Do women of equal weight use more fuel then men to transport? Do they somehow cost more in other ways?
Its obvious his motivation is his personal desire to punish people he thinks are too fat than due to economic reasons.
It does seem brain numbingly stupid to make the critical weight different for men and for women especially if the pretend logic behind this is to charge more money the more weight is added to the plane.
The only fair way would be to make it the same weight for men and women - say 10 stone.
There's no distinction made between men's and women's baggage, so the same rule should apply for bodyweight.
I don't know any men who weigh 10 stone or less. Should men who are 6 and a half feet tall and normal weight for their height have to pay extra? That's what would happen because a measure like this doesn't take that into account.
I don't know any men who weigh 10 stone or less. Should men who are 6 and a half feet tall and normal weight for their height have to pay extra? That's what would happen because a measure like this doesn't take that into account.
True enough.
My other half is 6 foot 5 and very skinny. He weighs 13 stone.
The only way he could weigh 10 stone would be if he chopped one of his legs off.
I don't know any men who weigh 10 stone or less. Should men who are 6 and a half feet tall and normal weight for their height have to pay extra? That's what would happen because a measure like this doesn't take that into account.
I might weigh 10st if I spent a few years in a Japanese POW camp.
It does seem brain numbingly stupid to make the critical weight different for men and for women especially if the pretend logic behind this is to charge more money the more weight is added to the plane.
The logic he is using is obviously that the average woman weighs less than the average man. If the average weight was the same for both sexes, then men would be penalised more.
Even the absurdly low 'average' weights could make sense if you take them as baselines, rather than 'averages'. So nobody is claiming that 50kg is any kind of limit for women, but your basic ticket costs £25 (example), and all women are charged 38p/kg (or whatever) for every kilo over that. Similar deal for men from 75kg upwards.
Clearly the idea is that nearly every adult pays some surcharge.
Soooo.... do I get a refund on the kids then?
What about all four of us get on the scales at once, and we buy a family ticket?
Does anyone else find that pic really sad? Don't get me wrong, I'd be pretty peed off if I had to spend a 10 hour flight next to him but he must be incredibly self conscious. The bloke is totally humiliated! What kind of arse hole takes a photo of someone like that? I guess thats just the Iphone age we're in... :rolleyes:
yes i feel sorry for him too. some people wouldnt be able to help themselevs from staring and making snide comments.
It does seem brain numbingly stupid to make the critical weight different for men and for women especially if the pretend logic behind this is to charge more money the more weight is added to the plane.
If that's their logic surely giving a weight allowance for people and their luggage combined would actually be the fairest way? As it stands a 7 stone person with luggage a few kilos over the limit but still with a combined weight of a lot less than a 20 stone person with luggage on the current limit will have to pay more to fly despite actually costing the airline less.
It's not about that though is it? It's just about screwing people out of as much as they can.
The 10st 'limit' for men reminds me of the the jockey's wife listening to the babysitter's report:
'Well, I bathed all the children and put them to bed... but when the hairy one came home, you know, your boy with the over-developed..er... thing, he was a devil! You could have warned me. First I caught him smoking! Then his language! And he put up a terrific fight before I could get him scrubbed!'
The logic he is using is obviously that the average woman weighs less than the average man. If the average weight was the same for both sexes, then men would be penalised more.
Even the absurdly low 'average' weights could make sense if you take them as baselines, rather than 'averages'. So nobody is claiming that 50kg is any kind of limit for women, but your basic ticket costs £25 (example), and all women are charged 38p/kg (or whatever) for every kilo over that. Similar deal for men from 75kg upwards.
Clearly the idea is that nearly every adult pays some surcharge.
Soooo.... do I get a refund on the kids then?
What about all four of us get on the scales at once, and we buy a family ticket?
That's obviously it.
I do think though, that the notion of an average when it comes to people is not particularly useful here. Averages are useful for saying things like: "We're getting taller" and "We're getting fatter" or "Danish people are taller than Scottish people"
But very, very few individual people are this numerically determined average. Purely because it is arrived at through the use of sums.
For instance, Wiki tells me that the average height for a man in the UK is 5 foot 9 and for a woman it's 5 foot 4 and a half.
Based on that, statistically speaking, I ought to be a man. And I'm not. However, if I ought to be man, statistically speaking, surely I should get the same weight allowance as a man?
