Skip to comments.Academic calls for pay as you weigh flight fares
Posted on 03/24/2013 6:09:12 PM PDT by markomalley
Charging overweight fliers more would help carriers recoup the cost of the extra fuel required to carry them.
The idea has been floated in the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management publication, by Bharat P Bhatta, an academic in Norway.
He suggests three methods of implementing the scheme. A straightforward price per kilogram, a fixed low fare with heavier passengers paying a surcharge and lighter passengers being offered a discount.
The third option would see passengers divided into three bands heavy, normal and light and being charged accordingly.
I think the simplest way to implement this would be for passengers to declare their weight when buying a plane ticket, Dr Bhatta Sogn og Fjordane University College told The Daily Telegraph. This would save time and eliminate expense.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Punish people for their flaws and make money doing it. It’s the liberal way.
Didn’t some airline have a marketing gimmick like this 20-30 years ago?
Public transportation is always subsidized and never makes any where near break even income. So why can’t riders pay the total cost of transportation?
How about we charge academics for their increased drag on society.
So who do you think should mandate how the airline structures their pricing?
this would disproportionally target democrats.
especially the middle aged black women who the CDC finds are the fattest of the Fatties.
And Hispanics after them
How about letting the competing airlines set their rates in any manner they see fit, and let the market decide...
Same goes for passengers.
I'm all for letting the market handle it.
Why not tie this into the TSA screening. Clearly a groper is going to have a good feel, so-to-speak, for how rotund each enroute passenger is, and what weight factor they will be on the flight.
Shouldn’t a TSA screening suffice as a medical checkup?
I’d presume its a matter of time before TSA screening, TSA x-rays, your personal rotundity level, will be linked up with your Øbamacare record.
Why don’t we just produce more gas since electric jet airlines will not be happening anytime soon?
If the brothels adopt the inverse I could probably live with it.
Lol, during the 1980s I smoked (since quit) and had a coworker who was forty or so pounds overweight. He liked to take the moral high ground concerning smoking, an anti-smoking Nazi, but of course, didn’t think his extra forty or so pounds merited any criticism.
I once told him that one day he and other overweight passengers would be charged extra by airlines since weight was a major restriction on how much a plane could carry, and therefore, how much profit could be made.
He thought I was nuts, but I assured him that there were people who’d try to make it so some day. Don’t know if it will happen, but I’d forward this to him if I know his email address.
I am getting a little tired of this discrimination of heavy people.
First we have the Wide Load Michelle trying to tell us how to raise our children. Then we have CVS telling their employees what to do and how much to weigh, then we have Doctors required to pimp on us to the Govt. in Obamacare.
We cannot discriminate against illegals, minorities,Muslims, gays, or idiots, but it’s fine to crap all over heavier peopl. The hell with that.
1. One big difference is that freight transportation involves handling of the product in a way that passenger transportation does not. Freight is inanimate and has to be handled often at multiple different points in the transportation process. Almost all passengers, on the other hand, move themselves to and from their seats.
2. Related to #1 ... To get a sense of how big a factor the "handling" process is in transportation, just look at container shipping. Because a shipping container filled with styrofoam peanuts is handled the same way as a container filled with a densely packaged product, there is no difference in shipping costs between the two.
Personally, I have no problem with an airline charging based on passenger weight. But you can be sure that there would be hell to pay when half of the overweight passengers come up with some kind of "disability" that makes the whole plan unworkable.
Nice honest Norwegian name there. I'll be he loves his cross-country skiing.
That's the way it should be but you know when an academic proposes something it usually involves a government regulation or mandate and a grant to him to study it.
Well I certainly see the basis of this idea-pay by weight has always been the norm for any other kind of shipping. As a tall guy though, I’m not particularly fond of the idea if it is strictly by weight compared to the current system. I am by no means fat as far as seat width goes, but I carry the weight of my height.
No native Norwegian would be caught dead coming up with such a politically-incorrect pricing methodology.
It will never directly affect me, I’d have to be a flier for it to do so. I haven’t flown a whole lot in my life time, since I got out of the service, I’ve not flown at all.
With TSA procedures being what they are, I never will. Their practices are the kind of nonsense, up with which, I will not put.
> So who do you think should mandate how the airline structures their pricing?
No one. Let the free markets and the owners / principals of the airline make that decision. A mandate is government regulation; it’s not needed in this situation.
Great, but that seems at odds with your earlier comment.
no you pay your own freight -— it’s the conservative way. Theoretically I have no problem with fat people paying more if they are costing more. I just do not see a way to carry it out. They are going to weigh people? Assinine. In the real world it will never happen.
Pay according to how much you weigh might be a good policy for buffet type restaurants too. It wouldn’t work well for my 13 year old son though, slim and trim, he could probably eat his weight in food.
