance to the parking garage, roughly the length of a city block. You now want to add scales, minimum wage TSA workers calculating ideal body weights based on height, and taking Amex payments to that process? And that's glossing over the fact that by the time you get to security, your bags are already checked if you decided to check one so that would be too late by your proposal.

 

Whatever. It's not worth arguing about. I stand by the fact that this idea is patently absurd.

[shotsup 835]

Cirrhosis is good for weight loss.

 

Not working

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet

[GettnHuge 2]

Mebe we should just get gas prices back to where they were a few years ago, then this 'problem' would go away

[penultimatestraw 473]

itsatip: The vast overwhelming majority of business travelers do not check bags and never have to talk to the lady behind the counter nor do they encounter a scale while checking in. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of travelers during the busiest times at airports in metropolitan areas are business travelers, at least that's how it appears while looking around at who is on line with you.

 

As for your security line proposal, on a typical Monday morning the security line starts at the entrance to the terminal, and extends all the way over the overpass that crosses the street and ends at the entrance to the parking garage, roughly the length of a city block. You now want to add scales, minimum wage TSA workers calculating ideal body weights based on height, and taking Amex payments to that process? And that's glossing over the fact that by the time you get to security, your bags are already checked if you decided to check one so that would be too late by your proposal.

 

Whatever. It's not worth arguing about. I stand by the fact that this idea is patently absurd.

Its funny how it is patently absurd to add a scale to the process, when there already are opportunities where you are singled out, make payment and provide ID. I think you are just a little weight conscious, as is typical for Bridezillas. Also, it must suck to travel for business under the conditions you describe.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Mebe we should just get gas prices back to where they were a few years ago, then this 'problem' would go away

Obesity?

[SUXBNME 1,594]

Its funny how it is patently absurd to add a scale to the process, when there already are opportunities where you are singled out, make payment and provide ID. I think you are just a little weight conscious, as is typical for Bridezillas. Also, it must suck to travel for business under the conditions you describe.

That b1tch flys first class or not at all. trust me on this.

[nikki2200 4]

Its funny how it is patently absurd to add a scale to the process, when there already are opportunities where you are singled out, make payment and provide ID. I think you are just a little weight conscious, as is typical for Bridezillas. Also, it must suck to travel for business under the conditions you describe.

 

Yes. I am weight conscious and I've lost 10 pounds in the past 2 months. However, my sensitivity comes from someone suggesting that the process of getting on a plane gets any harder/more time consuming than it already is. After doing that every single week for about 9 years, you begin to wish death upon yourself. Or you quit working and sit around on your ass for a year because the thought of doing that again makes you wish death upon yourself.

 

That b1tch flys first class or not at all. trust me on this.

 

What? The only time I fly first class is if I'm going overseas and the company pays for it, which they usually do for overseas flights.

[gocolts 300]

That b1tch flys first class or not at all. trust me on this.

:lol: Is she that high maintenance???

[nikki2200 4]

:lol: Is she that high maintenance???

 

No. I'm assuming he's drunk on kewrs lite or sumthin. I've never paid for a first class ticket out of my own pocket in my life. I can't imagine a bigger waste of money than that. And I typically never had enough status over other people to get upgrades on the typical business flights I would take.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Serious answer: The amount most commerical airlines can carry is FAR above even if the entire cabin is filled with 300 lb CBF. 4 engine planes are designed - and have - run safely with one engine.

 

 

2nd: Let's ignore ya know, facts like above: If the engines / lift coefficeint is SO impacted by say 8-9 CBF's, when do you hold the airline responsible for putting 130 seats on a plane at an average of 145 lbs/body vs. 100 seats on a plane at a slightly different average.

 

 

In short, no. It's a stupid idea. However, if you take up more than one seat, you should pay for two in principle. In principle meaning: If the seat only accomodates people with a BMI of the Olsen Twins - you lose.

[gocolts 300]

No. I'm assuming he's drunk on kewrs lite or sumthin. I've never paid for a first class ticket out of my own pocket in my life. I can't imagine a bigger waste of money than that. And I typically never had enough status over other people to get upgrades on the typical business flights I would take.

:thumbsup:

[SUXBNME 1,594]

No. I'm assuming he's drunk on kewrs lite or sumthin. I've never paid for a first class ticket out of my own pocket in my life. I can't imagine a bigger waste of money than that. And I typically never had enough status over other people to get upgrades on the typical business flights I would take.

Not drunk at all. I thought you told me (a long time ago) that with hotels, dining, flying, etc..that you always went with the best.

guess I'm mistaken.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

:lol: Is she that high maintenance???

She can't be that high maintenance if her dream man's idea of a gourmet dinner is raw spuds and beer.

[nikki2200 4]

Not drunk at all. I thought you told me (a long time ago) that with hotels, dining, flying, etc..that you always went with the best.

guess I'm mistaken.

 

I like to eat at nice restaurants. I may have biitched about that focking roach infested curry smelling hell hole I had to stay at in Hartford, CT when I was working there. If that makes me high maintenance... whatever. However I think that place would have repulsed even a low expectation having mother effer such as yourself.