Now as I've said that, if they must do this, it might be easier to do it that way, just based on height. If you are X height, you can weigh Y. If you weigh more than that, you get charged per kilo. On a sliding scale, based on a baseliine weight for your height.
That said, it still negates the alleged original idea that you pay more for the additional weight you personally are adding to the weight of the plane.
There would be a problem if most of the passengers were very overweight. Would the plane actually take off and if it did, would it be safe.
Surcharges should be based on the weight of an average male adult and average female adult.
On the other had, very big people having to pay a lot more should be able to demand a far more comfortable seat. If this means less seats on a plane, so be it.:)
If I am normal weight but my bag is a bit OTT why should I pay more when my total weight is lower than a huge fat person with a smaller bag who weighs together more than me and my bag?
Don't think it's fair. They should set a sensible weight for passenger and bag and be done with it.
Does anyone else find that pic really sad? Don't get me wrong, I'd be pretty peed off if I had to spend a 10 hour flight next to him but he must be incredibly self conscious. The bloke is totally humiliated! What kind of arse hole takes a photo of someone like that? I guess thats just the Iphone age we're in... :rolleyes:
They should give him 2 seats and make him pay for them.
There would be a problem if most of the passengers were very overweight. Would the plane actually take off and if it did, would it be safe.
Just... If the plane was filled with a 25 stone bloke on every seat, thats 20 tonnes of people in total. The plane itself weighs 35 tonnes (assuming an Airbus A319 - the standard plane used by Easyjet). So thats 55 tonnes so far.
That allows 20 tonnes of fuel to reach its maximum safe weight of 75T.
I don't know any men who weigh 10 stone or less. Should men who are 6 and a half feet tall and normal weight for their height have to pay extra? That's what would happen because a measure like this doesn't take that into account.
I said it was fair, not right.
If this is truly a payment for the carriage of weight on a plane, what difference does your height make? Do tall people deserve special dispensation because they can't help being heavier? Do you just want the fatties to be penalised?
That's obviously it.
For instance, Wiki tells me that the average height for a man in the UK is 5 foot 9 and for a woman it's 5 foot 4 and a half.
Based on that, statistically speaking, I ought to be a man. And I'm not.
No... that's not how averages work. All it means it that as many women are under 5 foot 4, as are over 5 foot 4. Some of these women are actually 6 foot 4!
However, if I ought to be man, statistically speaking, surely I should get the same weight allowance as a man?
No, because a 5 foot 10 man usually weighs more than a 5 foot 10 woman.
I can only guess your height, but womenkind also need you to balance off against the millions of 5 foot 2 women, or otherwise the female height average would drop.
On top of that, the theoretical system is trying to get women to pay extra according to their extra weight over the female baseline, and ditto for men over the male baseline, so that neither men nor women end up paying ,more surcharge for their tickets.
Now as I've said that, if they must do this, it might be easier to do it that way, just based on height. If you are X height, you can weigh Y. If you weigh more than that, you get charged per kilo. On a sliding scale, based on a baseliine weight for your height.
That said, it still negates the alleged original idea that you pay more for the additional weight you personally are adding to the weight of the plane.[/QUOTE]
I'm very tall and I have to pay extra just to get a seat with sufficient leg room so I'm comfortable and now they expect me to pay more because I'm over a certain weight threshold:rolleyes:
In life there are lots of advantages to being a big strong bloke until you wanna fly, then you're fleeced:mad:
To be fair, it depends on the intention of the person taking the pic... maybe he was very concerned about the risk and wanted to have a pic as evidence to highlight the issue as opposed to wanting to humiliate the guy.
There are much worse videos on YouTube which specifically have been posted to humiliate the subject than this one.
Oh I know theres much worse out there. I'm just not comfortable with this new culture of people thinking it's ok to take someones photo without permission just because it's with a phone.
People think nothing of holding their camera phones up to crime scenes, car crashes ect. Not very civilised.
As for this particular pic being taken as evidence, perhaps but I think it's more likely the "photographer" just thought it'd be a bit of a giggle to show his (or her) mates.
Comments
It does seem brain numbingly stupid to make the critical weight different for men and for women especially if the pretend logic behind this is to charge more money the more weight is added to the plane.
I don't know any men who weigh 10 stone or less. Should men who are 6 and a half feet tall and normal weight for their height have to pay extra? That's what would happen because a measure like this doesn't take that into account.
True enough.
