Heavier Passengers 'Should Pay More' (and not michael o'leary btw!)

Seachmall

IM0 wrote: »

what is the cost price to an airline to transport an extra 1 kilo of weight.

currently excess is about 6€ x 1 kg?

but how much of that is profit for them and how much as I say is their cost price

I'd guess there's a large difference between what weights they allow without extra charge and what weights would begin to require additional fuel.

The issue would be if all passengers over packed by a couple of KG that would translate to hundreds of KG of additional weight. How much that would cost in additional fuel would depend on the plane and the distance of the flight (although I'd guess not much when compared to what they charge passengers who overpack).

csallmighty

Marcin_diy wrote: »

and why slim small fit woman should pay less than athletic tall but not overweight man?
Maybe BMI is an option? people with BMI over 29 pay more, below21 pay less?

I think the idea "flew" over your head and you missed it.

It isn't a fat tax so bmi doesn't apply. It's about being efficient with fuel so only your weight truly matters.

More weight = more fuel, therefore a pay what you weigh system.

Rochelle

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I'd like to see a system where you and your luggage are weighed together and charged accordingly.

I overpack and I accept I should pay more than those who only carry on but I resent paying through the nose when me and my oversized case combined weigh less than many other passengers.

It would be difficult to implement for advanced payment though and even though I think it's unfair I wouldn't like to see people being made a show of in public.

I shouldn't worry about that, lardarses are already making a show of themselves and for the most part don't seem to mind.

COYVB

A Boeing 737 passenger jet weighs 38,147kg
3 hours' worth of fuel for a full plane weighs 7,257kg
3 hours' worth of fuel for an empty plane weighs 6,350kg
Say 150 seats in the plane, times the average adult weight of 70kg = 10,500kg
Weight of fuel needed to transport 150 people for 3 hours = 907kg
1L of fuel weighs 700g, so 907kg of fuel = 1295.72l
1295.72l divided by 150 people = 8.64l per 70kg person to fly for 3 hours, or 2.88l per hour

Though I'm not very good at maths

southsiderosie

This may make sense numbers-wise, but the logistics would be a nightmare. I'd guess that at least half of people who fly these days, especially on non-budget airlines, don't even check luggage and just walk straight to the security line at the airport. It's already a pain in the hole to get there early, go through a full body scanner, etc (in the US), and this proposal would force people to get to the airport even earlier for 'weigh-in'.

My bigger problem with this though (no pun intended!) is that even with all the weigh-in crap, the airlines would still stuff us into tiny seats with no legroom.

What I'd like to see the airlines do is offer something like a 'row buy-out': for the planes with three seats in a row, if you are traveling with a friend, you can buy all three seats (at a discount) so the middle seat stays empty. Vueling does this - if traveling with someone else, you can pay a little extra to get an 'excellence seat'. That way, an obese couple can buy themselves more room, or anyone who wants to be able to spread out can do so.

As an aside, the comments on that article are so hateful - while being squished on a plane may be an annoyance, the level of vitriol directed at obese people is sickening.

squod

whomitconcerns wrote: »

...statistically women are lighter..

Never gonna get women to admit their weight.

Duckjob

kylith wrote: »

While I have no problem with a price per kilo it would be impossible to enforce. You'd either have to input your weight, plus the weight of your clothes etc when you book the ticket online, or you'd have to wait until you got to the airport to be weighed for payment, which would be time consuming and inconvenient.

Instead of just one of those luggage checker frames from now on Ryanair are going to have two of them - one for the carry-on bag and one for the passengers arse. If you can't fit your arse into the frame you pay an extra seat.

BizzyC

osarusan wrote: »

The idea is that it costs more money for fuel to transport more weight - it's about weight, not bulk and discomfort to other passengers.

As a passenger, would you prefer to be sat next to a 16st person who doesn't spill into your space, or a 15st person who does?

Bulk does come into play. In order to keep the weight down on the plane, they are built with as little unused space as possible.
Having passengers who are bulkier allows for less space on your flight, which causes different issues, particularly in terms of safety standards.

Hoop66

Basically, if you are fat or poor, I don't want you on my plane.

That job is taken.

kjl

OK lets be honest, it's never going to happen. There would be outrage if it did.

But consider this,

I am 6f5 and weigh about 205lb, I was born generically tall and as such I am not over weight, so why should I have to pay extra? In fact I already do because there is never enough leg room from me so I normally have to get the emergency exit seats.

AEDIC

Vitali Klitchko... 6 foot 7 and weighs between 17.5 and 18 stone...where are you lot going to tell him to sit on your perfect human specimin planes.. ?

No doubt there would be a queue of people telling him to get off the plane cause he was too heavy.... erm... not.

Gosub

Sky having a slow news day then? :rolleyes:

omahaid

It'll never happen. Us tall strong muscular people run the world and won't let this stand. Ye frail featherlike nerdlings can complain all ye want, still bottom rung.

jackal

kjl wrote: »

OK lets be honest, it's never going to happen. There would be outrage if it did.

