Fair to be paying for an overweight passenger?

[drron]

We both know that's not true.
To (politely) and it back is never rude.
But hey , it's fine to take it home too.

Doesn't hold for some other cultures.And I understand why mrsJohnK feels that way.

 

[Deleted member]

My mistake, the "High Heel Gourmet" (my reference source) in her blog on Thai eating etiquette says the opposite. silly me

Doesn't hold for some other cultures.And I understand why mrsJohnK feels that way.

 

[moa999]

This thread is well and truly in the Playground

 

[drron]

My mistake, the "High Heel Gourmet" (my reference source) in her blog on Thai eating etiquette says the opposite. silly me

A "high heel gourmet" would have a very different culture to those from the north of Thailand.

 

[eastwest101]

As much as I hate to drag a thread back on-topic - its an interesting read and series of arguments which touches on some interesting economic theories.

Putting aside the issue of legality and discrimination for a moment - it really is an issue of whether airlines would want to charge per seat (volumetric) or per kg (weight/mass) as a unit of measure of what they are selling. I think the OP isn't unreasonable in asking that if this is a weight issue that affects fuel burn then a weight based system could be considered, where the argument falls down is that the labour cost of administrating a purely weight based fare system (or indeed a hybrid weight and volume system) and the labour costs of enforcing this pricing/fare system may outweigh the perceived economic benefits/increased margins that the airline would hope to get.

The people who bring up the other "user pays" questions of could airlines charge for the use of the toilet/charge for pressing the call flight attendant button/charge for carry-on/charge for checked in baggage etc all touch on the same economic principle of "does it cost more to collect the revenue than what the potential revenue source is?". Until we are all microchipped with our identities and walking through bodyscanners with contactless payment systems at the gate then the answer to this is probably - not yet.

So far in the airline industry its only been "cost effective" to collect revenue for checked-in baggage (or excess weight checked in baggage) in some cases - some US airlines spring to mind here - but the unintended consequences of that is a lot of carry-on baggage coming into the cabin to avoid this revenue collection model, so this cabin baggage has a volumetric limit and when this limit is exceeded, the aircraft is delayed while carry-on is "gate checked" and put in the hold for free - thus destroying the checked-in revenue stream, increasing labour and fuel costs and hurting aircraft utilization. So there we have a situation where the "system" or "revenue stream" is sometimes hurting the service provider.

 

[Deleted member]

As eastwest101 points out, the costs associated with deciding who gets charged wait would be counter productive. However , I reckon smarter people than us have worked out the "average" weight per pax on any flight on any day , large or small persons and decided where their safe takeoff weights lie, especially since they also carry "some" freight in the hold. Which they have also worked out an average on. They then need to work out who pays what to sit where and the whole weight issue goes away , except for the poor cough in row 275 j somewhere in the back with two fatties either side.
I meanwhile am sitting comfortably in Pointy end paradise , with my sparking French wine and special treats content in the knowledge that the extra costs involved are worth it ( to me)

 

[downgraded]

Whilst there's a clear correlation for the airline to justify the weight-based practice (legality aside) charging for exit rows, y+ (us domestic style etc) and taken that further, people who just want more space of pe or j (rather than the service) airlines could perhaps look at the volume based approach to determine what size seat people should pay for.

The on going argument that pax just want the cheapest fare could be properly tested if airlines actually offered a range of different width and leg room options at diifferent price points.

Whilst I've done a number of surveys on service and price points for QF, I've never seen one that approached the data gathering required to know how much extra I'd have paid for an 8 across y option on qf9. They followed the crowd and chosen to compete in the cheapest wins strategy.

Sorry, slightly OT I know.

More on topic, i don't really care about heavier people perhaps distorting the economics of fares, i do care when the person next to me oozes into my seat and space.

 

[moa999]

Whilst I've done a number of surveys on service and price points for QF, I've never seen one that approached the data gathering required to know how much extra I'd have paid for an 8 across y option on qf9. They followed the crowd and chosen to compete in the cheapest wins strategy.

.

I wonder if this is what Airbus is pushing with their A380plus given the 11 across only adds 30-odd seats.