My other half is 6 foot 5 and very skinny. He weighs 13 stone.
The only way he could weigh 10 stone would be if he chopped one of his legs off.
I might weigh 10st if I spent a few years in a Japanese POW camp.
Other than that no.
The logic he is using is obviously that the average woman weighs less than the average man. If the average weight was the same for both sexes, then men would be penalised more.
Even the absurdly low 'average' weights could make sense if you take them as baselines, rather than 'averages'. So nobody is claiming that 50kg is any kind of limit for women, but your basic ticket costs £25 (example), and all women are charged 38p/kg (or whatever) for every kilo over that. Similar deal for men from 75kg upwards.
Clearly the idea is that nearly every adult pays some surcharge.
Soooo.... do I get a refund on the kids then?
What about all four of us get on the scales at once, and we buy a family ticket?
yes i feel sorry for him too. some people wouldnt be able to help themselevs from staring and making snide comments.
All of that combined would come to a considerable weight.
This is a good idea.
Eh? Why?
Because you wouldn't be taking it onto the 'plane.
If that's their logic surely giving a weight allowance for people and their luggage combined would actually be the fairest way? As it stands a 7 stone person with luggage a few kilos over the limit but still with a combined weight of a lot less than a 20 stone person with luggage on the current limit will have to pay more to fly despite actually costing the airline less.
It's not about that though is it? It's just about screwing people out of as much as they can.
That's obviously it.
I do think though, that the notion of an average when it comes to people is not particularly useful here. Averages are useful for saying things like: "We're getting taller" and "We're getting fatter" or "Danish people are taller than Scottish people"
But very, very few individual people are this numerically determined average. Purely because it is arrived at through the use of sums.
For instance, Wiki tells me that the average height for a man in the UK is 5 foot 9 and for a woman it's 5 foot 4 and a half.
Based on that, statistically speaking, I ought to be a man. And I'm not. However, if I ought to be man, statistically speaking, surely I should get the same weight allowance as a man?
Now as I've said that, if they must do this, it might be easier to do it that way, just based on height. If you are X height, you can weigh Y. If you weigh more than that, you get charged per kilo. On a sliding scale, based on a baseliine weight for your height.
That said, it still negates the alleged original idea that you pay more for the additional weight you personally are adding to the weight of the plane.
Surcharges should be based on the weight of an average male adult and average female adult.
On the other had, very big people having to pay a lot more should be able to demand a far more comfortable seat. If this means less seats on a plane, so be it.:)
Don't think it's fair. They should set a sensible weight for passenger and bag and be done with it.
They should give him 2 seats and make him pay for them.
Just... If the plane was filled with a 25 stone bloke on every seat, thats 20 tonnes of people in total. The plane itself weighs 35 tonnes (assuming an Airbus A319 - the standard plane used by Easyjet). So thats 55 tonnes so far.
That allows 20 tonnes of fuel to reach its maximum safe weight of 75T.
(yes, I am sad for working that out):p
If this is truly a payment for the carriage of weight on a plane, what difference does your height make? Do tall people deserve special dispensation because they can't help being heavier? Do you just want the fatties to be penalised?
No, because a 5 foot 10 man usually weighs more than a 5 foot 10 woman.
I can only guess your height, but womenkind also need you to balance off against the millions of 5 foot 2 women, or otherwise the female height average would drop.
On top of that, the theoretical system is trying to get women to pay extra according to their extra weight over the female baseline, and ditto for men over the male baseline, so that neither men nor women end up paying ,more surcharge for their tickets.
Now as I've said that, if they must do this, it might be easier to do it that way, just based on height. If you are X height, you can weigh Y. If you weigh more than that, you get charged per kilo. On a sliding scale, based on a baseliine weight for your height.
That said, it still negates the alleged original idea that you pay more for the additional weight you personally are adding to the weight of the plane.[/QUOTE]
Also I would stop going on holiday if I was to be charged for being healthy!
In life there are lots of advantages to being a big strong bloke until you wanna fly, then you're fleeced:mad:
Oh I know theres much worse out there. I'm just not comfortable with this new culture of people thinking it's ok to take someones photo without permission just because it's with a phone.
People think nothing of holding their camera phones up to crime scenes, car crashes ect. Not very civilised.
As for this particular pic being taken as evidence, perhaps but I think it's more likely the "photographer" just thought it'd be a bit of a giggle to show his (or her) mates.