What a load of bollocks. If an airline tried to charge me more because I'm carrying a few extra pounds I would tell them to take a running jump. It seems that people who don't conform to a particular body type are being constantly victimised and I, for one, am sick of it.
where a airline can charge extra is for the use of an extra seat because of the size of the passenger. you use two seats yu pay for two and anyway if a passenger does not like it they can always lose weight or travel by train.
currently certain airlines like ryan air are chargeing extra for any lugguge inthe hold.
nobody forces them to travel by air do they ?
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.
The airlines seem to be quite good at calculating the overall weight of planes before takeoff. It is an important factor, especially for long-haul flights where people tend to have more luggage, and carrying too much fuel is expensive (but carrying not enough fuel is fatal).
Passengers on flights to South and West Africa are notorious for the amount of luggage they carry. I've been on flights where the plane has been 'full', and even though there are still seats available, no-one is allowed to have them. Of course, people who have paid for their ticket don't like this, so more usually everyone gets on, but not everyone's luggage! Even though its not excess, it can turn up in the next day or two.
Surcharges should be based on the weight of an average male adult and average female adult.
You are still confused. It's not a judgement of what 'average' weight is, it's just a surcharge system. It's better to set the baselines low. If you use the real average, then half your passengers are under the weight, and start asking for refunds! (It doesn't affect your pocket, as you just make sure your basic ticket price covers it - takes more time to sort out though).
Don't think it's fair. They should set a sensible weight for passenger and bag and be done with it.
You do realise that this is a theoretical proposal, rather than the new rule at Gatwick?
I think if weight was totalled for passenger and baggage, then big people would still carry more or less the same stuff, but smaller people would start carrying loads more stuff (for free). Average plane weight would go up - not free for the airline.
They should give him 2 seats and make him pay for them.
The big guy in pic appears to be taking up two seats, and is probably paying for them both (quite common). Problem is, if the armrests are fixed, then his backside probably can't reach the cushions!
You are still confused. It's not a judgement of what 'average' weight is, it's just a surcharge system. It's better to set the baselines low. If you use the real average, then half your passengers are under the weight, and start asking for refunds! (It doesn't affect your pocket, as you just make sure your basic ticket price covers it - takes more time to sort out though).
It clearly ridiculous as it doesn't take into BMI.
If the check in people use those caliper things I would be all for it tho.
Oi fatty lift up tour flabby arms... *measures flab* yup - its mainly fat, you can either pay $X extra or lose some weight from your luggage.. hang on, tho..
This would mean the only thing big fat people could have in their luggage is swimming costumes... hmm this needs a rethink
An airline economist has worked out that people carrying what he describes as excess weight, should pay more for their flights.
He sets an example 'critical weight limit' as 75 kilos for men and 50 kilos for women!! That's just 11st 11lbs and 7st 12lb. Surely that's way too low.
I think the principle may be right but only if the limit was raised and if human beings were all supposed to be the same shape and size - but we obviously are not. For example I am 6ft and 14st but have very little body fat. The proposed method is 38p per extra kilo so I'd pay around about £10 more I think.
Do you think it's fair - and if so do you think it would be practical? How would they go about doing it? I guess the 75 kilo limit would include clothing too! Unless they'd want us in our underwear on the scales by the checkout.
I think I was 13 when I last weighed that. **weeps**
I was shocked at the 7st 12lb as well (although for finger pointing Britain, I don't understand why I was shocked really) but when I was about 33, my weight dropped to 7 and a half stone (my height is 5tf 6") and was told by my GP if I lost any more weight that I'd be admitted to hospital to find out what the problem was! (The problem was I was just too busy to eat and the few calories I did take in I burnt off toot sweet). How come that weight is now seen as 'normal'?
Doesn't this discussion come up every 3/6 months on here,
Maybe the subject is new to some posters on here. For those that have discussed it before, they don't need to respond do they; they can just leave it to those who do want to know more about it.
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with charging fatties more, it does right piss me off that a smaller person will be charged if their luggage goes over by 1kg, even though the guy behind them with the smaller bag weighs 4 stone more. That makes absolutely no sense.
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with charging fatties more, it does right piss me off that a smaller person will be charged if their luggage goes over by 1kg, even though the guy behind them with the smaller bag weighs 4 stone more. That makes absolutely no sense.
Yes!!! I have finally found someone who agrees with me. Last year I paid an extra £28 for 5kg extra luggage allowance. I paid upfront as it was considerably cheaper than it would be at the airport and it saved me all the anxiety of being overweight when I checked in.
It was only when I got to the airport and looked around that I realsied that at 8st, many of the passengers were twice the size of me and yet I was the one who had to pay more.
Find a realistic weight of both passenger and luggage and then weigh both together, that is surely the fairest way.
