

Heavier people should pay more to fly - alapshah
http://www.theage.com.au/business/why-heavier-people-should-pay-more-to-fly-20120111-1puti.html

======
corin_
Ultimately while the principle is good - and, as an overweight person, I'd
have no problem paying more if it was done fairly - no airline would ever
introduce this fairly. Once they've raised the price for fatter people, why,
as a business, would they lower the price for thinner people to balance it
out? Why not just take more profit?

Think back to when smoking was banned on most airlines, the airlines didn't
think "great, now we can give our customers an even better service for the
same price but without that smell that non-smokers hate", they thought "cool,
now we can massively cut down on how much air circulation we do, meaning less
in-plane oxygen, and keep more profit for ourselves".

\-----

 _This debate may sound discriminatory, but in fact what economists term price
discrimination - charging consumers who buy essentially the same product a
different price - is a common feature in the modern market._

Surely the argument is that you aren't charging consumers differently for the
same product, you're charging them differently for different products - the
same way you pay more when shipping a heavier package through a courier firm
or USPS/Royal Mail.

~~~
Lewisham
I had a conversation in an airport holding lounge once with some random guy,
as I was annoyed that I had personally lost weight, but paid extra because my
bags were a kilo too much. He told me that in one of the Indonesian countries,
you simply stand on a scale with your bag, and that's how they calculated your
weight allowance, and if you were over or not.

I don't know the truth of it, but I see no reason to not simply add onto the
bag allowance and put in a scale as described.

~~~
lutorm
This is what I've been saying for a long time. It makes no difference if the
weight is in the bag or in the seat (and as a small guy with generally large
bags, this is obviously a self-serving argument.)

~~~
PidGin128
This is a reply to both of you:

Baggage handling type people don't have to haul you around and stow you
beneath the plane. I was recently bitten by an overweight bag, and
subsequently broke it into a second carry-on in a return flight. 25$ for extra
bag, 100$ for overweight...

Anyways, what I was traveling with was unreasonably heavy, and would be a
hassle to toss into the stowage, probably be a greater burden/wear on the
conveyors etc.

------
pwthornton
While the idea may make sense on paper, would this really save money?

To do this, airlines would have to weigh passengers before they fly and then
charge them a surcharge based on what they weigh (say that everything up to
120 there is a flat fee and then you pay for every pound over).

Think about how much man power that would take. It would greatly slow down
flying even more, unless of course airports got much bigger and had
considerably more staff.

From the airlines' perspectives this doesn't make sense. It may make sense in
the abstract if you're a smaller passenger, but would an airline really want
to have hundreds of possible SKUs for each flight?

Asking someone who is big to pay for a second seat doesn't require a lot on an
airlines part, but the idea of paying by how much you weigh would require a
lot of additional resources.

~~~
lutorm
They already weigh your bags when you check them. Just step up on the scale
along with your bags. It doesn't really have to be more complicated.

~~~
pwthornton
Many of us who fly don't check luggage. In fact, I'd be willing to be that the
majority of people on shorter domestic flights don't check luggage. All of the
sudden an airline would need a lot more staff to weigh people because everyone
would now be getting in line to be weighed.

Currently, I print my ticket at home, never go the ticket counter and don't
check luggage and have nothing weigh for most of my flights. The idea of
weighing me with my bags would require me to start checking luggage.

It is complicated when you think about it. Airlines are trying to get more and
more passengers to skip the ticket counter, print their own boarding passes
and to not check luggage. That all saves money and time by requiring less
staff and even less ticket printers. This proposal to weigh every passenger
does not save time or staff resources.

~~~
mc32
I think they could simplify it.

Everyone who pays for fare gets: 200lb‡ allotment (person + luggage)

If person only (no luggage) they are assumed to come under the 200lb limit,
even if they don't -as this will average out with others weighing less.

People with luggage are weighed and any overage is paid for at the counter.

‡ 200 assumes that men might weigh on ave 180-ish, women 150-ish. Here's where
women make back what they pay in haircuts.

------
coolestuk
It's not just about the relative costs of transporting overweight people. I am
180cm tall, and 70kgs in weight. On a non-stop flight between SF and London, I
was sandwiched between two massively overweight men. I could not even eat a
meal, and struggled to turn the pages of a book, since these two took up at
least 30% of the space that should have been mine. I asked the stewardess to
move me because it was so uncomfortable, but she claimed there were no free
seats.

It's obvious that there need to be over-sized seats for over-sized people. I
don't particularly care if they pay more or I pay less. Flying cattle-class is
painful enough without being sandwiched between people who are much, much
wider than the average person. It can't be comfortable for those fat people
either to be crammed into a small seat. But at least they book flights knowing
what they will endure (and they could book the more appropriately sized seats
in business class). The rest of us don't have any determination in these
events.

As for it being unenforceable, people get removed from planes for many
reasons. I was recently on a plane where a man was removed from a 5 hour
flight; he stank so badly that no-one could sit within 3 rows of him.

