 |
CHICAGO (CBS) ― With soaring fuel prices, airlines have been trying to cut costs where ever they can. On Thursday, Continental Airlines announced around 3,000 layoffs. But as CBS 2′s Dana Kozlov reports, there’s another way airlines can make up the money by easing their load on gas. But will it fly? It’s been a bumpy ride for the airline industry of late. |
Carriers have slashed services and raised fees to try and stay in the air, angering lots of flyers. American now charges $15 for one checked bag; Delta charges $25 for a phone reservation. Since record high fuel prices are a big part of the problem, some airlines have been looking to boost fuel efficiency, too, by eliminating extra weight. Could the next step be fares based on a person’s size? At O’Hare International Airport Thursday afternoon, traveler Kathy Michalski said, “Oh crump! Not now. 20 years ago I would’ve been fine.” Still, it’s an idea floating around in cyberspace and aviation expert Aaron Gellman said he understands one airline pitched the plan for a Far East route. So instead of just baggage on the scale, passengers would stand on it, too, and would be charged based on their weight.
Gellman didn’t think it would fly. “What are you going to do about the people who weigh less? Are they going to get some of their money back? The whole thing seems to me to be rather silly.” He wasn’t the only one. Air traveler Erika Lopez said, “I heard that. I think that’s ridiculous and they’re going to force people to stop flying.” But one passenger seemed to agree with the notion. Mike Schulp said, “The airlines are really strict on weight on your baggage. I think they should, yeah, definitely look at people’s weight.”
>>BTW, your penis probably doesn’t really weigh
>>that much. I think you may be having
>>delusions of glandeur.
It’s not my penis, Scottie. It’s my brain.
if hair salons can have different prices based on sex, why cant the airlines do it?
#21 – Mister Mustard,
It’s not my penis, Scottie. It’s my brain.
Careful Oh Musty Old Man, there are two ways that can be taken:
1. It’s all in your mind and your penis is utterly insignificant.
2. Since we were talking about sexual discrimination, you may now be treading on the extremely thin ice of claiming men are smarter than women.
I don’t think you meant to go in either of these directions.
So, back to the real issue. Why is it discrimination to charge people for actual fuel burned?
Would it be OK with you if they charged a fixed rate per seat and then actually calculated the fuel usage and charged some known price per unit of fuel?
Would it then surprise you to find that the fuel usage per couple (which happens to be how I figured it) to fly a given distance is about the same as the fuel usage to for my wife and myself to drive that distance in out 4 cylinder camry?
This does mean that the bulk of the cost of an airline ticket does go directly to buy fuel, if I calculated it correctly.
I like the idea of a base rate fare that covers 200 pounds of the combo of flyer and his/her luggage and a per pound fee above that threshhold.
The big guys that shop at Big & Tall already know that they’ll pay more for their clothes — after all they do take more material. Why shouldn’t the same apply to flying?
The cost of flying? It’s the weight stupid.
#23 – Me,
From http://www.terrapass.com, two people LGA – > SFO (New York – San Francisco) was 4011 lbs of CO2. At 19 lbs emitted per gallon (approximate since I used the number for gasoline rather than Jet-A), that means that two people take around 210 gallons of fuel from NYC -> SF.
Even if the airline is getting a good deal on Jet-A, it’s a lot of the cost of the flight. So, weight really does matter. Of course, a lot of the weight is the plane itself, or the car itself on the drive. But, I think that fuel cost needs to be calculated.
Going with a fuel efficient lighter plane, the Boeing 777 weighs over 300,000 lbs unloaded and up to 775,000 lbs loaded, depending on configuration. So, more than half the fuel is to cart passengers and their gear. I think airlines need to charge by weight.
Without a per weight charge, how can the airline encourage people to pack lightly?
>>Why is it discrimination to charge people
>>for actual fuel burned?
If they were charged “for actual fuel burned”, that would be one thing. A Boeing 737 empty weighs about 130,000 pounds. Care to guesstimate how much more it costs them to fly me if I weigh 185 vs 190? And how much of a clusterfuck it’s going to be at check-in if they have to weigh everyone? They’ll lose MILLIONS on the people who will stay away from the airports just to avoid the 6-hour line at security/ weigh-in. Is it really worth that for the $0.50 they could charge me for the extra five pounds on the flight from LA to Amsterdam?
Not practical, Scottie.
>>that means that two people take around
>>210 gallons of fuel from NYC -> SF.