That article linked to on the first page suggests that underweight people would get a reduction in the cost of their ticket. This could result in some people starving themselves for cheaper tickets. Controversial.
An airline economist has worked out that people carrying what he describes as excess weight, should pay more for their flights.
He sets an example 'critical weight limit' as 75 kilos for men and 50 kilos for women!! That's just 11st 11lbs and 7st 12lb. Surely that's way too low.
I think the principle may be right but only if the limit was raised and if human beings were all supposed to be the same shape and size - but we obviously are not. For example I am 6ft and 14st but have very little body fat. The proposed method is 38p per extra kilo so I'd pay around about £10 more I think.
Do you think it's fair - and if so do you think it would be practical? How would they go about doing it? I guess the 75 kilo limit would include clothing too! Unless they'd want us in our underwear on the scales by the checkout.
What next, weigh stations for buses, trains, ferries?
It would never be popular and would end up driving those companies that did it out of business, I would never use a company that asked me to to step on scales before being transported.
Yes!!! I have finally found someone who agrees with me. Last year I paid an extra £28 for 5kg extra luggage allowance. I paid upfront as it was considerably cheaper than it would be at the airport and it saved me all the anxiety of being overweight when I checked in.
It was only when I got to the airport and looked around that I realsied that at 8st, many of the passengers were twice the size of me and yet I was the one who had to pay more.
Find a realistic weight of both passenger and luggage and then weigh both together, that is surely the fairest way.
I agree and think that logically speaking you are correct.
It is obvious that the more weight an aircraft is carrying, the more fuel it will use and the higher the cost.
The airlines use this fact to justify the weight allowance for luggage to quite specific levels. If you're a couple of kgs over you have to pay quite a bit more.
So logically, exactly the same rules should apply to passengers as their luggage surely?
And the limit should not depend on whether you're male or female, short or tall, fat or slim. The physics that determine the rate of fuel consumption in the aircraft jets do not care whether the passenegers are short fat women or tall slim men. It is just their total weight that matters.
So the fairest and most logical solution would be to have an overall weight allowance of say 100kg for each passenger and their luggage. You would be weighed at check-in in the same way that your luggage is weighed. If you are over the limit then you could be charged extra, but in a FAIR way. i.e. the airline engineers should work out what additional cost each additional kg actually corresponds to, and charge accordingly, rather than rip people off the way they do if you're slightly over on luggage. I remember one occassion when I was a couple of kgs over with my luggage on one of the budget airlines and the extra charge was more than the original cost of the flight itself!
The problem with enforcing this is that large people (whether due to height or weight) will claim discrimination.
Its not really discrimination though. It doesn't mean that anyone is being fined or punished for being overweight when it might not be their fault. Its just paying for what you use. A big active man (e.g. a rugby player) will generally need to eat more calories than a small inactive woman, but would not expect restaurants to charge the same for small and large portions.
You could similarly argue that an XXL T shirt should cost more than a small size one of the same style, because the XXL one includes more cotton etc., but again big people would probably claim discrimination.
Maybe the airline should look at the average weight of each member of a family/party travelling together...like they do their luggage. I have paid full fare on some flights for a light 3 year old... I would be a bit aggrieved if I were charged more for being overweight in that situation.
Currently you occasionally see people desperately taking items out of their luggage at the check in desk to be able to fly.
I guess under this proposal you'd see people taking a dump to get under weight.
Airplane should have a variety of seat sizes and passengers
should not be allowed to occupy a seat that is too small for them. Obviously you would have to pay more for bigger seats and more leg room.
There would be fewer sats on the plane but they would recover the money from the larger seat charges.
I would require a larger seat and I would be willing to pay for it.
I agree and think that logically speaking you are correct.
It is obvious that the more weight an aircraft is carrying, the more fuel it will use and the higher the cost.
The airlines use this fact to justify the weight allowance for luggage to quite specific levels. If you're a couple of kgs over you have to pay quite a bit more.
So logically, exactly the same rules should apply to passengers as their luggage surely?
Nope. The luggage limits are there for punitive reasons. Otherwise, what is to stop someone taking 100kg of luggage because they can't do without 150 pairs of extra shoes? They can, if they can afford it.
And the limit should not depend on whether you're male or female, short or tall, fat or slim. The physics that determine the rate of fuel consumption in the aircraft jets do not care whether the passenegers are short fat women or tall slim men. It is just their total weight that matters.
So the fairest and most logical solution would be to have an overall weight allowance of say 100kg for each passenger and their luggage. You would be weighed at check-in in the same way that your luggage is weighed. If you are over the limit then you could be charged extra, but in a FAIR way. i.e. the airline engineers should work out what additional cost each additional kg actually corresponds to, and charge accordingly, rather than rip people off the way they do if you're slightly over on luggage. I remember one occassion when I was a couple of kgs over with my luggage on one of the budget airlines and the extra charge was more than the original cost of the flight itself!