Economy 32" 10-across.
Versus
Simple seat 30" 11-across

 

[juddles]

......Whilst I've done a number of surveys on service and price points for QF, I've never seen one that approached the data gathering required to know ....Sorry, slightly OT I know. .....

On topic, I think the complete impossibility of this weight-based model could be illustrated by conducting an extremely short survey of just one question for women and one question for men:

Question for women: "When you checkin do you want to be weighed in front of your husband and strangers and fellow passengers?"

Question for men: "Do you want to sit beside your wife after she has been subjected to a public weighing?"

I think the results of that survey are already strongly suspected by airlines, and hence no airline wants to commit SUICIDE by even suggesting it.

(and yes, I know that on tiny planes we have to get weighed some times, but that is an entirely different industry...)

 

[Happy Trails]

I sense a business opportunity here.

Lightweight people would be granted 'Thin Credits' TM, price-indexed to the current jet fuel cost, which could then be on-sold to the 'Overweight Trading Market' from which a host of financial instruments such as 'Collateralised Thin Options' would be created by hedge funds and merchant banks, thus benefitting the wider economy.

Overweight pax (with appropriate government subsidies and based on lifetime body mass indices) would then simply purchase the required credits, in-turn priced on flight distance, aircraft fuel efficiency, 'J' to 'Y' loading ratio, prevailing winds and estimated hold and taxi times.

Perfectly simple and everyone wins.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[juddles]

......Lightweight people would be granted 'Thin Credits' TM,.....

Perhaps also vegetarians should have a carbon credits surcharge added to their bill?

 

[Happy Trails]

Perhaps also vegetarians should have a carbon credits surcharge added to their bill?

Well, yes , obviously a few minor details still to be worked out.

 

[juddles]

It could be called the "Human-Cow Methane Tax" TM

 

[Quickstatus]

Taking it to the extreme....

The airline could charge passengers on their propensity to affect Centre of gravity. Smaller passengers at the rear/ front can affect CoG more than a larger passenger sitting around the CoG point. CoG to an extent is important in fuel economy

Its silly I know.....

 

[GSP]

The OP would get far more support traipsing over to the Triathlon forums where this topic has been discussed ad nauseum where most of those supporters are disgruntled triathletes that resemble undernourished chicken wings grizzling about the extra surcharge their 20 to 25k bike box receives when travelling to races. No dissenters there except the occasional ex-triathlete that may have let himself go or a fly in troll.

 

[GSP]

Flat tax anyone?? :idea:

 

[drron]

Wouldn't it be more of a round tax?

 

[moffat39]

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

Barramundi tonight?

Yes please. Make it wild barramundi with skin on so it is crispy. I don't like the farmed barramundi.

And an aged Riesling to wash it down?

 

[OzEire]

...Until we are all microchipped with our identities and walking through bodyscanners with contactless payment systems at the gate then the answer to this is probably - not yet.

... So there we have a situation where the "system" or "revenue stream" is sometimes hurting the service provider.

Well put.

Not microchipped (yet), but many Qantas Assure and life insurance users supply BMI data freely to the airline via the fitness app (points for steps, etc)...

 

[seanpodge]

Maybe, but it is still fun.

To the OP, who's entire platform is one allegedly based on a strictly "scientific" or "logical" basis of the cost of moving mass, I ask the following question: Do you also want this practice to be applied to taxi fares? Transport by vehicle also is a mass-moving exercise, where a "fat" passenger does actually cost more in fuel to move from A to B. In your "user-pays" wonderland, do you acknowledge that skinny taxi passengers are unfairly subsidizing fat rides?

Or a bus. Or a train. Or a tram. Maybe hire cars too since your weight might be wearing out the suspension. Could weigh people before they sit down on a public bench too to recover the costs of weight related wear and tear.

Honestly, I don't know what it is about flying that brings out this attitude of people missing out on "something" just because a heavier person gets the same luggage allowance. If you want to complain about paying for luggage, talk to the airline (preferably to someone high up enough in the airline to be able to actually do something about it).