But consider this,

I am 6f5 and weigh about 205lb, I was born generically tall and as such I am not over weight, so why should I have to pay extra? In fact I already do because there is never enough leg room from me so I normally have to get the emergency exit seats.

You would not be paying "extra", you are paying for exactly the amount of weight that you bring on the plane, be it in baggage or as part of your person. You could always get a boat if you are so worried about legroom, colossus!

Miss Lockhart

Rochelle wrote: »

I shouldn't worry about that, lardarses are already making a show of themselves and for the most part don't seem to mind.

Well if you shouldn't, then don't. I can make up my own mind, thanks.

keithb93

How about an extra charge for obese people, some people are naturally build and heavier but not unhealthy, thus shouldn't pay more. This might motivate fatty's to lose some weight.

books4sale

Malari wrote: »

Whether I agree with it ethically is another thing! :pac:

What's unethical about?

It will force people to take account of their lifestyle and stop being a burden on the health system.

Its already a fact that obese people can't do certain things ...like ride a rollercoaster! ...would you be on that train?

COYVB

jackal wrote: »

You would not be paying "extra", you are paying for exactly the amount of weight that you bring on the plane, be it in baggage or as part of your person. You could always get a boat if you are so worried about legroom, colossus!

but we've established it costs 2.88l per hour of flight per 70kg of person, so if some big bugger of 140kg wanted to fly, based on weight, he'd have to pay about a fiver extra per hour of flight. It's not the huge sums the airlines want you to think when it comes to cost per weight of passenger - the vast majority of weight on any passenger plane is the fuel and the plane itself, costing approximately 4.5 times the amount of fuel 150 70kg passengers do. A fatty, or a dozen fatties, costs an airline a pittance in fuel, just like a heavy bag costs them practically nil to carry. It's a money making racket

end of the road

keithb93 wrote: »

How about an extra charge for obese people, This might motivate fatty's to lose some weight.

this delusianel comment always comes up in such discussions, and it fails all the time, because the mindset doesn't work like that, at least not in this country, the mindset is "the airline is trying to screw me so i'm not going to fly with them i'l find another one"

keithb93 wrote: »

some people are naturally build and heavier but not unhealthy, thus shouldn't pay more.

to find out for sure who fits into which catigorry would most likely mean medical checks for everyone before a flight, the cost of that means its not going to happen even though the passengers would be the ones paying for such checks. such a charge won't happen as they won't be allowed by the EU so nothing to worry about.

end of the road

books4sale wrote: »

It will force people to take account of their lifestyle and stop being a burden on the health system.

really? you sure about that one? i suppose in your own little world it might be the case but in truth life will just continue as normal for such people, they will either pay up or just stop using any airline who imposes such charge most likely but continue with their life styles

Beef_Injection

Naturally tall and healthy people should not be subject to such a charge if it were to somehow unbelievably pass.

As for you plump and big boned oompa loompas, take a hint and get the finger out. I'm not paying the same fare as you and having you spill over my chair like a second arm rest.

Hoop66

kjl wrote: »

I am 6f5 and weigh about 205lb, I was born generically tall

#Sorry John, Sorry,
Better try it again#

Malari

books4sale wrote: »

What's unethical about?

It will force people to take account of their lifestyle and stop being a burden on the health system.

Its already a fact that obese people can't do certain things ...like ride a rollercoaster! ...would you be on that train?

You don't see an ethical problem with this? Quite aside from the fact that tall, muscular people would also be hit with larger surcharges, and presumably you don't see them as being a "burden on the health system", should we penalise anyone with a medical problem whose treatments are paid for by the HSE just because they have the potential to change their lifestyle?

opinion guy

biko wrote: »

Just put the very slim next to the very fat.
Sorted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soPN80PaXsI

ejmaztec

15 minutes on the Ryanair Airport Liposuction Machine for 20 Euro, or 2 minutes on the Ryanair Airport Chainsaw for 3.50

opinion guy

ejmaztec wrote: »

15 minutes on the Ryanair Airport Liposuction Machine for 20 Euro, or 2 minutes on the Ryanair Airport Chainsaw for 3.50

....and preorder your Ryanair prosthetic limb for rental whilst on your holiday :pac:

ejmaztec

opinion guy wrote: »

....and preorder your Ryanair prosthetic limb for rental whilst on your holiday :pac:

One of the calendar girls revving up the chainsaw when one of the check in crew reads out the excess gut options to a trembling fat bloke.

Boombastic

I'm lighter than the average person, do I get it cheaper?

Solair

I think we can safely say this wont be happening.

Someone just wanted to maximise their publicity.

(Yawn)

Cienciano

books4sale wrote: »

What's unethical about?

It will force people to take account of their lifestyle and stop being a burden on the health system.

No it wouldn't. It will force heavy people to pay more. That's it.

But as mentioned about 20 times already, it's not going to happen.

SB2013

smash wrote: »

Sizeism? Seriously, is this a thing now?

