According to Marc Fisher of the Washington Post (Airlines Should Calculate Prices By the Pound) your airline ticket should be priced according to your weight. He says there should be “public weigh-ins before every flight.” He even says it’s crucial to the safety of the flight by citing a commuter plane crash where investigators said the plane was overloaded…
Some highlights:
So what do you all think?
Actually, it could be done fairly seamlessly: just put a weight sensor pad in front of each checkin desk. Whe the passenger is checking in, their weight is logged. There might have to be an assistant to make sure the weight was accurate (no kids on the scales, etc).
No need for a circus or shaming.
The airline could gather statistics about the actual weight carried and use that to adjust ticket prices accordingly.
Would there be differing ticket prices due to the actual weight logged? Sounds logical, but I wouldn’t want to alienate passengers with a sudden unexpected surcharge upon checkin…
Only if they also provide proportionally larger seats for the bigger people.
Actually, a big part of the airlines problem is that they aren’t accounting for the weight of all the carry-on bags. I fly nearly every week, and on most flights there’s a scramble to fit all the bags in the overhead. People are tired of waiting for their bags, and of losing their bags, so more people are packing 35 extra pounds of crap into rolling carry-on bag.
The airlines could easily determine how heavy their passenger + baggage load was, on average, by doing some representative sampling. After you weigh the first couple thousand people and their carry-ons, an average will be pretty plain. This could be done in one small airport, in one day.
Say everyone going through Hartford-Springfield on January 12th steps on a scale (while holding their carry-ons) after going through security. Issue solved.
Adding further complexity to the labyrinthine pricing of airline seats would not be a positive step, I think.
That’s right. Keep those digusting fatasses at home where they belong. :rolleyes:
It won’t be quite as accurate but you could do it by girth. Just measure across the across the butt, post the results at the counter for everyone else to look at and charge accordingly.
I’m sorry, but did you mean chuckle accordingly?
I guess they should be allowed to if they’re willing to face the wrath of their customers, but look at the economics. The report said $275 MM in extra fuel costs, right? There were 10.3 MM domestic departures with 593 MM passengers in 2003. So what we’re talking about here is 26.70 per flight or .46 per passenger. The collection costs would exceed the revenues. More important is the extra time a plane spends at the gate while passengers are being weighed or measured or whatever cockamamie thing is being contemplated by this plan. Planes at gates aren’t generating revenue. Lose even 1 departure per 100 planes per day and the deal is a money loser.
Yesterday, American Airlines announced it was removing pillows from its fleet of MD-80s. Not because of the weight (which would be really funny) but to speed up the cleaning process and thus reduce ground time.
Heck, at the desk, put a series of posts that gradually converge:
DESK
..
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
The closer you can get, the cheaper it is.
Perhaps the airlines should strictly enforce the carry-on requirements like they do in Australia. Too big and/or too heavy carry on and it goes checked (with a fee) or it doesn’t go at all. When I lived in Oz, the gate folks loved singling out Yanks by strictly enforcing the rule.
I was on a flight last week that was delayed because some stupid ass stuffed oversized carry-on luggage in the overhead bin above my wife’s seat. She noticed that the bin wasn’t latched properly and notified the steward. Maintenance arrived and had to literally yank twice on the bag to get it to budge before removing it from the bin and noticing that a hinge had broken from the force of the guy trying to get it to fit into the bin. They removed all the bags and taped the bin shut and put a big “do not use” message across it.
People were still entering the plane and all the overhead bins were full so all remaining carry-ons had to be checked. All that crap delayed the flight by 30 minutes.
It might be somewhat fairer if the entire weight passanger+luggage was taken into account. Then light packers would gain advantage for their efficiency. But it would also be only fair if their was a large person row or two with wider chairs for the 12-14 heaviest passangers.
So, children should be able to take up a seat for just a fraction of the cost of an adult ticket? Wouldn’t it be so much more fun if there were more children on flights to brighten travelers’ day?
Checked baggage weight limits aren’t as much to control fuel costs as to reduce the risk of damage to baggage handling equipment and injury to baggage handlers. And I doubt the claim made in the quoted article that the airlines switched to plastic utensils to “save weight”. Plastic utensils are much cheaper than metal, are quicker to clean up (since you don’t have to recover them for reuse), and are less of a safety hazard than metal. The weight factor is insignificant in comparison with these other issues.
I think the real question is, why do we think the “National Center for Environmental Health” knows anything about the economics of air travel? In other words, what reason do we have to believe that this press release is not merely just another instance of the fat-bashing that seems to be all the rage these days?
