Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Should airlines charge you by your weight?
With all of the cutbacks and extra fees in the airline industry over the past few months, it's difficult not to think about weight on an aircraft per passenger. That's why airlines unilaterally increased baggage fees earlier this year -- more weight requires more fuel which is makes the flight more expensive to operate. If you can encourage passengers to pack lighter or less, the carrier will save money.But what if airlines charged by not only the weight of the luggage but also by the weight of the passenger? One analyst consulted by the popular world and economics website Bloomberg has ventured into the uncharted territory of charging by passenger weight. Robert Mann, aviation consultant at R.W. Mann & Co suggests that it's the "next logical step", given that airlines are basically treating passengers and their luggage alike as freight.
So you would step up to the ticket counter, weigh your checked luggage, send it away then weigh yourself and your carry on to determine your ticket price. You and your luggage weigh 200 lbs? Your ticket is 200$. You and your luggage weigh 300? 300$.
Admittedly, the article speaks with another aviation consultant, David Swierenga, who points out how unrealistic the idea is -- and since Bloomberg is a careful media source I imagine they didn't elaborate on purpose.
Why would this idea never work? America is overweight. We would FLIP OUT if a policy like this was ever adopted, the airline in question would get the pants sued off of it and the carrier would be dead before it even started. It's not too hard to portray "charging by weight" as "discrimination against overweight people".
Airlines will just have to keep coming up with other crafty ideas to make profit until jet fuel returns to normal. Stay tuned for the next ridiculous fees that they come up with.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
BrianM Jun 4th 2008 11:55AM
Why would it never work? The huge hurdle of genetics. I don't care about over weight or not. My wife has about 100 pounds of LEAN muscle mass (knowing her % body fat). I have 200 pounds of LEAN muscle mass (again, I know my % body fat). So, an airline would charge ME more just because I was born a larger person? That's discrimination at the very worst... Penalizing me for something I have only minuscule control over. It's not like I'm a muscle-bound power lifter either. I just take decent care of myself so I have the energy to enjoy my vacations and life.
The same deal would never fly with charging people by their "fat weight"... 10% for me is 20 pounds, where as it's 10 pounds for my wife. There would be so many lawyers all over this kind of proposal that the airlines wouldn't have to worry about fuel costs as they would be spending all their money in court.
freda Jun 4th 2008 3:15PM
I don't really understand your genetics argument. I think you might be referring to fat in general, which I don't think is what an airline company would go by. I'd be more inclined to go by overall weight, rather than fat, because it would be unfair to charge a person with a higher BMI, but lower weight than you a greater price. It's not in defense of fat people, it's just common sense.
CelluliteQueen.com Jun 10th 2008 2:46AM
I'm a large woman. I wouldn't mind paying more for my seat on an airplane, as long as they don't sit someone else next to me... as it would defeat the purpose for charging me more for my seat! If you think I'm too fat and I take up too much room - that's fine. Leave the seat open next to me, and charge me a little bit more than the skinny passengers, and we'll ALL be comfy. But there is no way in HELL I'd pay extra for a seat and still get stuffed in next to someone else!
http://www.CelluliteQueen.com
DM Jun 4th 2008 12:00PM
The airlines should definitely be doing this. I'd like to see them take it a little further...the should have space requirements for seats. I recently took a flight where both of the men on either side of me were large with extremely wide shoulders that went way over the arm rests leaving me with even less space than usual. This is unfair to everyone.
Renee Jun 6th 2008 12:36PM
You should either accept the fact that everyone is built differently and being overweight is not necessarily a factor, or blame the airlines for making seats too small for the average person. Not only are seats not wide enough but there is insufficient leg room. I'm 5'2" and on several flights with various carriers I've had problems with leg room. Maybe beginning there would be a solution. Airlines want the most profit possible on each flight and their answer is to squeeze us into too small spaces, much like trying to justify buying a size 6 shoe when you actually wear a size 7, simply because the sale is too good to pass up.
Craig Jun 4th 2008 12:05PM
They can solve two problems at once -- charge based on have a higher percentage of body fat than a particular value (so tall, muscular, or large-framed people are not undeservedly charged). Then use the extra revenue from that to increase seat pitches and widths. That way the fuel-guzzlers will pay and legitimately larger people will get more space.