So your way WOULDN'T ACTUALLY make any difference! If the luggage allowance is 15kg and a person weighing 75kg takes 25kg luggage then a person weighing 90kg with 10kg of luggage weighs the same. The 75kg person has brought too much luggage and should be charged PUNITIVELY for exceeding the pre-agreed amount! Would you like a refund for every kg you are UNDER? The larger person is being PENALISED in not being allowed to carry as much luggage!
Anyway, aren't smaller peoples clothes and shoes going to weigh less because they're smaller? We should get a larger allowance for being taller - or is that a forgotten part of the argument? What next, you've brought 12 pairs of briefs for a week's holiday, so you're wasting fuel?
Its not really discrimination though. It doesn't mean that anyone is being fined or punished for being overweight when it might not be their fault. Its just paying for what you use. A big active man (e.g. a rugby player) will generally need to eat more calories than a small inactive woman, but would not expect restaurants to charge the same for small and large portions.
You can choose portion sizes in many restuarants or just order more courses or extras. And you pay more. Do I wish I had been born smaller? No. Do I moan about my increased cost of living for being larger? No.
There's also a distinction between eating and taking a flight. One is a necessity and the other a luxury.
You could similarly argue that an XXL T shirt should cost more than a small size one of the same style, because the XXL one includes more cotton etc., but again big people would probably claim discrimination.
Clothing is the next worst analogy. We need to clothe ourselves, but if I need a suit I may need a tailor, rather than an off the peg with or without minor alterations. Again, see which way the outsize person has it, large or small.
I can claim that I can often neither find clothes or shoes in my size (UK12), but if I do, I can often find outlet bargains, because only outsize or oddsize are left.
I see many adults who boast about cheaper clothes and shoes because they fit into child's sizes and escape VAT.
We are all different. If you want to start breaking things down because we don't conform to one rule, then society is really at an end.
7 and a half stone?? I would be dead if I got to that. If you are that large you need 2 seats, you should pay for two seats, that seems fair enough to me.
Currently you occasionally see people desperately taking items out of their luggage at the check in desk to be able to fly.
I guess under this proposal you'd see people taking a dump to get under weight.
... or running around trying to sweat off a few ounces. That would cause complaints from people who had to sit next to the sweaty people on the plane.
Comments
I think thats fair enough.
and if they had to fly over the Andes:eek:
currently certain airlines like ryan air are chargeing extra for any lugguge inthe hold.
nobody forces them to travel by air do they ?
Passengers on flights to South and West Africa are notorious for the amount of luggage they carry. I've been on flights where the plane has been 'full', and even though there are still seats available, no-one is allowed to have them. Of course, people who have paid for their ticket don't like this, so more usually everyone gets on, but not everyone's luggage! Even though its not excess, it can turn up in the next day or two.
You are still confused. It's not a judgement of what 'average' weight is, it's just a surcharge system. It's better to set the baselines low. If you use the real average, then half your passengers are under the weight, and start asking for refunds! (It doesn't affect your pocket, as you just make sure your basic ticket price covers it - takes more time to sort out though).
You do realise that this is a theoretical proposal, rather than the new rule at Gatwick?
I think if weight was totalled for passenger and baggage, then big people would still carry more or less the same stuff, but smaller people would start carrying loads more stuff (for free). Average plane weight would go up - not free for the airline.
The big guy in pic appears to be taking up two seats, and is probably paying for them both (quite common). Problem is, if the armrests are fixed, then his backside probably can't reach the cushions!
I'm not confused. I am merely giving my opinion
If the check in people use those caliper things I would be all for it tho.
Oi fatty lift up tour flabby arms... *measures flab* yup - its mainly fat, you can either pay $X extra or lose some weight from your luggage.. hang on, tho..
This would mean the only thing big fat people could have in their luggage is swimming costumes... hmm this needs a rethink
I'm 6ft+ and according the BS science of BMI i'm classed as OK.
But i still find an economy seat a tight fit, i pity the poor person sitting next to me, because i'm going to encroach on to their space.
Why should i pay more, because i'm not overweight or obese?
Your post makes little sense. That's maybe because the source has not bothered to make sense.
"Weigh more" - more than what? More than a child by the look of things.
38p per kilo? What, for a flight to London? Or Australia? What is this based on?
