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.
So how does this making heavier people pay extra thing work? Over 150? Over 200? Over their recommended weight for their height? Over average? Someone who weighs 100 lbs soaking wet is probably 5'0 or close to it. My husband is over a foot taller than that and weighs almost double. But hes not overweight. So he has to pay double your fare simply because he exists? What do you intend to shame out of him?
I wonder that too... I'm 6'0 215lbs. Quite literally built like these guys shown below. That's twice the weight of one of my ex's. Do I pay double?
Interesting. I wonder if this would eventually be used to start charging heavier passengers an additional fee
Don't some companies already charge obese people more? (they can't fit into one seat)
I can't understand the concept of 'fat shaming'. Is being fat and staying fat something which has been inflicted on a person and something for which they have no responsibility?
Clinical obesity reduces life expectancy. I'm I now expected to say that's fine, ignoring the massive cost to the community?
I'm expected to find grotesque creatures such as Rebel what's her name, funny?--I won't even start on the increasing use of fat models. Yes, I also find size zero swizzle stick models also grotesque .
I guess changing what passes for beauty is easier than actually having to tackle the obesity epidemic in the US. ( I think Oz is ahead of the US in porkers per capita)
What do I consider beautiful: Well, healthy for a start. After that, I've never met a truly ugly woman. (really)
Interesting. I wonder if this would eventually be used to start charging heavier passengers an additional fee
It will never happen. The cost in equipment, personnel, and time delays would massively overwhelm any savings.
But if Startup Dude can delude a bunch of clueless investors into not seeing the glaringly obvious flaws in this proposal - and I wouldn't be surprised if he can - then he might make personally some coin even as the idea goes nowhere.
Can that statistic POSSIBLY be true - that planes carry an average of 1% more fuel than they need?
????????
Who knew we were flying that close to the bone? Geez.
So, like, if you get to the airport and have to circle around a few times waiting for your turn to land, chances are very high you'll crash?
I used to be a flight planner for small private jets (with one client as an exception) but I imagine the requirements are the same or even more stringent. In the US, they carry enough fuel to 1) fly to the destination, 2) fly to an alternate airport from the original destination (technically not always required but we always planned an alternate anyway), and 3) fly (at least) 45 minutes after exhausting fuel to destination and to alternate. That last one is reserve fuel. Basically acts as contingency. In Europe you also need 30 minutes of "hold" fuel in addition to the reserve. So basically, no I wouldn't worry about fuel unless you had to divert after reaching (but not landing) your original destination and then had to fly around for over half an hour once you reach the alternate. Then maybe it's time to panic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney123
Lol... we didn’t weigh passengers... nor luggage. We used an “average†weight per bag and per passenger to figure weight and balance. We used a higher estimate to make sure we were within limits.
We almost always used an average. 200/pax + whatever pilot said in luggage. Some just said 235/pax to include luggage. Were also usually told to just put pax in random seats when calculating W&B. Some captains would have us use a higher weight for men and lower for women. Rarely would someone write in asking for specific weights. One notable time was when a pilot found out that one passenger was north of 300 lbs (and pushing 350). With that difference on a G550, he told us to change the payload.
I can't imagine the difference in weight really being that big a deal. On something like a G650, the max takeoff weight is just short of 100,000 lbs. With max fuel on board, you can only get 1800 lbs of payload anyway. So what's the difference of 50 pounds on a person gonna do? I no longer work that job so I can't run the numbers but I don't think payload was ever a deal breaker unless it prevented us from adding enough fuel on board. Something like changing the routing or playing with flight levels was what usually allowed for large changes in fuel consumption.
Baggage gets weighed. Passengers should also get weighed. I'm 100 pounds soak-n-wet. Why shouldn't someone who weighs three or four times that not pay more for the ride?
Okay, but then the 200 lb passenger should also get twice as much space as you.
It will never happen. The cost in equipment, personnel, and time delays would massively overwhelm any savings.
Not really, plenty of people have been weighed before going on a flight on smaller planes. You literally just get on the scale that your luggage was just one, albeit in a way the public can’t see your weight number.
Quote:
Samoa Air, for example, charges passengers by the kilo. They claim it’s the fairest system in the world, and they’re quite proud of it. Admittedly they only operate a fleet of small props, so weight really is the limiting factor for those kinds of planes.
Quote:
Hawaiian no longer allows passengers to pre-assign seats on these flights, and is instead weighing them at check-in before allocating seats.
Why on Hawaiian’s flight to/from Pago Pago specifically? Apparently because there’s an obesity epidemic in American Samoa, and they need to control the weight and balance of the plane.
With the rise in fuel costs and obesity, and with how stingy airliners are, it’s really only a matter of time before they reach out to more companies who plan to weigh passengers so they can calculate the appropriate fuel to use.
If airliners could also provide an incentive like seat class upgrades or discounts for weighing far less than average, that would be great too. Getting on a plane with no chance of sitting next to an obese person is a ticket many Americans would love to pay.
Why should I have to pay the same fare as those overweight slugs who cost the airlines more to operate?
The current system is monstrously unfair.
Fat shaming? You betcha! They need all the shaming we can heap upon them; something has to make them come to their senses.
.
Right. And tall people, too. My daughter is 4'11" and weighs 100 lbs. My son is close to 6 feet and has 50 lbs on her. He should obviously pay more to fly.
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.
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.