------
13rules
I'm 6'5", 275lbs. Fine, charge me more. But you better give me a seat that is
reasonable for my body size. The width and leg room of coach seats today is
completely absurd!

Part of the problem is that there is too big of a gap between coach and first.
It's like having to choose between a Smart Car and an Escalade, when really
all I need is a mid-priced sedan.

~~~
Drbble
I paid $60 for extra leg room recently. It's a common option.

~~~
13rules
On some airlines, but the majority don't have them. I always try to get exit
row, but even then the seat width is pretty small. If you're 5'2" I'm sure
it's great! :)

------
tomp
The main rationalization for this kind of policy seems to be "we already pay
for heavier luggage, so why not for heavier people as well?"

In my opinion, overweight costs for luggage have nothing to do with "fair
price", but all with "profit maximization" - airlines have to offer some
luggage allowance (either by law or to make people actually fly), but they
know that many people are careless and will cross the limit. Therefore, they
can freely charge them without stirring up too negative feelings about greed.
But that's exactly what it is - it has nothing to do with actual costs.
Ryanair and EasyJet (though especially RyanAir) earn huge amounts of money
this way.

Allowing them to charge heavier people would just inspire more greedy
behaviour.

------
51Cards
The article seems to miss one key point that would make implementing this much
more complex. While we have some control over our BMI (weight to height ratio)
we don't have control over our height.

I have two friends who are 5' tall and 6'5" tall. The 6'5" male, while still
being quite fit, comes in at a solid 210-220 easy I'd guess, which would
(under a 'weight only' policy) incur a surcharge for him. The 5'0" female has
a little extra weight probably being about 130lbs. She's 90lbs less but more
"obese" than the male.

Variations like this would make this type of policy very hard to implement in
reality.

~~~
rvkennedy
Whether the weight comes from obesity or from simple body size has no effect
on the cost-per-kg to transport someone by air. If you're 6'5'', you're
transporting more mass - it's only fair to pay more, because it costs more to
move you.

~~~
chewbranca
As someone who is 6'8", 310lbs and spent 12 hours flying last week, I would
have to strongly disagree. Until airlines provide a means of adjusting
available room to compensate for height, its not appropriate to charge taller
people more at all.

~~~
tmh88j
They do already, it's called first class and business class. The seats cost
more and you get more room.

------
crikli
Interesting that they don't mention luggage, which if we're talking about
weight is a significant factor.

For example, my wife weighs 105lbs but has been known to bring her weight in
luggage (not kidding). I weigh 240lbs and usually bring a laptop and a couple
changes of clothes in a small carry-on.

Only way to implement this (unimplementable in reality) idea would be to
charge for the total weight being transported, passenger and luggage.

~~~
rsynnott
It's already quite common for airlines to charge based on weight of luggage
(or at least set a limit beyond which you pay extra).

------
johngalt
The example given in the article destroys any credibility this argument has.
If you take a 500+ seat plane and increase every passengers weight by 20% it
only costs an additional $472 for a trip from Sydney-Singapore-London. That's
less than $1 per seat difference. What is the cost of tracking and weighing
every passenger? Hard to see how there could be any gain from this.

------
drcube
No mention in the article about people who overflow their seats. I personally
don't care whether the person beside me is 6'7" and 220lbs. But I do care if
they're 5'0', 220lbs and half of their body is on my lap. Prices should rise
with average customer weight for everyone across the board to make up for fuel
costs, but when someone takes up two seats, they should pay extra for it.

But of course, I think seat sizes should increase with average customer width
too, but we're still flying in planes that were manufactured in the skinny
70s. Increasing seat size would ensure that only the most ginormous would have
to pay for an extra seat, rather than the 60% of the population that is
overweight.

------
jcizzle
I've been saying this for awhile, not because of fuel prices but because of
comfort. It is rude for an overweight person to spill into adjacent seats.

Just like it is rude for overweight people to drive up the cost of health care
because they refuse to take care of their own bodies.

It's a touchy subject, but I think we have a lot to gain as a society by
telling people it's not OK to be lazy and fat, instead of silently judging
them. (Save yourself the "Some people can't help it!" argument. No one is
buying that the 33.8% of obese Americans fall into that category - it's a
choice for them.)

~~~
raganwald
_No one is buying that the 33.8% of obese Americans fall into that category -
it's a choice for them_

I buy that many or most or nearly all obese Americans have made lifestyle
choices you find repugnant, but I don’t buy that they _all_ do. And for that
reason, I do not go around making blanket statements like “It is rude for
overweight people to drive up the cost of health care because they refuse to
take care of their own bodies.” Some--maybe many--overweight people make
choices about their bodies, but some do not.

Furthermore, I know many overweight people who make dietary choices I disagree
with but who are also very hard-working in their chosen fields. Your
suggestion that overweight people are “lazy and fat” is unsupported. Some are
sedentary, some are not.

Overall, I find that your arguments are unsound. But that being said, I don’t
think you’re trying to be cogent here, your use of terms like “rude” and
“refuse to take care of their own bodies” and “lazy” sets a tone that depicts
every obese American as being at odds with you.

To pe perfectly candid, the conversation we are having reminds me strongly of
many conversations around discrimination, stereotyping, and bias. Which is
unfortunate.

