Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax'

[estate]

I don't want anyone to be humiliated by being weighed or asked to sit in a test seat at check-in and I think it's a bit sensationalist to think that would ever happen given this country's penchant for political correctness.

But I do think that policies need to be adopted so that passengers who are so overweight that they impinge upon their neighbours' personal space are given more room. Whether that's done for free, or with a fee I don't know. That's for the airlines to decide. But why should anyone be forced to pay the same amount of money as everyone else on board and suffer next to someone who can't fit in their seat?

As for weight, that's again a commercial issue that the airlines need to decide on.

But ensuring all passengers have the same personal space as one another (within a given travel class of course) is a customer service issue, and is much more important. Whilst there are complaints about being charged exhorbitant fees for excess baggage whilst another pax is massively overweight, I suspect much of the outcry regarding overweight passengers would disappear if there was a guarantee that no-one would be encroaching upon the seat you paid for.

 

[drron]

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).

Whilst I agree with you that obesity is generally too many calories consumed and/or too few expended it really depends what a person considers obesity.To someone with an eating disorder someone I would consider too thin they would consider obese.
Now there is the medical definition of a normal weight being a BMI of 20-25.I consider that hogwash.Some years ago I made a concerted effort to get my weight down.I got to a BMI of 24.5.The rumour around town was that I was dying of Cancer.In the mirror I could see why the rumour had legs.So for me a BMI of about 27 is perfect-no evidence of subcutaneous fat-JohnK having seen you in the flesh my guess is you would be similiar.
So officiually i would be obese at what I consider my ideal weight.
What we are really talking about is morbid obesity here-a totally different subject and though the original cause would be the same they really find it hard to do the exercise required to loose weight.If you are not privately insured surgical treatments are not going to happen for most.
I though have come across those who are morbidly obese who have had gastric banding who still do not loose weight.One was by drinking chocolate milkshakes all day,one by mashed potato with a whole slab of melted butter per serve.That then is a lifestyle choice and all the harsh comments here apply.

 

[Flying Fox]

Maybe the airlines could redesign seats that have more of a barrier than an arm rest. This would look more like a seat with high sides on top of the arm rest with the benefit of preventing spillage.

From there, the debate with a passenger would be that he/she couldn't fit in the airlines standard Y seat and would have to purchase Y+ etc.

 

[pauly7]

EDIT: Should seat sizes be increased across the board so that all pax can be accomodated, since our average breadth is considered to be growing across the population, and thus fares be dearer?

Hoping you are joking?!

There is enough of that sort of stuff happening in fashion land at the moment, don't need it to 'spill over' (to use a common phrase in this thread!) into airline seating as well. People shouldn't be encouraged that overweight/obese is healthy and the norm.

 

[11sjw]

But ensuring all passengers have the same personal space as one another (within a given travel class of course) is a customer service issue, and is much more important. Whilst there are complaints about being charged exhorbitant fees for excess baggage whilst another pax is massively overweight, I suspect much of the outcry regarding overweight passengers would disappear if there was a guarantee that no-one would be encroaching upon the seat you paid for.

You've touched on a very important point here. Airlines use a 'standard pax weight' when carry out their pre flight loadings etc that includes baggage. If someone brings an extra 20kg on board shouldn't they be charged for it? If it is in baggage they will (FF status might alter this) so why not charge for the extra 20kg on the stomach?

 

[harvyk]

If it is in baggage they will (FF status might alter this) so why not charge for the extra 20kg on the stomach?

Because the 20kg on the stomach will make it's way onto the plane with no additional effort by the airline.

20kg of baggage requires than an airline employee picks it up and ensures it gets onto the plane.

 

[JohnK]

EDIT: Should seat sizes be increased across the board so that all pax can be accomodated, since our average breadth is considered to be growing across the population, and thus fares be dearer?

That would be a nice idea but would people be prepared to pay more for their airfares?

In the mirror I could see why the rumour had legs.So for me a BMI of about 27 is perfect-no evidence of subcutaneous fat-JohnK having seen you in the flesh my guess is you would be similiar.

Actually my BMI reading was "Are you still alive?".

All jokes aside my brother lost a lot of weight recently and he weighs around 65khs. He is taller than me and is probably at the recommended weight. When I see him I feel he is too skinny and considerably underweight.

According to experts I should weigh 78kgs. That is not likely to happen unless I get very sick. I got down to 93kgs a few years ago and I felt great. My current target is to get down to 100kgs but that is not going to be easy at all. And even then I would be considered obese by the experts.

 

[11sjw]

Because the 20kg on the stomach will make it's way onto the plane with no additional effort by the airline.

