City-Data Forum Should airlines charge according to passenger weight? (cheap, budget, ticket)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
 View detailed profile (Advanced) or searchsite with Search Forums  (Advanced)

10-29-2014, 09:33 AM
 25 posts, read 19,785 times Reputation: 76

Advertisements

Quote:
 Originally Posted by botticelli what's your logic behind that? If you want a larger seat, you pay more also. The additional fare only goes to your additional weight. Why don't you grasp the math behind the idea? You pay for the resource that is required to move you, the resources including the fuel to carry your weight, and the space assigned for your size.
Here's the logic:

If we go to a pay-by-weight system, larger people will pay more than smaller people. Why should that system be limited only to making heavier people pay more? Why do you only consider weight in the equation, creating only a negative outcome for passengers as their size increases?

If it's fair to charge passengers a fare based on total weight, then it's also fair to categorize the space given to each passenger, also according to size.

If we are going to scale fares for each traveler based on weight, we should also scale the size of their seat.

Why should the larger person subsidize the smaller person's seat size? The smaller the person, the smaller the seat needed. Why don't you understand this?

10-29-2014, 09:35 AM
 4,586 posts, read 4,623,425 times Reputation: 4358
They should just separate the planes; they have enough money to make planes for overweight/tall people with bigger seats and bigger price tags!

10-29-2014, 09:40 AM
 Location: North Idaho 22,706 posts, read 28,744,369 times Reputation: 43817
I don't agree with charging passengers by the pound, but the airlines would be smart to put in a couple of rows of extra wide chairs for an extra fee for the people who don't fit into a regular airline seat. I suspect that seats 1 1/4 width would sell well for 1 1/4 the regular fare.

10-29-2014, 09:47 AM
 Location: Niceville, FL 7,685 posts, read 16,109,576 times Reputation: 7705
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nmnita This is not even realistic. Do you think people are going to stand in line to get weighed, do you have any idea how much time this would take or how many more employees they would need just to try to enforce such a rule.
They do this for many USA-Cuba charter flights because the Florida-based Cubans tend to bring mass quantities of consumer good difficult to get in Cuba down to relatives, and they need to have an accurate passengers + cargo weight to see if they need to send a second cargo-only plane along with the original flight. They don't charge more based on passenger weight though, just the extra 50-100 pounds of checked baggage.

I've also heard of weighing passengers in parts of the South Pacific where the planes tend to be small and the passengers tend to be large, and they need to make sure weight distribution for passengers and cargo is safe aviation. I suspect that the carrier in question here is a small charter service using small planes where weight per passenger does make more of a difference.

Me, I'll stick with the legacy carriers who don't care about such things and keep buying my extra legroom Economy Comfort seat, which actually does get me a slightly better product for my 5'9" and mostly legs self.

10-29-2014, 10:03 AM
 Location: City of Angels 2,935 posts, read 4,768,423 times Reputation: 2236
You don't even need much more room to make things comfortable. Like take economy on the A380. The seats are only and inch or two wider and only slightly more leg room but they are a million times nicer than economy on a 777 or 747. Unfortunately I cant afford to upgrade for long haul flights. When flying domestically usually only upgrade when flights are over 2 hours and under \$40

10-29-2014, 10:09 AM
 10,847 posts, read 11,268,124 times Reputation: 7586
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ericofmaine Here's the logic: If we go to a pay-by-weight system, larger people will pay more than smaller people. Why should that system be limited only to making heavier people pay more? Why do you only consider weight in the equation, creating only a negative outcome for passengers as their size increases? If it's fair to charge passengers a fare based on total weight, then it's also fair to categorize the space given to each passenger, also according to size. If we are going to scale fares for each traveler based on weight, we should also scale the size of their seat. Why should the larger person subsidize the smaller person's seat size? The smaller the person, the smaller the seat needed. Why don't you understand this?
it is never about one's needs. It is about the resource required to move someone. And that includes 1) fuel to move the weight 2) space on board.

Larger person shouldn't automatically get bigger space just because they "need" it. Bigger spaces means fewer seats and less revenue for the company. So bigger seats come with higher fare. If you take 150% of regular seat space, you pay a higher fare. It is that straight forward.

Saying airlines should give more space just because you are large is like saying restaurants should offer larger portion just because you need to eat more. That doesn't happen.

10-29-2014, 10:10 AM
 10,847 posts, read 11,268,124 times Reputation: 7586
Quote:
 Originally Posted by foadi You don't even need much more room to make things comfortable. Like take economy on the A380. The seats are only and inch or two wider and only slightly more leg room but they are a million times nicer than economy on a 777 or 747. Unfortunately I cant afford to upgrade for long haul flights. When flying domestically usually only upgrade when flights are over 2 hours and under \$40
A380 is not always an option I suppose. I have never had the opportunity to take that.

10-29-2014, 10:11 AM
 Location: Salt Lake City 21,964 posts, read 22,127,476 times Reputation: 10705
Men would probably be justified in claiming discrimination based on sex. An 6'2" male who is at his optimum weight is going to weigh considerably more than his 5'6" wife, who is at her optimum weight.

10-29-2014, 10:14 AM
 10,847 posts, read 11,268,124 times Reputation: 7586
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Katzpur Men would probably be justified in claiming discrimination based on sex. An 6'2" male who is at his optimum weight is going to weigh considerably more than his 5'6" wife, who is at her optimum weight.
So men should be justified in claiming discrimination that restaurants actually charge a premium for large sized meal compared with regular size, because they "need" to eat more?

When more services/resources are offered to you, you pay more. That's fairness. It doesn't matter you are born to need more.

10-29-2014, 10:14 AM
 Location: Long Island, NY 1,688 posts, read 2,059,266 times Reputation: 2132
It's a gimmicky approach for a gimmicky airline. No major carrier would ever do this because it would be a death wish.

I'm one of those 6'2" 200 pounders and I would rather ride a moped to where I'm going than to acquiesce to a stupid policy like that. If you can fit into one of those sardine can sized seats then you should only be charged as one traveller.
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

 City-Data Forum
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

 City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top