~~~
jcizzle
In one statement, you say that not all people make a choice about their bodies
and in the next you say that people are sometimes sedentary because they work
so hard in their field. Well - that's the choice. They choose to spend all of
their time working and none of their time exercising.

Working hard at your job is great, but a lot of that is habit and it is easier
to do every day than breaking that habit and introducing an exercise routine.
The definition of being lazy, to me, is taking the easy way out, thus I
personally find this behavior lazy.

Discrimination? Stereotyping? Bias? Yes, yes and yes. I would definitely
prefer a healthy person to a non-healthy person in any business or social
endeavor. (Unless it was a hot dog eating contest.) Yes, I stereotype obese
people to be lazy, over-eaters, inactive and sedentary. I don't see anything
wrong with this. I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions. If
this upsets them, they can either lose weight or bear my bias. The only win-
win is for them to lose weight.

------
fredley
This is pretty unenforceable, but could work if you counted passenger weight
as passenger + carry on baggage, and merely set a limit on that (above which
you have to pay a surcharge). That way you're not inherently charging heavier
people more, but rather limiting how much baggage they can take as a result.

By setting this limit appropriately, you could ensure you're never forcing
anyone to pay extra (as long as they're not morbidly obese), as long as they
take an appropriate amount of carry-on baggage.

------
angdis
There are many things that influence how much it costs to transport people or
anything else-- including weather, how much taxiing is involved and the style
of the pilot.

I am sure the airlines have taken this variability into account. No need to
make ticket pricing even more elaborate than it already is.

If they start discounting for thin folks, then they'll be criticized if they
adjust the ticket for bad weather conditions and/or lead-foot pilots as well.

------
GiraffeNecktie
This would be pretty much impossible for an existing airline to implement but
what a great disruptive concept for a new discount airline startup. Your
ticket is based on your total weight (body plus baggage) which means it would
be totally attractive to anyone who is skinny and travels light (plus you're
less likely to be squeezed in between two oversized seatmates). Sure you give
up the heavy clientele but you gain a lock on an attractive slice of the
market.

------
dfxm12
Many airlines have some type of policy in place for this. It is usually more
about how big a passenger is, rather than pure weight (although the two are
related). Of course, airlines, the bastions of customer service that they are,
can't get it right...

[http://abcnews.go.com/WN/kevin-smith-fat-
fly/story?id=983726...](http://abcnews.go.com/WN/kevin-smith-fat-
fly/story?id=9837268#.TzFTwMXPE8A)

------
lutorm
There's no reason to have a bunch of different prices. You just have a total
weight allocation for each customer, and instead of just weighing your bags,
they weigh you _and_ your bags. If the combination is overweight, you pay
excess just like you do now. (Ideally on a somewhat proportionate scale as
opposed to the "oh you are 1lb over, that'll be $100" approach many airlines
seem to use now.)

------
Symmetry
_Of course, while a weight surcharge may be a good idea in theory, it won't be
easy to implement._

No, it won't be. Also, I'd guess that the weight of a passenger is small
compared to the weight of plane required to add an extra seat to a plane.

All of which is to say I don't think this will start making sense until fuel
prices go up by at least a factor of ten.

------
DLarsen
Ever wonder why your bag mysteriously didn't arrive your destination? Could be
too many overweight people on board. It's cheaper to "forget" some baggage
than to ask passengers to stay behind.

~~~
justanotherbody
So you're suggesting that airlines route baggage differently because the
marginal increase in passengers' weight is pushing the airplane load past the
factor of safety the FAA requires?

In some cases I'm sure that's been the case. In general planes are more
limited on volume than lift, as most people don't travel with particularly
heavy luggage.

------
its_so_on
_below, I make a nuanced economic argument, sorry I don't have time to clean
it up, believe me it's all economic._

Actually, from the point of view of the business, heavier people should pay
more to fly if they also happen to have more cash and leftover demand when
given cheaper tickets. Everyone should pay the very greatest dollar amount
they are willing to, and if this function corresponds well with weight (why
not, they can afford to eat more, and more of them are middle-aged
professional than starving students, maybe?) - great.

Except for anyone whose point of greatest demand is actually still a loss, go
ahead and charge everyone the most they'd pay. hell, make it fair, keep up the
illusion that it's about weight, and if you don't have seats to fill, fill 'em
at a loss with skinny people.

but maybe a better way to find a price discrimination curve woudl be to weigh
wallets though for security reasons, or charge an extra fee for each
(potentially-terrorist) credit card that a person flies with.