Amanda Jun 4th 2008 12:29PM
I really like this topic. Although I agree that it kind of makes sense to charge a person who weighs more a higher fee, the logistics of doing so without causing a major uproar or potentially losing a serious discrimination suit are pretty complex. BrianM raises a good point that charging based purely on weight could punish people from a solely genetic standpoint. However, charging only "fat people" creates an application problem. How do we determine who is fat? What percentage of body fat is acceptable? And what about people who are obese because of genetics or another health condition or disease?
Perhaps a system that permits anyone up to a specific weight to pay the base price and then adds a fee for any weight over that would work out -- similar to what used to be done with luggage. Still, difficulties arise in determining what that base weight would be. (Although a non-discriminatory way might involve calculations as to what passenger weight for a particular plane should be to optimize fuel efficiency divided by the number of seats ...) Somehow, I think the simpler the system, the less likely it would be to be discriminatory ...
I'm looking forward to hearing other folks' ideas.
KurtM Jun 4th 2008 1:07PM
I think if you are a big fat disgusting slob who cannot fit in one seat, you should have to pay for two. I understand some people have medical conditions, those are fine. But when I pay for a ticket and a seat I shouldnt have to share it with someone else because they cant control what they eat...Unfair if you ask me.
Rene Jun 6th 2008 8:27AM
i understand your point about being uncomfortable on a flight, however referring to over-weight people as you did is un called for
PaulHunt Jun 4th 2008 1:32PM
I do not think they should charge a person based on weight. It would be a public relations nightmare in a time when all these new fees popping up are already enraging people. I think they should just charge more for tickets (flat rate) as well as cut flights that are underpopulated. A great article discussing what many analysts suspect is going to happen, and is already a little bit, is called Silent Spring for Aviation. It discusses what airlines are going to be forced to do. Its very interesting. Thanks!
PaulHunt Jun 4th 2008 2:01PM
I forgot to tell you all the website for that article its http://www.energyandoil.com/silent-spring-for-aviation the article is Silent Spring for Aviation. Check it out!
TravelBot Jun 4th 2008 2:10PM
Tough call... it's not fair to "regular sized" people to lose seat space to larger folks. But, as a larger person, I don't think I should have to pay more.
I think the answer lies in more spacious seats and a general overall price increase.
As much as we like to travel, the airlines have a business to run. And if they can't make money due to the cost of fuel we need to either travel less (not an option) or pay more.
I think the good ol' days are over...
Sameer Jun 4th 2008 2:26PM
Bringing variables like body mass index into consideration would only serve to make such a concept impossible to implement. I am open to the idea of being charged by weight - plainly because individual passenger weight is a larger constraint for fuel and other resources for aviation, than it is for other modes of transport.
freda Jun 4th 2008 2:36PM
i wouldn't be opposed to charging people by weight. why should i, as a smaller person, be forced to pay the same as someone twice my weight who'll take up more space than me? even with a carry on and a checked bag, i still weigh less than a lot of travelers. why then, should i have to pay to check a bag, when someone heavier than me without a bag doesn't incur any extra fees? i don't view it as discrimination against fat people, i see a logical argument for charging by weight. i don't think people should be so sensitive to the idea. people that are tall and in shape would also have to pay more, so it's not "discrimination against the overweight." i don't propose that heavier people pay a lot more, but i think whatever price an airline company would have charged for the extra bag would be reasonable.
Valerie Jun 7th 2008 8:09AM
It is discrimination. Since when do we herd people, we still need to have respect for each person. There are requirements for size, when someone doesn't fit in a seat; but weight is not the answer. Where do we stop, weight, height, how much hair, color, disability? Maybe we should charge for wheel chairs?