If they are going to charge us 6-2 guys more money..then we should get a bigger seat for the money..it goes both ways.
Based on this logic, shouldn’t homosexuals pay more for medical insurance?
Isn't that called the 1st class section?
We can send men to the moon and we can't make a 3000 mile long extension cord?
A lot of liberals and conservatives define their respective ideologies in ways that *coincidentally* favor them. This is how liberals in NYC come up with zoning strategies in NYC that raise housing costs into the stratosphere, thereby keeping out most of the riff raff.
especially the middle aged black women who the CDC finds are the fattest of the Fatties.
And Hispanics after them.
You forgot lesbians. There's some recent CDC studies on their weight too.
Not so long ago, to say,"they are going to search people before they get aboard" would have sounded equally ridiculous.
No. The REAL liberal way would be to prohibit an overweight person from flying until they reduce their weight to a government approved level.
> Great, but that seems at odds with your earlier comment.
It’s not. An “academic” made that suggestion not the airline. Big difference.
I don't disagree with that. I haven't flown in years but don't they make morbidly obese people buy two seats now?
I don't quite understand how you taking up more room in an upward direction would make any difference at all.
Never mind, I remember now that your tallness affects how much you weigh too. I don't have any answers but I know that gov interference is never the correct answer.
I'm 6'0" and weigh 190, I can see that a person who was 5'0" and weighs 190 might need a wider seat. but again, I don't fly.
We should be able to discriminate against anything that’s a choice: entering the country illegally, being gay, following Islam or getting fat. If I own a plane and don’t want to let on any gays, illegals or Muslims, that’s my choice. Same if I want to charge fatties for taking up more space and using extra fuel.
What’s the difference between natural ‘overweight’ and fat lazy socialist lazy pigs calorie enriched on food stamps, gummint fortified playing video games 24/7?
Going with the free market on this one.
The last time that I checked, while fuel costs does cost a lot for an airline, the marginal cost of the extra fuel to carry a heavy person is quite small...so if they are going to charge, the difference shouldn’t be much, unless they’re scamming their customers (as has been shown for other surcharges).
Only if they smoke.
don’t they make morbidly obese people buy two seats now?”
I believe Southwest Airlines or perhaps some other airline tried that and I don’t think it flew too well. Can’t remember whether or not it resulted in a lawsuit.
It’s not just how much room they take up though, there is a real issue with how much a seat belt will really extend as well as trying to get someone down an emergency chute who is morbidly obese or even just obese. Not going to happen.
If just one time a plane had to go in wheels up and everyone had to deploy down a chute I think you might see some more attention paid to the safety aspects.
I used to be a flight attendant back in the late 50’s and early 60’s and while I may be old, I still remember my training on how to get an emergency door open and get people down a chute and am still quite physically able to do so now. So I always tried to sit on the emergency evac row. Some little twit of a flight attendant on Delta tried to move me into another “more appropriate seat”. Informed her I was evacuating people out of airplanes long before she was ever born. Guys in my row gave me a thumbs up.
good point. I stand corrected. anything is possible now.
The cost difference between carrying a 175 pound passenger and a 200 pound passenger would not amount to anything measurable.Why don’t we just make sure that everyone boarding the plane pees and poops before hand.( Of course the genius population in our government would decree that they do the business ON the plane BEFORE takeoff) It makes as much sense. Those faculty lounges in Europe are just as dysfunctional as ours I guess. God Save the Republic!
simple solution..optional gift card,
for people willing to get
on a scale
Overweights may not be socialist government welfare foodstamp munching hoodrats, but they sure are lazy bastards with no respect for their own bodies... not to mention they are the most demanding of others.
“passengers to declare their weight when buying a plane ticket,
Euhm. Yeah, I can totally see that working. Time for scales so you can herd the cattle through the weigh scale! With a big bright number so everyone can see just how much you weigh!
God, I love markets.
I suspect there is a reason this isn’t already done. Planes are MASSIVE. Did a quick calculation based on numbers at Wikipedia. If you took a fully loaded 737-300 Southwest airlines plane (so, no first class section to reduce the number of passengers) and filled every single single seat with the average adult American male, the mass of the passengers would be about 25% the total mass of everything. All machines have some start-up inefficiencies — doubling the weight isn’t going to double the fuel consumption because some of that fuel is going to overcoming inefficiencies that are already overcome (friction in the engines, wind resistance — all things that cause fuel consumption but aren’t related to weight), etc. Fuel is not the only cost of operating a plane.
Long story short, the fact that airlines AREN’T doing this already suggests that the increased cost of transporting an overweight flier is less than the cost of implementing such a policy.
Yep, there are a lot of scenarios where by rights I should be the last guy out.
Collapsed building? The skinny people first, lest I plug the hole.
it’ll be regional... most of the “fatties” are in the south... Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia...
no need for a big bright readout