Yeah, I think I'll give this the consideration it deserves. A big fat LOL
I was shocked at the 7st 12lb as well (although for finger pointing Britain, I don't understand why I was shocked really) but when I was about 33, my weight dropped to 7 and a half stone (my height is 5tf 6") and was told by my GP if I lost any more weight that I'd be admitted to hospital to find out what the problem was! (The problem was I was just too busy to eat and the few calories I did take in I burnt off toot sweet). How come that weight is now seen as 'normal'?
Maybe the subject is new to some posters on here. For those that have discussed it before, they don't need to respond do they; they can just leave it to those who do want to know more about it.
Yes!!!
It was only when I got to the airport and looked around that I realsied that at 8st, many of the passengers were twice the size of me and yet I was the one who had to pay more.
Find a realistic weight of both passenger and luggage and then weigh both together, that is surely the fairest way.
how can the critical weight limit be different for men and for women?
It would never be popular and would end up driving those companies that did it out of business, I would never use a company that asked me to to step on scales before being transported.
I've never actually seen a thread end after someone has typed the usual "end of"! So you think tall people should be exempt, but to hell with the fatties? Make them pay extra, because they let themselves get fat?
I agree and think that logically speaking you are correct.
It is obvious that the more weight an aircraft is carrying, the more fuel it will use and the higher the cost.
The airlines use this fact to justify the weight allowance for luggage to quite specific levels. If you're a couple of kgs over you have to pay quite a bit more.
So logically, exactly the same rules should apply to passengers as their luggage surely?
And the limit should not depend on whether you're male or female, short or tall, fat or slim. The physics that determine the rate of fuel consumption in the aircraft jets do not care whether the passenegers are short fat women or tall slim men. It is just their total weight that matters.
So the fairest and most logical solution would be to have an overall weight allowance of say 100kg for each passenger and their luggage. You would be weighed at check-in in the same way that your luggage is weighed. If you are over the limit then you could be charged extra, but in a FAIR way. i.e. the airline engineers should work out what additional cost each additional kg actually corresponds to, and charge accordingly, rather than rip people off the way they do if you're slightly over on luggage. I remember one occassion when I was a couple of kgs over with my luggage on one of the budget airlines and the extra charge was more than the original cost of the flight itself!
The problem with enforcing this is that large people (whether due to height or weight) will claim discrimination.
Its not really discrimination though. It doesn't mean that anyone is being fined or punished for being overweight when it might not be their fault. Its just paying for what you use. A big active man (e.g. a rugby player) will generally need to eat more calories than a small inactive woman, but would not expect restaurants to charge the same for small and large portions.
You could similarly argue that an XXL T shirt should cost more than a small size one of the same style, because the XXL one includes more cotton etc., but again big people would probably claim discrimination.
Agreed, if a lard bucket spreads over into the next seat squeezing the other passenger, then of course charge for two seats.
I guess under this proposal you'd see people taking a dump to get under weight.
should not be allowed to occupy a seat that is too small for them. Obviously you would have to pay more for bigger seats and more leg room.
There would be fewer sats on the plane but they would recover the money from the larger seat charges.
I would require a larger seat and I would be willing to pay for it.
Nope. The luggage limits are there for punitive reasons. Otherwise, what is to stop someone taking 100kg of luggage because they can't do without 150 pairs of extra shoes? They can, if they can afford it.
So your way WOULDN'T ACTUALLY make any difference! If the luggage allowance is 15kg and a person weighing 75kg takes 25kg luggage then a person weighing 90kg with 10kg of luggage weighs the same. The 75kg person has brought too much luggage and should be charged PUNITIVELY for exceeding the pre-agreed amount! Would you like a refund for every kg you are UNDER? The larger person is being PENALISED in not being allowed to carry as much luggage!
Anyway, aren't smaller peoples clothes and shoes going to weigh less because they're smaller? We should get a larger allowance for being taller - or is that a forgotten part of the argument? What next, you've brought 12 pairs of briefs for a week's holiday, so you're wasting fuel?
I am not overweight for my height, but I weigh almost 100kg.
You can choose portion sizes in many restuarants or just order more courses or extras. And you pay more. Do I wish I had been born smaller? No. Do I moan about my increased cost of living for being larger? No.
There's also a distinction between eating and taking a flight. One is a necessity and the other a luxury.
Clothing is the next worst analogy. We need to clothe ourselves, but if I need a suit I may need a tailor, rather than an off the peg with or without minor alterations. Again, see which way the outsize person has it, large or small.
I can claim that I can often neither find clothes or shoes in my size (UK12), but if I do, I can often find outlet bargains, because only outsize or oddsize are left.
I see many adults who boast about cheaper clothes and shoes because they fit into child's sizes and escape VAT.
We are all different. If you want to start breaking things down because we don't conform to one rule, then society is really at an end.
... or running around trying to sweat off a few ounces. That would cause complaints from people who had to sit next to the sweaty people on the plane.