20kg of baggage requires than an airline employee picks it up and ensures it gets onto the plane.

That 20kg will result in extra fuel consumption and take up extra space regardless of where it is.

 

[drron]

That 20kg will result in extra fuel consumption and take up extra space regardless of where it is.

So you would discriminate on a genetic basis would you-everyone in my family is around 180+cm tall.We are obviously going to weigh more than people from a family where everyone is~160cm.
Even in the police force those sorts of discrimination are being removed.
Your suggestion if taken up would soon lead to legal action and even in Australia you will not get it through.

 

[ChrisBNE]

That would be a nice idea but would people be prepared to pay more for their airfares?

It's all in the marketing.

Actually my BMI reading was "Are you still alive?".

All jokes aside my brother lost a lot of weight recently and he weighs around 65khs. He is taller than me and is probably at the recommended weight. When I see him I feel he is too skinny and considerably underweight.

According to experts I should weigh 78kgs. That is not likely to happen unless I get very sick. I got down to 93kgs a few years ago and I felt great. My current target is to get down to 100kgs but that is not going to be easy at all. And even then I would be considered obese by the experts.

Not obese, but overweight. It's all the greyscale.

Take more QF domestic flights where all they serve is those damn small muffins and a bottle of water.

 

[ChrisBNE]

So you would discriminate on a genetic basis would you-everyone in my family is around 180+cm tall.We are obviously going to weigh more than people from a family where everyone is~160cm.
Even in the police force those sorts of discrimination are being removed.
Your suggestion if taken up would soon lead to legal action and even in Australia you will not get it through.

Same suggestion to extra seat width applies here, but rather based on mass. Airlines would need to recalibrate their cost per seat, specially how much weight the avg passnger is based on. The applicable increase would be reflected in the according increase in price of fares.

 

[11sjw]

So you would discriminate on a genetic basis would you-everyone in my family is around 180+cm tall.We are obviously going to weigh more than people from a family where everyone is~160cm.
Even in the police force those sorts of discrimination are being removed.
Your suggestion if taken up would soon lead to legal action and even in Australia you will not get it through.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying (btw I'm 6'2" and 91kg). I pointed out earlier on that loading configurations are done using a standard pax weight. It has probably changed recently but it used to be something rather low like 76kg + baggage allowance. What I've said was someone that shows up with +20kg of bags is charged excess luggage. Is someone walking on the aircraft at 130kg not creating more load than the 20kg excess bags?

I'm not sure what the solution is in this regard but using a strict 'people are just walking talking cargo' analysis shows that an extra charge is warranted.

 

[ChrisBNE]

You're reading too much into what I'm saying (btw I'm 6'2" and 91kg). I pointed out earlier on that loading configurations are done using a standard pax weight. It has probably changed recently but it used to be something rather low like 76kg + baggage allowance. What I've said was someone that shows up with +20kg of bags is charged excess luggage. Is someone walking on the aircraft at 130kg not creating more load than the 20kg excess bags?

I'm not sure what the solution is in this regard but using a strict 'people are just walking talking cargo' analysis shows that an extra charge is warranted.

Maybe this is what some of the US carriers (and international carriers) have started with charging for baggage. They cannot charge for larger pax additional weight, but essentially removing the free two peices of up to 32kgs per piece and then charging for them for effectly the same fare is a way of raising the expected the average passenger weight by 64 kgs.

 

[anat0l]

Maybe this is what some of the US carriers (and international carriers) have started with charging for baggage. They cannot charge for larger pax additional weight, but essentially removing the free two peices of up to 32kgs per piece and then charging for them for effectly the same fare is a way of raising the expected the average passenger weight by 64 kgs.

Except this time everyone takes a hit (except for elites).

Perfect

Let's not give QF any ideas, shall we?

 

[JohnK]

What I've said was someone that shows up with +20kg of bags is charged excess luggage. Is someone walking on the aircraft at 130kg not creating more load than the 20kg excess bags?

I'm not sure what the solution is in this regard but using a strict 'people are just walking talking cargo' analysis shows that an extra charge is warranted.

We are talking about people here not cargo. We pay for a seat, just like on a ship, a taxi, a bus, a train etc. And yes I can understand some of the arguments if the person cannot fit into a single seat. But that is a totally different matter to start charging people airfares by the kg. Do you then have a different per kg charge for each fare class? You would not want to be overweight and have to pay the full Y class per kg charge instead of the O class per kg charge.

I sincerely hope this does not happen in my lifetime and if it does happen it will be another low point in humanity's evolution.

Excess luggage is another matter. It is very easy to cut back on the luggage one needs to take with them or use unaccompanied baggage services who are cheaper....