There is no mechanical/avionic reason for a weight-based system. The only benefit I can imagine is people fitting into seats better.
In any event, it would be an incredibly unfair system, unrealistic, and I doubt any airline would even consider it.
The guy who wrote that article is somewhat of an ass. I figure that he knows that already, though.
There’s a mindset that’s ignorant, as well. This part of his article:
Sure, it costs a little more, but not $5-$10 more, which is often what most clothing stores charge. I sew my own clothes (on the larger end) and sometimes, there is no difference in yardage usage between smaller and larger sizes (I could give a reason why this is, but I won’t ramble on about it now). Sure, commercial clothing makers probably use different pattern layouts than home sewers, but I doubt it’s that radical of a difference. For instance, I sew myself a t-shirt top from 45" wide fabric, and it takes 1 5/8 yards. I sew it for a much-smaller relative, and guess what? It still uses 1 5/8 yards. So why should such a top cost more for me than for a smaller person? There are no extra fabric costs.
If clothing makers wanted to be really “fair” in their pricing of clothes, they’d price each item according to whether or not the garment actually used more fabric for the larger sizes. And if fairness was their goal, they’d probably have several different prices—perhaps one for size 6-10, another for size 12-16, then 18-22, and so forth, since the larger sizes gradually start using more fabric. But they don’t do that. A garment that is only slightly larger (say, size 20) will cost $5-$10 more than one size smaller (size 18), because one is a “large size” and one isn’t.
Also, you have to consider the cost of the fabric. Is 1/4 or 1/2 of a yard more really worth that much more? I doubt it. Not all of the time, anyway. So it looks to me like these extra charges on larger-sized clothing are just extra profit for the clothing seller. And what can the larger-sized customer do, other than pay it? (Or sew their own, which is a good idea no matter what size you are.)
But enough of that hijack. (Which sort of relates to the OP, actually.)
What I want to know if they’d price “fairly” for weight. If, as manhattan says, the added cost because of weight is only $26 per flight, would they charge only a few cents or dollars for weightier travellers? Or would they do what clothing sellers do, and add more than they really need to? How much more would a 220 pound person pay, for instance, compared to a 120 pound person? If it would only be a few bucks more (remember, only $26 extra cost per flight), then I doubt most people would care all that much, as long as their weight was not advertised to everyone waiting in line. But somehow, I question whether that would happen.
And, as manhattan says, they’ll have to figure out a way to make the weighing process quick and seamless. Will they really be able to do that? Will the customer end up paying for that extra expense too? Well, yeah, I guess so. So basically, it’d be, “We’re going to charge you more for weighing more, and charge you even more for waiting in line to be weighed, so we can charge you more.” Yeah. People are gonna love that.
And then there’s this charming tidbit from the article:
I’m sure this guy knows how some people will react to this comment. I’m sure that he phrased it specifically this way for that reason. Sure. Shame those fatties. Like they haven’t been getting enough of that already, and we see how well it’s working. If shame was enough to get people to lose weight, nobody would be fat, because people have always been eager to try to “shame” fat people.
Well, obviously I think this is pretty morally wrong, and that columnist is definitely an idiot. But if something like this did happen, how would prices wrt sex be worked out? Men generally weigh more than women. Would it be sexism to charge them more? What about people who are large because of a genetic problem, medication side effects, or pregnancy? Would they get an exemption, or would you just say “fat is fat”? Would there be a public outcry over the price breaks given to amputees or little people?
It would be discrimination, plain and simple, and full of logistical problems too.
This is all kinds of interesting logic:
Thus he is basically saying that someone who is of average weight is a fatso. He’s defined overweight as including anyone whose weight is normal.
manhattan beat me to it, I was going to post stats on fuel costs and whatnot, but it comes to less than $1 per person per flight.
Also, as far as overweight people I remember reading a stat that the majority of overweight and obese people (I forget how many, maybe 70%) are within 50 lbs of normal weight. So its not liek they are running up amazingly high fuel costs.
What a sorry attempt to justify a social prejudice.
I was thinking more like categories, skinny, fatass etc.
For the broadest customers, since they are likely to be used to saying it anyway, they could just walk up to the counter and say “supersize please”.
Having been on a cross-country flight where the passenger next to me was literally spilling out of her seat into mine, I have to say, I wouldn’t mind a “volume” penalty of some sort. I mean, look, I can’t afford to fly 1st class, but I don’t think I should be subjected to intimate and restraining contact with a corpulent stranger for six hours. If the person can’t fit in one goddamn seat in coach, I don’t think I should be forced to sit in a fraction of the space I paid for. Why aren’t they made to pay for more than one seat instead?