U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
 [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 search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2014, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
1,687 posts, read 2,056,590 times
Reputation: 2132

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I fail to understand why weighing yourself is a loss of dignity.

Anyone can see by visual observation if one is fat or not. Knowing the exact weight doesn't make it worse. Do you think a 250lbs man can look skinny without being weighed?

Plus, the weight doesn't have to be for everyone to see except the airline staff, does it? Where the loss of dignity come from?

People always claim beauty comes in all sizes, and now why do you think being seen fat is a loss of respect?
I weigh myself at home and I'm weighed at my doctor's office for health reasons. Not to see how much beef I have on me that can be charged by the pound.

When people are standing in line to check in, you don't think that when a heavyset person gets on the scale there won't be snide comments. Or worse yet, the weight is too loudly announced by the agent.

And yes, a 250 pound man can look skinny without being weighed. Put that weight on a six foot plus frame, especially if it's substantially muscle, and see how the weight is far more than it appears.

 
Old 10-29-2014, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
14,693 posts, read 8,476,377 times
Reputation: 29370
I think it's a great idea. My gf weighs 107, and I weigh 140, and there is no reason why we should pay just as much as a passenger who weighs 250 (not to mention get squeezed out of those skinny seats).
 
Old 10-29-2014, 11:29 AM
 
2,288 posts, read 3,932,287 times
Reputation: 2055
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
except the operating cost of airlines are not just about size of the seat, but also the fuel required to move the weight it has on board.

Fuel cost is about 30-35% of total operating cost.
How about you provide some evidence regarding the proportion of fuel cost that actually varies according to the weight of its passengers? Nobody is questioning that fuel cost is an important cost for airlines.
 
Old 10-29-2014, 11:48 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,255,922 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmouse View Post
But muscle is a lot more dense than fat, and you can get a lot of variation in terms of weight among people that have the same measurements depending on level of fitness. It's the classic "all NBA players are obese under BMI" argument. Just eyeballing someone who isn't dressed in skin tight clothes is a horribly inaccurate way of trying to figure out weight.
the argument was never about fat, healthy or life style, wasn't it? The airline can't care less about if a passenger is 800 pounds with a lot of health issue. None of their business. What matters to them is heavier passengers, let it be due to muscle or fat or a 40 pound tumor, require more fuel to move and therefore should pay more. A perfect healthy 220 lbs 6'5'' basketplayer is exactly the same as an obese 220lbs passenger with a body fat of 45% to the airline. They are just body mass to be moved, which requires fuel.

Anyhow, no one except the staff can see the exact weight, so all this "dignity" talk is redundant.
 
Old 10-29-2014, 11:51 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,255,922 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
I think it's a great idea. My gf weighs 107, and I weigh 140, and there is no reason why we should pay just as much as a passenger who weighs 250 (not to mention get squeezed out of those skinny seats).
I always think seats on airplanes should have optional dividers in between, so that if you sit beside a really fat person, you can lift it between you and him like a small wall so that part of him won't somehow squeeze into the space you paid for. For families and friends, they can choose to have it down.
 
Old 10-29-2014, 12:12 PM
 
605 posts, read 466,961 times
Reputation: 1093
Considering that this airline does not even exist, I am pretty sure this whole headline is a joke.
 
Old 10-29-2014, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Bran's tree
11,060 posts, read 4,860,550 times
Reputation: 12417
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosemaryT View Post
Flying is just one hassle after another.

Asking passengers to weigh in will be the death knell for an already beleaguered industry.

As to the person who said they "take care of themselves" - GOOD for you for having the right genetics and no medical problems!
And for being short!!

I'm 5'11 and 118 lbs, so if they're charging $2.50 per pound over 90 lbs, I'm always going to have to pay $70 extra per ticket??

If that's the case, the base cost better be much lowered to account for people who aren't midgets or severely anorexic.

Or at least be reasonable and set the base at a realistic adult weight. Perhaps 150 lbs?
 
Old 10-29-2014, 01:17 PM
 
5,574 posts, read 5,832,169 times
Reputation: 16489
$2.50 per pound over 90 lbs is ridiculous. As someone else pointed out, it only costs about $10 in added fuel per passenger. So someone weighing 95 lbs will more than cover the cost of the fuel.

I think if this were to become a reality, a flat fee rather than a per pound fee is more reasonable. But only at a small amount. Like $5-10 if you weigh more than 100lbs. I would gladly pay this "fat tax" if it means that everyone else has to shut the hell up and keep their opinions of my weight to themselves.
 
Old 10-29-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Bran's tree
11,060 posts, read 4,860,550 times
Reputation: 12417
If they do this, it's only a matter of time before there's some lawsuit over people going on dangerous crash diets to drop as many pounds as possible for the airline weigh-in, in order to save money.
 
Old 10-29-2014, 01:36 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,745 posts, read 7,027,781 times
Reputation: 14229
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Sounds unrealistic, but it is exactly what some airlines are doing

Airline to start charging passengers for their total body and luggage weight | This is That with Pat Kelly and Peter Oldring | CBC Radio

Considering fuel cost is one of the biggest operating cost for airlines, I think it is a fair and reasonable policy. You pay according to the total weight of your entire luggage and your own body, so that a 95lbs skinny girl with nothing but a handbag doesn't have to subsidize a 300lbs guy with two checked in bags and two heavy carry-ons. Yes, it is subsidizing.

I hope more airlines will start doing that. Some people may complain "it is not fair, I am born this big". It doesn't matter, because it takes more fuel for the aircraft to carry you than a little person, and it is not fair for that person to subsidize you (pay same fare while consuming less energy). The incremental cost to make a bigger shirt/longer pants are negligible, but the incremental cost to transport 200 pounds of body mass is not.
Yet another reason to thumb one's nose at the airline industry. I don't plan to fly again, so I don't care what they do.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
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