Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax'

[JohnK]

IMHO I am subsidising such people, and I have no wish to do so.

Where do you draw the line?

When I register my car I pay road tax/levy with the registration. So while I do 10,000kms/year I am subsidising those who do 50,000+kms/year.

I have not claimed on car insurance since 1990 so the exhorbitant car insurance I am paying is subsidising those that claim regularly. Not to mention green slip insurance.

And I pay more taxes than most people because I am stupid enough to save my money and invest it wisely.

And my private health insurance premiums are subsidising those that get sick more often than me.

And I pay council rubbish collection levy but put out less rubbish than most people etc etc....

 

[Arthur Hodgson]

Where do you draw the line?

When I register my car I pay road tax/levy with the registration. So while I do 10,000kms/year I am subsidising those who do 50,000+kms/year.

I have not claimed on car insurance since 1990 so the exhorbitant car insurance I am paying is subsidising those that claim regularly. Not to mention green slip insurance.

And I pay more taxes than most people because I am stupid enough to save my money and invest it wisely.

And my private health insurance premiums are subsidising those that get sick more often than me.

And I pay council rubbish collection levy but put out less rubbish than most people etc etc....

Hi John,

I can see where you're coming from, but isn't the issue that you can pay a lot more than an overweight person for no good reason?

The airlines' system seems to be "heavily" slanted in favour of these people, whereas you couldn't really say that in relation to the examples in your post.

It's just averaging in those cases. No doubt your car insurance premium is a lot less than someone who has bingles all the time, etc, etc...

Regards,
Arthur.

PS. My best wishes to Spiggy Topes, we almost played in the same band.

 

[drron]

I'm with Johnk.I really see no difference between his examples and this issue.This is also about averaging.For those who feel they are subsidising their larger colleagues you forget one thing.Your checked baggage goes into a hold where space can also be sold.A 747-400 with maximum passenger load can carry 21,000KG of freight and thats why you have a limit on checked baggage.

 

[JohnK]

I can see where you're coming from, but isn't the issue that you can pay a lot more than an overweight person for no good reason?

The airlines' system seems to be "heavily" slanted in favour of these people, whereas you couldn't really say that in relation to the examples in your post.

Actually I am one of these overweight people. Again at what point do you draw the line? What was considered the average weight 20, 10, 5 years ago is no longer the case. And the average weight will get higher again in 5 years time.

If I had to pay extra to fly then I would simply not fly unless absolutely necessary, which would not be very often, and then what will happen is that airlines will increase airfares because they will lose revenue from people like me. Has anyone looked at the make up of the average flight? Around half the passengers, possibly even majority, are overweight. Almost half of society is overweight. It is a growing trend.

What about the person who is 6'6" and full of muscle and weighs 120kgs? He is not overweight yet would fall in the same category as an overweight person. Who will determine the weight level at which a surcharge is due to be payable. The governments? The airlines? If you leave it to the airlines, especially the likes of JQ and DJ, how long do you think anyone over 60kgs would be charged extra for the airfare?

In my opinion introducing a weight surcharge would be silly. I was just trying to highlight that in life there are swings and roundabouts. While I may get away with it by paying the same airfare as a skinny person I more than make for it in the examples I mentioned.

 

[simongr]

I am quite an unpleasant person when it comes to weight issues - I have little or no tolerance for being overweight but this is just a ridiculous discrimination.

@stryker I can see your point re weight but that is just one element of the cost involved in carrying the pax. What about more demanding pax, people who drink more, people aren't prepared at check in and thus take more time, disabled pax who demand wheelchairs, tall people who are forcing arilines to give more seat pitch?

Fat people are an easy target and this is one instance where I will defend them.

 

[jasonja3]

These "Health Experts" that are proposing this tax, will really carry no weight (pardon the pun) with the airlines. It's just a proposal, aimed squarely at punishing obese people..... like it is going to make them feel good about themselves

The airlines, like many many other service providers, provide a one size fits all product with +ves and -ves for each individual PAX, and they may target larger PAX if they form a majority of their clientele before they modify their "one size fits all" product, which can only mean increasing prices to compensate for lost revenue due to larger seats.

Unfortunately society in general is getting larger, and we (unfortunately) won't be able to prevent this progression, and the airlines are going to eventually have to do something about it, which might be good for some, and bad for others.

 

[DTM1]

Fair is fair (or possibly fare is fair - or vice versa).