If I have to pay extra for my slightly overweight suitcase, then they can pay extra for their seriously overweight bodies.

Seems reasonable until you consider the difference between a 5 foot woman and a six foot two man, both of whom are at their ideal BMI.

Ilik Urgee

Boombastic wrote: »

I'm lighter than the average person, do I get it cheaper?

Overhead Luggage to be known as Underweight Passengers is another proposal being put forward.

Sowee:D

Oranage2

How is this fair?

I'm 6'0 and 90kg, so I should be discriminated against all because I like cake?

tin79

Hey Bhatta Bhatta Swing Bhatta!

Never gonna happen.

phasers

I can just picture the queues full of crying women having to step up onto the scales in front of an entire airport...

Any airline who would dare implement this is crazy imo.

frank reynolds

might encourage a few people to put the fork down if it was implemented

ejmaztec

frank reynolds wrote: »

might encourage a few people to put the fork down if it was implemented

They'd probably be expecting three helpings of everything on the plane.

COYVB

frank reynolds wrote: »

might encourage a few people to put the fork down if it was implemented

Would it encourage tall people to chop half their legs off?

nocoverart

If this was ever brought in I think it would be very insensitive towards the morbidly obese. I don't think they would travel out of sheer embarrassment..... OH WAIT!

ejmaztec

One of them might fit in this at a squeeze.

This has always annoyed me. It's hard not to feel peed off when your size 8 self gets charged a fortune for a few extra kilos in the checked bag, then a clinically obese person who is about 3 times your size sits next to you on the flight.

frank reynolds

COYVB wrote: »

Would it encourage tall people to chop half their legs off?

yeah. those damn pesky tallies

LuckyLloyd

Abraham Vast Marinade wrote: »

This has always annoyed me. It's hard not to feel peed off when your size 8 self gets charged a fortune for a few extra kilos in the checked bag, then a clinically obese person who is about 3 times your size sits next to you on the flight.

But why does this annoy you? They are two completely different things. The seat doesn't have a weight restriction because no airline employee needs to lift its contents around at any time. Your bag has weight restrictions because it does need to be lifted around, it needs to be stowed overhead, etc.

Also your small, size 8 self is hardly deserving of a life discount in general terms? Why don't we go the whole hog? We can artifically tax the less genetically beautiful; the less genetically intelligent; those of a less edifying skin colour and sexual preference...oh wait, they tried something like that once before in history.

You're small, other people are bigger. They'll pay the same as you for an airline seat so long as the EU is around. Suck it up tiny.

Capt'n Midnight

southsiderosie wrote: »

What I'd like to see the airlines do is offer something like a 'row buy-out': for the planes with three seats in a row, if you are traveling with a friend, you can buy all three seats (at a discount) so the middle seat stays empty.

Believe it or not ...

https://www.ryanair.com/ie/terms-and-conditions

To book an extra seat for such an item the word "ITEM SEAT" must be entered as the last name and "EXTRA" entered as the first name. EXTRA ITEM SEAT will then be displayed both in the reservation and on the on-line Boarding Pass.

vektarman

Did I hear someone say this would never happen?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22001256

seanmacc

vektarman wrote: »

Did I hear someone say this would never happen?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22001256

In fairness, have you seen the size of some of the Samoans?

Truncheon Rouge

There is good reason behind the proposal.

However, it would provoke too much rabble rabble.

And for that reason it won't happen.

goose2005

if you have 2 kg of coke in your stomach does that count? I mean, it's not even mine.

seamus

Pay per kilo actually does appear to be the fairest system overall because it does away with trying to account for BMI, fat -v- skinny -v- athletic, etc. Sure, heavier people pay more, even if they're a 120kg, 5% bodyfat MMA fighter, but tough ****.

The only problem is incorporating this into the "low fares" model. If it's pay per kilo, how do you determine what the cost is going to be for a flight you're not taking for another six months? Maybe pay a set fare at the time and then at check-in you get weighed and you're refunded or charged extra?

But then that removes a lot of the benefit of online checkin, etc. It might possibly only work for long-haul where people are more tolerant of longer check-ins, etc.

Tar.Aldarion

seamus wrote: »

Pay per kilo actually does appear to be the fairest system overall because it does away with trying to account for BMI, fat -v- skinny -v- athletic, etc. Sure, heavier people pay more, even if they're a 120kg, 5% bodyfat MMA fighter, but tough ****.

The only problem is incorporating this into the "low fares" model. If it's pay per kilo, how do you determine what the cost is going to be for a flight you're not taking for another six months? Maybe pay a set fare at the time and then at check-in you get weighed and you're refunded or charged extra?

But then that removes a lot of the benefit of online checkin, etc. It might possibly only work for long-haul where people are more tolerant of longer check-ins, etc.

Could have ranges and the employees can pull people out of the queue based on their supposed weight and looking at them, much like people with bigger bags get singled out. Same deal, they get commission on every big boy found.