This is rediculous!
freda Jun 11th 2008 6:46PM
valerie, think about what you are saying. how is charging by weight/size not the answer? the bags are being are being charged by that same exact criteria. what does hair and age have to do with anything? hair color doesn't change the weight of the plane, neither does age really. i also see no problem with charging an extra fee/counting as checked luggage for wheelchairs because one can't stay in the wheelchair, it's usually placed in the cargo section; just because you're "disabled," it doesn't mean that you're always entitled to special treatment. i still don't see how that is a discriminatory practice. in fact, i would feel discriminated against for not having a wheelchair if people with them got a free pass for it.
can we not take this to the absurd by bringing in hair and fashion choices that don't change the overall carrying capacity of the plane. i know you're afraid of a slippery slope, but this is strictly about size limitation, not highly-unbelievable situations.
Gargamello Jun 4th 2008 3:02PM
The other problem with this idea is rich business travelers are almost always overweight. These fat cats are the bread and butter of airlines. Ergo they probably don't want to alienate their only profitable customers?
BrianM Jun 4th 2008 3:46PM
@ Freda:
Genetics. I'm 6'4", 235lbs with about 17% body fat (this is considered "Athletic" by the American Exercise Counsel). The lowest Safe weight I could EVER possibly weight would likely be about 210lbs ~ or 5% body fat. That means 10 pounds of fat, everything else is muscle, bone, organs, tissue, etc... unless I start amputating, I'm not going to weigh under 200lbs.
So, why should I be penalized and charged extra because of how nature decided to build my body?
As for being crowded in the seats, I get it too... usually from women with ample hips/thighs that creep under the armrests. And from the seats inching ever closer together (front to back), coupled with the person in front of me who just MUST recline their seat. Airlines go out of their way to try and create discomfort for as many people as possible to try and earn an extra dollar... instead of just raising the prices. Raise prices across the board and everything gets better. You have a better class of people on the plane (which usually translates into less smell, and people in better shape) and you have airlines who aren't trying to nickel and dime you for everything. Granted, there Will be fewer flights. But that could be a benefit too, because if an airline is doing well fiscally and has full flights, they're likely to buy Bigger aircraft and Perhaps not crowd people in like it's a cattle car.
Flying is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Privileges are not something that Everyone can take part in. If you can't afford an extra $300 for that flight to visit your family over Christmas, then don't go. Right now, the airlines are losing money from my wife and I because we avoid them as much as possible based on the quality of flight. We're both tired of cranky gate agents and flight attendants. We're sick of the AWEFUL stench coming from the average airline passenger. We're tired of spending hours upon hours stranded somewhere. Flying was Decidedly better when it was still Government regulated (yes, I'm old enough to remember what it was like when people would dress up to get on an airplane ~ I still continue that tradition).
So, there are Ample problems going on... charging money based on passenger weight would be a bad thing for the airlines. Maybe they should look into charging based on how rank you smell was you walk down the ramp to the plane. Or charge extra based on how much of a slob you look like in sweatpants. Those make more sense to me.
freda Jun 11th 2008 6:46PM
Brian, I still don't think that I should pay more than you for luggage because the weight of my luggage and myself is less than your overall weight. I'm not judging by fat, thin, muscular, etc. I'm judging by overall weight. that is the main issue with baggage; it should also be the same with people. I'm really tired of people turning something that simple into an issue of fit vs. obese because that's not the issue at all. I'm not here to talk about body-image sensitivity.
I don't like being seated next to the fat, smelly person either. I'm 5'2", size 4, and I bathe on a regular basis. I also try to look presentable because I hate being caught by surprise with some random meet-and-greet or dinner.
Boo Jun 4th 2008 4:53PM
Alright. Minus the "smelly" and "privileged" comments, I agree with much of what Brian M has said. Tall people are already being discriminated against with the squashed leg room. And now they've been charging extra for the "privilege" of sitting in exit rows (which a lot of taller folk try to do simply for the legitimate need for leg room). Also think - even an excruciatingly thin tall person has clothes that are simply larger. Takes more fabric for a pair of jeans on a 6'4 person. That is automatic added weight to the luggage, no matter how lightly you pack (also try packing an extra pair of large sized shoes - good luck) Traveling anywhere in the winter with just one carry-on bag simply isn't going to happen. So add that charge. Now you want to add a personal weight surcharge? Tall people will be slammed yet again. And for what? Because they were born that way? Unfair. Find another way, airlines.