If you have ever flown next to a person who has literally taken up part of your seat as well as their seat, then you too would recognise that this is a valid concern for passengers. While this is usually only a problem in whY, I had this happen to me a couple of years ago travelling Mel - Hobart. The person next to me literally took up half of my seat - it was the most unpleasant experience I have ever endured on a plane, and it was only for 50 minutes ! I spent most of the flight standing up next to the toilets.

I should have been entitled to a refund ! Even the cabin crew agreed with me.

I recently saw a similar thing on a Mel - Per flight, where one passenger was so large that they impeded on passengers on either side of them - thank goodness I was in J.

I don't believe in imposing a pure "weight" based tax, as this is well and truly discriminatory, but where the passenger is literally too big for a single seat, then I see no problem with charging for 2 seats - some airline already do it in the US.

Why should the other passengers have to suffer the inconvenience ?

 

[Flying Fox]

And so Air France-KLM are the first off the mark -

Air France-KLM to start obesity charge

Extra-large flyers will have to pay 75 per cent of the cost of a second seat (the full price excluding tax and surcharges) on top of the full price for the first, spokeswoman Monique Matze said on Tuesday, saying the decision was made for "safety" reasons.

 

[munitalP]

Not again! :shock:

+1 here JK

 

[Smackbum]

Whenever there is a product designed for human use, there is part of the specification that pertains to the range of body sizes catered for.

Now I remember seeing a picture of the world's smallest and tallest persons being sat next to each other and would guarantee you that there are no vehicles currently manufactured that would safely allow either one of them to operate it. The norm is to cater for one or two standard deviations from the mean, and let people at the extremities sort it out themselves.

Now airlines make the same choices about cabin design, with possibly a bit more pressure on minimising size in the economy seats so that they can squeeze more of us cattle in. In part they can do this because they typically offer premium class seats with greater room, but of course these cost a lot more.

Is this discrimination? Do they have a right to force people who are outside the norm into the bigger seats? What about my personal space that I believe I have paid for? Is this at least in part a safety issue?

I used to travel occasionally with a co-worker who was morbidly obese, and he always upgraded himself to business-class (at his own cost). In part it was the guilt at taking up too much room in economy that made him do it, but how much of the blame should fall on the airline?

In my opinion they have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[drewbles]

Is this discrimination? Do they have a right to force people who are outside the norm into the bigger seats? What about my personal space that I believe I have paid for? Is this at least in part a safety issue?

Last time I checked, you're paying for a seat, not personal space. If *you* want personal space, what's to stop you from upgrading a class? Sorry but that's just not even a valid argument. As for saftey, also not valid. A large pax is not going to be any more of a saftey hazard down the back of a bus to what they are up the front.

I used to travel occasionally with a co-worker who was morbidly obese, and he always upgraded himself to business-class (at his own cost). In part it was the guilt at taking up too much room in economy that made him do it, but how much of the blame should fall on the airline?

In my opinion they have to draw the line somewhere.

How bout they draw the line at people who want more "personal space" to, say, pay for it by upgrading?

I will admit i'm a big guy. Even when I wasn't as big as I am now, I was still 6'4" and solid and took up a large amount of room in an economy seat. When I'm forced to fly down the back of the bus I keep to myself as much as I can and let people in the middle/window seat have as much room as I can (to the detriment of my own comfort). I'm too tall to use the arm rests anyway so they can even have the one I am not using.

Next thing you know you'll be suggesting that overly-flamboyant gay men are not allowed to sit next to you as they may flap their hands around and invade your personal space.

At least AF has said that if a flight is not full, the pax will be provided a refund for the additional seat. There are arguments for charging a pax who requires more space, but yours are not any of them. If a pax can't fit into a seat, then the airline of course should (and obviously AF are about to) be charged for another seat.

< /rant >

 

[anat0l]

If a pax can't fit into a seat, then the airline of course should (and obviously AF are about to) be charged for another seat.

You mean if a pax can't fit in a seat then the airline should be allowed to charge the pax for another seat.

Forcing airlines to supply an additional seat for a pax that can't fit in one gratis seems a bit much, although I believe in Canada airlines are forced to do this.

 

[oz_mark]

No plans to follow suit here apparently.

Australia's main domestic airlines won't force obese people to pay for two seats despite a similar policy being adopted by international air giant Air France-KLM.

Aussie airlines reject obesity policy

 

[davidj-bell]

Is this discrimination? Do they have a right to force people who are outside the norm into the bigger seats? What about my personal space that I believe I have paid for? Is this at least in part a safety issue?

