Fair to be paying for an overweight passenger?

[bean]

Cost cutting such as removing an olive from the meal/snack service?

I don't know what VA are paying for the snacks they are offering but they are awful. Wife hasn't touched one yet. She keeps bringing the snack home in her pocket.

Surely it's possible to offer something that is appealing and cost effective?

I agree. The cost to supply muffin or a pie compared to the coughpy muesli bar would be negligible and the additional cost could easily be passed on to the customer. Since when did anyone buy a VA flight over a QA flight because it was $3 cheaper..

What they should really do is charge customer based on total weight. As someone who is a fit and healthy 75kgs it drives me insane that I could get charged for an additional 5kg in baggage yet someone who weighs 120kgs doesn't have a problem.

Standard passenger weight is 81kg. Anything under that you should be able to make up in excess baggage, anything over that should be added to your baggage weight and charged accordingly.

 

[Luke B]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Standard passenger weight is 81kg. Anything under that you should be able to make up in excess baggage, anything over that should be added to your baggage weight and charged accordingly.

Excuse me?? I'm 6ft 4 and approximately 88kgs, if any airline did that to me they wouldn't be getting my business.

 

[bean]

Fair to be paying for an overweight passenger? [When you are not overweight]

Excuse me?? I'm 6ft 4 and approximately 88kgs, if any airline did that to me they wouldn't be getting my business.

Why? Its a true user pays system. You also need to look at it from the total package-you may only be checking 18kg of baggage which would offset your additional 7kgs of body weight.

You probably don't realise you are already subsidising all of the over weight people as it is and your ticket would probably end up cheaper.

Why should I be charged to subsidise the 20% of the population who are now classified as obese?

 

[Daver6]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

This should be good...

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Standard passenger weight is 81kg. Anything under that you should be able to make up in excess baggage, anything over that should be added to your baggage weight and charged accordingly.

Now without wanting to overly entertain your fishing expedition, did you per chance mean average pax weight over standard pax weight and where did you obtain your information? When I was a fit but skinny teen, I was 85 kg.

 

[bean]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Now without wanting to overly entertain your fishing expedition, did you per chance mean average pax weight over standard pax weight and where did you obtain your information? When I was a fit but skinny teen, I was 85 kg.

No, I'm pretty sure the standard weight as per ICAO that is used for weight and balance and loading is 81kgs. And why are you saying its a fishing expo-I think its a very valid point. If weight is so critical and can have such a bearing on fuel burn then what's wrong with something that more closely resembles a user pays approach?

Look at it this way-as the population is becoming more obese the airlines will be forced to re standardize their standard passenger weights. This will mean their overall excess load capacity will reduce, reducing revenue and or increasing costs. Those cost WILL be passed on to you.

Is it fair that you are paying for an overweight passenger? Is it fair that someone with baggage could easily weigh 50kgs more than the average punter but the average punter gets stung for being 1kg over weight?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

No, I'm pretty sure the standard weight as per ICAO that is used for weight and balance and loading is 81kgs. And why are you saying its a fishing expo-I think its a very valid point. If weight is so critical and can have such a bearing on fuel burn then what's wrong with something that more closely resembles a user pays approach?

Because you'd have to have a base fare inclusive of nothing otherwise you'd get a family saying "were's my discount for my kids weight", and those that don't eat the rubbish snack would want a refund of 2.3 cents and those with HLO would want their checked allowance refunded and when a WP doESN'T use the lounge they'd want cash back, oh and what about those with a medical condition with their weight, they'd want dispensation or a court case and if you try to write that out, than what about those who need to have a guide dog or a wheel chair or ....

It would be impossible to manage and cost far more than the lousey fuel burn!

 

[bean]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Because you'd have to have a base fare inclusive of nothing otherwise you'd get a family saying "were's my discount for my kids weight", and those that don't eat the rubbish snack would want a refund of 2.3 cents and those with HLO would want their checked allowance refunded and when a WP doESN'T use the lounge they'd want cash back, oh and what about those with a medical condition with their weight, they'd want dispensation or a court case and if you try to write that out, than what about those who need to have a guide dog or a wheel chair or ....

It would be impossible to manage and cost far more than the lousey fuel burn!

Not at all. You get a standard allowance currently of say 25kgs. All you need o do is encompass a standard passenger weight of whatever-85kg. So your total weight allowance is 110kgs. Simple.

Why would overweight passengers expect a dispensation? A major cost to the airline is fuel, and major contributor to fuel burn is weight. Try sending a parcel and arguing weight doesn't matter.

