 |
|
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.”
Makes sense to me. I (sometimes) pay more for clothes because of my size. If I couldn’t fit in off the rack stuff, I know I’d have to pay more.
Add this to the feeling entitled cartoon. Charging by weight would be one of the most rational things an airline could do. If you don’t like it, the REAL cost involved, then take a train or barge that is designed for large bulk items.
Wasn’t a weigh in part of the normal procedure back in the early days of commercial aviation?
Ah, but I can see the ads now:
“Denver $5/lb.
“Chicago $5.25/lb.
“San Francisco $6.35/lb.
“Certain restrictions apply”
I’m sure many will see this as discrimination. However, I have to agree with posts 1-3. It’s all about take-off weight. It matters. The airline should weigh each passenger with all luggage and charge by the pound.
Perhaps there should also be a certain base fee for the seat. This might not even need to be that expensive. Then, large people could, for a reasonable fee, purchase two seats, still pay for their weight, and everyone is happy.
Once, on a small flight, we were 12kg overweight, total for all 12 passengers. No one wanted to dump any luggage.
I suggested that 12kg == 12 liters of water. If we all peed and dumped our water bottles, we’d have been fine. We could have refilled bottles on the other end of the short flight.
Only my wife and I actually did this. They still let us take off. I don’t understand humans very well.
So are they going to charge per pound over, or will it be like the luggage policy, and you vet charged $50 even if you are 1 pound over?
I’d do her.
Damn, it looks like Hillary has really packed on the pounds since Obama won.
Well…I thought SouthWest had a good handle on it when they had a ‘person of size’ catagory. But on the whole I don’t know.
They should just cut down on what people carry on board. Above and below. I’m tired of people craming everything they could and more into overhead bins.
>>I’m sure many will see this as discrimination.
Sure they will, Scottie. Sex discrimination. Men (generally) weigh more than women. If they’re just going to have a surcharge for morbidly obese people who take up two seats, that’s one thing. But charging by the pound? Nfw.
Charging for two if you can’t fit in one seems reasonable, but charging by the pound just seems cheap.
People may not think that even very minor (semi-justified) discrimination such as this is not a big deal, but it opens up the door for things like charges varying by: insurance liability, likelyhood of being a terrorist (racial profiling), criminal record or mental health record. It just opens the door a smidge is all.
#10–Noel, airlines calculate the weight of the cargo and fill the plane up with gas accordingly. The more weight, the more gas. Not enough gas to get where you are going?==remove some weight. How can charging for gas based on weight be anything but reasonable, rational, and a p/r nightmare in a society where its “all you can eat” as a matter of individual pride?
Have you ever noticed that any position you want to hypothecate is a slippery slope to somewhere? Try it==you’ll see. So the only rational issue is whether or not the answer to a problem is legitimate.
I think small people should get half a seat if they are serious about charging per pound.
I have no problem paying more because I’m fat, but for pete’s sake, provide me a seat big enough to feel comfortable in. My smashed knees and hips will thank you.
>>Have you ever noticed that any position you
>>want to hypothecate is a slippery slope to
>>somewhere?
Bobster, do you even know what “hypothecate” means? Of does it mean something different in one of those many foreign tongues you used while going to school? Tee hee hee!
#9 – Mister Mustard & #10 – Noel,
Why does it seem so outrageous to pay by the pound? Do you have a problem with the laws of physics that state that the fuel used depends on the per pound take off weight?
Not to charge by the pound means that those who weigh less must subsidize those who weigh more.
Did you know that airlines are using much more fuel due to passenger obesity?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6409403
This is no joking matter. I believe we need deeper accounting practices where people and businesses pay for the costs they incur.
Mr. Mustard, You say NFW without even giving a reason.
Noel, you say charging by the pound is cheap.
The airlines are paying for the extra fuel. This is real. Why should airline tickets not reflect actual costs?
#13–Mustard==as always, thanks for the correction. I could say “at least you understood what I meant”====but you don’t. Sure wish my spelling/typing/word selection could help with that, but it wouldn’t.
>>Mr. Mustard, You say NFW without even
>>giving a reason.
I gave a reason, Scottie. Sex discrimination. I’m sorry I don’t weigh 105 pounds, but that’s just the way it is. I take very little luggage with me when I travel; do I get “weight credits” for that?
Should we start charging bus passengers by the pound? People going up and down escalators and elevators?
In any case, as those prodigious prognosticators of the 70’s, Bread, so presciently predicted, “it don’t matter to me”. I do everything within my power never to fly any more. The airlines have made air travel such a cluster fuck nightmare, I’d do almost ANYTHING to stay out of airports.
>>#13–Mustard==as always, thanks
>>for the correction.
Here’s another one, grasshopper. #13 was a post by Sir Felix. Not me.
#17 – Mister Mustard,
I gave a reason, Scottie. Sex discrimination.
From your post #9
Sure they will, Scottie. Sex discrimination.
I didn’t realize you called yourself “they”. My mistake, I guess. Actually, I thought you might be kidding about others rather than making the point for yourself.
I have to say I’m surprised though that you really take this attitude. I don’t weigh 105 either. And, everywhere I go, I have the problem of having a 30 lb camera pack, which I’m perfectly willing to pay for … by the pound. (I once actually had to buy a ticket for the pack on a short flight. After that I named the pack Phread, pronounced Fred.)
So, maybe it’s discrimination against photographers.
I don’t care. If it’s discrimination, the discrimination is carried out by the laws of physics. You may not actually have to foot the extra bill for your bus rides. But, the bus company does. You already pay extra to drive your car, if you drive a car, because the fuel to push you around costs more due to extra weight.
Why is a plane different than your car? (philosophically, not physically)
You also pay more to eat since heavier people eat more than lighter people. Will you charge your grocer with discrimination as well?
#17 – Mister Mustard,
I gave a reason, Scottie. Sex discrimination.
BTW, your penis probably doesn’t really weigh that much. I think you may be having delusions of glandeur.
>>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.