I used to travel occasionally with a co-worker who was morbidly obese, and he always upgraded himself to business-class (at his own cost). In part it was the guilt at taking up too much room in economy that made him do it, but how much of the blame should fall on the airline?

In my opinion they have to draw the line somewhere.

Obesity is not a normal human shape - it's the result of too much calories and not enough exercise, therefore, I don't have that much sympathy for obese people. I certainly don't see why I should have to have my fares increased to allow wider seats to accommodate people who choose to be obese (yes, obesity is a lifestyle choice).

 

[davidj-bell]

Last time I checked, you're paying for a seat, not personal space. If *you* want personal space, what's to stop you from upgrading a class? ... How bout they draw the line at people who want more "personal space" to, say, pay for it by upgrading?

I once had to fly (I think Canberra to Melbourne) in the middle seat, and the guy sitting in the window seat was so fat that he needed an extender belt for his seat belt (I didn't even knew such things existed). His sides were overflowing over the arm divider and into my seat area. So yes, he was invading my "personal space", so I don't see why *I* should have to pay for an upgrade to have some "personal space", when clearly he was taking mine away from me. (and I'm only 165cm, 60Kg, so I don't need a lot of space, and I was very uncomfortable. I'd hate to think how some of my friends would have felt).

When he turned up, he obviously saw the look of horror on my face, as he just said "looks like you've drawn the short straw".

 

[davidj-bell]

Where do you draw the line?

When I register my car I pay road tax/levy with the registration. So while I do 10,000kms/year I am subsidising those who do 50,000+kms/year.

I have not claimed on car insurance since 1990 so the exhorbitant car insurance I am paying is subsidising those that claim regularly. Not to mention green slip insurance.

And I pay more taxes than most people because I am stupid enough to save my money and invest it wisely.

And my private health insurance premiums are subsidising those that get sick more often than me.

And I pay council rubbish collection levy but put out less rubbish than most people etc etc....

The car example is a good one, but the insurance one isn't. You pay insurance to cover for an unlikely event that has a huge cost if it came off (your house burns down, car crashes, get cancer etc).

Paying more tax because you invest your money means you must be earning more that those that just spend it.

A bit OT, but if you want to solve your car usage problem, argue that car registration should be a nominal fee (enough to cover the costs, $10-$20/year?), and you pay for the roads based on usage.

 

[11sjw]

Obesity is not a normal human shape - it's the result of too much calories and not enough exercise, therefore, I don't have that much sympathy for obese people. I certainly don't see why I should have to have my fares increased to allow wider seats to accommodate people who choose to be obese (yes, obesity is a lifestyle choice).

What if the obesity is caused by a thyroid condition or as a result of certain prescribed drugs?

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment of larger people paying extra to either claim a 2nd seat or upgrade but there has to be certain exceptions made.

 

[davidj-bell]

What if the obesity is caused by a thyroid condition or as a result of certain prescribed drugs?

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment of larger people paying extra to either claim a 2nd seat or upgrade but there has to be certain exceptions made.

If it is a genuine medical condition, then yes. Exceptions can be made. But how many of the number of obese people (almost 50% of adult australians in the next 10 years, if you believe such figures) has been caused by a medical condition?

 

[Smackbum]

It seems my previous post confused some people. I was just raising some issues and giving a personal example of one super-sized passenger. Here are my opinions :-

Airlines should have to conform to minimum space rules for aircraft seats so that evacuations are not compromised. The specifications should be created independently and reviewed regularly.

Airlines have the right to require passengers with special needs to make arrangements that avoid compromising the comfort and safety of fellow passengers. In this case special needs means anyone who cannot independently take their seat and conform to all operational requirements (armrests down, seatbelt on, etc.).

How the Airlines do so is up to them but should be clearly published so that people who may be impacted have all the facts at their fingertips. I think the solution of purchasing an extra seat with a refund if it was not going to be sold anyway is generous and sensible.

 

[JohnK]

Obesity is not a normal human shape - it's the result of too much calories and not enough exercise, therefore, I don't have that much sympathy for obese people. I certainly don't see why I should have to have my fares increased to allow wider seats to accommodate people who choose to be obese (yes, obesity is a lifestyle choice).

How about insulin resistance? Taking certain medication for long periods of time also causes weight gain.

We are human beings not cattle, sheep or hogs. Why do we continue having debate about charging overweight more for a seat or even something more ridiculous and charging people airfares based on their weight?