Im tall and am sick of having my knees stuck in the back of the seat in front of me-should I take the airline to court demanding more room?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Not at all. You get a standard allowance currently of say 25kgs. All you need o do is encompass a standard passenger weight of whatever-85kg. So your total weight allowance is 110kgs. Simple.

Barramundi tonight?

 

[bean]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Barramundi tonight?

Please stop trying to derail a logical point I have raised. Are tall people automatically given business class or exit rows? Nope, they have to pay. Why should overweight people be treated any differently?

 

[mannej]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Please stop trying to derail a logical point I have raised. Are tall people automatically given business class or exit rows? Nope, they have to pay. Why should overweight people be treated any differently?

Your "logical" point is not on topic to this thread.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Please stop trying to derail a logical point I have raised. Are tall people automatically given business class or exit rows? Nope, they have to pay. Why should overweight people be treated any differently?

Terribly sorry for my attempted jocularity. I actually believed we'd moved on from the sublime and onto the ridiculous. So back to serious then, why are you suggesting a true user pays system, but then only want it to apply to what suits you? You suggest it's simple. In reality it's impossible and possibly unlawful. The only time an airline will impose a pax weight criteria is for operational safety reasons, not to improve profit.

 

[bean]

Re: Two reasons I can't take Virgin & Velocity seriously

Terribly sorry for my attempted jocularity. I actually believed we'd moved on from the sublime and onto the ridiculous. So back to serious then, why are you suggesting a true user pays system, but then only want it to apply to what suits you? You suggest it's simple. In reality it's impossible and possibly unlawful. The only time an airline will impose a pax weight criteria is for operational safety reasons, not to improve profit.

Where did I say apply where it only suits me? And how is it any less unlawful that charging a tall customer for an exit row? How is it ridiculous-user pays is the norm in may aspects of life. Im amazed that you are taking this suggestion in such a manner-you are already being charged for the weight of your baggage, how is this any different. Many aspects of flying are now user pays. If your defense is a an airline should accommodate all body types well this is clearly not happening.

 

[bean]

User Pays

So, much of our life is now user pays. Why shouldn't the airlines move towards a user pays system where the total weight of the passenger is taken into account rather than just the baggage? Your baggage is currently weighed and you are charged accordingly as weight directly affects operating costs and revenue.

So why not allow the passenger to incorporate their total weight into the allowance. Each passenger gets say 120kgs of weight. If you weigh 90kgs you can take 30kgs in baggage, if you weigh 100kgs you can take 20kgs in baggage before incurring charges.

Room on the aircraft direct affects revenue so that's why extra leg room seats cost more which tall passengers have to pay for. Weight also directly affects revenue capability so why shouldn't it be also factored in? Seems like a much more fairer approach. Also tall people don't have the ability so change their size so are forced to pay, overweight people do but arent charged?

 

[TonyHancock]

Re: User Pays

Must remember to take my Scottevest jacket off before I am weighed then.

 

[RB]

Re: User Pays

Thought this might be in the playground section-seems a bit unfair in Virgin!

 

[donovan301]

Re: User Pays

Must remember to take my Scottevest jacket off before I am weighed then.

Err, Is that 'cause it's Full of Dan Murphy Cleanskins

 

[bean]

Re: User Pays

Thought this might be in the playground section-seems a bit unfair in Virgin!

Its never occurred to you being odd that you could be charged for baggage being overweight by 5kgs when a person next to you weighs 50kgs more and isn't taken into consideration?

 

[bean]

Re: User Pays

Must remember to take my Scottevest jacket off before I am weighed then.

How many times have you seen people with overweight baggage take clothes out and put them on/put in carry on. Wheres the logic in this?

 

[supertrader]

Re: User Pays

Tall passengers don't HAVE to pay extra for anything. Passengers pay for a seat w/ optional extra based on fare class etc. The basic seating is the same for everyone in cattle, besides optional seats for extra coin.

You aren't discriminated against because you're tall, if YOU want to increase your comfort, YOU are welcome to invest in an optional extra. If a passenger in Aus currently fails to fit in their seat, there is not much that can be done (unlike the US where the passenger is made to buy a second seat) - maybe that is what you truly seek.

What you are describing is effectively impossible to implement in Australia at this point. Beside from the publicity suicide, Australian Consumer Law and Anti-Discrimination Law both stand in the way of your grand plan.

I'm also pretty sure neither Virgin or Qantas will want to make the first move in this regard - even if these laws were relaxed.