So that means that a plane with a capacity of 300 uses 31,500 gallons of fuel to fly coast-to-coast? Hmm. Most jet airliners have a capacity of about 2500 – 4000 gallons. They got some kind of cold fusion thing going on inside the engines?
Airlines weigh everything (including mundane things like inflight magazines) now. Fuel now accounts for about 1/3 of total operating costs for most airlines, up from 1/4 a year ago.
Fuel efficient planes (yea, turboprops) are heavily back ordered, but won’t solve the problem. Talking to people in the industry, it’s almost guaranteed that you’ll start paying by weight in the next few years. First place you’ll see it are remote routes to Alaska or the Yukon where freight charges are the norm. Later it will enter mainstream routes.
#27 – Mister Mustard,
Are you telling me that terrapass is lying to me about the amount of CO2 or that Jet-A produces 10x more than the same volume of gasoline? Or, am I just really bad at math.
Regardless, I think it’s as practical to weigh people and luggage together at check in as it is to weigh just the luggage. And, I think it is reasonable to charge passengers accordingly, by whatever algorithm, for the percentage of the net weight of the flight.
This would likely mean ((1/seat count * empty plane weight) + (passenger & baggage weight / total load carried by the plane)) * total fuel for the flight * fuel cost.
I’d be OK with estimating these numbers. I’d also be OK with using the percentage to multiply by the total revenue or some such for the flight. I haven’t worked out all of the details, but don’t really claim to understand how seat costs are calculated now.
Two people on a plane sitting side by side may have paid very different prices for their seats. I’ve never understood the current means by which they calculate prices. I suspect that the complex algorithm above would actually be simpler than today’s convoluted pricing.
Hey, would this be Algorithm and JetBlues?
You won’t see this babe peeing in any golf clubs. She’s one of the Krispy Kreme calendar girls.
My two cents. I agree with the postings above that it is entirely logical to charge extra after you exceed a certain weight. Say, for example, that the purchase of a ticket gets you a seat and 175 lbs of weight. Then you get charged additional for any extra weight. Carry-ons included.
I also pray that they don’t do this. I have learned to “game” the system fairly effectively. I weight far more than 175 lbs, and since they don’t weigh the carry-ons I put the really heavy stuff in there! They must weight at least 50 lbs.
So, by not weighing in I get the benefit of receiving what amounts to a significant discount!
Thank you, thank you very much.
I see a great future in the sauna business. People would sweat away before flying.
And if you missed this, it’s really funny!
Derrie-air.
http://tinyurl.com/62tqv6
>>Regardless, I think it’s as practical to weigh
>>people and luggage together at check in as it is to
>>weigh just the luggage.
Well, if it’s just going to be a $50 surcharge for weighing in 6 ounces over the limit, I suppose it’s “practical” at least intitially. But then you’re going to have people taking spare change out of their pockets, taking off their underwear, anything to shed the extra ounceage. Six-hour check-in/ weigh-in.
In any case, as a solution to any kind of problem, I think it’s a pretty fucking stupid idea. It’s a nickel and dime approach, and it’s going to end up costing the airlines millions of dollars in lost revenue. And then they’ll be flying planes with 12 people on them. What’s the carbon footprint per person for THAT? Hmm?
What’s the carbon footprint of having Obama’s motorcade show up at the airport, then flying a plane full of journalists to Chicago all while BHO stays in Washington?
Monsiuer Moutard:
“…it’s going to end up costing the airlines millions of dollars in lost revenue. And then they’ll be flying planes with 12 people on them. What’s the carbon footprint per person for THAT?”
The skies are going to be a lot less crowded than they have been regardless of whether you ticket by pound or by nose. Train travel will return since no one will fly short haul routes like Boston-NY anymore. The carbon footprint will go down because of the price of oil.
Airlines will drop like flies in the fall so short your stock now. McMansion suburbs will become a thing of the past. Manufacturing will move back on shore since freight costs from China will outweigh the cheap labour. After all that happens, cheap electricity will finally show up and it’ll all change again.
#35 – MikeN
What’s the carbon footprint of the Iraq war?
>>The carbon footprint will go down because
>>of the price of oil.
You’ll get no argument from me on that one, Cubie. I’d say overpriced oil is the best thing that could have happened to the environment.
Nice of Ketchup to allow the use of his press photo for this thread.
#39 – LOL! I guess I deserved that…