 |
|
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.”
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…
On the same subject…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7439894.stm
How many people are gonna have to wait in line twice? You know, when they find out they are seven ounces over a weight charge limit so they run off to take a crap?
What next? Charge for legroom needed? Coin box on the toilet? (Could increase Mile High Membership as extra people try to slip in on the same quarter.) Or even a charge for people who join the Mile High Club as thrusting puts extra wear on the gyros.
Okay, I’ll pay extra. In return, you give me:
– a seat that does not encourage phlebitis and pulmonary embolism
– a steward(ess) who does not treat me like 18th century steerage and maybe even one who looks like (s)he’s halfway happy to be alive
– if you’re going to recognize that not every person weighs 170 pounds, can you also recognize that two peanuts and a pretzel fragment do not constitute a snack for a 200 lb pound man? By the way, throwing seven bread rolls onto the tray does not make it a real meal!
– since overhead space is limited, can you limit people to one carryon? And I don’t mean one carryon and another small bag like a purse or a laptop bag especially when that purse is the size of a steamer trunk and weighs more than the passenger
– how about a surcharge for people who got to the airport late and had to run through DFW to make the flight and plop down into the seat next to you stinking of sweat? Or people with bad breath? Or snorers – at least on transoceanic flights
– maybe actually agree to a passenger’s bill of rights before you find new ways to open our wallets
Remember when air travel was a service industry?
Nimby, you’re such a dreamer.
To think that air travel will be bearable again during our lifetime borders on delusional. No. It IS delusional.
I can’t think of a single thing the airlines have done in the last decade that would make me want to get on a plane again.
So we as travelers beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. Trains, boats, bicycles, feet, ANYTHING but the motherfucking airlines.
My own suggestions how airlines can save money!
http://tinyurl.com/6z8cny
#8
> They should just cut down on what
> people carry on board.
The problem is that traveler’s have zero confidence in the airline’s ability to get their bag to their destination. It’s like hopping into a car with the low gas indicator. You might make it to a gas station and then again you might be screwed.
Am I wrong, or is the woman in that picture kind of hot?
reminds me of the girlie pictures my good friend Hulkster used to brag about – only the girls were the sisters of the above photo.
>>Am I wrong, or is the woman in that
>>picture kind of hot?
So many crevices for gratification! She could probably take on a baker’s dozen of construction workers simultaneously.