 

[pauly7]

Take more QF domestic flights where all they serve is those damn small muffins and a bottle of water.

Um right... those 'damn small muffins' - have you ever checked out the nutritional load on those things??!! - let me tell you, they are not small enough...

This is the heart of the problem, so many people (not just the overweight and obese) just don't understand food, its caloric load, what it actually contains and how it affects them.

Its really sad, I see all these overweight people drinking BOOST or juice to try and be healthy but just not getting they might as well be drinking a Pepsi pretty much!

So I don't think airlines should be flexible to accomodate, it has to be a carrot and stick approach (in all areas) - life should not be made easier for fat people but there needs to be proper education as well.

 

[stryker]

Its really sad, I see all these overweight people drinking BOOST or juice to try and be healthy but just not getting they might as well be drinking a Pepsi pretty much!

So I don't think airlines should be flexible to accomodate, it has to be a carrot and stick approach (in all areas) - life should not be made easier for fat people but there needs to be proper education as well.

Quite correct. That's why I only drink alcoholic beverages on aircraft.

Might as well enjoy it as you're going down.

And I'm not obese either (heaven forbid!).

 

[Keith009]

The more I thought about it, the more I reckon this practise is simply cynical and obnoxious. (Assuming all things being equal and the safety arguments I'd previously referenced do not apply)

We are talking about people here not cargo. We pay for a seat, just like on a ship, a taxi, a bus, a train etc. And yes I can understand some of the arguments if the person cannot fit into a single seat. But that is a totally different matter to start charging people airfares by the kg. Do you then have a different per kg charge for each fare class? You would not want to be overweight and have to pay the full Y class per kg charge instead of the O class per kg charge.

I sincerely hope this does not happen in my lifetime and if it does happen it will be another low point in humanity's evolution.

Well said JohnK. It'd simply lead to a slippery slope and encourage the nickling and diming culture that's already prevalent in the industry. I would not want to be charged more simply because I might drink more champagne than the next person or because I might use more of the bathrooms or have a bigger appetite than other pax, so I find the idea of charging people due to or god forbid by their weight odious. One would expect such unbundling of services to be the domain of LCCs (and even then I'll still be against it), not full service carriers.

More to the point, whilst the 'golden' age of flying is long gone, I'd still prefer to regard flying as an enjoyable activity rather than just another joyless mode of transportation.

 

[JohnK]

Its really sad, I see all these overweight people drinking BOOST or juice to try and be healthy but just not getting they might as well be drinking a Pepsi pretty much!

This calorie consumption garbage is becoming a bit of a joke. It really does not have much to do with weight gain or loss.

A couple of years ago I went to see one of the "best" endocrinologists in Australia.

- He said John you consume too many calories.
- Sorry Doc I think you are wrong.
- No John you are consuming 2,700 calories a day.
- Totally wrong Doc.
- John this formula proves you consume too many calories. if you reduce your calorie intake by 300 calories a day you will lose 25 kilos in a year
- No problem Doc. That sounds great.

Well 2 years later and my calorie consumption is around 1600 calories a day and I am putting on weight. Why? A simple fact that the "best" endocrinologist in the state ignored. Your body adjusts to the calorie intake. So if you weigh 120+ kgs and you reduce your calorie intake to 1000 calories a day you can still put on weight. Really? Yes. Even worse if you have insulin resistance. My GP keeps telling me "John, you can look at a banana and put on weight". He is not wrong.

And by the way a soft drink, Pepsi if you like, is only between 130-165 calories a can. If you only consume 400 calories for breakfast, 400 calories for lunch and 600 calories for dinner then you are allowed to have 1 Pepsi a day without a worry....

 

[mannej]

JohnK
I am a bit of a knit picker, but Calorie consumption is garbage. Why? Because the unit of energy we use in Australia is the Kilojoule

Energy consumption alone does not determine whether one will put one weight or not. If all things being equal, than energy output is the other player in weight gain/loss (forgetting genetics etc.). If someone cuts down their energy input, but maintain the same energy output, the body will adjust to this and use the lesser amount of energy to get through the day. If this person returns to their original energy input, they will put on weight until the body adjusts.
(*I know that is basic, as weight management is complex to say the least).

There are a lot of faux claims out regarding weight loss, which ultimately give people false hope. I think the worst of these is the show The Biggest Loser, which is shunned on. I for one think that those who have competed in this show will as a group be involved in a higher incidence of heart related episodes.

Back on-topic, it is a very sensitive subject isn't it? There are pro's and con's either way, and I for one don't think there is an easy solution to this one.

It can't get to the point of this though.